Agenda and Packet - RevisedAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
A.WORK SESSION
B.CALL TO ORDER
C.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Consider a Request for Bluff, Shoreland, Accessory Structure Size, and Other
Variances to Construct a New Home and Detached Accessory Structures on Property
Located at 6915 Highover Lane
2.Consider a Request for an Amendment to PUD, Modification to PUDSpecific Design
Features, and Amendment to Crossroads of Chanhassen Site Plan with Variances for
Construction of a 5,100 SF Automotive Repair Shop Located at 8941 Crossroads
Boulevard ITEM TABLED
3.Consider a Request for Lot Cover and Setback Variances to Construct an Addition to
an Existing Garage and Home on Property Located at 7016 Dakota Circle ITEM
WITHDRAWN
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated September 15, 2020
E.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.City Council Action Update
F.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
G.ADJOURNMENT
H.OPEN DISCUSSION
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws.
We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not
appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled
from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the
public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it
is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or
not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or
AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONTUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020, 7:00 PMCITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.WORK SESSIONB.CALL TO ORDERC.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Consider a Request for Bluff, Shoreland, Accessory Structure Size, and OtherVariances to Construct a New Home and Detached Accessory Structures on PropertyLocated at 6915 Highover Lane2.Consider a Request for an Amendment to PUD, Modification to PUDSpecific DesignFeatures, and Amendment to Crossroads of Chanhassen Site Plan with Variances forConstruction of a 5,100 SF Automotive Repair Shop Located at 8941 CrossroadsBoulevard ITEM TABLED3.Consider a Request for Lot Cover and Setback Variances to Construct an Addition toan Existing Garage and Home on Property Located at 7016 Dakota Circle ITEMWITHDRAWND.APPROVAL OF MINUTES1.Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated September 15, 2020E.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS1.City Council Action UpdateF.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSIONG.ADJOURNMENTH.OPEN DISCUSSIONNOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does notappear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulledfrom consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of thepublic record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it
is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or
not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or
be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part
of the public input process.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Subject Consider a Request for Bluff, Shoreland, Accessory Structure Size, and Other Variances to
Construct a New Home and Detached Accessory Structures on Property Located at 6915
Highover Lane
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No: Planning Case No. 202020
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested bluff setback and impact zone variances,
denies the requested shoreland variance, and denies the 418 squarefoot variance from the detached accessory
structure size limit, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to construct a singlefamily home, accessory structures, and driveways within the bluff, bluff
impact zone, and 30foot bluff setback on 6915 Highover Lane. The proposed accessory structures are also within the
150foot shoreland setback and exceed the City’s 1,000 squarefoot detached accessory size limit. Variances from the
City’s bluff ordinance, shoreland setbacks, and detached accessory structure size limits are being requested. The
applicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to allow the construction of a small private home with a minimal
impact to the lot.
The applicant has indicated that the requested variance is necessary due to that fact that the lot has a limited building
area outside of the required bluff setbacks and that the available buildable lot area does not permit a reasonably sized
home. They have also noted that the presence of a utility easement along the property’s western edge further constrains
the buildable area and that the buildable area is located near a walking trail which does not allow sufficient privacy.
Finally, they have stated that they wish to construct a home that will allow them to enjoy views of Lake Harrison and
the surrounding natural environment.
The lot in question was created under the existing standards of the City’s bluff ordinance and was only permitted after
the developer showed a viable building pad clear of the required bluff setback. During the initial subdivision process,
the City Council denied a requested 20foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone variance requested by the
developer in 2005 citing the possibility for development outside of the required bluff setback and the need to protect
sensitive environmental areas, specifically citing concern over the potential impact to the bluff, trees, and wetland. The
City Code has not been amended to create larger bluff setbacks or to further constrain the property’s buildable area
since the creation of the lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, October 6, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Bluff, Shoreland, Accessory Structure Size, and Other Variances toConstruct a New Home and Detached Accessory Structures on Property Located at 6915Highover LaneSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202020PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested bluff setback and impact zone variances,denies the requested shoreland variance, and denies the 418 squarefoot variance from the detached accessorystructure size limit, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing to construct a singlefamily home, accessory structures, and driveways within the bluff, bluffimpact zone, and 30foot bluff setback on 6915 Highover Lane. The proposed accessory structures are also within the150foot shoreland setback and exceed the City’s 1,000 squarefoot detached accessory size limit. Variances from theCity’s bluff ordinance, shoreland setbacks, and detached accessory structure size limits are being requested. Theapplicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to allow the construction of a small private home with a minimalimpact to the lot.The applicant has indicated that the requested variance is necessary due to that fact that the lot has a limited buildingarea outside of the required bluff setbacks and that the available buildable lot area does not permit a reasonably sizedhome. They have also noted that the presence of a utility easement along the property’s western edge further constrainsthe buildable area and that the buildable area is located near a walking trail which does not allow sufficient privacy.Finally, they have stated that they wish to construct a home that will allow them to enjoy views of Lake Harrison andthe surrounding natural environment.The lot in question was created under the existing standards of the City’s bluff ordinance and was only permitted afterthe developer showed a viable building pad clear of the required bluff setback. During the initial subdivision process,the City Council denied a requested 20foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone variance requested by thedeveloper in 2005 citing the possibility for development outside of the required bluff setback and the need to protectsensitive environmental areas, specifically citing concern over the potential impact to the bluff, trees, and wetland. TheCity Code has not been amended to create larger bluff setbacks or to further constrain the property’s buildable area
since the creation of the lot.
The ordinances protecting the City’s bluffs and other environmental resources are extremely important and variances
from these protections should only be granted when the ordinances prevent reasonable use of a property and only to
the extent necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property. Variances from these standards should not be granted
to accommodate preferred placements, configurations, or accessory uses, and applicants should demonstrate that all
effort has been made to comply with the intent of the ordinances and to minimize environmental impacts.
The applicant has proposed a home that is primarily located within the bluff, bluff impact zone, and bluff setback with
only a small portion of the attached garage being located within the property’s buildable area. Similarly, the applicant
has proposed large accessory structures and driveways within the bluff, bluff impact zone, and bluff setback with only a
small portion of the detached garage being located in the buildable area. The grading and construction activities
associated with these variance requests would significantly alter the bluff, resulting in significant tree loss, and risk
creating erosive conditions that could degrade the quality of the adjacent wetlands and Lake Harrison.
Due to the potential for environmental degradation, the presence of a viable building pad outside of the required bluff
setbacks, and the fact that a less extensive variance was denied for this property in 2005, staff strongly recommends
that the requested variances be denied.
A full discussion of the requested variance is provided in the attached staff report.
APPLICANT
Highover, LLC Todd Carstensen 7575 Walnut Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: "RSF" SingleFamily Residential District
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 3.65 acres
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article VI. Wetland Protection
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential District
Section 20615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, General Supplemental Regulations
Section 20904, Accessory Structures
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
In October of 2005, Lot 12, Block 1 of the Lake Harrison Subdivision was created. During Planning Case 200514,
bluff setback and bluff impact zone variances for this property were denied.
In November of 2017, staff was made aware of grading and vegetation removal within the bluff impact zone of the
property. Additionally, equipment associated with a contractor’s yard/construction business was being stored on the
site. Staff sent a letter requiring the equipment to be removed by November 30, 2017 and that the bluff areas be
resorted by June 1, 2018.
In December of 2017, staff sent a second notice requiring the removal of the equipment being stored on the property.
In January of 2018, staff sent a third notice requiring the removal of the equipment being stored on the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, October 6, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Bluff, Shoreland, Accessory Structure Size, and Other Variances toConstruct a New Home and Detached Accessory Structures on Property Located at 6915Highover LaneSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202020PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested bluff setback and impact zone variances,denies the requested shoreland variance, and denies the 418 squarefoot variance from the detached accessorystructure size limit, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing to construct a singlefamily home, accessory structures, and driveways within the bluff, bluffimpact zone, and 30foot bluff setback on 6915 Highover Lane. The proposed accessory structures are also within the150foot shoreland setback and exceed the City’s 1,000 squarefoot detached accessory size limit. Variances from theCity’s bluff ordinance, shoreland setbacks, and detached accessory structure size limits are being requested. Theapplicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to allow the construction of a small private home with a minimalimpact to the lot.The applicant has indicated that the requested variance is necessary due to that fact that the lot has a limited buildingarea outside of the required bluff setbacks and that the available buildable lot area does not permit a reasonably sizedhome. They have also noted that the presence of a utility easement along the property’s western edge further constrainsthe buildable area and that the buildable area is located near a walking trail which does not allow sufficient privacy.Finally, they have stated that they wish to construct a home that will allow them to enjoy views of Lake Harrison andthe surrounding natural environment.The lot in question was created under the existing standards of the City’s bluff ordinance and was only permitted afterthe developer showed a viable building pad clear of the required bluff setback. During the initial subdivision process,the City Council denied a requested 20foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone variance requested by thedeveloper in 2005 citing the possibility for development outside of the required bluff setback and the need to protectsensitive environmental areas, specifically citing concern over the potential impact to the bluff, trees, and wetland. TheCity Code has not been amended to create larger bluff setbacks or to further constrain the property’s buildable areasince the creation of the lot.The ordinances protecting the City’s bluffs and other environmental resources are extremely important and variancesfrom these protections should only be granted when the ordinances prevent reasonable use of a property and only tothe extent necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property. Variances from these standards should not be grantedto accommodate preferred placements, configurations, or accessory uses, and applicants should demonstrate that alleffort has been made to comply with the intent of the ordinances and to minimize environmental impacts.The applicant has proposed a home that is primarily located within the bluff, bluff impact zone, and bluff setback withonly a small portion of the attached garage being located within the property’s buildable area. Similarly, the applicanthas proposed large accessory structures and driveways within the bluff, bluff impact zone, and bluff setback with only asmall portion of the detached garage being located in the buildable area. The grading and construction activitiesassociated with these variance requests would significantly alter the bluff, resulting in significant tree loss, and riskcreating erosive conditions that could degrade the quality of the adjacent wetlands and Lake Harrison.Due to the potential for environmental degradation, the presence of a viable building pad outside of the required bluffsetbacks, and the fact that a less extensive variance was denied for this property in 2005, staff strongly recommendsthat the requested variances be denied.A full discussion of the requested variance is provided in the attached staff report.APPLICANTHighover, LLC Todd Carstensen 7575 Walnut Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: "RSF" SingleFamily Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 3.65 acres DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article VI. Wetland ProtectionChapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential DistrictSection 20615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.Chapter 20, Article XXIII, General Supplemental RegulationsSection 20904, Accessory StructuresChapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff ProtectionBACKGROUNDIn October of 2005, Lot 12, Block 1 of the Lake Harrison Subdivision was created. During Planning Case 200514,bluff setback and bluff impact zone variances for this property were denied.In November of 2017, staff was made aware of grading and vegetation removal within the bluff impact zone of theproperty. Additionally, equipment associated with a contractor’s yard/construction business was being stored on thesite. Staff sent a letter requiring the equipment to be removed by November 30, 2017 and that the bluff areas beresorted by June 1, 2018.In December of 2017, staff sent a second notice requiring the removal of the equipment being stored on the property.
In January of 2018, staff sent a third notice requiring the removal of the equipment being stored on the property.
On January 31, 2018, Mr. Carstensen spoke with staff about the ongoing concerns with the property. A timeline was
established for the removal of equipment by April 15, 2018. The owner expressed his belief that bluffs were not present
on the property. Staff indicated that bluffs were found during the subdivision process and that a survey would be
needed to contest that finding.
In April of 2018, staff sent a notice that the equipment and other materials in violation of the City’s outdoor storage
ordinance were still present on the property and must be removed.
In May of 2018, Mr. Carstensen requested until the end of June to bring the property into compliance. Staff agreed to
the extension.
In June of 2018, the violations from November 2017 were still present.
In September, staff informed Mr. Carstensen that the bluff restoration had not been completed and extended the
compliance deadline to November 1, 2018.
In October of 2018, a builder contacted staff about the possibility of putting a house on the flat part of the lot (middle
section between the two bluffs). Staff indicated that due to the presence of the bluffs, staff would not be able to support
that placement.
In November 2018, the violations were addressed.
On November 5, 2018, Mr. Carstensen met with staff to discuss building on the lower portion of the lot. Staff
explained the variance process, indicated that staff would not recommend approval for a house placement within the
bluff, and recommended that the home be placed in the approved location.
On August 11, 2020, staff received a presubmittal plan for a proposed home located within the top bluff. Staff noted
what materials would need to be submitted for the application to be complete and advised that staff would not
recommend approval of the proposed placement. Staff encouraged the applicant to provide a revised design utilizing
the approved building pad.
On August 14, 2020, the applicant submitted an incomplete variance application. Staff advised the applicant of what
materials would need to be provided to constitute a complete application.
On September 4, 2020, the applicant submitted revised plans that proposed significant additional grading and
impervious surface within the bluff, a large detached accessory structure within required setbacks, and a second smaller
accessory structure within required setbacks.
