08-17-21 Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2021, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Approve a Request for a Variance to Allow Construction of an Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Within an Existing SingleFamily Residence on Property Located at 1800
Lake Lucy Road
2.Approve a Request for a Variance for Lot Cover and Setback Variances to Construct
a Porch and Deck on Property Located at 6287 Chaska Road
C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated July 20, 2021
D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.City Council Action Update
E.ADJOURNMENT
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
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, August 17, 2021
Subject Approve a Request for a Variance to Allow Construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Within an Existing SingleFamily Residence on Property Located at 1800 Lake Lucy Road
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the variance
request for the use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a variance to remodel their basement to create a second dwelling unit, commonly called an
accessory dwelling unit (ADU). They have stated that the intent of the variance request is to allow their children to
move in with them since the applicant has developed health concerns and would like to live with their family. Since the
City Code restricts lots zoned Rural Residential to having a singledwelling unit, a variance is required to permit this use.
The applicant has stated that the renovations and addition will not significantly alter the home’s appearance, and that
since their home is situated on a wooded 2.5 acre lot, the changes would not be visible from the street. They have also
noted that their design calls for the upper and lower level to be connected by two stairways which will be left open and
that the utilities will not be split.
Generally speaking, the City cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 2059 does allow for the City to grant
variances for use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, so long as four conditions are met. A variance of
this nature has been requested four times since 2000, and all four of these requests were granted once the applicants
demonstrated that they met or agreed to meet the ordinance’s requirements. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s
proposed home and statement of need, and believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 2059 of the
City Code for granting the requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
APPLICANT
Merle and Diane Steinkraus, 1800 Lake Lucy Road, Excelsior, MN 55331
SITE INFORMATION
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, August 17, 2021SubjectApprove a Request for a Variance to Allow Construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)Within an Existing SingleFamily Residence on Property Located at 1800 Lake Lucy RoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the variancerequest for the use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval andadopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a variance to remodel their basement to create a second dwelling unit, commonly called anaccessory dwelling unit (ADU). They have stated that the intent of the variance request is to allow their children tomove in with them since the applicant has developed health concerns and would like to live with their family. Since theCity Code restricts lots zoned Rural Residential to having a singledwelling unit, a variance is required to permit this use.The applicant has stated that the renovations and addition will not significantly alter the home’s appearance, and thatsince their home is situated on a wooded 2.5 acre lot, the changes would not be visible from the street. They have alsonoted that their design calls for the upper and lower level to be connected by two stairways which will be left open andthat the utilities will not be split.Generally speaking, the City cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 2059 does allow for the City to grantvariances for use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, so long as four conditions are met. A variance ofthis nature has been requested four times since 2000, and all four of these requests were granted once the applicantsdemonstrated that they met or agreed to meet the ordinance’s requirements. Staff has reviewed the applicant’sproposed home and statement of need, and believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 2059 of theCity Code for granting the requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.APPLICANTMerle and Diane Steinkraus, 1800 Lake Lucy Road, Excelsior, MN 55331
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: "RR" Rural Residential District
LAND USE:Residential Large Lot
ACREAGE: 2.49
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article VII, “Shoreland Management District”
Chapter 20, Article XI, “RR” Rural Residential District
Section 20592, Permitted uses
BACKGROUND
In April of 1987, the City issued a permit for the construction of a detached garage.
In June of 1988, the City issued a permit for the construction of a new home.
In April of 1989, the City issued a permit to demolish a preexisting home on the property.
In July of 2000, the City issued a permit for an addition and deck.
On February 18, 2021, the applicant applied for a permit for a basement remodel and addition. Since this remodel
created a separate entrance and kitchen in the basement, staff informed the applicant that a variance would be required.
On March 3, 2021, the applicant submitted revisions removing the proposed basement kitchen.
On June 15, 2021, the City issued a permit for the revised remodel and addition.
On July 16, 2021, the applicant applied for a variance to permit the use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily
dwelling.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve the
variance request for the use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval
and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after
plan review.
3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a singlefamily home (i.e. single driveway, single main
entrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans dated May 26, 2021.
4. Unobstructed access between the upper and lower level must be maintained via the stairways.
5. Separate utility services may not be established.
6. The dwelling units may not be rented as separate units, and the occupants of both must be related.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, August 17, 2021SubjectApprove a Request for a Variance to Allow Construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)Within an Existing SingleFamily Residence on Property Located at 1800 Lake Lucy RoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the variancerequest for the use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval andadopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a variance to remodel their basement to create a second dwelling unit, commonly called anaccessory dwelling unit (ADU). They have stated that the intent of the variance request is to allow their children tomove in with them since the applicant has developed health concerns and would like to live with their family. Since theCity Code restricts lots zoned Rural Residential to having a singledwelling unit, a variance is required to permit this use.The applicant has stated that the renovations and addition will not significantly alter the home’s appearance, and thatsince their home is situated on a wooded 2.5 acre lot, the changes would not be visible from the street. They have alsonoted that their design calls for the upper and lower level to be connected by two stairways which will be left open andthat the utilities will not be split.Generally speaking, the City cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 2059 does allow for the City to grantvariances for use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, so long as four conditions are met. A variance ofthis nature has been requested four times since 2000, and all four of these requests were granted once the applicantsdemonstrated that they met or agreed to meet the ordinance’s requirements. Staff has reviewed the applicant’sproposed home and statement of need, and believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 2059 of theCity Code for granting the requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.APPLICANTMerle and Diane Steinkraus, 1800 Lake Lucy Road, Excelsior, MN 55331SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: "RR" Rural Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Large LotACREAGE: 2.49 DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, Section 12, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article VII, “Shoreland Management District”Chapter 20, Article XI, “RR” Rural Residential DistrictSection 20592, Permitted usesBACKGROUNDIn April of 1987, the City issued a permit for the construction of a detached garage.In June of 1988, the City issued a permit for the construction of a new home.In April of 1989, the City issued a permit to demolish a preexisting home on the property.In July of 2000, the City issued a permit for an addition and deck.On February 18, 2021, the applicant applied for a permit for a basement remodel and addition. Since this remodelcreated a separate entrance and kitchen in the basement, staff informed the applicant that a variance would be required.On March 3, 2021, the applicant submitted revisions removing the proposed basement kitchen.On June 15, 2021, the City issued a permit for the revised remodel and addition.On July 16, 2021, the applicant applied for a variance to permit the use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamilydwelling.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve thevariance request for the use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approvaland adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure meets allrequirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required afterplan review.3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a singlefamily home (i.e. single driveway, single mainentrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans dated May 26, 2021.4. Unobstructed access between the upper and lower level must be maintained via the stairways.5. Separate utility services may not be established.6. The dwelling units may not be rented as separate units, and the occupants of both must be related.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact (Approval)
Variance Document
Development Review Application
Narrative
Survey
Proposed Plan
Affidavit of Mailing
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: August 17, 2021
CC DATE: September 13, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: Sept. 14, 2021
CASE #: PC 2021-16
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling. While variances for uses are not normally allowed, the City Code specifically
allows for this use variance to be granted to facilitate the care of aging family members so long
as the structure maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling, separate utility services are
not established, and the variance will not negatively impact the neighborhood.
LOCATION: 1800 Lake Lucy Road
APPLICANT: Merle and Diane Steinkraus
1800 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
OWNER: Jason and Tara Steinkraus
5712 Erving Avenue S.
Edina, MN 55410
PRESENT ZONING: “RR” – Rural Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Large Lot
ACREAGE: 2.49 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.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of
a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
1800 Lake Lucy Road
August 17, 2021
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance to remodel their basement to create a second dwelling unit,
commonly called an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). They have stated that the intent of the
variance request is to allow their children to move in with them since the applicant has developed
health concerns and would like to live with their family. Since the City Code restricts lots zoned
Rural Residential to having a single-dwelling unit, a variance is required to permit this use.
The applicant has stated that the renovations and addition will not significantly alter the home’s
appearance, and that since their home is situated on a wooded 2.5 acre lot, the changes would not
be visible from the street. They have also noted that their design calls for the upper and lower
level to be connected by two stairways which will be left open and that the utilities will not be
split.
Generally speaking, the City cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 20-59 does allow
for the City to grant variances for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, so
long as four conditions are met. A variance of this nature has been requested four times since
2000, and all four of these requests were granted once the applicants demonstrated that they met
or agreed to meet the ordinance’s requirements. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s proposed
home and statement of need, and believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 20-
59 of the City Code for granting the requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends
approval of the requested variance.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article VII, “Shoreland Management District”
Chapter 20, Article XI, “RR” Rural Residential District
Section 20-592, Permitted uses
BACKGROUND
In April of 1987, the City issued a permit for the construction of a detached garage.
In June of 1988, the City issued a permit for the construction of a new home.
In April of 1989, the City issued a permit to demolish a preexisting home on the property.
In July of 2000, the City issued a permit for an addition and deck.
On February 18, 2021, the applicant applied for a permit for a basement remodel and addition.
Since this remodel created a separate entrance and kitchen in the basement, staff informed the
applicant that a variance would be required.
On March 3, 2021, the applicant submitted revisions removing the proposed basement kitchen.
1800 Lake Lucy Road
August 17, 2021
Page 3
On June 15, 2021, the City issued a permit for the revised remodel and addition.
On July 16, 2021, the applicant applied for a variance to permit the use of a single-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
The property is zoned Rural Residential District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a
minimum of 2.5 acres, have front and rear yard setbacks of 50 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet,
and limits parcels to a maximum of 20 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35
feet in height.
The lot is 2.49 acres and it and all structures present on the site appear to meet all of the
requirements of the City Code.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are no bluffs on the property.
Floodplain Overlay
This property is not within a floodplain.
Shoreland Management
The property is within the Shoreland Management District; however the property is not riparian
and the Rural Residential District has a lower lot cover limit than the Shoreland Management
District. No aspect of the requested variance falls under any provision of the Shoreland
Management Ordinance.
Wetland Protection
There is not a wetland on the development site.
1800 Lake Lucy Road
August 17, 2021
Page 4
NEIGHBORHOOD
Lake Lucy Highlands
The plat for this area was recorded in
March of 1986. This is one of several large
lot subdivisions that was approved before
the 1987 one-unit per ten-acre density limit
went into effect. Houses in this subdivision
are on septic and well and have a minimum
lot size of 2.5 acres. Wetlands, bluff and
wooded areas are present throughout the
subdivision, and natural features provide a
high amount of screening between most
neighboring homes. Many of the homes in
the subdivision are larger than average and
are setback a significant distance from the
street. Based on aerial photos of the area, it appears some of the homes may have nonconforming
bluff or wetland setbacks, but overall most homes appear to conform to the City Code.
Variances within 500 feet:
There are no known variances within 500’ of the subject property.
ANALYSIS
Single-Family Dwelling as Two-Family Dwelling
The applicant is requesting a variance to convert their basement into an ADU. Granting the
requested variance would allow the applicant to construct a two-family dwelling unit on a
property zoned for a single-family dwelling. Ordinarily, the City cannot grant variances for uses,
i.e. a variance cannot be granted to use a property zoned single-family residential for an
industrial use like a brick factory; however, Section 20-59 of the City Code allows for the City to
issue variances to use a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, so long as four
conditions are met.
Specifically, Section 20-59 states:
A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only
be allowed under the following circumstances:
(1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship.
(2) The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the
maintenance of one driveway and one main entry.
(3) Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.).
1800 Lake Lucy Road
August 17, 2021
Page 5
(4) The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of
the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
The applicant has stated that they are requesting the variance in order to allow them to share their
home with their son’s family. The applicant has noted that he has recently developed a heart
condition and that the requested variance would give him and his wife the opportunity to spend
their senior years with their family. The applicant’s situation meets the requirements of the first
condition for granting the requested variance and is in line with the ordinance’s intent to provide
an option for residents to live with aging parents. If the variance is approved, a condition should
be placed on the approval requiring that the ADU be occupied by individuals that are related to
the homeowner and preventing its rental as a separate unit.
The proposed addition
would add approximately
400 square feet to the
building’s lower level.
The extra space would
allow them to relocate
the existing lower level
garage to create room for
a mudroom, laundry, and
expanded lower level
bedroom with a private
bath and walk-in closet.
The lower level ADU
would also feature a
kitchen, dining, and
living area. All told, the
lower level ADU would
have approximately
2,000 sq. ft. of living area. The ADU could be accessed either through a pair of stairs connecting
it to the home’s main level, a lower level patio door, or the lower level single stall garage.
