01-04-2022 Agenda and Packet
A.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
B.GENERAL BUSINESS
B.1 Accept Resignation of Chairman and Approve Selection of New Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson
C.PUBLIC HEARINGS
C.1 Consider a Request for Setback and Lot Cover Variances to Add an Addition on to an
Existing Detached Garage on Property Located at 3711 South Cedar Drive.
C.2 Consider a Request to Amend Chanhassen City Code Chapter 20 (Zoning), Article XX
Reclassifying Certain Uses Within the Fringe Business (BF) District as Interim Uses
C.3 Consider an Amendment to Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20
Concerning Fees
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated December 7, 2021
E.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
E.1 City Council Action Update
F.ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2022
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. 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.
1
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.
2
Planning Commission Item
January 4, 2022
Item Accept Resignation of Chairman and Approve Selection of New Chairperson
and Vice Chairperson
File No.Planning General File No. 109A-10 Item No: B.1
Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS
Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission accepts a letter of resignation from Chairman Steven Weick
and votes to approve new Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
3
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Steven Weick - Planning Commission Chairman Resignation
4
Kathryn Aanenson, AICP
Community Development Director
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Dear Kate:
Please accept this letter as notification of my intention to resign my position as Chairman of the
Planning Commission for the City of Chanhassen. My personal obligations have sufficiently reduced my
ability to maintain consistent attendance that is required for this position. It is my intention to remain
on the Planning Commission, as a member, for the duration of my current term.
My hope is that we can formally transfer my responsibilities to the Vice Chairman at the next Planning
Commission meeting currently scheduled for January 4, 2022.
I appreciate your assistance and understanding,
Sincerely,
Steven Weick
6401 Teton Ln
Chanhassen, MN
55317
952.681.0109
5
Planning Commission Item
January 4, 2022
Item
Consider a Request for Setback and Lot Cover Variances to Add an Addition on
to an Existing Detached Garage on Property Located at 3711 South Cedar
Drive.
File No.Planning Case No. 2022-01 Item No: C.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Jeff Robinson
Murphy Bros. Building & Remodeling
1330 Park Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage 0.18
Density N/A
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single Family Residential Districts
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-904. Accessory Structures
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-908. Yard Regulations
6
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 7.9-foot west side yard
setback, and approves 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot
cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts
and Decision.
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to add an addition on to the west side of an existing nonconforming detached
garage. Due to the placement of the existing garage and the lot's substandard size, they are requesting
variances from the City’s front yard and side yard setbacks as well as a lot cover variance to allow for
the proposed garage addition.
BACKGROUND
The property’s original house was built at an unknown date, though the 1977 variance mentions that its
owners had lived there for 32 year which means that a house with nonconforming 2-foot side yard
setbacks was present from at least 1945 on, and a note included with a 2016 remodeling permit
indicates that the original house was built in 1923.
In September 1977, the City tabled a variance request for a 20-foot by 60-foot addition to the rear of the
existing home.
In November of 1977, the City approved a variance request to increase the nonconformity by adding a
second story. The proposal involved demolishing the existing home and rebuilding a new home with a
second story living area within the preexisting home’s nonconforming footprint.
In December of 1977, the City issued a building permit for the construction of the current home.
In November of 1978, the property owner applied for a building permit for the construction of a
proposed 30-foot wide by 22-foot long garage with 2-foot east side yard setbacks and 8-foot west side
yard setbacks. This permit was not approved.
In April of 2005, the City issued a building permit for the construction of a deck.
In August of 2007, the City issued a demolition permit for the property’s garage.
In August of 2007, the City issued a building permit for a replacement garage that reduced the
property’s nonconforming lot cover and maintained the nonconforming side yard setbacks. This permit
also permitted the house to be converted to a full two story.
Note: Numerous other permits for maintenance and interior remodels are on file; however, since they do
not impact the property’s setbacks or lot cover, they have not been included.
DISCUSSION
7
The applicant is proposing adding a 5.25-foot wide by 20-foot long addition to the east side of their
detached garage. Since this side of the garage is currently 7.6 feet from the side lot line the proposed
addition would result in the garage’s foundation being 2.083 feet from the side lot line and the eaves
being 1.16 feet from the side lot line. Variances would also be required from the property’s front yard
setback, an 8-foot variance, and lot cover limit, a 15.6 percent variance. The proposed addition will be
over existing asphalt and will result in decreasing the nonconforming lot cover by 32 square feet, .4
percent. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to provide additional garage storage
space.
The applicant has stated that requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of their lot and
the fact that the other available storage options do not work as well. They believe that most other
potential locations for additional storage would either disrupt access to the house or would increase the
property’s lot cover. They have noted that many of the surrounding properties have received variances
for similar projects and that they do not feel it would negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff is sympathetic to the applicant’s desire to provide for increased storage space and agrees that the
substandard size of the parcel may justify a variance; however, the applicant has numerous other
options for creating additional storage space which would not require such a significant side yard
setback variance. City policy is to always require a side yard setback of at least five feet, unless the
structure already exceeds that and the applicant can demonstrate a need to maintain the existing
building line. While the City has issued numerous setback variances within 500 feet of this property,
none of them have permitted a foundation to be built with a 2-foot side yard setback. Given the
presence of alternatives for increasing the property’s storage space and the concerns created by reducing
side yard setbacks to less than five feet, staff cannot recommend approval of the requested variance.
Staff instead recommends that the Planning Commission approve a 5-foot east side yard setback
variance which would allow for a similarly sized garage expansion while maintaining a 5-foot side yard
setback. The other requested variances, 8-foot front and 15.6 percent lot cover, are necessitated by the
property’s existing nonconformities.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny the
requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, and approves 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard
setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be
required after plan review.
2. The exterior wall and eaves on the wall facing the property line will need to be built using fire-
resistant rated construction in areas where the separation distance from the property line is less
than five feet.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Must provide the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with calculations of the total area of
disturbance and total volume of any excavation/fill. If these totals trigger the District’s permitting
requirements, any and all required permits from the Watershed District must be obtained before
starting work.
5. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
8
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any
site improvements.
6. Total lot cover shall not exceed 3,119 square feet.
7. The detached garage’s eaves may encroach up to one foot into the required front yard and side
yard setbacks.
8. The detached garage must have gutters and the downspout extensions must not direct water
towards the neighboring property.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 3711 South Cedar Drive (Staff Alternative).docx
Variance Document
Development Review Application
Variance Request Justification
Survey (Pre-existing)
Proposal Plans
ENG/WRC Memo
Emailed Comments
Affidavit of Mailing
9
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: January 4,2022
CC DATE: January 24, 2022
REVIEW DEADLINE: February 1, 2022
CASE #: PC 2022-01
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to add an addition to the west side of an existing nonconforming
detached garage. Due to the placement of the existing garage and the lot’s substandard size,they
are requesting variances from the City’s front yard and side yard setbacks as well as a lot cover
variance to allow for the proposed garage addition.
LOCATION:3711 South Cedar Drive
APPLICANT:Jeff Robinson
Murphy Bros. Building & Remodeling
1330 Park Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
OWNER: Michael Corrigan
South Cedar Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” –Single-Family
Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE:.18 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 7.9-foot west side yard
setback, and approves the 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard setback, and 15.6
percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval,and adopts the attached
Findings of Facts and Decision.”
10
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 2
The applicant is proposing adding a 5.25-foot wide by 20-foot long addition to the east side of
their detached garage. Since this side of the garage is currently 7.6 feet from the side lot line, the
proposed addition would result in the garage’s foundation being 2.083-feet from the side lot line
and the eaves being 1.16-feet from the side lot line. Variances would also be required from the
property’s front yard setback, an 8-foot variance, and lot cover limit, a 15.6 percent variance.
The proposed addition will be over the existing asphalt and will result in decreasing the
nonconforming lot cover by of 32 square feet, .4 percent. The applicant has stated that the intent
of the variance is to provide for additional garage storage space.
The applicant has stated that the requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of
their lot and the fact that the other available storage options do not work as well. They believe
that most other potential locations for additional storage would either disrupt access to the house
or would increase the property’s lot cover. They have noted that many of the surrounding
properties have received variances for similar projects, and that they do not feel it would
negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff is sympathetic to the applicant’s desire to provide for increased storage space and agrees
that the substandard size of the parcel may justify a variance; however, the applicant has
numerous other options for creating additional storage space which would not require such a
significant side yard setback variance. City policy is to always require a side yard setback of at
least 5 feet, unless the structure already exceeds that and the applicant can demonstrate a need to
maintain the existing building line. While the City has issued numerous setback variances within
500 feet of this property, none of them have permitted a foundation to be built with a 2-foot side
yard setback. Given the presence of alternatives for increasing the property’s storage space and
the concerns created by reducing side yard setbacks to less than five feet, staff cannot
recommend approval of the requested variance. Staff instead recommends that the Planning
Commission approve a 5-foot east side yard setback variance, which would allow for a similarly
sized garage expansion while maintaining a 5-foot side yard setback. The other requested
variances, 8-foot front and 15.6 percent lot cover, are necessitated by the property’s existing
nonconformities.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single Family Residential Districts
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-904. Accessory Structures
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-908. Yard Regulations
BACKGROUND
11
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 3
The property’s original house was built at an unknown date, though the 1977 variance mentions that
its owners had lived there for 32 year which means that a house with nonconforming 2-foot side
yard setbacks was present from at least 1945 on and a note included with a 2016 remodeling permit
indicates that the original house was built in 1923.
In September 1977, the City tabled a variance request for a 20-foot by 60-foot addition to the rear of
the existing home.
In November of 1977, the City approved a variance request to increase the nonconformity by adding
a second story. The proposal involved demolishing the existing home and rebuilding a new home
with a second story living area within the preexisting home’s nonconforming footprint.
In December of 1977, the City issued a building permit for the construction ofthe current home.
In November of 1978, the property owner applied for a building permit for the construction of a
proposed 30-foot wide by 22-foot long garage with 2-foot east side yard setbacks and 8-foot west
side yard setbacks. This permit was not approved.
In April of 2005, the City issued a building permit for the construction of a deck.
In August of 2007, the City issued a demolition permit for the property’s garage.
In August of 2007, the City issued a building permit for a replacement garage that reduced the
property’s nonconforming lot cover and maintained the nonconforming side yard setbacks. This
permit also permitted the house to be converted to a full two story.
Note: Numerous other permits for maintenance and interior remodels are on file; however, since
they do not impact the property’s setbacks or lot cover, they have not been included.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) and is located within the
Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires a minimum lot size of
20,000 square feet, 30-foot front and rear yard setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks, 75-foot
shoreland setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL), and limits parcels to a maximum
of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height and are allowed one
water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS) within the required 75-foot shoreland setback so
long as it is setback 10 feet from the OHWL, under 250 square feet in size, and under 10 feet in
height. Additionally, the southernmost tip of the parcel below the 945.9 contour is located within
the AE Flood Zone.
The lot is a nonconforming 7,687 square feet with 3,151 square feet of lot cover resulting in 41
percent lot cover. The existing principle structure meets the required 30-foot front yard setback
12
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 4
and 75-foot shoreland setback, and has a nonconforming 2.2-foot east and 2-foot west side yard
setbacks. The property has a detached garage with a nonconforming 21.8-foot front yard setback,
7.6-foot west side yard setback, and 9.8-foot east side yard setback. The existing driveway has an
approximate nonconforming 31-foot width at the lot line. Approximately 68 square feet of the
rear patio encroaches about 4 feet into the required 75-foot shoreland setback.
Bluff Creek Corridor
The parcel is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There is not a bluff present on the property.
Floodplain Overlay
A small section of the property located below the 945.9 contour is located within the AE Flood
Zone (1% annual chance); however, no portion of the project is proposed near or within that
area.
Shoreland Management
The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District. This District requires a 75-foot
structure setback from the lake’s OHWL and limits the property to a maximum impervious
surface coverage of 25 percent. The shoreland ordinance permits one WOAS to be located within
the 75-foot shoreland setback, provided that it is at least 10 feet from the OHWL, no larger than
250 square feet, and has a maximum height of 10 feet. Vegetative clearing is also restricted with
the 37.5-foot shoreland impact zone, save limited clearing to for a view, access, and allowed
facilities. This is limited to a section 30 percent the width of the lot or 30 feet wide, whichever is
less.
Wetland Protection
There are no wetlands located on the property.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Red Cedar Point at Lake Minnewashta
13
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 5
The plat for this area was recorded in
August of 1913. Over the subsequent
century, the City of Chanhassen was
formed, a Zoning Code was passed, the
Zoning Code was amended numerous
times, and buildings were built,
demolished, and rebuilt to meet the
standards and needs of the existing
ordinances. Additionally, the
neighborhood’s roads were not always
constructed within their designated right
of way. In some areas, this has led to
portions of buildings being located in
the right of way and portions of these
roads being located within residents’
property lines. Very few properties in
the area meet the requirements of the
City’s Zoning Code, and most properties
either have nonconforming structures or
are operating under a variance.
Variances within 500 feet:
3622 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2017-09: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by raising garage in
side yard setback (garage)
3624 Red Cedar Point Rd.:1985-20: Approved – 1.2’ front and 4.8 side setbacks (detached
garage)
3625 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2009-15: Approved – 15.5’ front, 6.5’ E side*, 9’ driveway, and
18.5’ lake setbacks, 12.3% lot cover, and 1
car garage (house)
*This variance included the eaves, foundation
is 5’ from side lot line.
3627 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2016-11: Approved – 13.6’ lake setback and 4.8% lot cover (house
and patio)
3628 Hickory Rd.:2002-05: Approved – 13’ N front, 2’ S front, and 5’ side setbacks
(detached garage)
3629 Red Cedar Point Rd.:1980-08: Approved – 12’ front and 3’ side +1.5’ for fire setbacks
30’ lot width, 40’ lot frontage, and sub
20,000-sq. ft. lot area (house)
1987-13: Approved – 12’ front and 3’ side setbacks (house)
14
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 6
3633 South Cedar Drive:2006-04: Approved – 22.5’ and 15.8’ front setbacks, and 2.39% lot
cover (garage)
2008-04: Approved – 20.2’ front and 8’ side* setbacks (house)
*This variance included the eaves, foundation is 4.2’ from side lot
line.
