05-17-2022 Agenda and Packet
A.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
B.1 Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Include Cantilevers in the List of Permitted
Encroachments and Remove Conditional Use Permit for Other Canopies
B.2 Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Clarify Division Concerning Fences
B.3 Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Concerning the Number of Stories for Accessory
Structures in the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District
B.4 Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Remove the Prohibition on Painting Concrete,
Brick and Block
B.5 Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Concerning Restaurants in the Neighborhood Business
(BN) District
B.6 Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Concerning Residential Development Landscape
Screening
B.7 Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Add a 30-Day Time Limit for Court Appeals of
Zoning Decisions
C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
C.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 19, 2022
D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
D.1 City Council Action Update
E.ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2022
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1
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
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
May 17, 2022
Item
Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Include Cantilevers in the List of
Permitted Encroachments and Remove Conditional Use Permit for Other
Canopies
File No.Item No: B.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Section 20-908(e) lists the architectural elements that may project into required
yard setbacks.
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20, yard regulations.”
SUMMARY
Cantilevers are not explicitly addressed in the City Code which has caused some issues when
contractors have attempted to use cantilevers to encroach into required setbacks. Additionally, the
City's yard regulations state that other encroachments can be permitted through a conditional use permit
(CUP); however, a variance would be the appropriate mechanism for granting a deviation from the
City's setback standards.
3
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
The City Code allows various elements of buildings to encroach specified distances into required yard
setbacks; however, cantilevers are not explicitly included in the list of permitted encroachments. Staff
has always ruled that they fall under the category of “other architectural features” and that the two-foot,
six-inch encroachments allowed under this section are not cumulative (i.e. a property with a two-foot,
six-inch cantilever within a required yard setback is not also entitled to an additional two-foot, six-inch
eave). It would be beneficial to codify this policy in the Code, as there have been instances where
contractors operating under the assumption that cantilevers are exempt from required yard setbacks
have submitted designs that exceed the permitted encroachments.
This section of the Code also notes that other canopies may be permitted by a CUP. Staff is also
proposing removing that sentence. Since canopies are addressed in the first sentence, it is not clear what
these other canopies would be and, in any event, the appropriate mechanism for requesting a deviation
from required setbacks would be a variance not a CUP.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Code be amended to include cantilevers in the list of permitted
encroachments, clarify that encroachments are not cumulative, and remove the refence to CUPs.
The proposed ordinance would read as follows:
Sec 20-908(e)(1)
1) Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line, cornices,
canopies, eaves, cantilevers, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding two
feet, six inches; fire escapes may project a distance not exceeding four feet, six inches; an uncovered
stair and necessary landings may project a distance not to exceed six feet, provided such stair and
landing shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies, open porches
and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three feet; unenclosed decks and patios may project
a distance not exceeding five feet. The encroachments listed in this paragraph cannot be applied
cumulatively (i.e. the edge of the roof of an open porch may project three feet into a required
setback, its eaves are not entitled to an additional two feet, six inches of encroachment).Other
canopies may be permitted by conditional use permit.
ATTACHMENTS
Cantilever Issue Paper
4
CITY OT CHANHASSXN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and planning for Tomorrow
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
May 17,2022
Cantilevers
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20, yard regulations."
Cantilevers are not explicitly addressed in the City Code which has caused some issues when
contractors have attempted to use cantilevers to encroach into required setbacks.
Summary:
The City code allows various elements ofbuildings to encroach specified distances into required
yard setbacks; however, cantilevers are not explicitly included in the list ofpermitted
encroachments. Staff has always ruled that they fall under the category of"other architectural
features" and that the two-foot, six-inch encroachments allowed under this section are not
cumulative (i.e. a property with a two-foot, six-inch cantilever within a required yard setback is
not also entitled to an additional two-foot, six-inch eave). It would be beneficial to codifu this
policy in the Code, as there have been instances where contractors operating under the
assumption that cantilevers are exempt from required yard setbacks have submitted designs that
exceed the permitted encroachments.
This section ofthe Code also notes that other canopies may be permitted by a conditional use
permit (CUP). Staff is also proposing removing that sentence. Since canopies are addressed in
the first sentence, it is not clear what these other canopies would be and, in any event, the
appropriate mechanism for requesting a deviation from required setbacks would be a variance
not a conditional use permit.
Section 20-908(e) lists the architectural elements that may project into required yard setbacks.
PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . Fx 952.227.111 0
1]OO I'IARKEI BOUTEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Issue:
Relevant Citv Code:
5
Cantilevers
May 17,2022
Page 2
Analvsis:
Issue I : Cantilevers
The City allows various architectural features ofbuildings to encroach limited distances into
required yard setbacks. Many common features like eaves, bay windows, and chimneys are
explicitly called out in the City Code and general categories like "other architectural features"
are included in the list of encroachments to accommodate less common elements. One common
element that is not explicitly addressed are cantilevers. While staff has always considered
cantilevers to fall into the category of "other architectural features", the fact that they are not
explicitly mentioned means that some contractors have assumed that either they are not
permitted to encroach into required yard setbacks or that they are completely exempt from
required yard setbacks.
When the later happens potentially costly redesigns are needed to bring submitted plans into line
with Code, and residents and contractors become frustrated because a proposal they had believed
met Code and would be allowed has been rejected. As older homes on the City's substandard lots
are replaced and updated this has become an increasingly common issue, since residents and
their builders tend to want to maximize the amount of living space that they can place on these
lots without risking the uncertainty and delays ofthe variance process. Staff believes that by
explicitly calling out cantilevers in the list of allowed encroachments, the number of proposals
featuring large cantilevers within required setbacks can be reduced and that when they are
submitted and must be altered, staff will have unambitious language within the City Code to
reference.
In addition to clarifuing the encroachment that cantilevers are permitted, this section of the City
Code should also be updated to note that the permitted encroachments are not cumulative and
cannot be built onto each other, i.e. a cantilever that projects two feet, six inches cannot also
have a chimney that projects three feet with eaves that project two feet, six inches for a total
encroachment ofeight feet. The reasons for explicitly stating this policy are essentially the same
as those for including cantilevers in the list of permitted encroachments, i.e. increased
transparency and clarity reduces the chances for misunderstandings and frustration.
Issue 2: Canopies by CUP
The opening clause ofSec. 20-908(e)(l) reads "Into any required front yard, or required side
yard adjoining a side street lot line, comices, canopies, eaves, and other architectural features
may project a distance not exceeding two feet, six inches;" and the last sentence of this section
reads "Other canopies may be permitted by conditional use permit". Since "canopies" are an
inclusive category govemed by the opening clause, it is unclear what would fall under the
category of "other canopies". Ifan element that did not frt into any ofthe various broad
categories, which includes "other architectural features", were proposed, staff believes the best
method for determining the permitted extent of its encroachment into a required yard setback
would be the variance process. Variances have a higher degree ofdiscretion than CUPs, do not
necessarily require City Council review, and are the mechanism by which encroachments into
6
Cantilevers
May 17,2022
Page 3
required setbacks arc typically $anted. Within residential districts, CUPs are gpically reserved
for uses such as recreation beach lots or churches that are allowable so long as various criteria
are met to ensure they do not negatively impact surrounding parcels, rather than for architectural
features ofa permitted use that deviate for the required setbacks ofthe zoning code.
l. No Change.
2. Add cantilevers to the list of pennitted encroachments, clarifr that the encroachment is
no1 cumulative, and remove the language referring to conditional uses perrnits.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Alternative 2.
The proposed ordinance would read as follows:
Sec 20-908(e)(1)
1) Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line,
comices, canopies, eaves, cantilevers, or other architectural features may project a
distance not exceeding two feet, six inches; fire escapes may project a distance not
exceeding four feet, six inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings may project a
distance not to exceed six feet, provided such stair and landing shall not extend above the
entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies, open porches and chimneys may
project a distance not exceeding three feet; unenclosed decks and patios may project a
distance not exceeding five feet. The encroachments listed in this paragraph cannot
be applied cumulatively (i.e. the edge ofthe roof of an open porch may project three
feet into a required setback, its eaves are not entitled to an additional two feet, six
inches of encroachment).
Alternatives:
7
Planning Commission Item
May 17, 2022
Item Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Clarify Division Concerning Fences
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
Section 1-2. Rules of Construction and definitions – Defines term agriculture as
commercial use of land for animal or food production.
Section 20-91. Zoning Permits. Lists activities that require a zoning permit.
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5 - Fences and Walls - Contains permitting,
height, location, and design requirements for all permanent and temporary
fences within the city.
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20 concerning fences.”
SUMMARY
Several sections of the division of the City Code regulating fencing should be amended to increase
clarity and ensure consistency.
8
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
The portion of the City Code that regulates fences has several problematic sections:
1. It requires building permits for fences over 6.5 feet in height; however, the State Building Code
only requires building permits for fences over 7 feet in height.
2. It permits fences up to 3.5 feet in height to be constructed within the shoreland setback of riparian
properties; however, the shoreland ordinance prohibits the placement of structures, except Water
Oriented Accessory Structures (WOAS), within those setbacks.
3. It requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for fences over 6.5 feet in height; however, the
appropriate mechanism for granting a height deviation is a variance. This requirement also
conflicts with another section allowing non-residential fences to be up to 8 feet tall without a
CUP.
4. Fences within the front yard of corner/double frontage lots are held to more restrictive standards
than other front yard fences.
5. The definition of sight distance triangle used in the fence ordinance does not include driveways.
6. States the front yard on corner/double frontage lots is determined by the garage; however, garage
orientation does not always align with street access.
7. States barbed wire and electric fences are permitted in agricultural districts; however, it does not
require that properties are actually being used for agriculture.
8. Prohibits placement of fences between landscape buffers and arterial/collector streets, but does
not take into account the actual location of the vegetation within the buffer.
Staff believes these issues are best addressed by amending the fence ordinance to require building
permits for fences over 7 feet in height, prohibit fences within the shoreland setback, remove the CUP
requirement for fences over 6.5 feet in height, adopt the same height standard for all front yard fences,
require fences in both street and driveway sight distance triangles to abide by front yard fence heights,
clarify that the front yard is determine by the property’s access to the public right of way, clarify that
barbed wire and electric fences are only permitted on properties being used for agriculture, and clarify
that fences must be behind the landscaping approved in a subdivision’s landscape plan. These changes
should improve the consistency and intelligibility of the City’s fence ordinance.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the fence ordinance be amended to increase its clarity and consistency.
ATTACHMENTS
Fences Issue Paper
9
CITY OT CIIAI'IIIASSXN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow
MEMORANDUM
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
May 17,2022
Clarifi Division Conceming Fences
FROM:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopts the
proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 conceming fences."
Several sections ofthe division of the City Code regulating fencing should be amended to
increase clarity and ensure consistency.