On September 25, 2020, staff conducted an inspection in response to complaints that the property was being used to
store construction equipment. Staff found that previously restored areas had been altered to recreate a driveway and
that equipment and materials were being stored on site in violation of City Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny the requested bluff
setback and impact zone variances, deny the requested shoreland variance, and deny the 418 squarefoot variance
from the detached accessory structure size limit, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, October 6, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Bluff, Shoreland, Accessory Structure Size, and Other Variances toConstruct a New Home and Detached Accessory Structures on Property Located at 6915Highover LaneSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202020PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested bluff setback and impact zone variances,denies the requested shoreland variance, and denies the 418 squarefoot variance from the detached accessorystructure size limit, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing to construct a singlefamily home, accessory structures, and driveways within the bluff, bluffimpact zone, and 30foot bluff setback on 6915 Highover Lane. The proposed accessory structures are also within the150foot shoreland setback and exceed the City’s 1,000 squarefoot detached accessory size limit. Variances from theCity’s bluff ordinance, shoreland setbacks, and detached accessory structure size limits are being requested. Theapplicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to allow the construction of a small private home with a minimalimpact to the lot.The applicant has indicated that the requested variance is necessary due to that fact that the lot has a limited buildingarea outside of the required bluff setbacks and that the available buildable lot area does not permit a reasonably sizedhome. They have also noted that the presence of a utility easement along the property’s western edge further constrainsthe buildable area and that the buildable area is located near a walking trail which does not allow sufficient privacy.Finally, they have stated that they wish to construct a home that will allow them to enjoy views of Lake Harrison andthe surrounding natural environment.The lot in question was created under the existing standards of the City’s bluff ordinance and was only permitted afterthe developer showed a viable building pad clear of the required bluff setback. During the initial subdivision process,the City Council denied a requested 20foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone variance requested by thedeveloper in 2005 citing the possibility for development outside of the required bluff setback and the need to protectsensitive environmental areas, specifically citing concern over the potential impact to the bluff, trees, and wetland. TheCity Code has not been amended to create larger bluff setbacks or to further constrain the property’s buildable areasince the creation of the lot.The ordinances protecting the City’s bluffs and other environmental resources are extremely important and variancesfrom these protections should only be granted when the ordinances prevent reasonable use of a property and only tothe extent necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property. Variances from these standards should not be grantedto accommodate preferred placements, configurations, or accessory uses, and applicants should demonstrate that alleffort has been made to comply with the intent of the ordinances and to minimize environmental impacts.The applicant has proposed a home that is primarily located within the bluff, bluff impact zone, and bluff setback withonly a small portion of the attached garage being located within the property’s buildable area. Similarly, the applicanthas proposed large accessory structures and driveways within the bluff, bluff impact zone, and bluff setback with only asmall portion of the detached garage being located in the buildable area. The grading and construction activitiesassociated with these variance requests would significantly alter the bluff, resulting in significant tree loss, and riskcreating erosive conditions that could degrade the quality of the adjacent wetlands and Lake Harrison.Due to the potential for environmental degradation, the presence of a viable building pad outside of the required bluffsetbacks, and the fact that a less extensive variance was denied for this property in 2005, staff strongly recommendsthat the requested variances be denied.A full discussion of the requested variance is provided in the attached staff report.APPLICANTHighover, LLC Todd Carstensen 7575 Walnut Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: "RSF" SingleFamily Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 3.65 acres DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article VI. Wetland ProtectionChapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential DistrictSection 20615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.Chapter 20, Article XXIII, General Supplemental RegulationsSection 20904, Accessory StructuresChapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff ProtectionBACKGROUNDIn October of 2005, Lot 12, Block 1 of the Lake Harrison Subdivision was created. During Planning Case 200514,bluff setback and bluff impact zone variances for this property were denied.In November of 2017, staff was made aware of grading and vegetation removal within the bluff impact zone of theproperty. Additionally, equipment associated with a contractor’s yard/construction business was being stored on thesite. Staff sent a letter requiring the equipment to be removed by November 30, 2017 and that the bluff areas beresorted by June 1, 2018.In December of 2017, staff sent a second notice requiring the removal of the equipment being stored on the property.In January of 2018, staff sent a third notice requiring the removal of the equipment being stored on the property.On January 31, 2018, Mr. Carstensen spoke with staff about the ongoing concerns with the property. A timeline wasestablished for the removal of equipment by April 15, 2018. The owner expressed his belief that bluffs were not presenton the property. Staff indicated that bluffs were found during the subdivision process and that a survey would beneeded to contest that finding.In April of 2018, staff sent a notice that the equipment and other materials in violation of the City’s outdoor storageordinance were still present on the property and must be removed.In May of 2018, Mr. Carstensen requested until the end of June to bring the property into compliance. Staff agreed tothe extension.In June of 2018, the violations from November 2017 were still present.In September, staff informed Mr. Carstensen that the bluff restoration had not been completed and extended thecompliance deadline to November 1, 2018.In October of 2018, a builder contacted staff about the possibility of putting a house on the flat part of the lot (middlesection between the two bluffs). Staff indicated that due to the presence of the bluffs, staff would not be able to supportthat placement.In November 2018, the violations were addressed.On November 5, 2018, Mr. Carstensen met with staff to discuss building on the lower portion of the lot. Staffexplained the variance process, indicated that staff would not recommend approval for a house placement within thebluff, and recommended that the home be placed in the approved location.On August 11, 2020, staff received a presubmittal plan for a proposed home located within the top bluff. Staff notedwhat materials would need to be submitted for the application to be complete and advised that staff would notrecommend approval of the proposed placement. Staff encouraged the applicant to provide a revised design utilizingthe approved building pad.On August 14, 2020, the applicant submitted an incomplete variance application. Staff advised the applicant of whatmaterials would need to be provided to constitute a complete application.On September 4, 2020, the applicant submitted revised plans that proposed significant additional grading andimpervious surface within the bluff, a large detached accessory structure within required setbacks, and a second smalleraccessory structure within required setbacks.On September 25, 2020, staff conducted an inspection in response to complaints that the property was being used tostore construction equipment. Staff found that previously restored areas had been altered to recreate a driveway andthat equipment and materials were being stored on site in violation of City Code. RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny the requested bluffsetback and impact zone variances, deny the requested shoreland variance, and deny the 418 squarefoot variancefrom the detached accessory structure size limit, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact (Denial)
Development Review Application
Variance Request Description
Variance Request Letter
Proposed Plan
Affidavit of Mailing
WRC Memo
ENG Memo
ERS Memo
DNR Comments
Email Comment
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: October 6, 2020
CC DATE: October 26, 2020
REVIEW DEADLINE: November 3, 2020
CASE #: PC 2020-20
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting that the City’s bluff setback and bluff impact zone ordinances be waived
to permit the construction of a new single-family home, driveway, 1,188 square foot detached
garage, and 230 square foot greenhouse within the bluff located at 6915 Highover Lane. The green
house, detached garage, and driveways would also require a variance from the City’s shoreland
ordinance. Since the detached accessory structures have a combined area of 1,418 square feet, a
variance from the City’s 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure size limit would also be
required.
LOCATION: 6915 Highover Lane
APPLICANT: Highover, LLC
Todd Carstensen
7575 Walnut Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single-Family Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 3.65 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway
within the bluff, bluff impact zone, and 30-foot bluff setback on 6915 Highover Lane. The proposed
accessory structures are also within the 150-foot shoreland setback and exceed the City’s 1,000
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested bluff setback and
impact zone variances, denies the request shoreland variance, and denies the 418 square foot
variance from the detached accessory structure size limit, and adopts the attached Findings of
Facts and Decision.”
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 2
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
square foot detached accessory size limit. Variances from the City’s bluff ordinance, shoreland
setbacks, and detached accessory structure size limits are being requested. The applicant has stated
that the intent of these variances is to allow the construction of small private home with a minimal
impact to the lot.
The applicant has indicated that the requested variance is necessary due to that fact that the lot has a
limited building area outside of the required bluff setbacks and that the available buildable lot area
does not permit a reasonably sized home. They have also noted that the presence of a utility
easement along the property’s western edge further constrains the buildable area and that the
buildable area is located near a walking trail which does not allow sufficient privacy. Finally, they
have stated that they wish to construct a home that will allow them to enjoy views of Lake Harrison
and the surrounding natural environment.
The lot in question was created under the existing standards of the City’s bluff ordinance and was
only permitted after the developer showed a viable building pad clear of the required bluff setback.
During the initial subdivision process, the City Council denied a requested 20-foot bluff setback and
20-foot bluff impact zone variance requested by the developer in 2005 citing the possibility for
development outside of the required bluff setback and the need to protect sensitive environmental
areas, specifically citing concern over the potential impact to the bluff, trees, and wetland. The City
Code has not been amended to create larger bluff setbacks or to further constrain the property’s
buildable area since the creation of the lot.
The ordinances protecting the City’s bluffs and other environmental resources are extremely
important and variances from these protections should only be granted when the ordinances prevent
reasonable use of a property and only to the extent necessary to permit the reasonable use of the
property. Variances from these standards should not be granted to accommodate preferred
placements, configurations, or accessory uses, and applicants should demonstrate that all effort has
been made to comply with the intent of the ordinances and to minimize environmental impacts.
The applicant has proposed a home that is primarily located within the bluff, bluff impact zone, and
bluff setback with only a small portion of the attached garage being located within the property’s
buildable area. Similarly, the applicant has proposed large accessory structures and driveway within
the bluff, bluff impact zone, and bluff setback with only a small portion of the detached garage being
located in the buildable area. The grading and construction activities associated with these variance
requests would significantly alter the bluff, result in significant tree loss, and risk creating erosive
conditions that could degrade the quality of the adjacent wetlands and Lake Harrison.
Due to the potential for environmental degradation, the presence of a viable building pad outside of
the required bluff setbacks, and the fact that a less extensive variance was denied for this property in
2005, staff strongly recommends that the requested variances be denied.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article VI. Wetland Protection
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 3
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, General Supplemental Regulations
Section 20-904, Accessory Structures
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
In October of 2005, Lot 12, Block 1 of the Lake Harrison Subdivision was created. During Planning
Case 2005-14, bluff setback and bluff impact zone variances for this property were denied.
In November of 2017, staff was made aware of grading and vegetation removal within the bluff impact
zone of the property. Additionally, equipment associated with a contractor’s yard/construction business
was being stored on the site. Staff sent a letter requiring the equipment to be removed by November 30,
2017 and that the bluff areas be resorted by June 1, 2018.
In December of 2017, staff sent a second notice requiring the removal of the equipment being stored on
the property.
In January of 2018, staff sent a third notice requiring the removal of the equipment being stored on the
property.
On January 31, 2018, Mr. Carstensen spoke with staff about the ongoing concerns with the property. A
timeline was established for the removal of equipment by April 15, 2018. The owner expressed his
belief that bluffs were not present on the property. Staff indicated that bluffs were found during the
subdivision process and that a survey would be needed to contest that finding.
In April of 2018, staff sent a notice that the equipment and other materials in violation of the City’s
outdoor storage ordinance were still present on the property and must be removed.
In May of 2018, Mr. Carstensen requested until the end of June to bring the property into compliance.
Staff agreed to the extension.
In June of 2018, the violations from November 2017 were still present.
In September, staff informed Mr. Carstensen that the bluff restoration had not been completed and
extended the compliance deadline to November 1, 2018.
In October of 2018, a builder contacted staff about the possibility of putting a house on the flat part of
the lot (middle section between the two bluffs). Staff indicated that due to the presence of the bluffs,
staff would not be able to support that placement.
In November 2018, the violations were addressed.
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 4
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
On November 5, 2018, Mr. Carstensen met with staff to discuss building on the lower portion of the lot.
Staff explained the variance process, indicated that staff would not recommend approval for a house
placement within the bluff, and recommended that the home be placed in the approved location.
On August 11, 2020, staff received a pre-submittal plan for a proposed home located within the top
bluff. Staff noted what materials would need to be submitted for the application to be complete and
advised that staff would not recommend approval of the proposed placement. Staff encouraged the
applicant to provide a revised design utilizing the approved building pad.
On August 14, 2020, the applicant submitted an incomplete variance application. Staff advised the
applicant of what materials would need to be provided to constitute a complete application.
On September 4, 2020, the applicant submitted revised plans that proposed significant additional
grading and impervious surface within the bluff, a large detached accessory structure within required
setbacks, and second smaller accessory structure within required setbacks.
On September 25, 2020, staff conducted an inspection in response to complaints that the property was
being used to store construction equipment. Staff found that previously restored areas had been altered
to recreate a driveway and that equipment and materials were being stored on site in violation of City
Code.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the Shoreland
Management District. This zoning classification requires riparian lots to be a minimum of 40,000
square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, a shoreland
setback of 150 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Bluffs are present on
the property an all structures are subject to a 30-foot setback from the top, toe, and sides of the bluff.
The bluff ordinance also restricts grading and vegetative removal within the 20-foot bluff impact
zone and within the bluff itself. Wetlands are also present on the property and have a 30-foot
principle structure buffer setback, a 15-foot accessory structure buffer setback, and 20-foot buffer
requirement. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height, accessory structures are limited to
20 feet in height, and properties are allowed one water-oriented accessory structure up to 250 square
feet in size within the 150-foot shoreland setback.
The property is currently undeveloped.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are bluffs on the property. City Code prohibits placing any structure, except stairways and
landings, on a bluff and requires that they be setback at least 30’ from the top, toe, and side of the
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 5
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
bluff. Stairways and paths are limited to a maximum width of 4’. Removal or alteration of vegetation
within the bluff impact zone is prohibited except for limited pruning and trimming of trees and
shrubs to provide a view from the principal dwelling and limited clearing to accommodate stairways
and landings. Driveways must meet structure setbacks and they may not be placed within the bluff
impact zones when other reasonable placement alternatives exist. Lot cover is prohibited within the
bluff setback, unless otherwise permitted in the bluff ordinance (i.e. necessary driveways, walkways,
stairs, and landings).
Floodplain Overlay
This property is not within a floodplain.
Shoreland Management
The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District. This district requires a 40,000 square
foot lot area, 125’ lot width, 150’ structure setback from the lake’s ordinary high water level and
limits the property to a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent.
Wetland Protection
The wetland on and adjacent to the property is classified as Manage 2 per the City’s wetland
classification map. This classification requires a 30-foot primary structure and 15-foot accessory
structure setback from the wetland buffer edge and a 20-foot vegetative buffer from the wetland
edge.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Lake Harrison
The plat for this area was recorded in
October of 2005. Since this is a relatively
recently created subdivision, the City’s
current environmental regulations were
largely in place when it was platted.
During the subdivision process there were
extensive discussions about how to
protect the neighborhood’s wetlands,
bluffs, trees, and lake. Lots 11 and 12,
Block 1 were at the center of these
discussions with the City denying a bluff
variance request as part of the subdivision
and only agreeing to their creation after
the developer demonstrated that a viable building pad existed outside of the required bluff setback.
Based on a survey of aerial photos, homes within the neighborhood appear to conform to the zoning
code with properties maintaining the required yard, bluff, and wetland setbacks. Staff believes that
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 6
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
several homes may be over their lot cover limit, but overall there do not appear to be many
nonconforming properties.
Variances within 500 feet:
2005-14 Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Lake Harrison (6905 and 6915 Highover Lane): Variance to build
with a 10’ bluff setback and grade within bluff impact zone (house) – Denied*
2020-15 6893 Highover Drive: Permit structures in drainage and utilities easement with
encroachment agreement (retaining walls) – In Progress
*Note: A subdivision variance to allow the construction of a private street to access Lots 11 and 12,
Block 1 was approved along with a variance to exceed maximum street grade within the subdivision
after the applicant demonstrated a viable building pad clear of the bluff setback for Lots 11 and 12,
Block 1.
ANALYSIS
Bluff Ordinance
The applicant is proposing to construct a home, detached accessory structures, and driveway within
the bluff, bluff impact zone, and bluff setback. The proposal would involve approximately 12,000
square feet of lot cover being installed within areas regulated by the City’s bluff setback ordinance.
The City’s bluff ordinance was passed in October of 1991 and its intent statement reads:
“Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities within the bluff impact zone may
result in increased dangers of erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and thereby
endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of the city. To preserve the character of the bluff impact zone within the city, alteration to
land or vegetation within the bluff impact zone will not be permitted except as regulated by the
ordinance codified in this article, and by the regulations of the underlying zoning district where the
property is located.”
The City Code defines the bluff impact zone as “a bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top
of a bluff. The City’s bluff ordinance imposes a 30-foot structure setback from the top, toe, and sides
of a bluff and prohibits the placement of lot cover within this bluff setback. Additional provisions
limit the removal and alteration of vegetation within the bluff impact zone and restrict topographic
alteration and grading to activities that do not adversely affect the bluff impact zone. Driveways are
required to stay clear of the buff impact zone and setbacks unless no other reasonable or feasible
placement exists and, even then, they must be designed not to cause adverse impacts. All of these
provisions are designed to ensure bluffs are minimally impacted by developments.
These provisions were in existence in substantially their present form when the Lake Harrison
Subdivision was proposed in 2005. When this subdivision was first proposed, the developer
requested a variance for this lot to allow a home to be constructed 10-feet from the top of the bluff.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested variance and that the lot should not
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 7
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
be permitted unless it could be shown that a house could be built without a variance. In response to
this recommendation, the developer submitted exhibits, see graphic below, to the City Council
showing that a single-family home could be placed on this lot while meeting the required bluff
setback. The City Council ultimately allowed the creation of the lot, but affirmed the Planning
Commission denial of the bluff setback variance finding the following:
1) Lots 11 and 12 could be developed within encroaching into the required bluff setback.
2) The proposed setback variance would permit encroachment into a sensitive environmental
area which the City has consistently attempted to protect.
3) There are alternative ways of developing the area above the bluff without encroaching into
the bluff setback.
4) The variance if approved will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land
improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located by potentially negatively
impacting the bluff, its trees, and the wetland below.
The City Council reinforced the importance of these provisions by
placing conditions in the development contract stating that, “The
bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures shall
maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may
occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located
within 20 feet from the top of the bluff).” The Council also
approved a tree preservation plan for the lot that limited tree
clearing to the area immediately around the approved building
pad, shown in yellow on the graphic to the right. The development
contract specified that any tree removed outside of that area
would need to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. All of
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 8
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
this shows the importance that the City Council placed on protecting the bluff and its trees at the
time the lot was created.
The applicant has stated that available
buildable area is insufficient to
accommodate a home of modern
dimensions. Staff sketched off the
footprint of a theoretical home that meets
all of the property’s required setbacks
within the approved buildable area and
found that it could accommodate a home
with a 3,610 square foot main level
footprint. Assuming that 1,080 square
feet (36 feet x 30 feet) of this area is used
for a three-car garage and that a second
level and finished basement were
constructed only over and under the non-
garage portion of the home, this would
provide 7,590 square feet of living space.
