Loading...
03-18-25 PC Agenda and Packet A.6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 Ordinance XXX: Density Bonuses Amendment C.GENERAL BUSINESS D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated March 4, 2025 E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION H.OPEN DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2025 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 9:00 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. 1 Planning Commission Item March 18, 2025 Item Ordinance XXX: Density Bonuses Amendment File No.Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Eric Maass, Community Development Director Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION Motion to recommend adoption of Ordinance XXX: Density Bonuses Amendment as presented. SUMMARY The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for the city to allow density bonuses in exchange for the creation of affordable housing. In order to utilize that policy in the Comprehensive Plan, the city must establish rules and regulations for the program in city code. City staff has reviewed the draft ordinance at the following public meetings: February 24: City Council Work Session March 4: Planning Commission March 10: City Council work session 2 City staff has updated the draft ordinance based on feedback received to date and the latest version is attached to this case for reference and further discussion. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance as presented. ATTACHMENTS Affidavit of Publication Draft Ordinance: Establishing Affordable Housing Density Bonus Staff memo - citizen questions at March 10 City Council meeting 3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MTNNESOTA ) COTINTY OF HENNEPIN ss I do solemly srrear that the notice, as per the proof, was published in the edition of the SS Mtka-Exc€lsior_Eden Prairie with the known ollice of issue being located in the county of: HENNEPIN with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. $331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for I successive week(s); the first insertion being on 0310612025 and the last insertion being on 0310612025. MORTGAGE FORECITOSI.]RE NOTICES hrsuant to Minnesota Stat. $580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in $580.033, subd. l, clause (l) or (2). If the newspaper's known oflice of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in the latter Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affrrmed before me ot0310612025 Notary Public Rate Information: (l) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch CITY OF GHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commis- sion will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March '18, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Gouncil Ghambers in Ghanhassen City Hall, 7700 Mar- ket Boulevad. The pupose of this hearing is to consider amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code regarding inclusion of a density bonus lor housing pioiects guided for at least eight (8) units p6r acrB. A bonus ol up to 25% additional units would be possible if those additional housing units are made affordabl€ to at least 80% of Area Median lncome (AMI). The proposed changes arc available for public review at City Hall during rcgular business hours or on the City's website at www.ChanhassenMN.gov/ ProposedOdinances. All intei€st€d peIsons al€ invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with rcspect to this proposal. Eric Maass, AICE EDFP Community Development Dimctor Email: emaass@chanhassenmn.oov Phone: 952-227-1 139 Published in the Sun Sailor March 6, 2025 1 r+54388 Ad ID 1454388 MacPhersonMarieDarlene PublicNotary Minnesota MNJan. 31, 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-924 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Sec 20-924 Development of Affordable Housing Development of affordable housing in R-8, R-12, R-16, Planning Unit Development - Residential, and Central Business District zoning districts. (a) Generally. The following development types in the R-8, R-12, R-16, Planned Unit Development Residential, and Central Business District zoning districts may, at the sole discretion of the City Council, be granted additional densities in order to create a certain number of affordable housing units. The amount of potential additional bonus affordable units shall be calculated as follows. (1) Density Bonus. A residential development within zoning districts regulating development intensity through units per acre maximums qualify for the following density bonuses for each affordable unit provided at varying household income levels as follows: i. Each affordable dwelling unit affordable to households at or below 80 percent of AMI qualifies the overall development for one bonus dwelling unit up to a maximum 25 percent increase over current zoning density. ii. In no instance may density bonus units be allocated to parcels designated by the comprehensive plan for residential densities of less than eight dwelling units per gross acre. (2) Period of affordability. For rental developments subject to this chapter, the period of affordability for the affordable dwelling units shall be 20 years. (3) Geographic Distribution. Development projects which request to utilize this density bonus should be in general proximity to employment centers and commercial development. A density bonus will not be granted if infrastructure including but not limited to sanitary sewer, watermain, or roadways adjacent to the development site are deemed insufficient by the City to support the increased density. 5 (4) Applicable Zoning Requirements. Approval of a density bonus does not provide a waiver for any other applicable zoning requirements including but not limited to building setbacks, building height restrictions, or minimum parking standards. (b) Standards for affordable dwelling units. (1) Rent price level. The monthly rental cost for an affordable dwelling unit shall include rent, and any other non-optional monthly occupancy charges which would not include basic utility services such as water, sewer, and electricity. Affordable units shall not be charged any fee that is not also levied against market rate renters. The maximum rent amount shall be based on the metropolitan area that includes the city adjusted for bedroom size and calculated annually be the department of housing and urban development and posted by Minnesota Housing for establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax Credit Program. (2) Size and design of affordable dwelling units. The developer shall not designate specific units for affordability. They shall be the same design, size and materials as market rate units. (3) Distribution of affordable dwelling units. Affordable dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the building. (4) Number of bedrooms in the affordable units. The affordable dwelling units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportion as the market rate units. The mix of market rate and affordable dwelling units shall be approved by the city. (5) Affordable dwelling unit size. The affordable dwelling units shall have room sizes comparable to the room sizes in market rate dwelling units. (6) Tenants. Rental affordable dwelling units shall be rented only to income eligible families during the period of affordability. A household that was income eligible at initial occupancy may remain in the affordable dwelling unit for additional rental periods as long as the income of the household does not exceed 140 percent of the applicable AMI. (7) Non-discrimination based on rent subsidies. Developments covered by the chapter must not discriminate against tenants who would pay their rent with federal, state, or local public assistance, including tenant based federal, state, or local subsidies, including, but not limited to, rental assistance, rent supplements, and housing choice vouchers. (c) Affordable housing tools and incentives; general requirements. (1) The developer of any of the housing types listed in section 20-656(a), 20-508, 20-677(a), 20-685(a), or 20-738(a) is eligible to use any of the affordable housing tools and incentives described in this section. 