Summarv:
The portion of the City Code that regulates fences has several problematic sections:
1) It requires building permits for fences over 6.5 feet in height; however, the State Building
Code only requires building permits for fences over 7 feet in height.
2) It permits fences up to 3 . 5 feet in height to be constructed within the shoreland setback of
riparian properties; however, the shoreland ordinance prohibits the placement of
structures, except Water Oriented Accessory Structures (WOAS), within those setbacks.
3) It requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for fences over 6.5 feet in height; however,
the appropriate mechanism for granting a height deviation is a variance. This requirement
also conflicts with another section allowing non-residential fences to be up to 8 feet tall
without a CUP.
4) Fences within the front yard of comer/double frontage lots are held to more restrictive
standards than other front yard fences.
5) The definition of sight distance triangle used in the fence ordinance does not include
driveways.
6) States the front yard on comer/double frontage lots is determined by the garage; however,
garage orientation does not always align with street access.
PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
DATE:
TO:
Issue:
77OO IYARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I47 . CHANHASSEN .I4INNESOTA 55317 10
Clarifr Division Concerning Fences
May 17,2022
Page 2
7) States barbed wire and electric fences are permitted in agricultural districts; however, it
does not require that properties are actually being used for agriculture.
8) Prohibits placement of fences between landscape buffers and arterial/collector streets, but
does not take into account the actual location ofthe vegetation within the buffer.
Staffbelieves these issues are best addressed by amending the fence ordinance to require
building permits for fences over 7 feet in height, prohibit fences within the shoreland setback,
remove the CUP requirement for fences over 6.5 feet in height, adopt the same height standard
for all front yard fences, require fences in both street and driveway sight distance triangles to
abide by front yard fence heights, clarify that the front yard is determine by the property's access
to the public right ofway, clarify that barbed wire and electric fences are only permitted on
properties being used for agricultwe, and clarify that fences must be behind the landscaping
approved in a subdivision's landscape plan. These changes should improve the consistency and
intelligibility of the City's fence ordinance.
Relevant Citv Code:
Section l-2. Rules of Construction and definitions - Defines term agriculture as commercial use
of land for animal or food production.
Section 20-91. Zoning Permits. Lists activities that require a zoning permit
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5 - Fences and Walls - Contains permitting, height, location,
and design requirements for all permanent and temporary fences within the city.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Permils
The City Code states that a fence over 6.5 feet in height requires a building permit; however the
Minnesota State building code only requires building permits for fences over 7 feet in height.
The City Code cannot require a building permit when the State Code does not, so this
discrepancy should be reconciled so that fences below 7 feet in height require a zoning permit
and fences over 7 feet require a building permit. The section of the City Code that govems
zoning permits will also need to be updated to reflect this change.
The fence ordinance states that shoreline fences are limited to a maximum height of 3.5 feet in
the lakeside yard. This provision is problematic because it is not clear how it interacts with the
shoreland overlay district's prohibition on structures within the shoreland setback, which extends
between 75 and 150 feet fiom the ordinary high water level, depending on the lake's
classification, or with the City's requirement that pool fences be a minimum of 5 feet in height.
Issue 2: Shoreland Fences
11
Clarifr Division Conceming Fences
llllay 17,2022
Page 3
The strictest reading ofthe City Code would be that no fence is permitted within the shoreland
setback and any lakeside fences outside of the required setback are limited to a maximum height
of 3.5 feet, an interpretation that would effectively prohibit the placement ofpools on riparian
lots. Historically, staff has used a more liberal interpretation that applies the 3.S-foot height limit
only to fences within the shoreland setback and applies the City's general height regulations to
fences outside of the shoreland setback. This policy has the drawback ofhaving no associated
minimum setback for fences from the lakes ordinary high water level, but does allow for the
construction offences meeting the requirements for pool fencing on riparian lots.
In order to determine how to best reconcile these provisions ofthe City Code, staff considered
how many nonconformities would be created as well as the overall intent ofthe Code. Regarding
the potential creation of nonconformities, staff is not aware of many fences that are present
within the shoreland setback; however, there are a significant number of riparian properties with
pools and their associated fencing. When considering the intent ofthe shoreland ordinance, the
primary factors are the goals of preserving the viewscape of the lakeshore as seen from the water
and allowing wildlife unimpeded access to and between shoreland habitats. The intent ofthe
3.S-foot height limit for lakeside fences is minimizing the visual impact of these fences.
Staff believes that the best course ofaction would be to prohibit all fencing within the required
shoreland setback while subjecting fences outside ofthe setback to the City's general fence
height regulations. This change would eliminate the conflict between the fence ordinance and the
City's shoreland overlay district in favor ofthe shoreland overlay district's genetal prohibition
on structures within the shoreland setback. It would also permit riparian property owners to
install pools and their required fencing, assuming they can meet the required shoreland setback.
While there are undoubtedly some fences within the shoreland setback that will be rendered non-
conforming, staff does not believe it will be a large number.
Issue 3: Height
Sec. 20-1023 ofthe City's fence ordinance requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for any fence
over 6.5 feet in height. This section ofthe Code conflicts with another section, Sec. 20-1018, that
allows commercial and industrial fences to be up to 8 feet tall, with a cUP required to exceed 8
feet in height. It is likely that the intent of Sec. 20-1023 was to provide regulations solely for
residential fences; however, that is not clear from the language used within the section'
Staff recommends that language be added to this section to make it clear that its provisions only
apply to residential districts, and that the requirement for fences over 6.5 feet to receive a CIJP
be removed. In every other section ofthe City Code a deviation from a height limit is handled
through the variance process. Indeed, the variance process exists precisely to address these types
ofrequest. The Findings ofFact associated with a variance request is better suited to the
residential context than the findings associated with a CUP, and variances do not require staff to
conduct annual compliance inspections. Removing the CUP requirement for these fences will
lead to fences being treated like every other deviation from a zoning standard and subject to the
normal variance process.
12
Clariff Division Conceming Fences
May 17,2022
Page 4
In addition to the CUP requirement, this section of the City Code has several diffrcult-to-
interpret and/or seemingly conflicting provisions. The subsection addressing corner or double
fronted lots has special standards for fences within the front yard setbacks ofthese lots and states
that the front shall be determined by the location ofthe garage. The City Code's general rule is
that any lot line abutting a roadway is considered a front yard and is subject to the front yard
setback; however, when interpreting the code specific provisions always ovemrle general
provisions and, within this subsection, it states that the front shall be determined by the location
ofthe garage. This can pose problems as the garage's orientation does not always line up with
the property's access to the street and a major intent ofthe ordinance is prevent fences from
creating sight line issues for vehicles. This can cause issues as this section of the code applies the
front yard standards to the sight distance triangle ofthe street intersection for comer and double
fronted lots, but not the sight distance triangle created by the driveway. ln situations where the
driveway access does not align with the garage orientation, the code as written could permit
fencing that obstructed the driveway's sight lines.
Since the fence code stipulates that only one ofa comer or double frontage lot's front yards is
subject to the front yard standards, the only provisions that actually alter the property's allowable
fencing are the application offront yard standards to the sight distance triangle and limitation of
open fencing to 4 feet in height, as compared to the 6.5 foot high open fences front yards on non-
comer or double fionted lots are permitted. It is not clear that fencing in the front yard of comer
or double fronted needs to be subject to different height limits than front yard fences on other
properties. The only safety concem would be within the sight distance triangle, which is present
for driveway accesses on all lots. Staff recommends that the provisions goveming comer and
double frontage lots be amended to allow these lots to have the same front yard fences as other
properties, to clariff that front yard fence height limits apply to all sight distance triangles on the
property, and to clarify that the front is determined by the driveway access to the public street.
Issue 4: Borbed llire ond Eleclric Fences
The City currently prohibits the use of barbed wire and electric fences in residential districts, but
allows its use in agricultural districts. It is not clear how this provision should be applied to
prope(ies zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) and Rural Residential District (RR). Both of
these districts list agriculture and single-family dwellings as permitted uses, and the City does
not define what constitutes an agricultural district.
Staffbelieves that the intent ofthe provision was that properties actively engaged in agriculture
could use barbed wire and electric fences, while properties being solely used for residential
purposes would be limited to other fence types; however, the language of the code does not
reflect this. As written, a property owner on a lot zoned A2 or RR could make the case that since
agriculture is a permitted use in their zoning district they are in an agricultural district and can
install a barbed wire or electric fence, regardless ofifthe property is being actively used for an
agricultural purpose.
13
Clariff Division Conceming Fences
May 17,2022
Page 5
In order to avoid confusion, staff is proposing to amend this section to read, "Balbed wire and
electric fences are permitted i+agrieuhural{is+de+s on properties being used for agriculture."
This added language would make it clear that single-family homes within the City's large lot RR
md A-2 subdivisions are not permitted to install barbed wire or electric fences, regardless of the
fact that agriculture is theoretically permitted within the zoning district. Since the term
agriculture is defined within the City Code as the commercial use of land for raising animals and
plants, there should not be any ambiguity as to whether a parcel is being used for agriculture.
Issue 5: Buffers
The City Code prohibits the placement offences between required landscape buffers and
collector or arterial streets. The intent of this section is to create a more attractive streetscape by
ensuring that these streets are bordered by vegetation Iather than a collection offences in
different styles and colors. Unfortunately, this provision is a source of permitting errors as
relatively few lots in the City border collector or arterial streets and it is not always readily
apparent if a lot has a required landscape buffer, as these areas are not typically noted on surveys
and sometimes homeowners remove the required buffers without the City's knowledge.
Additionally, in some cases subdivision plans designate large areas ofthe yard, say a 30-foot
deep swath, as a vegetative buffer but the plantings are confined to within l0- 15 feet ofthe rear
property line. In these cases, the Code would not allow the placement ofa fence within the
designated 30-foot buffer area, even though there is a significant expanse of lawn between the
edge of the buffer area and the start ofthe plantings.
While the intent of this section is important, staff believes that it could be met by amending the
section to prohibit the placement offences between the required landscaping and collector or
arterial streets. This change would allow homeowners to enclose more oftheir yards and would
prevent the creation of unusable yard space between the end ofthe fence and the actual start of
the required landscaping. So long as the fence is located on the house side of the plantings, it
should not negatively impact the aesthetics of the City's street corridors.
The permitting error issue is more difficult to address; however, staffbelieves that one of the
reasons that this section ofthe Code is often overlooked is that it follows the wetland section and
is labeled as "Buffers". Since buffers typically refer to wetland buffers it is easy for fencing
contractors and new staff members to read through this section of the Code and not realize that it
applies to nonwetland landscape buffers. Staffbelieves that relabeling the section "Landscape
Buffers" will help prevent this section from being overlooked.
Sec 20-91 Zonin s Permit
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the fence ordinance be amended to increase its clarity and consistency.