Staff would ordinarily recommend against the creation of a separate garage to serve an ADU;
however, in this case there is already a lower level garage present on the property and the
property’s distance from the road combines with existing vegetation to effectively screen the
lower level garage from view. Since no effort is being made to architecturally distinguish the
lower patio door as an entrance and the rear facing garage door is a pre-existing characteristic,
staff believes that the proposal meets the second required condition by maintaining the
appearance of a single-family home. In order to prevent the lower level from being converted to
a completely separate unit with the garage serving as its main entrance, staff recommends that if
the variance is approved a condition should be placed on the approval requiring that unobstructed
access between the upper and lower levels be maintained and preventing the establishment of
separate utility services.
1800 Lake Lucy Road
August 17, 2021
Page 6
Staff has reviewed the
proposed plans and the
renderings of the house’s
exterior and believes that
it is consistent with that
of a single-family home.
While not common,
other homes in the City
have rear facing garage
doors providing access
to storage areas and the
overall look of the
property’s rear elevation
remains that of a single-
family home. As was
noted earlier, the City
has approved a permit
for the addition without the kitchen; addition of a lower level kitchen will not alter the exterior
appearance of the home.
Given the above, staff believes that the applicant’s proposal meets all of the criteria required to
issue a variance for an ADU on the property and recommends approving the requested variance.
Impact on Neighborhood
Lake Lucy Highlands is one of the City’s
large lot residential neighborhoods.
Homes in this neighborhood are situated
on lots at least 2.5 acres in size. Most
homes are setback on their lots and many
are screened from neighboring properties
by mature vegetation. Given the location
of the applicant’s home in relation to
their neighbor’s residences and the fact
that the variance only pertains to the
interior configuration of the home, it is
unlikely that granting the requested
variance would have any impact on the
neighboring properties.
The variance request for an ADU to allow for the applicant to live with their child’s family is not
expected to generate the traffic, noise, or transient population concerns that can be associated
with placing multi-unit properties within single-family neighborhoods. The City has granted
several variances for ADUs in other neighborhoods and to staff’s knowledge they have generated
no complaints. Additionally, a condition that the ADU not be rented out will be attached to the
1800 Lake Lucy Road
August 17, 2021
Page 7
variance to prevent the property from subsequently being sold or used as a duplex. Staff does not
believe that granting the requested variance would negatively impact any of the surrounding
properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, approve the variance request for the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts
and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code;
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home (i.e.
single driveway, single main entrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans
dated May 26, 2021.
4. Unobstructed access between the upper and lower level must be maintained via the
stairways.
5. Separate utility services may not be established.
6. The dwelling units may not be rented as separate units, and the occupants of both must be
related.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
2. Variance Document (Approval)
3. Development Review Application
4. Variance Narrative
5. Survey
6. Proposed Plan
7. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-16 1800 lake lucy road var\staff report_1800 lake lucy road_var.docx
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\2e3efbb8-fb9b-4fc8-be06-
4709af63fa4f\chanhassen.10182.1.findings_of_fact_and_decision_1800_lake_lucy_road__(approval).docx
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Merle and Diane Steinkraus, for a variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling on a property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) - Planning Case 2021-16.
On August 17, 2021, 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 Rural Residential District (RR).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Large Lot.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 8, Block 1, Lake Lucy Highlands
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-59 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling:
a. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship.
Finding: The applicant has stated that they have developed a heart condition and wishes to
spend his senior years with his son’s family.
b. The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the
maintenance of one driveway and one main entry.
Finding: The applicant is not proposing to significantly alter the exterior façade of the home.
The variance will allow for the applicant to install a second kitchen in the basement, a change
that will not alter the exterior appearance of the home. While the house is somewhat atypical
in that it features a rear facing garage door that provides access to the lower level accessory
dwelling unit, this is a pre-existing feature and there is no architecturally distinct second
entryway. Additionally, the applicant’s proposal allows for free access between the upper and
lower levels of the house and conditions have been placed on the variance to prevent the
separation of these spaces.
c. Separate utility services are not established (e.g., gas, water, sewer, etc.).
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\2e3efbb8-fb9b-4fc8-be06-
4709af63fa4f\chanhassen.10182.1.findings_of_fact_and_decision_1800_lake_lucy_road__(approval).docx
2
Finding: Separate utility services are not proposed and will not be established.
d. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the
residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
Finding: The variance request for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to allow the applicant’s
children to move in with them due to health concerns is not expected to generate the traffic,
noise, or transient population concerns that can be associated with placing multi-unit
properties within single-family neighborhoods. The home is situated on a wooded 2.49 acre
lot and is setback a significant distance from the road meaning that there is a large amount of
screening and distance between this home and other members of the community. The City
has granted several variances for ADUs in other neighborhoods and to staff’s knowledge
they have generated no complaints. Additionally, conditions have been placed on the
variance to prevent the property from subsequently being sold or used as a duplex. Granting
the requested variance is not expected to negatively impact any of the surrounding properties,
and is in line with the City Code’s intent that residents have the option to provide in-home
care for family members while allowing them to maintain independence.
5. The planning report #2021-16, dated August 17, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters,
is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use
of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional
comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home (i.e. single
driveway, single main entrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans dated
May 26, 2021.
4. Unobstructed access between the upper and lower level must be maintained via the stairways.
5. Separate utility services may not be established.
6. The dwelling units may not be rented as separate units, and the occupants of both must be
related.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of August, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-16
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the
use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 8, Block 1, Lake Lucy Highlands.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code;
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home (i.e.
single driveway, single main entrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans
dated May 26, 2021.
4. Unobstructed access between the upper and lower level must be maintained via the
stairways.
5. Separate utility services may not be established.
6. The dwelling units may not be rented as separate units, and the occupants of both must be
related.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not
been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
2
Dated: August 17, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by
its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-16 1800 lake lucy road var\variance document 21-16.docx
QC 2t- tQ nv",t
COMMUN]TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227- 1 100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 CITY OT CIIII{HISSII{
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
(Refet to the W@priate Applbdhm checuis, tor tquhed submittal infoflr,ation that mug- @ wnyu1,is applbalidt)
E Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... 9600E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... glOO
E Subdivision (SUB)
! Create 3 lots or less ...........$300
E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
E Single-Family Residence ..E Al others......
E Create over 3 lots ...$600 + $15 Per lot
$325
$425
I Metes & BoundsE Consolidate Lots
(
(2 lots) ....:::l ................... $300
I tnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln conjunction with SiE alt otners..................
ngle-Family Residence..$325
$425
E Lot Line Adjustment.........
E Final P1a1..........................
...$150
...$150
... $700
E Rezoning (REZ)
E Phnned Unit Development (PUD) .............Ll Minor Amendment to existing PUD............! ett otners......
... $750
... $100
... $500
(lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs).
'Additional oscrow may bs Equirrd for othe. apptications
tiough the developrnent contrad.
E Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $3OO
(Additioml tEcoding fees may apply)
EJ Varianc€ (VAR). $2ooE Sign Plan Review............. $150 E Wetland Alteration
E SingleFamilyE rut otners.......
E Site Ptan Review (S
E Administrative...
PR)
Permit (WAP)
Residence....... $150
. $275
. $100
. $500
! Commercial/lndustial Districts'...
.............. $100
.............. $500 ! Zoning Appea|........................Plus $10 p6r 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet)tlnclude numbor of glglhg emptoys€s:
'lnclude number of 4gg employeei:
E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA).....
tr Residential Districts......................... $s00 !!!IE: When multlplo appllcations aro procossod concur6n{y,
the app.opriato foo shall b9 charged for elch application.Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
f, ruomcation Sign (city to insral and r6mow) . . . . ......... $200
[l Property Owners' List within 5OO' (City to gercrare afte. prB,apptication meetins) ...... $3 per address
D Escrow for Recording Documents (check aE Condltional Use Permit
! Vacation
! Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)
( z.l addresses)
ll that apply)...............
E lnterim Use Permit
............... $50 per document
trn Variance
Easements (_ easements)
E Site Plan Agreement
E Wetland Alteration Permit
E Deeds f ..
TOTAL FEE: -/r
Description of Proposal:
Property Address or Location:
Parcfll#: ? ;-ILDTD1AO LegatDescription:o
Total Acreag e: ?.46 Wetlands Present?EvesEruo L o-f Oo c<O
Present Zoning:Selec-t One (e.51 J Requested Zoning . Select One " l&)o I
Presenl Land Use Desig nation. Selec,t One Requested Land Use Designatio
Existing Use of Property:
Application Type (check all that apply)Section 1
Section 2: Required lnformation
fiCtrecf Oox if separate narrative is attiacfred
n. Select One
v^i
.,**,*,',7 / tG / 3-( ,co.",8 l11 [-,]L ccDa,'g./!3L}L 6&oayRevbwDara:Tl,qt tt
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner lo file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation offull legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I wilt keep m)6etf informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the intormation and exhibits submitted are true and conect.
lllzr/z * D,'*.9 t'a,r'tKrazts
U
City/State4i
email: /{t
p 5933 q9z- 21 2 - 4730
sQ/L,.\2-n 00. L4 Fax:
DateSignature:
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing 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 al the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep mysetf informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submifted are true and conect.
Na ,",:t4Son F T44.4 Sfr-rn Yra,'*t1 Contact:n
Address:I Pho
ci o Cell:
Fax:
Date
L 1,5- o
I . cow)Email:
Signature:
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:Contact
Phone:Address:
Cell:
Fax:
E Property Owner Via: E Email
E Applicant Ma: E Email
! Engineer Via: E Email
E Omef Via: E Email
D uaiteo Paper copy
f| Maited Paper Copy
E Mailed Paper Copy
fl Mailed Paper Copy
Address:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete all necessaryform fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to )rour
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to se nd a digital
copy to the city for processing.
PRINT FORM suBmlT FoRl{
or
I
This application musl be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
Section 4: Notification lnformation
City/State/Zip:
Email:
conracr',Ll,zLL-Jla-a-fu rA-
Phone: _
Name:
Address:
Citv/StateZio:
Email:
Vl2b I '- |
Who should r€celve copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnformation :
Name:
SAVE FORM
RE: Building Permit
1800 Lake Lucy Road
To whom it may concern,
I am applying for a building permit to create living quarters in the lower level of our home. The house
will be shared with our son and his wife who is expecting their second child. No si8nificant changes to
the outside of the house will be made. Only a bump out of the lower-level garage door and one window
changed out. None of this is visible from the street, as we have a large, wooded 2y. aCJe lot. The lower
level is connected to the main level by two stairways. These stairways will be left open. The utilities are
not being split.
There are apparently issues of concern with the city planning department. My wife and I believe this to
be a wonderful opportunity to spend our senior years with our family. I have developed serious health
issues related to my heart and would appreciate the ability to live with family. At any rate, this would be
a temporary situation with no expectations for a permanent second residency.
Sincerely,
Merle Steinkraus
rlL,,a, /A^p-"^-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTYOFCARVER )
lm ssen. D Clerk
JEAt,l M SIECK Lil\IG
llotary RtlilMhno.c,t6It tuti..b Egha,f,| Si. ZCAa
Notary Publ
re me
,2021.
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
August 5, 2021, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice of Public
Hearing for a request for a variance to allow construction of an accessorT dwelling unit
within an existing single-famity residence on property located at 1800 Lake Lucy Road,
zoned Rural Residential, Planning Case No.2021-16 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 ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the
records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and
thiSfr day
to
Subject
Parcel
oisclaimel
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a suoey and is not intended to be used
asone. This map as a compilation of records. informataon and daE located an vaious clty.
county. state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and as lo
be used for referen@ purposes only. The City does not warant that lhe Geographic
lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare lhis map arc enor free. and lhe City does
not represent that the Gls oata can be used for navigational. lracking or any other
purpose requiring exactrng measuremenl of clistance ol direction or precision in the
depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided puGuant to
Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and lhe user of lhis map aclnowiedges
that lhe City shall not be liable for any damages, and etpressly waives all claims and
agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmlesg lhe City from any and all claims brought
by User, its employees or agents, or thard panies which arise out of the useis access or
use of data provided
(Next RecordD(TAX_NAME)D
(TAX_ADD_Llll
<TAX ADD L2tr
Dbclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded maP nor a suNey and is not iniended to be used
as one. This map is a compilation of records, informatjon and data located in various city,
county, state and tederal offces and other solrces regading the area shown. and as to
be used for refercn@ purposes only. The City do€s not warant that the Geographic
lnformaton System (GlS) Data ured to preparc this map are er.or f.ee, and lhe Crty does
not represenl thal the GIS Data can te used for navigational. tracking or any other
pupose requiring exacting moasurement of distance or direction or precision in the
depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to
Minnesotra StatLrtes 5465.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user ot this map acknowledges
that lhe City shall not be liable lor any damages, and exprcssly waives all claims. and
agrces to deiend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City trom any and all claims brcught
by User, (5 employees or agents, or thild part* which arise out of the us€is access or
use ol data provided
4.,
l.I .ry
,
i
L
-f
r.l
.J
Il-
l'):l
(
(TAX_NAMED
<TAX_ADD_Ll r
<TAX ADD L2l
r}!I
rl'*T
I
ffi
6
\
'_l___-..
fl
'!.(
I
I
Subiect
Parcel
0)9q)E-€'E6Eg.
o E; o<
;xt: e,
B'-; ;g589;E
3g8EEiSeEE
SfAE:
=oodg
\'.*EF
H sa.P-3.tEp-5gE;5.8
€8PB;
iEe Ee
a itd 5
.9NcoYo
G
oocoo
q)
oo
o,
o
0)
o
.9-c
fo-o(5
tl.)coq)
tr
6
=
@
NoN
o5
(,oooE
t!
o
='t
q)
(5o
o-
or-.E6
tl, otD o,cGLO
9oi lt)o3
ocb9-oEo?