3637 South Cedar Drive:1978-07: Approved – 19’ front setback (detached garage)
2004-07: Approved – 19.5 front and 4’ lake setbacks, 15% lot
cover (addition)
3701 South Cedar Drive:1980-04: Approved – 14’ front and 25’ shore setbacks, sub 20,000-
sq. ft. lot area (house)
1985-27: Approved – 5’ front and 35’ lake setbacks (house)
2015-07: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by enclosing deck
within lake setback (addition)
3705 South Cedar Drive:1996-04: Approved – 3’ E and W side and 31’ lake setbacks, and
25% lot cover (house)
3707 South Cedar Drive:1984-18: Approved – 20’ front setback (detached garage)
3711 South Cedar Drive:1977-14: Tabled – Intensify nonconformity (addition)
1977-18: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by raising house
height (house)
3713 South Cedar Drive:1985-26: Approved – 15’ front setback (detached garage)
2019-11: Approved – 5’ front setback and 1.83% lot cover
(garage)
3715 South Cedar Drive: 1975-01: Approved – 20’ front setback (garage)
3725 South Cedar Drive:1984-17: Approved – 4.53’ side setback (addition)
1987-15: Approved – 4.53’ side setback (addition)
3727 South Cedar Drive:1991-04: Approved – 11’ lot frontage variance (house)
7201 Juniper Ave:1979-07: Approved – sub 15,000 sq. ft. lot area (house)
1984-02: Approved – 8.66’ front setback (addition)
1998-07: Approved – 11.5’ front setback (addition)
7210 Juniper Ave:1977-11: Approved – 10’ lot frontage variance (house)
Nineteen (19) of the 33 properties within 500’ of the applicant’s parcel have received at least one
variance. A total of 27 variances have been issued to these properties.
15
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 7
ANALYSIS
Setbacks
The applicant’s lot is approximately 40 feet
wide by 191.5 feet long. The existing
detached garage is setback 21.8 feet from the
front lot line, 9.8 feet from the east lot line,
and 7.6 feet from the west lot line. The
applicant is proposing a 5.25-foot by 20-foot
garage addition which would result in the
garage foundation being 2.1 feet from the
side lot line and the eaves being 1.16 feet
from the side lot line. This addition would
not decrease the existing front yard setback.
The applicant has indicated that they believe
that due to the substandard size of the lot
there are no other options for creating
additional storage on the property. They have
stated that adding a WOAS on the lake side of the lot would increase the property’s lot cover and
that an expansion along the east side of the garage would interfere with the main access to the
house and also increase lot cover. They have noted that many of the surrounding properties are
nonconforming, have received setback variances, and that the property’s house currently has a 2-
foot side yard setback.
The applicant’s statement that alternative storage configurations like the use of a WOAS or
adding on to the east side of the garage would increase lot cover, does not consider the
possibility of removing existing lot cover to offset new lot cover. The applicant could keep their
proposed lot cover neutral by removing the area of blacktop along the west of the garage,
reducing the driveway’s nonconforming 31-foot width, or reducing the size of the property’s
paver patios and walkways. Given that the area of lot cover the applicant is proposing to replace
with their proposed addition can easily be removed to allow for a similarly sized storage area in
another location, concern over lot cover cannot be used to justify the requested setback variance.
Similarly, the home’s nonconforming 2-foot side yard setbacks do not justify allowing the garage
to reduce its side yard setback to two feet. Since the garage is a detached structure, there is no
structural or architectural reason which would require it maintain a line with the principal
structure. The express purpose of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance is stated in section 20-
71(b) and (c) as “to prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification or extension of any
conforming use, building or structure” and “encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses,
lots and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties”. To this end, section 20-72(d)
states that “if a setback of dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the
nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements”. Taken
16
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 8
together, the above means that the home’s nonconforming side yard setback cannot be used to
justify intensifying the garage’s nonconforming side yard setbacks. Any decrease to the garage’s
side yard setbacks must meet the criteria for granting a variance irrespective of the home’s side
yard setbacks.
While staff understands that the proposed
expansion is the applicant’s preferred solution,
staff cannot agree that it is the only viable option
or that a similar amount of storage could not be
provided through a less impactful variance. Staff
has created three graphics showing alteratives for
creating additional storage space on the property.
Additional options such as increasing the height of
the garage to create a second storage level or
adding a free standing shed between the garage
and house also exist.
One option, Alternative A, would be to increase
the length of the garage. If the expansion met the
required 10-foot side yard and lot cover along the
east side of the garage was removed to offset the
size of the addition this option would not require a
variance. If the applicant was willing to remove
additional lot cover they could use this option to
create a larger garage addition than is being
proposed. If the applicant chose to extend the rear
addition across the length of the garage, only a
2.5-foot side yard setback variance would be
required.
Alternative B, adding a WOAS, could also be
done without a variance. The applicant would need
to remove approximately 68 square feet of patio
that is located within the shoreland setback and an
amount of lot cover equal to the size of the WOAS
from the west side of the garage or driveway. The
WOAS could be located anywhere within the
permitted area shown on the graphic to the left.
17
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 9
The final Alternative is the closest to what the
applicant is proposing and involves adding
approximately five feet onto the east side of the
garage, which currently has a 10-foot side yard
setback, rather than 5.25 feet onto the west side of
the garage, which currently has a 7.6-foot side
yard setback. This would result in a 5-foot side
yard setback rather than a 2-foot side yard
setback. The area of blacktop on the east side of
the garage would need to be removed to offset the
addition to the west.
When staff discussed Alternative C with the
applicant, they expressed concern that it would
require shifting the walkway to run against the
retaining wall which could result in safety
concerns. Staff would note that a railing could be
installed along the walkway to mitigate those
concerns, or the walkway could be shifted to the
west side of the garage taking the place of some
of the removed blacktop. Since the home’s
primary entrance is located near to the center of
the structure and a central patio area is already present between the garage and home, having the
walkway run along the west rather than east side of the garage would not interfere with access to
the home. A final point to note is that the garage has a rear facing service door, so nothing in the
garage’s current configuration necessitates the eastern walkway.
In evaluating setback requests, the City evaluates the extent to which the requested setback is due
to the property’s unique circumstances or the design choice of the owner. In this case, staff
believes the requested setback variance is largely the result of the property’s owners desire to
place the addition on the west side of the garage. Alternative C would provide essentially the
same use of the property while maintaining a 5-foot side yard setback, and other alternatives,
could provide for storage space without the need for any variances.
The City also considers the extent to which the requested setback variance has the potential to
impact neighboring properties and the requested setback’s consistency with the neighborhood
and past practice. The City requires all single-family homes in all zoning districts to maintain a
side yard setback of at least five feet and with the exception of uncovered stairs and landings
which are allowed to encroach up to six feet into a required 10-foot side yard setback, all other
features such as decks, balconies, eaves, etc. are required to be five feet or more from the side lot
line. There are several reasons for this requirement, but one of the main ones is the stormwater
management issues created by allowing structures to be built too close to the lot line. When a
structure is built two feet from the lot line with eaves one foot from the lot line, as the applicant
is proposing, it is very difficult to prevent the runoff created by the structure from being diverted
to the neighboring parcel. Drainage issues like this are frequent sources of tension between
18
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 10
neighbors. Similarly, a 2-foot separation makes it difficult for construction, grading, and
maintenance activities to be conducted without trespassing or impacting the neighboring parcel.
While the current neighbors may not be concerned by this, future residents of the neighboring
house may be.
While the area has received
many variances, the requested
variance is not typical for the
City or the neighborhood. Staff
examined the side yard setback
variances that have been granted
to properties within 500 feet of
the applicant’s and found no
instances where a 2-foot
foundation setback had been
permitted. Staff did find one case
where a home’s eaves were
allowed to be two feet from the
side yard, due to the structure
having a nonconforming 4-foot side yard setback. As the table shows, the average side yard
setback variance granted within this neighborhood is typically around five feet. Several of these
lots have the same 40-foot width as the applicant’s and the applicant has not demonstrated any
unique feature of their lot that would justify departing from the City’s policy of requiring at least
a 5-foot side yard setback.
In order to grant a variance, the City must find that the variance is in harmony with intent of the
Zoning Code, that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the City Code, and that the variance is necessitated by the unique nature of the property and
not the actions of the owner. Staff believes that 2-foot side yard setbacks are not in harmony with
the intent of the Zoning Code, that the owner’s proposed use is reasonable but that similar use is
permitted by the City Code or with a less impactful variance, and that the specific variance being
requested is the result of the owner’s design choice. In order to allow for the owner to have
increased storage space, staff would recommend approving the 5-foot east side yard setback
required to accommodate Alternative C, which staff believes can meet the above requirements
for issuing a variance. Granting the requested 8-foot front yard setback variance to match the
garage’s current distance from the street would be consistent with past policy of allowing
structures in the area to maintain their nonconforming setbacks when adding on, the City’s
minimum driveway requirements, and the front yard setbacks of the surrounding structures.
Lot Cover
The applicant is proposing 15.6 percent lot cover, for a total lot cover of 40.6 percent. Currently,
the property has a nonconforming lot cover of 41 percent. The City’s nonconforming use
ordinance allows for property owners to make improvements on a nonconforming property so
long as it results in a reduction to the nonconformity. The City Code does not specify how large
19
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 11
of a reduction is required, and, were it not for the requested setback variances, staff could
approve the lot cover portion of the project through a building permit. That being said, it is the
City’s practice to formalize proposed lot cover reductions by including them in the requested
variance when properties with nonconforming lot cover request other variances. This approach
ensures transparency and makes it easier to verify that the lot cover is actually reduced and to
take action if the lot cover is subsequently increased.
The requested 15.6 percent lot cover variance is on the higher side of lot cover variances;
however, three other properties on the south side of South Cedar Drive have requested lot cover
variances of 15 percent or higher, and 3,119 square feet of proposed lot cover is similar to what
is present on other similarly sized parcels within the area. The parcel’s substandard 7,687 square
foot lot area means that relatively small changes to the square footage of the property’s lot cover
have a large impact on the property’s lot cover percentage and that there are limited options for
reducing lot cover while maintaining typically sized structures and amenities.
That being said, the applicant’s proposed 32-square foot, .4 percent, reduction to the property’s
lot cover is smaller than staff would prefer; however, staff is sympathetic to the owner’s desire to
maintain the size of their rear patio. The only other nonstructural lot cover is the paver walkway
and driveway. While the portion of the driveway within the front yard setback could potentially
be narrowed to the width of the garage doors to eliminate an additional 280 square feet of lot
cover, doing so would also eliminate an off-street parking spot at its current width the driveway,
providing off-street parking for up to three vehicles. Given the historic parking issues along
South Cedar Drive and within the Red Cedar Point neighborhood, staff has elected not to
recommend that the applicant be required to remove this section of driveway. If the Planning
Commission approves staff’s recommended Alternative, the removal and relocation of the east
paver walkway may provide opportunities to further reduce lot cover and staff will work with the
applicant on designing a walkway that meets their needs while minimizing lot cover.
When determining if it is appropriate to require the use of pervious pavers or the creation of a
vegetative buffer, staff evaluates the size and scope of the project as well the conditions placed
on similar variances. Since all proposed alterations to the property’s lot cover are outside of the
75 foot shoreland setback and the applicant’s proposal is for a minor addition to an accessory
structure rather than the construction of new home, staff is not requiring the creation of a
vegetative buffer nor mandating the use of pervious pavers as conditions of approval for the
variance.
Impact on Neighborhood
Red Cedar Point is one of the City’s oldest neighborhoods and many of the homes are located on
lots that are significantly narrower than the Zoning Code’s 90-foot minimum lot width. This has
resulted in many properties that do not have the required 10-foot side yard setbacks. Granting the
5-foot side yard setback identified in Alternative C would result in a side yard setback that is not
atypical for the area and would maintain 15 feet of separation between detached garage and the
structures on the neighboring parcels. This separation helps to create a visual break between
structures and provides for greenspace along the streetscape, consistent with the intent of the
20
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 12
City’s side yard setback ordinance. Granting a 5-foot side yard setback variance, allowing the
property to maintain the existing garage’s front yard setback variance, and approving the
proposed lot cover would not be out of character with or negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood.
While staff understands that the existing home has a 2-foot side yard setback, the house is
setback over 60 feet from the street which has less of an impact on the streetscape than
permitting a 2-foot side yard setback for a building located within the required front yard
setback. Staff is also concerned that granting the requested 2-foot side yard setback variance
would establish a precedent leading to additional side yard setbacks of under five feet as older
homes in the area continue to redevelop and the owners of these smaller lots explore options for
increasing their on-site storage.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
deny the requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, and approve the 5-foot east side yard setback,
8-foot front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of
Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1.Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
2. The exterior wall and eaves on the wall facing the property line will need to be built
using fire-resistant rated construction in areas where the separation distance from the
property line is less than five feet.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Must provide the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with calculations of the total area
of disturbance and total volume of any excavation/fill. If these totals trigger the District’s
permitting requirements, any and all required permits from the Watershed District must
be obtained before starting work.
5. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall
be obtained prior to any site improvements.
6. Total lot cover shall not exceed 3,119 square feet.
7. The detached garage’s eaves may encroach up to one foot into the required front yard and
side yard setbacks.
8. The detached garage must have gutters and the downspout extensions must not direct
water towards the neighboring property.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Alternative Approval)
2. Variance Document (Alternative Approval)
21
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 13
3. Development Review Application
4. Variance Request Justification
5. Survey (Pre-existing)
6. Proposal Plans
7. ENG/WRC Memo
8. Affidavit of Mailing
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-01 3711 south cedar dr var\staff report_3711 south cedar_var.docx
22
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(PARTIAL APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Jeff Robinson on behalf of Michael Corrigan for setback and lot cover variances to
facilitate an addition to a nonconforming detached garage on a property zoned Single Family
residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2022-01.