The proposed ordinance would read as follows:
14
Clarifi Division Conceming Fences
May 17,2022
Page 6
I . A zoning permit shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require
building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site
coverage, structure height, etc.:
l. Agricultural buildings.
2. Decks less than 30 inches above the ground and not attached to the principal
structure.
3. Driveway expansions.
4. One-story detached accessory structures, used as tool or storage sheds,
playhouses, and similar uses, 200 square feet or less in building area.
5. Patios.
6. Permanent fences less than six seven feet in height.
7. Retaining walls four feet and less in height.
8. Sport courts.
2. Any zoning permit application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be
denied by the community development director.
3. Application for a permit required by article shall be made to the City upon a form
fumished by the City. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established pursuant to the
ordinance adopting fees shall be paid to the City when the application is filed.
DIVISION 5. - FENCES AND WALLS
Sec.20-1016. - Intent.
The intent ofthis division is to provide standards for fences along the perimeter oflots that
may be decorative or act as boundaries and/or barriers.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ l2(6-12-l), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20- 1017. - Permit.
A zoning permit shall be obtained for any permanent fence installed for any purpose, other
than an agricultural purpose prior to installation of same. The installation of temporary or
seasonal fencing, e.g., snow fencing, garden fencing, etc., without permanent posts is exempt
from this requirement. A site plan showing the location of the fence shall be submitted with the
permit application. The City may require a permit applicant to provide a registered land survey
establishing property lines. A building permit, in lieu of a zoning eemplianeere+ie*-permit,
shall be required for fences in excess ofsix seven feet in height and retaining walls in excess of
four feet in height.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 12(6-12-2, 6-12-4,6-12-5), l2-15-86; Ord. No. 377, g 122, 5-24-04)
Sec. 20-1018. - Commercial and industrial fences.
(a) Fences for screening or storage purposes installed on property used for commercial or
industrial uses may have a maximum height of eight feet. When commercial or industrial
uses abut property used or zoned for residential uses, a fence at least six feet in height may
15
Clarifr Division Conceming Fences
May 17,2022
Page 7
be placed between the residential and the commercial and industrial property if the City
determines that there is a need for a fence. The City may elect to use landscaping consisting
of berms and vegetation to provide screening. Ifa fence is used, such fence must be 100
percent opaque. Commercial or industrial fences over eight feet shall require a conditional
use permit.
(b) Fences utilizing barbed wire in all commercial and industrial districts shall require a
conditional use permit.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VL $ 12(6-12-10), l2-15-86; Ord. No. 90, $ 3, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 255, S 2,7-
22-96)
Sec. 20- 1019. - Location-
(a) Generally. All fences and retaining walls shall be located entirely upon the property of the
fence or retaining wall owner unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees, in writing,
that said fence or retaining wall may be erected on the prope(y line ofthe respective
properties. Such agreement shall be submitted at the time of building permit application.
Encroachment into a City easement shall require an encroachment agreement between the
property owner and the City. Fences shall not be placed within the public right-of-way.
(b) IYetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the ordinary high water mark of a wetland or
within the required wetland buffer area.
(c) Landscape Buffers. No fences shall be permitted between the landscaping approved in a
subdivision's landscape plan within a required landscape buffer and a collector or arterial
street.
(d) Temporary fences. Temporary fencing, such as fencing installed to enclose a seasonal garden
or snow fencing in winter, may not be located within the front yard setback. Snow fencing
shall not be located within any drainage or utility easement.
(e) Bluffs. No fences shall be permitted within the 30-foot bluff setback.
(f1 Shoreline Fezces. No fences shall be permitted within the structure setback from the
ordinary high water mark stipulated in Section 20-481.
(Ord. No. 80, kt. VI, $ 12(6-12-3), l2-15-86; Ord. No. 181, $ l,3-8-93; Ord. No.255, $ 3,7-
22-96; Ord. No. 377, $ 123, 5-24-04; Ord. No. 423, $ 7, 6-12-06)
Sec. 20-1020. - Constnrction and maintenance.
Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material
reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall
be maintained in such condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore, or public or private
16
Clarifr Division Conceming Fences
May 17,2022
Page 8
nuisance. All fences shall be constructed so that the side containing the framing supports and
crosspieces face the interior of the fence owner's lot. Any fence which does not comply with the
provisions of this chapter or which endangers the public safety, health or welfare shall be
considered a public nuisance. Abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper City
official after l5 days' notification, if the o*.ner ofsuch fence has not undertaken the necessary
repairs to abate the nuisance. Link fences shall be constructed in such a manner that no barbed
ends shall be exposed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ l2(6-12-6), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1021. - Swimming pool fences.
All in-ground swimming pools shall be protected by a fence not less than five feet in height. All
gates shall have a self-closing and self-latching latch installed on the pool side ofthe fence. All
fences shall be nonclimbable and shall have intermediate rails or omamental pattem such that a
sphere four inches in diameter cannot pass though. This section does not apply to pools which
are located on property which are completely enclosed by a perimeter fence five feet in height.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 12(6-12-7), l2-15-86; Ord. No. I 10, $ 2, 8-28-89)
Sec. 20-1022. - Sheretine-fenees- Reserved
in
*e-rear:a*4atesi*).
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ l2(6-12-8), l2-15-86)
Sec.20-1023. - Height.
Aaay Residential fences e+e+ are limited to six and one-half feet in height musr-reeer+ea
eend@+.Thefenceheightismeasuredfromgradetothehighestpointonthe
fence. All other residential fences shall meet the following standards:
(a) Side yards and rear yards. In any side or rear yard on lots, the height of fences shall not
exceed six and one-half feet.
(b) Front yards. Fences in the required front yard setback area that arc opaque shall not exceed
three feet in height. Chain link fences in this area shall not exceed four feet in height. All
other open fences in this area shall not exceed six and one-half feet in height.
(c) Corner or double fronted lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section,
fences located on comer or double fronted lots shall be subject to the following provisions:
17
Clariff Division Conceming Fences
May 17,2022
Page 9
( 1) Any fence within the required front yard setback area shall not exceed three feet in
height if opaque construction, four feet if chain linlq or fu+* six and one-half feet in
height if open construction.
(2) The maximum height of a fence shall conform to the requirements of fences in front
yards within the sight distance triangle of street intersections and neighboring
driveways. eerne+si
is{
(3) The front yard shall be determined by the location ofthe property's access by a
driveway to the public street garage.
(Ord. No.80, Art. VI, $ l2(6-12-9), 12-15-86; Ord. No. l8l, $ 2,3-8-93; Ord. No.240, $ 25,7-
24-9s)
Sec. 20-1024. - Barbed wire and electric fences.
Barbed wire and electric fences are prohibited in all residential districts. Barbed wire and
electric fences are permitted i+agrieult*aldistriets on properties being used for agriculture.
(Ord. No.90, $ 4,3-14-88; Ord. No.451, $ 10, 5-29-07)
G:\PLANWW\lssue Papers ard Repons (Datu)\Fences\Fences Issue Pap€r.docx
18
Planning Commission Item
May 17, 2022
Item Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Concerning the Number of Stories for
Accessory Structures in the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District
File No.Item No: B.3
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Section 20-904 governs the placement and maximum size (foot print) of
accessory structures.
Section 20-615(h)(2) limits accessory structures in the RSF district to 20 feet in
height.
Ordinance 80 passed in December of 1986 limited accessory structures in the
RSF district to three stories/40 feet in height.
Ordinance 145 passed in April of 1991 changed the limit to 20 feet in height.
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20 concerning accessory structure height in the RSF District.”
SUMMARY
19
Every residential district except the Single-Family Residential (RSF) district specifies both a maximum
height and maximum number of stories for accessory structures. The RSF district only specifies a
maximum height which leads to confusion as to whether or not multi-story accessory structures are
permitted.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
The City Code limits both the height and numbers of stories for accessory structures in all residential
districts, with the exception of the RSF district where the maximum number of stories an accessory
structure is permitted is not specified. This leads to confusion as to whether or not residents in the RSF
district can build two-story detached structures. One- and two-story accessory structures tend to have
different designs, uses, and impacts on surrounding parcels. Due to the higher potential for two-story
accessory structures to adversely impact surrounding properties, staff believes accessory structures in
the RSF district should be limited to a single-story. This limit would be consistent with the limit placed
on accessory structures in the other non-large lot residential districts.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that accessory structures in the RSF district be limited to a maximum of one story.
ATTACHMENTS
RSF Accessory Structure Height Issue Paper
20
CITY OT CIIAI'IIIASSIN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
TO
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
May 17,2022
RSF Accessory Structure Height
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20, conceming accessory structure height in the RSF District."
Every residential district except the Single-Family Residential (RSF) district specifies both a
maximum height and maximum number of stories for accessory structures. The RSF district only
specifies a maximum height which leads to confusion as to whether or not multi-story accessory
structues are permitted.
Summart':
The City Code limits both the height and numbers of stories for accessory strucrures in all
residential districts, with the exception of the RSF district where the maximum number of stories
an accessory structure is permitted is not specified. This leads to confusion as to whether or not
residents in the RSF district can build two-story detached structures. One- and two-sory
accessory structures tend to have different designs, uses, and impacts on surrounding parcels.
Due to the higher potential for two-story accessory structures to adversely impact surrounding
properties, staffbelieves accessory strucnres in the RSF district should be limited to a single-
story. This limit would be consistent with the limit placed on accessory structues in the other
non-large lot residential districts.
Relevant Citv Code:
Section 20-904 governs the placement and maximum size (foot print) of accessory structures.
Section 20-615(h)(2) limits accessory structures in the RSF district to 20 feet in height.
PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . Fx 952.227.11 l0
77OO MARKET BOULEVARO .PO BOX I47'CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Issue:
21
RSF Accessory Structure Height
May 17,2022
Page 2
Ordinance 80 passed in December of 1986 limited accessory structures in the RSF district to
three stories/40 feet in height.
Ordinance 145 passed in April of 1991 changed the limit to 20 feet in height.
Analvsis:
The City Code restricts size and placement ofaccessory structures in residential disficts in order
to ensure that they are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This compatibility
involves both a compatibility ofscale, i.e. size, and ofuse. The intention is for accessory
structures to complement the primary structure and provide additional storage or recreational
amenities, while not crowding neighboring parcels or inviting use as places of business or rental
units. It has been the City's experience that large multi-story accessory structures tend to be
unwelcome additions in the City's neighborhoods and that they often end up being used to run
contractors yards, landscaping businesses, or other home occupations. More rarely, homeowners
modi$ the second level to create apartments in violation ofthe City's prohibition on accessory
dwelling units.