Since the National Association of Home
Builders has reported that the average
size of an new American home in the
first quarter of 2019, the most recent
period for which staff could find data,
was only 2,584 square feet of livable
area, staff cannot agree that the allowed
buildable area is insufficient to
accommodate a modern home. Staff
would also note that the applicant’s proposed home has a main level foot print of 3,833 square feet,
only 212 square feet more than what could easily be accommodated within the approved building
pad.
The applicant has also stated that
their requested variance is needed to
have a private yard area for their
children, and that the presence of the
walking trail to the west means the
stipulated building area would not
accommodate this. Staff would note
that if the proposed building pad
were utilized a home could be
designed without the bump out
shown in staff’s concept sketch. This
change would result in the loss of
approximately 500 square feet of
main level living area, but would
provide a private yard area before
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 9
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
the start of the bluff screened from public view by the mass of the home. The City Code would also
allow the construction of 4-foot wide walking trails or stairs from the home to the flat area in
between the upper and lower bluff sections, an area that could also be used to provide a private play
area. Alternatively, the applicant could extend the existing line of evergreens that runs
approximately one-half the length of the west property line to the southern property line. These
evergreens effectively screen the home to the north from public view and, were the line extended,
would provide the same benefit to the applicant.
The only portions of the applicant’s request that cannot be accommodated by the permitted building
area are the detached accessory structures as proposed and associated driveway. As can be seen in
the provided graphic, the vast majority of the proposed driveway is located within the bluff itself,
approximately half of the detached garage is within the bluff impact zone, and virtually the entire
detached garage is located within the 30-foot bluff setback. The proposed greenhouse is situated
partially within the bluff and entirely within the bluff impact zone.
The bluff ordinance was adopted in order to
prevent tree removal, grading, and the
installation of lot cover within the bluff. The
applicant’s proposed 5,729 square foot
driveway providing access to the detached
garage would represent a significant alteration
of the bluff, loss of vegetative cover, and
increase in lot cover. The construction of a
1,188 square foot detached garage within the
bluff impact zone would have a similar impact.
As noted by Engineering and Water Resources
staff, these alterations pose a significant risk in
increasing the erodibility of the bluff and
would likely cause significant
sediment runoff into the wetland
to the east. This large wetland
complex is part of Lake Harrison
and upstream impacts to the
shoreland and bluff area adjacent
to the wetland could lead to a
degradation of the wetland and
Lake Harrison. These are exactly
the types of impacts that the
City’s bluff ordinance, wetland
ordinance, and shoreland
ordinance were adopted to
prevent.
The applicant could avoid these
environmental impacts by placing
a somewhat smaller detached
garage in the northwest corner of
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 10
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
the property. This location, shown in the picture to the left, would accommodate an 832 square foot
detached garage while maintaining the required 30-foot bluff setback. While this structure is smaller
than the 1,000 square foot maximum allowed by ordinance, a longer narrower design could likely
reach the 1,000 square foot limit while maintaining the required setbacks. Alternatively, the
applicant could construct a smaller storage shed or greenhouse elsewhere on the property to reach
the 1,000 square foot limit. Finally, staff would note that the proposed greenhouse could easily be
relocated to sit entirely on the flat area in between the bluffs, clear of the required 30-foot setbacks,
thus eliminating the need for a variance.
As part of the variance review process, staff requests other government jurisdictions review and
provide comment on requested variances. Typically, staff receives a note indicating that the agency
in question does not have a comment. In this case, staff received a letter from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This letter recommend that the City deny the requested
variance due to the availability of buildable area on the site. The DNR observed that statewide
standards exist restricting the development of bluffs near shoreland areas due to their vulnerability to
erosion that can negatively impact water quality. They further note that the bluff impact zone is
considered the area most susceptible to degradation and that development within it destroys critical
habitat. They conclude by noting that variances to these standards should be rare, only for
exceptional situations. Staff has included the full letter as an attachment.
Staff agrees with the DNR’s assessment of the importance of protecting these ecological areas, and
notes that the City has consistently acted to protect these areas by establishing ordinances protecting
bluffs, the shoreland, and wetlands and requiring variance requests impacting these areas to
demonstrate that no reasonable alternative exists to develop within the bounds of the ordinances. It
was precisely for these reasons that the initial 2005 variance request from the bluff setback standard
for this lot was denied.
The proposed variance would involve a greater impact to the bluff than the previously denied
request. Due to the potential for
this variance request to damage
the bluff, trees, and adjacent
wetland combined with
availability of a viable building
pad outside the required bluff
setback, staff strongly
recommends that the requested
bluff variances be denied.
Shoreland Setback
The property has a 150-foot
setback from the ordinary high
water level of Lake Harrison. This
is due to Lake Harrison’s
classification as a natural
environmental lake. The
applicant’s proposed driveway is
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 11
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
setback approximately 98-feet from the shoreline at its closest extent, the greenhouse is setback
about 94-feet at its closest extent from the shoreline, and the detached garage is setback around 134-
feet from the shoreline at its closes extent. The City Code requires driveways to abide by structure
setbacks and only permits one water-accessory structure with a maximum size of 250 square feet to
be located within the 150-foot shoreland setback. Staff notes that the applicant indicated a shoreline
elevation of 995.5 feet; however, the ordinary high water level that the setback is actually measured
from is 993.3 feet. As a result of this discrepancy, it is likely that the structures do not encroach as
far into the required setback as is indicated above, but staff believes all of these features will still be
partially within the 150-foot setback of the ordinary high water level.
It should be noted that were the greenhouse moved to a location outside of the 30-foot bluff setback,
as recommended in the above section, and the detached garage built in the available area northwest
of the property, the applicant would be able to construct the greenhouse within the 150-shoreland
setback without any variances. In this scenario, the greenhouse would count as the property’s water-
oriented accessory structure.
Staff’s concerns with the requested shoreland setback variance revolve around the large amount of
grading, vegetative removal, and lot cover being proposed within the shoreland setback. As was
noted in the earlier discussion of the requested bluff variance, the City’s lakes and wetlands are
important environmental resources. The risk that grading, vegetative removal, and lot cover pose to
aquatic resources increases the closer these impacts are to the shoreline and wetland. All of these
risks are further elevated when the shoreland area is characterized by steep slopes, as is the case on
this property. It is for this reason that Section 20-481.e.5 of the City Code requires staff to evaluate
building permits for the potential soil erosion impacts of driveways, structures, and other
improvements on steep slopes within the shoreland management zone.
In this case, the Engineering department believes that the bluff and underlying soils are moderate, if
not severe, erosion hazards and that the construction of the proposed improvements would increase
concentrated flow conditions and/or increase the rate of drainage. Water Resources staff have echoed
these concerns by noting the important role that the root structure of the existing vegetation plays in
protecting and reinforcing the slopes and soils on the bluff. The proposed removal of vegetation and
installation of lot cover within the bluff within the shoreland setback would likely cause significant
sediment runoff into the wetland. As was noted by the DNR in their comments, erosion can have
significant water quality impacts.
Due to importance of protecting the portions of the bluff within the 150-foot shoreland setback, the
availability of alternative building sites, and the risks the proposal poses to the quality of the
wetlands and Lake Harrison, staff strongly recommends that the requested shoreland variances be
denied.
Accessory Structure Size
It addition to the bluff and shoreland variances discussed above, the applicant is also requesting a
variance to exceed the City’s 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure size limit. The applicant
is proposing construction of a 1,188 square foot detached garage and 230 square foot green house.
Since the City’s size limit applies to the cumulative square footage of all detached accessory
structures on the property, the applicant’s proposal would require a 418 square foot variance.
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 12
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
Requests to exceed the City’s 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure size limit are primarily
evaluated against the reasonable use standard. In this context, reasonable use is understood to be a
use enjoyed by the majority of properties within 500 feet of the applicant. Staff surveyed aerial
photos of the surrounding properties and found that no property in the area has detached garages or
large detached storage sheds. Since no comparably sized structures exist in the surrounding area and
the City Code has established that 1,000 square feet of detached accessory structures provides
sufficient onsite storage for residential uses, the applicant’s proposed use does not meet the
reasonableness standard.
Staff has also been contacted with concerns that the applicant will use the proposed accessory
structure in conjunction with his construction business. Concern has been expressed that
construction equipment traveling through residential streets will disrupt the existing residential
character of the neighborhood. Staff notes that there have been previous and ongoing issues with the
applicant using the parcel to store construction equipment and that contractor’s yards are not
permitted in the Single-Family Residential District. Indeed, one of the primary reasons the City acted
to limit accessory structures to a maximum of 1,000 square feet is that such structures were
endemically used to house home occupations in violation of City ordinance. While nothing in the
requested variance would give the applicant permission to utilize the property as a contractor’s yard,
allowing the proposed accessory structure would facilitate the storage of large amounts of equipment
on the property and would make it very difficult for staff to enforce the home occupation ordinance.
Staff notes that the proposed configuration of the detached garage permits two levels for vehicle and
equipment storage, with each level accessed by its own driveway leg. The garage also features an
upper level. A detached garage of this configuration is not typical within the RSF district and staff is
6915 Highover Lane Variance
October 6, 2020
Page 13
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\staff report_6915 highover_var_myw edits.doc
very concerned that it would be used as part of the applicant’s construction business in violation of
City ordinance.
Due to the fact that no comparable detached accessory structures exist in the area, the fact that the
proposed detached garage is not typical for the RSF district, and the intent of the City Code to
prevent the construction of large accessory structures which could be used for home occupations,
staff strongly recommends that the requested detached accessory structure size variance be denied.
Impact on Neighborhood
Lake Harrison is a newer subdivision
located near numerous sensitive
environmental features including
bluffs, Lake Harrison, and several
wetlands. During the subdivision
process, the developer requested a
variance to build within the 30-foot
bluff setback and grade within the 20-
foot bluff impact zone. The City
Council denied this initial variance
request in part due to concerns that
granting the requested variance would negatively impact the bluff, trees, and wetlands present on
this lot. These environmental features are part of the essential character of this parcel and this section
of the City. The City Code only allows for the granting of variances when “the variance, if granted,
will not alter the essential character of the locality” and granting this variance would irrevocably
alter and degrade the protected environmental features on this property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny
the requested bluff setback and impact zone variances, deny the requested shoreland variance, and
deny the 418 square foot variance from the detached accessory structure size limit, and adopts the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision
2. Development Review Application
3. Variance Request Description
4. Variance Request Letter
5. Proposed Plan
6. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice
7. WRC Memo
8. ENG Memo
9. ERS Memo
10. Minnesota DNR Letter
11. Email from Resident
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE:
Application of Todd Carstensen for a bluff setback variance, bluff impact zone variance,
shoreland variance, and detached accessory structure size limit variance to build a single-family
home, driveway, and detached accessory structures on a property zoned Single-Family
Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2020-20.
On October 6, 2020, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and
mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 12, Block 1, Lake Harrison
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Finding: Section 1.7.3 “Natural Resources” of the Comprehensive Plan lists Goal 1 as
“The City recognized the importance of its natural environment to the quality of life for
its citizens and need to protect and enhance these resources.” The three policies
associated with goal are:
1. Preserve natural slopes whenever possible.
2. Seek to connect natural areas whenever possible
3. Preserve wooded areas, plant communities and native habitat whenever possible.
In furtherance of this goal and these policies, the City has enacted and enforced a bluff
protection ordinance since 1991. This ordinance predates the creation of this lot and is
intended to prevent the creation of structures within 30-feet of bluffs and prevent
vegetative clearing, grading, and the installation of lot cover within the bluff impact zone.
When this lot was first proposed in 2005, a variance from these standards was requested,
and the City Council denied the variance in order to protect the bluff and trees and
2
allowed the creation of the lot only after it was demonstrated that a viable building area
was present outside of the required bluff setback.
Granting a variance to permit extensive vegetative removal, grading, and lot cover to be
placed within the required bluff setback, bluff impact zone, and shoreland setback would
not be in harmony with stated purpose and intent of the City’s Zoning Code, nor would it
be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Similarly, the City’s shoreland ordinance is intended to prevent lot cover from being
installed near the shoreline, limit vegetative removal, and protect steep slopes. The
applicant’s proposed encroachments into this environmentally sensitive area are not in
keeping with the intent of the Zoning Code.
The City’s limit on detached accessory structure square footage is intended to provide for
reasonable onsite storage space on residential lots without permitting the construction of
large outbuildings not in keeping with the character of single-family neighborhoods.
Another goal of the detached accessory structure size limit is to prevent buildings that
would lend themselves to being used to conduct home occupations in violation of City
Ordinance from being constructed. The applicant’s requested variance from these
standards would create the type of detached accessory structure that the ordinance was
adopted to prevent, and would not be in line with the intent of the zoning code.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
Finding: A single-family home and detached accessory structures conforming to the
requirements of the City Code can be constructed on the lot without a variance. The
applicant could comply with all provisions of the City Code by relocating and
redesigning the proposed structures.
While the applicant would not be able to construct the accessory structures at their
proposed size without a variance, no property within the area has accessory structures
similar to what the applicant is proposing and the City Code allows for the construction
of accessory structures of sufficient size to accommodate typical residential storage
needs.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: On any property, a landowner’s preferred building site or home configuration
may not be permitted due to setbacks, topography, wetlands, environmentally sensitive
3
features, or other provisions of the Zoning Code. In this case, the property has a usable
building area that the applicant does not want to utilize. The inability to build in one’s
preferred location is not a plight caused by circumstances unique to the property, but
rather a plight created by the landowner’s proposed building location.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: This location is characterized by environmental features including a bluff,
trees, and a portion of the Lake Harrison wetland complex. Granting a variance allowing
for significant tree clearing and grading within the protected bluff area and shoreland
setback would alter and degrade the protected environmental features on this property,
negatively impacting the essential character of the locality.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2020-20, dated October 6, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie Young-
Walters, is incorporated herein.
4
DECISION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested bluff setback
and impact zone variances, denies the request shoreland variance, and denies the 418 square foot
variance from the detached accessory structure size limit, and adopts the attached Findings of
Facts and Decision.”
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6th day of October, 2020.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-20 6915 highover lane var\findings of fact and decision 6915 highover lane (denial).docx
COUTIUNTTY DEVELOPHENT DEPARTilENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (9521227-1 100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110
Submittal Det : /(>
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOP
pc o"te/o lg / ODs6t"," 1.;3laa
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
(Refer lo the aD4.rcpdate Application Checkfist lot nquidd sub,I1,iftal intormd'tion thal musl eccompony this agdk atio/t)
E Att others......
E Rezoning (REz)
E Phnned Unit Development (PUD) .E Minor Amendment to existing PUD
I Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600
E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100
E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
E Single-Family Residence ................................ $325
E at ottrers...... ......................$425
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
! ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325
...................... $3oo
.$600 + $15 per lot(_ tors)E Metes & Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300
E Consolidate 1ots.............................................. $1 50
E Lot Line Adjustment......................................... $150E Final Plat...................... ....... $700
(lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs)'
'Additional 6scmw may b€ requirBd for other applications
through thg dewlopmant contracl.
E Vacation of Easements/Right-of-wey (VAC)........ $300
(Additional Ecolding f66s may spply)
@ Variance (VAR).s200
E subdivision (suB)
E Create 3 lots or less .
E Create over 3 lots.....
n Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
E Single-Family Residence......E Alt others.
n zoning Appeal
n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)
s425
.. $750
.. $100
.. $s00! ett ottrers..
n Sign Plan Review..........
I Site Ptan Review (SPR)
$150
$s00
.. s100fl Administrative
E Commercial/lndustrial Districts'
Plus $10 per 1 ,000 square feet
m Use Permit
E Variance
E Easements L easements)
$150
$275
$100
s500
. $3 Per address
addresses) &l'' ?
