02-15-2022 Agenda and Packet
A.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
B.1 Consider Updated Buffer Plans as Part of a Request for Lot Cover, Setback (Front, Side, and
Shoreland), and Other Variances for the Construction of a Single-Family Home at 3703 S.
Cedar Drive
B.2 Consider Amending Chapter 20 (Zoning) of the Chanhassen City Code Concerning
Notification Requirements and Public Hearing Timelines
C.GENERAL BUSINESS
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated January 4, 2022
E.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
E.1 2021 Year-End Review and 2022 Work Plan
E.2 City Council Action Update
F.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
G.ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 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.
If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record
1
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
February 15, 2022
Item
Consider Updated Buffer Plans as Part of a Request for Lot Cover, Setback
(Front, Side, and Shoreland), and Other Variances for the Construction of a
Single-Family Home at 3703 S. Cedar Drive
File No.Planning Case No. 2021-25 Item No: B.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Greg Dattilo
12248 Sussex Street
Fort Myers, FL 33913
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage 0.13
Density
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 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot
east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 19 percent lot cover variances,
subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
3
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing installing a 400-square foot vegetative buffer with a complementary French
drain as depicted in the attachment titled "Agreed Upon Alternative" to meet the intent of the City's
shoreland buffer requirement. The attached memo from the City's Water Resources Engineer titled
"WRC Memo Revised" explains why the City believes the applicant's proposal meets the intent of the
City's shoreland buffer requirements.
BACKGROUND
This item first came before the Planning Commission on November 16, 2021. During the meeting the
applicant expressed concern with staff's proposed requirement of a 20-foot wide vegetative buffer,
noting the presence of a beach and property's small lakeside yard as obstacles to meeting the
requirement. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to develop a
compromise proposal that would maintain the beach while providing the maximum practicable amount
of stormwater mitigation. The Planning Commission then voted to table the item.
DISCUSSION
During the November 16, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, both staff and the Planning Commission
expressed support for the applicant's requested variances; however, there was concern expressed about
the proposed 20-foot buffer requirement. In response to these concerns, staff and the applicant have
developed a proposed buffer that would have an area of 400 square feet, predominantly running along
the property's west lot line. A narrower section buffer is proposed paralleling most of the beach's width,
with a gap to accommodate access to the beach and lake. Additionally, a French drain is proposed to
convey roof drainage from the east side for the roof to the more extensive buffer area along the west lot
line.
Staff believes the proposal represents a reasonable balance between the applicant's concerns and the
City's interest in mitigating the impact of the proposed lot cover on aquatic resources. Staff has
modified the Conditions of Approval to reflect the proposed buffer and French drain system.
It should also be noted that the recommended lot cover variance has been reduced from 20 percent to 19
percent. This is to align the lot cover variance with the revised total being proposed by the applicant in
their survey dated November 10, 2021, which staff had received after the initial staff report had been
written and published.
A full discussion of the proposed buffer as well as the November 16, 2021 Planning Commission report
and attachments can be found in the attachments.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve
34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 19
percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt the attached Findings of
Facts and Decision.
1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be
4
required after plan review.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer
and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent possible,
pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas such as the
driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems, and the use of
impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City.
6. A 400-square foot permanent native vegetated buffer using species native to the ecotype with
permanent buffer monuments shall be installed. The buffer configuration shall substantially align
with what is shown in the survey dated December 23, 2022. A French drain shall be installed to
convey drainage from the east roof to the western section of the buffer. The buffer and rain
garden must be designed and installed by an experienced shoreline restoration specialist. Design
plans must be approved by the Water Resources Engineer.
7. An updated survey showing the location of the French drain, final configuration of the buffer and
rain garden, and the location of any proposed pervious pavers must be submitted to the City as
part of the building permit application.
8. 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.
9. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,600 square feet.
10. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and
shoreland setbacks.
11. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5 inches in diameter. One of
the trees is required in the front yard.
12. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to demolition
and maintained throughout construction.
ATTACHMENTS
WRC Memo-Revised
Variance Document-Revised
Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)-Revised
Agreed Upon Alternative
Planning Commission Packet dated November 16, 2021
5
Memorandum
To:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From:Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer, Joe Seidl, Water Resources
Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Date:1/18/2021
Re:Variance Review at 3703 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case
#2021-25
The applicant is proposing a lot coverage variance. The Site currently has 2,798 SF of hardcover
on the 5,899 SF property, or 47.5% lot coverage of the Site. The proposed change to the Site’s
total hardcover based on the provided submittals would provide a reduction of 5.4%, or 314 SF,
for a total proposed lot cover of 2,484 SF, or 42.1%.
The applicant was directed by City Council to work with the Engineering and Planning
departments to come up with a solution for the buffer and stormwater management issues
outlined in the November 16, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant developed a
proposal based on input from the City’s Water Resources Engineer to improve stormwater
management to the maximum extent practical given the site restrictions including lot size,
grade, proximity of buildings, and an existing. As requested by the Engineering and Planning
departments the applicant’s submittal includes stormwater best management practices (BMPs)
to reduce stormwater volumes and pollutants loads from the site. The BMP’s include
permeable pavers, in accordance with City ordinances (Sec. 20-921), native vegetative swales
and buffers, and a small rain garden. The measures taken by the applicant improve stormwater
management, reduce impervious surfaces on the site, and act to mitigate the amount of direct
stormwater runoff being conveyed to Lake Minnewashta. The use of stormwater BMPs will
help reestablish a more natural hydrologic balance, while providing water quality treatment by
reducing the concentration of pollutants entering Lake Minnewashta.
6
During the November 16, 2021 meeting the applicant was directed by the Planning Commission
to work with staff develop a buffer that met both his needs for the property and addressed
staff’s concerns about the variance’s impact on the lake. The applicant elected to propose a
buffer meeting the City’s 10 foot minimum buffer width standard. The lot is approximately 40
feet wide, which equates to a required buffer area size of 400 sq. ft. The existing beach on the
property prevents buffer placement along the entire Lake shoreline, instead the design uses a
series of smaller buffer areas up gradient of the beach, and along the west side of the property
to achieve the buffer area. A French drain was added as directed by the Water Resources
Engineer to convey roof drainage from the east side of the property to the rain garden/buffer
strip. This design optimizes the design with regards to stormwater management.
By including the aforementioned reduction of impervious area, stormwater BMP’s, and buffer
configuration the applicant’s design maximizes stormwater management to the extent practical
and represents an improvement over the existing condition. Base on this the City’s Water
Resources Engineer recommends that this design be approved by Planning Commission.
7
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-25
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland
setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 19
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 21, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta.
3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
2. 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.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent
possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances.
Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of
these systems, and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the
City.
6. A 400 square foot permanent native vegetated buffer using species native to the ecotype
with permanent buffer monuments shall be installed. The buffer configuration shall
substantially align with what is shown in survey dated December 23, 2022. A French
8
2
drain shall be installed to convey drainage from the east roof to the western section of the
buffer. The buffer and rain garden must be designed and installed by an experienced
shoreline restoration specialist. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources
Administrator/Engineer.
7. An updated survey showing the location of the French drain, final configuration of the
buffer and rain garden, and the location of any proposed pervious pavers must be
submitted to the City as part of the building permit application.
8. 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.
9. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,600 square feet.
10. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side,
and shoreland setbacks.
11. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of
the trees is required in the front yard.
12. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
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.
9
3
Dated: February 15, 2022 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL)Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
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\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\variance document 21-25_revised.docx
10
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Greg Dattilo for variances from the lot cover limit and front yard, side yard, and
shoreland setbacks to facilitate constructing a single-family home on a property zoned Single-Family
Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2021-25.
On February 15, 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.
Lot 21, 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 lot cover variance is a reduction to the property’s nonconforming lot cover and
BMPs are being required to further mitigate the impact of the proposed lot cover. The
shoreland setback variance maintains the property’s existing nonconforming shoreland
setback and removes nonconforming patios from the shoreland area. The front yard setback
variance replaces a nonconforming shed located six feet from the front property line and
entirely within the required front yard setback with a 1.3 foot encroachment of the principle
structure. The side yard setback variances are new or expanded encroachments into the
required side yards; however, the proposed setbacks maintain adequate separation between
the home and neighboring structures. The net result of all of these variances is a reduction of
the property’s existing nonconformities. It is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code to
allow for nonconforming structures to be replaced in a manner that brings the property closer
to compliance 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.
11
2
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding:The proposed footprint of the home is reasonable and comparable to what is present
on nearby similarly sized lots. The applicant does not have the ability to construct a
reasonably sized home on the parcel without setback and lot cover variances.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
Finding:The plight of the landowner is due to the property’s substandard 40-foot lot width
and substandard 5,899-square foot lot size. This substandard nature of the parcel is the result
of it having been plated in 1913, before the creation of the City and the adoption of a
municipal Zoning Code.
e. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The houses along the lakeside of South Cedar Drive are a mix of older homes and
newer rebuilds with the applicant’s house being one of two remaining structures from the
early 1900s. The applicant’s proposed replacement of the existing home would be in keeping
with size and scale of the new construction along South Cedar Drive. The proposed tuck
under configuration is consistent with what is currently present within the neighborhood as
the existing homes are roughly evenly split between side loading garages and tuck under
garages. The proposed home is very similar to the neighbor’s in size, scale, and
configuration, and maintains approximately the same front yard, side yard, and shoreland
setbacks as the neighboring structure. There is no reason to believe that the proposed home
would be out of character with or negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
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 reports regarding case #2021-25, dated November 16, 2021 and February 15, 2022,
prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot
east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 19 percent lot cover variances,
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
12
3
2. 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.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent
possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas
such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems,
and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City.
6. A 400 square foot permanent native vegetated buffer using species native to the ecotype with
permanent buffer monuments shall be installed. The buffer configuration shall substantially
align with what is shown in survey dated December 23, 2022. A French drain shall be
installed to convey drainage from the east roof to the western section of the buffer. The
buffer and rain garden must be designed and installed by an experienced shoreline restoration
specialist. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources Administrator/Engineer.
7. An updated survey showing the location of the French drain, final configuration of the buffer
and rain garden, and the location of any proposed pervious pavers must be submitted to the
City as part of the building permit application.
8. 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.
9. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,600 square feet.
10. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and
shoreland setbacks.
11. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the
trees is required in the front yard.
12. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of February, 2022.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\findings of fact and decision (approval)_revised.docx
13
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 14
Planning Commission Item
November 16, 2021
Item
Consider a Request for Lot Cover, Setback (Front, Side, and Shoreland), and
other Variances for the Construction of a Single-Family Home on Property
located at 3703 South Cedar Drive
File No.Planning Case No. 2021-25 Item No: B.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant Greg Dattilo
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage 0.13
Density NA
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 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings
SUGGESTED ACTION
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing cabin and construct a single-family home. Due to the
lot’s substandard size they are requesting variances from the City’s front yard, side yard and shoreland
setbacks as well a lot cover variance to allow for the proposed home placement and design.
BACKGROUND
115
County records indicate that the house was built in 1900.
On September 29, 2021, the applicant met with staff to discuss a proposed demolition/rebuild on the
site.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to demolish their existing cabin and replacing it with a new single-family
home. They are requesting 1.3-foot front yard setback, 3-foot east and west yard setback, 34.2-foot
shoreland setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances to accommodate the proposed home’s foot print.
The have stated that the intent of these variances is to allow them to construct a single-family home
similar to what is present on their neighbors’ property, and note that their neighbor received variances
similar to what they are requesting.
The applicant has indicated that the requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of their
lot, which does not even allow for the construction of a home meeting the City’s minimum size and
garage requirements without a variance. The applicant feels that their existing cabin is not consistent
with the neighborhood’s character and that their proposed home would meet the aesthetics created by
the neighboring homes. The applicant has stated that their proposed home maintains the property’s
existing nonconforming shoreland setback and reduces the property’s nonconforming lot cover by 142
square feet, 2.4 percent, primarily by removing nonconforming patio areas from within the shoreland
setback. The proposal would also remove a shed with nonconforming 6-foot front yard and 3.5-foot
side yard setbacks from the property. Finally, the applicant has stated that they are willing to install a
vegetated buffer along the shoreline to help mitigate the impacts of the property’s lot cover.