On January 4, 2022, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed
notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
The legal description of the property is:
Lot 25, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta
3. 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:The City’s Zoning Code recognizes the need to allow the owners of nonconforming
residential properties to improve their properties. Given the constrains created by the
substandard lot size, allowing the modest expansion of a nonconforming garage so that it can
accommodate the indoor storage of both vehicles and typical property maintenance and
recreational items is in harmony with the purposes and intent of Chapter 20. Since the
nonconforming garage’s current 21.8-foot front yard setback is typical for the neighborhood
and the applicant is proposing a reduction to the property’s nonconforming lot cover,
granting variances to maintain the existing front yard setback and for the reduced lot cover
amount is appropriate.
The applicant is also proposing a 2-foot side yard setback variance which is not justified by
the structure’s existing nonconformity or neighborhood’s general development pattern. The
intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance is to prevent nonconforming structures
from expanding in ways that could negatively impact surrounding properties and it requires
expansions to meet required setbacks, unless a variance is issued. In this case, the applicant
23
2
cannot widen the structure without a variance, but by placing the addition on the east side
rather than the west side the applicant can achieve a similar result while maintaining a 5-foot
rather than 2-foot side setback. Given the high potential for structures with 2-foot setbacks to
negatively impact adjacent properties, granting the requested 2-foot variance would not be in
harmony with the purposes and intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance; however,
granting a 5-foot side yard setback would balance the applicant’s need for additional storage
space with the need to minimize the structure’s impact on the neighborhood in a manner
consistent with the City Code.
b.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding:Given the narrowness of the existing garage and the need to store various items on
site, the applicant’s request to expand the garage is reasonable. The substandard size of the
lot and the location and size of existing structures mean that the applicant cannot widen the
garage without front yard, side yard, and lot cover variances; however, the extent of the
requested side yard setback variance is not necessitated by the above factors. A similar
amount of storage space could be created by adding on to the east side of the garage instead
of the west side of the garage. Adding on to the east side would require a 5-foot side yard
setback variance rather than the 7.9-foot side yard setback variance required to add on to the
west side of the garage. When reasonable use can be achieved with a less impactful variance
that the requested variance, it is the City’s policy that the less impactful variance should be
granted.
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 landowner’s inability to increase the width of the garage without setback and
lot cover variances is the result of substandard size of the lot and the size and location of the
property’s existing structures; however, the extent of the requested side yard setback variance
is the result of the applicant’s design choice rather than any unique feature of the property. If
the addition is constructed off of the east side of the detached garage rather than the west
side, only a 5-foot side yard setback variance would be required. For this reason, the City
grants a 5-foot east side yard setback variance rather than the requested 7.8-foot west side
yard setback variance.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: Red Cedar Point is one of the City’s oldest neighborhoods and many of the homes
are located on lots that are significantly narrower than the Zoning Code’s 90-foot minimum
lot width. This has resulted in many properties that do not have the required 10-foot side yard
24
3
setbacks. Granting the 5-foot side yard setback identified in Alternative C would result in a
side yard setback that is not atypical for the area and would maintain 15 feet of separation
between detached garage and the structures on the neighboring parcels This separation helps
to create a visual break between structures and provides for greenspace along the streetscape,
consistent with the intent of the City’s side yard setback ordinance. Granting a 5-foot side
yard setback variance, allowing the property to maintain the existing garage’s front yard
setback variance, and approving the proposed lot cover would not be out of character with or
negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant’s requested 2-foot side yard setback would be out of keeping with the
neighborhood’s prevailing side yard setbacks. Granting the requested 2-foot side yard
setback variance would establish a precedent that could lead to additional side yard setbacks
of under five feet as older homes in the area continue to redevelop and the owners of these
smaller lots explore options for increasing their onsite storage. Allowing structures to expand
to within two feet of the side lots, especially near the street, would negatively impact the
visual aesthetics of the area by reducing front yard greenspace and the visual separation
between structures.
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 #2022-01, dated January 4, 2022, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 7.9-foot west side yard
setback, and approves the 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard setback, and 15.6 percent
lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny
the requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, and approve the 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot
front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1.Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements
may be required after plan review.
2. The exterior wall and eaves on the wall facing the property line will need to be built using
fire-resistant rated construction in areas where the separation distance from the property line
is less than five feet.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Must provide the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with calculations of the total area of
disturbance and total volume of any excavation/fill. If these totals trigger the District’s
permitting requirements, any and all required permits from the Watershed District must be
obtained before starting work.
25
4
5. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained
prior to any site improvements.
6. Total lot cover shall not exceed 3,119 square feet.
7. The detached garage’s eaves may encroach up to one foot into the required front yard and
side yard setbacks.
8. The detached garage must have gutters and the downspout extensions must not direct water
towards the neighboring property.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of January, 2022.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Its:
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-01 3711 south cedar dr var\findings of fact and decision 3711 south cedar drive (staff alternative).docx
26
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2022-01
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 denies the requested 7.9-foot west
side yard setback, and approves 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard setback,
and 15.6 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 25, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta,
Carver County, MN.
3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
deny the requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, and approve 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-
foot front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of
Approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
2. The exterior wall and eaves on the wall facing the property line will need to be built
using fire-resistant rated construction in areas where the separation distance from the
property line is less than five feet.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Must provide the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with calculations of the total area
of disturbance and total volume of any excavation/fill. If these totals trigger the District’s
27
2
permitting requirements, any and all required permits from the Watershed District must
be obtained before starting work.
5. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall
be obtained prior to any site improvements.
6. Total lot cover shall not exceed 3,119 square feet.
7. The detached garage’s eaves may encroach up to one foot into the required front yard and
side yard setbacks.
8. The detached garage must have gutters and the downspout extensions must not direct
water towards the neighboring property.
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.
28
3
Dated: January 4, 2022 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Elise Ryan, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2022 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\2022 planning cases\22-01 3711 south cedar dr var\variance document 22-01.docx
29
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Pnone: (952) 227-1'100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110
Submittal Date:i)n,t . ,a,a<)
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
CITY OT CHAI{HASSXI{
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
(Refer to the apprcpiate Application Checklist for requircd
E Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600
E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100
E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
E Single-Family Residence ................................ $325E Att otners...................... $425
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
D ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325
E Al others...... ....................-. $425
E Sign Plan Review................ ....... $150
! site ptan Review (sPR)
fl Administrative ..................... $100
thousand square feet)
'lnclude number of gllElDg employees:
*lnclude number of !9!y employees
n Residential Districts....................
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (
submittal infotmation that must accompany this application)
fl Subdivision (SUB)
n Create 3lots or less ......,- a;;;i; ;,;'1 r"t".-................
...............'...'.$300
$600 + $15 per lot
$3oo
$150
$150
$700
.... $300
........ $150
........ $27s
fl Wetland Alteration Permit (W
E Single-FamilyResidence
E Att others......
L5!addresses)
trtrtrtr
( tots)
Metes & Bounds (2 lots).............................
Consolidate Lots...
Lot Line Adiustment.........
Final Plat.............
(lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
'Additional escrow may be required for other applications
fl Rezoning (REZ) through the development contract'
E ptanneO Unil Development (PUD) .................. $750 n Vacation of Easements/Rightof-way (VAC)
f] Minor Amendment to existing PUD...-........-.... $100 (Additional recording fees may apply)
E Rll ottrers $500
:l
I Commercial/lndustrialDistricts.......................$500 r-1,
Plus $10 per 1,000 square rJ;i;ril;;il;;;;, -- U zonins Appeal""" " ""'.............. $100
E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500
!qIE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
E Notification Sign (city to install and remove) .
I Property Owners' List within 500' lcity to generate after pre-application meeting) ....'...
""""" ""$500
units)
E
'" " "" """" " $2oo
.4
..-...... $3 per addresstqb
.... $50 per document[l Escrow for Recording Documents (check a' n Conditional Use Permit
E Vacation
E Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)
ll thal apply).........
E lnterim Use Permit E Site Plan Agreement
n Wetland Alteration PermitVariance
Easements L_ easements)D Deeds
TOTAL FEE:54b
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of proposat: ADDITION ot SOUTHEAST SIDE OF DETACHED GARAGE (approx. 5'4" x 20') Will not add to
hardcover
Property Address or Location:3711 South Cedar Dr
256600430 Lot 25 Blk 4 Red Cedar Point Lake MinnewaushkaParcel #
Total Acreage:
Present Zoning
Existing Use of Property:Low Density Single Family Home
Single-Family Residential District (RSF
Requested Land use o""isnation, R€l{Qr{ifl 0{SHOF($SE
BECEIVED
0.18 Wetlands Present?
Single-Family Residential District (Rfl
Residential Low De
Ives ENo
Requested Zoning:
Present Land Use Designalion:
ncheck box if separate nanative is attached.
on, ol I c -llzw cct.r ;\lz*l1z- 6o-Day ReviewDate:=LLLI-=\L-
Legal Description:
DEC 0 3 202t
CHAIIHASSEN pt-AI'tNtNG DEPI
30
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 to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, sub.iect only 1o
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 of full 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
fu(her undersland 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:Murphy Bros. Building & remodeling
Address 1330 Park Ave.
City/Statezip:
Email:
Chanhassen MN 55317
Signalure:Date:
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capaclty 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, sub.iect only to the right to obiect at the hearings 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 submjtted are true and correcl.
Name:Michael Corrigan
Address 3711 South Cedar Dr
Chanhassen MN 55331
jrobin m
6on1ra1. Jeff Robinson
Phone: 963) 780-3262
Cell:
Fax:
6on1""1. Michael Corrigan
Phone: (651) 491-7070
city/stare/zip
Email:gan.ml@gmail.com
Cell:
Fax:
Contact
Phone:
Signature
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:
Address
City/Statezip
Email:
This application must ilJ comptYed 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 Applicalion 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.
G,Za
Section 4: Notification lnformation
'Other Contact lnformation:
E Property Owner Via: E Email
E Applicant Via: E Email
! Engineer Via: E Email
E otner via: E Email
Name:
Address
City/State/Zip
Email:
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 PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM
E Mailed Paper Copy
E Mailed Paper Copy
n laaiteo Paper copy
E laaiteo Paper copy
(612) 388-5599
foll
-
tro'-
oae, lh't4.?pLt
Who should receive copies of staff reports?
31
ru
MURPHY BROS
. li
1330 Park Rd.
Chanhassen MN 55317
(763)780-3262
REQUEST FOR VARIANGE
For Property at3711 South Cedar Dr.
Ghanhassen MN 55331
O\M.,|ER: Michael Corrigan 11-29-21
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST:
Request for a variance to add an addition to the southeast side of existing detached garage.
Proposed Size of the addition is 5'4" x 20'. Foundation will be setback 2'-1" from Property Line
The new Eave will be setback 1'2" The Addition will decrease hardcover. lt will
repurpose existing hardcover while removing blacktop which decreases.
Request for variance complies with the findings pursuant to Section 20-58 as follows:
A. The neighborhood surrounding the property has many non-conforming lots. The variance
will provide a garage expansion that is common to the neighborhood while not increasing
hardcover. This lot is non-conforming consisting of less than 7700 square feet.
B. The proposed location on lot is necessitated by lack of other options for added storage.
The other locations considered do not work as well:
The northside of the garage is the main access to the house. Any other locations would
increase hardcover.
C. Only other option would be at rear of home which would make visible from the Lake and
add to hardcover. This request is based on most viable option for increasing needed
storage without increasing hardcover.
D. This lot is located in an area of many non conforming lots due to the proximity to Lake and
age of homes
Submitted by: Jeff Robinson
Project Coordinator
Murphy Bros. Bldg. & Remodeling
(612) - 3e&s599
11t29t2021
On behalf of property owner: Michael Corrigan
NOTE: The new Addition will corne in line with the Existinq House setback and not
encroach closer to propertv line
E. This proposal is epmmon to area of Non-conforming lots.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEC 0 3 2021
CHAIIHASSEN PI.ANNING DEPT
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Assistant Planner
From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer
Date: 12/21/2021
Re: Variance Review at 3711 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case
#2022-01
The Engineering Department has reviewed the variance submittal for 3711 South Cedar Drive.
These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions.
General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of
public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary
issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that
Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the application in the final order. Note that
references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates.
General Comments/Findings
1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been
reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utili ty and
transportation facilities for the project. A recommendation of variance approval does
not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments,
materials and points of access, utility connections or discharge, that are depicted or
suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction
drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public
Works Departments will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve,
reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with
City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering
judgment of the City Engineer.
41
2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variances can be
developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances
(as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards,
provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be
approved.
3. The applicant is requesting a lot cover and a setback variance to facilitate the
construction of a 105 square foot addition to an existing detached garage located at
3711 South Cedar Drive. Based on the provided plans and narrative, there are no
impacts or improvements associated with public utilities (sanitary sewer, water, storm
sewer, streets, etc.) or any public easements. Furthermore, there is no net increase to
the sites calculated lot cover as the approximately 105 square foot addition will be
replacing an existing impervious surface (bituminous). As such, Engineering and Public
Works have no proposed conditions based on the provided submittals. However, the
proposed addition to the garage will have a foundation approximately two feet from the
property line that is shared with 3713 South Cedar Drive, and the eaves will extend to
within approximately one foot of the property line. If the variance application is
approved, and due to the proximity of the proposed addition to the neighboring
property, a private temporary construction easement or an agreement for right of entry
is strongly recommended to ensure that if access to 3713 South Cedar Drive is necessary
to facilitate the construction of the addition on 3711 South Cedar Drive that it has been
agreed to prior to commencement of any construction activities.