6 (2) Land use approvals or issuance of a building permit for a development requesting a density bonus under this Section shall be conditioned upon recording of a covenant and appropriate guarantees satisfactory to the City that affordable housing requirements for the development will be in compliance with this Section for a period of no less than 20 years. (3) Use of an individual tool or incentive described in this article is prohibited if the city council determines that the resulting development has the potential to negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood and that the negative impacts outweigh the positive benefits of the opportunity units created. Section 2. Section 20-656 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-656 Development of affordable housing in the R-8 district (a) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density Section 3. Section 20-677 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-677 Development of affordable housing in the R-12 district (b) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density. Section 4. Section 20-685 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-685 Development of affordable housing in the R-16 district (a) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density. Section 5. Section 20-738 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-738 Development of affordable housing in the Central Business District (a) Multifamily including vertical mixed use structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density. 7 Section 6. Section 20-508(g) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: (g) Development of affordable housing in the Planned Unit Development – Residential District (1) High density housing which has a density of at least 8.0 homes per net acre that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density. Section 7. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _________, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ______________________________ ________________________________ Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the _________________________ on ______________________________) 8 Date: March 12, 2025 To: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager From: Eric Maass, Community Development Director Subject: Citizen comment for information at March 10th City Council meeting During the public comment portion of the March 10, 2025 City Council meeting a resident requested information related to the city’s current work related to a draft ordinance implementing a density bonus in exchange for the creation of affordable housing wh ich is outlined in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 1. What other cities has staff contacted for purposes of researching for the draft ordinance? Staff Response: City staff reached out to the following cities for purposes of researching existing ordinances related to density bonuses in connection with affordable housing development: Victoria Chaska Carver Shoreview Eden Prairie Maple Grove New Brighton Farmington Bloomington Buffalo Delano Plymouth Vadnais Heights Lino Lakes St. Michael Cottage Grove 2. Have you identified on the map where all the possible locations are? Staff Response: The draft ordinance indicates that properties guided for densities of at least 8 homes per acre would be eligible to request a density bonus. As such, and property currently zoned R-8, R-12, R-16, CBD, and PUD-R would be eligible. These are in alignment with properties guided by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for “High Density Residential”. 3. Will residents or owners within 500 feet be notified? 9 Page 2 of 3 Staff Response: Any development application that requires a public hearing notice and applicable mailer would be mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. City staff has properly noticed the proposed ordinance amendment prior to the public hearing on March 18, 2025 at the Planning Commission meeting. 4. The period of affordability must be monitored. Who will do that? Will additional staff be required to complete this monitoring? Staff Response: The City’s Economic Development Manager currently reviews annual reports submitted to the city related to the affordability monitoring in connection with Tax Increment Financing (TIF) associated with affordable housing. The same process and staff would be assigned to monitoring any projects which received a density bonus. 5. Resident indicated that the draft metrics for denial of the bonus is too limited and recommended adding “safety”. Staff Response: The ordinance as drafted includes a section for “Geographic Distribution” and states that development projects which request to utilize the density bonus should be in general proximity to employment centers and commercial development. A density bonus will not be granted if infrastructure including but not limited to sanitary sewer, watermain, or roadways adjacent to the development site are deemed insufficient by the City to support the increased density. Additionally, staff has added to subsection (a) that “at the sole discretion of the City Council”, additional densities may be granted in order to create affordable housing. Each of the utility components currently proposed is a non-subjective measurement for which the City to base a decision on. To include the term “safety” is a generic term and subject to interpretation. In addition, the city may not discriminate affordable housing under the guise or perception of what is or is not “safety”. 6. Resident indicated that Planned Unit Development (PUD’s) should not be included in the bonus. Staff Response: Planned Unit Development (PUD’s) style developments are an eligible zoning designation for High Density Residential guided and zoned properties which as a result staff recommends that PUD’s remain eligible. Additionally, if a property owner/developer requests a PUD zoning for a project with a density of at least 8 homes per net acre versus a base zoning designation, that PUD only increases the City’s discretion in approving or denying a project requesting a PUD. 7. Resident inquired whether or not the current Chanhassen Cinema and Chanhassen Country Inn & Suites properties currently being redeveloped would be able to use this proposed ordinance. 10 Page 3 of 3 Staff Response: No, the current redevelopment project as approved does not have the capacity with regarding to height limitations to support additional housing units. 8. Resident indicated that other mechanisms exist and why doesn’t the City utilize those tools to help create additional affordable housing with the City? Staff Response: Some examples of additional tools used to create affordable housing included Housing Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Tax Abatement, Revolving Loan Program, and Local Housing Trust Funds are all examples of tools that cities and counties use to help create affordable housing. The difference between these programs and the proposed density bonus ordinance is that the density bonus is a non-monetary tool whereas the others require financial participating by the City. 11 Planning Commission Item March 18, 2025 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated March 4, 2025 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its March 4, 2025 meeting minutes" SUMMARY BACKGROUND Public comments received via email will be attached to the approved minutes presented to the City Council. DISCUSSION 12 RECOMMENDATION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its March 4, 2025 meeting minutes" ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated March 4, 2025 13 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; and Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Ed Szalapski Jr. 850 Pleasant View Road Paul Haik 261 Hidden Lane Paul Robinson Rachel LLC Development Director Christine Haissig 6370 Pleasant View Cove Tony Fricano 980 Lake Lucy Road Sarah Zaccarine 6431 Pleasant Park Drive Thomas Kraker 801 Pleasant View Road Alexander Westlind 825 Pleasant View Road Eric Anderson 6580 Troendle Circle Martha Noll 7214 Frontier Trail PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PID 25-4070020, GENERAL GAPLIN BLVD (PLANNING CASE #25-03) Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, presented the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6651 Galpin Boulevard. She stated that the proposal was scheduled to go before City Council on March 24. She shared that the Planning Commission's scope for Comprehensive Plan amendments was large because they act in its legislative or policy-making capacity. She explained information on the lot, including that the lot is currently zoned rural residential and that the Comprehensive Plan Guidance is for a residential large lot. The lot size is 2.50 acres with a net density