... ......... $50 per documentE site Plan Agreementn Wetland Alteration Permit
E Deeds
TOTAL FE
of building area:( thousand square feet)
'lnclude number of 9!9ll!49 employees'
E Residential Districts........s500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
Property Owners' List within 500' (city to gsnsEts sftor prHpplication m€eling)
'lnclude numb6r of !€U employ66:
! Escrow for Recording Documents (check a
n Conditional Use Permit
E Vacation
E Metes & Bounds SuMivision (3 docs.)
!qIE: Wh.n multiplr applic.tionr .r. proc.a!.d concuronuy,
the appropriato tcr lhall bo chargod tor aach spplication.
(4't
ll that apply)....
fl lnteri
<)<)
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of Proposal: New single family residence with attached garage
5915 Highover LaneProperty Address or Location:
parcet #: 254170120
Total Acreage:
Present Zoning
Legal Description Lot '12, Block 1 Lake Harrison
3.55 Wetlands Present?ZvesEruo
. Mixed Low Density Residential District (Requested Zoning . Mixed Low Density Residential District (R-
Reouested Land lJse Desion' cllro"11on.
Residenlial Low Density
F CHANHASSEN
Present Land Use Designation
Platted undeveloped landExisting Use of Property:
E]Check box if separate nanative is attached
AUG 14 2020
CI{AMIASSEN PI.AMIIIIG DEPT
CITY OI CHAI{IIASSII'I
lq()b 6GOay Review Oate:
Residential Low Density
is application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing lhis application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specilic ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business da)rs of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERW OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to flle this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the applicalion or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached sryJate documentation of full legal capacity to file lhe application. This application
should be processed in my name and lam the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I
further understand that additional fe6s may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to procsed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name Contact:
Phone:Address
Date:
Name:///6//ot/e/L /. c
City/State/Zip
Email:
TT c-1/4//uar C-ALU
City/State/Zip
2aoy'[>r'ru./ co,--
City/State/Zip
Email:
Contact:
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
Cell:
Fax:
Taaz clre-?ff4/
?v) -,Cd4lr.rc-q ..!,r' SYJ/a .Z -7
Signatu Date:
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:Contact:
Phone:
Section tl: Notification lnformation
Who should receive copies of staff reports?*Other Contact lnformation:
Name:E Property Owner Via
! Applicant Via
fttr E Mailed Paper copy
! Maited Paper Copy
! uaiteo Paper Copy
! uaiteo Paper Copy
Email
Email! Engineer Ma: E EmailE Othef Via: E Emait
City/State/Zip:
Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLIGANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to crty along with required documents and paym€nt. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
copy to the city for processing.
SAVE FORM SUBMIT FORM
Signature:
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the flling of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep mpelf informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may
b€ charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimale prior to any aulhorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conect.
Add ress:
Email:
Addressl
Cell:
Fax:
Address:
PRINT FORM
September 8k, 2O2O
City of Chonhossen
Regording 6915 Highover Drive
Chonhossen, Minnesoto
Written Justificotion of how requesl complies with the findings for gronting o vorionce os follows:
o. Vorionces sholl only be permitted when they ore in hormony with the generol purposes ond intent
of this Chopter ond when lhe vorionces ore consislenl with the comprehensive plon
o. Yes,
b. When lhere ore proclicol difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinonce. "Procticol difficulties,"
os used in connection wifh gronting of o vorionce, meons lhot the property owner proposes lo use
the property in o reosonoble monner nol permitted by this Chopter. Proaicol difficulries include,
but ore not limiled ro, inodequote occess lo direct sunlight for solor energy systems.
o. Multiple procticol difficulties exist
c. Thot the purpose of the voriotion is not bosed upon economic considerolions olone.
o. The voriotion is not due to economic circumslonces
d. The plighr of lhe londowner is due to circumstonces unique to the property not creoted by the
londowner.
o. The circumslonces ore nol due to the londowner
e. The vorionce, if gronted, will not olter the esseniiol chorocler of the locolity.
o. The proposed vorionce will noi olter the essenliol chorocter of the locolity.
f. Vorionces sholl be gronted for eorth sheltered conslrucfion os defined in Minnesoto Sfotufes
Section 2l 6C.06, subdivision I 4, when in hormony with this Chopter.
o. This does not dpply
September 8k, 2O2O
City of Chonhossen
Regording 6915 Highover Drive
Chonhossen, Minnesoro
To whom it moy concern:
My fomily ond I ore proposing to build o new home on the undeveloped lor 12, Block I of Loke
Horrison 2"d Addirion subdivision. We fell in love with this spot 7 yeors ogo ond decided to moke
it our own, We hove been working with the city ond orchitects for over 3 yeors os we lry to creote
o smoll, privote home lhot treods lightly in the currently wooded property.
There exist multiple procticol difficulties on this property. The slope is consistently steep providing
olmosl no ploce withoui bluff setbock on which to build o home, none of which is odequote for o
home of current size. ln oddition, the developer obtoined o very smoll oreo os o "buildoble oreo".
Following the definition of bluff, this oreo is in focl, not conforming either, moking fiis entire
property unbuildoble. These conditions existed prior to us buying it.
My fomily wishes to move to lhis property to enioy the noturol environment it hos with beoutiful,
elevoted views of Horrison Loke surrounded by trees which we love so much. We hove seen mony
onimols run oround through there os well os o couple of gome troils they follow frequently. We
intend to moke il our forever home thot hides omongt lhose mony mqlure lrees.
Sincerely,
The Corstensen's
18318 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 5539'1
Page '1 of 1
ln oddirion to the obove procticol difficulty, the oreo designoted to build o home r's neorest the
public wolking poth with little lo no privocy. Thot oreo is quite open without trees or privocy due
to the conslruclion of high tension power lines obove. The home locolion would hove hod no
privote oreo odiocent in which to hove o yord for our children to ploy.
VARIANCE SET
4 SEPTEMBER 2020
Copyright 2020
HIGHOVER
LANE
GARAGE
6915 HIGHOVER LN
CHANHASSEN, MNBLUFF(>30% SLOPES)BUILDING SETBACK
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE
BUILDING SETBACK
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE
BLUFF LINE
BUILDING SETBACKBUILDING SETBACK
APPROX. TOTAL LOT AREA
159,433 sq ft
BUILDABLE AREA
3,222 sq ft
BUILDABLE AREA
11,019 sq ft CONFORMING AREA CALCULATIONS
TOTAL LOT AREA 159,433 SF
TOTAL BUILDABLE AREA 14,241 SF
PERCENTAGE OF BUILDABLE AREA 8.9%
CONFORMING AREA
0 20 40 607060504030802010NWESSUMMER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNSETSUMMER SOLSTICESUNSET
VARIANCE SET
4 SEPTEMBER 2020
Copyright 2020
HIGHOVER
LANE
GARAGE
6915 HIGHOVER LN
CHANHASSEN, MN
S.L. GRADE
1061.88'BLUFF(>30% SLOPES)BUILDING SETBACKBLUFF IMPACT ZONE
BUILDING SETBACKBLUFF IMPACT ZONE
BLUFF LINE
BUILDING SETBACKBUILDING SETBACK
M.L. DECK
1085.5'
M.L. ON POSTS
M.L.
CANTILEVER
1062'
1064'
1066'
1080'
1084'
1084'
1082'
1085.5'
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
1068'
1070'
1072'
1074'1076'
1072'
1074'
1076'
1078'
L.L. DECK
1073.68'
GREENHOUSE
ELEV.=1046'
GARAGE 1084.5'
M.L. SUBFLOOR 1086.0'
L.L. SUBFLOOR 1074.18'
S.L. SLAB 1062.35'
DETACHED GARAGE
M.L. ELEV.=1048.0'
L.L. ELEV.=1034.44'
GRASS PAVE
GRASS PAVE
GRASS PAVE
PATH
PATH
LAWN
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
0 20 40 60
PROPOSED HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
HOUSE 1,383 SF
HOUSE ABOVE GRADE 1,169 SF
GARAGE 1,270 SF
DECK & STEPS 882 SF
ENTRY & WALK 338 SF
DRIVE 5,395 SF
DETACHED GARAGE 1,188SF
GREENHOUSE 230SF
TOTAL HARDCOVER 11,855 SF
TOTAL LOT AREA 159,433 SF
PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER 7.4%7060504030802010NWESSUMMER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNSETSUMMER SOLSTICESUNSET
VARIANCE SET
4 SEPTEMBER 2020
Copyright 2020
HIGHOVER
LANE
GARAGE
6915 HIGHOVER LN
CHANHASSEN, MN
S.L. GRADE
1061.88'BLUFF(>30% SLOPES)BUILDING SETBACKBLUFF IMPACT ZONE
BUILDING SETBACKBLUFF IMPACT ZONE
BLUFF LINE
BUILDING SETBACKBUILDING SETBACK
M.L. DECK
1085.5'
M.L. ON POSTS
M.L.
CANTILEVER
1062'
1064'
1066'
1080'
1084'
1084'
1082'
1085.5'
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
1068'
1070'
1072'
1074'1076'
1072'
1074'
1076'
1078'
L.L. DECK
1073.68'
GREENHOUSE
ELEV.=1046'
GARAGE 1084.5'
M.L. SUBFLOOR 1086.0'
L.L. SUBFLOOR 1074.18'
S.L. SLAB 1062.35'
DETACHED GARAGE
M.L. ELEV.=1048.0'
L.L. ELEV.=1034.44'10" Birch (Remove)GRASS PAVE
GRASS PAVE
GRASS PAVE
PATH
PATH
LAWN
TREE PLAN
0 20 40 607060504030802010NWESSUMMER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNSETSUMMER SOLSTICESUNSET
VARIANCE SET
4 SEPTEMBER 2020
Copyright 2020
HIGHOVER
LANE
GARAGE
6915 HIGHOVER LN
CHANHASSEN, MN
S.L. GRADE
1061.88'BLUFF(>30% SLOPES)BUILDING SETBACKBLUFF IMPACT ZONE
BUILDING SETBACKBLUFF IMPACT ZONE
BLUFF LINE
BUILDING SETBACKBUILDING SETBACK
M.L. DECK
1085.5'
M.L. ON POSTS
M.L.
CANTILEVER
1062'
1064'
1066'
1080'
1084'
1084'
1082'
1085.5'
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
1068'
1070'
1072'
1074'1076'
1072'
1074'
1076'
1078'
L.L. DECK
1073.68'
GREENHOUSE
ELEV.=1046'
GARAGE 1084.5'
M.L. SUBFLOOR 1086.0'
L.L. SUBFLOOR 1074.18'
S.L. SLAB 1062.35'
DETACHED GARAGE
M.L. ELEV.=1048.0'
L.L. ELEV.=1034.44'
GRASS PAVE
GRASS PAVE
GRASS PAVE
PATH
PATH
LAWN
AERIAL PLAN
0 30 60 907060504030802010NWESSUMMER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNSETSUMMER SOLSTICESUNSET
VARIANCE SET
4 SEPTEMBER 2020
Copyright 2020
HIGHOVER
LANE
GARAGE
6915 HIGHOVER LN
CHANHASSEN, MN
MAIN LEVEL
Elev.=1048'10'-0"22'-6 5/8"EQ.EQ.LOWEST GROUND LEVEL
Elev.=1034.44'
REFERENCE LINE
HIGHEST SLOPED
ROOF AVERAGE
12'14'16'
GRAPHIC SCALE
4'0'2'6'8'10'
1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
4 SOUTH ELEVATION 5 WEST ELEVATION 6 NORTH ELEVATION 7 EAST ELEVATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
( ss.
COT'NTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
September 24,2020, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice ofa Public
Hearing to consider a request for bluff, shoreland, accessory structure size, and other
variances to construct a new home and detached accessory structures on the property
located at 6915 llighover Lane. Zoned Single'Family Residential (RSF), Planning Case No.
2020-20 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an
envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in
the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such
owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County,
Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and to before me
.tL/,
-
,2\ ^ -
-f...t,ut I \ Yk t rrt:x A,Jt;-
rciilT. ffi*G*, ofitvctert
(Seal)
JEAil M S:IEC|0f{G
i{dryPlalelrlYffir,dbFlrn,r@1
i'
,'...Y
thi&1f).day of b*2020.
Notary Public
Subject
Area
6
r
Dbchlmer
Thb map is neither a legally re@ded map nor a suNey and rs not intended to be used
a3 one. Thb mep is a cornpila[,on of recoads, infomation end dat]a located in Yadous city.
counly. state and federalolfces and other sources rcgading the area shown, anat is to
be us€d for reErence purpos€s only. The City does not wanani that the Geographic
lnbrmatjon SFtem (GlS) Oata used to prepare this map arc eror free, and lhe Crty does
nol represent that the Gls Data can be used tor navigational. tracldng or any other
purpos€ requi.ing eracting measurement of distance or diredion or precjsion in the
defrclion of eeogBphic featues. The preceding disdaimer as provided pu6uant to
Minnesda Statnes 5456 03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map actnowledg€s
0tat the C,ty shall nol be liable for any damages, and expre3sly waives all daims. and
agGes to debnd. indemnify, and hold harmless the cfty lrom any and all c.iaims brought
by User, its employees or agents. or third Farties which arise out of the usels access or
use of data provtded.
(Next RecordE(TAX-NAMET
ITAX_ADD_L1r
ITAX-ADD-L2r
Subject
Area
Dircblnot
mis map as ne(her a l€gally Ecorded map nor a sutuey and i3 rlot intended to be us€d
as one. This map is a compilabdn of lecords. antomatioa and data located in various qty,
counv. state and federal offces and other soorces r€gading lhe area shown, and is to
be u+d ior rehrence purposes only. The City doe3 nol wananl that the Geographic
lnforBation Systern (GlS) Data us€d lo Fepare this map are enor fee. and the Clty does
not Epresent that the Gls oata can be used lof naviFtronal. reckang o. any other
purpoee reqt,iring exacling measuEment ot distance or diection or preosioo in the
ilepiclion of geographic batu.es. The preceding disclaimer as p,ovided pu6uanl to
Minn6ota StaMes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000) and the user ot this map acknowledgp-s
tlrat t|e City shall not be liable for any damages. atrd expressly waa\res tll daims and
agrees to detend, indemniry. ancl hold hamless the city fro.n any and all daams btought
bt User, its employees ot aoents, or third parlies which ad6e out of the usel's access or
use of data provided.
%
q
!
l
I
E.
<TAX_NAMET
(TAX_ADD_LI )
<TAX ADD L2u
!
t
il
io
Loooo=
EE:*:3-ooo-c l,
eE $"
H 6:p
x o 0)v; H5E
*ae86q), r, P
E 3P E
EiET@oxtrEgE-dbflat
fr 6;-E'
EEri,J ([ f :,:oo; B
E; ii,€
O.J)
j
{J
o
.c.,9-
c.
o)
c
o)
(oo
EoF
{i
oc
!
o
oP
eo
e
or -toaJO
ID::H
ECorc
=oro!
5o(o<
O)6!, E
a,Eg gc
E
EEee EreE
aE5g EEE!
IEEEEEIE
gfrEr ;=EA
gf;E:,EEEIE
o, E.9 A *E O-o,{=lgFos(,irrc\l(,)\l
- at (l)re 2 El HH6e
s :sElsEE=i
E i;EIfrI:E:
e irE€lE$aie*
*g;lEfliB;EiE
:HEIE#EEHE;E
SEiIBEEEEEEE
E
E
6
Fd
E€oooPo=N36q
oa!
8Ec{o
(o6
O,, ,F
-o69AlJ or(rgj.scb
a6
lP=
Ff
E2
d)
c)
=ooF.tr
1,,
o.,-o
EoEo
oc
foo
o-
O
o, ..g9
oa,
o=.,Efooo
lt(oEc
c)o,(0
o)o
-EO
EoEg
6E;g
9-aEA6oo()E€aqor
TPAgt,,;3ei:o IcJco p,i
6 6Ecacor69gn,;
o- EoY-:EEE
"-g Ef EEcEq(,rLr=6 u; .?