Proposed Conditions
N/A
42
From:Steckling, Jean
To:Steckling, Jean
Subject:FW: Mike and Valerie Corigan
Date:Monday, January 3, 2022 12:07:20 PM
From: Richard Anding <ricanding43@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2021 12:26 PM
To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Mike and Valerie Corigan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We have reviewed the documentation for the proposed project and requested variance at
3711 south Cedar Drive. We fully support the project and variance as requested for it to be
completed as originally requested.
Ric & Marianne Anding
3715 South Cedar Drive
43
From:Steckling, Jean
To:Steckling, Jean
Subject:FW: variance request for 3711 S. cedar Dr.
Date:Monday, January 3, 2022 12:08:24 PM
From: Susan Nowlin <susan@pecosconsulting.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 12:44 PM
To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: variance request for 3711 S. cedar Dr.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Planning Commission:
We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and requested variance at 3711 S Cedar
Dr. We are their next door neighbors at 3713 S. Cedar Dr. and are in support of the project
and very excited about the improvement it will make in how our properties look from the
street. We fully support the variance requests needed for the project to be completed as
originally requested.
Susan Nowlin
Susan Nowlin
Pecos Consulting
Mobile: 651-235-6202
44
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
Kim eu\4ts ty lerk
Subscribed and s
this;t)-.! day of
to before me
(__Notary Public
,2021
JEAI1J M
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTYOFCARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
December 22,2021, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice of Public
Hearing to consider a request for setback and lot cover variances to add an addition on to
an existing detached garage on property located at 3711 South Ceder Drive. Zoned Single'
Family Residentiat (RS$ Applicant: Murphy Bros. Building & Remodeling. Property
Owner: Michael Corrigan. to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy
of said 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 records. t
ful..,fr ,1,&4
45
Subiect
Parcel
Dilctraimor
This map is neither a legally re@raled map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. Thls map is a comrilaton of recotds. iniormaton and data located in vaious crty,
county, stiate and lederal ofices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used ior rebrcnce puQoses only. TIle Crty does not waflant that the Geographic
lnformaton System (GlS) Oalia used to pEpare thrs rnap are enor tree, and the C,ty does
not lepresenl that the GIS Oala can be used fo. navEaijonal, hacking or any oth€r
purpGe requiring exacting measurement ol distance or directon or rxecision in the
deFiiction of geographic featues The preceding disdaimer is provided pu6uanl to
Minnesob Statutes y66 03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map actnowl€dges
ihat the City shall not be laable for any damages, and epressly waives all daims, and
agrces to defend, indemnify. and hold hamless the CiV from any and all claims brouohl
by User, its employeB or agents, or third parti€s which adse out of lhe us€/s access or
use of data provialed.
OlscLimo.
This map is nerther a legally recorded map nor a $rrvey and is not intended to be used
as one This map is a @mpilation of recods, iniomation and data located in vadous cjty,
county, state and federal offces and other sources regBrding the are, shown, and is to
be used lor relerence pu.poses only. The Ci9 does hot wanant lhat the Geo06phic
lnformation Syste.n (GlS) Oata used to pEpare this map are eror free, and the Cily does
not Gpresenl thal the GIS Oata can be used fo{ navigational, traddng o. any other
purpGe equiring exactino meaSuemeit of distance or dileclioo or precasion an the
d€piclion ol g€ographic Eatues. The preceding disdaimer is provrded pursuant to
Minnesota StaMes 5466.03, Subd 21 (2000), and the user of this map aclnofll€does
that the City shall not be liable for any damaoes. and epressly waives all daims, and
aorees to deiend. indemnity, and hold haml6s the City from any and all daims b.ouoht
by User, its employees or agenls, or tiird parties which arise od of the useis access or
use of data provrcled.
ITAX_NAMET
ITAX_ADD_LI l
<TAX_ADD_L2r
(Next RecordD(TAX_NAMEn
ITAX_ADD_L1r
(TAX ADD L2D
Subject
Parcel
t
\\r
.\
a
.I
1
\
46
!
E,6
E2Fir
c6aoo9o=d.56g
N!8[6lo
sc;
>,Eod
COoc
j.Eob
;69=
Ff
E
a
tl)
G
=oot-F.
tti
0)
-o
Eo
o
ocfoo
(!-
o
^o]ja)
ss
{n q)'- O)6!o>6
bq,>!oo()E
og
E€o o) -i- CLL
EEE,
I H€9oo)
6carDoo)1ctU9:-E tr
;ES
EEs-
5E;
c')
.=
0)Eo
Eq)t
06
q,
.g
==tD
uio
dl
.c,o
f
c(!
o,'-
O
El!-c
=
oE
.9E
o
oI
e
9A
6E
3EID!!oe
68-3
F--(9<
:e E
i-EE es aSEet BteE.?o-- ()..c.o cet 3-3 3; +f3i3i #H:!
n E:a 5 :;'E H
;E*E gss€c
€;Ei EiH=;
ggE=,;EEHE
P-&BEso. .FOc(JU,FNd)$
=;?NNo6t
o
E
o66
G
.E
o
o
3;;
t,t 0)rl qo
cl =oq el-i PS
H filE: E He er
€EIHE}: BE
; Ec a,-g,gE,e
fi#EEiEE.E
-e6s f iE: g
A!; s:'U€ E
}HNE.*EsE
=e336EgEe*EEHAEB
gEiEtE€E
o
E
o
;)o
=.9
o
o
-a)o,
P.,.!(5oooo)E(!
ll, -o-E tl,6:E5ocoa
!2e59F0)
=E9p€3-oodoop'a
O-o
=b95oqF!
o
oo
]9'6o
o,i
bo
q)
!<I
o:t
gB
(!0o,aqfEgEo6tac
8E'd-i,
oEcc:oo)
EHf.cgE,:o
EE-o
6q-Y>gE
tioEc
n)
CD(o
o)c
o)o
EcloE;og
.9(!orE'-o
o)
o
Eco
o
E(,
o,
0)o
0)
o
o,aco)6
=ulz
5
3
a
E
E
E
Et
.g
3
_9
o
i=.t
o
Go
o
lltooJ
EooCII
o-
(!
.J
CIIL
iio
=o
E(,oo
o-
>Eto
a, 'Ecroeto-J
9ct,
6' .=
=of:
rgE
Br
sc
oo
=
PELd|a! aao.:-EoE
=o€o
^- gr
OE
gE6iza
66oEcoEo
g
{!
.,2 E
FO
e€oooPo=FE6g
N!8eNO
rt c;>rq
od
c.)oq
j.eob
3-o
9E
Ff
p2
d)
rl)
o
=ooF.t-
o
o)-o
Eo-co
oCfoo
o-
.y-O
gE
aF
8Nc(no)'- <,(!!!>6
bo,>!o r1)o_c
ogu9
(! or.-
- CLL
R=qP6 ><== o-
ErEQoo
oo()
=- ctU€=oE E
a H,f
E EE5s E'o 6(/)
(,)
.EE!o
Eot
06
q)
._c
=5dl
ui
e
d)
o,
co
.s)
oo
6(5E
.9
=
d
.9
oc
!
.E,
ooI
Po>.>P63
€5ol!Oo
-cq=EAc6e-3
(9<
g, Ee;gE 2
s;;E EE"E
AE:E EEgfr
f,e:qg EIEE:: x.P 3 Hrr
EE€E SEg€E
EgE!gEEEI
*ie= elE,SFgEA6-EgF O c(J (,FN(9V
9eI o,fi
EoE9ool
gEfi:EE
cras ; e
::i5E5
;EEBEe
!8.*E$EH€6Eg;
6 P P-. q bPE6bEA
ieEEEeb;b(5 5f
G
([
E
n)
-o
o
o
+q)
Elo
?c
E;
o)
o
c(I,
Eq
@
ID
o
=E
-:,,9'; .!zo, E.q3 irE(l) -o)-o- 6X
Bt lS
E sSEE (g=:
o-oFl q
-c o)ol e
EEHIg
EfiElg!6 EI O
EEalf
- o ::l:q FHEY oEl ooo 9l or
= ->'61 =
EE iIf
(!
-lc
o,
cr,o
cDoceEO
EoEdi-=E8;9
9_o65E'6ooEsaqo:,
5E F
-(s0
S i.EcJco o.E
o\uo
b8E
9E;o* Ea)=-:EEb
!EH
'o,Ee6 u; ."
-xotr
=zE3
tegiffEiiE'iiEi
iEIE€gEEEiEEiiiE
Ei; EEiiiffgEEiii
iEiEiiiEiiiiiiiiE
0)
.EF.!
Q'
(!o
.9
G(,oJ
Eooo.or
Go
=(L
.L
ii
0,c]o
Eo
CIIo-
>tE.9
o.GPto-J
9i;
0, .=o- t:o-X
+E
i!E
c6 ..oEECoo
o=OE=ooo
Btr
(,o
=EEDO.=o
h.EoFr-E
-9oE()3aDo- .EbE
6' t!.9d
OEz3
6t!Ec
a!
o
ct ..oEE.Oru
l'=!,Efooo 47
o o o o O O O oO O O o o O O O oo O O O A o O O'{ 99 o OO Q O;n X;6 a6 + 6 'n @,o F oo or - @ c.r ca (n t O @ Q <t F. co -{ rno o F sr .{ N F\5 ij ij i; d ci.ri o 6 m rri.n <t 6 < !/1 sl <t !r| <r .\ N <t st .{ N c) r'\ o o Ln N rn5 6 6 ij 5 6d6 6 c'6 o 6 o o O O O a o €' ooo o om r{ elgl I eto5 X 6 6 5 666 o o66 6 o o 6 6 6 6O Q ooo oooo q, oq Q q o+ i\ 6 6 i6 6 6 6 to (o (o \o @ @ Lo (o (o \b (o @ (o (o (o \o (o @ o Q (o (9 (9 (g (o
- n L. 6 6 6,5 6 6 lo @ (o (o @ (o ro (o (o @ (o ro (o (o (o ro (o (o o o (p Q Q !q (oz 6 ii fi 6 6 6 'i .n !n Lrt ra !^ t^ tn tr lrt .n Ln !^ Lrl Lrl Ln r^ rn lrt u, Lrt !^ r^ r^ L,) lrt- i.i F,,i ai li c.i 6i r\i.ic'ininic'ic'iNNt.'i^iNN.!N'.tNN'!N'l'!'{NNNN
oo060 0 0 0 6000 0AA&.ed. t c. t ndd.e n
22222 2 EEEEE "^2sEEE2xtIZZZZ ZooooO O td.nte. e o e c. d & 9 c. t c. 9 9 9 9 I
d d d d d : d. Ll u L) u u >- L, .i u lJ (J u.i u ('') e o o o o = a d. e. tEEEEE qtrq T rra rE- ii- rrr E--- -- !,{ !4 l+ X !+,-., !, !"u O O O O O (J o tr tr tr tr tr !-.1 tr (J tr tr tr F (') F F F (, (r (J (J V e q g g
/.i i.1 ^ /\ n X n i I :) f I I i l o I f f I o f f I o o a o i a z z zSEEEEE=E;99999=9P999gu99guupu=H?=?( o,< r.r [n r\ 6 o'r o t-{ (n F .{ 1/1 (o t'! o Fi m rr} (h o o tn a\ o !n Ft o N <t r:r o .{
PJ 6 b i\i .'.i i\ .i
^
6 .n rn d) O c, 6 cl : -i d .r ..r N N N .\ rn !n .n 4 .o .! O d rrE ; d6 6 irt irj <i @ (o \D (cl (o F F. F. F. F. !'. F r- F- F. F\ F F\ r\ F\ co 0o (g (9 ry C'l ryAA 6 66 - rn d, rn m (n(nin rn .n (o (n(n tn (n (n m (') dl .Y) rr, m ro m ai m r\ l.\ r\
33
r{ ..r (!, !o (-E) @6ooooco @ ooco r: og roeqSEq,tf+ N a.t \o (!)oo Q@6Loco @ aa co6 r\ (o (r, 1.,-rid+ i\iii n(o 6@roF.(o (o !o!9 Lo@ \oF-FSq)@\ori i\i\b! bor 6oro6or or oo o! ol 01 F.F-ry9oro
- {- j if - Il- .! * j .r .i* i-i J r j i -..r j j j3fl -!. -;n s) ; ; m m m .n in .n rn (n m (n rn m rn m m d, m rf, rn m m d, (n m ul Lrr m rY) (nH z iyi iyi iyi in in iyi fii ni rn m rri ('i (n rn rn m m (n m d) (n rn m (n.i m - - m .n (n
iri = ui !n rn.n Ln Ln r,1 !n /i iJi r^ Ln In L^ ra tn rn !n !n !a Ln Ln rn !n Ln !o z' ztjlu1 tt\rri z .ri lri rri .ri !/i !n r. !n Ln !a !n rn r^ u) Lrt !a ul Ln ul !o Ln !a tn rn rn rn > > t^ tn r^
z ui z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z -^ --zzz
i -cL -I d. < G d. d. E e e. t t i oe oa oa oa oi c' a' c' a' q:' oi oi oa oi oe oa d 9 < d- e ee'6 E 6 o o o o 6 o o o 6 o o o o 6 o 6 o " I I I I g g I3 H g g g? e e E 4 44a 4 4a a -2 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 2 2 i, --t 4i EEEEEEnJ L! er !! uJ u==u.tuJt!r9E9seeeseeeeeeeepeF*XXXXXggg==xBgr:ilj(,irLJt!lrJU
ooo o a o ooqot e.e. 6. E d. n.zot222 2 xxxtt E?EEEEZEE ZZZZ6OO 6 e. c. e. e. c. e.9 c. e.e.e.9 d. c Q999oE o- o- - .i ^ a a a a a ^ < o- < < < < o- < < -- o- 6- o- o- l1l PP*** PsE eee eeE fgEgfi3 533 EE *.".1.e4 ei: N d d 6 > d > u (J () (.) u > e d (J u u (J o () (J 01 o o 6 o 4; c. d. G.!SEUEESESTTIEE6TB===EUEE6UUUUEEEEE
^'P.rrrrr^in-IIIfIiI6ffIfr)fIy] o c] o a-4dzzz4<9EEEYE=99S9S=9p9S99H99;HuuE+3=??-r5 U ^ r^.\.o or o..{.o t\ !-r !n (o F o r-{ (n L/i or o o !n F- o !a r- or a El !l o.rx ro rli i\i 6i i\ ni 6 (Y'.vi m OO o o f{ !{.'r.i -{ (^{ ry.{ N Ln lrl.n rn N Io r{ da : :i itj 6 i-d U ilt <j id id 6 F F. r. r. F- F I"\ r'\ F F F Fr'F F @ oo.{ 01 .!N'!E ^i in 6 - rn m m ao tn m an inm rncn ao rnrn.n rrtrn m m dl rn an d) rn !a ln r- F F'
Eqze.<F>uiFa4=;EQ=*1 E EG z Hfi .r r! dz o po,,zP A d.i 2;gE -glnia i =3 ^5i6== Ag :=4 i a=2* ,-Z- ?Zi-
e E a : =
=
E = E ; : ; lE*E E : E H
=
g
E #a?-?=i?l
;cEEfr
=EEHEEEI:Ei;EEEEEEEEE+iEEgEHE 48
Planning Commission Item
January 4, 2022
Item
Consider a Request to Amend Chanhassen City Code Chapter 20 (Zoning),
Article XX Reclassifying Certain Uses Within the Fringe Business (BF) District
as Interim Uses
File No.Ordinance Amendment File No. 2021-12 Item No: C.2
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article IV. - Conditional Uses. This article details general
criteria, conditions, and procedures for granting and revoking Conditional Use
Permits (CUP) and Interim Use Permits (IUP). Other divisions address specific
criteria for various conditional uses by district.
