PC Minutes 03-01-22Planning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2022
2
Use Permit #2021-13 regarding Agritourism at 9111 Audubon Road to extend the
termination date to 50 years; and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
6609 HORSESHOE CURVE: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SETBACK AND
MAXIMUM SIZE VARIANCES FOR A WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE (WOAS), A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX-FOOT, SIX-INCH HIGH
OPAQUE FENCE (GATE) WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A FRONT YARD PARKING PAD
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on this item, noting the
Applicants submitted and received two variance requests from the City’s bluff ordinance and the
Applicants have submitted a third variance request and demonstrated that the City’s bluff
ordinance did not apply to their property. He noted this is a continuance of a tabled variance
request from October 19, 2021. Mr. Young-Walters shared the approximate lot size is 27,800
square feet with hardcover at 23% and currently has a water-oriented accessory structure
(WOAS), 19% driveway grade, and the southern portion of the property is encumbered by a
sanitary sewer easement which runs under the WOAS and under the proposed location for the
expanded WOAS. He noted the issue of a non-conforming use will be discussed and clarified
and is something that was previously permitted but is no longer permitted due to change in the
City Code. Mr. Young-Walters stated a non-conforming use cannot be created when the
homeowner modifies their property in a way that brings it out of compliance with City Code. He
shared there is a three-factor practical difficulty test including reasonableness, uniqueness, and
essential character, as well as language in State Statute that states variances are only permitted
when in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and must be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is proposing a 6.5-foot opaque gate within the front
yard setback, a 300-square foot front yard parking pad, and a 357.5-square foot WOAS. Mr.
Young-Walters noted the Applicant has stated that the front yard parking pad has existed since
1999 and should be considered a non-conforming use, that an 11x12 shed is the minimum size
needed to store a good canoe and other water equipment, and note that by putting it off to the
east side they minimize visibility as the WOAS ordinance calls for. The Applicant has also noted
that Code has a provision allowing up to 400 square feet of WOAS if that structure is used solely
for the storage of boats and boat equipment and the total they are proposing is less than that.
Also, the security gate in this configuration and non-open configuration is the only means to
address the Applicant’s security concerns, most of which stem from the possibility of vehicles
entering the steep driveway and not being able to stop due to slippery or wet conditions. Mr.
Young-Walters shared that front yard parking pads have not been allowed in the City since 1986,
and shared history of City ordinance, driveway access, parking pads, and showed the proposed
plans on screen. Staff cannot agree that this is a non-conforming parking pad and cannot support
the requested variance to permit a parking pad and a second driveway access for the property.
Regarding the front yard gate, the City treats gates as part of fences and has always subjected
them to the requirement of the City’s fence ordinance. Privacy-style gates are not considered
open and the Applicant is proposing a privacy-style gate which Staff does not believe is in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Staff cannot support the request for a privacy-
style gate within the front yard setback. Regarding the WOAS, Staff has included a letter from
Planning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2022
3
the DNR recommending that the City maintain the 250-square foot size limit and require the
Applicant to meet all applicable setbacks. Engineering and water resources have expressed
significant concerns about the impact of allowing an additional encroachment over the sanitary
sewer easement and believe there are alternative locations for a WOAS. Staff also noted that in
order to take advantage of the 400-square foot WOAS provision, the structure must be solely
used for boats and boating equipment and because of the deck, which is a recreational amenity
that is not something that would apply to this proposal. Staff feels that it would be in line with
past precedent to grant a variance for the footprint previously present under the non-conforming
use ordinance which was 308 square feet. One letter from the neighbor stated that they do not
support the requested shed variance and feel there is adequate space to locate the shed without a
variance. The letter also states the neighbor believes there are options under Code for the security
gate and adequate visitor parking and believes that granting these variances will set precedent for
easing current rules which they feel are reasonable.
Elise Bruner & Brian Bruner, Applicants, approached the podium. Mr. Bruner noted they are
getting conflicting information from the City regarding the shed down by the lake, noting
Engineering has said they cannot have the shed down there because of concerns about moving it
because of the sewer, but at the same time the City is saying they can have a 308-square foot
shed down there. He asked which is correct. Mr. Bruner would love to hear where the City thinks
they can place the shed on the property, noting they went through many compositions with the
architect and the City and could not find a way to put the shed other than the way it is proposed
right now. He shared a handout of photos and spoke about moving the shed over the decking,
placement of the doors on the shed and issues that would arise with trees, setback issues, and
steep slopes.
The Commissioners asked about repositioning the deck.
The Bruners noted the deck is on temporary footings.
The Commissioners discussed the option of a garage-door style opening which would roll up and
down rather than doors that swing outward.