E-sl
EEiEEEEiEE'!$Ei
EEEEiEiEEiiiiE:i
EgE EiiEsti;Ei;;E
EEiEiiiiiEiiiiEi
;EEEgtEEiiEEEiE;I
E
E
e
6
E
3
t
id
Ei:
06
(,
oo
.9
G(.)
oJ
Goo
o
G
troo=Ito
>ctoc, 'Eo-oeto-J
9a
a, .=
r'i
-Ol!.E
=r
CDtr
a,o
=
9.9.= .o
E.eoF
-oiEo
= t,o- .Eo=
oaE.9dorz3
ot!
.c,Eo
o
C'c
IDo
=P6'E'6i! aao':-E.JE
=o
de
oc
eEEo.
zro
oot!
coEo
n
tr6
oooPo-FE
6Eo!sINO
@6
-od9A
6e;.s(sb
o-q9=
F5
E2(I)
o,
o
=
F-t-
ut
n)
-o
E(oco
oclo(.)
oI
E!o
L(l,oOC':s o.g
EE3*:3-ooo-c o
EE $"
E 6.:p
x o o-
e tEEe s6 bor.J o !q 9E o
E;F&-c >.9 >
EHEEb H Atq E c6
X -(!cEEra
*EEE!-c o 9
oJJ
L-
o)
o-c
.s,I
o.)
c
It)
o()
!ooF
qi
oa
o
oE
Po
P
EEocJO
o:
B!*-cE(rr
=o(,s
5o@<
i* u
:EE'g"1
EtEE e F=,p.= Y ^E O-E-O tr^e;'o) o-l=
{iEE *"EE!
teag E=35E:: xe 9 ErxZo.q.,s bE*R
*E=a E='EE
=q€e EiHeSEix e!€EE
IEEE*EI:iE
o
=o
o
E
=lo
:
oNoNo6t
o
iq
E(,oot!E
(!
q
'q
Bl;
.a
q)
o
0)
o-
c;q'a
rt)
ID
E
oE
EoEtl,otc(,(tr(o
acLcf!i
?tsu6'tLO.,;a
do>oEE
ttoEc
o)o,ooro'to
EoEC
EE;g
9. !r'EN6o
€_g-.SeCl9or
EEP
-oo
S l.ECJEo o ,.-
(!\uococox9
9E;o- tro = -.,i9Eb
esft
3EEa u; .a
=9!H E.I
ilEliiEisiisiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiEiEisl6.
iri
E
F
oo
a,
t!o
o
o(,oJ
G
o-
CI
>IEOO'Eo.oeto-J
9i;
o.=+6
r*€
-Ol!.CEe
=E
c6 ..o9ceoo
o=OE3Ooo
ooo
CLo
o.
z zz z z zz z z z z z 2 z z z z z z zz z z z z z 2 z z z z z z zz z z zzz z z zz z z z z
rITI-IT!-II-TTII-IIITEII!-IIIITIEIIEIIz z z z z z z z z z z z z zz z z z z 2 z2 z z z z z z z z z z z z z2 z 2 zz z z z zz z 22
=IT!I I I I I - - I I E t I t I I T I I :E T IUUU(J(J9{JU(JU
6
E
l6 ZZ 22 2 22 2q\r1 a66q
CCCgeCd,drL' O J O U U O ..,U 6 E E b b E bE bb Eb b E,- Eb T T T
F
i,UUFT-FFFFFFF>T-
..--i 6666 6 "j 1--iE== E666,4 n -,,2de ----Eeeee-e---- -*****-l---42^fr"-=42^f; EEAAABABBBEBB 5Sf +f ASBABBABBABBABBAABBBBBAEEAAEEEE = = I I I r t r t I I r I e E u E u t u I I I a I t I II==II===9tt999999999996**=*9=999999999999999999999tt99ttfbIITITTTIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIITITIIIIIIIIIITEIIIITIIII
5
2
(9
88RRRPR8888888RRRF898R88888888888888888888888888
dNNNN
0o660 doooo01 oHN6<66 \ONraO\glc,Oc'dd 64rOFO(Da oroooo\oo\sr lo(olotoro
r r s * r r s r s * F * F l4 i A N A * F A F ts * F F F. F A F r.- r x r r r s r n r * s l s * r s r
66626
z zzzz2z z z zz zz izz z z zz zzz zzz zz zz zz zz z z zzzz zz zz z zz z
^. i ) ) i i i i i 2 i 2 2 i ; 2 i 2 i i i i 2 i i i i i i 2 i i i i i i i i 2 2 i 2 i 2 2 i i z z
!-J T iT T I II T J T I I ! I I T I I I I I I I I I t I I I T I T :. II T I I T I I - I1,2 z z z 2 2 z 2 z z z z z t z 2 z z 2 z z 2 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z z z 2 z z
F O O O O O O O U U U U U U CA U U U I' U (J U U U U U L' U (.) U () (J (J U tJ (J U (J U
btr 55EE 5 -i =ddJ--t)J),,,-,,a- zzzz z zz zz z zz z-^-^--=\ -2\a
==ii*ininiiS* 8I I I5I5 = 5 b E s u u r b 5 b b 5 b b b b b u E + + b b i =;4 4 fr A *C 5 E g E fr fr S h -- E E E fr E E E E E E C E E tr S S S fr S E E tr E E E fr A= fi fr ==A=ssSEBBBBeBBBBrf Sf f a$BBBBBaAAABaBBAABaaaBaFEeBEEE
a'= r g E E + E E E E E E E ! *; ;= + * E E E + E E E E + E + E E E E + E g g g +
= =
P +
=
g *
;'3 E 3 4 3 6 E q E E E 3 E; E E E S $ g H H H X } H H H A H S g H H $ E 3 E E E g B E E E E E E
': i.i ..i .i .i N i.i .i .i .i .i .i d .ir 4'r, .o'o ro G'i,,o'o o'o (o (.) (!, to ro (I) (o rD 'o @
a
3a6?ijUtr. E= . - -* i s i
:=EEiE=EEE**Efu EaErfu fu EEEEEEl;;giEigEEilEE*cEE
rpOE<E
5<
4
z
oIo
oz
c
=o62,=
zz
??
zz
II6r=
o,a:o
zz
22
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young Walters, Associate Planner
From: Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator
Date: 09/18/2020
Re: Variance request at 6915 Highover Lane – Planning Case 2020-20
BACKGROUND
The Water Resources Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 6915 Highover Lane.
The applicant is requesting a bluff, shoreland, accessory structure size and other variances to
construct a new home and detached accessory structures on the property.
The City’s bluff protection ordinance (Chapter 20, Article XXVIII) is designed to protect the
natural character of the land and mitigate against potential erosion and visibility issues that
arise with bluff impacts. In addition, the City’s Shoreland alterations ordinance (Sec. 20-482) is
designed to protect shoreland areas from vegetation and topographical alterations to prevent
erosion, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Due
to the important role that these ordinances plays in protecting the quality of the City’s bluff and
shoreland areas, the City should take extra caution when reviewing potential bluff and
shoreland impacts.
The applicant’s proposal shows the construction of a home, detached garage, associated
driveways, walking path and greenhouse on the property. Nearly all of the proposed
construction would occur within a bluff and/or bluff setbacks on the property. Such
construction would require significant grading and vegetation removal in these areas. The root
structure of mature trees that would be removed for this construction stands to protect and
reinforce the slopes and soils on the bluff. The removal of this vegetation would pose a
significant risk to the erodibility of the bluff and would likely cause significant sediment runoff
into a wetland (see below).
As noted above, a large wetland complex exists both on and adjacent to the property. This
wetland complex is part of Harrison Lake and is classified as Manage 2 per the City’s Wetland
Classification Map. Significant upstream impacts to the shoreland and bluff area adjacent to this
wetland could lead to further degradation, which ultimately leads to Harrison Lake. This
wetland, and Harrison Lake as a whole, also provide significantly valuable fish and wildlife
habitat that could potentially be harmed by erosion and runoff issues caused by shoreland and
bluff impacts.
In addition, the applicant’s proposal shows multiple structures within 150 feet of the ordinary
high water level of Harrison Lake (993.6 feet). Per Sec. 20-481 of the City Code, one water
oriented accessory structure may be setback a minimum of ten feet from the ordinary high
water level. This ordinance is designed to minimize development and lot cover near a lakeshore
to protect the water quality and mitigate against potential flooding hazards. As currently
proposed, both structures are considered too close to the lakeshore.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
The proposed project poses many risks to the integrity and erodibility of the bluff and
shoreland areas. These include, but are not limited to, significant erosion and sediment control
risks, destruction of fish and wildlife habitat, and degradation of a wetland that protects a
significant natural resource. Due to these significant impacts, Water Resources staff
recommends denial of the bluff, shoreland, accessory structure size, and other variances.
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator
Date: 9/23/2020
Re: Bluff, Shoreland, Accessory Structure Size, and Other Variance at
6915 Highover Lane – Planning Case #2020-20
The Engineering Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 6915 Highover Lane.
These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions.
General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of
public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary
issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that
Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the developer in the final order. Note that
references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates.
General Comments/Findings
1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been
reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and
transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. A
recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details,
including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or
discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to
submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as
applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will
review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require
modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards,
the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the
City Engineer.
2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variances at 6915
Highover Lane are not in harmony and cannot be developed in accordance with the
requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and
Public Works requirements) and City Standards, and should not be approved.
3. During the public hearing for the Lake Harrison subdivision held on April 19, 2005, the
Planning Commission addressed the developer’s request that Lot 11 (6905 Highover
Lane) and Lot 12 (6915 Highover Lane) of Block 1 receive a bluff setback variance. The
variance was denied by a vote of 6 to 0 by the Planning Commission. Justification from
staff for the denial of the bluff setback variance was that construction activities, the
location of structures, and future use of the area by the property owners would have
lasting, detrimental effects on the bluff and the wetland (Lake Harrison) below, and that
it would be in the best interest of the public good that the bluff be preserved as
required by Ordinance to protect the environmental and water quality of the site. In
order for the Lots to be platted with the Lake Harrison subdivision, the developer
provided justification to the viability of the lots by illustrating their buildable areas
which would meet Bluff Protection and Setback Ordinances. The Lots were found to
have adequate buildable areas that met City Ordinance, and were subsequently
approved. In an effort to catalogue this decision, the subdivision was conditioned as
follows: “The bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures must maintain
a 30 foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone
(i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff).”
4. 6915 Highover Lane is adequately served by a 1” copper water service stub and a 6” PVC
sanitary sewer service stub, and has adequate ingress/egress via the private street
“Highover Lane”.
5. The applicant is proposing grading and construction of a new house, detached garage,
greenhouse, and driveway extension. None of the proposed improvements are wholly
located in the buildable areas approved with the Lake Harrison Subdivision. The
applicant is proposing to construct, grade, and improve areas within the bluff, bluff
impact zone, and the bluff setback area. As was determined in 2005, staff still finds that
such plans would result in an increased danger of erosion, increased visibility to
surrounding properties, an endangerment to the natural character of the land and
would jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city.
6. Furthermore, in accordance with Sec. 20-1404 (topographic alterations/grading and
filling) of the Bluff Protection Ordinance, an earthwork permit is required for the
movement of any material within bluff impact zones. An earthwork permit may only be
granted if the proposed alteration does not adversely affect the bluff impact zone or
other property. One factor in determining if there are adverse impacts are if in-situ soils
are classified to have moderate to severe erosion hazard classifications as mapped by
the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). The NRCS provides access to this
data through their Web Soil Survey. No such calculations, justification or determination
was provided by the applicant addressing impacts to the bluff impact zone per this
section of the City Ordinance. Additionally, topographic alterations/grading and filling
within the bluff impact zone shall not be permitted that increase the rate of drainage,
and, no concentrated flow conditions shall result from the alterations, in which the
applicant did not provide calculations, justifications or determinations to this
requirement. Regardless, staff believes that the bluff and underlying soils are
moderately, if not severe, erosion hazards and that the construction of the proposed
improvements would increase concentrated flow conditions and/or an increase in the
rate of drainage.
Proposed Conditions
1. N/A
MEMORANDUM
TO: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE: September 24, 2020
SUBJ: 6915 Highover Lane, Variances to construct a home, detached garage, etc.
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a home, driveways, detached garage,
walkways and greenhouse on and within a bluff, bluff impact zone and bluff setback. The lot is
in the Lake Harrison subdivision which was approved in 2005. At the time of approval, staff
strongly recommended that Lot 12 not be approved as a home site due to existing and extensive
bluff areas and fragile woodlands. Staff was concerned about the significant and detrimental
impacts that construction would have on the bluff and existing woods on the site. The Planning
Commission also supported that position and voted to deny the bluff variance. The commission
was very concerned that the proposed development not negatively impact the bluff area on the
western portion of the property. The City Council chose to approve lot 12 as the developer
provided demonstration of a buildable area at the end of a private drive that would allow for
minimal impact to the bluff and existing mature woods. The developer requested variances from
the bluff setback for lots 11 and 12. They were denied by the City Council. A condition of the
Development Contract for Lake Harrison states:
“L. The bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30-foot
setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and
land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff). “
An additional condition of approval, item BB, in the Development Contract states that:
“Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 3/18/05, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches”.
Allowable tree clearing for lot 12 according to the tree preservation plan approved by the City
Council shows the highlighted area as being the only allowable clearing. If approved, the
applicant would be responsible for replacing every tree shown on the development plans at a rate
of two times the diameter inches removed.
•
The applicant has chosen not to abide by the proposed building site and has created the
circumstances necessary to apply for a variance. If granted, the variances will alter the essential
character of the locality by removing a large area of significant, mature, native trees and creating
runoff issues on a bluff. In 2005, staff had requested a Conservation Easement be put over the
east part of the lot to protect the existing woods, but it was advised that the Bluff Protection
Ordinance provided protection for the high quality woods found throughout the site. The tree
inventory submitted for the development showed that this lot included the premier species found
in native big woods: white oak, basswood, red oak, bitternut hickory, sugar maple, black cherry,
aspen, ironwood, birch, elm and ash. The sizes of trees included a range of ages proving that this
is a healthy, regenerative forest with trees ranging from saplings to 36 inches in diameter.
Protecting the existing natural features of the lot was the main concern of the staff and council in
2005 and should still be in 2020. If variances to the Chanhassen city code are approved, the
extensive building plans submitted, not only for a home, but also a detached garage, a green
house, driveways and walkways all throughout the wooded areas and bluffs will permanently
change the character of the neighborhood, the quality of the lot, and call into question the
necessity of any protections of natural resources provided by city code.
The applicant has repeatedly been in violation of the bluff ordinance and has failed to adequately
address the issues on site. Grading and tree removal has illegally taken place on the site and
must still be corrected by the applicant.
Staff recommends denial for all variance requests for 6915 Highover Lane
Ecological and Water Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN
September 14, 2020
MacKenzie Young-Walters
Associate Planner
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Greetings,
I have reviewed the information provided for the Planning Case 2020-20 variance request to build a home that
does not meet the bluff setback requirements. I recommend the variance be denied given a buildable area that
meets the bluff setback requirements does exist on the property. A desire to build in area that does not meet
the bluff setback requirement does not constitute a practical difficulty. The plight of the landowner is due to the
landowner’s desire to build in an area not in harmony with the bluff setback requirements.
The statewide standards were designed to protect shorelands from negative impacts caused by developing in
bluff areas. Consideration is given to bluff areas because of their vulnerability to erosion that case water quality
impacts. The bluff impact zone is considered to be the area most susceptible to degradation. In addition,
development within the bluff impact zone destroys critical habitat and impacts the scenic value and visual
quality of users of the lake resource.