For these reasons, the City
amended the City Code in l99l to
restrict the maximum size of
accessory structures outside of the
large lot residential areas to 1,000
square feet and to reduce the
allowed height of accessory
structures in the RSF district from
three stories, 40 feet to 20 feet in
height. Staff is uncertain why a
story limit was not adopted at that
time. All other residential zoning disricts limit the maximum number of stories that an accessory
structure can be. For large lot properties, those with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres, the limit is
three stories, 35 feet, and for all other residential districts, except the RSF, the limit is one story,
1 5 feet.
Staffbelieves the intention of the 20-foot height limit in the RSF district is to allow for the use of
accessory structure attic space for additional storage space and for the construction of detached
garages that can accommodate the storage ofa larger recreation vehicle. As a matter ofpolicy,
the City does not consider semi-finished attic space to constitute a story so restricting these
structures to one story would not interfere with these uses. It would however prevent the creation
ofupper level finished spaces with sewer and water services that lend themselves being used for
home occupations or as rental uses.
A final consideration is the fact that the City measures height from highest grade to the midpoint
of the highest gable. When residents design two-story accessory structures, they typically try to
maximize the second level's ceiling height which has resulted in roof peaks significantly over 20
Accessory structure Height and stories bY Residential District
Zoning Distrid Max Height Max Stories
A-2: Agricultural Estate 35 ft.3
RR: Rural Residential 35 ft,
RSF: Single-Family Residential 20 ft.Silent
R-{: Mix Low Density Residential 15 ft.1
Rl.lr/l: Residential Low and Medium Density 15 ft.1
R-8: Mixed Medium Density Residential 15 ft.1
R-12 r5 ft.1
R-16 15 ft.1
22
RSF Accessory Structue Height
May 17,2022
Page 3
feet in height. The City has received complaints when neighbors realize that the detached garage
being built 10 feet from their lot line will have a height roughly comparable to their home's
height. While the proposed change would not prevent residents from maximizing their building
height, it would reduce the incentives to maximize building height that is created by a possible
second story.
Adopting a one story, 20-foot height limit would provide transparency for homeowners and
contiactors who are planning and desigring accessory stnrcflues and would also ensure that the
City Code is consistenrly applied within the RSF district by removing the ambiguity that is
currently present. Furthermore, it would bring the RSF district closer into line with the accessory
structr.ge itandards present in the other Low Density Residential (RLM) districts. While it is true
that the other districts limit these structures to only 15 feet in height, staff does not recommend
reducing the RSF accessory structure height due to the large number of non-conformities the
change would create. Stafffeels the fact that the RSF district does have a larger minimum lot
size than the RLM district and the fact that the R-4 district permits twin homes with smaller lot
sizesjustifies the modest difference in permitted accessory structure heights between these
otherwise comparable districts.
l. No Change.
2. Limit to one story/20 feet.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Altemative 2. This would bring accessory structures in the RSF district into
line with those located in the other nonJarge lot residential districts'
The proposed ordinance would read as follows:
Sec 20-635(hX2)
(2) For accessory structures, one storT/2O feet.
Alternatives:
23
Planning Commission Item
May 17, 2022
Item Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Remove the Prohibition on Painting
Concrete, Brick and Block
File No.Item No: B.4
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Section 20-1065 governs what type of materials can be used where and in what
proportion on industrial, commercial, and office-institutional buildings.
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20 concerning design standards for commercial, industrial, and office-
institutional developments.”
SUMMARY
The City’s design standards for commercial, industrial, and office-institutional developments prohibit
the use of painted concrete, brick, and block in visible exterior areas. This standard was created in
response to the maintenance issues associated with the paints available at the time the ordinance was
adopted; however, the quality of paints has improved and the standard may no longer be necessary.
BACKGROUND
24
DISCUSSION
The City Code prohibits the use of painted concrete, brick, and block on visible exterior portions of
commercial, industrial, and office-institutional buildings. The prohibition was adopted due to the fact
that the City had several poorly maintained buildings where issues with pealing and chipping paint were
not being addressed. At the time the City’s design standards were adopted, the general consensus was
that the maintenance requirements of painted surfaces created a risk of unattractive facades and, thus,
painted surfaces should be restricted to non-visible or accent elements.
Staff believes that modern paints are much better at withstanding Minnesota’s weather and adhering to
concrete, brick, and block. Additionally, since painting does not require a permit, several buildings have
painted portions of their concrete, brick, and/or block facades in the years after they received their
original site plan approvals and staff has not observed the type of maintenance issues that were the
impetus of the ordinance’s prohibition. For these reasons, staff believes the City’s design standards
should be amended to remove the prohibition on painting.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the prohibition on painted concrete, brink, and block be removed.
ATTACHMENTS
Painting Prohibition Issue Paper
25
TO
FROM:
CITY OT CHAI'IHASSIN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
May 17,2022
Commercial, Industrial, and Office-Institutional Design Standards
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSEDMOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20 conceming design standards for commercial, industrial, and
offi ce-institutional developments."
Issue:
The City's design standards for commercial, industrial, and office-institutional developments
prohibit the use ofpainted concrete, brick, and block in visible exterior areas. This standard was
created in response to the maintenance issues associated with the paints available at the time the
ordinance was adopted; however, the quality ofpaints has improved and the standard may no
longer be necessary.
PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
77OO I4ARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I47 .CHANHASSEN .IIINNESOTA 553]7
MEMORANDUM
Summarv:
The City Code prohibits the use ofpainted concrete, brick, and block on visible exterior portions
of commercial, industrial, and office-instirutional buildings. The prohibition was adopted due to
the fact that the City had several poorly maintained buildings where issues with pealing and
chipping paint were not being addressed. At the time the City's desigr standards were adopted,
the general consensus was that the maintenance requirements of painted surfaces created a risk of
unattractive facades and, thus, painted surfaces should be restricted to non-visible or accent
elements.
Staff believes that modern paints are much better at withstanding Minnesota's weather and
adhering to concrete, brick, and block. Additionally, since painting does not require a permit,
several buildings have painted portions oftheir concrete, brick, and/or block facades in the years
after they have received their original site plan approvals and staff has not observed the type of
maintenance issues that were the impetus of the ordinance's prohibition. For these reasons, staff
believes the City's design standards should be amended to remove the prohibition on painting.
26
Commercial, Industrial and OfficeJnstitutional
Desigrr Standards
May 17,2022
Page2
Relevant Citv Code:
Section 20-1065 govems what type of materials can be used where and in what proportion on
industrial, commercial, and office-institutional buildings.
Analvsis:
In 2001, the city concluded a several year discussion on possible design standards by passing
Ordinance Number 327 which established standards for commercial, industrial, office-
institutional, and multi-family buildings. The goal of these standards was to ensure a minimum
quality of design and to help avoid future maintenance issues with these properties. The
prohibition on painted concrete, brick, and block was primarily motivated by the presence of
several older buildings in the city that were not being properly maintained, and by concem that
as newly approved buildings aged, owners would not be willing to continually repaint the
facades.
Over the two decades since the design standards were adopted staff has observed several
buildings where owners have painted over prohibited surfaces (concrete, brick, and/or block).
Since painting does not require a permit the City has no practical way of monitoring or enforcing
the prohibition; however, staff has not observed or received complaints of significant
maintenance issues with these properties. Staff believes this is due to advances in paints which
allow paints on these surfaces to better withstand Minnesota's weather, requiring less frequent
reapplication.
While lower maintenance facades have many advantages, staffbelieves that existing design
standards are overly restrictive and that the prohibition on painting concrete, brick, and block
should be removed. Developments will still need to meet the requirement that: "All manmade
architectural, landscape, and paving materials shall reflect the highest quality possible and should
be used in a manner suitable to the natue of the material, its role in the design, general
durability, expected level ofuse or abuse, weathering characteristics, and ease and frequency of
maintenance." which provides the City with grounds to address any maintenance concems with
proposed materials or paints during the site plan review process.
l. No Change.
2. Remove the prohibition on painted concrete, brick, and block.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Altemative 2.
Alternatives:
27
Commercial, Industrial and OfficeJnstitutional
Desigr Standards
May 17,2022
Page 3
Sec 20-1065 tlaterial And Detail
a) All manmade architectural, landscape, and paving materials shall reflect the
highest quality possible and should be used in a manner suitable to the nature of
the material, its role in the design, general durability, expected level of use or
abuse, weathering characteristics, and ease and frequency of maintenance. The
following materials or equivalent materials are acceptable:
Brick
Stone
Glass
Textured masonry units
Wood, consisting of lap siding with an exposure no greater than seven inches or
wood shakes; surfaces must be painted
Stucco
Tilt up concrete panels that are grid or brick like in appearance
b) Accent material may occupy up to 15 percent of the building's facade. These may
include metal, glass block, spandrel glass or similar materials approved by the city.
Iaabria+and-Detail
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
i
I
.f irttl
1
FI
ti
t
I
I
I
'l"l
,i
J'
28
Commercial, Industrial and Offi ce-lnstitutional
Design Standards
May 17,2022
Page 4
c) The following may not be used in any visible exterior application except when
specifically permitted by the city in areas with limited public view or accent areas:
1. Plain/painted poured concrete panels "cast in pla@"
z-+einted++i€kRes erved
@ReservedMReserved
5. Unadorned plain erpainte4concrete block
6. Tilt-up concrete panel that are ribbed or corduroy in appearance
7. Prefabricated steel or sheet metal panels
8. Reflective glass
9. Aluminum, vinyl, fiberglass, asphalt or fiberboard siding
'1O.ElFS (exterior insulation and finish system) may be used as an accent but not a
primary material
29
Planning Commission Item
May 17, 2022
Item Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Concerning Restaurants in the
Neighborhood Business (BN) District
File No.Item No: B.5
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 20, Article IV Conditional Use Permits lists the administrative process
and general issuance standards for Conditional Use Permits.
Section 20-296, Fast-Food Restaurants lists the specific requirements for
issuing a Conditional Use Permit for a fast food restaurant.
Chapter 20, Article XVI “BN” Neighborhood Business District lists the intent
of and the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the BN district.
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20 concerning restaurants in the BN District.”
SUMMARY
The Neighborhood Business (BN) district lists standard restaurants and fast-food restaurants without a
30
drive-through as part of a shopping center as conditional uses. This creates an unnecessary barrier for
restaurants wishing to locate in the BN district.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
The BN district is intended to be located near residential neighborhoods and to accommodate
neighborhood-scale commercial uses and for this reason it is the most restrictive of the City’s
commercial districts. Currently, one area of the City is zoned BN and five Planned Unit Developments
(PUD) use the BN zoning as their underlying zoning standard. While the base BN zoning classifies
restaurants as conditional uses, all of the PUD list them as a permitted use. To date, no restaurant
located in a BN district or PUD with BN as the underlying zoning has caused a complaint. Given the
fact that conditional use permits (CUP) require a public hearing and City Council approval, staff
believes the requirement creates an unnecessary barrier and delay for restaurants looking to locate in
this zoning district.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that restaurants without drive-through facilities be listed as permitted use in the BN
district.