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article XX. - “BF” Fringe Business District, Sec. 20-771,
-773, and -775. These sections respectively list the District's permitted
conditional and interim uses.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code reclassifying commercial uses within the
Fringe Business (BF) District as interim uses.
SUMMARY
49
The uses in the BF District conflict with the land use guiding of properties. Allowing conditional and
permitted uses that conflict with the City’s long-term vision for the area may result in these properties
not developing at their highest and best uses. To facilitate the highest and best use of this region, the
City may wish to reclassify certain permitted and conditional uses as interim uses.
BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2018, this item was discussed at a City Council work session. At that time, the Council
chose not to modify the BF District.
On October 11, 2021, this item was discussed at a City Council work session. The City Council directed
staff to reach out to impacted property owners to solicit feedback.
On October 25, 2021, staff submitted their proposed outreach plan to the City Council.
On October 28, 2021, staff sent out letters inviting property owners to an open house on November 10,
2021 to discuss the proposed changes.
On November 10, 2021, staff held the open house. No property owners attended or contacted staff in
advance of the open house with questions or comments.
On November 16, 2021, staff presented background information relevant to the proposed amendment to
the Planning Commission.
On November 22, 2021, staff informed the City Council of the results of the open house and the
proposed timeline for amending the BF District.
On December 22, 2021 notices were mailed to properties that are zoned BF and will be subject to the
change.
DISCUSSION
The City’s BF District was initially created in 1986 with the stated intent to “accommodate limited
commercial uses without urban services” with all potential uses being listed as either conditional or
accessory uses. In 1990, the City created IUPs and began classifying uses that it desired to be temporary
in nature as interim uses. In 1994, the City amended the BF District’s intent statement to state:
“The intent of the ‘BF’ District is to accommodate limited commercial uses temporary in nature without
urban services, while maintaining the integrity, minimizing impact, and protecting the natural
environment. When urban services are available, land use may change to a higher and improved use of
the property.”
Most business uses, with the exception of wholesale nursery/green houses with no retail which is a
permitted use, are classified as conditional uses within the District; however, some uses, such as
churches and outdoor storage, are classified as interim uses.
The City’s 2040 Land Use plan guides the parcels currently zoned BF for office industrial, mixed use,
residential medium density, and residential high density land uses. The Highway 101/61 Corridor Study
commissioned by the City in 2014 envisions many of these parcels as being part of the City’s southern
50
gateway.
As the reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive and Highway 101 nears completion, the City has begun
receiving inquires about the possibility of reactivating, expanding, and/or repurposing existing
businesses along Flying Cloud Drive. While any business may continue to operate under the terms of
existing CUPs in perpetuity, the City is concerned that applications for new or expanded CUPs may
come in. Since the express intent of the District is to accommodate temporary commercial uses until
urban services are extended, it may be appropriate to classify the area’s allowed commercial uses as
interim uses rather than conditional uses. Doing so will help to convey the City’s expectation that these
uses will be discontinued and the parcels redeveloped once municipal services are extended, and will
also provide the City with an additional tool to help insure that the area develops at the highest and best
use.
A full discussion can be found in the attached issue paper.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends reclassifying commercial uses within the BF District as interim uses. This will better
convey the City’s intent that these uses are temporary in nature, and will allow the City to terminate
IUPs upon rezoning.
ATTACHMENTS
Issue Paper
CR 61 Corridor Study
BF Parcels and Uses Map and Key
Land Use Map
Zoning Map
51
CITY OT CIIAI'IIIASSXI'I
Chanhassen is a Community for Life- Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
lanuary 4,2022
Fringe Business (BF) District Uses
DATE:
SUBJ:
The uses in the BF District conflict with the land use guiding of properties. Allowing conditional
and permitted uses that conflict with the City's long-term vision for the area may result in these
properties not developing at their highest and best uses. To facilitate the highest and best use of
this region, the City may wish to reclassify certain permitted and conditional uses as interim
uses.
The City's BF District was initially created 1986 with the stated intent to "accommodate limited
commercial uses without urban services" with all potential uses being listed as either conditional
or accessory uses. In 1990, the City created interim use permits (lUP) and began classi$ing uses
that it desired to be temporary in nature as interim uses. In 1994, the City amended the BF
District's intent statement to state:
"The intent of the'BF' District is to accommodate limited commercial uses temporary in
nature without urban services, while maintaining the integrity, minimizing impact, and
protecting the natural environment. When urban services are available, land use may
change to a higher and improved use ofthe property."
Most business uses, with the exception of wholesale nursery/green houses with no retail which is
a permitted use, are classified as conditional uses within the District; however, some uses, such
as churches and outdoor storage, are classified as interim uses.
The City's 2040 Land Use plan guides the parcels currently zoned BF for offrce industrial, mixed
use, residential medium density, and residential high density land uses. The Highway 101/61
study commissioned by the City in 2014 envisions many ofthese parcels as being part ofthe
City's southem gateway.
PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
r/OO MARKET BOULEVARD ' PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN . MINNESOTA 55517
Issue:
Background:
52
Planning Commission
Fringe Business (BF) District Uses
Jan.nry 4,2022
Page 2
As the reconstruction of Flying cloud Drive and Highway 101 nears completion, the city has
begun receiving inquires about the possibility of reactivating, expanding, and/or repurposing
existing businesses along Flying Cloud Drive. While any business may continue to operate under
the terms ofexisting conditional use permits in perpetuity, the City is concemed that applications
for new or expanded conditional use permits (CUP) may come in. Since the express intent ofthe
District is to accommodate temporary commercial uses until urban services are extended, it may
be appropriate to classify the area's allowed commercial uses as interim rather than conditional
uses. Doing so will help to convey the City's expectation that these uses will be discontinued and
the parcels redeveloped once municipal services are extended, and will also provide the City
with an additional tool to help insure that the area develops at the highest and best use.
Relevant City Code:
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article IV. - Conditional {/ses: This article details general criteria,
conditions, and procedures for granting and revoking CUPs and IUPs. Other divisions address
specific criteria for various conditional uses by district.
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article XX. - "BF" Fringe Business District, Sec. 20-771, -773, and -775:
These sections respectively list the Districts pemitted, conditional, and interim uses.
Analvsis:
Issue 1: Conditional Use Permits (CUP) v. lnterim Use Permits (IUP)
Conditional use permits govem uses which are generally not allowed in a district, but may be
suitable in specific circumstances. The City classifies uses that have a high potential to
substantially impact adjacent parcels as conditional uses. Applicants wishing to receive a CIIP
must demonstrate that the use will not unduly impact adjacent parcels or the community and that
it will be consistent with the intent ofthe Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. The City's
Zoning Code lists general and specific requirements for most conditional uses. Ifan applicant
can demonstrate that they meet all ofthe conditional use requirements, the City must issue a
CUP; however, the City can place reasonable and justifiable conditions on the permit in order to
mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associated with proposed use. This permit is recorded
against property and allows that use to continue in perpetuity so long as the conditions of
approval are not violated, the property is not subdivided, and the use is not discontinued for a
period of six months or longer.
Interim use permits (lUP) are very similar to conditional use permits, with the applicant needing
to demonsftate that they meet the zoning ordinances requirement for the use and the City having
the authority to impose conditions necessary to mitigate the anticipated impact ofthe use. The
key difference is that interim uses are uses that the City believes are currently appropriate for an
area but will not be suitable in future. In order to ensure that these uses are temporary, the City
Code requires that an IUP has an identified date or event that will terminate the use and also
53
Planning Commission
Fringe Business (BF) District Uses
Jamary 4,2022
Page 3
stipulates that the use will terminate upon any change in the City's zoning regulations which
renders the use nonconforming. IUPs can also be terminated for the same reasons as CUPs'
Uses should be classified as conditional when they represent an activity that will remain suitable
as an area develops. For example, drive-through facilities are conditional uses due to their
potential traffic impacts and presence ofan on-site speaker/intercom system; however, once it is
demonstrated that these concems have been mitigated, it is not envisioned that changes to the
surrounding parcels will make the drive-through an unsuitable use. Uses should be classified as
interim when they represent an activity that will become unsuitable as an area develops. For
example, commercial kennels and stables are classified as interim uses in Agricultural Estate
(A2) Districts because while their impacts can be mitigated within the context of multi-acre
residential lots, these impacts are much less mitigatable within the context ofa residential
subdivision with 15,000-square foot lots.
Commercial Kennels: Reclassiff from conditional use to interim use. While this use is suitable
within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and
commercial uses and high density residential districts.
Commercial Stables: Reclassi$ from conditional use to interim use. Reclassiff from conditional
use to interim use. While this use is suitable within the area's current context, it would not be
desirable in the context ofmixed residential and commercial uses and high density residential
districts.
Issue 2: Proposed Changes
Wholesale Nursery/Green House/No Retail: Reclassify from permitted use to interim use.
Currently no parcel zoned BF is being used as wholesale nursery/green house. While this use is
suitable within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed
residential and commercial uses and high density residential districts. This use is already listed
as interim use in the nearby .A2 districts.
Automotive Dealer/Rentals: Reclassifr from conditional use to interim use. There are valid CUPs
for this use within this district. While this use is suitable within the area's current context, it
would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and commercial uses and high density
residential districts.
llarehousing and Cold Storage: Reclassify from conditional use to interim use. There is a valid
CUP for this use within this District. While this use is suitable within the area's current context,
it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and commercial uses and high
density residential districts.
54
Planning Commission
Fringe Business (BF) District Uses
Ianuary 4,2022
Page 4
Motor Fuel Station wilhoul Cdr l/aslr: Reclassifu from conditional use to interim use.. While
this use is suitable within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of
mixed residential and commercial uses and high density residential districts.
Miniature Golf Course: Reclassify from conditional use to interim use. While this use is suitable
within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and
commercial uses and high density residential districts.
Staffrecommends reclassiffing commercial uses within the BF District as interim uses. This will
better convey the City's intent that these uses are temporary in nature, and will allow the City to
terminate IUPs upon rezoning.
ARTICLE XX..'BF' FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT
Sec. 20-771. - Intent.
The intent of the "BF" district is to accommodate limited commercial uses temporary in
nature without urban services, while maintaining the integrity, minimizing impact, and protecting
the natural environment. When urban services are available, land use may change to a higher and
improved use ofthe property.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ l4(5-14-l), l2-15-86; Ord. No. 220, $ l, 9-12-94) Sec.20-771.1. -
Permitted uses.
The following are pennitted uses in a "BF" district:
(l) Agriculture.
(2) Antennas as regulated by Article )O(X of this chapter.
(3) Private and public park/open space.
(4) Single-family dwelling (one unit per ten acres).
(Ord.No.220, $ 1,9-12-94; Ord.No.259,$23,11-12-96; Ord. No.377, $ 103, 5-24-04)
Sec.20-772. - Permitted accessory uses
The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BF" district:
(l) Parking lots.
Recommendation:
55
Planning Commission
Fringe Business (BF) District Uses
lanuary 4,2022
Page 5
(2) Signs.
(3) Temporary outdoor sales and events (subject to the requirements of section 20-964)
(Ord. No. 80, tut. V, $ 14(5-14-3), l2-15-86; Ord. No. 243, $ 11, 2-13-95: Ord. No. 377, $ 104,
5-24-04; Ord. No. 619, $ 12, 2-27 -17)
Sec. 20-773. - Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in a "BF" district
@
@ine
/2\ r.^'.'.--^:^lL----l-
g)---eemmereiatstaUtes"
(7) Towers as regulated by article XXX ofthis chapter
(8) Utility services.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ l4(5-14-2), l2-15-86; Ord. No. 80-D, $ l, l-11-88; Ord. No. 103, $ 1, 5-
22-89;Ord.No. 116,99, 1-22-90;Ord.No. 120, $4(ll),2-12-90; Ord.No.220,52,9-12-94;
Ord. No. 247,51,3-11-96; Ord. No. 259,524,11-12-96; Ord. No.377, $ 105, 5-24-04)
State Law reference- Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.3595.5
Sec.20-774. - Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BF" district subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is 20,000 square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is 100 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall
have a minimum front footage of 60 feet in all districts.
(3) The minimum lot depth is 150 feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is 40 percent.
