PC Minutes 1-5-21Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
16
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Aye
Weick: Thank you. I will call Commission Reeder. I’m not sure he joined though. I don’t think
so. No? OK. And Commissioner Randall?
Randall: Aye.
Weick: In favor. I also vote in favor. The motion passes, five in favor, one opposed and will go
to City Council with all comment attached. Thank you again everybody. Bob, thanks for your
presentation. Thank you to the applicant for being available and thank you to the commissioners
as always, important and educated input.
Von Oven moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the site plan for a 110-unit, three-story apartment building
with a variance for the building height to allow 42 feet to the midpoint of the roof subject to
the Conditions of Approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
The developer shall record cross parking and cross access agreements with the other
parcels in the Powers Ridge development. The motion passes with a vote of five in favor
and one opposed and will go to City Council with all comment attached.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3616 RED CEDAR POINT
Young-Walters: Thank you. This is Planning Case 2021-01. It is a variance to expand an existing
nonconforming deck at 3616 Red Cedar Point Road. As a reminder, if the Planning Commission
does not pass this or denies this by at ¾ majority vote, it will go to the City Council on
January 25, 2021. Additional, anyone aggrieved by decision of the Planning Commission, may
appear the decision and they will have four days to register an appeal with staff in writing which
would also then move it to the City Council. With that being said, I’ll jump into it. The location
is Red Cedar Point. We have had quite a few variances over the years in this area. This is 3616
Red Cedar Point here. It’s zoned Residential Single-Family. This is technically a corner lot due
to the presence of right-of-way (ROW) here. The zoning district requires a 20,000-square foot
minimum lot area, 30-foot setbacks from any street frontage so that would be 30 feet from the
east as well as the southern lot line and then 10-foot setbacks for the side yard and a 75-foot
shoreland setback. Properties in this area are limited to 25% lot cover, are permitted one water-
oriented accessory structure with a 10-foot setback from the lake and that structure would be
limited to 250 square feet in size. The existing conditions on this site. The lot is 7,206 square
feet. It has only 77½ feet of the required 90 feet of lot frontage along the south and only 45 of the
required 90 feet of lot frontage along the lake. The house has a nonconforming 72.8-foot
shoreland setback and the deck has a nonconforming 62-foot shoreland setback. It has a
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
17
nonconforming 15.3-foot front yard setback on the east and at 15-foot nonconforming setback on
the south. As a side note, the house does not meet the ordinance’s minimum size. No two-car
garage is present and the parking pad that services the property is located in the city’s ROW. So
quite a few nonconformities on the property. The applicant is proposing to expand the deck out
from the east and west walls of the home out to the edge of the existing deck stairs. This would
maintain the existing nonconforming lake setback. They are not proposing any new impervious
surface. They’ve stated that the existing deck does not provide a usable outdoor area. The
existing deck is right around 100 square feet. Surrounding properties have received variances to
allow for updates and improvements. Other properties in the area have decks that are similarly
sized to what they are proposing and the substandard lot size and existing home placement does
not allow for any improvement to the property without a variance. Staff did our usual
assessment. This is a very constrained parcel in an area where nearly every property is operating
under a variance or has an existing nonconformity. The proposed deck expansion would be 300
feet, about 28x10 and then with another 16 feet or so for a stairway. This seems to be pretty
reasonable given the size of decks and patios present on the surrounding properties. They aren’t
proposing any new lot cover and all of the improvements are still set quite a bit back from the
lake. Initially, the applicant had proposed having the stairs come off here, in red, which would
have increased the setback, I’m sorry decreased the setback to the lake by approximately an
additional five feet. Staff looked it over and didn’t see any reason to why the stairs couldn’t
come off the side. We contacted the applicant and asked if they’d be amendable to relocating the
stairs. They agreed so they will not be increasing the nonconformity. Regarding the east lot line
setback, this is an extremely unique corner lot. The ROW of the road along the east terminates
about half way down the property line and then becomes essentially a private drive serving five
houses. It’s extremely low traffic. Where the deck would be would not be interfering with the
road sight line. There is no property across the street that would have to look at it. It’s only four
feet above grade. It’s open construction. In this unique instance, staff does not see any concern
with granting a variance to allow that to go down to a 12-foot setback. So for these reasons, staff
would recommend that the Planning Commission grant the variance to permit the deck’s
expansion but require that the stairs be relocated to maintain the existing setback. I would be
happy to answer questions you may have.
Weick: Great, thank you, MacKenzie. Any questions for MacKenzie regarding this item?
Von Oven: I guess just real quick. You said there are a bunch of other variances in the area, are
they all basically the same, imposing on the setbacks of the lake, given that this is such a thin
strip of land?
Young-Walters: Yes, there are 16 of the properties within 500 feet have received variances and
25 different variances have been given to those. They run the gambit. There’s a lot of lot cover
variances due to the small size of the lots; there’s quite a few front yard setback variances, I want
to say 11 but I’m not checking my notes. I think I have that number in the staff report. Similar
number of variances from the shoreland. Staffs’ general rule has been for the shoreland to try to
hold properties to the extent of their existing nonconformity, so to not let them go closer to the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
18
lake then the original house was built. I hope that answers your questions, if not I can look up the
numbers quick for you.
Von Oven: No that was perfect. Thank you.