=d,=>E(DJ-E'
€H
Yd
9Eo-dl
=
->.
(.) ='to
oQF:
o
(5
E()
-o
q)
=(5
=o)cfo
o
o
=E
o
6
.v
E
=fo
'6t;i
C
E
c
c)
o
.c,co
-co'-
G
c
rl)
o)
Ec
.o
.9.
E
Eoo
.E
coil
o)E
o
o
(!o
J
.c,F
-p
.goo
0)c
.gooc(!
(l)
d.)
=
l(!
,Eoo
G
(!F
!co
Co
(o
.i
L
o
E
o
o
.9.
!oot
(.)
=J
o
6)oo
@
o
E
o
.g
E- , A9,=BE
-EE
"gE
.1
Eet EteEO- - (I-cO cEPE 9:=(!5
=
e ob ir3dE E95Pe
= -e
=
ti p b*".EE
E $E EE;fi
;g= E:gfEEI SiHe+S= 3'.8eE;Eq
=;&etEEE Ee EE.9 -c.= (/)/)F()(L; ot(E 0
=',= -c O)
o c(J /r-N(.)st
lo
-o(!
fo
E
o
.E
.9
c,)c.E
ooE
.9
-o:o
.9-c
o
o
oo-
fo,
lt)-cF
c)-c
oq)
oE
o
J
.9o
E
,E
a.E
,E
-q
€
E
q
.9
F
c
ctoo
N
o
Noc!
t-
f
c')
=
j
oE
o3F
E
co
o
o
ooF.F-
U;
c)-o
E(!E
cfoO
(5
I
O
io
8c;oooc-o)l5.YtE
O=qk
Eq:6o)
EPoA
Ec
oi
o-
PEQc
(!!
;:
E56qo!
6(De:
tt
E
E
o)p
on
6-(.
p
o)coN
o
o(,
oi
-o
ID
=
=o
o).c,
o
ooo(\,o
o-f
E(!
oop
oco
o
f.s
tr
ot
o
o(5
o-
c
.9
o
E
oc
o
o
!co
o
E
0.)
o
o)
o
o
f
c,9
@
=UJz
([
!c
0)(,'o
o,c
lt)o
Ec
0)
=
=c
o
0)
E
c
5c
Eco
(!
.c,c([.cq
q
3
B;
E
E
q
e
!!6
B
!
I q
6
s
E
E
!
E !
e
E
o
€
p
-e
E
;
E
E
E p
3
q
E I 9ItEE
E
p
3EqE
EEEg-95IE
E
s
E
Ie
o
q
q
EE
s
E
E
E _9Eqq
g
e €,I
E
e
6
a IE
E
t
6
3II
3
6
5
I
IE
E
EE E
ts
E a
E
Eg
-g
Q
E
E
a
a9E
E
q
E a
s
6
.d E
3
Eo
E
!E E
E
6
E
s
a
6
E
3
tqa
9
IE
a
=
E g
cd ..o9ECOo
o=il, Efooo
t!o
e
(,
;o
E(,
CIo
G
>Eto!, ,E
aL t!eto-J
9i;
o,=
o.xi=
eA,r! .c
=E
id
i:
oa
o
Go
o
t!(,oJ
Eooat
eo-
oE
oo
=E
9r.o.:o:.9iiErE
.9oEo:tDG.E
o=o(!.9docz3
o.!
Et!.Eo
t,,
5{,(,
=PE
16(a0, '=:EEoE
=o€odp
L.=otr
EEEo-ze
oot!
E
a!
o
o
E
c;
.g
.=
=
Ea
_9
F
doo
t-
(o
No
N
l-
fo)f
jop
o)fF
E2m
n)
o
=ootrF.
c)
-o
E(E
-cO
(.)
C
=o
oI
o
E.t
.(oc
c)p
ot
E
ftooc
N
(.,oc(,p
o
=E.S([d)
oo)-cO!,Eor
9*.60)oc
=o(Ei
9-a=
cJ(!0)
>o)(E=
gE€3'-*3YA6xoxE6
:,p
.g
n)a
EoF
Eco
co
o
.9
o
I
o
B
ID
6roq
tc
o -123^
oE
a6
5tao-r<
o
o)c
o
fo
,9E
n).c, _Zp b€EgE E
g;;E aB"g
; i P-s, e*':: -E;1,iE Aiet
neEe EgExE O Y O .Q;!o-o^O.c >6O0)iE a o h o.Z @EPE o > d3:o6; f Y= O I
; aE; gEE;
H*El
=
sEi
+ge-=eH#5;
F o c(J ir-N(.rst
c
0)o
Ec
,9
.q
E
Eo
,=cco(I
o.c
o
o'-
E
J
.c,F
(,t O)rl 9o)cl ho
.c el- i PSN cl F x',= (o
6 gE;
=
eP
EEIEgT:-g,iElsetiS
nd!gctE
ETIiET5E
;;rc fl -i BE
FHNg*Eg
5aHr-aEg
EETEg'.8
Eg: E E fi*
EgSEeEC3; b;b5 3
o
6
o
c
>
f,o
=tri
FoN
o
i
E
ooo(g
trt!
(,.-:q
=B
B
='=
o
oo
o-
ct-Eooo)oo)coLd
9-oI C,'6B
ocb9-oEgB
E9E(l)l'oo_
€Hxo6+0xo- u,
=
->,o='to
oQ
cif
C,s
o
c)tr
oc
?c
E
c
o.)
(oEc(s
.c,q.5
=;
o
o(,
ot
-oq)
=
6
0.)-c
o
!
o)E(5ool
Eo
o
o)p
!co
o
f
.g
E
ti
o)
(!o
!;(!
!a
o)c')(!
o)cFo()
Ec
0)-c
=c
'ioo
,E
oc
n)
o
Ec(5
o
E
11)
0)
'6
o
o)
o
o-a
c.9a
=uJz
2
6
E
6
d
s
>:
9P
96
E;5i_9
Bt
3E>;
Ei
E
a
3
I
9
E
E
E
p
I
a
6
0
.t!
iI
e
Ep
E
9
8
p
i
P
et
!
8
I
I
I
,5
E-
e
s
I
E
9
.!
I
3
t
5
E
I
9
g
t
e
€
-9
_c
E
E
E
E
6
.9
EE
E
P
I
g
I
E
,.
3I
I
9
g
p
9
g
EE
q
a
E
E
I
E
E
!
;
6
6'
q
E
E
!
q
Ii
E
E
9
E
I
!
E:
t
E
E
E
:
9
€
E
3
E
EI
_q
_9
9
I
E
E
3I
t
9
g
e
r
t
E
sb
Pr
Ep
3C9:
9B
F9
oE
En
5P
E3
s5
!
e
a
5-
I
E..,Es.3Eeh
F Et
€"re
EEi
3ob
I rBtI Ee..
I E: E
I baEI i"3I E geI o ee
I q:xI E6!l
I b5.E
I .c<9I 6fi8
I .gdaI EPts
I eE'I OE>I :P E PI i P e*;
Ir::=E
lF*oiEElr b E E !t! 96 Pv
lpB FE9
l.e.i 6 o_ s
I
iri
E
i=
c6
C'
Go
u
.9
oIoJ
Eooaor
t!(,
o
i{)
;o
E
il,
CLIG
>Etso!, '5o-oeto-J
La
6.l .=
q.Xf=
-(,o.c
>o
oa .,o9,EEoo
o=OEfooo
l(\,
c
so
q)co6
Ec(!
oE
o)
=
oooooooooooooooooooooo-+r^G6.n!-.1 O aDO aD 6 ON F- (O dl ?l .! Ft (rt oO..i ; .i i i i.{ F{ o H o o o !-{ o o'-. o o o.\r H6000000000000000000000- i i i F F. r. F. F (o (o (g F F. a\ F- F. ro (o.\r .\l (oN 6 o o o o o o cr.{ H .r o o o o o F{ !'r F i' r'rir - - < < < a a < rr <r <r <t € q <r I <t 9 Q q rc
'5 6.n rrl ln !o !o L^ rrl ul .n6ut!a!nrn !1 6rr!larat/lz .\i a\l a\r 6l a! c! N a,,J N a\t N N m a! a\l a.l .\l N a{ a\l N a\l
E
z
3
oa
l
ao6ro
r! FFF uJ u.r -22o oZa666aZZaZaa*5EEEE:)IuuuIilIiuus3:;;;;:::ee33::::P33
s5i#t;;t=I993=ii<x995{.n.n rn.,l.n !i O O O O O O O.r Fr O H O O rn4 N 6 6 N ar\ 6 o.n (.r F\ o an o Fr an L^ l,r a! sl \ol: o (o (o (o 6 F F a\ r\ l.\ F\ N € cO @ cO 6 0O € 0O6(.,:r .{ -t ..1 .r ..{ ..1 !-{ r.r F{ (o (o Lo
g
F-F !1l,o G 55 d9xxBBs KF B 33P8++ +l9d566 o r.. r.. r.. ,)lnor.n r.- n oia' o,--lli 6666li:.i:i.iP
FinilnnnnilEEBsHH$fifrfrfrq=
B B B B B s 3 3 8===3 il 3 s *====;Z z z z z z z 2 z -- -- -- z z z = = -- -- --.^-
=
ieaaEEEEEEEEEE E E E E E??ea2 d tat ttt tt vl tlt/r th ra - - - q 6 6 6 v't -.E \, - oJ ><(lJJ)Juu->-;'= E E E E E E E E
=
<
=
E E U aa3'4?2-es;rilildtililil666rrilild6d6==
oo('t
lrlF
a,t
d..o z=aEU6o==a233 iAd, . rrtz uuuE :J>
"=g;E;;g99EEEg3333EE=i?;'E E;
=
i
=
v E E u t a e E v E -'- - E E 393SEEEEt3S3ffStl3S33d:d-t (9,n,n Lar ul -{ O O O O O O O -. .{ cl r.i O O ra O rnx lr,l ui <i F- dl o .n ln ro F ao or o -{ di rn llt.{ \t <, o d< (o ro r!, (.} \o N r.\ F.,\ F F F (! @ @ (p (E (! CE (. H mF r{ ..1 .{ H .r r.{ el !l r{ .'a !". !'r Fr (O (O (O N €
55FF6 aif r! lrrEe Ee e=e - 88 E2s ^ ? ? qru ;QE 4 = # aa aPa *: g:r :: ==E d
:EEgErEaeg=EEEcEE IEEEE=
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Subject Approve a Request for a Variance for Lot Cover and Setback Variances to Construct a Porch
and Deck on Property Located at 6287 Chaska Road
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.
Prepared By Josh Storms, Community Development
Intern
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves an 8.3foot rear
yard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck,
subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting an 8.3foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rear
yard setback variance to construct a deck to replace an existing deck and patio. They are proposing to remove several
existing yard amenities including a deck, two existing patios, a stone path that crosses the west property line, and two
sections of the existing driveway. They will also redesign existing retaining walls and add new landscaping to increase
privacy and better direct water drainage since water currently pools along the side and back of the home. The applicant
has stated that the intent of the variance is to allow for the construction of typical backyard improvements on a property
with many existing nonconformities.