ATTACHMENTS
BN District Restaurants Issue Paper
31
CITY OT CIIAI'IHASSII'I
Chanhassen is a Community for Life- Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
TO Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
May 17,2022
Restaurants in Neighborhood Business District
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20, conceming restaurants in the BN District."
Issue:
The Neighborhood Business (BN) district lists standard restaurants and fast-food restauranls
without a drive-through as part ofa shopping center as conditional uses. This creates an
unnecessary barrier for restaurants wishing to locate in the BN district.
The BN district is intended to be located near residential neighborhoods and to accommodate
neighborhood-scale commercial uses and for this reason it is the most restrictive ofthe City's
commercial districts. Currently one area of the City is zoned BN and five Planned Unit
Developments Use the BN zoning as their underlying zoning standard. While the base BN
zoning classifies restaurants as conditional uses, all ofthe Planned Unit Developments (PUD) list
them as a permitted use. To date, no restaurant located in a BN district or PUD with BN as the
underlying zoning has caused a complaint. Given the fact that conditional use permits (CUP)
require a public hearing and City Council approval, staff believes the requirement creates an
unnecessary barrier and delay for restaurants looking to locate in this zoning district.
Chapter 20, Article IV Conditional Use Permits lists the administrative process and general
issuance standards for Conditional Use Pemrits.
Section 20-296, Fast-Food Restaurants lists the specific requirements for issuing a Conditional
Use Permit for a fast food restaurant.
pH 952.227.1100 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
77OO MARKET BOULEVARD . PO BOX I47 .CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Summarry:
Relevant Citv Code:
32
Restaurants in Neighborhood Business District
May 17,2022
Page 2
Chapter 20, Article XVI "BN" Neighborhood Business District lists the intent of and the
permitted and conditional uses allowed in the BN district.
Analysis:
The BN district is often used for commercial
areas that are near residential neighborhoods
or as the underling zoning for the commercial
portion of mixed use commercial and
residential PUDs. The intent of this district is
to allow for retail and service establishment
that will meet the needs of nearby residents
without unduly disrupting the surrounding
neighborhoods. There is currently one area of
the city zoned BN and five PUDs that
reference the BN district. The section ofthe
city zoned BN is located southeast ofthe
intersection of Highway 5 and Great Plains
Boulevard.
The BN district requires a CUP for restaurants, presumably due to concems that restaurant noise
and traffic has the potential to disrupt adjacent residential neighborhoods. Requiring a CUP
means that any restaurant wishing to lease space within the BN district must make an application
to the City, appear before a public hearing, and ultimately receive City Council approval, a
process that typically takes 50 to 60 days. Due to the site specific nature ofCUPs, a restaurant
switching locations within the BN district would also need to go though the CUP process for the
new location. The CUP process provides the City with an opportunity to review the restaurant's
proposed operations and place any conditions deemed necessary to mitigate the impact ofthe
business on surrounding parcels.
None of the PUDs with underlying BN zoning require a CUP for restaurants. These
developments are typically near residential neighborhoods or have residential homes
incorporated into the PUD. Staff is not aware ofhaving ever received a complaint about a
restaurant operating in one ofthese areas.
The area of the city zoned BN is already home to the American Legion, Bongards Creamery's
corporate office, Park Nicollet Clinic, a daycare, and the shopping center that used to host the
Marathon gas station. It is unlikely that any restaurant that went into one ofthese sites would be
able to negatively impact the residential neighborhood to the south or that it would represent a
more intensive use than what is currently present or is allowed as a permitted use in the district.
Any major change to the existing sites would require a site plan approval, either administrative
or one going before the Planning Commission and City Council, which would allow the City the
opportr:nity to comment on and mitigate potential impacts.
'ti
?..
?
'..,,r !la
i
Neighborhood
Business -"\ _J
!-/
-a
33
Restaurants in Neighborhood Business District
May 17,2022
Page 3
For these reasons, it is staff s belief that the existing CUP requirement should be removed and
that "restaurants without drive+hrough facilities" should be classified as a permitted use within
the BN district.
l. No Change.
2. List restaurants without a drive-through as a permitted use.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Altemative 2. This would remove an unnecessary obstacle to development
within the BN district.
The proposed ordinance would read as follows:
Sec 20-692 P Uses
The following uses are permitted in a "BN" District:
1. Antennas as regulated by article )OO( of this chapter.
2. Community center.
3. Convenience stores without gas pumps.
4. Day care center.
5. Health services.
6. Home fumishings.
7. Oftices.
8. Personal services.
9. Privale clubs and lodges.
10. Shopping center.
1 l. Small appliance repair shop.
12. Specialty retail shop.
13. Utility services.
14. Veterinary clinics.
15. Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966.
16. Restaurants without drive-through facilities.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 10(5-10-2), l2-15-86; Ord. No. 377, $ 94,5-24-04; Ord. No. 628, $ 30, 12-
l1-17)
Sec 20-694 C onditional Uses
The following are conditional uses in a "BN" District:
l. Bed and breakfast establishments.
2. Convenience store with gas pumps.
Alternatives:
34
Restaurants in Neighborhood Business District
May 17,2022
Page 4
3. Banks with drive-through facilities.
1, Fast fo€d restaura*ts witheEt a driye t&rough as part ofa sh€pping eenter,
5. Motor fuel station.
5. Reserved.
7. Standa*4restaurants.
35
Planning Commission Item
May 17, 2022
Item Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Concerning Residential Development
Landscape Screening
File No.Item No: B.6
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Sec. 1-2: Defines multi-family as a building with three or more dwelling units
and single-family as a building containing one dwelling unit with sub-
definitions for single-family attached and detached dwelling units.
Sec. 20-1176(b): Exempts single-family developments in A1, A2, RR, RSF,
and R4 from the landscape ordinance, save for provisions of 1176(f)(2)(e).
Sec. 20-1176(f)(2)(e): Requires type B buffer yards between medium density
and large lot or low density residential developments, and type C buffer yards
between high density and large lot or low density residential developments.
Sec. 20-1180(b)(2): States that principal and accessory structures in any R4,
R8, R12, R16 district or PUD district with residential development over 4 units
per acre shall be screened from lots located in any A1, A2, RR or RSF district.
36
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance
amending Chapter 20 concerning residential development landscape screening."
SUMMARY
The City’s Landscaping and Tree Removal ordinance was not amended in 2004 to include the
Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) district and also to remove the Agricultural Preservation
(A1) District.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
On May 24, 2004, the City Council passed a major amendment to the City’s Zoning Code which
removed the A1 district and established the RLM district. Several sections within the City’s landscaping
ordinance were not amended to remove references to the A1 district and incorporate the new RLM
district. Ambiguity is also present within the ordinance due to the use of the term single-family
development. Under the City’s definitions, twin homes are single-family developments. It is not clear if
the intention is to require a buffer solely at the density threshold of four units per acre or whenever
smaller lots or attached homes are present. Additionally, for reasons that are not clear, the verbiage of a
section of the Code pertaining to Single-Family Residential districts was changed from “article” to
“ordinance”. This change was not the result of a Code amendment and creates a potential for confusion.
Staff recommends that the Code be amended to remove references to the A1 district, add references to
the RLM district where appropriate, require buffers between low and medium/high density
developments, and restore the use of the word “article”.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the landscape ordinance be amended to include the RLM district, remove
references the A1 district, and require additional screening between single-family and multi-family
housing types.
ATTACHMENTS
Landscape Buffer Issue Paper
Sec. 20-1176 - Buffer Yards
37
CITY OT CHANIIASSXN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
MEMORANDUM
TO:Planning Commission
FROM: MacKenzieYoung-Walters,AssociatePlanner
DATE: May 17,2022
SUBJ:Residential Screening for Visual Impacts
The City's Landscaping and Tree Removal ordinance was not amended in 2004 to include the
Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) district and to remove the Agricultural
Preservation (Al ) District.
On May 24,2004, the City Council passed a major amendment to the City's zoning code which
removed the Al district and established the RLM district. Several sections within the City's
landscaping ordinance were not amended to remove references to the A1 district and incorporate
the new RLM district. Ambiguity is also present within the ordinance due to the use of the term
single-family development. Under the City's definitions, twin homes are single-family
developments. It is not clear if the intention is to require a buffer solely at the density threshold
of four units an acre or whenever smaller lots or attached homes are present. Additionally, for
reasons that are not clear, the verbiage of a section ofthe Code pertaining to Single-Family
Residential districts was changed from "article" to "ordinance". This change was not the result of
a Code amendment and creates a potential for confusion. Stalf recommends that the Code be
amended to remove references to the Al district, add references to the RLM district where
appropriate, require buffers between low and medium/high density developments, and restore the
use of the word "article".
Sec. 1-2: Defines multifamily as a building with three or more dwelling units and single-family
as a building containing one dwelling unit with sub-definitions for single-family attached and
detached dwelling units.
Sec.20-1176(b): Exempts single-family developments in Al, 42, RR, RSF, and R4 from the
landscape ordinance, save for provisions of I 176(f)(2)(e).
PH 952.227.1100 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
,OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I47 . CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Issue:
Summary:
Relevant Citl' Code:
38
Residential Screening for Visual lmpacts
May 17,2022
Page 2
Sec. 20-l 176(f)(2)(e): Requires type B buffer yards between medium density and large lot or low
density residential developments, and type C buffer yards benveen high density and large lot or
low density residential developments.
Sec. 20- 1 1 80(b)(2): States that principal and accessory structures in any R4, R8, Rl2, Rl6
district or PUD district with residential development over 4 units per acre shall be screened from
lots located in any A1, 42, RR or RSF district.
Ordinance 250 which was passed on April 8, 1996 established the buffer yard requirements
found in Section 20-1176(f), added the R4 district to the list of single-family developments
exempted from the article's provisions, dropped the clarifring word "detached" from the
preexisting "single-family detached residences" qualifier, and noted that these developments
were now subject to the requirements ofSection 20-1176(0.
Ordinance 377 which was passed on May 24, 2004 created the RLM district and removed the A1
district.
Relevant Ordinances:
Ordinance 153 which was passed on November 4, 1991 established the framework of the current
landscaping ordinance. It exempted single-family detached residences in A1, A2, RR, and RSF
from its article's provisions and required screening/buffering between R4, R8, Rl2, R16, and
PUDs with densities over four units an acre from A1, A2, RR or RSF lots'
39
Residential Screening for Visual Impacts
May 17,2022
Page 3
The intent ofbuffering requirements are to protect lower intensity land uses from the visual
impact ofhigher intensity land uses. With regards to residential developments, the intensity of
the land use is determined by a development's density, size oflots, and type of structures. In
developing screening requirements, the City can take any or all ofthese into consideration. As
the City Code is currently written, density and type of structure, i.e. single-family versus multi-
family, appear to be the primary consideration in determining ifscreening should be present.