Staff agrees that the substandard size of the applicant’s lot creates a practical difficulty in constructing a
modern single-family home. While the applicant is requesting multiple variances, including substantial
deviations from the City Code’s lot cover and shoreland setback requirements, the property also has
multiple significant nonconformities, including nonconforming lot cover and shoreland setback. The
extent of these nonconformities as well as the number of nonconformities that are being reduced or
eliminated as part of the applicant’s proposal provides a rationale for the extent of the requested
variances. Additionally, the requested variances are broadly speaking in line with what has been
requested and granted for similar properties within the neighborhood. For these reasons, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested variances, with the conditions that
pervious pavers, replacement of two trees, and a vegetative buffer be required to help mitigate the
impact of the proposed lot cover on the lake.
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, approve
34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3- foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20
percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the attached Findings of
Facts and Decision.
1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be
216
required after plan review.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer
and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent possible
pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas such as the
driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems, and the use of
impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City.
6. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species
native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path
and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native
shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources
Administrator/Engineer.
7. 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.
8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet.
9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and
shoreland setbacks.
10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the
trees is required in the front yard.
11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to demolition
and maintained throughout construction.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report
Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
Variance Document 21-25
Development Review Application
Narrative
Justification
Certificate of Survey (Existing)
Certificate of Survey (Proposed)
Revised Survey
House Plans
Landscape and Tree Preservation Memo
ENG/WRC Memo
Affidavit of Mailing
Email - Gunther
317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: November 16,2021
CC DATE: December 13, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: December 14, 2021
CASE #: PC 2021-25
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing cabin and construct a single-family home.
Due to the lot’s substandard size they are requesting variances from the City’s front yard, side
yard and shoreland setbacks as well a lot cover variance to allow for the proposed home
placement and design.
LOCATION:3703 South Cedar Drive
APPLICANT:Greg Dattilo
12248 Sussex Street
Fort Myers, FL 33913
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” –Single-Family
Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE:.13 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing demolishing their existing cabin and replacing it with a new single-
family home. They are requesting 1.3-foot front yard setback, 3-foot east and west yard setback,
34.2-foot shoreland setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances to accommodate the proposed
home’s footprint. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to allow them to construct
a single-family home similar to what is present on their neighbor’s property, and noted that their
neighbor received variances similar to what they are requesting.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-
foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover
variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and
Decision.”
418
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 2
The applicant has indicated that the requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of
their lot, which does not even allow for the construction of a home meeting the City’s minimum
size and garage requirements without a variance. The applicant feels that their existing cabin is
not consistent with the neighborhood’s character and that their proposed home would match the
aesthetics created by the neighboring homes. The applicant has stated that their proposed home
maintains the property’s existing nonconforming shoreland setback and reduces the property’s
nonconforming lot cover by 142 square feet, 2.4 percent, primarily by removing nonconforming
patio areas from within the shoreland setback. The proposal would also remove a shed with
nonconforming 6-foot front yard and 3.5-foot side yard setbacks from the property. Finally, the
applicant has stated that they are willing to install a vegetated buffer along the shoreline to help
mitigate the impacts of the property’s lot cover.
Staff agrees that the substandard size of the applicant’s lot creates a practical difficulty in
constructing a modern single-family home. While the applicant is requesting multiple variances,
including substantial deviations from the City Code’s lot cover and shoreland setback
requirements, the property also has multiple significant nonconformities, including
nonconforming lot cover and shoreland setback. The extent of these nonconformities as well as
the number of nonconformities that are being reduced or eliminated as part of the applicant’s
proposal provides a rationale for the extent of the requested variances. Additionally, the
requested variances are broadly speaking in line with what has been requested and granted for
similar properties within the neighborhood. For these reasons, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission approve the requested variances, with the conditions that pervious pavers
and a vegetative buffer be required to help mitigate the impact of the proposed lot cover on the
lake.
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 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the house was built in 1900.
On September 29, 2021, the applicant met with staff to discuss a proposed demolition/rebuild on
the site.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
519
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 3
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 20 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height and are allowed one
water-oriented 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 5,899 square feet with 2,798 square feet of lot cover resulting in 47.4
percent lot cover. The existing principle structure meets the required 30-foot front yard setback
and 10-foot west side yard setback, and has a nonconforming 7.2-foot east side yard setback and
40.8-foot shoreland setback. The property has an existing shed with a nonconforming 3.5-foot
east side yard setback and 6-foot front yard setback. The existing driveway has a nonconforming
38-foot width. The property has 1,111 square feet of paver patios and walkways, the majority of
which is located within the 75-foot shoreland setback. The closest section of paver patio has a
nonconforming 13-foot setback from the OHWL.
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
620
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 4
There are no wetlands located on the property.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Red Cedar Point at Lake Minnewashta
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:
3613 Red Cedar Point Rd.: 1976-11: Approved – 10’ lot frontage (house)
1979-02: Approved – Sub 20,000 sq. ft. lot area, 20’ and 12’ front
setbacks (house)
1983-09: Approved – 12’ front, 2’ side, and 7’ lake setbacks
(house)
3616 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2021-01: Approved – 18’ E front and 13’ lake setbacks (deck)
3617 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2018-01: Approved – 11.5’ front and 22.1’ lakeshore setbacks, and
11% lot cover (house)
2019-03: Approved – 8.5’ front and 25.1’ shore setbacks, and
10.4% lot cover (house)
3618 Red Cedar Point Rd.:1993-06: Approved – 8’ side and 15’ lake setbacks (deck and
porch)
721
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 5
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)
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)
3633 South Cedar Drive:2006-04: Approved – 22.5’ and 15.8’ front setbacks, and 2.39% lot
cover (garage)
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)
2008-04: Approved – 20.2’ front and 8’ side setbacks (house)
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:1977-11: Approved – 10’ lot frontage (house)
1977-18: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by raising house
height (house)
822
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 6
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)
Nineteen (19) of the 33 properties within 500’ of the applicant’s parcel have received at least one
variance. A total of 30 variances have been issued to these properties.
ANALYSIS
Setbacks
The applicant’s lot is approximately 40 feet
wide by 135 feet long. Once the required 30-
foot front, 75-foot shoreland, and 10-foot side
yard setbacks are applied to the parcel there is
a 20.3-foot wide by 29.5-foot long buildable
area which could accommodate a structure with
a 598.9 square foot footprint. The City Code
would also allow the applicant to build a new
structure within the building envelope, i.e.
same length, width, and height, of the existing
nonconforming structure, an area 766 square
feet in size. There is a small amount of overlap
between the buildable area permitted by the
property’s setbacks and the area covered by the
nonconforming structure, approximately 61
square feet, which means that without a setback
variance the applicant could build a house with
a 1,304-square foot footprint.
The applicant is requesting front, side and
shoreland setback variances to accommodate a
structure with a proposed 1,716-square foot
footprint. The applicant has indicated that their
proposed footprint is needed to allow for a
reasonably sized garage and home, and that the
proposed footprint is identical to what their
neighbor was granted a variance to construct on a similarly sized lot. They have also stated that
their proposal maintains a consistent front building line with their western neighbor’s property
923
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 7
and maintains the existing nonconforming lake setback and a consistent lakeside building line
with their western neighbor’s property.
In evaluating setback variance requests, the City takes into account the presence of existing
nonconformities and the extent to which they are being reduced, the buildable area needed to
allow reasonable use of a parcel, and neighborhood characteristics, i.e. previous variances
granted and observed nonconforming setbacks. Regarding the existing nonconforming setbacks,
the applicant is proposing to remove a 96-square foot shed located six feet from the front lot line
and 3.5 feet from the side lot line and an approximately 626-square foot patio system setback
between 13 feet and 40.8 feet from the OHWL. The applicant is proposing to maintain the
existing home’s nonconforming 40.8-foot shoreland setback to decrease the existing east side
yard’s nonconforming setback from 7.2 feet to 7 feet.
Since the shed is being removed from its location within the required front yard setback, it is
reasonable to consider the home’s proposed 28.7-foot front yard setback as an improvement to
the property’s nonconforming front yard. Similarly, the applicant’s removal of the rear patio
would be considered an improvement to the property’s nonconforming shoreland area that
offsets the proposed increase in building width within the 75-foot shoreland setback, especially
since no portion of the applicant’s proposed home is located closer to the lake than the existing
home’s setback.
In evaluating the requested side yard setback variances, one of which expands a nonconformity
and the other of which is a new encroachment, the primary factor for consideration is if the
applicant’s proposed building width is reasonable. The lot’s 40-foot width means that a home
meeting the required 10-foot side yard setbacks would have a maximum width of 20 feet. The
applicant’s requested 7-foot side yard setbacks would allow for a 26-foot wide home. While it is
theoretically possible to meet the City’s two-car garage requirement with a 20-foot wide garage,
the resulting garage would be atypically narrow and may not provide adequate space to open the
doors of wider vehicles. Additionally, a garage this narrow would not accommodate any on-site
storage. The proposed 26-foot garage width is fairly typical for a two-car garage with additional
storage space and is reasonable for a property without the potential to add a shed. The proposed
7-foot side yard setbacks also conform to the City’s general policy of requiring a minimum side
yard setback of five feet.
The 1,716-square foot
structure footprint
created by the
requested variances, is
larger than the
minimum footprint
required to meet City
Code, and is 412
square feet larger than buildable area that would be permitted by the property’s setbacks and
existing nonconformities. The City has never taken the position of property’s requesting
variances should be limited to the minimum footprint permitted by City Code, and the
1024
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 8
applicant’s proposed footprint is significantly smaller than the footprint of mostly newly
constructed detached single-family homes in Chanhassen; however, the lot is also significantly
smaller than the lots most other newly constructed homes are being sited on. The majority of the
homes along South Cedar Drive have larger footprints, although many of those homes are also
sited on larger lots. Finally, as the applicant has noted, the neighboring house to the west has the
same footprint and is located on a very similarly sized lot.
In general, the area within 500 feet of the applicant’s home has many substandard lots and many
of the homes have received variances or have nonconforming setbacks. The applicant’s proposed
setbacks would keep it in line with the house to the west and would place it slightly further back
from the road than the house to the east, which received a variance allowing for a 25-foot front
yard setback. Examining the setback variances issued to property’s within 500 feet, only the
applicant’s requested shoreland setback is on the higher end; however, it is not unprecedented
and it is in line with the City’s general practice of allowing riparian property owners to maintain
their nonconforming shoreland setback when rebuilding.
Considering the existing nonconformities present on the property, especially the proposed
improvements to the front and shoreland areas, the constraints posed by the substandard width of
the lot, and the prevailing development patterns of the areas, staff believes the requested setback
variances are reasonable. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested setback
variances.
Lot Cover
The applicant is requesting a 20 percent lot cover variance. While this is less than the 25 percent
lot cover variance the City granted the property to west, it would, if approved, be the second
largest lot cover percentage variance granted in the area within 500 feet of the property.
However, it should be noted that due to the lot’s small size, the 20 percent lot cover variance is
the result of adding 1,180 square feet of lot cover to the 1,475 square feet allowed by the City
Code. The resulting 2,656 square feet of proposed lot cover is less than is present on most other
properties in the area, though the applicant’s parcel is also smaller than most other parcels in the
area.
1125
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 9
Significantly substandard parcels, such as the applicant’s 5,899.1-square foot lot, often request
significant lot cover variances due the fact that even a home meeting the City’s minimum
standards requires 1,900 square feet of lot cover (960-square foot living area, 400-square foot
garage, and 540 square feet of driveway). As
was noted in the previous discussion on
setbacks, the City acknowledges that a home
meeting the bare minimum standards allowed
by the Zoning Code with no amenities such as
patios or sidewalks may not provide
reasonable use. In determining what
constitutes a reasonable amount of lot cover,
the City looks at nonconforming lot cover,
what is being done to offset the impact of the
proposed lot cover, and the size and number of
structures and amenities that are being
proposed.
