Loading...
07.07.2026 PC MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 7, 2026 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Vice Chair Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, and Dave Grover. MEMBERS ABSENT: Katie Trevena and Mike Olmstead. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Jeske, Planner II; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; and Gwen Kelley, Planning Intern. PUBLIC PRESENT: Jim Boeshans 6651 Pawnee Drive Kory Yamada 7024 Dakota Avenue PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FENCE AT 7024 DAKOTA AVE (PLANNING CASE #26-09) Gwen Kelley, Planning Intern, reviewed the front yard setback variance request for 7024 Dakota Avenue. She noted that the property had a unique slope exceeding 14 percent. She summarized the proposed setback for the fence installation, which would have a 20-foot setback from the property line. She said that the staff calculated the sight triangle distance and found no issues regarding the proposed fence location. She commented that the variance criteria had been met, and the staff supported their request. Chair Noyes said that the property was unique in its layout and topography. Commissioner Rosengren asked about the existing temporary wire fence on the north side of the property. He asked if the new fence would replace the temporary fence. Rachel Jeske, Planner II, responded that chain link fences did not have the same requirements as privacy fences. She was not certain that there was an existing fence in the location. Commissioner Rosengren questioned the mature trees and asked if the fence would be placed behind the trees. He asked if trees were being removed as part of the project. Ms. Jeske answered that trees were not proposed for removal, but that the property owners retain the right to remove trees on their property. Planning Commission Minutes – July 7, 2026 2 Commissioner Rosengren asked if the findings of fact documents need to be updated. Ms. Jeske responded that the comments had been resolved and had since been finalized in the packet. Commissioner Soller questioned whether the 20 feet was the initially requested setback for the project, or if more was initially requested. Ms. Kelley responded that the fence would fall within the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Jeske commented that the fence was the originally requested fence by the applicant. The sight distance triangles are evaluated when considering the reasonableness of the request for variance. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, noted that the staff would work with the applicant to ensure the proposal to meet the requirements if necessary. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. Kory Yamada, 7024 Dakota Avenue, clarified that there was a line on the plans for a previous privacy fence that was located around the former pool for safety. The portion of the fence was removed when the pool was taken out. She noted that they would not remove any trees. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Grover moved, Commissioner Soller seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, approves the requested front setback variance for the property at 7024 Dakota Avenue and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDING CHAPTERS 10, 12, 16, AND 20, MINOR CODE AMENDMENT Mr. Maass noted that the only chapters applicable to the Planning Commission were Chapters 18 and 20, but they would review the entire ordinance prior to bringing it to the City Council. Commissioner Soller asked why the amendments to Chapter 10 were not in their purview, since they previously reviewed the short-term rental ordinance. Mr. Maass answered that the short- term rental regulations were initially located in Chapter 20, but the most recent revision updated the language and placed short-term rentals in Chapter 10, since that chapter is where all other licenses are located. Ms. Kelley provided an overview of the amendments that the staff was recommending. She summarized the amendments for Section 10-230 for Short Term Rental Licensing; Section 16-21 Container Storage; Section 20-645(e) Lot Requirements and Setbacks; Section 20-905 Single- Family Dwellings; Section 20-921(e) Pervious Pavement; Section 20-1176 Intent, Scope, and Compliance; Section 20-1256 and Section 20-1275; and Section 12-13 No Parking, Stopping, or Standing Zones. Planning Commission Minutes – July 7, 2026 3 Commissioner Rosengren asked about Section 20-645 and the adjustment to the lot requirements and setbacks. He asked about the minimum separation between structures being 15 feet with a setback of up to five feet, and how this would be determined with adjacent properties. Mr. Maass answered that it would be applicable to the low- to medium-density residential zoning district, and that staff would mediate setback issues across different properties. He noted that the 15-foot setback was for fire safety. Referencing Section 20-1176, Commissioner Rosengren discussed the diagram that was removed and whether the symbols were necessary or referenced elsewhere. Ms. Kelley noted that the fences themselves were outdated, but the symbols were referenced within the code. Referencing Section 12-13, Commissioner Rosengren asked if the Public Works Director currently made the decision of when and where to block traffic for the parade. Mr. Maass said that that has been past practice and that he worked with Lieutenant Stahn and the Public Works Director to determine the proposed language, as the City Code did not clarify how or who could block the streets off on a temporary basis. Referencing Section 20-1176, Commissioner Jobe asked if it was six or eight feet for the fencing. Ms. Jeske responded that the F-4 and F-5 categories had similar standards, but they correlated with landscaping standards. She noted that contractors were required to install 8-foot privacy fencing. Commissioner Jobe questioned whether a resident could install a seven-foot fence. Ms. Jeske answered that 6.5 feet was the maximum height in residential areas. Mr. Maass responded that the height and opacity listed were the maximum. Ms. Jeske responded that the purpose of the section was to buffer between incompatible uses. Referencing Section 20-645(e), Commissioner Grover asked about a five-foot setback on each side if there was no adjacent property. Mr. Maass responded that if they had two vacant lots, they always had a five-foot minimum