The applicant has noted that the house and its existing yard amenities were constructed by previous owners prior to
current ordinances. They have noted that they do not have the ability to construct a 3season porch and attached deck
meeting the required 30foot rear setback since the home is located 17 feet from the rear line. Additionally, they have
explained that the 3season porch and deck will be in a similar location as the existing deck and patio and will not
increase the property’s existing nonconforming rear yard setback. The applicant has pointed out that their project will
actually reduce the property’s nonconformities by reducing the its lot cover from 26.8 percent to 24.9 percent by
removing an attached rear patio with a nonconforming 6foot rear setback, and removing a walkway and retaining wall
from neighboring properties. Finally, they noted that once this project is complete, the outdoor space will have less
impact on neighboring properties due to the addition of vegetative screening and improvements to the property’s
drainage.
In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests that result in an overall reduction of a property’s
nonconforming status. In this case, staff believes that while enclosing the existing deck area to create a 3season porch
is an intensification of the existing nonconformity, the reduction of lot cover, removal of the rear patio with a more
extensive nonconforming setback, and removal of structures from neighboring properties meets this standard. For this
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, August 17, 2021SubjectApprove a Request for a Variance for Lot Cover and Setback Variances to Construct a Porchand Deck on Property Located at 6287 Chaska RoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By Josh Storms, Community DevelopmentIntern File No: PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves an 8.3foot rearyard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck,subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting an 8.3foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rearyard setback variance to construct a deck to replace an existing deck and patio. They are proposing to remove severalexisting yard amenities including a deck, two existing patios, a stone path that crosses the west property line, and twosections of the existing driveway. They will also redesign existing retaining walls and add new landscaping to increaseprivacy and better direct water drainage since water currently pools along the side and back of the home. The applicanthas stated that the intent of the variance is to allow for the construction of typical backyard improvements on a propertywith many existing nonconformities.The applicant has noted that the house and its existing yard amenities were constructed by previous owners prior tocurrent ordinances. They have noted that they do not have the ability to construct a 3season porch and attached deckmeeting the required 30foot rear setback since the home is located 17 feet from the rear line. Additionally, they haveexplained that the 3season porch and deck will be in a similar location as the existing deck and patio and will notincrease the property’s existing nonconforming rear yard setback. The applicant has pointed out that their project willactually reduce the property’s nonconformities by reducing the its lot cover from 26.8 percent to 24.9 percent byremoving an attached rear patio with a nonconforming 6foot rear setback, and removing a walkway and retaining wallfrom neighboring properties. Finally, they noted that once this project is complete, the outdoor space will have lessimpact on neighboring properties due to the addition of vegetative screening and improvements to the property’sdrainage.In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests that result in an overall reduction of a property’snonconforming status. In this case, staff believes that while enclosing the existing deck area to create a 3season porch
is an intensification of the existing nonconformity, the reduction of lot cover, removal of the rear patio with a more
extensive nonconforming setback, and removal of structures from neighboring properties meets this standard. For this
reason, staff recommends approval of variance requests.
APPLICANT
Tim Johnson, LIVIT Site + Structure, LLC, 10799 Alberton Way, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: "RSF" SingleFamily Residential District
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: .48 acres
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential District
Section 615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks
BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2021 , the applicant submitted a permit for a basement finish, an additional deck on the east side of the
home, residing, reroofing and removal of two sections of the driveway. None of these items require a variance and their
impact on the property’s nonconforming status is noted when relevant throughout this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve the 8.3foot
rear yard setback variance to construct a 3season porch and a 13foot rear yard setback variance to construct a
deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with the Minnesota State
Building Code.
2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the plans dated August 21,
2021.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
Variance Document
Development Review Application
Variance Request Description
Survey
Home Renderings
Affidavit of Mailing
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: August 17, 2021
CC DATE: September 12, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: September 14, 2021
CASE #: PC 2021-17
BY: JS, MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant has requested a variance to construct a 3-season porch in the location occupied by
their existing deck and to add a new rear deck in a portion of the location occupied by their existing
rear patio. As part of this project the applicant will adjust the location of the existing hot tub, re-
design existing retaining walls, put in new rear and side yard landscaping, remove the existing deck,
remove two patios, remove a stone path that crosses the west property line, and remove two sections
of the existing driveway. Since the proposed 3-season porch and rear deck do not meet setback
requirements for Single-Family Residential Districts (RSF) and are intensifications of existing
nonconformities, the applicant requires a variance; however, the other proposed improvements are
permitted by City Code without a variance.
LOCATION: 6287 Chaska Road
APPLICANT: Tim Johnson
LIVIT Site + Structure, LLC
10799 Alberton Way
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
OWNER: Erin Hearst
6287 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single-Family Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: .48 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.
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves
an 8.3-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a 13-foot rear yard
setback variance to construct a deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
6287 Chaska Road Variance Request
August 17, 2021
Page 2
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting an 8.3-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a
13-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a deck to replace an existing deck and patio. They are
proposing to remove several existing yard amenities including a deck, two existing patios, a stone
path that crosses the west property line, and two sections of the existing driveway. They will also
redesign existing retaining walls and add new landscaping to increase privacy and better direct water
drainage since water currently pools along the side and back of the home. The applicant has stated
that the intent of the variance is to allow for the construction of typical backyard improvements on a
property with many existing nonconformities.
The applicant has noted that the house and its existing yard amenities were constructed by previous
owners prior to current ordinances. They have noted that they do not have the ability to construct a
3-season porch and attached deck meeting the required 30-foot rear setback since the home is
located 17 feet from the rear line. Additionally, they have explained that the 3-season porch and deck
will be in a similar location as the existing deck and patio and will not increase the property’s
existing nonconforming rear yard setback. The applicant has pointed out that their project will
actually reduce the property’s nonconformities by reducing the its lot cover from 26.8 percent to
24.9 percent by removing an attached rear patio with a nonconforming 6-foot rear setback, and
removing a walkway and retaining wall from neighboring properties. Finally, they noted that once
this project is complete, the outdoor space will have less impact on neighboring properties due to the
addition of vegetative screening and improvements to the property’s drainage.
In general, it has been staff’s practice to support variance requests that result in an overall reduction
of a property’s nonconforming status. In this case, staff believes that while enclosing the existing
deck area to create a 3-season porch is an intensification of the existing nonconformity, the reduction
of lot cover, removal of the rear patio with a more extensive nonconforming setback, and removal of
structures from neighboring properties meets this standard. For this reason, staff recommends
approval of variance requests.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks
BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2021, the applicant submitted a permit for a basement finish, an additional deck on the
east side of the home, residing, reroofing and removal of two sections of the driveway. None of these
items require a variance and their impact on the property’s nonconforming status is noted when
relevant throughout this report.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
6287 Chaska Road Variance Request
August 17, 2021
Page 3
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc
Zoning Overview
This property is zoned Single-Family Residential District. The zoning classification requires lots to
be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks
of 10 feet and limits parcels to a maximum of 30% lot coverage, of which no more than 25 percent
can be impervious surfaces. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height.
The lot is 21,205 square feet with 5,674 square feet (26.8 percent) of lot cover. The existing house
has a non-conforming rear yard setback of 17.4 feet and a nonconforming 9.7-foot west side yard
setback. The existing patio behind the garage has a non-conforming rear yard setback of six feet and
the attached deck has a nonconforming rear yard setback of 20 feet. The property has a second patio
that is detached from the home and located on the southeast corner of the property which has a
nonconforming rear yard setback of seven feet. The driveway has a nonconforming 0-foot side yard
setback. Several of the retaining walls have nonconforming locations within the City’s drainage and
utilities easement as they were built without encroachment agreements. The property also has a non-
conforming stone path and retaining wall that crosses over the west property line. The house and
other features appear to meet all other requirements of the City Code.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are no bluffs on the property.
Floodplain Overlay
This property is not within a floodplain.
Shoreland Management
The property is not within a shoreland protection district
Wetland Protection
There is not a wetland located in the development site.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Sweiger First Addition
6287 Chaska Road Variance Request
August 17, 2021
Page 4
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc
The plat for this area was recorded in 1978 and consists of three lots. The three homes were
constructed between 1979 and 1987. Overall, the neighborhood seems to conform to the Zoning
Code although some homes and outdoor structures may not meet setback and lot cover requirements
likely due to changes in City ordinance.
Variances within 500 feet:
1976-2 2250 Melody Hill Road: Variance for a 3-foot setback on both side yards - Approved.
1986-12 6200 Chaska Road: A 13-foot setback variance to the required 75-foot setback for the
structures on lots containing wetlands in order to construct a single-family home. - Withdrawn.
1992-5 1921 Melody Hill Circle: A 15-foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a
single-family home - Approved.
ANALYSIS
6287 Chaska Road Variance Request
August 17, 2021
Page 5
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc
Rear Setback
The City’s RSF District ordinance establishes a 30-foot setback from the rear property line in order
for properties to provide a consistent visual aesthetic, establish rear yard areas for greenspace and
recreation, and to create adequate separation between residences. While this setback plays an
important role in maintaining the character and quality of this district, older properties can have lot
configurations or pre-existing home placements that make it difficult to construct improvements
outside of this setback. In these cases, the City examines the neighborhood context and the extent of
the property’s existing nonconformities in order to determine if granting a rear yard setback variance
would negatively impact adjacent properties or undermine the intent of the ordinance.
The applicant’s property has
four existing encroachments
into the 30-foot rear yard
setback. The house has a rear
yard setback of 17.4 feet and
the existing deck has a rear
yard setback of 20 feet. The
property has a non-conforming
patio located behind the garage
that is six feet from the rear lot
line and an additional detached
patio located on the southeast
corner of the lot that is also
seven feet from the rear property line. Staff believes all of the encroachments are longstanding and
represent legal nonconformities. The applicant is proposing to remove these existing
nonconformities and replace them with a 3-season porch with a 21.7 foot rear yard setback and a
deck with a 17-foot rear yard setback. Since the applicant is proposing replacing existing
nonconformities, the intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance is important in determining
the appropriateness of granting a variance.
Section 20-71 of the City Code explains the intent of the nonconforming use ordinance as:
The purpose of this division is:
(1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots and structures which were lawful when established,
but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements;
(2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification or extension of any nonconforming
use, building or structure; and
(3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots and structures or reduce their
impact on adjacent properties.
Subsequent sections of the City’s non-conforming use ordinance permit the continuation,
replacement and maintenance and improvement, but not expansion of nonconforming uses, Sec. 20-
72(a), and require that additions to nonconforming single-family dwellings meet setback
6287 Chaska Road Variance Request
August 17, 2021
Page 6
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc
requirements, Sec 20-72 (d). When evaluating variance requests for non-conforming homes, staff
examines the extent to which the requested variance deviates from the stated intent and provisions of
the nonconforming use ordinance and attempts to balance this with the variance finding’s practical
difficulties and reasonable use standards.
Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment that the home’s nonconforming 17.4-foot rear yard
setback does not allow for the construction of typical rear yard improvements such as a deck and
porch within the bounds established by City Code. Since the existing deck and patio already
encroach into the setback,
the primary concern is if
the applicant’s proposal
unreasonably increases the
nonconformity. While
replacing the existing deck
with a 3-season porch
technically intensifies the
nonconformity by
enclosing a previously
open structure, the applicant’s proposal does not extend any closer to the rear lot line than the
existing deck. In the case of the new proposed deck, the applicant is actually replacing an impervious
patio with a 6-foot rear yard setback with a pervious deck with a 17-foot rear yard setback, an
overall reduction to the nonconformity. Furthermore the applicant is also proposing to remove other
nonconformities including the detached rear patio, two sections of the driveway, and a stone path
that crosses the west property line. These changes will bring the property to just under 25 percent lot
cover, eliminating another nonconformity.
The applicant is also proposing new landscaping which will provide screening between the new
structures and neighboring properties. This increased screening combined with the relative
placement of the neighboring homes means that the applicant’s requested rear yard setback variance
should not negatively impact the neighborhood aesthetic. Regarding the rear yard setback’s intent to
provide rear yard recreational areas and greenspace, the existing placement of the home and
topography of the rear yard mean that the property cannot have a traditional open rear yard. This
atypical configuration means that the homeowner must rely on amenities near the home, such as the
proposed porch and deck for the enjoyment of the yard.
For the above reasons, staff believes that the applicant’s proposal results in an overall reduction of
the property’s nonconformities and that the requested variances are reasonable and the result of
practical difficulties caused by the siting of the home. Given this, staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission grant the requested rear yard setback variances.