When determining how to reconcile the R4 district's inclusion in both the exempt zoning district
lists and the list ofdistricts that must be screened from single-family districts, it is important to
note that the R4 district is a low-density residential district which permits both detached single
family and nvin-homes at densities ofup to four units per acre. It is likely that the R4 district was
originally included in the mandatory screening list due to concems about placing twin-home
developments up against detached single-family developments, and that it was subsequently
added to the exempt list due to the fact that its single-family standards are identical to those
found in the City's RSF district and its inability to exceed the four units per acre threshold.
The R4 and RSF districts differ chiefly in the fact that the R4 permits twin homes but the RSF
does not. tn the initial version of the landscape ordinance, only detached single-family residences
were exempted from the ordinance; however, it was subsequently amended to remove the
Residentiel Zoning Districts: Permitted housin& Density, and Additional Screening
Additional Screeni RequiredZonin& Hous and oensity
ProposedMax Density CurrentMin Lot AreaHousinS Type
No No1 uniV10 acres2.5 acresA-2 Detached Single-Family
No1 unit/10 affes No2.5 acresRROetached Single-Family
No2,9 units/acre No15,000 sq. ft.Detached single-FamilyRSF
No No2.9 units/acre15,000 sq. ftR,4 Detached Single-Family
NoNo10,000 sq. ft 4 units/acreTwin-Home
No3.96 units/acre11,000 sq. ft.Detached Single-FamilyPUD
Yes*16 units/acre Yes+NoneAttached/Cluster/M ulti
Silent No"4.84 units/acre9,000 sq. ftRLMDetached Single-Famity
No*'6 units/acre Silent7,260 sq. ft.Twin-Home
Silent Yes8 units/acresq. ft.5Multi-family
Yes5.8 units/acre Yes7,500 sq. ft.Twin-HomeR-8
Yes Yes7.92 units/acre5,500 s .ft.Multi-family
YesYes3,600 sq. ft.12.1 units/acreMuhi-familyR-12
Yes16 units/acre Yes2,70O sq. ft.R-16 Muhi-fam
rlf over 4 units per acre.
'*At densities over 4 u n its/affe buffer ya rd req uirements a re tr red due to medium dens land use,
Analysis:
Zoning
No
Note: Sec. 20-1176 which contains the base screening requirements for all districts in included
for reference as arn attachment.
40
Residential Screening for Visual Impacts
May 17,2022
Page 4
qualifier "detached". Since the City's definition of single-family dwelling included twin homes,
this would exempt all R4 developments, both single-family and twin home, from the ordinance's
screening requirements. While twin home developments are potentially a more intense land use
than detached single-family homes, the R4 district is a low density residential district and the
City allows for the creation of detached single-family developments through the RLM and
Planned Unit Development zoning districts at the same four unit per acre maximum density as
the R4 district. As the City Code does not currently require additional screening between a
10,000-sq. ft. detached single-famity lot and a 15,000 sq. ft. detached single-family lot, it does
not make sense to require additional screening between a 20,000 sq. ft. lot with a twin home
(10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) and a 15,000 sq. ft. detached single-family lot.
The appropriate treatment ofthe RLM district is more complicated as this zoning district can be
used in land guided for both low and medium density residential developments. This district
permits detached single-family homes to have lots as small as 9,000 sq. ft. and twin homes to
have lots as small as 7 ,260 sq. ft. per dwelling unit; however, the district requires the dedication
of large areas of upland for preservation and permanent open space in exchange for these smaller
lot siies. The residents ofa detached single-family development with 15,000 sq. ft. lots may feel
that an adjacent development with detached single-family homes on 9,000 sq. ft' lots is a
significantly more intense land use, but it has long been the City's position that detached single-
family homes do not need to be screened from other detached single-family homes. Additionally,
9,000 sq. ft. lots are not significantly smaller than the 11,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size that would
be present in a PUD with a density ofjust under four units per acre which are currently exempted
from the screening requirements. It should also be noted that the use ofexclusively 9,000 sq. ft.
lots would require land guided medium density which, if adjacent to land guided low density,
would trigger Section 20-l176(f)'s buffer yard requirements, regardless ofhousing t}'pe. Finally,
it is the expectation that the required upland dedication for receiving the RLM zoning would be
in a location to provide additional screening and buffering, if appropriate. Similar considerations
appty to RLM twin home developments. In practice, the use ofsub-10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling
unit lots would require land guided for medium density, which would trigger buffer yard
requirements if adjacent to land guided for low density development.
Given all of the above, staffbelieves the existing distinction between single-family (defined as
detached single-family and twin homes) and multifamily (defined as structures with more than
three dwelling units) is the most important consideration for determining when additional
screening should be required, and in practice housing typically transitions from single-family to
multi-family around the four unit per acre lot to medium density threshold. For the rare cases
where tw.in home or detached single-family developments exceeding four units per acre are
proposed next to developments of four units an acre or less, the buffer yard requirements in
Section 20-1 176(f) provide a sufficient visual barrier.
Alternatives:
-D
Amend dre Landscape Ordinance to include the RLM district, remove references to the
A1 district, and require screening between attached and detached housing types'
41
Residential Screening for Visual Impacts
May 17,2022
Page 5
2) Amend the Landscape Ordinance to include the RLM district, remove references to the
Al district, and require screening between single-family and multi-family housing types.
3) Amend the Landscape Ordinance to include the RLM district, remove references to the
Al district, and require screening between land guided for large lot or low density
residential developments and land guided for medium or high density residential
developments.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Altemative 2
The proposed amendments would read as follows:
Sec. 20-1 176(b)
(b)Except for buffer yard requirements specified in subsection 20-1176(0 below, this
erdisanee article does not apply to single-family developments in AL A2' RR, RSF,
RLM and R4 zoning districts which are regulated by landscaping requirements contained
in the subdivision ordinance (chapter l8).
Sec. 20-1180(bX2).
(2)Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto located
in any RLM, R{ R8, Rl2, Rl6, disiet or planned unit development district containing
residential development at densities exceeding four units per acre shall be screened from
lots located in any R4 A+ A2, RR or RSF district.
Attrchment
1) Sec.20-1176: Intent, Scope and Compliance
g:\planvnu^issue pape6 dd repons (dEfts)rdd rlm !o landscapc\dm bufrer requitemenls.docx
42
5/3/22, 8:49 AM Print Preview
https://chanhassen.municipalcodeonline.com/book/print?type=ordinances&name=Sec_20-1176_Intent,_Scope_And_Compliance 1/8
Sec 20-1176 Intent, Scope And Compliance
(a)The intent of this ordinance is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property
abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between noncompatible land uses; and to
protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding
neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air
pollution, visual pollution and glare.
(b)Except for buffer yard requirements specified in subsection 20-1176(f) below, this ordinance
does not apply to single-family developments in A1, A2, RR, RSF, and R4 zoning districts which
are regulated by landscaping requirements contained in the subdivision ordinance (chapter 18).
(c)No new site development, building, structure or vehicular use area is allowed, unless
landscaping is provided as required in this ordinance.
(d)No property lines shall be altered nor shall any building, structure or vehicular use area be
expanded, unless the minimum landscaping required by the provisions of this ordinance is
provided for the entire property.
(e)The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given
use, including but not limited to:
(1)Truck loading areas;
(2)Trash storage;
(3)Parking lots, interior lot areas and perimeters;
(4)Large unadorned building massing;
(5)Garage doors associated with auto oriented uses; and
(6)Vehicular stacking areas for drive through uses.
(f)Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses, between a site and
major streets and highways, and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan.
Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard. The buffer yard is a unit of yard
together with the planting required thereon. The amount of land and the type and amount of
planting specified for each buffer yard required by this subsection are designed to ameliorate
nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road. The planting
units required of buffer yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to
"buffer."
(1)Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending to the lot
or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural features may
require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Subject to review and
approval by the city engineering department, buffer yards that are compatible with the
typical city boulevard planting requirements may be located within a portion of an existing
municipal public collector or arterial right-of-way.
(2)To determine the buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels or between a parcel
and a street, the following procedure shall be followed:
a.Identify the proposed land use of the parcel and the land use of the adjacent
parcel or functional classification of abutting right-of-way based on the city future
land use plan.
b.Determine the buffer yard required on each boundary, or segment thereof, of the
43
5/3/22, 8:49 AM Print Preview
https://chanhassen.municipalcodeonline.com/book/print?type=ordinances&name=Sec_20-1176_Intent,_Scope_And_Compliance 2/8
property by referring to the following table of buffer yard requirements and
illustrations set at the end of subsection (2), which specify the buffer yard required
between adjacent uses and streets.
c.Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard and the
number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Each illustration
depicts the minimum buffer yard required between two uses or adjacent to a
collector or arterial right-of-way. The project developer shall be responsible for
providing 75 percent of the required plantings. If abutting property owner(s) desire
to bring the buffering to 100 percent of the required buffer yard plantings, then the
adjacent property owner(s) may install the remaining 25 percent of the required
plantings on their own property. When the parcel abuts public property, such as
roads or parks, the developer shall be responsible for 100 percent of the required
plantings.
d.Whenever a wall, fence, or berm is required within a buffer yard, these are shown
as "structure required" in the buffer yard illustrations. The erection and
maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the buffer yard
provider (project developer). Maintenance of the structure shall be the
responsibility of the landowner on whose property the structure is located.
e.All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development or storage
of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or organic material shall
be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained free from junk and debris. Dead or
diseased vegetation shall be removed and replaced with healthy vegetation. The
responsibility to maintain, remove or replace plant materials shall be that of the
landowner on whose property the plant material needing maintenance or
replacement is located.
TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS
Proposed Development
Adjacent Land
Use
LL/D
D
M
D
H
D
OF
F
MI
X
CO
M
PU
B
AC
T
PAS
S
OFF/IN
D
LL/LD none B C C C D B B A D
MD none A B B C D B B A D
HD none A A B C D B B A D
OFF none B B A B B B B B B
MIX none C C B B B C C C B
COM none C D B B A C C C B
PUB none A A B C C A A A C
ACT none A B B B C A A A C
PASS none A A B B C A A A C
OFF/IND none C C B B B C B B B
ROAD B B B B B B B B B C
The land use abbreviations are as follows:
44
5/3/22, 8:49 AM Print Preview
https://chanhassen.municipalcodeonline.com/book/print?type=ordinances&name=Sec_20-1176_Intent,_Scope_And_Compliance 3/8
LL/LD—Large lot and low density residential
MD—Medium density residential
HC—High density residential
OFF—Office
MIX—Mixed use
COM—Commercial
PUB—Public/semi-public
ACT—Active park/open space
PASS—Passive park/open space
OFF/IND—Office/industrial
ROAD—Collector and arterial road
Bufferyard A
Bufferyard B
45
5/3/22, 8:49 AM Print Preview
https://chanhassen.municipalcodeonline.com/book/print?type=ordinances&name=Sec_20-1176_Intent,_Scope_And_Compliance 4/8
Bufferyard C
46
5/3/22, 8:49 AM Print Preview
https://chanhassen.municipalcodeonline.com/book/print?type=ordinances&name=Sec_20-1176_Intent,_Scope_And_Compliance 5/8
Bufferyard D
47
5/3/22, 8:49 AM Print Preview
https://chanhassen.municipalcodeonline.com/book/print?type=ordinances&name=Sec_20-1176_Intent,_Scope_And_Compliance 6/8
Fences
48
5/3/22, 8:49 AM Print Preview
https://chanhassen.municipalcodeonline.com/book/print?type=ordinances&name=Sec_20-1176_Intent,_Scope_And_Compliance 7/8
(3)Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting requirements of
location, size and species may be counted toward the total buffer yard plant material
requirement. Existing natural features such as slopes, woodlands or wetlands which
provide physical separation between developments or between a development and a
collector and arterial road may satisfy the buffering function of the required buffer yard. If
approved by the city, proposed berms three feet and higher in the buffer yard may be
substituted for up to one-half of the required understory trees and shrubs, depending on
the length of the berm. For instance, if a berm runs the entire length of the buffer yard, the
understory and shrub plantings may be reduced by one-half. Any boulevard trees or
reforestation plantings required in the buffer yard can be counted towards required
overstory buffer yard plantings if there is insufficient room for both types of plantings.
(4)Buffer yards may be used for passive recreation and may contain a trail, provided that no
plant material is eliminated, the total width of the buffer yard is maintained, and all other
regulations of this subsection are met. Utility easements may be included within buffer
yards, provided that the utility requirements and buffer yard requirements are compatible
and canopy trees are not planted within such easement.
(5)Where front, side and rear yards are required by this subsection, buffer yards may be
established within such required yards.
(6)Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary deciduous
trees or conifers in the city's subdivision ordinance. Conifers to be used as overstory trees
shall have a minimum height of eight feet when planted. Arborvitae shall not be used as
an overstory tree.
(7)Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer trees in the
city's subdivision ordinance. Conifers to be used as understory trees shall have a
minimum height of six feet when planted.
(8)In instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year-round screening, the city
may designate that all planting be of conifers.
49
5/3/22, 8:49 AM Print Preview
https://chanhassen.municipalcodeonline.com/book/print?type=ordinances&name=Sec_20-1176_Intent,_Scope_And_Compliance 8/8
(g)The city shall encourage reforestation through boulevard and streetscape planting.
(h)Mature stands of trees shall be preserved.
(i)Reforestation shall be pursued as appropriate.
(Ord. No. 153, § 1, 11-4-91; Ord. No. 250, §§ 2, 3, 4-8-96; Ord. No. 309, § 1, 8-14-00; Ord. No. 377, §
134, 5-24-04)
50
Planning Commission Item
May 17, 2022
Item Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Add a 30-Day Time Limit for Court
Appeals of Zoning Decisions
File No.Item No: B.7
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Section 20-29 establishes a time limit for appealing decisions of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals to the City Council, but is silent on the appeal of City
Council decisions.
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapters 20 concerning district court appeal deadlines.”
SUMMARY
Courts in Minnesota have recently upheld statutory deadlines for appealing zoning decisions to district
courts; however, Chanhassen’s City Code does not stipulate a deadline for appealing zoning decisions
to a district court.
BACKGROUND
51
DISCUSSION
The City Code establishes the processes and timelines for appealing zoning decisions by the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals (Planning Commission) to the City Council, but does not address appealing
decisions of the City Council. Zoning decisions made by the City Council can be appealed through the
district courts; however, the City Code does not establish a timeframe for appealing those decisions.
Recently, courts in Minnesota upheld a statute in another city that required individuals wishing to
appeal a zoning decision to make that appeal within 30 days of the decision in question. The City
Attorney has recommended that the City of Chanhassen adopt a similar provision in order to ensure the
timeliness of any appeal.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Code be amended to establish a 30-day time limit for appealing zoning
decisions.
ATTACHMENTS
Appeal Deadline Issue Paper
52
CffiOTCHANIIASSXN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
TO Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
May 17,2022
Court Appeal DeadlineSUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapters 20 concerning district court appeal deadlines."
Issue:
Courts in Minnesota have recently upheld statutory deadlines for appealing zoning decisions to
district courts; however, Chanhassen's City Code does not stipulate a deadline for appealing
zoning decisions to a district court.
The City Code establishes the processes and timelines for appealing zoning decisions by the
Board of Adjustrnents and Appeals (Planning Commission) to the City Council, but does not
address appealing decisions of the City Council. Zoning decisions made by the City Council can
be appealed through the district courts; however, the City Code does not establish a timeframe
for appealing those decisions. Recently, courts in Minnesota upheld a statute in another city that
required individuals wishing to appeal a zoning decision to make that appeal within thirty days
of the decision in question. The City Attomey has recommended that the City of Chanhassen
adopt a similar provision in order to ensure t}re timeliness ofany appeals.
Section 20-29 establishes a time limit for appealing decisions of the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals to the City Council, but is silent on the appeal of City Council decisions.
Analvsis:
The recent district court decision which confrrmed the validity ofa municipality's 30-day appeal
window provides an oppotunity for the City to establish clear guidance on an aggrieved party's
PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227.111 0
77OO IYARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX i47. CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55517
DATE:
Summary:
Relevant Citv Code:
53
Court Appeal Deadline
May 17,2022
Page2
ability to appeal a decision ofthe City Council. Providing this guidance is important as it allows
increased transparency for the aggrieved party by explicitly informing them ofhow they can
appeal a decision and when they will need to submit the appeal by' This guidance is also
important for parties receiving an approval as it provides a window after which it is safe for them
to invest substantial resources in a project where there is a potential for litigation.
While the court decision in question specifically addressed variances, it is the opinion ofthe City
Attomey that the reasoning applies to all zoning decisions made by the City. For this reason,
staff has been advised to add a 30-day appeal limit to both the general Zoning Code and the
section goveming variances. This provision, ifadopted, would establish the following framework
for appealing City decisions:
l) Appeal administrative decision to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
a. All zoning decisions are subject to the 60-day rule.
2) Appeal decision ofthe Board of Adjustment, and Appeals to City Council.
a. Must appeal decision of Board in writing within four business days.
3) Appeal decision of the City Council to district court.
a. Must serve the City and all necessary parties within 30 days of decision
(Proposed).
It should be noted that not every decision goes before the Planning Commission and that the
Planning Commission can only decide matters when acting as the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals as described in Section 20-29 ofthe City Code. In practice, most decisions go before the
City Council with the Planning Commission providing a recommendation.
Alternatives:
I . Amend the Code to establish a 30day window for court appeals of City zoning decisions.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Altemative I . The proposed ordinance would read as follows:
Sec 20-l Decision of the Council
All decisions by the City involving an approval under this chapter shall be final, except that
any aggrieved person or persons shall have the right to appeat within thirty (30) days ofthe
decision to the carver or Hennepin County District court. Any person seeking judicial
review must serve the City and all necessary parties, including any landowners, within the
thirty (30) day period defined above.
Sec 20-29 Board Of Appeals And Adi ustments Variance And Appeal Procedures
Form; fee. Appeals and applications for variances shall be filed with the community
development director on prescrikd forms. A fee, as established by the City Council, shall
a
54
Court Appeal Deadline
May 17,2022
Page 3
be paid upon the filing ofan application. The Board of Adj ustments and Appeals may
waive the application fee in unusual circumstances.
b. Hearing. Upon the filing ofan appeal or application for variance, the community
development director shall set a time and place for a hearing before the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals on such appeal or application, which hearing shall be held
within 45 days after the filing of said appeal or application unless the applicant waives
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. At the hearing the board shall hear such persons as wish
to be heard, either in person or by attomey or agent. Notice ofsuch 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 to each owner of property situated wholly or partially
within 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 empowered to decide appeals and grant
variances, other than variances in conjunction with platting, site plan review, conditional
use permits and interim use permits, when the decision of the Board is by an affrrmative
vote of three-fourths ofthe members present. A vote ofless 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, who shall then make the final determination on the appeal or variance
request within 30 days after receipt ofthe board's action. Ifthe Board recommends
approval, it may also recommend appropriate conditions. The Board shall act upon all
appeals and variance requests within 15 days after the date ofthe close ofthe required
hearing.
d. Appeal from fucisions 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 with
the community development director within four days after the date of the Board's
decision.
e. Council action. By majority vote, the City Council may reverse, affirm or modifi, wholly
or partly, the decision appealed from the Board, and to that end the City Council shall
have all the powers of the Board, or the City Council may approve or deny the variance
request. The Council shall decide all appeals within 30 days after the date ofthe 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 with the community
development director, the Council may take action on the request, in accordance wilh the
procedures goveming the Board, without fiuther awaiting the Board's decision or
recommendation.
g. Decision of the Council. All decisions by the City involving a variance or appeal shall
be final, except that any aggrieved person or persons shall have the right to appeal
within thirty (30) days of the decision to the Carver or Hennepin County District
Court. Any person seeking judicial review must serre the City and all necessary
parties, including any landowners, within the thirty (30) day period defmed above.
55
Planning Commission Item
May 17, 2022
Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 19, 2022
File No.Item No: C.1
Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the minutes from its April 19, 2022 meeting."
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
56
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 19, 2022
57
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2022
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark von Oven, Eric Noyes, Erik Johnson, Perry Schwartz, Ryan
Soller, Edward Goff.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kelsey Alto.
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young-
Walters, Associate Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Joe Seidl, Water Resources
Engineer; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Keith Anderson 8043 Cheyenne Avenue
Ben Campion 204 W. 77th Street
Mike Werth Techniques Construction
Mary and Michael Meuwissen 4265 County Road 123, Mayer, MN
Ed Szalapski 850 Pleasant View Road
Todd Simning Ador Homes
Matt Pavek Civil Site Group
Dan Blake Black Cherry Development
Tim Erhart 9611 Meadowview Drive, Chanhassen, MN
Nick Pekarek 202 Chan View
Bryce Marsh
PUBLIC HEARING:
204 W. 77TH STREET: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SIX-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE
Associate Planner Young-Walters gave a presentation on the item, noting the Applicant is
proposing a 6-foot high privacy fence within the front yard setback. A 30-foot setback is required
off Erie Avenue and fences within the setback are limited to three feet in height if opaque or four
feet in height if open construction because it is a corner lot. There is an existing 5-foot high chain
link fence that is partially within the required 30-foot setback. The Applicant is requesting to
install a 6-foot high privacy fence that would maintain the 5.9-foot setback from Erie Avenue.