of 2.22 unit per acres. Mrs. Arsenault explained the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use. She stated that the applicant wanted to go to a residential low-density designation, which was like neighboring properties outside of a pocket of four properties. She reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Guidance, which allowed for appropriate re-guiding of property upon the availability of city utilities. She explained that the current home was on well 14 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 2 and septic but did not have to connect until a large-scale repair was required. She stated that two sewer and water stubs were added to the property with the 2024 Galpin Boulevard reconstruction. She said that the applicant was looking to subdivide and build a new house on the subdivided portion of the property in the future. Chairman Noyes asked if it was a common occurrence to change the designation of a property to take advantage of the city’s utilities. Mrs. Arsenault answered that a lot of people inquire about lot splits, and when utilities are newly introduced to an area it is not uncommon for the city to receive a request for an amendment to land use designations for newly serviced properties. Commissioner Soller asked if the Comprehensive Plan is the strategic vision only set every so often and rarely changed. He said that this change would just change the specific lot, but the other lots would be guided in a different way. He said normally the Comprehensive Plan would not be changed, so he asked if the request was normal. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, answered that the request was normal as the current designation of the lot was residential large lot which was appropriate as they did not previously have access to sewer and water but the request to reguide to residential lot density was now the appropriate designation because of the availability of public water and sewer utilities to the property. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan allowed for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide for a denser designation when sewer and water were available. Vice Chair Jobe asked if the other lots guided residential large lot along Galpin Boulevard would be able to reguide as well with the new utilities installed. Mr. Maass confirmed the information. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve amending the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low Density for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 2. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCE TO CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PLEASANT VIEW POINTE (PROJECT 25-02). Eric Maass, Community Development Director, said that the presentation would be collaborative. The applicant also had a presentation. Mrs. Arsenault introduced the project to be discussed. She reviewed the location of the property at approximately 6535 Peaceful Lane. She stated that the 13.65-acre property was a combination of six properties and is zoned with a single residential family. The Comprehensive Plan Guidance is Residential Low Density. She reviewed the different steps for community engagement, including the public hearing notice postcards and public hearing notice in the Sun 15 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 3 Sailor. Additionally, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Chanhassen Recreation Center on July 31, 2024, and the development was discussed at the City Council workshop on October 14, 2024. Mrs. Arsenault described the Planning Commission Scope for a preliminary plat review, including that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the zoning ordinance, with all applicable City, County, and regional plans, the physical characteristics of the site, and the area has access to all necessary utilities. Mrs. Arsenault displayed a photo to show the existing conditions of the property. She stated that the developer proposed 19 single-family lots, with one outlot and public trail access that would also provide access to emergency services. She said the density was 1.4 units/acre, and the lots conformed to the RSF zoning district standards. She reviewed the staff comment about lot 5 changing into a flag lot to get the driveway out of an outlot owned by the city. She showed the landscaping plan for the development and noted the landscaping schedule to show the trees that would be planted. She noted that the developer did a good job to ensure existing trees on the development remained. She summarized the water and sanitary sewer utility plan and noted that an old, unused sanitary sewer and water main would be removed with the vacation of public right of way for the former road referred to as Redman Lane. Mrs. Arsenault showed the storm sewer utility plan, which would reach into the storm pond area. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, reviewed the Planning Commission Scope for the approval of variances which is more prescriptive criteria to meet for approval. He reviewed the property history to provide context. The general development area had plats for Carver Beach Estates in 1986, Vineland Forest in 1990, and Troendle Addition in 1991. He reviewed the prior development conditions for Nez Perce. He said the city condemned the right-of-way through the property being considered for the preliminary plat. The city took future assessments from the property to pay for the future road extension of Nez Perce. If the road is not extended, there would be a potential that the city would have to pay it back with interest. Mr. Maass reviewed the neighborhood feedback about the Nez Perce connection with concerns that the connection of Nez Perce would create a cut-through path for drivers not wanting to drive on Powers Boulevard, and in the opinion of those residents, such a connection would change the character of the neighborhood. He presented the two options that the developer brought forward to the City Council and asked for the preferences. Option two would require a variance for the cul-de-sac length. He showed a drawing of the cul-de-sac and explained the variance request for the dead-end cul-de-sac of 1,040 feet long. He reviewed the comments from Emergency Services about the access at the cul-de-sac. Mr. Maass reviewed the proposed findings for recommendation. Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer, reviewed the existing conditions of the property, stating that it was an open prairie with managed turf grass. He said that the stormwater generally flows from the southeast to the northwest, with a majority of the water draining into Christmas Lake. He noted that a small portion of the site drains to the south. He said that the property takes water from the Troendle Addition. He reviewed the large drainage and utility easement to protect and 16 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 4 allow access to the wetland area and the treatment area. He stated that the area would be graded to facilitate the development and construction of roads, utilities, and building pads. A SWPPP Plan was provided to show how they will mitigate impacts during the construction. He said that the project would maintain the major flow patterns and indicated the various stormwater features on the site, with a majority of the water draining into Christmas Lake. The Troendle Addition would be routed through the pond/wetland area. He explained the stormwater design and how it would utilize a combination of wet pond/filtration basin, storm sewers, and swales to maintain the existing drainage patterns and meet design requirements. He noted that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires double the filtration volume when infiltration is deemed impractical. He said that the applicant shifted to a constructed wetland design to meet WCA and City Regulations. He reviewed the stormwater design considerations, including the existing drainage and utility easement. Mr. Seidl said that there is a planned project for Pleasant View Road Reconstruction from 2026 to 2027, which would trigger stormwater treatment rules. The city would investigate their needs for the area and work with the applicant to reconfigure the easement if the applicant would do an analysis to show how the proposed design would meet the regulations. He expressed concern about drainage to the south, which would have some risk of impacting adjacent residents. The engineer is working with the applicant’s engineer to mitigate the