Retaining Walls
6287 Chaska Road Variance Request
August 17, 2021
Page 7
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\staff report_final.doc
While the applicant’s proposed modifications to the
property’s retaining walls does not require a variance,
staff feels it is important to note that the applicant
will need to apply for and receive a building permit
before beginning construction. An encroachment
agreement must also be obtained if the remodeled
retaining walls are located within the City’s drainage
and utility easements. Finally, retaining walls (if
present) that are more than four feet high must be
designed by a professional engineer and a building
permit must be obtained prior to construction.
Impact on Neighborhood
The surrounding homes are screened from the
applicant’s residence by a mix of vegetation and
fencing, and the applicant is proposing additional landscaping to provide an additional visual barrier.
Due to the atypical configuration of the property to the applicant’s rear yard, the rear neighbor’s
residence is setback approximately 84 feet from the applicant’s rear yard lot line. This creates a
larger separation than the 60-foot minimum that would be present between two typical RSF lots,
both observing the required 30-foot rear yard setback. Given the relative position of the neighboring
homes, the large amount of screening present, and the fact that the applicant is not requesting a
reduction to the existing nonconforming setback, staff does not believe that granting the variance
would negatively impact the surrounding properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
approve the 8.3-foot rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a 13-foot rear yard
setback variance to construct a deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply with
the Minnesota State Building Code.
2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the
plans dated August 21, 2021.
ATTACHMENTS
1 Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
2. Variance Document (Approval)
3. Development Review Application
4. Variance Request Description
5. Survey
6. Home Renderings
7. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE:
Application of Tim Johnson for a variance to construct a 3-season porch and deck at 6287
Chaska Road.
On August 17, 2021, 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 as Single-Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low
Density Use.
3. The legal description of the property: Lot 2, Block 1, Sweiger First Addition.
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: It is the intent of the City’s Nonconforming Ordinance to reduce the
extent of existing nonconformities and bring properties closer to complying with
City Code. It is also the intent of the City’s Non conforming Ordinance to permit
the continuation, replacement, maintenance and improvement but not expansion
of nonconforming uses as well as requiring that additions to nonconforming
single-family dwellings meet setback requirements.
In this case, the applicant’s proposal includes replacing an existing deck with a 3-
season porch with an 8.3-foot rear yard setback. While this replacement is
technically intensifying the nonconformity by enclosing a previously open
structure, the proposed porch will not extend any closer to the rear lot line than
the existing deck. The applicant’s proposal also includes replacing an existing
impervious patio with a rear yard setback of six feet, with a brand new pervious
deck with a rear yard setback of 17 feet, resulting in an overall reduction to the
nonconformity. The applicant is also proposing to remove other nonconformities
including the detached rear patio and stone path that crosses the west property line
bringing the lot coverage to 25 percent and eliminating a nonconformity.
Given that it is the intent of the City Code to allow the owners of nonconforming
properties opportunities to make reasonable changes to their property, granting a
variance to permit thoughtfully designed improvements that reduce and remove
numerous nonconforming elements is in line with the intent of the City Code and
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
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: The applicant’s proposal to construct a 379-square foot 3-season porch
with an attached deck is reasonable given that both are typical amenities for a
single-family home. The existing deck and patio’s nonconforming placement
within the property’s rear yard prevent any alteration that is considered an
intensification of the existing nonconformity. Due to the home’s location partially
within the required rear yard setback, the applicant cannot construct the proposed
improvements without a variance.
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: The plight of the landowner is due to pre-existing conditions on the
property, including the nonconforming location of the house, the existing deck,
stone pathway, and existing patios. All of these conditions were present on the
property prior to the owner purchasing the property.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: Sweiger First Addition is a small, older neighborhood with properties
that seem to conform to the Zoning Code although some homes and outdoor
structures may not meet setback and lot cover requirements likely due to changes
in City Ordinance. The applicant’s proposed improvements will not encroach
further into the rear yard than the replaced nonconforming structures. The
proposed 3-season porch and new deck will have no visual impact as the property
is surrounded by a mix of vegetation and fencing. The applicant is proposing
additional landscaping to provide additional screening. Furthermore, the rear
neighbor’s residence has a setback of 84 feet from the owner’s rear lot line,
creating a separation larger than the 60-foot minimum that would be present
between two regular RSF homes observing the required 30-foot rear yard setback.
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 #2021-17, prepared by Joshua Storms, et al. is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance permitting an 8.3-foot
rear yard setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a 13-foot rear yard setback variance
to construct a deck, subject to the following conditions:
a. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must
comply with the Minnesota State Building Code.
b. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown
in the plans dated August 21, 2021.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of August, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\findings of fact_final.docx
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-17
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.3-foot rear yard
setback variance to construct a 3-season porch and a 13-foot rear yard setback variance to
construct a deck.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Sweiger First Addition.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the
plans dated August 21, 2021.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not
been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
2
Dated: August 17, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by
its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-17 6287 chaska road var - e-file and lf only\variance document 21-17.docx
{s
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1100 I Fax: (952\ 227-1110
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
(Refer to tlrF- appropiate Applicatirn Clpcklist tot required submittal inlomatbn that must ad:ronpany this applbation)
E Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600 E Subdivision (SUB)
E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... S100 E create 3 lots or less
! Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
E Single-Family Residence .....
E ntt otners......
............... $325
............... $42s
tr
tr!
Create over 3 lots...-.................( lots)
Metes & Bounds (2 lots)...........
Consolidate Lots........-..............
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325! Ailothers...... ......................$425
E Rezoning (REZ)
E Planned Unit Development (PUD)...-.............. $750E Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100E Att Others...... ......................$500
E Sign Plan Review................ ....... $150
E Site Ptan Review (SPR)
E Administrative ..................... $100E Commercial/lndustrial Districts. .... ... ...... ... ... . .. $500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet)
'lnclude number of exrsliaq emplgyees:
'lnclude number of Agg employees:E Residential Districts..............................-.......... $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
E Notification Sign (city to install and remove)
I Property Owners' List within 500' lclty to generate aier pre-application meeting)
Lot Line Adjustrnent....................
Final Plat............................. ............................
(lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)'
'Additional escrow may be required tor other applications
through the development contract.
E Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300
(Additional recording fees may apply)
E Variance (VAR)...... .......... ...... $200
E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
n Single-Family Residence.-............................. $150
! ett otners...-.. .....................$275
! Zoning Appea1................. ......... $100
E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500
!lME: Vt/h.n multiple applications .rr proc.ss.d concur.?tdy,
th. rppropri.t lbq shall be chrEcd for eaah .pplicrtion.
$200
( {D addresses)
$3 per address
E] Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)....................
E Conditional Use Permit ! lnterim Use Permit
E Vacation E Variance
E] Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) E Easements ( easements)
....................... $50 per document
n Site Plan Agreement
E Wetland Alteration PermitE Deeos
TOT AL FEE2{ S 7D , 04
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of Proposal: Remove existing patios, deck, and hardscape areas over the property lines. Construct the
proposed back porch and deck.
6287 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 5S31Property Address or Location:
Parcel #: 258450020 Lot 2 Block 1 Sweiger Development
Total Acreage:
Present Zoning
Wetlands Present?EYesZruo
Requested zoningSingle-Family Residential District (RSF)Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Existing Use of Property
Echeck box if separate narrative is atiached
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
submirarDab:?/ Ic / 3/ pcoan.f-L1J]Lccoate:? kI-Jt}L soo"yn"ui"*o"t"A&L{-..itL/L-
Legal Description:
0.48
Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Designation:
Single Family
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation offull legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am 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 fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name Tim Johnson Contact:
Phone:
Tim Johnson
Address 10799 Alberton Way ,n
city/state/zip lnver Grove Heights, MN 55077 Cell:
Fax:
Date
(651) 755-4s1 3
Sig nature:7t9t21
owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand ons of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name Erin Hearst Contact:
Phone:
city/state/zip
Email:
Minnetonka, MN 55345 Cell:
Fax:N/
Signature
This application must be completed in tull and must be accompanied by all iniormation and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Bebre filing this application, reEr to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedurEll
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deflciencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:N/A Contact
Phone:Address
city/state/zip
Email:
Who should roceive copies o, staff reports?'Othor Contact lnformation:
Name: Tim JohnsonProperty Owner ViaApplicant ViaEngineer ViaOthef Via
Email
Email
Email
Mailed Paper Copy
Mailed Paper Copy
Mailed Paper Copy
Address:10799 Alberton Way
city/state/zip lnver Grove Hei ohts. MN 55077
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FoRM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
copy to the city for processing
SAVE FORM PBINT FORM SUBMIT FORM
n : E Email E tritaiteO Paper Copy Email:tiohnson@livi ure.com
Email:
I
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l,
Address: 17001 The Strand
Oate: 7 El21
Cell:
Fax:
Section 4: Notification lnformation
)uly 74, ZO27
6287 Chaska Road Variance Letter
6287 is a non-conforming residential property that has many non-conforming items that do not fit in today's
current zoning requirements. The nontonforming items include; the current garage is t 7 feet from the back
(south) lot line. The existing back deck is appx 2G21' from the back (south) lot line. There are other hardscape
structures that are either over the lot lines or as close as 6'-7' from the back (south) property line. The current
hardcover percentage is over the required 25%.
The location of the existing home creates a practical difficulty to allow for typical improvements to a backyard. Lot
line locations are much closer to the ba€k of the home due to the home's location. Accessing the property from
the street require a longer driveway which increases the hardcover amounts.
The proposed improvements will indude the followlr|8 adjustm€nts.
. Remove the existing back deck and steps.
. Construct a new covered porch in the same foot print as the current existing deck structure.
. Construct a new deck platform at the back of the home and attached to the proposed porch.
. Adjust the location ofthe existing hot tub.
. Remove the back upper patio near the 5E corner. This patio is approximately 7' from the lot line.
o Remove the back patio behind the garage that is 5.5'-7' from the back (south) property line.
. Remove the west stone path that is o\rer the west prop€rty line.
. Re{esign the existing back and side retaining walls.
o The new wall will better direct water that is currently pooling along the side and back of the
home. The new retaining wall locations will remain on the property.
o Access from the west side yard to the back yard will be over a gravel path and boulder
outcroppings due to the grade changes. This path will fit inside the lot line and be a part of the
wall construction. This new path will be the only way to access the backyard areas.
. New landscaping will be planned for the sides and back of the home. lmproving privacy from the back
neighbors with trees and shrubs will be featured with the landscaping.
. Cut out 2 areas of the existing driveway. This change will reduce access to a very long driveway. The
clients are willing to make this adjustment to reduce hardcover.
. The adjustments above will allow the new hardcover percentage to be at or slightly below the 25% city
requirements. The improvements do not alter the character of the property. The changes allow all of the
new structures to be in a better location from the south lot line compared to today's conditions.
Written Justification:
Variances shall only be permitted when they arc in harmony with the general purpses
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan. The proposed plans allow for a space that is in the same location of a curent patio and
deck. These improvements are further away from the back lot line than the cunent garage and
patios.
-JliL!VIT
5l ?E
S'RUCIU PE
b. When there are practical difficunies in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical
difficulties,' as used in connecfion with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the propefiy in a reasonable manner not pe7,,,,ilted by this
Chapter. Practical ditriculties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access lo direct
sunlight tor solar enerw systems. Our practical diffidlties are challenged by the location of
the cunent home's location compared to the properly lines. The cunent owners did not build the
home and this home was built a while back prior to today's ordinances and setbacks. The current
garage and home would not meet today's code. The opportunity to have a backyard space out of
the 30'set back is not possible since the home is 17'from the back lot line. Our proposed deck
and porch are appx 21' from the back lot line. This foot print is in the similar location as the
existing deck and patio that exists today and when the owners purchased the property. We have
worked to plan an outdoor space that has less impact on lhe neighboring lot lines and also brings
the property under the city's requirements for hardcover.c. That the puryose of the variation is not based upo,n economic considentions alone. The
goals of the property owner are not to flip the home with these improvements. We view these
improvements as long lerm owners wishes to better the property and living experiences. The
proposed improvements have been well planned and the vision is for a long stay wilh this
property. Financially, the large number of improvements do not fit with a short term ownership.d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the propefty not created by
the landowner. This home was built by prior owners along wilh the cunent landscaping. The
cunent hardscapes and struclures lhat are not confoming to today's goals were done by the
previous owners of the property. Our goal is to improve the property and the community with
better landscaping and outdoor living opportunities. The cunent grading does not protect the
home from upper drainage run off. During this process of improvements, we will also be
improving the properties drainage issues around the home due to lhe prior landscaping.e. The vaiance, if granted, will not attg/, the essential character ot the locality. The proposed
plans for the new porch and deck will not alter lhe character of the property or the community.