(5) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except:
56
Planning Commission
Fringe Business (BF) District Uses
Jaruary 4,2022
Page 6
(6)
(7)
a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as
provided in chapter 20, article )O(V, division 3, pertaining to landscaping
requirements.
b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street,
another off-street parking area.
c. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being
separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way.
d. The minimum setback is 25 feet for side street side yards.
e. Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum often
feet ifthe applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction ofthe city that l00-percent
screening is provided at least five feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of
this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional
landscaping that is both an effective screen and ofhigh quality aesthetically.
Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening
through the use of fencing is not permitted.
The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, one story.
b. For accessory structures, one story.
Minimum setback requirements:
a. For front yards,25 feet.
b. For rear yards, 20 feet.
c. For side yards, ten feet.
d. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being
separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way.
e. Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer
yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher
intensity uses interface with low density uses and shall comply with chapter 20,
article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code.
The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to
provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity
use.
The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the
higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a
combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the
buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall
be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as
57
Planning Commission
Fringe Business (BF) District Uses
January 4,2022
Page 7
may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the
obligation ofthe property owner.
(Ord. No. 80, tut. V, $ t4(15-14-4), l2-15-86; Ord. No. 94, $$ 1, 5,7-25-88; Ord. No. 136, $$
1A, lB, l-28-91; Ord. No.45l, $ 6, 5-29-07; Ord. No.474, $ 13, l0-13-08)
Sec.20-775. - Interim uses
The following are interim uses in the "BF" district:
(l) Churches.
(2) Outdoor storage.
(3) Reser*e*Automotive dealers/rental.
(4) Commercialkennels.
(5) Commercialstables.
(6) Wholesale nursery/green house/no retail (subject to compliance with section 20-
268).
(7) Cold storage and warehousing.
(8) Miniature golf course (pursuant to section 20-259).
(9) Motor fuel stations without car washes.
Secs. 20-776- 20-790. - Reserved.
Attachments:
l. Zoning Map
2. Lar,d Use Map
3. Highway 101/61 Map
g:\plan\mwvssue papers afld reports (draflslbfcu to iu\bfcu to iu issue paper-dec 7.docx
(Ord. No. 120, $ 3, 2-12-90; Ord. No. 164, $ l, 2-24-92; Ord. No. 243, S 12,2-13-95; Ord. No.
377, $ 106, s-24-04)
58
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
July 14, 2014City Council Work Session
59
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
»Inform and seek guidance on utility
service scenarios
PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION
1 60
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
»Develop guidance for future land
use
o with city services scenario
o without city services scenario
»Incorporate land use guidance into
next Comprehensive Plan update
STUDY PURPOSE AND INTENT
2 61
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
PROJECT SCHEDULE/PROCESS
»OPEN HOUSE II: August 6, 2014
4-6 pm
3 62
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
PROJECT AREA
4 63
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
RELATED STUDIES
UTILITY SERVICE STUDY
HIGHWAY 101 BRIDGE
RECONSTRUCTION
COUNTY ROAD 61
RECONSTRUCTION
5 64
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
15 65
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
2030 SEWER DISTRICT
+ SUBDISTRICTS
16 66
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
WASTE WATER FLOW CONVEYANCE RECOMMENDATION
17 67
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
WATER SERVICE DEVELOPMENT
18 68
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
CITY SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS
»Timing/Phasing
»Land Use/Density
»Cost and Financing
19 69
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
CURRENT LAND USE GUIDING
20 70
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
CURRENT ZONING
21 71
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
DEVELOPMENT AREA CONSTRAINTS
»Steep Slopes
»Park/Open Space
»Water Features
•Wetlands/Fen
•Creeks/Rivers
•Lake
22 72
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
POTENTIAL LAND USES: CITY SERVICES PROVIDED Option A
23 73
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS (with city services)
1. ASSUMPTION CREEK AREA
2. GATEWAY AREA
3. MOON VALLEY AREA
24 74
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
ASSUMPTION CREEK: AREA 1
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
25 75
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
ASSUMPTION CREEK: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
26 76
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
ASSUMPTION CREEK: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL YIELD
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
27 77
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
ASSUMPTION CREEK: DENSITY TRANSFER CONCEPT
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
28 78
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
ASSUMPTION CREEK: DENSITY TRANSFER -TOWNHOUSES
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
29 79
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
GATEWAY: AREA 2
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
30 80
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
GATEWAY: MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL CONCEPT
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
31 81
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
GATEWAY: MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL YIELD
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
32 82
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
MOON VALLEY: AREA 3
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
33 83
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
MOON VALLEY: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
34 84
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
MOON VALLEY: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL YIELD
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
35 85
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
MOON VALLEY: SENIOR HOUSING CONCEPT
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
36 86
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
MOON VALLEY: SENIOR HOUSING YIELD
HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area
37 87
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
POTENTIAL UTILITY ASSESSMENTS
City of Chanhassen
Estimated Project Costs from SEH CR 61 Corridor Study
Comparison to Hook-up Fee Revenue
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Project Cost $9,868,000 $10,262,720 $10,673,229 $11,100,158 $11,544,164 $12,005,931 $12,486,168
Inflation Rate 4%4%4%4%4%4%4%
(Note: SEH assumed a 3.5% inflation rate on construction costs. Rate study used 4%.)
NPV of Water Connection Fees $4,941,008
NPV of Sewer Connection Fees $1,322,479
Total $6,263,487
% of Project Costs in 2020 50%
*Assessing $6,263,487 of project costs divided by 200 acres of developable land = $31,317 in assessments per acre
*It should be noted that this work could not occur until Bluff Creek Golf Course develops and
Highway 101 going up the bluff is constructed.
38 88
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
»Realignment of Highway 101 (North of County Rd 61)
»Development timing and phasing
»Parcel assembly
»Property owners desires/long-term intent
VARIABLES THAT AFFECT LAND USE TRANSITION
39 89
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
POTENTIAL LAND USES: CITY SERVICES NOT PROVIDED Option B
40 90
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
CITY VISION
With the last update of the comprehensive plan, there was a great
deal of consideration of the opportunity Chanhassen has as a
regional draw. This appeal includes cultural, retail and
employment opportunities. We learned through the “Retail Market
Analysis” that the city has a strong north -south connection. In
the past the perception was the east -west was predominant
economic connection.
The completion of the 101 Bridge will further enhance this north –
south connection. In addition the upgrade of the County Road 61
will provide opportunities to further capitalize on the regional draw.
The city has the opportunity to assess their vision by
reviewing land use recommendations and evaluating the
development opportunities and constraints.
41 91
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014
»Utility Service Approach
»Land Use Approach
»Incorporate Recommendations into
Comprehensive Plan Update
»Community Engagement –August 6, 2014
NEXT STEPS FOR DECISION MAKING
42 92
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8
9 10
11
12 13 14
15 16
93
Map # PID Address Owner Mailing Address Current Use 2040 Land Use1 250340111 1900 Stoughton TKG III Chaska LLC215 N Stadium Blvd, STE 207 Columbia, MO 65205Warehousing/Outdoor Storage (CUP/IUP) Office Industrial2 250030600 1930 Stoughton Ave Richard Wermerskirchen1930 Stoughton Ave, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Office Industrial3 250030400 1910 Stoughton Ave Dale Schultz1910 Stoughton Ave, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Office Industrial4 250340300 1805 Stoughton Ave Carlton Solberg 1805 Stoughton Ave, Chaska, MN Single Family Res. (Permited) Office Industrial5 250351310 None State of MN‐DNR*500 Lafayette RD, St Paul, MN 55155Open Space Mixed6 250351300 780 Flying Cloud Drive Skip S. Cook15506 Village Woods Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347Motel (Legal Non‐Conformity) Mixed7 256010010 10500 Great Plains Blvd PCH Development LLCPO Box 94 Shakoppe, MN 55379 Vacant (Formerly Commerical Kennel CUP)Mixed7 256010020 10520 Great Plains Blvd PCH Development LLCPO Box 94 Shakoppe, MN 55379 Vacant (Formerly Commerical Kennel CUP)Mixed8 250362700 None Larry Hopfenspirger2720 Quaker Ln N, Plymouth, MN 55441Automotive dealers CUPAgriculture8 250363700 615 Flying Cloud Drive 615 Flying Cloud Drive LLC2025 Nicollet Ave #203 Minneapolis, MN 55404Automotive dealers (CUP)Park and Open Space9 250361300 608 Flying Cloud Drive 608 Flying Cloud LLC608 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska, MN 55318Automotive dealers (CUP) Residential High Density10 257980010 550 Flying Cloud Drive P R Kelly Properties LLC13991 Kensington Ave NE, Prior Lake, MN 55372Warehousing/Outdoor Storage (CUP) Residential High Density11 250361000 None State of MN‐DNR**500 Lafayette RD, St Paul, MN 55155Open Space Residential High Density12 250362800 470 Flying Cloud Drive Michael Spiess470 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Residential High Density13 250363100 460 Flying Cloud Drive Alvin Lebens460 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Residential High Density14 250360710 450 Flying Colud Drive Daniel Thiessen450 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Residential High Density15 250360700 220 Flying Cloud Drive Beatrice I Zwiers IRREV TRUST11111 Deuce Rd, Elko, MN 55020Open Space Residential High Density16 250360500 None City of ChanhassenPO Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317Open Space Residential High Density***List of Properties Zoned Fringe Business DistrictLower rectanglear portion will be County ROW, upper trinagle section will likely go to City.Is now County ROW, GIS is has not yet been updated to reflect that.94
2040
Land
Use
95
Zoning Map
96
Planning Commission Item
January 4, 2022
Item Consider an Amendment to Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18,
19, and 20 Concerning Fees
File No.Item No: C.3
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
97
Applicable
Regulations
Subject to Planning Commission Review:
Section 18-63(b): States that water quality and water quantity connection
charges will be as established in Chapter 4. Proposed ordinance would change
to as established by ordinance.
Section 20-31: Proposed blanket provision stating fees within Chapter 20 are
established by ordinance.
Section 20-91: Establishes the City’s zoning permit requirements. Proposed
ordinance would add section stating application form requirement and fee as
established by ordinance.
Section 20-267(o)7: States license requirements for portable chemical toilets on
beach lots. Proposed ordinance would note that application must be on forms
provided by the City.
Section 20-415(a): States administrative wetland permit fees shall be
established in City Code. Proposed ordinance would change to as established
by ordinance.
Section 20-1122(f): Notes that alterations to driveways require either a
driveway permit or zoning permit. Proposed ordinance would add a note that
the application is both on forms provided by the City and that the fee is as
established by ordinance.
Section 20-1252: States that sign permit fees shall be as established in Chapter
4. Proposed ordinance would change to as established by ordinance
Note: The proposed ordinance will also amend numerous sections of the City
Code within Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19; however, a
public hearing and Planning Commission recommendation are not required for
those sections.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendment to Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 Concerning Fees.
SUMMARY
The current process of amending Chapter 4 to alter the City’s fees can lead to the creation of conflicts
within the Code, inadvertent removal of fees, and requires additional administrative work compared to
adopting fees by ordinance. In order to switch to adoption of fees by ordinance, every section of the
City Code establishing fees must be amended.
98
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
Most sections of the City Code that reference fees have language stating that the fee charged for various
permits and services shall be established by the City Council in Chapter 4 of the City Code. Some
sections of the City Code outside of Chapter 4, particularly those dealing with fines or escrows, directly
state the amount that must be paid. In a few cases, permit requirements are mentioned but no fee is
established, even though the City has historically charged a fee for the permit. Due to the fact that some
fees are adjusted annually, staff must prepare and City Council must approve an amendment to Chapter
4 of the City Code every year, and any City Code amendment that establishes a new permit must also
include an amendment to Chapter 4 to establish any associated fees.
This system for establishing fees has several draw backs: 1) it makes it hard for staff, residents, and
developers/contractors to find information on the City’s fees, as all of the City’s fees are not located in a
single place; 2) it generates a large amount of administrative overhead as staff must continually update
and amend the City Code; and, 3) it increases the likelihood that an administrative error will
inadvertently remove fees or create inconsistencies between Chapter 4 and other Chapters of the City
Code. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the City switch to establishing fees via an annual
ordinance. While this change does require a significant one time amendment to the City Code, it will
result in a more efficient process going forward.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendment to Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the City Code, concerning
the establishment of fees.
ATTACHMENTS
Fees Update Staff Report
Fee Change Ordinance - Final
99
CITY OT CIIANHASSXI'I
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
January 4,2022
Establishment of Fees
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendmenttoChapters3,4,5,7,10,11,12,13,14,16,17, 18, 19, and 20 ofthe City Code,
conceming the establishment of fees."
The current process ofamending Chapter 4 to alter the City's fees can lead to the creation of
conflicts within the Code, inadvertent removal offees, and requires additional administrative work
compared to adopting fees by ordinance. In order to switch to adoption offees by ordinance, every
section ofthe City Code establishing fees must be amended.
Summan-:
Most sections ofthe City Code that reference fees have language stating that the fee charged for
various permits and services shall be established by the City Council in Chapter 4 ofthe City Code.
Some sections ofthe City Code outside ofChapter 4, particularly those dealing with fines or
escrows! directly state the amount that must be paid. In a few cases. permit requirements are
mentioned but no fee is established, even though the City has historically charged a fee for the
permit. Due to the fact that some fees are adjusted annually, staff must prepare and City Council
must approve an amendment to Chapter 4 ofthe City Code every year, and any City Code
amendment that establishes a new permit must also include an amendment to Chapter 4 to establish
any associated fees.
PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Issue:
This system for establishing fees has several draw backs: l) it makes it hard for staff, residents, and
developers/contractors to find information on the City's fees, as all ofthe City's fees are not located
in a single place; 2) it generates a large amount of administrative overhead as staff must continually
update and amend the City Code; and, 3) it increases the likelihood that an administrative error will
inadvertently remove fees or create inconsistencies between Chapter 4 and other Chapters ofthe City
Code. For these reasons, staffis recommending that the City switch to establishing fees via an annual
100
Establishment of Fees
January 4,2022
Page 2
ordinance. While this change does require a significant one time amendment to the City Code, it wilt
result in a more efficient process going forward.