for drainage and utility easements. Commissioner Grover asked what would keep someone from having five-foot setbacks on each side if there are no adjacent structures. Mr. Maass stated that the total amount of home and driveway would not increase based on a setback modification. Commissioner Soller questioned whether there was a first-mover advantage to build the first house before other structures existed. Mr. Maass noted that the medium density was tighter lots that were detached townhomes often developed in concert with one another by a single developer. He commented that they would not propose this setback for a residential single-family setback. Planning Commission Minutes – July 7, 2026 4 Referencing Section 16-20, Commissioner Jobe asked if the container storage was related to all residents in Chanhassen or a specific subgroup. Ms. Kelley responded that it applied to all sections. Commissioner Jobe questioned how leaving trash cans out by the garage would play into the code. Mr. Maass responded that the City Code enforcement was completed on a complaint basis only. Referencing Section 20-905, Commissioner Soller asked about a two-car garage being required in a single-family structure. He requested additional context behind the requirement. Ms. Kelley responded that they discussed individual property rights, especially for smaller houses that might not need a two-car garage. Mr. Maass responded that property owners might want a different number of garages, so they wanted to provide additional flexibility to property owners. Commissioner Jobe questioned whether there were parking ordinances that would require driveways to be a certain length for cars to be parked. Mr. Maass answered that the front property line and garage required enough space to park a vehicle in addition to the driveway portion that would be public right-of-way. Chair Noyes expressed concerns about houses that would be less desirable, as garages store things in addition to cars. He asked if there was an outside influence on this decision. He asked what other communities were doing. Mr. Maass responded that there were no outside influences on this ordinance. Commissioner Grover asked if someone could build a home without a garage. Mr. Maass responded that he would need to ask the building official, but they did have a minimum requirement for parking. He noted that they did not allow parking on the street in the winter months. Commissioner Soller asked if it was considered that this would allow for no garages to be built. Mr. Maass responded that the elimination of the 2-car garage requirement was not that there would be no garages. They wanted to remove the requirement to allow for different numbers of garages to be built. Referencing Section 20-921(e), Commissioner Soller clarified that the 25 percent lot cover for shoreline management only pertained to PUDRs. Mr. Maass answered that pervious pavers were regulated in the ordinance, and they wanted the code to be consistent with the rest of the code. Referencing Section 20-1176, Commissioner Rosengren asked about the minimum opacity of 95 percent for fencing. Ms. Jeske commented that some wood fences had small gaps, so they did not have the fencing at 100 percent opacity. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Planning Commission Minutes – July 7, 2026 5 Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Referencing Section 12-13, Commissioner Soller discussed Section C for parking and whether it was redundant. Mr. Maass responded that Section B was for a temporary section, and Section C was at the request of the sheriff’s office so that they could utilize it for necessary parking citations. Commissioner Jobe commented that it seemed redundant because of State-wide regulations. Mr. Maass answered that he would defer to the Carver County Sheriff, who requested the regulation. Commissioner Soller questioned a sign in the library parking ramp that limited the spots for city vehicles. Mr. Maass noted that those vehicles were now parked underneath the City Hall. Referencing Section 20-905, Commissioner Grover asked if it was necessary to add language that clarified that homes provide parking spots if they did not have a garage. Commissioner Jobe questioned if there was nothing in the permitting process to prohibit it, it would be allowed. Mr. Maass answered that if a permit request met the City Code, the Planning Department would approve. Commissioner Rosengren noted that it did not seem necessary to put into the City Code what would be common sense. Commissioner Soller asked if that was the case, why would Section G exist. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Grover seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the ordinance amendments as proposed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 2, 2026 Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated June 2, 2026, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COMMISISON PRESNETATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Mr. Maass noted that the City Council would meet with Avienda developers for a work session on July 8, 2026, and anticipated a Planned Unit Development Amendment within four to six weeks, and a grocer after this was received. Planning Commission Minutes – July 7, 2026 6 He said that the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Community Engagement started at various events, and the project webpage was available on the website. Stakeholders would be identified for an interview in July. He discussed the two Think Tank events and the Future Summit for the 2050 Comprehensive Plan discussion. He commented that the Harlow Building was anticipated to open in December 2026, and the Bennett Building was anticipated to open for renters in the summer of 2027. Commissioner Soller asked if the timeline for those buildings was similar to the commercial timelines. Mr. Maass noted that the city’s lever was the certificate of occupancy for each space and that the commercial spaces still needed to be built out by individual tenants. Mr. Maass commented that Samantha DiMaggio, Economic Development Manager, would depart the city staff on Friday. Commissioner Soller asked about the timeline for the Civic Campus. Mr. Maass responded that he would get an updated timeline to provide to the Planning Commission. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. OPEN DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director