The location of the proposed decl and porch are in the similar footprint of the existing deck. The
improvemenls with the property also have moved the cunent structures further from the property
lines and also removing the existing sauctures from the neighboring property. The architectural
improvements tie an well with the existing homes chamcter and structural lines. Our goal is to
also add new tees and landscaping between the back improvements and the south lot lines to
increase privacy.
f. Vaiances shall be gnnted tor earth shelterad construction as defined in Minneso'2
Stafufes Seclio,, 216C.06, suHivision 11, when in hermony with this Chapter. NIA
we appreciate your conslderation with our proposed variance request. Please feel free to call or email me with
any follow up questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
1ililUfttY t4. J1ffN1N
Tim Johnson
651.755.4513
tiohnson(alivitsitestructure.com
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAYIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
( ss.
COUNTYOFCARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
August 5,2021, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice ofa Public
Hearing to consider a request for lot cover and setback variances to construct a porch and
deck at 6287 Chaska Road, Planning Case No. 2021-17, 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 ofsuch owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota" and by other appropriate
Kim T.Deputy Cl
Subscribed and s m to before me
thi$dayof 2021.
(Seat)
Notary Publ
records.
M
N6ry
Subject
Parcel )t
I
Disclalmer
This map is neither a legally rccorded map nor a survey and is not intended lo be used
as one. This map is a compilation of.ecords, anformation and data located in various city,
county. state and federal oftces and other souaces regarding the alea shown. and as to
b€ used br reference purposes only. The City does not wanant that the Geog6oic
hformalion System (GlS) Oata use.l to prepaG this map are eroa fiee, and the Crty does
not rcpresent that the GIS Data can be us€d for navigalronal, tracking or any other
pupose requiring e&lcting measuremenl of distanc€ or direction or preosion in the
depiclion of geographic features. The preceding disclaims is providecl pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 5466.03. Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of lhis map acknowiedges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
agrees to defend. indemnify. and hold harmless the City fiom any and all claims brcught
by lJser, its employees or agents. or thid parties which arige out of the users access or
us€ of dete provided.
This map ,s neither a legally @corded map nor a suruey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a compilation of records. information and datra located in various ci9,
county, state and federal offces and other sources regardjng the area shown, and is to
be used ior reference purposes only The City does not warant that lhe Geographic
lnformatirn System (GlS) Data used to prepare liis map are eror free, and lhe City does
not.epresent that the Gls Data can be u3ed for navigational, racking or any other
purpose requidng exacting measurcment ol distanc€ or directton or precision in the
depictjon of geographic ieatures. The preceding disclaimer is Provided pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd 21 (2000), and the user of lhis map acknowledges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expessly waives all claims, and
agrees to defund, indemniry, and hold harmless the Cily from any and ell daims brought
by User, its employees or agents, or lhird parties which aise out of lhe use/s access or
use of dala provided.
(Next RecordxTAX_NAMEI
<TAX_ADD_Llr
(TAX_ADD_L2D
N
\
\s
\
\
".. ,,,
N
a
\I
,
sx
nTAX_NAMET
*TAX-ADD-LIr
<TAX_ADD_L2l
\
Z
I\
Subject
Parcel
\
tl\ui . q ->'
= o, +- =k cFO o)
FE E o=E99s98iEta
65 E E b.
=ooc-> ou eE: q rro o
E E =fr,=
^ -[ 6-c*E c E6 Pxqi= 366: jj
= *9i;9s s E
e.8 8.AE B
= o (t)-c:J -- c-- c c;; B€> EYtrXE06C)* 3=-R* s'q o;9i;.=(t o* - c !
Hg#ESs
0)
(!
q)
o-
c;c,F
oo
E
o)E
o.E
o-
oo'6'
o-
.9.c
fo-oo
o.,coo
Eo
E--
=
=r-.;
Fo
a\alt
:
E
q,ooo.t
IE
(,
(,ii
=
.q
-o ij5(Eo' d)B6a6-oiN-
s66E
E3(EE
3A
=uOEtD(D
att o'7 A-
=obd
.9 ->.
9oEo
o=o-116
oeqr 6l9tdE
ooo-
o
-c.a
fo
o
Co
(EEcoEq
G
E
oo
E
o
(.,
(g
c
o
E2
ao
()
=oof.*F.
6
o-o
E
G.c,
oc
f
O
(5
I
o
E(E
LL
dJ
.ao
EocoN
-ro
o)!
c
96otYd=
O(s5=
E.,2inio)UE
o)oc(!'-o
(!
-oo
Ec(E
n)
oo
=.;
IDlu
E
o
o)E'6c
O
9
--J
(!)
=oJ
a
od
o)
a
F
)
c
c
=o
EF
(5oI
c'-
uJ
.9
o
.!2
o
ot
p
E
(5Eootr.g(!o.
ura(!:
6e
Dt
(o<
o-Crio0l-cO -* i a€ p5U Ei"E€ -gq ,5
E:EE I *" 3
aEEE EEEE
=E?ip EiiEp
iE TE EE;;
aEEi :5HEEEB89 ii=HPP
- i (R= 2 (!.^ tr=
EgEE g:-Ei
agEEE Ee E= Err.g-c.! U,(rFC)o-EdrZ O)(! O
=d6_EgF(oc(J(,rN(.r$
t
q
E;
E
.E
!
p
E
E
_a
F
E
ci-oo
t-
o
NoN
t-
-(,)
f
j
o!
q)
fF
o
o(,
d)'6
-oo
=
o
-oo5
*;'ooo!;d)
Y=o6ac
8EE-
-Eoo
E3a.cac'=oE_c-o
6qi<!
8=
(sEcoo)o
c')c
0)o
Ec
o.).c,
E
c
Eo
E
oc
o
o
!E(!
o
Eo
o)
'6
o
o
o5
E
s)a
=lUz
EEEilEEglE'ggti
EiiEiiiiEiEiiisE
EtEltgilssisiggl
EsEIg€EiiEEEgEEEE
B
a
E
6
E
o
GooJ
EooCI
eG
.E(,
at
ii(,
;o
o,
o
o-
>Er.9
o. r!9to-J
9i;
=0,
+*3eO,r! .E
>o
id
i=
od
tl,
|lto
Bc
oo
=tr9.9.= ao
EEJ-E
120Eo5CDo- .EoE
or lg.9dotrza
oa!
cr!
o
oE
a,
o,
=
.P.E
r!oo'=-E.JE=oi6
E.:otr
EE6iza
IAor!E
t!3(,
q)o
Eo
oo9PF- -E
(58
N!OiNE,*f
o)-
<bj-s
EE
O!:tr!
Ei
6
o
(5
ooFF.
ui
o)-o
Eo-cO
alo
oI
!a_o
LLat
t
c
o)p
o)t
o)oc.E>
>E
-.2 .F
gd,
=o)(Dcth -.;
c'o(!O
9€o
oo
-EOEec
;$o-E
=opE
oo
6Epi
2-s
3E
())-J
Ef
of
o
06
o
6
F
J
fo
cEo
Ei:
oo-c'-
tlJ
o
I
o
P
e
o
(5coo8.9oo.
iio
F. !q.oEN-(o<
E* E€Pgs ee EE Eu F
EIEE BE=Eol E P 9::(5
:AEE EEEEiEuP t!-E!UE.EE B=i 6:: x..P I Err
eE€E sgs€geiz? E =;14
EgE! 3BEEE
*E€-= slE,EFE_Ed0^.cgFOc(J(,FN(9s
=t-
NoN
o?tr
E
C'otl!.C
(!sq
'q
,;;
:;.or-9, I9.!n aD+- =
SEEEE:
HI;E
=E
3
ol.tooca€l i oo oiiEl: 9 o o P
5IE ! E6EAI;EEg;Yo.EL oE -r
E]gE:; BE5:;sEs;
E 9.8 8; E T6= o.r oE5
=6 -. *p=.=
=aEi if iE5"1 9=*P, -HI gE ET E
EHgIES#
0)
o
o)o
q,c
o
E
o.c,
o
o,Eo
o
o)'6'
o
.q.
E
f
-oo
(l.)coq.)
E
.c,
=
(I,
q)
o
E
.9
=l
.9Ei;f(!
3eeaort-o}:o-
EE(EE
EB(sE
BA
=uOEoo
@o'= o-
=o6(L
9 ->,
9oEo)o=o-!6
la;otiE
o--c.9
o
E
,oc
f
c
Ec
0)
o.c,co!q
(.)
>
>;
tt
Goc
0)o)(E
or -9.q^66o9A
cdo-o-c C)
==
oi:
E()oc)iE -cqo
x6
.(!o!
=sc)(oO
odoo.>t3s9E
9E
l<
o)c
CDa
=0)=xLlr EZ.d
q
E
E
{
g
I
a,
i:
.6
o
(go
-ooo(Lo
o-
t!o
CLIL
o
=o
Eq,
CII
o-
>Et.o
o. i!eta-J
I iit
dr .=
+'ErO|ll.c
=E
cd ..o9ccoo
o=OE3Ooo
o
ag
a)oJ
€..o9EEoo
o=OEfooo
OOO O O OO O OO O O o O O O OOO O O OO o o o Fr O Fr O O OO O OEl d \9..,1 (!) rrl il Sl S {rrnq0H NNtFt.{C)FtF. oO Fr r-t O,r C, i (n r! .n N (n st O rnOA O O O < O O n O E, O <.:r g O O O O O O OO O O Fr o o O O O Oo ; Oaaoooooooooooooooo(n0000000000000e)cl0Ol OT O O E E O E l> F. F O F. F. O O Ul <t rn (o N l\ Ln (o F. F. @ O 6 !6 lrt 6 6 6 O1rrl rn fi o'! (o (o or (o (o (o (o Fr ro (o F{ r-.r sf o Q (o (o (o F{ F.r (o (o q,\ F{ (,1 <t sf ctr cl1 !a !a
- s 9.rara! ryi.1 a! ryN.\l r-i N (\l r-r ..r ao F- o (n a\ N FlFtNNa.{ F{ (\ co6Na.,tSl Sl
= rjl r.n rJ1 l,r !n l,) lJ) U) rrl l/) r./1 l,l rrl u1 r/1 !/11/)La Ln6lJl ln l,/1 rn t,' Ln Ln Ln!aul!nl,tl'n!nl.,1da.lNNNN Na!N Net6J a..J N N N N N a.,l a! (\ N N a.\i (.,t ..,1 N N.!N N6i 6ie..i--
o ao o o o60 06. Gq. nJrrG r!urr!uJ E lJurEEe. >FFJFFFFJFFJJ-J :i!2==<<=<<<<=<<:- :=\@^iaii!?'e i e q.i9 = I I = = = I 9 _o e e e p e e e e Aeeep==d,t-d,d,o
5 5 6 6 = = 6 = = = = E = =
5 6 6 ? d ; -^------6666; ; ; ; ; 6 5
Egss3fi AEfi fi AA=AAE gsgS$ESS$5$$$$$$$$E g
,-l rn I Q c, c).r cl c) !.r o Fr o O -r e e c) Er.r c) Fr N O O.n o c) !r1 c) u) F. O c) Fr !o
= N Ln LO Fl Fl Fla{NN rn (n sl st <l€Orac)N \t L/1 u) u1 (o @ (O N F. € @ @ dr O \o LO
=.n..,NNN NNN N NNNN a! a.i m rn <l <f Na\a!r\ N a.,t N N N a\ a\l a! N dl rn (nr^ N (0 a{ N a.,t a.,J N a! N r.,t .! N N N a\ t\ a{ 6t (o (o (o ro (o (o (o (o @ (o @ @ @ @ (o (o (o
-E
o S SHB3 Fr (y) =$.as ^dsrsr <f sr rn !^ 6r
sid o$ $$BB $$ 3:i$$ H$$$ $ $$B$ch-,.NFF=rn6(]D !l an.n(n ln an an ln ln rn d1 (n (Y) (n.n.n> !a .n (n (n:..: rn dl rn d1 lYl .n rr) d) (n.n.n.n.L I L,t rtr o lrJ dr ltl ri (n an o o ln rD (n rn -- (Y) .n (n = rn rn d) (n (?t (n ,n arl tn rn rn .nga !? ur ul rJl r.n rJ') rJl rJ) r/) rJl rrl rn r,) u) Lrt th I z ti 6 ul l: L/t !a Lrt rn tn u) t4 !n Uo La lrt !nts x - ,r, rn rn ul u) lJ.t r.r') rJ) rJ) rJl ta !n ,1.,)E >.n '4 'Jt ;i r/l rrt Ln r^ rn Ld r,) Ln ul u) L/) !/1o-<zzzzzzzzzzzzzz! _- z z z , z 2 z z z z z z z z z z
-.r -. !a V d d d d d d d d d d d d A d - =^ oe oe oe i oi oa oa oe oi aa oa oi oe oa oe oaRPPs9oo9ooo9ooe999cHoo9ao9999gg9ooo9
-- \-a J - t\ v\ v\ t\.r\ ttt vl th ttt ta u1 u1 !1 tt - uJ t\ tt\ ttt = t\ tt tt ttt tft tt tt ttq<t,.. .) J J - J J J JI JI J J J J J J JlLl - a1 uJ !! uJ uJ uJ rrr uJ a! t! r! uJ r! qJ ur > = uJ ur ur !q uJ sJ sl ur r! uJ r! r!X = A =
(J (J U (J (J (J L, (J (J (J U U O O = 1 L.) (J U I! (J U U (J (J (J (J (J U (J (J (Jg+C)qxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<=xxx9xxxxxxxxxxxxF (J J O- lrJ lrJ UJ UJ lrJ UJ r! !! sJ rrJ r! r! uJ uJ ah Z, UJ Ur ur @ Lu uJ uJ Lri rrJ L|.j iri ifi
6FrNFgJ o-F<trl g\ -t F* >o 6 6 oooRg i^
t A E - - E - - - - E - - E E E r,.r 6 RI-FJFFFFJt-l-J)..JTATL <= < < = < < < 't = ir '* = = = u' > oo9oaooaooo66zzH
= =
9 9
=
P I g I
=
I P I -- - ; C g e, e, z 6 G. G. E G c. q. e. e. E J,
:Ea=e==q====e==qqef;
=fi
fi fi Efi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi AA?Ed:=99E9999=99=EE=85U5u5555588555==
--l ? " i\ o o Fr o o Fr o F{ o o.r o O o o ,-r o -r r- @ o (Yt qr o 6 o ul t\ o o.r (o)5 O st 08 Fl Fl !-l N N .\l ,Yt (n \t + rt OO Ln .! N <f r.,) r.r1 (D(O(.oroNF.aO@@dtOr.or.o<tN(o(ga,lNNa,lo,lNNa\Na\'lNNanan(n(ONl'\ia!NN..,1 N a\l NN (\ 6l a! (r).n.t1F i.l r-.1 F.l (1 N N N a! a! r! N N N N N N a.,l l.. L/) rO lO (o (o (o (o (o (o (D rO (.o (o (O (O (O (O
6r,PE
G. t^- F Q < cfr.. f = 3 7. F = H' P Ui ZaQ r 3ip E E: -E5g ^H E
=EgEEg;IEIEEEIII*Ilgg=f;
EE=E=E=====
3=HtE=)-nO<'-
H3E;TE
=EE6+3m(ratl- (p<,-;v 2
Eu
oroql('roqr55qJUr(r)(^)oo\o(o{!(rro(,l)o@!