Skistad: MacKenzie, this is Laura. So if they move the stairs, there’s room to do that and still
maintain the setback and it doesn’t run into another one of the setback?
Young-Walters: Nope, great question. Because this is a corner lot, any of the setbacks that aren’t
facing the street is reduced to a 10-foot. So if you look here, you’ll see there is a 20½-foot
distance from the edge of the house to that lot line. Even assuming they went with a five- or six-
foot wide stair which is wider than the typical four-foot you’d see, they’d still have 16 feet, I’m
sorry, 14 feet on that side which would give them four fee to spare off that 10-foot side setback
so should be plenty of room.
Skistad: OK. Thank you.
Weick: Thanks, everyone. I’m not sure if the applicant is on the line but if you are you are
welcome to speak about this project.
Simning: You guys get me again.
Weick: Hey, alright!
Simning: Todd Simning, this time representing Dave Melin and Adore Homes. Anyway,
MacKenzie, we’ve been working through this for the last month or so and obviously, Dave and I
are onboard to move the staircase over. Honestly, unless anybody has any other questions, we
don’t have a whole lot to add to the conversation.
Weick: OK, thank you. Any questions, from the commissioners? As has been noted, I don’t like
the silence at all so just start talking randomly. Thank you very much. I think it’s pretty straight
forward from the staff report and from what MacKenzie presented already. With that I would
open the public hearing portion of this item. The call-in number is on your screen at 952-227-
1630. While people are dialing, did we have any email?
Young-Walters: We received one email initially expressing concern about the potential for
impervious surface to be added. Once it was explained that it was decking and would pervious,
they were not concerned. That was the only contact we had.
Weick: OK. Plus they are well under the lot cover, are they not?
Young-Walters: They’re only at a little over 14%.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
19
Weick: OK. Thank you. No one is here in Chambers with us today, I did not hear the telephone
ring. With that I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open for commissioner
comment, motion, and uncomfortable silence.
Skistad: I’ll go ahead and make a motion unless I’m interrupting someone who wants to
comment.
Weick: Go ahead Commissioner Skistad.
Skistad: OK. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustment appeal 13-foot shoreline and
18-foot east front yard setback variances to replace and expand the deck subject to the
Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Skistad. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Noyes: Chairman, I’ll second. Commissioner Noyes.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Noyes. Any final comment before we vote? With that I will
conduct a roll call vote. Commissioner Randall?
Randall: Aye.
Weick: In favor. Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Von Oven?
Von Oven: Aye.
Weick: Thank you and I also vote in favor.
Skistad moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustment
approve the 13-foot shoreline and 18-foot east front yard setback variances to replace and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
20
expand the deck subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of
Facts and Decision. The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 6-0.
Weick: Jumping, leaping over our ¾ hurdle. Thank you everybody and thank you, MacKenzie,
for your presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A GOLF
DRIVING RANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 825 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
GOLF ZONE)
Young-Walter: This is Planning Case 2021-02 and the Chairman said, this is a request for an
Interim Use Permit (IUP) resume operating a golf driving range on a property that is zoned
Agricultural Estate. Because this is an IUP, it will go before the City Council on January 25,
2021 with the recommendation that the Planning Commission at this time. This is an overview of
the site. As was mentioned, the present zoning is Agricultural Estate. The city’s 2040 Land Use
Plan calls for the northern section that is outside of the flood plane to be guided for office use
and the rest of it to be agriculture. The site is a little over 97 acres. Currently, it is not in use,
however, it was a golf driving range from 1998 to 2018 and the applicant is essentially proposing
to resume operations. They are not proposed any change or alteration to the site of expansion of
facilities. A little bit of background. There are quite a few different case numbers associated with
this. Site Plan 98-8, Interim Use Permit 98-2, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-2 and Wetland
Alteration Permit (WAP) 98-1. The verify brief background on those is that in July of 1998, the
city approved the site plan and IUP, CUP and WAP to allow the initial driving range to begin
operation. The next year, they amended that site plan to allow a second story to be constructed
over the driving dens and then they also amended the City Code to allow the service 3.2% malt
liquor on the site. In October 2006, the owner at that time requested a site plan amendment and
variances to allow an 11,100-square foot additional to the site so they significantly expanded the
club house and in 2018 then the driving range closed. Under our City Code, an IUP, if inactive
for six months and is no longer valid which is why the new owner of the site is requesting a new
IUP. The applicant’s proposal to resume operation of the golf driving range, as I noted earlier,
they will be using the existing facilities. They are not proposing the construction of any new
buildings, they’re not proposing any grading or alterations or expansion of the site. They will be
conducting obviously, any needed repairs and maintenance to get the building up to Code and
inviting and well-kept again, but they are proposing substantially the same business model and
scope of operations that were present on the original golf driving range. This is a very interesting
site and it has a lot of environmentally-sensitive features. I just pulled up a quick GIS map.
These are all preserved-class wetlands and this is the Minnesota River floodplain. So as you can
see, a portion of the driving range is within the floodplain but the building itself is out of the 100-
year or 1% annual flood chance region and golf driving ranges are a permitted use within the
floodplain under our City Code. Because they aren’t proposing any alterations within these areas;
the driving range is well clear of the wetlands and it’s allowed in the floodplain and the buildings
are clear, neither the Watershed District nor Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have