In this case, the property has 2,798 square
feet, 47.43 percent, of lot cover and under the
City’s nonconforming use statute the applicant
would be able to replace it in its current
configuration without a variance. According
to the applicant’s survey, 1,111 square feet of
this is a long paver walkway and a network of
rear yard paver patios. In some situations, the
City considers pavers to constitute pervious
lot cover; however, this system would not
meet the City’s criteria for an engineered
paver system and within the shoreland overlay
district all pavers are considered lot cover.
The applicant is proposing to remove this
paver patio and walkway as well as some of
the existing asphalt driveway to offset the proposed increase
in house footprint. All told, the proposal reduces the
property’s nonconforming lot cover by 142 square feet, 2.41
percent, and shifts the location of the property’s lot cover
from near the lake towards the street.
Though the two-story walkout design results in a large
amount of living space, the design also keeps the house to a
1,609-square foot footprint. The applicant is proposing a
patio with a second level deck and a sidewalk; however, the
deck and patio are located within the 26-foot by 66-foot building pad that the applicant is
proposing. No WOAS is being proposed. While the house’s living area is on the higher end of
the spectrum, the requested footprint and proposed amenities are not excessively large.
1226
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 10
Additionally, as has been noted, the proposed building footprint is the same as what was allowed
on the neighboring parcel and the requested lot cover variance is smaller.
The applicant has indicated that they are willing to replace the existing beach area by the lake
with a vegetated buffer consisting of native plants. Replacing sand with vegetation would
improve the property’s stormwater management. Similarly, replacing approximately 626 square
feet of the lakeside paver system with vegetation would also help reduce the amount of
stormwater that reaches the lake. Though both of the above measures help mitigate the lot
cover’s impact on the lake, the applicant is proposing removing two mature trees within the
shoreland setback to accommodate the proposed building site. Staff recommends that the
applicant be required to plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size of 2.5 inches in diameter,
to offset the canopy cover and water quality benefits lost by removing two of the existing trees.
Finally, staff is proposing that the applicant be required to utilize a pervious paver system
meeting the City’s design standards for the driveway, sidewalk, and rear patio areas. As
proposed, this condition would require the applicant to receive permission from the City to
utilize impervious surfaces within these areas.
Ordinarily, staff would not support this large of a lot cover variance; however, the applicant is
reducing an existing nonconformity, shifting the location of the lot cover away from the lake,
installing a vegetative buffer of native plants, and adding other vegetation between the lot cover
and the lake. These factors combined with staff’s requirement that pervious pavers be used
wherever viable will result in the property having improved stormwater management over what
would be present if the applicant simply replaced the existing lot cover as allowed by ordinance.
For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the requested lot cover variance.
Impact on Neighborhood
The houses along the lakeside of South Cedar Drive are a mix of older homes and newer rebuilds
with the applicant’s house being one of two remaining structures from the early 1900s. The
applicant’s proposed replacement of the existing home would be in keeping with size and scale
of the new construction along South Cedar Drive. The proposed tuck under configuration is
consistent with what is currently present within the neighborhood as the existing homes are
roughly evenly split between side loading garages and tuck under garages. The proposed home is
very similar to the neighbor’s in size, scale, and configuration, and maintains approximately the
same front yard, side yard, and shoreland setbacks as the neighboring structure. There is no
reason to believe that the proposed home would be out of character with or negatively impact the
surrounding neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
approve 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard
setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1327
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 11
1.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
2. 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.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent
possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances.
Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of
these systems, and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the
City.
6. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using
species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work
around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced
professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water
Resources Administrator/Engineer.
7. 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.
8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet.
9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side,
and shoreland setbacks.
10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of
the trees is required in the front yard.
11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
2. Variance Document (Approval)
3. Development Review Application
4. Variance Request Narrative
5. Variance Request Justification
6. Survey (Pre-existing)
7. Survey (Proposed)
8. Revised Survey
9. Proposed House Plans
10. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Memo
11. ENG/WRC Memo
12. Affidavit of Mailing
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\staff report - final.docx
1428
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Greg Dattilo for variances from the lot cover limit and front yard, side yard, and
shoreland setbacks to facilitate constructing a single-family home on a property zoned Single-Family
Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2021-25.
On November 16, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed
notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
Lot 21, 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 lot cover variance is a reduction to the property’s nonconforming lot cover and
BMPs are being required to further mitigate the impact of the proposed lot cover. The
shoreland setback variance maintains the property’s existing nonconforming shoreland
setback and removes nonconforming patios from the shoreland area. The front yard setback
variance replaces a nonconforming shed located six feet from the front property line and
entirely within the required front yard setback with a 1.3 foot encroachment of the principle
structure. The side yard setback variances are new or expanded encroachments into the
required side yards; however, the proposed setbacks maintain adequate separation between
the home and neighboring structures. The net result of all of these variances is a reduction of
the property’s existing nonconformities. It is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code to
allow for nonconforming structures to be replaced in a manner that brings the property closer
to compliance 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.
1529
2
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding:The proposed footprint of the home is reasonable and comparable to what is present
on nearby similarly sized lots. The applicant does not have the ability to construct a
reasonably sized home on the parcel without setback and lot cover variances.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
Finding:The plight of the landowner is due to the property’s substandard 40-foot lot width
and substandard 5,899-square foot lot size. This substandard nature of the parcel is the result
of it having been plated in 1913, before the creation of the City and the adoption of a
municipal Zoning Code.
e. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The houses along the lakeside of South Cedar Drive are a mix of older homes and
newer rebuilds with the applicant’s house being one of two remaining structures from the
early 1900s. The applicant’s proposed replacement of the existing home would be in keeping
with size and scale of the new construction along South Cedar Drive. The proposed tuck
under configuration is consistent with what is currently present within the neighborhood as
the existing homes are roughly evenly split between side loading garages and tuck under
garages. The proposed home is very similar to the neighbor’s in size, scale, and
configuration, and maintains approximately the same front yard, side yard, and shoreland
setbacks as the neighboring structure. There is no reason to believe that the proposed home
would be out of character with or negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes
Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2021-25, dated November 16, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-
Walters is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot
east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances,
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
1630
3
2. 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.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent
possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas
such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems,
and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City.
6. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using
species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work
around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced
professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water
Resources Administrator/Engineer.
7. 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.
8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet.
9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and
shoreland setbacks.
10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the
trees is required in the front yard.
11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\findings of fact and decision (approval).docx
1731
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-25
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland
setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20
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 21, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta.
3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
2. 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.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent
possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances.
Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of
these systems, and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the
City.
6. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using
species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work
around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced
1832
2
professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water
Resources Administrator/Engineer.
7. 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.
8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet.
9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side,
and shoreland setbacks.
10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of
the trees is required in the front yard.
11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
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.
1933
3
Dated: November 16, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL)Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by
its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\variance document 21-25.docx
2034
CITT OT CIIAI{HASSII{
60-Oay Revierv Oate:h-t4'4
*
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
subminarDare: t0 'l( '21 ec oa., lofuit ll'16[[1o","2-B-7-l
Application Type (check all that apply)
(Refet to tle qptwiatc Applicaton checklid fot Equi,cd subfii at inl natbr. tt'E,t fiud &qnpany dtis awic',rron)
E Comprehensive Plan Amendment................-........ $600! Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $'tOO
E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
n Single-Family Residence.............-.................. $325E All orhers....... .................... $425
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325D A OrheIs....... ..........-......... $425
( lots)Ll Metes & Bounds (2 lots)...........n Consolidate Lots. ... . . ... . ... .. .. . . ..E Lot Line Adjustment..................fl Final Plat........
(lncludes $450 escrow for attomey cosls).
'Addilional escrolv may be reqdred for other apdicatio.ls
through the d€r€lopment contracl.
E Vacation of Easements/Right<f-way (VAC)........ g300
(Addattmal recordiru ,ee3 rlay appty)
E Variance (VAR)..............,............................. ....... $2OO
E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
I Single-Family Residence............................... $150E A[ Others....... .................. $275
! Zoning Appea|.............................-........................ $iO0
n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500
!!OTE: l$ren muldplo lppllcetions.rc procased cqtcu.trltty,
Oro approprlate iee sidl be chlrgcd lor esch .pDllcdlon,
E SuUOivision (SUB)
D!Create 3 lots or less
Create over 3 lots...
E Rezonins (REz)
E Planned Unit Development (PUD) ...,.............. g75O
E Minor Amendment lo existing PUD................. $1OOn Ar Others....... .................... $5OO
! Sign Plan Review................................................... $150
! Site Plan Review (SPR)
n Administrative ........- .......... $1OOE Commercial/lndustrial Dislricts'...................... $5OO
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet)
'lndude rumber of g&iE!!g employees:
'lndude nunber of ltry emplo)€es:n Residential Districts......................................... $5OO
Plus $5 per dwelling unil ( units)
E Notilication Sign (city to insral snd.emove) ..........................
@ Property Owners' LiEt within 500' (city to gerErate aier preepptication meetind .............:............................ -....... $3 per address( 32 addresses)I Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)......................... . ..... .-..............-..-......_.. $SO per document- tr Conoitlon"r u""F"-it - --"ift"rilui"i"-it ! i'idi;hAsreem€nr! Vacation @ Variance I WahnO eteration permit
! Metes & Bounds SuMivision (3 docs.) E Easements ( easements) E OeeOs' rout reE: $546.00
Description of Proposal: Applying for variances ,if granted it will alleviate the practical diffculties that are due to
circumstances unique to the property and not created by me, the land owner.
3703 South Cedar Drive, Chanhassen MN, 55317
$200
Section 2: Required lnformation
Property Address or Location
Parcel #:lot 21 block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta
Total Acreage:
Present Zoning
0.14 Wetlands Present?!ves []to
Single-Family Residential Districl (RSF)Requested Zoning Not Applicable
Present Land Use Desag n"1;on. Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Desig nation. Not Applicabte
Existing Use of Property:Lake Cabin three season
@Check box if separate narrative is attached
COMTUN]TY DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 553i7
Phone: (952) 227-1100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110
Section 't:
..$600 + $15 per lot
$300
$150
$1s0
$700
Legal Description:
2135
Section 3: Properly Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, l, as appticant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the righl to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signedby
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This appliLtion '
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any maner pertaining to thisapplication. I will keep mysef informed of the deadlines for submission of materiat anO ttre progiess of tnS apptidtion. I
furlher understand that additional fees may be charged lor consulting tees, feasibitity studies, elc. with an estimate prior toany authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conecl.
Name Contact:
Phone:Address
City/Statdzip
Email:
Contact
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
Date
Cell:
Fax:
Date
Cell
Fax
Signature
PROPERTY OVIINER: ln signing this application, l. as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
aulhorize the filing of this application. I understand thal conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to objecl at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will kiep myself infomed 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 sludies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with thestudy. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
ciry/state/zip
Email:
Signature
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:
Fort Myers, FL. 33913 (612) 868-1066
1il 202 (
Address
Contact
Phone:
City/Stat€/Zip
Email:
This application must be completed in full-andmust be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checj(fist
and confer with the Planning DePartmenl to determine the specific ordinance and applicabE p;ocedural
req uirernents and fees.
A determination of completeness of lhe application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittat
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 busindss days of application.
A
Section 4: Notifi cation lnformation
Who should receive copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnlormation:
Name: Dave GestachE Property Owner Via: E Email! Applicant Via: E EmaitD Engineer Via: ! Email! otner Via: ! Emait
I UaiteO Paper Copy
E Mailed Paper Copy
n Maited Paper Copy
U Mailed Paper Copy
Address
City/Statezip
Email:dave@ aulson-com
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT
device. PRINT FORM and deliver
copy to the city for processing.
: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to
to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMTT FORM to send a d
your
igital
SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM
Name:Greg Dattilo
Address: 12248 Sussex St.
2236
To the city of Chanhassen, Planning Commission and City Council,
l'm asking for your approval of allowing my property to receive several variances.
I can be reached at 612.868.1065 or email herbie@usfamily,net.
My property is one of the smallest square foot areas (5,899 sq ft) of all properties
on Red Cedar Point.
Comparing to minimum lot size today of 15,000 square feet my property is 39% of
today's requirement.
The area was plotted back in 1907 with the standard 40'xLzO' lot size.