@ul@!e:
Subject to Planning Commission Review
Section l8-63(b): States that water quality and water quantity connection charges will be as
established in Chapter 4. Proposed ordinance would change to as established by ordinance.
Section 20-31 : Proposed blanket provision stating fees within Chapter 20 are established by
ordinance.
Section 20-91: Establishes the City's zoning permit requirements. Proposed ordinance would add
section stating application form requirement and fee as established by ordinance.
Section 20-275(o)7: States license requirements for portable chemical toilets on beach lots.
Proposed ordinance would note that application must be on forms provided by the City.
Section 20-415(a): States administrative wetland permit fees shall be established in City Code.
Proposed ordinance would change to as established by ordinance.
Section 20-1122(f): Notes that alterations to driveways require either a driveway permit or zoning
permit. Proposed ordinance would add a note that the application is both on forms provided by the
City and that the fee is as established by ordinance.
Section 20-1252: States that sign permit fees shall be as established in Chapter 4. Proposed ordinance
would change to as established by ordinance
Note: The proposed ordinance will also amend numerous section of the City Code within Chapters 3,
4,5,7,10,11, 12, 13, 14,16, 17, and l9; however, a public hearing and Planning Commission
recommendation are not required for those sections.
Analvsis:
The majority offees that the City charges are listed in Chapter 4 as part ofthe City's Code of
Ordinances. Typically, permit and application requirements will be listed in a separate portion ofthe
City Code with a clause stating something to the effect of"the fees are as established by the City
Council in the fee schedule in Chapter 4"; however, there are areas ofthe Code where the fee is
established within the section that outlines permit and application requirements. Regardless ofthe
fees,exact locations, the fees themselves are established by the City Code and any time the City
wants to alter a fee, a Code amendment is required'
Code amendments require staff to draft the ordinance, the City Council must approve it, the City
must publish it in the paper, and staffmust then update the City Code as directed by the ordinance. In
situations where Chapters l8 and 20 are impacted by the proposed amendment, a public hearing
101
Establishment of Fees
Jnuary 4,2022
Page 3
before the Planning Commission and its associated notices is also required. An ordinance is a
significantly simpler process as it does not require the public hearings or update of City Code.
ln addition to lowering the administrative burden on staff, switching to establishing the City's fee
schedule by ordinance has the added benefits ofreducing the number ofcode amendments, reducing
the likelihood of administrative enors impacting the City Code, and consolidating all rates, fees,
fines, and charges in one location. The first benefits are linked. Every time staff amends a section of
City Code there is the potential to introduce erors or inconsistencies. There is an especially high
likelihood of this when working with sections of the Code like Chapter 4 where there are large
ordinal lists that interface with sections located in other Chapters ofthe City Code. For example,
Section l8-63(b) specifically cites Section 4-30(c)3 as the location of its fees. Ifan amendment were
to add a new fee within Section 4-30, the renumbering ofthe section would inadvertently change the
City's water quality and quality fee as what was previously 4-30(c)(3) might become a-30(dX3)
without l8-63(b) being amended to reflect the new location of its fee. The only safeguard against
these types oferrors is staffmembers' memories and diligence in crosschecking references.
While the above error is a theoretical example, staff has discovered instances where fees were
inadvertently deleted during amendments to Chapter 4. Staffhas also found instances were Chapter 4
referenced fees that are no longer charged due to section that governed the permit being removed, but
not the section ofChapter 4 that established the fee. When discrepancies between the fees being
charged and the list offees in Chapter 4 are noticed, it can be extremely difficult to work out what
happened due to the large number of historic ordinances amending Chapter 4 that need to be
researched in order to determine when a fee was removed/altered and if it was done intentionally or
by accident.
The final benefit, consolidating the location ofall ofthe City's fees, makes it easier for staff,
developers, contractors, and residents to determine what fees apply and how much those fees are.
Cunently, the dollar amount for permit fees may be listed in one Chapter of the City Code and the
escrow amounts may be listed in another Chapter. While most departments maintain a list of all of
their fees, individuals with projects that involve multiple departments may not be able to find a single
comprehensive fee list for their project. Establishing all fees via an ordinance will result in all City
fees being located on a single list which will make it easier for individuals to conduct preliminary
research on the fees that will apply and will allow staffto provide a complete fee schedule.
While switching from a within City Code to by ordinance model does require a significant onetime
amendment to the City Code, staffbelieves the above benefitsjustifu the change.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the
proposed amendment to Chapters 3,4,5,7,10, ll, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17,18,19, and20 ofthe City
Code, concerning the establishment of fees.
l) Proposed Ordinance
Attachment:
102
1
219534v2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING PERMITS, FEES,CHARGES AND ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 3-10(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
An alarm user fee in the amounts established by pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees is imposed
upon any alarm user from whose alarm system emanates more than three false alarms within any
period of 12 consecutive months.
Section 2. Section 4-1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
The fees, charges, rates and surcharges for various licenses, permits, utilities, administrative services,
municipal cemeteries provided under this Code shall be established pursuant to the ordinance
adopting fees.
Section 3. Section 4-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby deleted.
Section 4. Articles 4-II, 4-III, 4-IV and 4-V of Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code are
hereby deleted in their entirety.
Section 5. Section 5-18(c) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
(c) License fees and license year. The application and license fee shall be as established by ordinance
of the City Council. The application, investigation, and license fees shall be paid when the
application is filed. A separate license shall be obtained for each place of business. The licensee
shall display the license in a prominent place in the licensed business at all times. Licenses shall
expire on the December 31 following the issuance of the license. Applications to renew an existing
license must be submitted by December 1.
Section 6. Section 5-87(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
103
2
219534v2
(a)No horse shall be permitted to run outside the confines of the stable area or enclosed real
property of the person who maintains and stables the horse. Any person who maintains and
stables horses within the city and who allows and permits a horse to escape from a confined
area shall be liable for the charges to the city to recover the animal, which shall be as established
pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 7. Section 5-102 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
Application for the permit required by this division shall be made to the city upon a form furnished
by the city. A nonrefundable application fee shall be as established pursuant to the ordinance
adopting fees and shall be paid to the city when the application is filed.
Section 8. Section 5-105(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(a) The holder of a stable permit shall register annually with the city by completing and submitting
an application form as provided in section 5-102, based on the current status of the stable under
permit, by June 1 of each year.
Section 9. Section 5-122(b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(b) Application for the permit required by this article shall be made to the city upon a form
furnished by the city. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established pursuant to the ordinance
adopting fees shall be paid to the city when the application if filed.
Section 10. Section 7-17(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(a) The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be as authorized in M.S. § 16B.62,
subd. 1. The fees to be paid to the city for building permits and inspections shall be as
established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 11. Section 7-17(b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(b) An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whenever any work for
which a permit is required by this Code has been commenced without first obtaining said
permit. The investigation fee shall be as established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all
other provisions of this Code, nor from any penalty prescribed by law.
Section 12. Section 7-17(c) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
104
3
219534v2
(c) A re-inspection fee may be assessed for each re-inspection when such portion of work for
which inspection is called is not complete or when corrections called for are not made. Re-
inspection fees may be assessed when the inspection record card is not readily available,
approved plans are not readily available, failure to provide access on the date for which
inspection is requested, or for deviating from plans requiring the approval of the building
official. The fee shall be as established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 13. Section 7-21 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, an as-built grading survey is required. An as-
built grading survey is defined as a lot survey showing the elevations of the lot after construction
of the building structure and prior to sodding the lot. In lieu of an as-built grading survey, the
building official may issue a certificate of occupancy provided that a the escrow fee established
pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees has been submitted. The escrow fee shall be returned to
the permit applicant, without interest, upon successful completion and submission to the city of
all of the following:
(a)An as-built grading survey, signed by a licensed engineer or land surveyor and
certified that the grades and elevations are in conformance with the city-approved grading plan
and that permanent iron monuments are in place at each lot corner.
(b)City staff review of the submitted as-built grading survey to assure that all final
grades match the approved grading plan for the development, to within a tolerance of 0.2 feet.
Section 14. Section 7-24(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(a) If the lot on which a certificate of occupancy for a single-family dwelling is requested, it is
subject to landscaping requirements set forth in the development contract with the city. A
certificate of occupancy shall not be issued unless the landscaping has been completed or
unless a the fee established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees, or such other amount as
determined by the city's community development director, cash escrow or letter of credit is
furnished to the city guaranteeing completion within 60 days, weather permitting. If the
landscaping requirements are not met within one year of the completion deadline, the money
shall be forfeited and deposited into the city's tree planting fund.
Section 15. Section 7-40 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
A schedule of fees shall be determined by ordinance of the city council, which may, from time to
time, change such schedule. Prior to the issuance or renewal of any permit, such fees shall be paid
to the city and deposited in the general fund.
Section 16. Section 7-52(e) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
105
4
219534v2
(e) Fees.The fees for inspections and services performed in carrying out the responsibilities under
this Code shall be as established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 17. Section 10-21(c) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(c) Investigation fees. Investigation fees shall be established pursuant to the ordinance adopting
fees. Investigation fees are nonrefundable. No investigation fee shall be charged for a renewal
application. At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a change in the
control of a corporate license, change in manager, change in location, or enlargement of the
premises, the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee. Where a new application is
filed as a result of incorporation or a change of name by an existing licensee and the ownership
control and interest in the license are unchanged, no additional investigation fee will be
required.
Section 18. Section 10-81 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
Licenses shall be issued for a calendar year. The license fee shall be established pursuant to the
ordinance adopting fees. License fees shall not be prorated.
Section 19. Section 10-219 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
The fee for a license and the required background investigation shall be established pursuant to
the ordinance adopting fees. The application, investigation, and license fees shall be paid when the
application is filed. In the event that the application is denied or if the issued license is revoked,
canceled, suspended or surrendered, no part of the license fee shall be returned to the applicant
unless by city council action. A separate license shall be obtained for each place of business. The
licensee shall display the license in a prominent place in the licensed business at all times.
Section 20. Section 11-2(e)(1) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(1) Application for any permit required by this section shall be made on forms furnished by the
city. The applicant shall furnish the information required by the application. A fee for the
permit in the amount established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees shall be paid to the
city.
Section 21. Section 12-7(e) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(e) Special permits may be obtained from the city for trucks in excess of the weight limits imposed
herein. Application shall be made on forms provided by the City and the permit fee shall be
established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees. Upon submission of a completed application,
together with an escrow and agreement to pay for any damages caused to the streets because of
106
5
219534v2
the travel thereon by the truck, a special permit may be issued.
Section 22. Section 12-17(d) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(d)Penalty.Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and the violator
shall be fined or penalized not more than the maximum levels established by the State of
Minnesota for misdemeanor offenses.
Section 23. Section 12-50(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(a)Required.On a space available basis, the city manager shall issue permits authorizing
overnight parking in municipal parking lots. The permit shall specify the date and lot for
which the overnight parking is permitted. The permit fee shall be established pursuant to
the ordinance adopting fees. No individual shall be given a permit authorizing overnight
parking for more than seven days in a calendar year.
Section 24. Section 12-53 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
No automobile, boat, trailer, recreational vehicle, dumpster, storage container, construction
equipment, construction materials, or landscape materials may be parked or deposited on a city
street for more than 48 hours without a written permit from the City of Chanhassen. Application
for the permit shall be made on forms provided by the City. An escrow may be required in the
event that the City determines that there is a potential for the storage to damage the street or right
of way.
Section 25. The Chanhassen City Code is amended to a new Section 12-54 to read as
follows:
Section 12-54 Temporary Lifting of No Parking Restrictions
Permits temporarily lifting no parking restrictions may be issued at the discretion of the City.
Application for the permit shall be made on forms provided by the City.
Section 26. Section 13-51(i) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(i)Loudspeakers, amplifiers for advertising, etc. No person shall operate or permit the use
or operation of any loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or other device for the production or
reproduction of sound on a street or other public place for the purpose of commercial
advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any commercial establishment or
vehicle, without a written permit from the city. Application shall be made on forms
provided by the city. The application shall require the hours and location of the
proposed use. if the proposed use complies with this article and other ordinances, the
107
6
219534v2
permit shall be granted. Permit fees shall be established pursuant to the ordinance
adopting fees.
(ii)
Section 27. Section 14-58 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
A permit shall be obtained from the city before participating in any of the following activities in a
city park:
a) Carnivals;
b) Community celebrations;
c) Gatherings of 50 or more persons, including picnics and political gatherings; and
d) Contests and exhibitions, including, among other things, those that require exclusive use
or charging admission.
Application for the permit shall be made on forms provided by the City.
Section 28. Section 16-31(d) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(d) Fee. The annual license fee shall be established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 29, Chapter 17, Article II of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
Article 17-II Street Closures for Neighborhood Events
Section 17-16 Street Closures for Neighborhood Events
Permits allowing for the closure of dead-ends or cul-de-sacs for the purpose of hosting neighbor
events may be issued at the City’s discretion. Permits cannot be issued for thoroughfares or
collector streets.Application for the permit shall be on forms provided by the City and a refundable
deposit for the use of City barricades, if a private vendor is not utilized, shall be established
pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees. The City shall retain the deposit for each barricade not
returned to the City.
Section 30. Section 17-42(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(a) A person required to obtain a permit by this division shall file an application with the city,
accompanied by a fee in the amount established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 31. Section 17-81 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to add a new
subsection (g) to read as follows:
108
7
219534v2
(g)Fees. Fees required under this Article shall be as established pursuant to the ordinance
adopting fees.
Section 32. Section 17-79(d) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(d) Small wireless facility agreement. A small wireless facility shall only be collocated on a small
wireless support structure owned or controlled by the city, or any other city asset in the right-
of-way, after the applicant has executed a standard small wireless facility collocation
agreement with the city. The standard collocation agreement shall require payment of rent and
maintenance and electrical service fees as established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
The standard collocation agreement shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the required small
wireless facility permit, provided, however, that the applicant shall not be additionally required
to obtain a license or franchise in order to collocate. Issuance of a small wireless facility permit
does not supersede, alter or affect any then-existing agreement between the city and applicant.