mmrrlr"tmm?-Fl-|-|-|-oooooooo009(,
l-|--l-|-|-zzzzzz
mmrnFllnmxxxxxx(1a)a)r)r)a')mmlnmmm
94994999oooooovvvvvv
zzzzzzur l, (n (n (, r,(, l, (,! (, g.r l,qr uJ r, (, ur r,uJ(,LDu,uJQPPPPFPol or qr qr5555ooooqJ (,I NJ NJ
<D <n o clr <,r or55(^)qJ(.A)U,'oo(o(o!!iJroqro@!
mmmmrnmoooooooo0009
zzzzzz
1\) N) AJ AJ N) I\J(, ur (/r (r (Jr (,AAA5A5(^ (n ur ul (r ur(o (o (o (o r0 (ooooooooooooo\rCltOulE\Ooooooo
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Subject Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated July 20, 2021
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: C.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the minutes from its July 20, 2021 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 20, 2021
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 20, 2021
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Doug
Reeder, and Kelsey Alto
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steven Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Erik Henrickson, Project Engineer.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Robert Boecker 610 W. 96th Street
Gary & Lane Burdick 731 W. 96th Street
Dr. Carissa Haverly 750 W. 96th Street
Roger & Kim Lee 600 W. 96th Street
Elaine & Johnnie Meyering 1050 Homestead Lane
Andrew Riegert 620 W. 96th Street
Martin Schutrop, Schutrop Building & Dev. Corp. 540 Lakota Lane, Chaska
Chairman von Oven reviewed guidelines for conducting the Planning Commission meeting.
Vice Chair von Oven stated both Public Hearings will go before the City Council on Monday,
August 9, 2021.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND
SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO 21 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES
AT 775 96TH STREET W.
Senior Planner Generous presented the staff report on this item, noting the applicant is requesting
the rezoning of the property, which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
subdivision approval to create 21 single-family lots and several outlots with dedication of public
right-of-way. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) which is really a holding
district in the community and is guided for residential low-density uses which permits densities
of 1.2 to 4 units/acre. The proposed density of the part they are platting with the first phase
would be 1.69 units/acre and is within the density range permitted by the Comprehensive Plan.
There is a large wetland complex on the eastern portion of the property and a portion of the site
is heavily wooded; the applicant has allowed the neighbors to use the wooded area as a walking
area and permitted horse trails. Mr. Generous noted the RSF district is consistent with the
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
2
Comprehensive Plan and looked at other districts but none were really appropriate. Staff is in
support of rezoning to RSF which is consistent with the land use and is also one of the most
common for single-family homes in Chanhassen. The subdivision would create 21 single-family
homes on the eastern part of the subdivision and replat the farm site; access would be via public
streets from Eagle Ridge Road to the north and 96th Street to the south. City sewer and water
would be extended into the project and would move the current lift station on the north side of
the project to the very south side of the project and it will be sized sufficiently to handle
additional sanitary sewer. As part of the development, the applicant is also providing stormwater
treatment. As part of the first phase of development, there is not a lot of tree preservation as there
is a huge knoll (shown onscreen) and to bring it down and make it suitable for development they
will have to do quite a bit of grading so that entire area will be disturbed. Mr. Generous also
noted another area to be disturbed to provide stormwater ponding. There is a significant amount
of tree replacement that needs to be done and current analysis says that is 273 trees.
Project Engineer, Erik Henricksen, presented and noted staff conducted a review of the grading
and drainage plan and found that it is in general conformance with ordinances and standards.
There are a few areas that would be “Do Not Disturb” areas, one being on Outlot A, a small
portion on Lot 10, Block 1, to save an old, very significant oak tree, and some other preserved
areas. Grading is proposed on Outlot E and the City is working with the developer’s engineers to
see an exhibit of the ultimate build-out and grading plan for the area to be sure there is no
adverse drainage impacts to the lots located on Block 2. Earlier this year, the property was issued
grading Interim Use Permit #2021-03 for the dredging of a wetland north of the proposed
development and the applicant is about midway through completion and there is a stockpile of
wetland spoils which are not conducive to engineering fill or house pad support and they will
want to ensure that is relocated or removed. Mr. Henricksen walked the Commissioners through
public sanitary and water mains including 8” sanitary sewer, 12” trunk main, and relocation of an
existing temporary lift station. Lift Station #20 at the end of W. 96th Street would be removed
and all of the sanitary sewer after W. 96th Street is reconstructed would be accommodated with
the oversizing of the new lift station. The applicant has provided preliminary designs for that lift
station and it does prove feasible. The City is still working through plans to get a final location
for the lift station. Finally, the oversizing of all of the public utilities required would be
reimbursed by the City, including the 12” PVC trunk main and the lift station. Mr. Henricksen
walked the Commissioners through public storm sewer and said the applicant’s approach to
stormwater management is feasible through the use of a baffle, catch basin sumps, and filtration
pond. Staff is working with the applicant to find a more ideal access to this public facility as
right now it is located in backyards which can sometimes prove difficult to get access to for
maintenance dredging. Street connectivity goes from the termination of Eagle Ridge Road with
W. 96th Street which was a requirement from Public Works and Fire for emergency vehicle
access. The applicant is asking for a variance from the typical street width which is proposed to
be 26 feet wide rather than 31 feet wide because it is single loaded with houses on one side and
to save additional trees. Staff recommends approval of that with the condition of a sidewalk
installed on that portion. A nature trail is proposed with a mid-block crossing and staff is
working with the developer to find a different location. Mr. Henricksen walked the
Commissioners through potential street collector roads and design alternatives to improve the
traffic flow. An ideal water tower location was noted on screen and spoke about as a W. 96th
Street improvement tentatively scheduled for 2026.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
3
Mr. Generous said there are four variance requests, of which three are from the Zoning
ordinance. First, seven lots have less than 90 feet of frontage, however when they go back to the
building point they all meet or exceed the 90 foot requirement so staff is in support of that.
Second, they are requesting setback variances for Lot 1 which is the most northerly lot and is
directly next to the Foxwood development and the front setback would match the smaller
setbacks of that development; because it is between the roadway and the wetland they are also
requesting a variance from the wetland setback on the back. Eagle Ridge Way is proposed to be a
26-foot wide road and staff is in support of all the variance requests with this development. Staff
believes the applicant will be able to preserve wetlands in their current conditions. Staff is
recommending approval of the rezoning, approval of the Preliminary Plat with variances for the
street width and front yard setback, wetland setback, and street frontages subject to the
conditions in the staff report, and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Commissioner Reeder asked the City’s frontage requirement.
Mr. Generous replied it is 90 feet.
Commissioner Reeder asked how small the lots are that are being asked for variances.
Mr. Generous replied the smallest width was approximately 87 feet. He reiterated once they get
to the 30-foot setback they meet or exceed the 90 feet of width.
Vice Chairman von Oven asked on the proposed width of the street that needs the variance, are
there any concerns with fire trucks or ambulances getting through that area?
Mr. Henricksen noted there are no concerns from the Fire Department, and Fire Code does state
the minimum width for private streets is about 20 feet. There are certain requirements that must
be met, Fire performed a review, and there were no flags raised. Public Works and Engineering
does not have a concern other than keeping pedestrians on a sidewalk and out of the street.
Mr. Generous stated one side of the street will be signed as “no parking.”
Vice Chairman von Oven asked to see the slide with concerns about water. He asked if staff
could predict what the applicant will come back with for drainage and where the water will go.
Mr. Henricksen noted the applicant provided sheets that show the detail of the high point in the
back and demonstrated some routes on screen and stated they do want to ensure feasibility and
ensure everything has been checked so there are no impacts to the existing lots.
Vice Chairman von Oven asked, regarding the oversizing of the lift station, will that choice have
any negative impacts on the residents of W. 96th Street, whether it is a temporary shutdown or
changeover?
Mr. Henricksen stated sewer and water should and will always be provided during construction
and reconstruction of the W. 96th Street corridor. The oversizing of the lift station will be
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
4
oversized and built to accommodate when that construction occurs. He explained more about
gravity, current lots, and future lots and the future lift station.
Commissioner Reeder asked if there was a tree survey done and if he can see where the trees are
currently and where they will be taken down.
Mr. Generous explained the trees are all throughout the area. Mr. Henricksen showed a satellite
view and explained tree coverage.
Commissioner Reeder asked if there will be any trees left in the area they are currently
developing.
Mr. Generous replied, yes, and pointed out the areas on screen, including a large oak that they
want to preserve.
Commissioner Alto noted it was mentioned that the rezoning fits into the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan and asked how many other areas there are in Chanhassen that could be up for development
for that plan.
Mr. Generous stated Residential Low Density (RLM) is the largest land use; west of Highway
101 is guided for RLM as well so once sewer and water becomes available they could redevelop.
Commissioner Alto said it looks like the W. 96th Street neighborhood is older than Eagle Ridge.
She asked if the developer knew the price point of the proposed development versus the price
point of the houses below and above.
Mr. Generous believes the same developer that did Foxwood is interested in this and the
applicant could speak about that.