Under current setbacks and codes, I would be able to build a home the size of
20.5' x 3.5'that equals 72'square feet, the size of a walk-in closet. This includes a
two-car garage 20'x25' that equals 520 sq ft. that is also mandated as a
requirement under sec 20-905.
This defines my "practical difficulties".
Currently my property does not fit the essential character of the neighborhood.
My current building (cabin) was the normal size back in 1928 when the cabin was
constructed. The adjacent property to the west (3705) was a twin cabin to the
one I own. This cabin (3705) was torn down in 1996 and replaced with a home
that now fits the charter of the neighborhood which is quite different then it was
in 1928.
What l'm proposing is variances that will fit today's character of Red Cedar Point
much more than it currently does today. My neighbors have been gracious for
more than 20 years. My understanding is my cabin does NOT have the essential
character of the loca lity
To bring my property into the essential character of the neighborhood it must be
replaced as my neighbor did in 1995.
l'm asking for the lakeside of the new home to be the same distance it currently is
today from the lake. This will need to have a variance approved (same distance as
my neighbor 3705) our homes currently line up and I would like this to continue.
Description of variance request
2337
The width of the new home would be 25' the same as my neighbor, except I will
not cantilever an
additional 2'on each side and front of my new home as my neighbor has done.
This variance would be 3' on each side compared to my neighbor who received 5'
variances on each side.
The home would start at the current distance from lake, extend 56'same as
neighbor. A 5' variance from South Cedar Road to front of garage would be
necessary same as my neighbor.
Currently hard cover is at 50%. My proposal is to improve green space by
eliminating the current paver surfaces of 1,110 square feet. I will be adding 934
square feet of living space. This is a net gain of 176 square feet of green space or
additional 6%.
I believe I have come to you in good faith and have shown that if the variances are
granted it will alleviate the practical difficulties that are due to circumstances
unique to the property and not created by me, the land owner.
Sincerely
Greg Dattilo
3703 S Cedar Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
herbie@ usfamily.net
2438
I
I
,
v71
ld r ,;lI
I
r,.-'i ,Il7
r
H h .t.
I
I
-I
F,\fr h
-b
'
a-.!
L
/r
L:-
!
}ZI!
I
2539
Greg Dattilo
3703 S Cedar Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
herbie@usfamily.net
Justification of the Variance Request
A. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony, with the general purposes
and intent of this chapter and are consistent with the comprehensive plan. By replacing
my three season cabin built in 1928 with my new lake home, it will justi! this
requirernent that will bring harmony and consistency with the neighborhood.
B. The second justification is when there are practical difficulties in complying with the
zoning ordinance. I propose that the property is to be used in a reasonable manner not
permitted by this chapter due to practical difficulties as stated above.
l. My property size 5899 sq. ft. which is only 39Vo of today's minimum lot requirement
of 15,000sq.ft.
2. With current setbacks and codes I would only be able to build a home of less than
100sq.ft, with a requirement ofa two car garage at 20x26.
C. The third qualification to meet the justification ofthe variance is that the variance or
variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
D. The fourth justification to qualifo for a variance is due to the circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner. As stated above I have one ofthe smallest lots
ofall lots on Red Cedar point. This lot size restricts any normal size homes being built
today to be built without being granted variances.
E. The fifth justification to qualifu for a variance is that it will not alter the central character
of the locality. The current three season cabin today does not fit the essential character of
the locality and this is why variances should be granted so the new home will fit the
essential character of the locality.
2640
2741
2842
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 2943
4
C)I
-.,1
qo
!oz
6
l
rrt
6
_--toz
t
!
EEm
E
!
!
I
=
I
T
289F1
AUTUNN DES/GN
DATTILO
l,
4
qo
!oz
r-T:::-T---1---:l
3044
:
E
a
I
-
9
=a
o
I
AUTUNN DESIGN (-;]
249F1 DATIlLO
IE-IE-II-
-
I
6
J
I
-\
!
l
oo4
-o
z
3145
I
q
o-
-o
z
3ESi9i?,
I
o
o
:
:
=
,.
-----,I:i
rg
?
.
E
AUTUNN DESIGN
2895- r DATTILO IE-rr-E-
I
l
o
+r
II
I
I
3246
MEMORANDUM
TO:MacKenzie Walters, Planner I, AICP
FROM:Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE:November 16, 2021
SUBJ:Variance for lot cover, 3703 South Cedar Drive
The applicant has a valuable bur oak as well as a mature ash on the property that will be
impacted by the construction of a new home. The trees are within the shoreland setback and
provide water quality benefits to Lake Minnewashta. The applicant is proposing to remove these
trees for construction. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to replace two trees on
the property for no net loss of canopy cover. The applicant is proposing to preserve the two
other trees on the lot, between the home and the lake. These trees will be required to be
protected with tree preservation fencing prior to demolition and throughout the construction
process. Of the two trees required to be planted, one shall be located in the front yard.
Recommendations:
1. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of
the trees is required in the front yard.
2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
3347
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Date: 10/25/2021
Re: Variance Review at 3703 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case
#2021-25
The Engineering Department has reviewed the variance submittal for 3703 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 utility 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.
3448
2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance can be
developed in near 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 number of variances to facilitate the construction of a
single family home at 3703 South Cedar Drive (Site). These include lot cover, front yard
setback, side yard setback, and shoreland setback variances. Engineering and Public
Works has no comment regarding the front yard and side yard setback variances. There
are no public drainage and utility easements currently on the property and none are
being requested by staff in concert with the variance requests.
4. The applicant is proposing a lot coverage variance. The Site currently has 2,948 SF of
hardcover on the 5,899 SF property, or 50% lot coverage of the Site. The proposed
change to the Site’s total hardcover based on the provided submittals would provide a
reduction of 2.4%, or 137 SF , for a total proposed lot cover of 2,811 SF, or 47.6%. Even
though there is a reduction of total hard cover the Site is still above the allowable lot
coverage (25%) under Ordinance and would require a variance. The proposed reduction
of lot coverage by 137 SF alone would not result in a measurable water quality benefit
to the riparian Site, which is directly adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. Additional
measures must be taken to improve stormwater management, reduce impervious
surfaces on the Site, and to mitigate the amount of stormwater runoff being diverted
into Lake Minnewashta. While it may not be possible to achieve a total of 25% lot
coverage on the Site, the applicant shall submit updated plans that illustrate the use of
pervious paver systems, in accordance with Ordinances (Sec. 20-921), to the maximum
extent possible. The use of pervious paver systems will help reestablish a more natural
hydrologic balance, reduce runoff volume associated with impervious surfaces, all while
providing water quality treatment by reducing the concentration of po llutants. Areas
such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios should be constructed with pervious paver
systems (an approximate 1046 SF reduction of the proposed impervious surfaces).
Additionally, a permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the
shoreline. The native vegetated buffer will provide additional water quality protections
through filtering pollutants, nutrients and sediments while helping to improve
ecosystem health and function. See proposed conditions 1 and 2.
5. The applicant is proposing a shoreland setback variance. The proposed variance request
is to maintain the existing 40.8 foot structure setback from the ordinary high water level
of Lake Minnewashta. The required setback per Ordinance from the ordinary high
water level in the Shoreland Management District is 75 feet. The applicant justifies that
if there were no variance approved for the shoreland setback that the buildable home
area would equate to about a 75 square foot home, which staff agrees would be a
3549
constrained area. As many of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood have similar
constraints, the City has granted shoreland setback variances to allow for a more
reasonable use of the property. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed
40.8 foot structure setback as long as proposed conditions 1 and 2 are adhered to in
order to mitigate stormwater runoff being diverted into Lake Minnewashta while
improving the overall health of the ecosystem and function. Lastly, while Engineering
and Public Works is recommending approval of the discussed variances in association
with the proposed conditions, any and all improvements on the Site must meet
applicable jurisdictional requirements. See proposed condition 3.
Proposed Conditions
1. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum
extent possible the use of pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City
Ordinances. Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the
design of these systems.
2. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using
species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work
around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced
professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the
Water Resources Administrator/Engineer.
3. 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.
3650
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTYOFCARVER )
\L.-'.
Kim T eu ty Cl
Subscribed and s
thisl$ day of
wo to before me
JEAII
t{oaary
Notary Public
,2021.
ttOrrffor att.hrr ,*a
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
November 4,2021, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing to consider a request for lot cover, setback (front, side, and shoreland), and other
variances for construction of a single-family home on property located at 3703 South Cedar
Drive, Planning case No. 2021a5. Applicanu Property owner: Greg Datillo. Zoned single'
Family Residential (RSF") 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 ofthe County Treasurer,
Carver County, Minnesota and by other appropriate records.
3751
Disclaim€r
This map is nerther a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a @mpilaiion of records, information and data located in various c,ty,
county, state and federal offces and other sour@s regarding lhe area shown and is to
be us€d for reference purposes only The Cily does not wanant that the Geo96phic
lnformatjon System (GlS) Data used lo prepare this map are enor free, and the Caty does
not represent tiat the GIS Data can be used for navigatlonal, tracking or any other
purpose requidng exacting measurement of distance or darection or precision an lhe
depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuanl to
Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
agrees to defencl, indemnify, and hold hamless the City from any and all claims bought
by User, its employees or agents, or third parties Mich arise out of the us€/s access or
use of data provided.
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a compilation of records, infomation and data loceted io various clty'
county, state and federal offces and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used foa reference purposes only The City does nol wanant that the Geographic
lniormation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are enor free, and the City cloes
not aepresent thai the GIS Data can be used lor navigatlonal, tracking or any other
purpose requidng exacting measurcment of distance or directlon or precjsion in the
depiction of geographic features. The precediog disclaimer is provided pu6uant to
Minnesota Statutes 5466.03. Subd. 21 (2OOO). and the user of this map acknowledges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
agrees to deiend, indemnify, and hold hamless the City kom any and all daims brought
by User its employees or agents, or thid paflies which anse out of lhe useis access or
use of data provided.
(TAX_NAMED
(TAX_ADD_LI D
<TAX ADD L2r
(Next RecordxTAX_NAI ED
(TAX_ADD_L1D
(TAX ADD L2D
Subject
Parcel
Subiect
Parcel
\
\
,'\
\\i.
:.
\,,
il
LLt
--t
{rl
)\J.*A\,'l
!
l-
t ;Y!
a1
$
J
ri
3852
o
t,:
=t,oo9zir
3Bfo
='ir@_9o;O=3o=-=,oo!rO-
9,8
=oo*
GI
otD5
t,o8z,o!6'!ro?o5'rGttoEo6'3-
a'E
9. ='oGl
=oo
ET
GI
aai€egE*;igEfFf;gE
t:ceaaEst;s€E?eais
EiiEEiEEllEiEEEi
EiiiEiEiiiiiiiEE
;agB=e iBiis g:g
q
d
f
3
I
zm
=a(o
=co
o
6o
a.
o
o3I
o)fo
o
ox
foe
o)-ol
€Jo
=3oo*.Jto
o)(oo)o,
o)I
E
IDo
oI
=
=c
o
o)fo-
o-oo
0,
oc!
o-
o)o-oo
o
=o
e.
{oo
<,,
!D
o
o
=c
{€IIoJ
o)a
0)
o?
3
=c
3o
o
o
*=
t!r
=ttol:
='ote. 6
t-!
8Aa,t4:ooa
=<
!>a=
95'*0,\<=o<{
o
!
at,oo
*
roo!,
o
6oofqt
I"E
d;'ooo+t, d
8.8
^Col
E9
E_
5aDo=
aeotqo
!-orl(oooo(!) ='"(o
9o[l
o
t2.
I Ps{ e *8
e=AqgEd
1g d 8 a=eegg=e+tse .ddgHP
EtE.afre3
gaia If,E&iEEspf<aF?=l5F
=+i:EEE
E 5Eg ilHa
E rl3qlilrgai*E'
odliil)l(,,
+Jc
o-!)