Variances to shoreland standards are an important tool for balancing property rights with the public’s right to
clean water and healthy habitats. However, variances to shoreland standards should be rare and only for
exceptional situations. This is not one of those situations.
Sincerely,
Taylor Huinker
Area Hydrologist
CC: Dan Petrik, DNR Land Use Specialist
Jack Gleason, DNR South District Hydrologist Supervisor
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Subject Consider a Request for an Amendment to PUD, Modification to PUDSpecific Design Features,
and Amendment to Crossroads of Chanhassen Site Plan with Variances for Construction of a
5,100 SF Automotive Repair Shop Located at 8941 Crossroads Boulevard ITEM TABLED
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2.
Prepared By Sharmeen AlJaff, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 202021
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
*ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Subject Consider a Request for Lot Cover and Setback Variances to Construct an Addition to an
Existing Garage and Home on Property Located at 7016 Dakota Circle ITEM WITHDRAWN
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.3.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No: Planning Case No. 202019
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
*ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Subject Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated September 15, 2020
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: D.1.
Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from its September 15, 2020 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated September 15, 2020
Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated September 15, 2020
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
Acting Chair Randall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Randall, Eric Noyes, Mark Von Oven, and Laura Skistad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick, Michael McGonagill, and Douglas Reeder
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Stacy & Ed Goff 9391 Kiowa Trail
Jamie Anderson 5009 France Avenue
Adam Bender 5009 France Avenue
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING DECK AND
EXTEND A CANTILEVER WITHIN THE SHORELAND SETBACK ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 9391 KIOWA TRAIL.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Noyes asked about
variances that have been granted in the past for this neighborhood. Speaking for the
homeowners, Adam Bender explained the proposed design of the home. Stacy Goff, the
homeowner explained that she grew up in this house and their desire to make updates so they can
continue to live there. Jamie Anderson, one of the owners and designers on the project,
discussed other improvements that are being done to the site including removal of a concrete
slab. Acting Chair Randall opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was
closed. After comments and discussion among commission members the following motions
were made.
Commissioner Skistad moved that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approves the 5.2 foot shoreland setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the
existing deck and an 8 foot shoreland setback variance to replace and expand the rear patio
subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision. The motion fails for lack of a second.
Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen
Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2 foot shoreland setback variance to
permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck subject to the conditions of approval and
Planning Commission Summary – September 15, 2020
2
denies the 5.2 foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8 foot shoreland setback
variance for a patio and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and 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 August 3, 2020.
All voted in favor except for Commissioner Skistad who opposed and the motion carried 3
to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENTS TO REQUIRE ZONING PERMITS FOR ALL
STRUCTURES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE BUILDING PERMITS.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Von Oven asked for
clarification on the definition of a structure. Commissioner Noyes asked about the additional
work load on staff. Acting Chair Randall asked about cost of the permit and cited different
examples before opening the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Noyes moved, Acting Chair Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter
20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning zoning permits. Commissioners Noyes and
Acting Chair Randall voted in favor, Commissioners Von Oven and Skistad opposed. The
motion fails with a vote of 2 to 2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
STRUCTURES ON OUTLOTS.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Acting Chair Randall opened the
public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Von Oven moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment
to Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning outlots. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes
of the Planning Commission dated September 1, 2020.
Planning Commission Summary – September 15, 2020
3
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Bob
Generous provided updates on action taken by the City Council at their meeting and upcoming
items on future Planning Commission agendas.
Commissioner Von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
Acting Chair Randall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Randall, Eric Noyes, Mark Von Oven, and Laura Skistad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick, Michael McGonagill, and Douglas Reeder
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Stacy & Ed Goff 9391 Kiowa Trail
Jamie Anderson 5009 France Avenue
Adam Bender 5009 France Avenue
Randall: Tonight we’re going to have, we have 3 things on the agenda. The items will be
presented by staff. After those are presented by staff we’ll ask for comments from the
commission and questions will be answered. The applicant then will be asked to make your own
comments. We’ll open it to public hearing at that time. If there are any emails summarizing or
for the record will be read. And any person wishing to comment can take, can also comment at
that time. We’re not taking telephone calls are we? We are, are they doing that also?
Walters: Yep.
Randall: Okay. And then we’ll close the public hearing and then we’ll make comments and then
ask for a motion and we’ll go from there so.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING DECK AND
EXTEND A CANTILEVER WITHIN THE SHORELAND SETBACK ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 9391 KIOWA TRAIL.
Randall: This is Planning Case 2020-18.
Walters: Whenever you’re ready.
Randall: Go ahead.
Walters: Alright so as the Chair mentioned this is Planning Case 2020-18. It’s a variance
request for 9391 Kiowa Trail. As always if this is decided by unanimous vote or three-fourths
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
2
majority at the Planning Commission the decision is final subject to appeal. Either the applicant
or any affected member of the public have 4 days to appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission. If it is appealed it would go before City Council on October 12th. So as was
mentioned this is a variance to enclose an expanded existing deck and to expand the rear yard
patio on the property. The property is located at 9391 Kiowa Trail. This property is zoned
residential single family. It’s a riparian lot. That means it’s required to have 20,000 square feet
of lot area, 30 foot front and rear setbacks, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 75 foot shoreland
setback and is restricted to 25 percent lot cover. Shoreland properties are also allowed a 10 foot
water oriented accessory structure set. Have a 10 foot water oriented accessory structure setback
and water oriented accessory structures are limited to 250 square feet in size. The present
conditions of the property are 22.5 percent lot cover. It has a non-conforming 71.8 foot screened
porch lake setback. The stairs of the deck are approximately 70 feet from the lake which is a
non-conforming setback. And the outer extent of the concrete patio here is approximately 68
feet from the lake. There are two non-conforming water oriented accessory structure setbacks.
One has about a 4 foot shoreland setback instead of the required 10 foot and one has about a 4
foot required shoreland setback and a non-conforming 1 foot side yard setback. All other
features of the house appear to meet city code. The applicant is proposing to enclose the deck
area over the screened porch and is also requesting to add a 2 foot cantilever over and towards
the lake. And then they are proposing extending the deck over to match the cantilever line and
then a reconfiguration of the patio that results in about a 1 foot expansion. I tried to color code
stuff so the red line is the 75 foot lake setback. Anything in the shaded green is an existing non-
conformity and the blues and grays are the requested expansions to the existing non-conformity.
The applicant has stated that this variance is necessitated because it’s an older home that needs
an interior remodel to create a dining area. They noted the area covered by the screen porch is
all that impervious surface within the 75 foot shoreland overlay. Also a 75 foot shoreland
setback and the proposed encroachments into the setback are very minor necessitated by the
existing placement of the home and would not be readily visible by neighbors or other members
of the public. So staff reviewed this. Staff looks when we review these type of requests at the
intent of the non-conforming use ordinance and so staff believes that enclosing the area above
the screen porch is a very, very minor intensification. That it’s a request that is necessitated by
the age of the home and the need to modernize it and that it does not meaningful increase the
non-conformity. However staff feels that in the 2 foot cantilever is not necessary to achieve the
goals of updating the home and would represent an expansion of the existing non-conformity.
The non-conforming use states specifically states that additions to new structure should meet
existing setbacks and should not increase so that’s staff’s reason for recommending that all
expansions on the property be kept to the existing setback and staff has drawn the approximate
existing setback line in black and is recommending approval of variances that would allow
enclosing the existing screen above the screen porch and extending that over but maintaining that
existing setback line rather than increasing it. Both the proposed deck and patio expansions
appear to be aesthetic choices and don’t appear to be necessitated by any practical difficulty in
using the property. For that reason staff is recommending granting the variance to enclose over
the screen porch and variances to allow maintaining the existing non-conforming but not
expanding beyond that. With that I’d be happy to take any questions.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
3
Randall: Anyone have any questions?
Noyes: I guess I have one. In this development how common are variance requests of this
nature and have they generally been granted in the past?
Walters: Yep so what staff does is we look within 500 feet of the property having a variance. In
this case there were not any variances found that were requested or granted within that 500 foot
area. Eyeballing the properties on the aerials which we do to try to determine if the
neighborhood has a pattern of non-conformities, it appears to staff that most of the properties are
probably in a similar situation to this where they conform to most of the ordinance with a
possible slight encroachment into that 75 foot setback but as to date no variances have been
granted.
Von Oven: Do you happen to know how long the 75 foot setback has been a thing?
Walters: I want to say it was established in the 70’s. Mr. Generous do you have a better year for
me on that?
Von Oven: The decade is good enough.
Generous: I wasn’t here in the 70’s.
Walters: I was not implying that.
Generous: Yeah the ordinance was in place then but they actually had a larger setback that you
would average neighboring properties to so that 75 foot was a minimum but.
Walters: If you pulled the average.
Generous: If the neighbors on either side were farther back then you’d have to have even a
farther setback and that was amended in the 90’s.
Randall: Any other questions? No? Seeing no more questions should we hear from the
applicant? I know you’re excited to talk to us so. Yeah go ahead. And then also too we’ll be a
little projected on the screen.
Adam Bender: This is a survey which shows the net results following staff’s recommendation
for granting of the lesser of the two variances and in keeping with the easterly setback of the
existing structure. The original variance that we had applied for is asking for again just 2 feet
more than what is shown here by the, we have a cantilever and…that no foundation work. No
brick work would be occurring any closer to the lakeshore than the home presently lies. We feel
that the neighboring homes are either side will not be impacted by such addition. And my reason
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
4
for doing so is of course more space in an already small home that’s of benefit to our clients.
That is why we are here this evening and be happy to take any technical questions from the City.
Von Oven: I’m sorry if I missed it but are you the neighbor?
Adam Bender: I’m sorry my name is Adam. I’m the applicant representing the contractor and
behind me is an other person from my company and then the clients, the homeowners are here
tonight as well.
Von Oven: Got it, thank you.
Randall: So in looking at the renderings that you have, is that cantilever, is that just the overhang
basically on that second floor that’s going to overhang?
Adam Bender: Right. The limits of the screen porch on the ground floor are going to stay where
it presently lies.
Randall: Okay.
Adam Bender: And then the addition above that which formerly was a deck but that’s the room
we want to move 2 feet closer to the lake.
Randall: Okay.
Adam Bender: And then in keeping with that same line a new small grilling deck in that
southeast corner would keep in line with our addition. For cleanliness. We’re trying to keep the
stairway to grade from the deck as compact and as tucked away as possible. See we are…by the
setback here and the numbers are hard to read on the screen but that does say 10.3 feet so we
were just outside of the setback there. The bottom of the stairs we’re trying to keep that
obviously as far away as possible. I do think I recall city staff commenting that maybe a slight
further encroachment in the bottom of the stairs would be permissible.
Randall: Anyone else have any questions or?
Noyes: I guess I just want to make sure I understand because you basically since staff has
presented us with the original set of information you’ve changed your design a little bit here is
what basically you are saying?
Adam Bender: We haven’t changed the initial request. The only showing something tonight that
is in alignment with what staff has recommended.
Noyes: Got it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
5
Adam Bender: So while we’re not altering the request, this is essentially what staff was
recommending approval on. And so this rendering I show before you on the screen compared to
what was originally submitted, you’ll notice there isn’t a vast difference between the two and
that these two exterior facades are flush with one another.
Noyes: So you’ve eliminated the cantilever feature basically?
Adam Bender: We did. We did.
Von Oven: …has got me a little confused earlier so I’m not sure if this is a question for you or
for MacKenzie but I’ll just ask it anyway. So the existing stairs I noted earlier are encroaching
into the setback. The stairs as you’ve got them listed here encroach 2 feet further into the
setback from what I can tell. That’s not really my point. My point is, is that covered in the staff
recommendations? So if we were to recommend, are we just overlooking that extra 2 feet or is
that covered in what’s in the language?
Walters: It’s covered in what’s in the language. So the applicant always has the right to
continue an existing non-conformity. So what the variances are being granted for is any
expansion to that. So for example it might be easier to understand if we noted that the patio that
exists has a non-conforming 7 foot setback. What staff’s recommendation, the motion being
made in staff’s recommendation is silent on that encroachment because it’s an existing
encroachment. But however if you allow them to expand 1 foot beyond that then you need to
grant a variance for everything and then you have to create that 8 foot patio variance. The stairs
were in a similar situation. The current degree of encroachment is not an issue. Staff has no
objection to that. Any expansion to it is when the variance would be required.
Von Oven: Got it. So then the question was for you. Did I misunderstand earlier, is the
proposed stairs ending at 72 feet from the shore whereas the existing ones are ending, or are
sitting 70 feet from the shore?
Adam Bender: The new stair and the existing stair should terminate at roughly the same
location.
Von Oven: Got it, okay. Thank you.
Randall: Got any other questions for?
Noyes: Yeah I just want to kind of walk through that same thought process on the patio. Have
you changed your patio design based on recommendations of staff or is that still the original
design and non-conformance and requirement for a variance?
Adam Bender: Oh right so no we have not changed the design of the patio. This mark here is
what was originally applied for. It looks like it is just beyond the limits of the patio today and if
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
6
that were a requirement I wouldn’t see us having an issue with that. It was not intended to grow
larger than the patio that’s there today…as being a nice size for the homeowners.
Noyes: Thank you. Very helpful.
Randall: Any more questions? Does the homeowner want to speak at all?
Stacy Goff: Sure.
Randall: And your name ma’am.
Stacy Goff: My name is Stacy Goff and myself and my husband and I.
Generous: Speak into the microphone.
Stacy Goff: Sure, sorry. Better?
Generous: Yeah.
Stacy Goff: Would you prefer my mask off? Okay. We’ve been homeowners in the home since
January of this year so we are kind of new to this whole process. But not new to the home so the
home is my childhood home. I was born in the home in 1970 and grew up in the house. It
belonged to my parents and my mom owned it until January when we took over ownership of it.
So as you might have seen in the background it has been badly in need of remodel. The last
remodel was done in 1980 so that is when we contracted with Adam and Jamie and their team to
help us design and then construct something new. So it was really important to me and to us to
maintain as much of the original house and design as we possibly could while still doing a
remodel. The homes that were, so in 1970 when I grew up there this was, for those of you that
are maybe from Chanhassen. This was a gravel road with a dead end and a farm on one side of
us where there’s now a big park so it was a pretty rural area. We were one of only five homes
along the lake so it has obviously changed a lot in the past 50 years. The homes on either side of
us now, one of those used to be a vacant lot. That is a very large home right now and on the
other side of us which was Prince’s property from 1980 until he passed away, that is also a new
built and a very, very large home on the other side of us. And in working with our design
company we really made it clear from the beginning that we did not want something that large.
We didn’t want anything really showy. We just wanted to update the home that we have and
keep it as close as we could to it’s original design. So first I guess I want to thank you for
considering that additional 3 ½ feet that it sounds like staff is recommending that we move
forward with. That part was really important to us based on what we want to do with that upper
kitchen and dining room area. The extra 2 feet that we’re requesting that as you see is more of a
cantilevered space, is truly more of a design feature so it is certainly something that we could
live without. No doubt I have to concede that. It is more of a design feature. It gives us a little
bit more space in the dining room and it does impact the deck and what we can do with the deck
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
7
on that one side because we are limited because of the space going out on that one side for the
deck. We’re very cautious about being new, well me sort of new but really new to the
neighborhood and making sure that our request would not cause any harm to the neighbors. It
does not impede the sight line of any of the neighbors including the ones to our immediate north
and south. We did talk to our neighbors directly and wanted to share with them what our plans
were and letting they know they would probably be receiving a mailing and to please let us know
if they felt like there was anything that we hadn’t thought of considered. We wanted to hear that
from them. We certainly want to get off on the wrong foot and we knew that the neighborhood
sight line was something that you all would look at so they did not indicate that they had any
concern with them. We talked to additional neighbors down Kiowa Trail as well but certainly
the ones immediately to the north and south. Because it’s cantilevered it, the surface, it’s not
going to have any challenges with drainage or the referral earlier to an impervious surface. The
hard surface doesn’t change because it is a cantilever 2 feet over which also from the setback
while it does certainly go 2 feet further than that 3 ½ feet, it is on the upper level. Our house is
not close down to the lake. We have a pretty high retaining wall and then this is actually on the
second level so it is a pretty decent distance from the lake itself. So hopefully that kind of
explained a little bit on kind of why we are requesting what we are requesting. Are there any
questions?