concerns. He stated that the best practice when building out a subdivision is to treat all the stormwater created by the impervious areas to the best extent possible. He explained that there are areas in the subdivision that aren’t being routed to the proposed water management system due to multiple factors, such as grade and current conditions. He recognized the need to increase the treatment of the Troendle Addition. Mr. Seidl stated that a Wetland Delineation was completed in July 2024, which located two wetlands on site. One wetland was 0.08 acres, and one wetland was 0.67 acres. The larger wetland was historic and governed by the Wetland Conservation Act, which protected wetlands, habitats, stormwater detention and flood protection, and groundwater recharge. He stated that typical designs try to avoid wetlands. Mr. Seidl reviewed the wetland background, which noted that wetland two is incidental created by manmade activities. The Technical Evaluation Panel reviewed historical information about the wetland, which showed that a portion of the wetland was highly modified, but a small portion was still jurisdictional. He stated that any alterations to the wetland require a Sequencing Application, which was submitted by the applicant in December 2024. He stated that wetland one did not require a sequencing application, but the Technical Evaluation Panel is still reviewing information. Mr. Seidl reviewed the process for the Sequencing Joint Application Permit, which looks at what the applicant does to avoid the impact of wetlands, minimize impacts on wetlands, and mitigate wetland impacts. He stated that the application included two alternatives, including a no-build option and a berm to preserve the wetland. The applicant preferred a constructed wetland, which would have a lot of benefits, such as honoring the historic wetland and enhancing the overall local water quality. He said the challenges would include the temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands, and that the wetland would not meet the quality control regulations. He said a decision was needed to provide direction to the applicant and meet application review timelines. 17 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 5 He explained that the applicant has done a lot of work, but that there was no clear-cut decision from the Water Resource Department. Mr. Seidl read the regulations from the State Statute, Joint Permit Application, and the Chanhassen City Ordinance that related to constructed wetlands. Paul Robinson, Development Director with Rachel Development, introduced himself and provided examples of projects he completed. He introduced the Charles Cudd Company, the home builder for the project. Mr. Robinson reviewed the land use plan and the current zoning for the property, noting that the minimum lot size was 15,000 square feet. He provided a site analysis of the property, including the wetland delineation for wetlands one and two. He recognized the right-of-way for Nez Perce. He reviewed the topography of the site and noted the bluff area on the property. Mr. Robinson showed the overland drainage on the property and said most of the drainage goes to the north and northeast. He pointed out where Pleasant View Road was located on the map. He said that Troendle Addition drains into the pond and then goes into Powers. He reviewed the drainage and utility easements with Troendle Addition in 1991 and the pond expansion in 1992. He reviewed the tree survey and showed images of the overall tree canopy. He explained the utility connections. He explained that the preliminary plat had 19 lots, and all the lots exceed the RSF standards. He said they are trying to respect the lot sizes in the area already, with a majority of the lots ranging from 22,438 square feet to 42,830 square feet. He noted that Troendle Circle had 15,919 average square foot lots. He reviewed the depth and width of the lots and explained that they exceeded the requirements. Mr. Robinson showed photos of houses that would be similar to what would be built. He reviewed the top issues raised at the neighborhood meeting, including the future access to a water tower, general traffic concerns, and the connection to Nez Perce. He explained the responses to staff comments, including the flag lot for lot 5 for the driveway, moving lot 6 driveway for snow storage, and adding a sidewalk along Pleasant View. He noted that the sidewalk would take twelve trees. He discussed the desire to preserve the trees in the development and requested additional dialogue about the sidewalk. He reviewed the southern drainage area, which would reduce the drainage to 1.6 acres, but they are looking for additional ways to reduce drainage. He stated that one option for the drainage would be to install a storm pipe to take drainage to the water tower. He reviewed the desire to add additional access to Pleasant View and said that they understood the City Code and the desire to limit driveways on Collector Roads. He did not think that the driveway would impact the collector road and said that there were turnarounds for each driveway. He provided options for a shared driveway but noted the importance of preserving the trees. Mr. Robinson reviewed the original proposed pond/filtration system, and they worked with the LGU to create a win-win option to create a constructed stormwater wetland treatment system. He showed an aerial photo of the wetland, which showed that in 1937, there was a wet meadow, but in 1956, the property was 100% farmed. In 1962, there was a small wet area visible, and in 1967 a pond was created. In 1979, he said that a culvert may have been plugged when the road was created. In 1989, a majority of the wetland was filled, and then in 1992, the Troendle addition was started, and they built a pond. He reviewed the 1992 grading permit staff memo. He said that the evidence indicated no wetlands were on the property originally. He thought that the 18 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 6 constructed wetland stormwater treatment system seemed like a win-win, and it included deep water zones, high marsh zones, low marsh zones, filtration strips, and a native upland buffer. He stated that the proposed treatment would help the water quality. He summarized the final points, including the request for one additional driveway on Pleasant View, the concerns about the impact of sidewalk construction, and Nez Perce. Commissioner Trevena asked if the proposed constructed stormwater wetland would result in a net gain in water quality. Mr. Seidl confirmed this information. Commissioner Trevena said that WAC’s recommendation was not a clear-cut approval. She asked if it was not clear-cut because of the subdivision. Mr. Seidl answered that the first part of the sequencing application demonstrated the need for the project. He said that a subdivision was difficult to prove because there were a lot of different things that could be done. He stated that the developer did a good job on the presentation, but from a water resources perspective, it is frowned upon to place your storm water treatment facilities in the area that you are trying to preserve. He explained that the construction of the wetland would have benefits and enhancements to the area. He requested direction from the Planning Commission for guidance on future projects, as well. Commissioner Jobe asked about the runoff going up to the adjacent cul-de-sac and if the trees were preventing putting a drainage ditch to redirect the runoff from the runoff change. Mr. Robinson said that the developer was trying to be cognizant to save the trees. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the wetland and a stormwater drainage and retention pond could co-exist in the same physical space. Mr. Seidl responded yes and no. He said that historically, wetlands were stormwater treatment. The wetlands provided some level of treatment before the current rules and regulations. He explained that if the two are adjacent to each other and not separated by a berm or some other separated feature, they are mixing untreated stormwater from the development with stormwater that would be from the wetland area. He said that the untreated stormwater going into the wetland is the impact and would degrade the wetland over time. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the projected five-, ten-, and one-hundred-year flood consequences would be to the proposed treatment pond. Mr. Seidl asked for clarification. Mr. Seidl answered that the stormwater facility would be large enough to hold stormwater from a two, ten, and one-hundred-year storm events. He said the subdivision would be designed around the one-hundred-year storm event to mitigate impacts on downstream resources and nearby residents. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the pond had the capacity. Mr. Seidl thought it did, but it would be a better question for the plan’s engineer. Chairman Noyes asked about feedback from the Department of Natural Resources and how it would be weighed in situations like this. Mr. Seidl said that the specific application would not impact public water, and the Department of Natural Resources would not be involved. The 19 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 7 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Administrator weighed in on the application and initially expressed concerns about the proposal of a stormwater management facility where there is a current wetland. He said that there is a long history with the wetland. There could be net benefits with the overall design. The watershed district can provide comments, but they do not get to vote on the plan. They received recent comments that the updated plan was headed in the right direction. Chairman Noyes asked if the design solution would be considered a complex solution or if it was standard. He asked about the chances if it was not appropriately sized or effectively designed. Mr. Seidl answered that the professional engineer designed the plan because he thought it would work. He explained that the project could be calculated, so there could be confidence that it would work. He voiced concerns about the vegetation. He asked who would take care of the vegetation. He explained it would be ideal to plant native vegetation, but the city would have limited resources for native vegetation management. He said there could be a possibility of a Homeowners' Association to manage the vegetation. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the wetland was private, if the city would have a maintenance easement. Mr. Seidl responded that he did not see it becoming private since there was mixing of public and private stormwater. He explained that when there is a mixing of stormwater, the city takes ownership of the management of the stormwater facilities. Commissioner Schwartz voiced concerns about his personal experience with Homeowner’s Associations and the management of the ponds. He explained that the city would have passive maintenance of the ponds. He explained concerns related to when the visual water quality was dirty and filled with algae, property owners might try to treat the water with chemicals. He asked for input from the applicant. Mr. Robinson responded that he has set up multiple Homeowners' Association with complicated stormwater systems and restoration. He said that it would be difficult for the developer to be there twenty years down the road, but the Homeowners’ Association could be set up with a lot of teeth. He suggested rather than requiring an impact to the wetland, they could put funds into the Homeowners’ Association fund for vegetation management. He thought it would be a win-win. He thought the buffer area would be managed by the Homeowners Association, but they need to figure out additional details. They put together a disclosure when the homes are sold about how ponds can be green, and the water levels can fluctuate. He explained that this effort could be lost on future owners. Commissioner Schwartz explained the process of restoring the pond in their neighborhood and explained how difficult it is to maintain these water features in future years. Commissioner Goff asked about future easement from the drainage and if it was being changed in the proposal. Mr. Robinson answered that the overall easement was growing. They are trying to reconfigure it to get lots, but also to ensure that it takes care of the one-hundred-year storm event and modeling a portion of Troendle Addition and Pleasant Creek Road. Commissioner Trevena asked if the Planning Commission recommends the approval of the water alteration permit, but there are still comments coming in from TEP, what the process would look like. Mr. Seidl explained that a majority of the TEP members are not opposed to the approval. 20 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 8 The city would follow up with a finding of fact and an additional WAC decision to memorialize everything. Commissioner Soller asked if TEP had an authority role or a recommending role. Mr. Seidl explained that the TEP voted on the decision, but it was up to the local governing unit to make the decision. He explained that if there was a history of bucking the TEP guidance, there could be challenges to the local governing unit status. He said the Chanhassen role must memorialize decisions rather than decisions by staff. Commissioner Soller asked about the current professional opinions by the TEP members and asked if they were disregarding the historical court ruling. Mr. Seidl explained that when the staff looked at the ruling 30 years later, when WAC was in its infancy, there were additional historical photos and data to analyze the existing conditions. He said that they can determine if there was a historical wetland. He explained that the question directed to the Board of Soil and Water Resources was whether the previous court ruling mattered or the current conditions. He stated that the legal purview was not in his authority. Commissioner Soller talked about the pros and cons displayed by Mr. Seidl earlier. He asked about the challenges with the constructed wetland, specifically about the quality control regulations with the water. He asked about the net increase of the status quo and discussed how the current increase and the status quo did not meet regulations. Mr. Seidl responded that if the wetland existed without any confusion, the designer would have to design around it. The designer would have to build a treatment facility in the upland to treat the stormwater before it got there. He said the proposed wetland did not have a separation, so the dirty stormwater from the development can make it into the overall treatment area. The net benefit comes from the water leaving the overall constructed wetland complex. He said there was untreated stormwater that got into the wetland today because it is an addition to the current pond from the Troendle Addition into the area. He said it was difficult to separate the overall water quality benefits. Commissioner Soller expressed the difficulties with the gray areas about what was practically acceptable versus not. He said there was no definitive thumbs up or thumbs down about the practical alternatives for the developer. This made the decision hard for the Planning Commission, especially since they are not experts. Mr. Seidl answered that there were metrics to consider when looking at applications. He explained that it was complicated since there was a net benefit to the overall site, but they would have to fill portions of a wetland that already had untreated stormwater conveyed to it. He explained that it was not a slam-dunk application for the TEP because of the need to prove the need, but there was no clear recommendation for denial. Chairman Noyes asked for Mr. Maass to review the Planning Commission’s roles with wetlands. Mr. Maass answered that the Planning Commission would have to review the application and provide a recommendation, and then the City Council would make the decision. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was anything different that the developer could do to increase the benefits to the wetland beyond what they already proposed. He said the developer already found a good solution to the problem. Mr. Seidl responded that there was a scope problem. The larger the stormwater management practices get, the more benefits they have. He 21 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 9 said it would be better to build two homes and have a larger stormwater management practice, but would that be practical? He requested guidance on what was practical. Commissioner Soller asked if there were alternatives to the plan brainstormed by the developer before they selected the plan. Mr. Robinson said that the developer was trying to go above and beyond what was proposed. He said that they were in a precarious situation. He explained that they are not maximizing the number of lots and they are trying to create a neighborhood that fits in with the area's homes today. He said they put all they could into the pond. Commissioner Soller clarified the purview of the Planning Commission and what they should consider. He referred to the final slide from the developer with the request of the additional driveway. He asked if that was included in the preliminary plat and if the Planning Commission had the purview to consider yes or no. Mr. Maass answered that the Planning Commission would recommend approval or denial of the plat. He said that the developer showed multiple options with the driveways that the city would consider. He explained that they try to limit the number of access points onto collector roads since they are to have as few as are practical. There are three other alternatives that the staff would consider, and they think they can provide a solution for access to the lots. There are multiple factors to think about, but the biggest importance is that drivers are not backing onto the collector road. Commissioner Soller asked about the connection of Nez Perce Drive based on previous comments submitted. He said that there was a City Council directional vote in a working session that was 3-2. He reviewed the three items in the variance and asked where the connection or non- connection of that road fell within the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Maass responded that the conversation around the Nez Perce connection was similar. There is a preliminary plat with both options. He did not think it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to table based on this subject since there is a plat with both options. Mr. Maass reviewed the triangle of discretion. He said that the Planning Commission was presented with drafts of findings of fact and the staff’s job is to provide technical expertise and information. The Planning Commission and City Council provide direction to the city staff. Chairman Noyes said that the Planning Commission would provide a recommendation about Nez Perce Drive, and the City Council would confirm the decision or disagree with the decision. Commissioner Rosengren clarified if the recommendation was for the connection to be made, a variance was no longer necessary. Mr. Maass answered that a variance would no longer be required since the depth of the cul-de-sac road would be below the 750 feet threshold required by City Code. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Ed Szalapski Junior, 850 Pleasant View Road, stated he has been a resident of Chanhassen for 31 years. He was speaking as a private citizen and a representative of the Christmas Lake Home Association Board. He voiced concern about traffic on Pleasant View Road since it was a narrow road with natural obstacles and sharp turns. He stated that some places on Pleasant View Road could not accommodate speeds of 25 to 30 miles per hour, even with the proposed upgrade to the 22 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 10 road. He expressed concerns about the increased amount of traffic, but the concern would be resolved if Nez Perce Road was not connected to Peaceful Lane. He expressed concerns with increased runoff, as residents have spent time and money to work on invasive species. He said when there is increased development, there is an increase in run-off, which decreases water quality. He expressed the need to apply the highest standard possible to water management. He said Christmas Lake was the cleanest lake in an 11-county area and voiced the need to preserve the water quality. Paul Haik, 261 Hidden Lane, said he was the Riley Purgatory Watershed District Attorney for 20 years. He said that one of the pieces they were missing in the presentation was the dynamic in expanding the pond. He said that the water would come in, but the water would warm, which would trigger soluble release of phosphorus. He asked about the volume of water that would leave and the soluble phosphorus that would be generated by the warming in the wetland. He said that the city has an MS-4 Permit, which regulates all the pipes. The city has liability for State agencies, which set the standards of what can be sent to Christmas Lake. He requested that the city share the water management plan, the MS-4 obligations, and additional information about these questions to make an informed decision. He stated that once there is a water quality problem, it is hard to fix it, but the developer was able to change what might result. He voiced favor for the Planning Commission to have a deeper understanding of how the pipe fits into the current water management program. Christine Haissig, 6370 Pleasant View Cove, expressed concerns about the traffic. She said that there would be 19 additional households flowing into Pleasant View Road. She expressed concerns about the safety of the intersection with Powers Boulevard. She said that there were no turn lanes, shoulders, or room for pedestrians. She stated that there was a major improvement project a few years ago to help get traffic onto Pleasant View Road safely, but there were still challenges with getting off Pleasant View Road. She said that the hill going into the cul-de-sac made a blind entry. She stated that traffic off Powers Boulevard makes it difficult to turn into the cul-de-sac. She said that 19 additional houses is a large increase. She requested a qualitative analysis to build on the data to understand the impact on this road and to understand the potential safety issues. She did not know how this information was analyzed by the city but expressed the importance of the city looking into the data. Tony Fricano, 980 Lake Lucy Road, said that there was a lot of speeding on Lake Lucy Road, and the traffic is a problem. He expressed the importance of spreading out the traffic. He said his house would be impacted by the additional traffic flow. He mentioned the lots on Lake Lucy Road having effects of water from the development, the engineering team clarified the water would be lower than what is currently shed today from no development on the site. He corrected himself and said that there was less water flowing and said he misheard the City Engineer. Commissioner Soller asked if spreading the traffic out meant they were in favor of the Nez Perce Connection. Mr. Fricano responded that if there were multiple roads connecting to a main road, the traffic would be spread out and people would drive from multiple areas to get to Powers Boulevard. He stated that no one would be hit hard. 23 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 11 Sarah Zaccarine, 6431 Pleasant Park Drive, expressed concerns about moving the wetland into public property in individual lots. She said it would be distributed among the two to four lots. She said if it was city-owned or an easement, the property owner might feel they could do something to the native vegetation at the wetland. Thomas Kraker, 801 Pleasant View Road, stated that he has lived on the road for twenty years. He was not able to attend the July introduction meeting. He expressed enjoying walking on Peaceful Lane and the large tract of undeveloped land. He reiterated the dangers of the curves on Pleasant View Road, especially with the vehicles traveling over the speed limit. He said it was unique that this large tract of land was undeveloped. He stated that there were too many lots, not because they do not like development. He commented that there was room on Powers Boulevard to make a turning lane. He said it was important to have fewer lots to maintain the beauty of the land and to help with the traffic flow. He stated it was good to have opportunity for development in Chanhassen, but expressed the need to be realistic about what was overkill. He said that fewer lots could help with the water runoff. Alexander Westlind, 825 Pleasant View Road, voiced agreement with the comments about water quality, not connecting to Nez Perce, and the comment about performing a traffic study about the additional homes on Pleasant View Road. He asked about the environmental impacts with the development. He said that there was a lot of wildlife on Pleasant View Road in the undeveloped area. He asked if the hard cover infrastructure would be capable of handling the additional flow of water and if there were any studies performed for endangered, rare, or special concerned species of pollinators or vegetation. He expressed concerns about the habitat being rerouted onto Pleasant View Road, which already has traffic issues. He asked about the provisions in the Homeowners Association rules that would limit the amount of fencing