_o
!,
3!,tooo
N
N
!,l
=oct
f
0)
o
=.o
o
Jo-o
dff
='(o
oo3f
6'
:Ioo
lto
A(rNr@r]r0r--l' F+(t,6f
E:gl-=g5;
E 7 n='--- ts e.E 3j or 3 5 +E= l
FE;; E}[gadE<. =Euorf og o o: o f
ssga:Eqg
=*f + + _ =.totggt dYEr
B F =€ '.-d i:
=
-:8 +f 5 d'
q "tsE +d*Ed sEd=B
q6=-=o
>(,--{
BatAaYO
9or,O
cS
{e
<(D
a
I
o
o
4
a
o-
o
o,
3
Jof
!D
No)oo-
a
=(o
E-n
0)
ao
of*.
!L
na_rt
qolo
Aq.q3
vO,-sa
).0l.Lc
9EJ*qo"
<l
6ofoo<oo
^(,=ooatoo,lo
c=gqo=
='.-
=oo-O
9. o)
() o-
6-
-..t
-.Joo
0)
o
@
o-
-
9L
ooca
f
0,3oo
o
=it
loo
='
;
+co
o
0)5zo
o
3uo
_o,
NoN
ID
:!oopl
-.1
3
t>:t !l
o6'4tr<f
Oe{
o:!
t
o
oo
+
roo!,
o
ot
o
F
-{
o
r!o :'i
!,t4(Do;l=<
E{
=!ro+
;eo-=
='.Dc6
ooOtr:o
=ooof=6o"F
o
1ado
0,
o
-oco
o
oo
o
oo
0)o
of
Jo
adao-Y
0)-o-
o
=o
o,
=.!,foo
o
oof
<,,
co
6',
o
0)
t2.
l(oit
o)l
Jo
3
!D
Nofoo,
q.
a
I(n
-Tl
o
'Tl
0,l.
7o
9..o-of-,t!,
o-
-o
o,Jo-
o
-!L
o
ca
9.
o=0)
3oo
-{
-.1oo
!,
o
(!
o-
nrcao
=o)d:<6-
+o93!.v 6;o
lF o)
I r..roOoN)ar3o)
lo
oP
ef
=o'
9f
o
a
9-.Lo
o
J
o
6'
ao
!
o
0,
=
o--lJo
!c
roo
o
o
J
Itocq
6'
Jo
0)
)(o
6'
o
='o
3
=c
0)ooc
a(rN)f qt a't f 0,djoo'rr I}) (o :a1,O-l(,U)=r6'39 dd = 8E
*as= sef
,3$?r Ere6; =r E -0,
$1eE qE ftSgee ,EP=
=15 + *rrf'gqE: P 5EdE:6 @_d +f .' J _atr =o o ==a59u9 d(o=
s t=' *Ae= ;+o z+.I = <lI X =r
(o6 + (o-to=6oa =o
q
oc
o
=o
o
zm
=a(o
f
E
o
ooo
='o
o3I
0)
=o-
o
o
fo
=o
o)-.ol
!
o
oI
l.f,c
o
oao
s.o_o
o)
dc9o
0)
oo
o
=o
a.
€oq
9..
!D
o
o
{{€
aoJ
o,
=f
0)
o
P
3
?c
)o
3o
o
=c
€5oa
3oo-.-(o
o)(oo-o,
s)
lh
^{
=.o{
!
ooo
o-ooc
3of
goo
o
=o
3oo-.=I
E
5o
E
d!o
oo-oo
q-o!
3ol
€og
!
ID(oo
o)
lrtof
tbo
o
0)qoc
Jd'p
p.oo
!it!)
ooo:,
0)o
IDoxof
N,o
I Ps{ S
==
f e€
q,al^f
=itati9d9 El de .dB9
ri6f-iliS
.> I qp.
'1,E9=E\d: =9 L
lEEq3
=qB3=i=8eP
E=qE8+
E:i;E
# F1"";f.o) Y r ooSjq,3
66 .<
o6 o
oc
J
o
0r_
o
co
NoN
N
sn
=
cf(o
=0)
o
o
o
3
9_
0)
3{q)
o
{{{
?,-'o
0,
oooo
oJ
0)fJ
o)
o
3
o
o)
o
s.
9..
=.o
o
=o
1l
!,)
=3
o
3l
9..of
3oo-.f
-tJc
BEig[gEgEEEEiFeirE
iAeggaE:EaeiliEiE*
eiEggiEgaigEE:ig
i3:EE;*e**E;E AFa
;EEeaElBAiigieia
EgEEFiEiEiiEEgEa
?iiiEiEiiigil€Ee
i[;iiiE*Eigii leg
iEsE'E[ EiAei Fs
!
a
9
o!,
o
FIj
!q
ooOE
=o=oJ4oo3fiio"F
o
dio
E
0,
=6'
o
6.oE
o
foo
o
oo
-{o(,
Choc
5
ooo-
0)
o
=,o
3953
ReRRsS3e3333R38e3R33e3BEEBEEEqEq3i-; Hij ij iyi b.n d ('i 6 m iD m m $ o < !^ .f + Ln < N.! <r N N o o sr r{ !T6 i5 i5 6 5 6 5 6 o q E I 8 B B g E B I I 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 88 8 8R B 3 B B B I 3 33. -(o .o (o(o .o.o rq (sq 6 66 6 66 6 6@@ @ 6
- ii 6 6 6 6 6 6 !o @ to 6 6 6 !o @ to ro to to ro t9 !o io (o \o l.o @ lo (o (o ro (o .c'
z fi 6'; 6 ri rn ra rn Ln lrr 6 6 6 6 L^ tn ta !^ r^ tn La tn L^ Ln La !^ rn lrt !n r^ t'l Lrt !^
=
Fj ii ii ii ii lj Aj ^i ^i F.j 6i ^ir.'j ^i c'i t.'i N N (\ ^r '\J r-\r '{ '\ N N '! N '{ N N ^r
oooooaoo o o o oo QEA.AA&.AI.t t e d et Eiiiir>22 2 txxxt EzEEEE2EE22 2roooooooo o iiiic. e.9e.e ddodd99 9d
- ^,,r ., u u ., > ., d ., - J U E E E E E; X I -:EEEEEEEEESS=EEEE0EqEEEEUEEqqgqiEE
SEEEEEEEgYCYAdAdAYdEAAAAEAAEE9EA==<t .-r m c- cO .! Ln (O F cO O'r C, .{ rn F- r{ (n lO F. O !r rY) Ln CD O O rn O !/l r'{ <l (nO'{
HH IiiiH H HHH HH H g H H BB ff 8 * HS il il HH ilH il H HH N F
33
. !-r cr .r r{ \o ro \o Loc.co@@ 09 90 o9 t99 pIE*"r*il s E rB Xg EH$EB $ E$ $$ B*s$B9 i * i j .r .r J .r .r.< j .r .t; .t; i i; r{.r.{ r{ '{ H '{ '{ L^ i e{ 'r '{ut iyi ;ri (n ia m ro rri iti in ro o rn d, m rrl d, m rn (o m (n 'n 'i rn !^ rn (n m m
=BBBssssBBBsBssBEEEqSssSSqEE==fi EB2 fi lri .ri lri lri rn Ln ri'i rri !.i tri Lri ri Lri Ln ur r^ r^ r/r L., Ln ra rn L^ > > !^ r^ r^
n: z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z .-' -'zzz
i6- ^ -| 4 t d d. E d t e e a. c' oa oa oa oa oa oa oe oa oi c-- ci oi d d c e d P
^
c' E do'D 5 6 6 6 o o o 6 o o o o o 6 o 6 o o o o o o o o o o o t H o I I
? 4 - E 4 4 4 44a 444-! a 4 4 4 4 4 a 19 4, 4 t. 2 v v ?? ?
;'E H 9 H U H H H H H H H H H H x H H H * H H H H H 8 H H
= =
H 8 HE (, in in in ilj Li uJ i! iri 'JJ t! ur r! ur ur
o660o0o o o o oqA.EAA.aGI e c d nG
t-FFFFI-F I d d.d.d e. \ e. a. e. e. I e e | |zzzzzzz z A 666 o=66aaaa6==PFFEFPP F^E ttt^TPTT{EPEE3PE
x E x i x x x * I x E 35 E 33 E e x E 3 I E E 3 BE E 7=3 -',t..< O ts ii E E E g iN E.r E.r - r = r.I,J - - E E U E T U U E E E E EJ 6t tt t, (r (r (r (r (r u u v 5 a 5 5 5 Y 5 x 5 5 5 5;5 5;;=E== =o' o o o o o o o o i oee p.p ppt-*e i e ; e ; e s e =
e u e e d a E d a g E 3 3 i i
=*r$
- ". - "r o n F. @ or o !'r.n l.-.r !n !o F o ''r 'n 6 6 o o !^o tn o 'r '{ o H
x r^ r.r ..r rr 6t N N N N r\ 6 iYi inb ci o o.{.r.{ J; - .\l '! !^ rn '\ o o 'r '{
3 H H H HH tsBs s HFis HB 5 55 5h h h Bh s H h s hs s r R R
3t
zd.<F>5FE'd"G o>E r oz c HE 1^ ECZ 6 q
= X e .f6 - Z. I E^E = .8lfri g E =2 6E=leez uEE;:==5_ e=iz gE ?AE=_tr9 -oz = Ey
:EE;EEeE=EE;;egIEel=EEEeEiqEaEcEEE
4054
Walters, MacKenzie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Subject:
Steve Gunther < stgunther@gmail.com>
Tuesday, November 16,2021 1 1:53 AM
Walters, MacKenzie
Greg and Joan Dattilo
3703 South Cedar Drive variance requests
Follow up
Flagged
Mackenzie.
I am writing this email in support ofthe Variance Requests for 3703 South Cedar Drive in Chanhasssn. I am
quite familiar with the property and the homes on and around it, the size of the lot and the tiny home that could
be built if the current zoning were applied. What has been requested is reasonable and consistent with the
neighborhood.
As the president ofthe Lake Milnewashta Preservation Association, I appreciate the reduction in hardcover of
the proposed plan and support the County's recommendations to place a 20 foot native vegetation buffer on the
lakeside to mitigate stormwater runoff. The LMPA offers technical and financial assistance to residents in our
lakeshed for this purpose. LMPA board member Kevin Zahler is a trained Master Water Steward and offers his
services without charge to residents to help explain and plan this kind of action. He can be reached at 612-61 8-
9817 or via email at kizahler(dhotmail.com.
Thank you
stgunther@lsnail.com
612-859-3729
Citizen I lnvestor I Multisports Enthusiast
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.
1
4155
Planning Commission Item
February 15, 2022
Item Consider Amending Chapter 20 (Zoning) of the Chanhassen City Code
Concerning Notification Requirements and Public Hearing Timelines
File No.Item No: B.2
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Section 20-28 “Board of Appeals and
Adjustments”: Empowers the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to hear and
decide appeals and variance requests.
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Section 20-29 “Board of Appeals and
Adjustments Variance and Appeal Procedures”: Establishes the procedures for
applying for and deciding appeals and variances, including setting notification
and timeline requirements.
Minnesota Statute § 15.99, subdivision 3(f): Establishes timeline for deciding
zoning issues, including appeals and variances.
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20 concerning appeal notification and public hearing timeline
requirements."
56
SUMMARY
The section of the City Code that governs the Board of Appeals and Adjustments’ variance and appeal
procedures requires property owners within 500 feet of a variance be notified via mail but does not
require similar notice for appeals. Appeals of the interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Code
can have a similar impact on neighborhoods to variances; however, the City Code does not require a
similar level of notification. This section of the Code also requires that a public hearing be scheduled
within 45 days of the filing of an application for an appeal or variance; however, both state law and City
policy allow for an extension of review deadline in certain circumstances.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
The City Code establishes the powers and procedures that govern its various Boards and Commissions.
In the case of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, which is also the Planning Commission, it
stipulates both notification requirements and timelines for public hearings. As it is currently written, the
City Code requires a mailed notice be issued to properties within 500 feet of a parcel requesting a
variance, but does not require any mailed notice for appeals of administrative orders, requirements,
decisions, and/or determinations. Requiring a mailed notice of the hearing is the best way to ensure that
the surrounding properties are made aware of the details of a request and have the opportunity to
provide feedback. Staff believes that since appeals can have similar impact to variances, they should
also be required to provide mailed notice.