A representative from Black Cherry Development, Tim Erhart, approached the podium and said
he and his wife bought the property when they moved to Chanhassen in 1980 and moved onto
the old farm site and rebuilt the house. He got into the hobby of growing, cultivating, and
straightening trees, and building trails; they also built or restored seven ponds on the property
and it has been a beautiful and fun nature project. He wants to see it properly incorporated into
the enclave of south Chanhassen with trails and further pond development. He shared the history
of how the project came to be and noted two years ago he had no notion of selling any of the
land and a friend from Gonyea stated they had excess sewer capacity on the temporary lift station
and were out of lots so asked if he would be willing to sell some land. He feels very comfortable
about the project as it is today. He pointed out the last wetland that he wanted to restore is about
halfway done. He noted, regarding trees, it was submitted that they would clear out all of the
trees for the houses and that is not the case. Now that tree preserve will allow individual lot
owners to optimize their lot, he believes that will lead to a lot less tree removal than shown on
the plan. He loves trees and is working very hard to make it good. Regarding the prices of the
homes, he believes other homes in Foxwood are going for $800,000-$950,000 although it is a
tough question.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
5
Vice Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Dr. Carissa Haverly, 750 W. 96th Street, had some concerns. First, she would ask the Planning
Commission to understand that hooking up W. 96th Street to Eagle Ridge is because of the Fire
Department requirement, but will drastically change the character of the neighborhood and
traffic that flows through. It is a tight-knit community and everyone knows one another; she
asked that the City be mindful of the decisions they are making and the way it will affect
residents. Second, she had a grave concern in being forced to hook up to sewer and water and
being charged a hefty assessment fee. She works three part-time jobs, her husband works full-
time and part-time and if the City requires them to no longer use their well and sewer, it will cost
them a lot of money. She is concerned that there may be others in the neighborhood that also fall
into that category. Finally, Dr. Haverly said regarding the reconstruction of W. 96th Street to
include sidewalks, her property is one of the end properties on the development and W. 96th
Street goes onto her property and uses part of the utility easement. In looking through City Code,
Section 18-64 through 18-77, Article 4 describes easements as the front 10 feet of one’s property
provided for utilities. Division 5 Section 20-379 defines utilities as sewer, gas, electrical, and
water systems but it does not say that the City may use her property for roads and sidewalks. She
then did a search on eminent domain and could not find it. She wonders what recourse the City
has for using her property for this street and sidewalks and every single resident will be giving
up a hunk of their front yards in order to accommodate this, which is eminent domain and
requires some fiscal compensation.
Vice Chairman von Oven noted she keeps referring to 76th Street and he does not know what that
is.
Dr. Haverly replied she is nervous and she meant W. 96th Street. She asked to show the ghost
plat of the subdivision and pointed out her property and utility easement; this does infringe on
her property and they can definitely come to some kind of agreement or conclusion.
Elaine Meyering, 1050 Homestead Lane, saw on the map that they are proposing a road through
their cul-de-sac and stated they are against that and do not want that to go through. She noted on
the map showing the future that a road may go through the cul-de-sac on Homestead Lane and
on Flintlock Trail for future development of the area. If that happens, she wonders when and if
they would be assessed fees for City sewer and water, as well as curb and gutter. She also asked
if the properties would stay the way they are on Homestead Lane or rezoned into smaller lots.
Commissioner Noyes asked to clarify in extending W. 96th Street to the west it appears that
would potentially connect with Flintlock Trails and Homestead Lane both coming in from the
south.
Ms. Meyering replied yes. When looking at the map A, B, C, D, she asked if those are water
towers.
Mr. Henricksen said from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan this property was analyzed to have a
water tower on it at some location and the developer’s engineer has provided three locations that
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
6
would meet the requirements. There will not be a need to install three water towers but there are
three possible locations identified. He showed the most ideal location from staff’s point of view.
Ms. Aanenson, Community Development Director, noted one of the first things staff does is to
show a potential alignment for the street because it is in the Comprehensive Plan that the street
must connect. The intention here is that it is transparent that there is a potential for connection.
Will it happen? They will have to decide as the rest of the street comes in, and they know there is
a potential for water sites so people can plan for that in the future. It is not the City’s intention to
rezone the property on W. 96th Street nor to rezone the property south. The goal in moving
forward is as systems fail (septic and sewer) there is another alternative to provide for those
houses, as there have been situations where systems fail and people cannot sell their home. They
are always planning for other options but does not mean that it has to go through at that time;
they are saying there are options to provide sewer and water access to those and some of those
decisions are also made by the Fire Department. She clarified today they are looking at this
project to show what could happen over there.
Kim Lee, 600 W. 96th Street, noted four bullet points on a document, regarding construction
traffic on W. 96th Street. Included is further deterioration of the road, and she noted they would
like to maintain the current cul-de-sac with no through traffic. The proposed construction access
from Powers Boulevard in line with the current ghost plat, they know the construction is not just
the first 21 houses but will eventually extend and all of that traffic will go on for 3-5 years as this
is not something short-lived. If it was at least looked at through Powers, there is no one there,
and then W. 96th Street won’t be affected until possibly 2026. She noted they know it is
eventually coming, but none of those homes would be interrupted until that time.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Alto asked if it is determined that all construction traffic would enter through W.
96th Street or would it be split between Eagle Ridge.
Mr. Henricksen replied ideally it would be split. It is not atypical for public right-of-ways to be
used for construction access when they see developments extending from existing right-of-ways.
Through construction planning to have two routes and access points to the development would
be sought after. With W. 96th Street being slated for reconstruction in the future, it is an ideal
location to have construction traffic.
Commissioner Alto asked if it is possible to ask the developer to use the Powers connection as a
construction road.
Mr. Henricksen noted they looked at that possibility but found it infeasible with the proposed
development and not necessarily prudent or reasonable.
Commissioner Reeder asked what made it infeasible.
Mr. Henricksen replied it comes into construction means and methods in looking at getting a
delivery when there is a road that is unplatted and does not have addresses.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
7
Assistant City Engineer, George Bender stated it is someone’s property and to make the
requirement – rather than request – as a condition of the development goes to the reasonability of
the request.
Commissioner Noyes asked if the western part was being developed now, would the access come
down W. 96th Street for construction?
Mr. Henricksen replied no. It would come off Powers Boulevard. He noted reconstruction of W.
96th Street is highly contingent on the future developments.
Mr. Generous clarified the westernmost portion is guided for office development; it is really
market-driven and if someone wanted to come in and do that they would probably require
making the connection from Powers Boulevard. He clarified there is a large ridge right there that
will have to come down to meet the 7% slope requirements of the City.
Commissioner Skistad asked if W. 96th Street is currently a mound and well system for sewer
and water.
Mr. Generous clarified they have sewer connection, but not everyone has water.
Mr. Henricksen replied they have tanks in their backyard which then flow to the gravity system
in W. 96th and then goes to Lift Station 20 and gets pumped across Highway 101 to another
gravity system. It would be ideal to have a normal sewer pipe there as the tanks are an area of
Infiltration and Inflow (I and I) so they are seeing surface water and ground water leeching into
the sanitary system. It is an issue the City is dealing with as a whole but W. 96th Street has
exhibited a higher I and I than normal and it is believed to be tied to the tank system tied in there.
Commissioner Reeder asked what the policy is if and when they put that pipe in. Do they require
a hook-up?
Mr. Generous replied if one is within 150 feet of the sewer line, they are required to connect. A
well may be maintained until it fails and then one cannot drill a new well but would have to
connect.
Mr. Henricksen believes the 150-foot requirement is also linked to new construction.
Vice Chairman von Oven noted this Commission has approved two variances in the last six
months in his neighborhood which has resulted in a ton of construction traffic and drives him
nuts. However, it was the right thing to do because the variances followed the City plan and it is
the right of the property owner to do with their property what is allowed by the City. From his
point of view, the Commission has a set of plans and variances before it that do not vary widely
from what the City expects and that a property owner is not going beyond their rights. He does
not see anything on the map that City Code gives reason to say one cannot do that, which is also
why he believes staff is recommending approval for City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
8
Commissioner Reeder thinks the construction traffic on W. 96th will be outrageous. He has lived
with this in the past and he thinks it will be a large problem for the City for the five years it takes
for things to be built.
Vice Chairman von Oven does not disagree but he does not feel it is within their rights to force
the property owner to go in through Powers.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of the
development from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Single-Family Residential District
(RSF); preliminary plat with variances for street width, front yard setback (Lot 1, Block 1),
wetland setback (Lot 1, Block 1) and street frontages (Lots 3 through 9, Block 1) subject to
the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF) AND
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT WITH VARIANCES
FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND PRIVATE STREET WIDTH AT 9197 EAGLE RIDGE
ROAD
Mr. Generous presented the staff report and said Planning Case #2021-15 is a rezoning and
subdivision approval to create two lots, one for the existing home and the other for a new
building site. The approval comes with variance requests for a private street, as currently the lot
is accessed via a private street and they would extend that to serve the two lots. There is also a
request to have less than a 20-foot wide private street because of retaining walls on site in the
wetland. The site is guided for residential low density which permits densities of 1.2 to 4
units/acre. Sewer and water are stubbed to the end of the private street but are not connected to
the homes. There are wetlands in the northeast and south side of the property. Mr. Generous
spoke about utilities and tree removal.
Mr. Henricksen reported there are no public utilities or street connections. As presented and
shown, the grading plan is feasible and meets the ordinances. Construction plans will require
some updates and will be reviewed during the building permit process.
Mr. Generous stated City Code permits the use of private streets for up to four single-family
homes. He advised the applicant that they need the Fire Marshal to sign off on the variance for
design standards for a private street. The applicant is proposing to use wetland buffering which
the Watershed District must approve. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and the
subdivision with the variance for the private street and private street width subject to the
conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Commissioner Skistad asked how long the private road would be.
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
9
Mr. Generous replied about 200-300 feet.
Commissioner Alto asked if the trail across Highway 101 that plans to connect to Bandimere
Park will be constructed.
Mr. Generous replied not as part of this development. Currently, there is an underpass under
Highway 101 and they would be looking for the connection in the future.
Commissioner Noyes asked if that connection is in an easement or on an outlot that the City
would own.
Mr. Generous noted that is up to the developer. The City would prefer it as an outlot that the City
would own, but if the developer wanted to keep it, then they could and place a drainage, utility,
and trail easement for a future trail alignment.
The Council discussed trail crossings and their preference is not to have trail crossings mid-
block.
Mr. Henricksen noted the newly formed Traffic Safety Committee developed earlier this year is
developing a safe crosswalk policy which deals directly with mid-block crossings to have certain
criteria for when and if they are installed and what type of improvement.
Martin Schutrop, Schutrop Building, noted there will be a shared agreement on the driveway for
maintenance and plowing. The current house has already been sold and will be remodeled and
updated.
Vice Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Vice Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning from
Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Single-Family Residential District (RSF), a two-lot, one
outlot subdivision with a variance for the use of a private street and private street width
subject to the conditions of the staff report; and adoption of Findings of Fact and Decision.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated July 6, 2021 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Ms. Aanenson presented highlights of action taken by the City Council on planning matters. At
the last Council meeting, the Avienda Final Plat was approved, and there was a Metes and
Bounds subdivision for a salon. Regarding the interim use for the driving range, the City sent out
Planning Commission Minutes – July 20, 2021
10
for jurisdictional review and received a response from the DNR that they had no comments from
the Biology and Wildlife person. During the City Council meeting out of the blue, someone from
the DNR Wildlife got up and noted he had no problems and had met with the applicant the
previous Friday. The City sent a letter that it would have been nice if they had communicated
that with them.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Noyes moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Subject City Council Action Update
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: D.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Action Update
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2021
Ordinance XXX: Approve a Request to Amend City Code Chapters 1 and 20 to Define
"Agritainment"/"Agritourism"; Create Standards and Criteria for an Agritainment Use as
an Interim Use; Allow Agritainment Uses as an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District;
and Receive an Interim Use Permit for an Agritainment Use on Property Located at 9111
Audubon Road – Tabled to future Council meeting
MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 2021
Urban Land Institute Workshop with Planning Commission and Economic Development
Commission (WS)
Ordinance XXX: Approve a Request to Amend City Code Chapters 1 and 20 to Define "Agritourism";
Create Standards and Criteria for an Agritourism Use as an Interim Use; Allow Agritourism Uses as an
Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District; and Approve an Interim Use Permit for an Agritourism
Use on Property Located at 9111 Audubon Road – Approved
Ordinance XXX: Approve a Request to Rezone Property from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to
Single-Family Residential (RSF) and Subdivision of Property into 21 Single-Family Lots with Variances
at 775 West 96th Street – Approved with modification to eliminate the sidewalk requirement
Ordinance XXX: Approve a Request to Rezone Property from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Single-Family
Residential (RSF); and Resolution 2021-XX: Subdivision Approval of Two Lots and One Outlot with
Variances for a Private Street and Private Street Width at 9197 Eagle Ridge Road – 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.