that could potentially reroute wildlife and habitat and if the Homeowners Association would expand to existing lots. He appreciated the developer’s concern with maintaining trees. He discussed the non-connector road for the development and stated that the precedent would be for Pleasant View lot sizes. Pleasant View Road has development with larger size lots, so the lots seem smaller than the existing lot sizes. Martha Noll, 7214 Frontier Trail, said that she agreed with the importance of saving Christmas Lake and the watershed ideas. She asked if everyone was concerned with the wetland area and the builder took their $3600 to plant and maintain the trees for ten years, then the city could come back in and maintain the area. She stated if they were to redo Pleasant View and the developer was taking on the expense of the filtration, it could be a good opportunity for the city to relieve the taxpayers. Eric Anderson, 6580 Troendle Circle, said he spent many years as the City Administrator for Edina and then a real estate developer. He stated he attended the City Council Work Session and sent letters. He commented that his neighborhood, including Troendle Circle, Nez Perce north of Lake Lucy, and Violet Court, was made up of 33 homes. He said that they did not want to see the road connected. Nez Perce from Kerber to Lake Lucy is a narrow and dangerous road with cut- through traffic. He commented that Lake Lucy and Carver Beach Road were easy outlets to Powers Boulevard. He analyzed various cul-de-sac dead-end lengths and presented various 24 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 12 examples of streets that exceeded 750 feet maximum. He said it was a reasonable variance request. He asked that they strongly consider leaving the cul-de-sac as it currently exists. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Mr. Maass offered a brief recess since the meeting had been going for a little over two hours. Chairman Noyes asked about the MS-4 obligations and the modeling that is being completed. He said he saw Mr. Seidl taking notes of the comments and he requested more information. Mr. Seidl said that the City of Chanhassen had an MS-4 permit, which stood for a municipal separate storm sewer system. This permit allowed the city to discharge stormwater into public waters of the State. The city had to inspect their infrastructure, have rules and regulations, have public engagement and education, and other responsibilities. Mr. Seidl said the resident was asking if the city was looking at the downstream water quality when a development came in and to what level. He said that the city is bound by the rules and regulations in place, and they are used in assessing developments. There are water quality standards and rate standards to meet the MS-4 rate regulations. He said that the watershed also has rules and regulations that need to be met. He explained that there are also standard engineering practices. He explained that if the water regulations are being met at the site, the downstream water quality will be improved. Mr. Seidl commented that Chanhassen cannot infiltrate water, so there will be more stormwater volume generated by the site. He said that the developer cannot mitigate this when building impervious surfaces in lieu of a reuse system. He commented that this was not written in the regulations or a part of the MS-4 Permit. He said if a development meets the city’s rules and the watershed rules, that is how he considers if it is approvable or not. Commissioner Jobe asked about the phosphorus level and if it could be managed by a Homeowner’s Association, the amount of fertilizer used on lawns, and the amount of runoff. Mr. Seidl answered that a Homeowner’s Association could in theory have a rule about the chemicals used on a lawn, but that was not a part of the city’s rules when looking at subdivisions. Commissioner Schwartz said that a Homeowner’s Association could not effectively regulate the amount of fertilizer a property owner is putting on their lawns or in their plantings. Chairman Noyes responded that a Homeowner’s Association could manage it if they were responsible for the lawns. Commissioner Schwartz stated that a Homeowner’s Association could indirectly manage the fertilizer, but it would be more likely that the vendor hired would put the fertilizer down. The Homeowner’s Association relies on the vendor to know how much fertilizer and weed killer to put on the lawns. Commissioner Soller asked about the risks associated with the wetland on Christmas Lake. He asked for a summary of the thoughts and said that once the water quality was lost, it is hard to get back. Mr. Seidl stated that the current design set forth by the developer was an improvement to the water quality over the existing condition. He commented that the stormwater was currently treated to older standards as it is leaving the site. He said the development would generate more 25 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 13 volume, but it would be mitigated by the stormwater infrastructure. He was hesitant to quantify what was happening at Christmas Lake. The water quality was improved when leaving the site and would go through other facilities and benefit from treatment before it got to Christmas Lake. Commissioner Goff said that there was a passion about road extension. He asked if the sign at the end belonged to the city. He thought it would be in the city plan to someday extend it when it was developed but asked if the city decided not to. Mr. Maass responded that the sign was a city sign and read the future extension of Nez Perce Road. He commented that the prior City Council approved the Troendle Addition in 1991, with the condition to connect Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane to connect to Pleasant View Road. He explained the City Council condemned the right-of- way to facilitate the construction of the road and took a minor assessment to fund the extension. He said that the land stood undeveloped for many years. The applicant can make the project work in any scenario, but a majority of the current City Council, based on feedback, wanted to not connect Nez Perce and just extend Peaceful Lane. Commissioner Goff said if it was connected, it would route more traffic and said he assumed the city did research to show that the streets could safely handle the additional traffic, and it would alleviate traffic on roads that travel south. Mr. Maass confirmed that the road could be safely extended but it was ultimately a policy decision for the City Council. Chairman Noyes said he understood both sides of the dilemma and did not know if extending the road was the right idea. He said one issue he had was that in the past, assurances were made that the road would be extended. He commented that people made decisions based on these assurances, so it does not feel right. He said he understood that people would be upset if it was not put through since there was a message for so long about it happening. He did not know the reason behind the original decision and recognized that times had changed. There needs to be discussions about the repercussions of the changes. He said that the City Council would have to put it in their own decision-making process. Commissioner Schwartz requested the slide that showed the pond. He asked Mr. Seidl how much the size of the pond would need to increase for him to say yes. Mr. Seidl answered that it was not the size of the infrastructure, but there would have to be a design change that completely saved the wetland. He said he applauded the design team with what was brought forward and their effort but made note that he struggled with the conflicting regulations that seemed to be at odds. Commissioner Schwartz said he understood the conflict and the work the developer put into the work. He asked if lots three, five, six, and four were not there to impede the ability to increase the size of the wetland. Mr. Seidl said that the reduction of scope would not necessitate a wetland replacement plan, since they would meet all the rules and regulations. He did not know how many lots that would be since there is a myriad of different scenarios that the developer could go through. He is trying to provide the facts to make an educated decision. Mr. Maass explained that there was an element of wetland preservation and mitigation, which was important and outlined in the City Code. He said another aspect to consider was the city’s 26 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 14 