Regarding the stipulated hearing timeline, it is established to ensure the City’s review process complies
with Minnesota’s 60-day rule, a rule that requires communities to issue decisions on zoning requests
within 60 days of the application’s submittal. While the City typically is able to complete its reviews
and issue decisions within this timeframe, there are cases where additional time is required. The state
law allows for both the City and applicant to extend the review timeline, but this is not reflected in the
City Code. Staff is proposing amending the City Code to clarify the applicant’s and the City’s rights to
extend the timeline.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the City Code
to clarify the public hearing timeline and require mailed notification for appeals.
ATTACHMENTS
Appeal Notification Issue Paper
Draft Ordinance
57
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
CITY OT CIIANIIASSXN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
February 15,2022
Appeal Notification and Public Hearing Timeline Requirements
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapters 20, conceming appeal notification and public hearing
timeline requirements."
The section of the City Code that govems the Board of Appeals and Adjustments' variance and
appeal procedures requires property owners within 500 feet ofa variance be notified via mail but
does not require similar notice for appeals. Appeals of the interpretation and enforcement ofthe
zoning code can have a similar impact on neighborhoods to variances; however, City Code does
not require a similar level ofnotification. This section of the Code also requires that a public
hearing be scheduled within 45 days ofthe filing ofan application for an appeal or variance;
however, both state law and City policy allow for an extension of review deadline in certain
circumstances.
Summary:
The City Code established the powers and procedures that govem its various boards and
commissions. In the case ofthe Board ofAppeals and Adjustments, which is also the Planning
Commission, it stipulates both notification requirements and timelines for public hearings. As it
is currently written, the City Code requires a mailed notice be issued to properties within 500
feet ofa parcel requesting a variance, but does not require any mailed notice for appeals of
administrative orders, requirement, decisions, and/or determinations. Requiring a mailed notice
ofthe hearing is the best way to ensure that the surrounding properties are made aware ofthe
details ofa request and have the oppornmity to provide feedback. Staflbelieves that since
appeals can have similar impact to variances, they should also be required to provide mailed
notice.
PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
Issues:
,OO MARKET BOULEVARD.PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .I4INNESOTA 553]7 58
Appeal Notification & Public Hearing
Timeline Requirements
February 15,2022
Page 2
Regarding the stipulated hearing timeline, it is established to ensure the City's review process
complies with Minnesota's 60-day rule, a rule that requires communities to issue decisions on
zoning requests within 60 days of the application's submittal. While the City typically is able to
complete its reviews and issue decisions within this timeframe, there are cases where additional
time is required. The state law allows for both the City and applicant to extend the review
timeline, but this is not reflected in the City Code. Staffis proposing amending the City Code to
clari$ the applicant and the City's rights to extend the timeline.
Releva nt Citv Code:
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Section 20-28 "Board ofAppeals and Adjustments":
Empowers the Board ofAppeals and Adjustments to hear and decide appeals and variance
lequests.
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Section 20'29 "BoNd of Appeals and Adjustments Variance
and Appeal Procedures": Establishes the procedures for applying for and deciding appeals and
variances, including setting notification and timeline requirements.
Minnesota Statute $ 15.99, subdivision 3(f): Establishes a timeline for deciding zoning issues,
including appeals and variances.
Analvsis:
Issue 1: Notification Requirement
section 20-29 requires the city to provide mailed notice of variance requests to every property
within 500 feet ofa parcel requesting a variance. This requirement is designed to ensure that the
properties most likely to be impacted by the requested variance are aware of what is being
requested and have a chance to voice their questions, concerns, support, and/or opposition to the
request. The City believes that since variances represent a deviation from the normal provisions
ofthe City Code, it is important to take neighbors perspectives into consideration; however, this
requirement is not applied to appeals of a City administrate officer's order, requirement,
decision, or determination.
In many cases, appeals ofan administrative action have a potential to impact neighborhoods. For
example, an individual could appeal stafF s determination that a collection of rusting playground
equipment scattered throughout their yard was 'Junk" constituting a nuisance rather than
"swings, slides, and other play equipment" which is allowed under the outdoor storage
ordinance. The appellant would likely state that all the neighbors enjoyed their collection of old
playground equipment, and if no neighbors were aware that this issue was coming before the
Planning Commission for consideration, they may not have an opportunity to agree with or
contradict the appellant's assessment of their opinions. Either way, the Planning Commission's
decision on the appeal would either allow the equipment to stay or require it to be removed, both
scenarios having a significant impact on the visual character of the neighborhood.
59
Appeal Notification & Public Hearing
Timeline Requirements
February 15,2022
Page 3
In some cases, appeals ofan administrative action could have a larger impact on a neighborhood
than a variance. For example, the Planning Commission cannot grant a variance to allow a
commercial or industrial use in a residential neighborhood, but a resident could appeai staff s
determination that they were using their woodshop in a way that violated the City's home
occupation standards. If the Planning Commission were to decide that staff s determination was
in error, the resulting noise, traffic, and other activities associated with allowing the continued
use of the woodshop could have a larger impact on the neighborhood than a reduced yard setback
or other item commonly subjected to the public notification requirement.
In a few cases, the appeal ofan administrative action could have the exact same impact as a
variance request. For example, an owner ofan older irregularly shaped lot could be interested in
placing a shed in what staff determined to be the front yard of the property. Since the City Code
illows staff to designate altemate front yards in several cases, the owner could appeal this
determination. If the Planning Commission were to determine that staff misidentified the front
yard, the resulting structure location and impact would be identical to what would have resulted
ifthe applicant had requested a variance to place the shed within the staff determined front yard
setback.
As the above examples show, appeals rarely impact only the property owner appealing staff s
orders, requirements, decisions, and/or determinations. The results ofan appeal will typically
impact the surrounding properties, often to a similar extent as a variance request. For these
reasons, staffbelieves the neighborhood should be plovided with mailed notice when an appeal
is filled. This will allow impacted residents to inform themselves ofthe details ofthe case and
ensure that they have an opportunity to provide the Planning Commission with their comments.
Issue 2: Hearing Timeline
Section 20-29 stipulates that upon receipt ofan appeal or variance application a hearing shall be
held within 45 days ofthe submittal the application. This 45-day period is designed to ensure
that the City adheres to the 60-day rule, a state statute requiring that zoning decisions be
rendered within 60 days. While the City always tries to complete reviews and render decisions
within this 60-day period, there are circumstances where this is simply not possible. The state
statute recognizes that there may be cases or situations where additional time is required and
allows City;s to extend the review period for an additional 60 days. The review period can only
be extend beyond the cumulative 120-day limit ifthe applicant elects to waive the statutory
review timeline.
As written, the City Code does not allow for the public hearing to be scheduled more than 45
days after the filing ofan appeal or variance. This creates a situation where the City Code is less
flexible than the state statute it was derived from. As a matter of practice, the City has followed
the timeline and procedures established by the state law when additional time is needed;
however, the City Code should be amended to clarifu both the City and applicant's rights with
regard to the timeline for rendering a decision on appeal and variance requests.
60
Appeal Notification & Public Hearing
Timeline Requirements
February 15,2022
Page 4
Alternatives:
1. Clarifu the timeline but do not require mailed notification for appeals.
2. Clarii/ the timeline and require mailed notification for appeals.
Recommendation:
Staffrecommends Altemative 2. Since a hearing is required for appeals and appeals can have
neighborhood impacts similar to variances, both appeals and variances should have the same
notifi cation requirements.
Attachment:
Proposed Changes
glplan\city cod€\2o22\appeal notification and ph timeline notification req\appeal notification issue paper.doo{
61
Page 1
SECTION 1: A MEND MEN T “Sec 20-29 Board O f Appeals And
A djustments Variance A nd A ppeal Procedures” of the Chanhassen Municipal Code is hereby
am ended as follows:
B E F O R E A M E N D M E N T
Sec 20-29 Board O f Appeals And Adjustments Variance And Appeal Procedures
(a)Form; fee. Appeals and applications for variances shall be filed w ith the community
development director on prescribed forms. A fee, as established by the city council,
shall be paid upon the filing of an application. The board of appeals and adjustments
may waive the application fee in unusual circumstances.
(b)Hearing. U pon the filing of an appeal or application for variance, the community
development director shall set a time and place for a hearing before the board of
appeals and adjustments on such appeal or application, w hich hearing shall be held
within 45 days after the filing of said appeal or application. At the hearing the board
shall hear such persons as wish to be heard, either in person or by attorney or agent.
Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten days before the date of hearing
to the person w ho filed the appeal or application for variance, and in the case of an
application for variance, to each ow ner of property situated wholly or partially within
500 feet of the property to which the variance application relates. The names and
addresses of such ow ners shall be determined by the community development director
from records provided by the applicant.
(c)Decisions of the board. The board shall be empow ered to decide appeals and grant
variances, other than variances in conjunction w ith platting, site plan review,
conditional use permits and interim use permits, when the decision of the board is by
an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members present. A vote of less than three-
fourths of the members present or any vote on a variance in conjunction with platting,
site plan review, conditional use permits and interim use permits shall serve only as a
recommendation to the city council, w ho shall then make the final determination on
the appeal or variance request within 30 days after receipt of the board's action. If the
board recommends approval, it may also recommend appropriate conditions. The
board shall act upon all appeals and variance requests w ithin 15 days after the date of
the close of the required hearing.
(d)Appeal from decisions of the board. A city council member, the applicant, or any
aggrieved person may appeal such decision to the city council by filing an appeal w ith
the community development director w ithin four days after the date of the board's
decision.
(e)Council action. By majority vote, the city council may reverse, affirm or modify,
wholly or partly, the decision appealed from the board, and to that end the city council
shall have all the pow ers of the board, or the city council may approve or deny the
variance request. The council shall decide all appeals w ithin 30 days after the date of
the required hearing thereon. In granting any variance, the city council may attach
62
Page 2
conditions to ensure compliance with this chapter and to protect adjacent property.
(f)Action without decision. If no decision is transmitted by the board to the city council
within 60 days from the date an appeal or variance request is filed w ith the community
development director, the council may take action on the request, in accordance with
the procedures governing the board, without further awaiting the board's decision or
recommendation.
(O rd. N o. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-4(1)—(5), (7)), 12-15-86; O rd. N o. 131, § 2, 7-9-90; O rd. No.
143, § 1, 3-11-91; O rd. N o. 292, § 2, 4-26-99; O rd. N o. 377, § 5, 5-24-04)
State law reference(s)—A ppeals and adjustments, M.S. § 462.357, subd. 6.
A F T E R A M E N D M E N T
Sec 20-29 Board O f Appeals And Adjustments Variance And Appeal Procedures
(a)Form; fee. Appeals and applications for variances shall be filed w ith the community
development director on prescribed forms. A fee, as established by the city council,
shall be paid upon the filing of an application. The board of appeals and adjustments
may waive the application fee in unusual circumstances.
(b)Hearing. U pon the filing of an appeal or application for variance, the community
development director shall set a time and place for a hearing before the board of
appeals and adjustments on such appeal or application, w hich hearing shall be held
within 45 days after the filing of said appeal or application unless the applicant w aives
the 60 day review period or the City exercises it right to extend the 60 day review
period by up to an additional 60 days. A t the hearing the board shall hear such persons
as w ish to be heard, either in person or by attorney or agent. N otice of such hearing
shall be mailed not less than ten days before the date of hearing to the person who filed
the appeal or application for variance, and in the case of an application for variance, to
each ow ner of property situated w holly or partially w ithin 500 feet of the property to
which the appeal or variance application relates. The names and addresses of such
owners shall be determined by the community development director from records
provided by the applicant.
(c)Decisions of the board. The board shall be empow ered to decide appeals and grant
variances, other than variances in conjunction w ith platting, site plan review,
conditional use permits and interim use permits, when the decision of the board is by
an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members present. A vote of less than three-
fourths of the members present or any vote on a variance in conjunction with platting,
site plan review, conditional use permits and interim use permits shall serve only as a
recommendation to the city council, w ho shall then make the final determination on
the appeal or variance request within 30 days after receipt of the board's action. If the
board recommends approval, it may also recommend appropriate conditions. The
board shall act upon all appeals and variance requests w ithin 15 days after the date of
the close of the required hearing.
(d)Appeal from decisions of the board. A city council member, the applicant, or any
aggrieved person may appeal such decision to the city council by filing an appeal w ith
63
Page 3
the community development director w ithin four days after the date of the board's
decision.