The Bruners continued the discussion with the parking pad, noting Mrs. Bruner’s father built the
home next door and designed the driveway to keep trees intact, choosing to put a parking pad at
the top of the incline. Mr. Bruner shared communications going back to 2020 which indicated
that the Bruners have always used the area as a parking pad. He shared if there is even an inch of
snow one cannot get down the driveway and said in response to the City’s claim that the parking
area is a part of the exit of the driveway, that it is not a natural drive over that direction. He
shared photos on screen of the top of the driveway/parking pad area of his home and the
neighbor’s home (which was Mrs. Bruner’s childhood home). Mr. Bruner noted if the parking
pad is not there people will have to park on the street and showed a photo on the screen of cars
parked on the street, noting it is a very narrow road, and especially with cars parked on both
sides of the road, it is very tight to get through.
Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer, clarified as long as it is within the right-of-way and is a part
of the driveway, a level spot or parking pad can still be accomplished with the new driveway
Planning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2022
4
access at 24 feet in width is the maximum allowed. The Applicant has brought up the instance of
turnarounds which Engineering and Public Works do require through Code and the
Comprehensive Plan when connected to a collector road. Where installed correctly, the
Applicant would still have the ability to park up near the street. Regarding the parking issue, the
City is definitely aware of how narrow Horseshoe Curve is. Generally, they first hear through the
Traffic Safety Committee and depending on that evaluation, Staff can propose remedies to the
City Council to build it into capital improvement projects to alleviate issues.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed driveway location, parking pad location, a driveway
turnaround, and requirements or restrictions on each.
Mr. Bruner clarified the safety issue regarding Staff’s comment on the “possibility” of a car
sliding down the driveway. He noted in 2019 a delivery truck slid down and off the driveway and
needed to be towed out and a Carver County Sheriff Canine Unit responded to the incident. He
said people who do not know how steep the driveway is, or when there is ice, once they get over
the first hump and down the bend it is too late and they will not be able to stop their vehicle. The
Bruners clarified regarding the gate, they are open to both slatted or opaque style gates, this is
not a decorative fence and they are trying to keep it very minimal. In designing the gate, the
intent is to have it as strong as possible so people do not crash through it.
Commissioner Noyes suggested getting creative and having the designer work on a gate that fits
within City Code.
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Noyes stated this is a very complicated case with a lot going on and he
understands the plight of the owners, especially with a 19.5-degree grade. He also thinks more
work can be done on the design side, particularly with the fence. He is not inclined to grant a
fence variance.
Commissioner Skistad agreed that she would like to see another option regarding the fence and
that she sees the need for having one.
Chairman von Oven lives in the neighborhood and could personally care less about the parking
pad. He said if it makes sense to do it in a manner that could be added on to this driveway that is
fine, and noted he has a little trouble envisioning that in the space. He said cutting into the side
of the hill for a turnaround on this driveway is a terrible idea and the Applicants will be back for
another variance. For Mr. von Oven, the parking pad is a non-issue whichever way they go on it
and he has zero issue with a variance in that space, whatever the Applicants decide to do on it.
Commissioner Noyes is in agreement with Chairman von Oven. He does not like to set precedent
when issuing variances. He thinks there is a way to achieve what they want in the design of the
new driveway. Tearing up the parking pad because it is non-conforming does not make sense to
him. He shared that the lot has many challenges with the elevation and slope and one must do
Planning Commission Minutes – March 1, 2022
5
what they have to do to be sure there are safe places to park and get out of the driveway. He does
not have an issue in keeping the pad there.
Commissioners Skistad and Alto agreed.
Regarding the WOAS, Commissioner Skistad thinks it makes sense to move the decking over to
keep most or all of the side area. The way the Applicants have incorporated it into the property is
minimalist and is not intrusive or glaring. The Applicants have a very specific purpose for the
storage and are trying to design around it. She would prefer they move it over the 4 feet and line
up the shed along the edge.
Commissioner Noyes thinks there is a solution for the WOAS that is satisfactory to all parties
and he agreed with Commissioner Skistad.
Engineer Henricksen clarified that permits would need to be updated or applied for. At that time,
planning review can happen as there are footings and pilings directly over a public sanitary main
in the area and they want to ensure that no damage occurs.
Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies the requested opaque
fence (gate) variance, approves the requested variance for a front yard parking pad, and
approves a 107.5-square foot water oriented accessory structure size variance, a 5-foot side
yard setback variance, and a 2-foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a
water oriented accessory structure, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
10500 AND 10520 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR
CONCEPTUAL PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REZONING ON APPROXIMATELY 8.3 ACRES WITH A
LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MIXED
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on this item, noting this
is meant to be a high-level discussion and a chance for Staff and Planning Commission to tell the
Applicant their impressions of the project, raise any potential concerns, issues, and expectations.
Then the Applicant will have a clear sense on whether this is something they want to move
forward with and if the City would be receptive to it. Mr. Young-Walters shared about the
property noting it is zoned Fringe Business District guided for mixed use. The proposed use is
warehousing and would be a short-term use until sewer and water becomes available and then it
would become a mixed use development. All developments must be consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and the current Fringe Business zoning is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan mixed guidance. In this case, Staff supports the rezoning to PUD because it
allows a reasonable use of the property (warehousing) until sewer and water becomes available
and it will also facilitate the redevelopment as a mixed use district with a blend of commercial