Section 33. Section 18-63(b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(b) In accordance with the city's surface water management plan as a condition of subdivision
approval, subdividers shall pay a water quality and water quantity connection charge. The
charge shall be based upon the gross area of the subdivision less the area to be dedicated to the
city for ponding, parks and wetland, and right-of-way for state highways, county roads, and
local arterial roadways. The connection charges per acre for water quality and water quantity
are established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees. The subdivision will be given a credit
for on-site stormwater quality improvements that are designed to treat runoff from the
subdivision to NURP standards. The credit will be calculated using the following formula: The
per acre water quality connection charge will be multiplied by the on-site drainage area for
water quality treatment facilities. This value will then be multiplied by 50 percent. The
subdivision will also be given a credit for on-site stormwater quality improvements that are
oversized to treat runoff from property outside the subdivision to NURP standards. The credit
will be calculated using the following formula: The per acre water quality connection charge
will be multiplied by the off-site drainage area for water quality treatment facilities. This value
will then be multiplied by 50 percent. Credit will not be granted if the stormwater from
contributing off-site areas is already treated to NURP standards. The water quality connection
charges that correspond to the land uses that contribute to the stormwater ponds will be used
to calculate credits.
The charge for lots oversized due to individual on-site sewage disposal and water systems will
be reduced to the charge that would be imposed on a one-half-acre lot. An additional charge
will then be imposed if the lot is further subdivided less a credit for the charge previously paid.
The charge shall be paid in cash before the subdivision is approved by the city unless the city
and subdivider agree that the charge may be assessed against the property. Property being
subdivided shall be exempt from the water quality and water quantity connection charges
imposed by this section if the charges were paid or assessed in conjunction with a previous
109
8
219534v2
subdivision of the property and if the property is not being zoned to a classification with a
higher charge.
Section 34. Section 19-18(b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(b) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to turn on or off any water control valve
installed on the city water supply system on city property, right-of-way, or easement. This
includes, but is not limited to, all fire hydrants, water main control valves, water service control
valves for industrial and commercial properties and curb stops for residential water services.
The following are exempted by this prohibition:
(1) City employees that are authorized to maintain the city water distribution system, or who
have administrative approval.
(2) Emergency personnel affiliated with the city for use in emergency situations. This
includes the fire department.
(3) Persons having written approval in their immediate possession from the utility
superintendent.
(4) Plumbers may turn on water service control valves and curb stops located on private
property after the water meter is installed.
Properties with water turned on without authorization shall be charged a service and water use fee
in an amount established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees. Properties with new structures
under construction shall be required to pay the fee before the certificate of occupancy is issued.
Section 35. Section 19-23(b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(b) Fees.The fees to be paid the city for plumbing permits shall be an amount established pursuant
to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 36. Section 19-24(b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(b)The city shall, at its expense, maintain and repair all meters when rendered unserviceable
through ordinary usage, and shall replace meters when necessary. When replacement, repair or
adjustment of any meter is made necessary by the act or neglect of the consumer, all cost
incurred thereby shall be charged against the consumer, and water service may be discontinued
until such cost has been paid. In the event city personnel determine that a water meter or remote
have been tampered with to intentionally affect the true meter reading, a fine as established by
the ordinance adopting fees shall be included on the next quarterly billing and the bill shall
include an adjustment to include the estimated usage not recorded due to the meter tampering.
110
9
219534v2
Repeated tampering shall be grounds for shutoff of the water service in the manner provided in
section 19-18.
Section 37. Section 19-24(d)(3) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(3) Providing a time for an appointment for any meter work to occur within two weeks of notice
by the city of the need for work and providing the presence of a responsible adult during the
appointment. Failure to allow for reasonable access as provided herein shall result in a
monthly charge as established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees to be included on the
quarterly billing.
Section 38. Section 19-24(e) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(e) Radio read meters. Installation of a radio read capacity water meter shall be required on all
structures served by the municipal water system. If a property owner does not authorize entry
onto the property to allow installation of the meter, a monthly surcharge established pursuant
to the ordinance adopting fees will be applied on the water bill for the property. If a property
owner fails to allow proper service of or tampers with either the meter or radio transmitter
thereby interfering with proper meter reading and utility billing, a monthly surcharge
established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees shall be applied and the water usage shall
be estimated based on past usage. In addition to the surcharge, the property will be
responsible for payment of any usage in excess of the estimated usage. The property owner
may appeal the surcharge in writing. Such written appeal must include an explanation and/or
justification for the failure to comply. Such appeal shall be directed to the city engineer. The
appeal will be reviewed by the city engineer and forwarded to the city council with a
recommendation for action.
Section 39. Section 19-28(d) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(d) Violations will result in a surchargeestablished pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees, which
will be added to the next water bill for the premises. Subsequent violations in a calendar year
will be subject to increasing surcharges for each violation as established pursuant to the
ordinance adopting fees. Appeals shall be made to the city manager or designee within ten days
of levy of surcharge, in writing. A decision will be rendered by city manager, in writing, within
ten days of receipt.
Section 40. Section 19-29(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(a) Quarterly water usage rates shall be established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
111
10
219534v2
Section 41. Section 19-43(b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(b) Fees.The fees to be paid the city for plumbing permits shall be an amount established pursuant
to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 42. Section 19-44(g) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(g) A monthly surcharge as established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees is hereby imposed
and shall be added to every sewer billing, to property owners who are found not in compliance
with this section. The surcharge shall be added every month until the property is verified to be in
compliance through the city's inspection program.
Section 43. Section 19-46 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to add a new
subsection (e) to read as follows:
(e)Trunk hook-up charges shall be as established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 44. Section 19-51(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(a) A quarterly sewer usage unit rate shall be established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 45. Section 19-97 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
No person shall connect any premises to storm sewer system without first obtaining a permit therefor
from the city and paying the connection permit fee established pursuant to the ordinance adopting
fees. Application for a permit shall be made on forms furnished by the city, and shall state the
information required by the form. By making an application, each applicant agrees to be bound by all
applicable ordinances. Permits shall be valid for a period of six months from the date of issuance.
Section 46. Section 19-98(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(a) No person shall make a storm sewer connection in the city without a license issued by the city.
Application for a license shall be made on a form furnished by the city. The applicant shall furnish
the information required by the form. Each application shall be accompanied by the payment of
a fee in the amount established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 47. Section 19-129 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person to connect a building sewer to any public sewer without first
obtaining a permit from the city and paying the fee established pursuant to the ordinance adopting
112
11
219534v2
fees. The city shall permit new connections and flow increases only if there is additional available
capacity in all components of the particular public sewage treatment system being considered. No
new connections or flow increases will be permitted two years following start up of community
sewage treatment systems that employ a drainfield or other soil-absorption system.
Section 48. Section 19-135 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
The owner of every property shall pay to the city a service charge to cover the cost of administration
of this article. The service charge shall be established by ordinance adopting fees and may be revised
from time to time to reflect the cost of providing administrative services.
Section 49. Section 19-145(d) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(d) Financial assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan, and related remedial work, a cash
escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building
permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor
or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the
city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-
draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or
developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined
by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and
sediment controls.
Section 50. Section 19-202 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:
The surface water management fees for tax parcels shall be calculated in accordance with ordinance
adopting fees.
Section 51. The Chanhassen City Code is amended to add a new Section 20-31 to read as
follows:
20-31 Permit Application Fees.
Applications for variances, conditional use permits, interim use permits, site plan approvals, wetland
alteration permits, zoning permits, special event permits, mining permit and any other administrative
permits required under this Chapter are subject to an application fee as established pursuant to the
ordinance adopting fees and must be paid at the time of submittal of the application.
Section 52. Section 20-91 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to add a new
subsection (c) to read as follows:
113
12
219534v2
(c)Application for a permit required by article shall be made to the city upon a form furnished
by the city. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees
shall be paid to the city when the application if filed.
Section 53. Section 20-267(o)(7) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(7) Receipt of an annual license from the city's planning department. The license shall be issued
unless the conditions of approval of this section have been violated. All license applications
shall be made a form provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the following
information:
a) Name, address, and phone number of applicants.
b) Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets.
c) Name, address, and phone number of chemical toilet supplier.
d) Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of any agreement
for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number of person responsible for
maintenance.
A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet from all
views into the property, including views from the lake.
Section 54. Section 20-415(a) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
(a) Applications for administrative wetland permits shall be made on a form supplied by the city. A
fee shall be paid as established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees. The WCA agent shall
review applications to ensure proposed activities are in compliance with the Wetland
Conservation Act and the requirements of this article and are consistent with approved and/or
accepted wetland management practices.
Section 55. The Chanhassen City Code is amended to add Section 20-1122(f)(3) to read as
follows:
(3) Applications for driveway and zoning permits shall be made on forms provided by the City and
the application fees shall be as established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees.
Section 56. Section 20-1252 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:
Fees for sign permit applications and variance requests shall be imposed in accordance with the fee
schedule established pursuant to the ordinance adopting fees. The intent of this section is to recover
costs associated with administering this article. Permit fees shall reflect the costs of reviewing and
processing permits, as well as costs associated with periodic enforcement activities and compliance
checks.
Section 57. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
114
13
219534v2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2022, by the City
Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota.
______________________________________________________________
Laurie Hokkanen, City Clerk/Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ______________________________)
115
Planning Commission Item
January 4, 2022
Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated December 7, 2021
File No.Item No: D.1
Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the minutes from its December 7, 2021 meeting.
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
116
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated December 7, 2021
117
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 7, 2021
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chair von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Doug Reeder, and Kelsey
Alto
MEMBERS ABSENT: Erik Johnson and Steven Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner, MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate
Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Allan Wiley GBC Design, Inc., 565 White Pond Dr., Akron, OH 44320
Vice Chair von Oven reviewed guidelines for conducting the Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SETBACK AND HARD COVER VARIANCES TO
RECONSTRUCT EXISTING DRIVE-THROUGH TO FULL DUAL LANE DRIVE-
THROUGH AND INSTALL FREE-STANDING CANOPIES OVER ORDERING AREAS
AND PICK-UP WINDOW ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 445 W. 79TH STREET
(CHICK-FIL-A)
Senior Planner Generous noted this is a variance application for Chick-fil-A and the applicant
would like to expand the drive-through to provide better service to customers. In doing so, they
will increase the hardcover on the site and additionally propose to construct a canopy over the
ordering and pick-up window areas. In 2016, Chick-fil-A was granted site plan approval with a
drive-through; in order to reduce hardcover the City required them to reduce the drive-through
width to one lane. The applicant still needed a hardcover variance because they were at 77.5%
hardcover. Previously on the site was a strip center which had 81.9% hardcover. Mr. Generous
stated Chick-fil-A is proposing a 15.3% hardcover variance from the 65% that is permitted in the
Highway and Business Services District which would get the applicant to 80.3% hardcover.
They are also proposing an 11.6-foot variance from the 25-foot setback on the south side from
Highway 5 to allow the canopy construction over the ordering area. Staff recommends approval
of the variance applications subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report.
Commissioner Noyes asked if they have a feel for what the traffic back-ups will be as he
assumes allowing more space for cars in the drive-through area will help.
118
Planning Commission Minutes – December 7, 2021
2
Mr. Generous replied that engineering agreed with Chick-fil-A’s study.
Allan Wiley of DBC Design Inc, stated it does improve traffic as it increases the storage capacity
in the drive-through and the efficiency of being able to hand out multiple orders at the same time
which will allow multiple cars to leave at the same time. It will increase the efficiency of the
drive-through.
Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing.
Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves the 11.6-foot
setback variance for the canopy setback and a 15.3% hardcover variance for the dual
drive-through lanes on property located at 445 W. 79th Street, subject to the conditions of
approval, and adoption of Findings of Fact and Decision.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO AMEND CITY CODE PERTAINING TO PRIVATE
KENNEL LICENSING
Associate Planner Young-Walters stated this is a proposed amendment to remove the private
kennel licensing requirement. Currently, City Code requires all residents to get a private kennel
license ($25/year) if they have three or more dogs, four or more cats, or a combination of five or
more dogs and cats. The City has identified 25 properties that need the license and in any given
year half of those renew the license; the City does not take any action against those properties
that do not. To Mr. Young-Walters’ knowledge, the City has never required anyone without the
license to surrender their animals. He clarified that every provision in the private kennel license
ordinance, with the exception of a sturdy fence requirement, is found in other parts of the City
Code with its own enforcement mechanisms that can be used to fine or if necessary confiscate
animals that are nuisances, dangerous, etc. Mr. Young-Walters noted this is an administrative
burden on staff and does not serve its intended function for the handful of residents that file the
license each year. Staff would like to remove it.
Commissioner Reeder asked the difference between a private kennel and a commercial kennel.
Mr. Young-Walters replied that commercial kennels are selling something, such as breeding and
selling animals or running an in-home doggy daycare for profit. Private kennels are personal
animals for personal enjoyment.
Commissioner Reeder clarified as long as he is not running a business out of his house, he can
have 13 dogs.
119
Planning Commission Minutes – December 7, 2021
3
Mr. Young-Walters replied that if one can manage to do it without creating a public nuisance,
yes. He noted staff thought about the consequences for removing the ordinance and decided to go
straight to the nuisance ordinance in cases such as the example given.
Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing.
Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment
to Chapters 1, 5, and 20 of the City Code concerning private kennel licensing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2021
Commissioner Skistad noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated November 16, 2021, as presented.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE:
Mr. Generous presented highlights of action taken by the City Council on planning matters,
noting the River Valley Industrial Park was approved and will go before the Chaska City
Council.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Skistad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Jean Steckling
Senior Admin. Support Specialist
120
Planning Commission Item
January 4, 2022
Item City Council Action Update
File No.Item No: E.1
Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
No items for discussion.
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
121
ATTACHMENTS
122