(e)Council action. By majority vote, the city council may reverse, affirm or modify,
wholly or partly, the decision appealed from the board, and to that end the city council
shall have all the pow ers of the board, or the city council may approve or deny the
variance request. The council shall decide all appeals w ithin 30 days after the date of
the required hearing thereon. In granting any variance, the city council may attach
conditions to ensure compliance with this chapter and to protect adjacent property.
(f)Action without decision. If no decision is transmitted by the board to the city council
within 60 days from the date an appeal or variance request is filed w ith the community
development director, the council may take action on the request, in accordance with
the procedures governing the board, without further awaiting the board's decision or
recommendation.
(O rd. N o. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-4(1)—(5), (7)), 12-15-86; O rd. N o. 131, § 2, 7-9-90; O rd. No.
143, § 1, 3-11-91; O rd. N o. 292, § 2, 4-26-99; O rd. N o. 377, § 5, 5-24-04)
State law reference(s)—A ppeals and adjustments, M.S. § 462.357, subd. 6.
64
Planning Commission Item
February 15, 2022
Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated January 4, 2022
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 Planning Commission approves the minutes from its January 4, 2022 meeting.
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
65
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Minutes dated January 4, 2022
66
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 4, 2022
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik
Johnson, Doug Reeder, and Kelsey Alto
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young-
Walters, Associate Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Michael Corrigan 3711 South Cedar Drive
Chairman Weick reviewed guidelines for conducting the Planning Commission meeting.
Community Development Director Aanenson noted the current Chairman (Weick) has submitted
a letter of resignation as Chairman, though not from the Planning Commission itself. Staff
suggests following Robert’s Rules of Order which states the Planning Commission would make
a nomination for Chair and Vice Chair which is normally conducted during the first meeting in
April. Staff recommended opening recommendations for Chair and Vice Chair.
Commissioner Reeder moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission accepts the resignation from Chairman Weick. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Weick seconded to nominate Commissioner
von Oven to the position of Chairman of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Chairman von Oven moved, Commissioner Weick seconded to nominate Commissioner
Noyes to the position of Vice Chairman of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
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
Associate Planner, MacKenzie Young-Walters presented the staff report on this item, noting the
lot is zoned residential single family, has a 20,000-square foot minimum lot area, is required to
67
Planning Commission Minutes – January 4, 2022
2
meet 30-foot front and year setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks, 75-foot shore setback, and is
limited to 25% lot cover under the ordinance with one water-oriented accessory structure
(WOAS) which can be as close as 10 feet to the ordinary high water level with a 250-square foot
maximum size. Existing conditions are as follows: 7,647-square foot lot (significantly below the
area’s minimum) with a lot width of approximately 40 feet, 41% lot cover, the principal structure
has approximately 2-foot east and west side setbacks, approximately a 71-foot shore setback on
the patio, the existing garage has a 9.8-foot and 7.6-foot east and west side yard setbacks and is
set back 21.8 feet from the front lot line with a non-conforming 31-foot wide driveway at the
right-of-way line. The Applicant is proposing adding a 5.25-foot by 20-foot addition off of the
west side of the garage; they have noted that due to the substandard lot width it is not possible to
widen the approximately 22-foot garage without a side setback variance to create additional
storage area. The Applicant wanted the proposal to match the existing home’s side yard setback
(non-conforming by 2 feet) and slightly reducing the lot cover by taking 32 square feet off. The
Applicant has also stated that other alternatives for increasing the property’s lot cover storage
area does not work as well for them and has noted that many surrounding properties have
received variances to improve non-conforming structures and do not believe it would be
detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Young-Walters stated Staff first looked at several
alternatives that would require no variance or a significantly less-extensive variance more in
keeping with past practice. He walked the Commissioners through the other options including
removing impervious surface and adding an addition directly off the rear of the structure,
removing lot cover including a bit of the patio which would allow a WOAS by the lake for
storage. The Applicant has indicated they are not interested in that option as they want to keep
the lakeside unencumbered. Another alternative would be to remove the lot cover on the west
side and do an approximately 5-foot addition along the east side. Mr. Young-Walters spoke
about a cedar tree on the property including the homeowners’ concerns, the past history of the
tree and property, and options available to the Applicant. Staff believes there are numerous
alternatives besides allowing an unprecedented 2-foot side yard setback variance. Staff
recommends approval of an alternative 5-foot east side yard setback and the requested front yard
setback and lot cover variances needed to allow for the project.
The Commissioners asked questions about the homes on each side of the property, retaining
walls, access for the fire department, and previous variance requests for the property.
Michael Corrigan, Applicant, noted the family is very sensitive to the variance request and they
are trying to do the best they can with the very limited lot size they are dealing with. He
appreciates all the proposals Mr. Young-Walters put together and stated it is less of a design
preference but instead is trying to find a way that is practical for the application and protective of
the property. He noted the family is very sensitive to the tree on the property and the options
presented would cause pruning or taking down entire trunks of the tree. He mentioned a 6-foot
easement that he is responsible for on the property.
Commissioner Noyes asked to hear more about the easement.
Mr. Corrigan replied it is an easement from 2014 or so because of the proximity of the homes
and the 2-foot setback on his property. The easement there is somewhat of a private right-of-way
and is on the neighbor’s property.
68
Planning Commission Minutes – January 4, 2022
3
Mr. Young-Walters believes it gives any current or future owner of the property access to the
lake through a pedestrian access easement.
Ms. Aanenson clarified the City has no jurisdiction over a private easement like this.
Commissioner Reeder asked about putting a shed on either side of the garage.
Mr. Young-Walters said a shed on the west side of the garage would still require a setback
variance.
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Noyes feels the Applicant’s proposal is the least intrusive. They are adding square
footage to the building, whether on the east or the west; adding it to the one side would require
removing the sidewalk access to the house. Aesthetically, the house and garage would line up
and he stated it is a tough situation with no great proposals.
Commissioner Reeder thinks the location proposed is logical; what happened with the property
in 1923 is what causes the problem. He agrees the proposed location is as good as putting it on
the other side, noting it seems there would be potential for drainage issues on the other side.
Chair von Oven would have been an absolute no if the City had received a different letter from
the neighbor.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Board of
appeals and adjustments approves the requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, 8-foot
front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances subject to the Conditions of
Approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted and the motion carried
with a vote of 6 to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
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
Mr. Young-Walters explained the issue is that the uses allowed in the Fringe Business District
conflict with the land-use guiding of the properties. Once uses are established, either as permitted
or conditional uses, they can continue in perpetuity. If uses have the right to continue in
perpetuity are established and they do not align with the City’s long-term vision for the area, it
can prevent the redevelopment of the area. In this case, it is problematic because in order for the
area to redevelop, the City would need to extend sewer and water. Without a critical density of
development the math does not work and the area is trapped at an underutilized level. Staff
proposes to reclassify commercial uses within the Fringe Business District as interim uses which
69
Planning Commission Minutes – January 4, 2022
4
come with a sunset date or specified period of time (usually 5-10 years) or an event such as
sanitary sewer system comes about.
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Weick moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter
20 of the City Code reclassifying commercial uses within the Fringe Business (BF) District
as interim uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,
AND 20 CONCERNING FEES
Mr. Young-Walters noted this is an extremely large ordinance amendment. He clarified the City
is not changing the amounts of the fees. Rather than fees being established by amending Chapter
4 of the City Code every year, the City Council can simply pass an ordinance establishing fees.
In order to do this, the City must go through and scrub the Code wherever it says something like
“one would have to pay a minimum of $50 for the City to return a horse if it escapes.” Staff
believes this is a strong clean-up of many obscure and unnecessary sections of Code.
The Commissioners asked clarifying questions of Staff regarding how this would work and why
the change would simplify things within the City Code.
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the City
Code concerning the establishment of fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED DECEMBER 7, 2021
Commissioner Alto noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
December 7, 2021, as presented.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE:
Ms. Aanenson noted that there were no action items to update. She reminded the Commissioners
that three of the Commissioners’ terms (Skistad, Weick, and Reeder) will end this year and they
are welcome to reapply by January 28, 2022.
ADJOURNMENT:
70
Planning Commission Minutes – January 4, 2022
5
Commissioner von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Jean Steckling
Sr. Admin. Support Specialist
71
Planning Commission Item
February 15, 2022
Item 2021 Year-End Review and 2022 Work Plan
File No.Item No: E.1
Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the 2021 Year in Review and 2022 Work Plan
report."
SUMMARY
Staff will review 2021 projects and present possible 2022 development activity.
BACKGROUND
As required by City Code Section 2-46.03 (e) Reports: The Commission shall make an annual written
report to the City Council, not later than March 31 of each calendar year, containing the Commission's
recommendations for the ensuing year.
72
DISCUSSION
Staff is proposing the following work programs for 2022. The Planning Commission may present
additional items which it may review/research in 2022.
2022 WORK PROGRAMS
Development Review
Staff anticipates the development of Erhart Farm subdivision will come in for review in 2022.
The Avienda Lifestyle Center PUD at Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard was approved in
2018, grading will be completed in 2022, a 39 unit cottage home development was given
preliminary approval, and additional multi-family and commercial development (site plans) will
be reviewed in 2022.
New commercial and residential projects will continue on an in-fill, lot-by-lot basis including
potential redevelopment of existing commercial areas in the downtown that have reached their
effective design utility.
City Code
With the adoption of the Local Water Management Plan on December 10, 2018 and the hiring of
a water resources engineer as the Water Resources Coordinator, staff will assist in the drafting
revisions to the wetland ordinance and the surface water management requirements of City Code.
The City will need to make numerous minor code corrections and revisions, including a review of
the sign code, that staff has been compiling over 2021, which will be brought forward in 2022.
Comprehensive Plan
The City is required by the Metropolitan Land Plan Act (MN§473) to update our Comprehensive Plan
every ten years. The City of Chanhassen is designated by the Metropolitan Council as an Emerging
Suburban Edge Community. The City adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan on February 10, 2020.
Staff will bring some chapters of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission for
discussion and review in conjunction with our long-range planning.
Miscellaneous
Staff will provide periodic items for long-range planning as the hearing schedule and time permits.
Some items in addition to the Comprehensive Plan include housing demands and trends, demographic
statistics, mixed-use development, sustainable development, development trends, redevelopment issues,
transportation projects, senior-friendly cities, etc.
Another joint Environmental, Parks, Senior and Planning Commission tour will be scheduled for late
summer 2022.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission may suggest additional items which they may review/research in 2022. Any
other projects that the Commission would like to see staff address will be added to the list. Subject to
73
Planning Commission concurrence, staff will forward this report to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission 2021 Year in Review and 2022 Recommended Work Plan Report
74
2021
&
2022
YEAR IN REVIEW
RECOMMENDED WORK PLAN
CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-227-1100
75
PAGE 2
Staff Planning CommiSSionerS
BaCkground
As required by the City Code section 2-46.03 (e) Reports: The Commission shall make an annual written
report to the Council containing the Commission recommendation for the ensuing year.
Staff estimates an April 1, 2022 population of 26,399. The 2020 Decennial U.S. Census population was 25,951.
The City’s 2010 Decennial Census population was 23,952.
Below is a summary of items the Planning Commission reviewed in 2021 as well as possible work projects
for 2022. If there are additional items, projects, or research the Planning Commission would like to
undertake for 2022, please provide direction to staff.
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Mark von Oven, Chair
Eric Noyes, Vice Chair
Steven Weick
Doug Reeder
Laura Skistad
Erik Johnson
Kelsey Alto
76
PAGE 3
Planning staff reviewed three more
development review applications in 2021
than in 2020, 26 versus 23.
Included as part of these applications
were two conditional use permits,
four interim use permits, two site
plan reviews, six subdivisions, and
17 variances, which resulted in 24
cases being reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
In addition, the Commission reviewed 13
Code amendments. Two Planning cases
were metes and bounds subdivisions,
which are reviewed by City Council.
In 2021, the city issued building
permits for 208 dwelling units, which
was approximately 104 percent of our
2021
REVIEW
projected housing growth for 2021.