The justification is that the property does not have a lot of privacy because it has street frontages
on both sides. The lot’s triangular shape and non-conforming house placement mean that a
privacy fence would not be permitted in most of the rear or side yard under City Code. The
Applicant has noted that nearby lots including the corner lot across the street have privacy fences
and they do not believe their proposal would negatively impact the neighborhood. Staff believes
the overall intent of the fence ordinance is to allow for residents to have private rear and side
yards and they view this as an exceptional case where, due to the non-conforming placement of
58
Planning Commission Minutes – April 19, 2022
2
the primary structure, the front yard setback does not align with the front of the house. Staff
believes the property’s unique shape and size create a practical difficulty and recommends
approval.
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded that the Chanhassen Board
of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a variance to permit the Applicant to construct a
six-foot privacy fence within the front yard setback along Erie Avenue, subject to the
conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
6430 PLEASANT VIEW LANE: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
Senior Planner Generous gave a staff report on the item, noting the house is currently built five
feet from the side property line on a non-conforming lot and the proposed expansion would still
be under the 25% hardcover limit. The Applicant would like to expand the house along the same
plane to extend the garage. The proposed expansion creates a tandem garage with interior storage
and expands the living area. Mr. Generous checked on four variances regarding nearby
properties and only one was granted for the same reason, to expand the house along the existing
plane of the structure. The Applicant wants to maintain the integrity of the building. Staff
believes the request is reasonable and recommends approval of the five-foot north yard setback
variance with an allowance for the 18-inch eaves.
Mike Werth is representing the homeowner and said currently the house is over the setback. He
showed plans and explained the design choice.
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Noyes stated another case was approved that was almost an identical type of
variance request of an addition on the same plane, so there is some precedent they are following.
It seems like a reasonable solution.
Chairman von Oven said if the neighbors are good with it, he is also, as one cannot tell what is
going on back there.
Chairman von Oven moved, Commissioner Goff seconded that the Chanhassen Board of
Appeals and Adjustments approves a five-foot structure side yard setback variance with an
additional 18-inch encroachment for the eaves subject to the to the conditions of approval,
and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
59
Planning Commission Minutes – April 19, 2022
3
PUBLIC HEARING:
855 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW
FOR TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATE STREET AND A
NECK LOT
Senior Planner Generous gave a staff report, noting this is a two-lot subdivision and the proposed
development is consistent with the guided use of residential low-density. The proposed
subdivision creates two single-family lots, the first adjacent to Pleasant View Road and the
second is the neck lot. There is a wetland located on the southern part of the property. Staff
directed the Applicant to come in from one access point via a private street and the only public
improvement would be the extension of a water line across Pleasant View Road and the
installation of a fire hydrant.
Water Resources Engineer Seidl said regarding drainage and grading on the site, the project area
generally slopes down from the northwest with some relatively steep slopes on the site.
Stormwater runoff is conveyed through properties on the east to Fox Path Road where it is
collected by public infrastructure and outlets into Lotus Lake. Mr. Seidl shared the Watershed
District rules including the abstraction rule, water quality rule, and peak discharge rate rule and
spoke about potential impacts or adverse effects for the development and for the Applicant to
design around those potential impacts. He received comments from two residents who are
concerned about the project as they are directly downstream.
Mr. Generous stated Staff believes the Applicant meets all these findings and recommends
approval of the subdivision with the variances for the private street and neck lot subject to the
conditions of approval of the Staff report.
Matt Pavek, Civil Engineer on the project, shared they are almost through the preliminary design
phase, everything is sized, and the final design will meet all the requirements. They are working
with the Watershed District as they have rather robust requirements, as well.
Todd Simning, working with the Applicant, shared that historically there were two houses on the
property which discharged stormwater offsite. That definitely did have an impact to the
downstream neighbors. He noted they are upsizing the basins to be sure that there is not an issue
for any parties.
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Ed Szalapski, 850 Pleasant View Road, welcomes the development and thinks the houses will be
a great improvement to the neighborhood. He thanked Mr. Generous for asking the Applicant to
put in a single private road rather than three driveways. Mr. Szalapski was looking through plans
for utilities noting his driveway is right across and would like a guarantee that someone without a
four-wheel drive truck will be able to get in and out of there. He noted he bought his property in
1994 and in looking at the original plats he has a little strip of land on the south side of Pleasant
View Road across from his property. He believes it is within the City right-of-way but the City is
not using it; his understanding is that it is still his property and he wants to make sure the new
development will not encroach on that. He worries about subtracting that land from his property
when it comes to hardcover calculations and things like that.
60
Planning Commission Minutes – April 19, 2022
4
Mr. Generous noted Staff disagrees with Mr. Szalapski’s analysis that he owns that property as it
was shown as platted right-of-way which puts it in the City’s ownership.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends City Council approve a request for subdivision review
for two lots with variances for the use of a private street and a neck lot on property located
at 855 Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of the staff report, and adopts the
Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
775 AND 731 W. 96TH STREET (ERHART FARM): CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR
REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO ADD TWO LOTS TO THE APPROVED
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ERHART FARM DEVELOPMENT WITH A
VARIANCE FROM THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT
Mr. Generous noted this is an amendment to a preliminary plat that was previously approved.
The Applicant is adding 1.08 acres to the development. As part of this, they must rezone the
property from agricultural to single-family residential which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Generous noted the only revision is because of a small area on the
south end. He shared about tree preservation and landscaping noting the variance from the tree
replacement requirement is for using less than 2.5 inch tree stock and certified nursery tree stock.
Staff recommends approval.
Mr. Henricksen gave an overview of grading and drainage, noting the changes are not
substantial. The site is proposed to be mostly mass graded and tree clearing has already
commenced. Mr. Henricksen spoke about public sanitary and water mains, as well as
stormwater.
Dan Blake, Black Cherry Development, spoke about Outlot A, maintenance, and the tree
question on the west side of the street. The Applicant thinks trees along the west side would have
the most visible benefit to the public and neighborhood. They would agree to relocating or
replacing those trees in the future.
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz moved, Commissioner Soller seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the amended preliminary plat
with a variance for the tree replacement requirements subject to the conditions of the staff
report, amend the rezoning to include the additional parcel, and adopts the Findings of
Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 6 to 0.
61
Planning Commission Minutes – April 19, 2022
5
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A CODE AMENDMENT REGULATING THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF
WATERCRAFT ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
Mr. Young-Walters gave the staff report on the item, noting the item will go before City Council
on May 9, 2022. The issue is the desirability of amending City Code to permit the seasonal
storage of watercraft in residential driveways. The existing ordinance restricts watercraft storage
to the side and rear yards of properties. Because of side yards on lots it is not always possible for
residents to put their boats in that location and additionally when individuals violate the
ordinance it is difficult to enforce due to the mobile nature of trailers and watercrafts which can
create frustration. The proposed solution is to allow one watercraft trailer and associated
watercraft to be stored on driveways between April 1 and October 1. Homeowners associations
would still retain the ability to establish standards for their neighborhoods. Staff believes this
would make it easier to enforce and believes it strikes a balance between allowing residents
reasonable use of their property and preserving the character of the City’s neighborhoods. Mr.
Young-Walters showed exhibits and examples on screen. He shared about resident feedback,
noting 10 emails were received with six in opposition to the proposed changes and four in
support. All comments were forwarded to the Planning Commissioners.
The Commissioners asked clarifying questions regarding the potential amendment and discussed
different scenarios, driveway lengths, sight lines, RV’s and other storage uses versus boats, and
safety.
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Bryce Marsh stores his boat at his cabin in the summer and in his garage in the winter. He has
been cited multiple times with his boat in the driveway bringing it back from the cabin or pulling
it out of the garage. He advocates for adding RV’s.
Nick Pekarek, 202 Chan View, is an outdoorsman and needs access to the boat until the water
freezes up. He noted to park a boat alongside his garage, he only has a 5-6 foot space available.
He is asking for longer dates in the fall and does not understand why he cannot park a boat in the
driveway.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Chair von Oven said there is no denying that the City is somewhat divided on this issue. There is
a desire to allow people to use their property for the hobbies they have and he was both surprised
and disappointed when it did not pass the City Council two years ago. He agrees that the date is
wrong and would like to amend it to at least November 1 if not December 1.
Commissioner Noyes thinks the percentage of outdoor stored boats goes down after Labor Day.
Commissioner Schwartz asked why the language pertaining to RV’s and other types of vehicles
was removed from the proposed language.
62
Planning Commission Minutes – April 19, 2022
6
Mr. Young-Walters replied the City Council directed Staff to explore watercraft and watercraft
trailers only.
Chairman von Oven moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends the City Council approve the proposed amendment to Sections 1-
2 and 20-909 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the outdoor storage of watercraft,
amended with the start date of April 1 and end date of December 1. All voted and the
motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MARCH 1, 2022
Commissioner Noyes noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated March 1, 2022.
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION SUMMARY MINUTES
DATED APRIL 5, 2022
Commissioner Goff noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission work session
dated April 5, 2022.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE:
Ms. Aanenson updated the Commissioners that the City Council approved the Code Amendment
for notification public hearing timelines; the Degler Farm IUP was extended to 50 years; there
was approval of a mixed-use development rezoning; approval of the Dakota Retail Site Plan
Agreement was tabled to the April 25, 2022 City Council meeting; and the year-end work report
was presented to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Soller moved to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting
was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Jean Steckling
Sen. Admin. Support Specialist
63
Planning Commission Item
May 17, 2022
Item City Council Action Update
File No.Item No: D.1
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
64
City Council Action Update
65
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2022
Invitation to Arbor Day Celebration - May 7, 2022
Presentation of 2022 Arbor Day Poster Contest Winners
Resolution 2022-XX: Proclaiming May 7, 2022 as Arbor Day and May as Arbor Month – Approved
Approve Amendment to the Dakota Retail Site Plan Agreement 2014-11 – Approved
Resolution 2022-XX: MnDOT Community Roadside Landscaping Partnership Program Authorization
Resolution, TH 101 Planting Project – Approved
MONDAY, MAY 9, 2022
Short-Term, Rental, and Business Licensing and Administrative Enforcement – Discussion - City Staff
will be working on a potential ordinance
Approve Contract with Shadywood Tree Experts for the 2022 City Tree Maintenance Work – Approved
775 and 731 W. 96th Street (Erhart Farm): Approve Vacating an Easement for Public Roadway,
Drainage and Utility Purposes Over a Portion of Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition; and Ordinance
XXX: Request for Rezoning; Preliminary Plat with Variance to Tree Replacement Requirements to add
Two Lots to the Approved Preliminary Plat – Approved
855 Pleasant View Road: Approve a Request for Subdivision Review for Two Lots and Variances for
the Use of a Private Street and a Neck Lot – Approved
Consider Code Amendment Regulating the Outdoor Storage of Watercraft on Residential
Properties – 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.
66