Randall: Does anyone have any questions? Thank you for presenting that. I’m glad that that
option that the staff is recommending will work for you. It’s always sad when it’s just like it
won’t work but at least that will somewhat work for you so. Any, are you one of the concerned?
Jamie Anderson: I’m Jamie Anderson, one of the owners and designers on the project. I just
want to add a couple things that might be overlooked with the improvements that we’re making
to the rear property. There are, there’s a slab, a concrete slab that we’ve removed to improve
you know some of the features in the back so there’s a lot of things that are getting improved on
the property that might want to be looked at as well. Not just you know we’re asking for those 2
foot of cantilever. It might seem simple and something that we could get away from but there
are other things that we’re improving that are helping with the site with the concrete that’s
coming out underneath that deck and stair landing right there so that 2 feet was, when you’re
talking about 2 feet, architecturally it’s not just the dining room space. It’s the flow and the view
which is the most important part of it we’re missing a little bit. The view out this back of the
home, this beautiful lake. It’s really something to consider too so I just wanted to add a little bit
of detail that might have been overlooked. Thank you.
Randall: Thank you. I guess we’ll open up the public hearing aspect of it. Is there anyone from
the public here? Did we receive any emails or phone calls?
Walters: Staff was not contacted by any member of the public.
Randall: Is anyone on hold right?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
8
Walters: Nope, no one is ringing in.
Randall: Alright. Do we need to give it a few minutes in case anyone?
Walters: I don’t believe so.
Randall: Okay. Alright. Alright we’ll close the public hearing and comments, concerns. Do we
have any comments or concerns?
Walters: One thing staff would like to note, this is just a factual clarification. The deck could be
expanded about 5 feet further to the south because decks, open decks are allowed to encroach up
to 5 feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback. I just mention that because it was mentioned
that the 10 foot side yard constrained deck expansion and again it’s not super, super relevant but
just as a full factual correct that is a possibility.
Randall: MacKenzie is there an issue with the watershed district with the encroachment at all or
anything?
Walters: We received no comments from either the DNR or the watershed on this variance.
Skistad: I was quiet today. I was always looking at the I guess where I’m a little confused is
what is here versus what the presentation was.
Randall: So you’re wondering based on where that rendering B is that MacKenzie presented that
they with the without doing the major variance?
Skistad: Yeah, right. So that they’re still asking for the variance but they presented a picture
without the variance, is that what?
Walters: Correct. My understanding is the applicant’s preference is for the 2 foot cantilever
option. However in good faith effort I believe they showed a rendering of what it would look
like if the commission went with staff’s recommendation instead of their first preference, if
that’s an appropriate way to phrase it.
Adam Bender: Yes sir.
Von Oven: Usually you just give us one recommendation and then we’re forced to up or down.
But this time you actually gave us like Plan B which is the variance as requested. I’m just
curious what made it different this time for you?
Walters: So one of the, so philosophically staff’s prime responsibility is always to provide the
strictest, most consistent with the intent of the code interpretation as our recommendation. The
Planning Commission philosophically exists to provide some discretion and judgment on the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
9
literal reading of the code. When it comes to variances one of the standards is reasonable use.
That is at some level a judgment call. This is a case where staff felt that the Planning
Commission may feel that reasonable use involved granting the 2 foot cantilever. Staff outlined
a case why we feel our recommendation is appropriate but there are situations when we
anticipate that you know perhaps that reasonable use standard would be interpreted differently
and in those cases we usually provide an alternative motion for what we think is a likely possible
read on that. You of course have every freedom to deviate from any of the proposed motions.
Von Oven: Thank you.
Noyes: I guess just one other comments I would provide is, I could completely agree with the
term reasonable use and I think what’s been presented here, you know it’s not egregious. It falls
into that definition of reasonable use but I do struggle with one other part of it is that we’re
setting a precedent here if we grant the variance so I’m struggling a little bit with what issues are
we creating in the future for other similar properties. I mean the facts kind of show that there’s a
lot of properties on the lake that are built in this era and there’s quite a few that have non-
conformance so what do we do here if we want a variance that says hey you can have an extra 2
feet here. An extra 3 feet here. Are we kind of opening Pandora’s Box for other requests and I
don’t know the answer to that. I’m asking you kind of rhetorically but that’s one of my concerns
about this especially when we’ve got you know their request is saying hey yeah this is a nice to
have you know type of thing. I’m worried about approving a nice to have and still opening up
Pandora’s Box a little bit. I’m not saying I’m against it right now but I’m just, I’m struggling
with that a little bit.
Randall: Any more comments? I agree with you that too. It’s we get into these variances and
setting a precedent. Now I’m at 2. It was great that they have a second plan that is conforming
with what we need them to do and that will work for them. I mean most of the time what, it
won’t work so yeah would I like them to be able to do the cantilever and all that? Yeah it’d look
great but with the setback we just can’t do that so that’s my comment on it so.
Skistad: I guess I would take an opposing view on that. I would say that if it’s, I would err on
the side of the property owner who is trying to do their best to conform and they’re not, I mean
it’s like on a second story of the house as well so it’s not as if they’re putting footings in or doing
something such as that so I would, I tend to err on the side of like I said the property owner
versus a city requirement.
Randall: Would anyone like to make a motion?
Walters: Staff has also prepared an alternative motion.
Randall: What’s the other motion that you prepared?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
10
Walters: The other motion is granting the variance as requested. The first motion was granting
as staff recommended.
Von Oven: Just one thing I want to make sure of before I sort of finalize my thoughts. You,
there you go. That’s the one. This multi-colored picture, hospital green. Non-conforming patio.
That will remain but be enclosed correct?
Walters: No. What is being enclosed is currently this bump out here that I think is a 12 by 16 I
want to say. Thank you.
Von Oven: Oh the patio is the ground level, never mind. Sorry. So that will be just about even
with the proposed cantilever and what I’m getting at is no element of this house will be any
closer to the lake than it is now. Is that a true statement?
Walters: No. So this black line here represents the existing setback line to the lake so the light
green will be the cantilever’s 2 foot extension into the lake. Full disclosure because I used paint
these lines are not precise and may, you know probably slightly exaggerate the extent of the
encroachment. And they are proposing maintaining an even line with the deck which would also
expand slightly beyond that existing setback to the lake. If you’re speaking in absolute terms
from like the closest edge of that patio towards the lake, nothing would be beyond that existing
but in terms of structural it would move closer if the variance were granted. And as I noted my
understanding is this patio, concrete area is being removed. Correct?
Adam Bender: Correct.
Von Oven: Got it.
Randall: So MacKenzie with the removal of that concrete would their hardscape percentage
remain the same or would it go down?
Walters: I believe it, so my recollection is the permit they applied for showed an increase of
something like 7 square feet of lot cover all told. I believe the removed patio here largely
balances with the proposed addition. Is my memory correct on that?
Adam Bender: Yes, so the variance as applied for, we had a net gain of 227 square feet of
coverage. However that does not take into account this existing patio on the south side of the lot
that has, or will be removed and so I would, I would say that it would be about a wash in the end
result.
Randall: Thank you.
Walters: And I will state the property is under it’s 25 percent lot cover limit.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
11
Randall: Any more thoughts or concerns after covering some of that aspect?
Noyes: Can you show us your alternative recommendation?
Walters: The variance as requested.
Noyes: So this takes into account the removal of the cantilever?
Walters: No, this one would allow for the cantilever to be present. Staff’s recommendation
which is the 3.2 foot shoreland setback would not allow for the cantilever. The 5.2 foot variance
allows them to have the cantilever and push out 2 feet beyond the existing line.
Noyes: Thank you.
Randall: Anyone like to make a motion?
Skistad: I’ll make a motion on the other one.
Randall: Alright.
Skistad: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 5.2 foot shoreland
setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck and an 8 foot shoreland
setback variance to replace and expand the rear patio subject to the conditions of approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions.
Randall: Do we have a second on that? Alright I guess we don’t have a second on it so.
Walters: Motion fails for lack of a second.
Randall: We have another motion?
Noyes: I will make a motion here.
Randall: Commissioner Noyes.
Noyes: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2 foot shoreland
setback variance to permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck subject to the conditions of
approval and denies the 5.2 foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8 foot shoreland
setback variance for a patio and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
Randall: Do we have a second?
Von Oven: I’ll second.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
12
Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen
Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 3.2 foot shoreland setback variance to
permit enclosing and expanding the existing deck subject to the conditions of approval and
denies the 5.2 foot shoreland setback variance for a cantilever and 8 foot shoreland setback
variance for a patio and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and 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 August 3, 2020.
All voted in favor except for Commissioner Skistad who opposed and the motion carried 3
to 1.
Randall: Nay?
Skistad: I mean I would support their decision for this as well but unfortunately I would prefer
the other version for them.
Randall: So we have 3 ayes and 1 nay. Does that move on MacKenzie based on our count?
Walters: Yep as three-fourths majority that is a final decision that can of course be appealed by
the applicant or any member of the public. If we get the appeal by 4:30 Monday this item would
then go before the City Council on October 12th. If not the decision of the commission will
stand.
Randall: Okay, alright. Thank you for coming in tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENTS TO REQUIRE ZONING PERMITS FOR ALL
STRUCTURES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE BUILDING PERMITS.
Walters: Yep so public hearing. If the commission’s ready we’ll launch right into these.
Randall: Sounds good.
Walters: Alright the first code amendment to discuss is requiring zoning permits for all
structures. The issues is that structures that residents are interested in constructing in the city
that do not require a building permits and are not included in the list of structures requiring
zoning permits that the City currently has. A lot of times these structures seem they’re things
that shouldn’t require any sort of permit until they get put in a really poorly chosen place and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
13
really anger the neighbors. So what the City would like to do is essentially require any structure
to get a zoning permit so that we can make sure they’re not building across property lines, in
easements, and in other places that are going to cause problems. The advantage of this is it
allows us to prevent stuff that’s going to cause a problem from being constructed before it cause
the problem rather than receiving a complaint from a frustrated neighbor after somebody’s
already spent sometimes thousands of dollars building something and then have to go back and
either have them remove it or try to figure out how to make it so people can live with it. So
some examples of things that have come up and caused issue in the last year or so. Large above
ground swimming pools are not covered under the building permit so as long as it’s under 5,000
gallons they can go up without any sort of a permit. When these things go up right on the lot line
it can cause a lot of hard feelings. Hot tubs are kind of similar. Large tree houses are often times
built on big trees that are right on the lot line. Some people get very frustrated when it ends up
overhanging or encroaching into their property. Play structures can also fall in this. These a lot
of times will get constructed in nature preserves because it’s nice and wooded and pretty and
without a permit the owners don’t realize that it’s protected by a conservation easement. Wood
fire pizza ovens. Again you know it’s a little thing that it seems like we’re going for over reach
but if your neighbor is running a wood fire pizza over for 4 hours right on the property line right
under your window you’re not happy. Sport court lights so not require a zoning permit and
generate a lot of complaints when they go up and are angled improperly. So that’s what we’re
hoping to do is just make it so that when folks call and say does this need a permit we can say
yes it does and we can make sure it’s going in a good place and that it’s not going to be causing
an issue for their neighbors. So that’s the brief of it. I’d be happy to take any questions.
Von Oven: What’s the definition of a structure?
Walters: Yep, structure under the city code is anything made by man and attached to the ground.
It is a very broad definition.
Von Oven: Okay.
Walters: Which is somewhat intentional. I received a call last week from an individual
interested in putting 10-15 foot pole in his yard so he could hang mesh down to cover his garden.
You know again in the right location this isn’t an issue. Really close to the property line with the
neighbors looking at it everyday potentially an issue.
Noyes: How much extra work does this bring on for staff?
Walters: Hard to say exactly but we typically last year I want to say we issued about 160 zoning
permits under the current ordinance. I wouldn’t anticipate this to increase my work load by more
than 20 or 30 permits a year. I’m the staff member that evaluates zoning permits so I’m
probably the best equipped to determine whether or not this would be an undue burden. I think
honestly it would solve more problems than it would cause. I lose a lot more hours when I have
to do after the fact enforcement versus being able to prevent a problem from happening.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
14
Randall: What is the cost for the permit?
Walters: At the moment zoning permits are free. There is discussion, full transparency there is
discussion at the council of adding a $50 fee to zoning permits and then adding an inspection
component. As things currently stand we don’t do compliance inspections after zoning permits
are issued. It’s an honor system and the vast of majority of residents put stuff exactly where they
tell us they will. Unfortunately that small number that make the patio a little bit bigger or the
shed a little bit closer have created issues so we’re going to begin charging a fee to cover the cost
of doing inspections to make stuff’s built where we’ve been told it’s going to be built. I don’t
know where the council will ultimately go on that but it is being discussed and is proposed.
Randall: Is there a square foot to deem a tree house to be large?
Walters: Basically common sense I would say. You know if someone says hey I want to put up
a 5 by 5, you know a little bitty thing in the tree, yeah. We’re not going to be requiring a permit.
It’s when you get into that 30-40 feet. Mostly we’d use where the tree was honestly.
Randall: And for example like the Sport Court lights, where do you see that going? Like
someone gets the permit and then you talk to them angling lights to not upset your neighbors. Is
that how you would tend?
Walters: Yeah Sport Court lights are probably the most problematic of all of these in terms of
not having a permit requirement. So our nuisance ordinance makes it illegal to allow lights
causing nuisance glare to be installed but I have no mechanism to determine or restrain them
from being installed. So we have, the city code regulates the amount of light trespass that can
occur between residential properties and requires a 90 degree cutoff on lights to prevent them
from shining into windows, etcetera but I have no mechanism to compel people to give me
permits or to review these.
Randall: Okay. So example I decide to flood out my back yard and make a hockey rink. I put
lighting up. Then do I need to have a zoning permit for my?
Walters: At the moment no.
Randall: But if this were to change.
Walters: Yep.
Randall: Okay.
Walters: And then that would allow me to, and again these are not exhaustive things. You
would just say these are the lights I’m doing. These are, do you disagree Mr. Generous?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
15
Generous: No I just wondering that if you’re putting up temporary lights generally we don’t do
any permitting for that. It’s the permanent light fixtures that.
Randall: Okay.
Walters: Oh that’s a point. My apologies. Yeah.
Randall: That’s where I could see the issue coming in and for the record if my wife is watching
I’m not planning on flooding our back yard so…
Walters: Historically though temporary structures are a lot easier for us to do enforcement action
on because they’re more portable. Less of a fixed investment. But no Mr. Generous is right,
temporary structures would be exempted from permitting under this. My apologies.
Randall: Sorry to throw you a curve ball there.
Walters: No that’s good.
Noyes: Just to continue on that example mostly for my curiosity, Mark mentioned the lights.
What about the hockey rink itself. That’s a temporary structure correct?
Walters: Yep, they’re allowed. They’re not permitted. We don’t require permits for them. A
lot of folks put up back yard hockey rinks or set them up on storm ponds. We don’t regulate
that.
Noyes: But we would now.
Walters: Nope it’d still be as Mr. Generous said, still temporary structure. Our concern is
permanent stuff that can’t easily be moved or relocated that represents you know a significant
capital investment for the residents or continuance year round annoyance for the neighbors in a
worst case scenario.
Noyes: So because of that do we need to change that subject sentence to say discuss code
amendment to require zoning permit for all permanent structures that do not require building
permits?