We are projecting a two percent (2%) increase
(approximately 200 units) in total housing stock for 2022.
As can be seen in the average residential building permit
data (72 single-family and 50 attached units), there is
currently sufficient approved single-family residential
lots available for development with a lot inventory of 92
platted single-family lots, but a deficiency of attached
single-family lots with 14 lots available.
With the approval of the Lake Place at Powers Ridge
project, 110 apartment units were approved for
development of which 50 units will be affordable.
Given this inventory, preli9minarily approved housing
developments and current housing demand, the city
208 Dwelling
Units in 2021
77
PAGE 4
2022 WORK PROGRAMS
develoPment review
City Code
ComPrehenSive Plan
miSCellaneouS
»Staff anticipates the development of Erhart Farm subdivision will come in for review in
2022.
»The Avienda Lifestyle Center PUD at Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard was approved
in 2018, grading will be completed in 2022, a 39 unit cottage home development was
given preliminary approval, and additional multi-family and commercial development (site
plans) will be reviewed in 2022.
»New commercial and residential projects will continue on an in-fill, lot-by-lot basis
including potentially redevelopment of existing commercial areas in the downtown that
have reached their effective design utility.
»With the adoption of the Local Water Management Plan on December 10, 2018, and
the hiring of a water resources engineer as the Water Resources Coordinator, staff
will assist in the drafting revisions to the wetland ordinance and the surface water
management requirements of City Code.
»The city will need to make numerous minor code corrections and revisions, including a
review of the sign code, that staff has been compiling over 2021, which will be brought
forward in 2022.
The city is required by the Metropolitan Land Plan Act (MN§473) to update our Comprehensive
Plan every ten years. The City of Chanhassen is designated by the Metropolitan Council as
an Emerging Suburban Edge Community. The city adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan on
February 10, 2020.
»Staff will bring some chapters of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Planning
Commission for discussion and review in conjunction with our long-range planning.
Staff will provide periodic items for long-range planning as the hearing schedule and time
permits. Some items in addition to the Comprehensive Plan include housing demands
and trends, demographic statistics, mixed-use development, sustainable development,
development trends, redevelopment issues, transportation projects, senior-friendly cities,
etc.
Another joint Environmental, Parks, Senior and Planning Commission tour will be scheduled
for late summer 2022.
78
PAGE 5
ACTIONS
ATTACHMENTS
The Planning Commission may suggest additional items which they may review/research in
2022. Any other projects that the Commission would like to see staff address will be added
to the list. Subject to Planning Commission concurrence, staff will forward this report to the
City Council.
1. Permits and Inspections
2. Development Review
3. Community Development Mission
79
&
PERMITS
INSPECTIONS
BUILDING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
80
PAGE 7
BUILDING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Building Division contains two support staff, one building official and four inspectors.
Eric Tessman is the Building Official for the city. The inspectors review building plans for
compliance with building codes, inspect buildings under construction, and enforce property
maintenance issues. Support staff issue the building permits, schedule inspections, receive
all permit applications and distribute building plans for city review.
In 2021, the city issued two permits for projects with building permit valuation in excess of
one million dollars. The City issued 3,302 permits worth $58,286,155 for residential additions
and remodeling in 2021. Historically, we average 1,167 such permits.
Staff
Eric Tessman, Building Official
Dun Nutter, Fire Marshal
Dave Ding, Building Inspector
Paul Ekholm, Building Inspector
Brian Fehrenbach, Building Inspector
Bob Sullivan, Mechanical Inspector
Jeff Keogh, Mechanical Inspector
Colleen Martino, Support Staff
DeeAnn Triethart, Support Staff
81
PAGE 8
Average new single-family home values excludes land cost
new Single-family home ConStruCtion
YEAR PERMITS AVERAGE VALUATION TOTAL VALUATION
2021 98 $503,774 $49,369,812
2020 68 $411,529 $27,984,000
2019 40 $637,390 $25,495,591
2018 49 $406,275 $19,865,000
2017 55 $420,195 $22,798,000
2016 46 $401,638 $18,834,000
inSPeCtionS
YEAR BUILDING
INSPECTIONS
MECHANICAL
INSPECTIONS
PLUMBING
INSPECTIONS
TOTAL
INSPECTIONS
2021 6,732 1,368 1,430 9,530
2020 3,413 1,171 1,323 5,907
2019 3,467 1,708 1,667 6,842
2018 2,863 1,425 1,551 5,839
2017 2,583 1,490 1,405 5,478
2016 2,722 1,459 1,770 5,951
2021 B uilding inspection Activity
CommerCial & inStitutional ConStruCtion
There were no significant, new commercial, industrial or institutional projects in 2021.
The total valuation for all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects in 2021
was $4,069,902. Tenant finish and remodeling activity had 72 permits with a valuation of
$11,352,774.
82
PAGE 9
inSPeCtionS (Cont.)
RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING PERMITS
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD
QUARTER
4TH
QUARTER TOTAL
Residential Single-Family 23 23 38 14 98
Residential Townhomes 0 0 0 0 0
Apartments/Senior
Facilities 0 0 110 0 110
Total Residential 23 23 148 14 208
COMMERCIAL
BUILDING PERMITS
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD
QUARTER
4TH
QUARTER TOTAL
New 0 0 0 2 2
Redeveloped 0 0 0 0 0
Remodeled 9 21 20 22 72
Total Commercial 9 21 20 24 74
TOTAL PERMIT HISTORY 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Single-Family 55 49 40 68 98
Townhomes 12 56 28 0 0
Apartments/Senior
Facilities 0 268 0 0 110
Commercial 73 72 76 70 74
Total # of All Permits 140 445 144 138 282
AVAILABLE LOT INVENTORY
(END OF QUARTER)
1ST
QUARTER
2ND
QUARTER
3RD
QUARTER
4TH
QUARTER
Single-Family Lots 159 140 105 92
Residential Townhome Lots 14 14 14 14
Total Available Lots 173 154 119 106
2021 Building Activity
A significant amount of the building permit activity, totaling 2,134 permits, which occurred
in 2020, was due to household remodeling and addition construction, and building re-roofs
which resulted from summer thunderstorms.
83
PAGE 10
YEAR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
SINGLE-FAMILY APARTMENTS DWELLING
1992 228 0 0 228
1993 251 16 0 267
1994 269 110 0 379
1995 216 197 65 478
1996 170 37 0 207
1997 177 97 0 274
1998 263 162 0 425
1999 187 88 0 277
2000 124 34 162 320
2001 85 44 100 229
2002 54 246 0 300
2003 59 94 243 396
2004 76 16 0 92
2005 60 24 0 84
2006 89 42 48 179
2007 65 86 18 169
2008 28 38 0 66
2009 71 14 0 85
2010 71 30 0 101
2011 106 62 0 168
2012 107 78 0 185
2013 89 86 0 175
2014 57 96 0 153
2015 80 24 0 104
2016 48 0 76 124
2017 55 12 0 67
2018 49 56 268 373
2019 40 18 0 58
2020 68 0 0 68
2021 98 0 110 208
Average 72 50 47 168
reSidential Building PermitS iSSued
84
PAGE 11
houSing PermitS
85
DEVELOPMENTREVIEW
PLANNING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
86
PAGE 13
PLANNING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Planning Division consists of the Community Development Director, three planners and
a natural resource specialist. The Planning staff enforces the zoning ordinance, reviews
building plans, prepares current and long-range plans for the community, discusses
development potential for individual properties, reviews development proposals and
coordinates this review with other departments and agencies, prepares reports for the
Planning Commission and City Council, provides information about the community to
businesses, property owners and the general public, performs research projects and writes
ordinances and resolutions.
There were 24 cases reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Planning CaSeS
reSidential SuBdiviSionS
TYPE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5 YR. AVG.
SIGN PERMITS 37 62 36 16 56 41
VARIANCES 13 9 10 10 17 12
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2 3 1 1 2 2
INTERIM USE PERMITS 0 0 1 1 4 1
REZONINGS 1 1 0 1 2 1
SITE PLAN REVIEWS 3 3 5 2 2 3
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS 3 4 1 4 0 2
SUBDIVISIONS 3 4 4 1 6 4
VACATIONS 6 1 3 2 2 3
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMITS 1 1 1 0 0 1
CODE AMENDMENTS 13 6 24 5 14 12
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS 0 1 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 82 95 86 43 105 82
CASE #PROJECT NAME GROSS
ACRES
NET
ACRES
TOTAL
UNITS
GROSS
DENSITY
NET
DENSITY
2020-22 Deer Haven 2.81 2.81 4 1.42 1.42
2021-15 Eagle Bluff 4.1 1.6 2 0.49 1.25
TOTALS 6.91 4.41 6 0.87 1.36
87
PAGE 14
Site Plan review
Planning CommiSSion attendanCe
PROJECT
TITLE LOCATION DEVELOPER BUILDING
SQUARE FT.ACRES TYPE
OF USE
Lake Place
#2021-04
1361 Lake Drive
West.
Lakes at
Chanhassen, LLC 166,000 3.5
110 Unit Senior
Independent
Living
River Valley
Industrial Center
#2021-19
2100 Stoughton
Avenue
Capstone Investors,
LLC 82,000 0.79 Office
Warehouse
TOTAL 248,000 4.29
88
PAGE 15
reSidential develoPment StatiStiCS
89
PAGE 16
reSidential develoPment StatiStiCS (Cont.)
90
PAGE 17
reSidential develoPment StatiStiCS (Cont.)
ChanhaSSen PoPulation
YEAR METHOD NUMBER INCREASE % INCREASE MET COUNCIL
1960 CENSUS 3,411 ---
1970 CENSUS 4,879 1,468 43%-
1980 CENSUS 6,359 1,480 30%-
1990 CENSUS 11,732 5,373 84%-
1995 ESTIMATE 15,588 3,856 33%-
2000 CENSUS 20,321 4,733 30.4%20,321
2005 ESTIMATE 23,652 3,331 16.4%22,518
2010 CENSUS 22,952 -700 -3%22,952
2015 ESTIMATE 24,655 1,703 7.4%25,194
2020 CENSUS 25,951 1,296 5.3%26,700
2021 ESTIMATE 26,271 320 1.2%-
2022 ESTIMATE 26,399 128 0.5%-
2025 PROJECTION 27,262 863 3%-
2030 PROJECTION 28,656 1,394 5%31,700
2035 PROJECTION 30,469 1,813 6%-
2040 PROJECTION 31,589 1,390 5%37,100
91
PAGE 18
DEVELOPMENTS
A four-lot subdivision with a variance for the use of a private street on 2.81 acres
deer haven (PC #2020-22)
92
PAGE 19
A two-lot subdivision with a variance for the use of a private street on 4.1 acres. Outlot A was
dedicated to the City and will provide a trail connection from Highway 101 to Eagle Ridge Road.
9197 eagle ridge road (PC #2021-15)
93
PAGE 20
Site plan review with a building height variance for the construction of a 110-unit, three-
story Independent Living Senior apartment.
lake PlaCe (PC #2021-04)
Artist rendering
94
PAGE 21
Subdivision and Site plan approval for an 82,000-square foot office warehouse building at
2100 Stoughton Avenue. Building construction is contingent on final platting of the site.
(Revised to address Chaska access requirement)
river valley induStrial Center (PC #2021-19)
95
PAGE 22
river valley induStrial Center (Cont.)
(Artist Rendering)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
2021 YEAR IN REVIEW & 2022 RECOMMENDED WORK PLAN
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-227-1100
96
Planning Commission Item
February 15, 2022
Item City Council Action Update
File No.Item No: E.2
Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
97
City Council Action Update
98
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022
Approve a Request to Amend Chanhassen City Code Chapters 1, 5, and 20 Concerning Private Kennel
Licensing –Approved
Approve Partial Release of Land from Stone Creek Town Offices Site Plan Agreement #2004-15,
Execution of the Compliance Estoppel Certificate, and Accept Outlot B, Stone Creek Town Offices
Subject to Receipt of Clear Title –Approved
Ordinance XXX: Amendment to Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code Concerning Fees –Approved
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2022
Ordinance 685: Approve a Request to Amend City Code Reclassifying Certain Uses Within the Fringe
Business (BF) District as Interim Uses –Approved
Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links.
99