Walters: I don’t believe so because the existing language. I know, if the commission wants we
can certainly make that amendment. The language changes to the code would continue to remain
silent on that which would mean current policy of not permitting temporary structures would be
in place. So nothing about that would change this. If that makes sense.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
16
Noyes: I just brought it up because I don’t want to have it cause issues for you guys based on a
citizen’s interpretation of structure.
Walters: What are your thoughts Mr. Generous?
Generous: We generally have not had any problems with the temporary structures. If they start
to get bigger like those temporary enclosures for cars that people will put up over the winter,
they’re big enough so if they were to be a permanent structure they would need to get a building
permit.
Noyes: No I’m satisfied. I just brought it up because I want to make sure…
Generous: Any time they put in footings or things like that, those are the things we want to see.
Von Oven: Do you know if this, this method of this amendment I guess has precedent in other
cities? Was it conceived here or was it borrowed from somewhere else?
Walters: This was designed to address a problem we’ve noticed where we have to do, where we
get complaints and have to do after the fact enforcement. You know I kind of ran through in my
report the history of the zoning permit requirement and what I basically noticed was every
couple years we added new structures to the list because we get enough volume of reports that
essentially we say okay this needs to be added and so staff conceived that this is a way to just cut
to the chase and make it so that any structure is going to require a zoning permit instead of
piecemeal adding to the list and having residents come up with new things that are problematic
and not required.
Generous: And generally it was designed as a preventative measure so that we could stop people
from creating problems before it became a permanent fixture.
Randall: Do you have any more examples for us MacKenzie or is that just your top 6 list right
there?
Walters: Those are the ones that I’ve been called about enough that when I wrote this paper it
was like oh yeah I’ve got that one. I’ve got that one. I’ve got that one. I’m sure if I went
through my call logs I’d find some weird ones but yeah.
Generous: Decorative trellises sometimes.
Walters: No I’m thinking the one that wanted a big concrete reinforced mailbox that one of the
neighbors was upset about. You know so it’s just sometimes really random things.
Skistad: I didn’t think we were allowed swimming pools so that one surprised me. Above
ground swimming pools.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
17
Walters: Above ground swimming pools currently the code is completely silent on and anything
the code does not prohibit the rights lie within the property owner.
Randall: But if I had a 4,000 gallon pool I wouldn’t need to get the permit but if I had a 5,000
I’d have to right?
Walters: 5,000 requires a building permit under state law is my understanding. Right now in
Chanhassen if you put in a 4,999 gallon above ground pool you would not need to pull any
permit or have any staff review. And again when this goes right on the property line, right under
the bedroom and kids are playing, that’s where we are trying to avoid and make sure that stuff’s
going where it should.
Randall: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Do we have any phone calls coming in regarding
public comments? None?
Walters: We can open the public hearing.
Randall: Open the public hearing.
Walters: I am not seeing any calls.
Randall: Okay, alright. We’ll open up the commission discussion.
Walters: Chair we need to close the public hearing please.
Randall: We close the public hearing.
Walters: Thank you.
Randall: Thank you. …say a point of order. Any comments, concerns regarding this?
Von Oven: I’m in favor of what you’re trying to prevent. I’m not in favor of the broadness of
the definition and the idea of it potentially fairly soon costing $50 dollars for any structure for
any resident to get a zoning permit. That puts me over the edge so I hate coming forth with a
problem without a solution but I think we have to find a balance between continuing to add
things that are structures and just opening the gates for anything that you stick in the ground that
is considered permanent, and again I don’t have a great solution for it. I think this is a way to do
it but I don’t think it’s necessarily the right way. I think we need, somehow we need to be able
to define what falls inside this and what doesn’t fall inside it. Otherwise it’s too broad and then I
can see a, I can see this happening and then a couple of months later it’s $50 dollars to get the
zoning permit and then there’s a huge backlash from people saying where did this come from.
So yeah as it stands right now I’m not in favor of having it that broad.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
18
Noyes: I completely understand where you’re coming from. I guess I have a question though is,
do we as a commission need to separate out the actual motion from what the cost part of this that
the City Council’s going to look at right? I mean if we said we think this is a good business
process and then we let the City Council decide if it’s a good business process at zero dollars or
$50 dollars or $500 dollars whatever, what I’m worried about is going down the path of hey let’s
not do something that makes sense because of something that’s going to happen down the road
but we don’t know if it’s going to happen for sure. So I have the same concern. That’s why I
asked about the permanent versus the temporary type of thing because it is broad but I also can
understand there’s probably some upset neighbors out there that have had to deal with things
because there wasn’t a concrete requirement in place.
Randall: Any comment? You’re thinking over there?
Skistad: If they’re already, I mean if they’re on the border or on the property line they’re
probably already breaking some code are they not?
Walters: They are. That’s where we get into that issue with the after the fact enforcement. A lot
of times folks aren’t as, not everyone know exactly where their property line is and a lot of times
sitting down staff, going through the permit process, looking at the survey. Having to draw it on
there is enough to educate them so they realize oh, it stops 5 feet from my garage. Not 7 feet like
I thought. So what the zoning permits lets us do is by making them show us where they’re
putting it and by letting us say stuff like oh hey you may not know this but you had a drainage
and utility easement here, you know there’s actually a sewer line going through here. You don’t
want to put this on top of that. We can fix problems before they happen. If no permit’s required
then they go, they spend you know however much they spend building this beautiful thing, and
they’re acting in complete good faith. They think it’s fine. They put it a foot on the neighbor’s
property. The neighbor gets upset and then it’s either civil dispute going through the courts to
force them to remove or the City doing, and I’m talking worst case scenario here obviously. Or
the City doing after the fact enforcement compelling them to ripe it up and relocate which is
much harder than stopping it before it goes in. So yes they are breaking a rule but they don’t
know they’re breaking the rule. This is usually an educational tool for us.
Randall: I agree with you on that point. It is a great educational tool. I know I was looking at
getting a shed in my back yard. Went to the website. Looked at the requirements. It was good
and your point being, I agree with the fee thing but it’s not part of this motion right now I guess
and that would be something that I mean we could argue later with the City Council I guess. I
don’t know if they’d even come, the fee structures that come through but yeah I’m thinking large
tree house they need to go get a permit and I think the idea of the education aspect behind it.
Having people come in and actually understand what they can and cannot do and here’s the
reason why. It’s not over reaching thing. Unfortunately I could see the fees getting out of hand
but that’s not part of the motion right now so that’s why I’m just focusing on that so. The other
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
19
thing too how are we going to, how is the public going to be taught or made aware of these
zoning permits?
Walters: Yep.
Randall: Are you going to be hanging door flyers or?
Walters: Yep assuming this passes and is then also passed by the City Council what staff would
do is we would write a Connection article. A lot of people do read Connection. We’d also
update the City website. We’d probably try to give it some prime time in the scrolling bar you
know, updated zoning permits requirements. Click here to learn more. You know a lot of times
how we catch stuff for zoning permit too is whenever anyone digs under state law they’re
supposed to get a Gopher One locate so one of the things staff does is we review these tickets
and then we call the contractor and the homeowner and I make several calls a day that are
basically hi, I see you’re going to put in a fence. Did you know you need a fence permit in the
city of Chanhassen? Let me talk you through the process and so we would do that same outreach
on a property by property and the word would get around through contractors and homeowners.
It will take years before everyone’s on the same page. We still have contractors we call about
patios who say I have no idea that patios, I didn’t know patios needed one. I’ll pull a permit. A
couple have used that line 4 or 5 times now so I get a little skeptical but you know we do do
outreach.
Randall: I mean I don’t want to do those…like having to pull a permit to replace a toilet in my
house or something like that but you know I understand where this is coming from I guess and so
I think it’s a good thing. I’ll be voting in favor of that proposed motion if someone does propose
it so.
Noyes: I will make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning
zoning permits.
Randall: Do we have a second? Is there a second?
Walters: Under Roberts Rules the Chair can second if they so choose.
Randall: Alright I will second it.
Commissioner Noyes moved, Acting Chair Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter
20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning zoning permits. Commissioners Noyes and
Randall voted in favor, Commissioners Von Oven and Skistad opposed. The motion fails
with a vote of 2 to 2.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
20
Walters: And so we’ll move it onto City Council with a note that the Planning Commission
voted 2 to 2, correct Mr. Generous?
Generous: Or we can take it back to the City Manager and our Community Development
Director.
Walters: If we want to revise it and bring it back?
Generous: Yeah.
Walters: Okay we will update you at the next commission meeting in terms of where this is
going. Thank you.
Skistad: I’d like to just, can I make my comment on it? Is that alright? As far as the play
structures go, how do you determine if that is permanent or not? That’s just one thing that I
think should be thought through.
Walters: Concrete footings. If it’s anchored to the ground it’s permanent. That’s always our
standing on those.
Randall: Similar to trampoline?
Walters: Is not permanent.
Randall: Good to know.
Generous: Unless you’re anchored to the ground.
Walters: Yeah you cement that baby in.
Randall: Alright what’s next on the agenda here?
PUBLIC HEARING:
DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
STRUCTURES ON OUTLOTS.
Walters: On outlots yep. So if you remember about a month back we had a variance case, the
individual wanted to put the water oriented accessory structure on their riparian lot. It was
technically platted as an outlot. By definition they’re unbuildable. However there are places in
the city that property’s an example. Several city parks. HOA beachlots and similar designated
uses where as part of their subdivision approval the City Council has said we want this outlot to
be used for this purpose and sometimes that purpose involves a building. So we have a bit of a
disconnect in our code because no outlot can ever have a building on it. So staff’s proposed
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
21
solution is to adopt very tight performance standards allowing the issuance of building permits
that are consistent with the stated intent of an outlot. So this will allow for instance an outlot
platted as an HOA beachlot to have a gazebo which is something they’re permitted under the city
code as an HOA outlot. As a recreational beachlot. So it will kind of reconcile these
discrepancies and allow our code to be more internally consistent. The goal in the performance
standards is to make sure that outlots still serve their primary function which is to preserve open
spaces and present land that cannot be developed. So some examples of the, this is actually a
pretty comprehensive list of what would be permitted. Beachlots. So things that were intended
to be beachlots would be allowed anything permitted by a beachlot conditional use permit or
their non-conforming use permit if they’re an older beachlot. If it’s a park, a structure shown on
the subdivision plan or if no plan is consistent with the existing nature in use would be permitted.
Single family riparian we would allow water oriented structures as per our shoreland ordinance
and then a lot of developments will have an outlot and the intent would be to have a monument
sign there. This would clean it up and make it clear that we can in fact issue a sign permit to
allow them to put a sign on that outlot. However if it’s intended for open spaces still no building
would be allowed period. Be happy to stand for any questions you have.
Noyes: Does the outlot have to be privately owned?
Walters: No. So for instance a lot of times when subdivisions dedicate open spaces or preserve
lands they hand it over to the City and in some cases those lots are intended for parks and are
handed over to the City so several neighborhood level parks are platted as outlots and are owned
by the City.
Noyes: So where would the demand for a structure on that type of outlot come from? Would
that come from the residents who use it or come from the City?
Walters: If it’s one of our parks we would be developing in accordance with our park master
plan. How exactly the park department determines what structures it puts on is they do a
community surveys, outreach, things of that nature. The majority of the ones that we’re probably
talking about though are going to be HOA ones where you know the developer back when the
HOA, when the subdivision was formed negotiated for a smaller lots with the understanding that
a big lot in the center was going to be there to have play structures and things like that for the
neighborhood children. So technically under our ordinance if they came in and say hey, we want
to replace the jungle gym with a climbing ladder, I’d have to say yeah I can’t give you a permit.
It’s an outlot. Obviously that’s not a position we want to be in or try to defend. That’s a use
consistent with it’s intended use. We want to give them that flexibility. We want to let that lot
be used for it’s intended purpose so what this code does is say you can use it as it was intended
to be used and it gives us the authority to grant those building permits. What we don’t want to
do is open up outlots to non-specific development because then you know worst case scenario
the HOA’s running in a bit of a deficit, well let’s bulldoze the playground and sell it to a
developer and they can put a big house on it. So that’s why the original provision in the code
says outlots are by definition non-buildable. So we’re proposing strict performance standards to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
22
let them serve their function without opening them up to say general development if that makes
sense.
Randall: Okay.
Skistad: This all makes sense to me.
Randall: Yep. Is there going to be a fee associated with it?
Walters: Yeah normal permitting fees would be in place. So if they would, like let’s say for
instance it was a, I think we do have some outlots that have swimming pools and changing
rooms. If they were to demolish the changing rooms. Redoing the plumbing for showers, you
know of course we’d have to do the plumbing inspection so the fees associated with that would
be applied as per usual.
Randall: Okay. Any other comments, concerns, questions? Alright we’ll open up the public
hearing portion of the presentation. Is there anyone here from the public wishing to speak?
Seeing none, MacKenzie are there any phone calls coming in?
Walters: There are no phone calls.
Randall: Okay. And the public hearing portion of the presentation. Any questions or concerns?
Thoughts. Opinions before we get a motion or someone wants to have a motion. There’s a
motion right there is someone wants to look at that.
Walters: The motion is actually correct. I just didn’t change the slide heading.
Von Oven: Excellent. I’m happy to make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 1 and Chapter 20
of the Chanhassen City Code concerning outlots.
Randall: Thank you. Do we have a second?
Noyes: I’ll second.
Randall: Second.
Commissioner Von Oven moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment
to Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning outlots. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Randall: Alright no nays. 4 to 0. Motion passes.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
23
Walters: Thank you.
Randall: Thank you.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes
of the Planning Commission dated September 1, 2020.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
Randall: City Council update.
Generous: Oh it was a good one. They tabled the appeal and variance request for Highover Trail
last night so.
Randall: What did they do?
Generous: They tabled it.
Walters: That was the appeal and variance you heard a month ago. 6893 Highover Drive.
Skistad: The drainage issue.
Noyes: That’s where we had the 3-3 vote on our end?
Walters: No that was the one.
Generous: It was 6-0.
Walters: Yeah it was 6-0. That was the one where the applicant was appealing a staff
administrative decision believing that staff had made an error in our assessment of.
Generous: Not allowing them to build in the D and U.
Von Oven: And they tabled it?
Walters: The applicant submitted the plans to the City and that they believe will address staff’s
issue with the drainage and utility easement. Those plans were submitted about an hour before
close of business so staff had not had time to review them so in order to you know give a fair
assessment and to determine whether or not it was a viable solution both staff and the applicant
agreed to table the item pending our review.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 15, 2020
24
Generous: Secondly they approved the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary
adjustment for Powers Boulevard, south of 212. And they approved the Bluffs on Lake Lucy
which is the 4th Addition of The Park. And that’s it. And then your next Planning Commission
meeting on October 6th you actually have 3 public hearings. On a variance on 6915 Highover
Lane. It’s a bluff setback among other things. 7016 Dakota is a variance.
Walters: 7016 is a front yard setback and lot cover variance to expand a 2 car garage into a 3 car
garage and then add some living area behind in the existing footprint.
Generous: And then the third one would be an amendment to the Crossover, or Crossroads
planned unit development which is on 101 and Lyman there and site plan review for automotive
repair business. So it will be interesting. A little bit different. And we already have stuff
coming in for the middle of October so.
Randall: Alright do we have a motion for adjournment?
Commissioner Von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Subject City Council Action Update
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: E.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Action Update
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2020
The Bluffs at Lake Lucy Final Plat Approval (The Park 4th Addition) - Approved
Consider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls and
Variances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and Utility
Easements located at 6893 Highover Drive - Tabled
Consider an Appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundary Determination Made by a City
Administrative Officer for Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Highway 212 and Powers
Boulevard - Approved
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2020
Approve Code Amendment to Remove 1"=200' Scale Mylar Requirement – Approved
Approve Code Amendment to Correct IOP District Permitted Accessory Uses
Numbering – Approved
Approve Partial Release of Development Contract Chanhassen East Business Center 2nd
Addition – Approved
Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links.
g:\plan\forms\development forms\city council action update.docx