Comprehensive Plan, which required that land to be developed was guided for residential low density had to be between 1.2 units per acre and 4 units per acre. The plan was at 1.4 units per acre, so they could only reduce it by 0.2 units per acre. He said that they wanted to serve the Comprehensive Plan and the wetlands. Commissioner Schwartz said that they could request the developer to reduce the depths of the lots to increase the size of the pond. Mr. Maass answered that he was not an engineer, so he could not comment on the size of the pond. He said it was important to consider the long-term maintenance, and the responsibility and ownership of the pond and vegetative buffer. He said that lots four and five are an acre each. He said that the city could have the pond placed in an outlot deeded to the city so that they could have additional oversight. He said some residents might mow areas they should not if they do not know where their drainage and utility easement lies, but if their property line ends, it is more obvious about their maintenance responsibilities. Mr. Seidl said that the sizing of the pond meets water requirements standards, but there is a reduction of benefit with regards to the size if it is sized appropriately. He said he had no additional comments. Chairman Noyes said the developer mentioned a sidewalk, which was not in the staff report. He asked if the Planning Commission had to weigh in on this information. Mr. Maass responded that city staff was wrestling with Outlot A. He said it would be a publicly owned and maintained trail. He stated that the city maintains a public trail on the east side of Powers Boulevard. They would use the same equipment on this trail to maintain the trail on Outlot A. There was a conversation about promoting neighborhood connectivity and safety and providing an off-road trail from Outlot A to Pleasant View Road to provide connectivity. He said that the city wanted to add additional off-road pedestrian facilities, but that Pleasant View Road was tight and would be a difficult project. He noted that there were complications with the property, but they wanted to find a reasonable solution to have trails. He said they were open to feedback from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rosengren asked about a technical point and if the little road that currently ends would be turned into a path. Mr. Maass said that the area was an existing right-of-way that the city condemned for the Nez Perce connection. The city would retain the right-of-way to place a public trail. Commissioner Soller said that the variance of the cul-de-sac felt easy compared with the presented evidence of other variances. He said that the wetland alteration was difficult, but the net increase to water quality and the way that the technology could make it a better situation over a status quo that does not meet water quality standards to begin with, he did not know how much more data they could get there to sway the opinion. He said they had seen proposals that fit houses in small spaces, but there seemed to be a balance in the density proposal. He also discussed the high-quality and premium nature of the homes being built. He asked if others had opinions that they wanted to share. He did not know if he had the expertise in the connection with Nez Perce. He said that it has been signaled for thirty years, but history should not be the only consideration in the decision. He agreed that the City Council should assess the facts and make the final decision about the connections. 27 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 15 Mr. Maass said any recommendation did not create a precedence for future applications for variance requests for a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Goff said he was good with the proposal, but the outstanding decision was the Nez Perce decision. He stated the developer did a great job, but the City Council needs to decide between options one and two. Chairman Noyes asked if he were to pretend to be on the City Council, how would he vote? He said the Planning Commission had to make a recommendation to provide to the City Council so they would understand their thoughts. Commissioner Goff asked how many people were for the extension and how many people were against it. He said people were in favor of or against the extension based on traffic. Commissioner Rosengren said that the Planning Commission was looking for assurance about the impacts. The Planning Commission could not always get to that level of assurance, and they could only make the best recommendation possible. He commented that there needs to be trust that the city staff and developer were making proposals based on what they best knew after working with experts. He said that the Planning Commission asked for certainty, which was not always possible. He stated that the proposal, as presented, should stand. He thought it was reasonable to not connect Nez Perce, and there was no certainty about the impact. He asked about what to do with the driveway on Pleasant View. He said that shared driveways do not work, so he suggested not following that option. He did not think it seemed like a big hardship to add one driveway on a road that already had sixteen driveways. Commissioner Jobe thought a pathway or a trail would be a great thing to have to get along the road and to allow for neighborhood connectivity. He stated that the amount of paper that the project had taken had already consumed the twelve trees that would be removed from the trail. Commissioner Schwartz mentioned his only concern was the wetland and if it made sense to narrow the depth of the lots on block one to increase the size of the wetland and improve the water quality going into Christmas Lake. Chairman Noyes said he was not convinced that a larger wetland would greatly impact the efficiency and outcomes of the water. He said that there were limiting factors. He said all the work to come up with a solution was impressive, and it was better than what they were going in with. He said that the solution was a step forward, and he did not know if they would get a second step forward. He said if there were guarantees that it would improve the water quality, he would consider it, but he did not know if that was the case. He discussed the connection between Nez Perce. He said he would prefer to connect Nez Perce. He wanted the City Council to explain the logic behind the decision change and he wanted to force the conversation. He said the City Council might have great ideas which were not expressed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Trevena said she felt like they were missing valuable information from the City Council as it relates to the Nez Perce connection. 28 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 16 Mr. Maass shared information that was shared with the City Council during their work session which was open to the public and the topic was on the agenda. The City Council received neighborhood feedback that there was a preference for the connection not to be made. He thought it was a fair summary to say the decision was based on the information the City Council received to the point of the area development. Commissioner Soller asked if the staff expressed their opinion and whether there was an engineering opinion about whether or not to connect. Mr. Maass responded that there was an engineering solution in either scenario. It comes down to a policy decision about long cul-de- sacs or interconnected neighborhoods. Commissioner Soller asked if there was guidance in the Comprehensive Plan about what type of city they wanted to engineer. Mr. Maass answered that the Comprehensive Plan had a transportation chapter that classified roads based on the levels of traffic they were meant to carry and the design type they should receive when they build new or reconstruct. He said that interconnection was a good thing, but it is not always required. It does say that the right-of-way provided to the edge was a requirement if there is developable property directly adjacent to land being platted to facilitate future road extensions. He showed an example of how right-of-way locations were brought to the edge on other properties. He said it was whether or not they utilized the right-of-way. He commented that there would likely be policies in the Comprehensive Plan that could be used in support of either option. Commissioner Soller said without objectivity and data it was difficult to make claims about the traffic. Commissioner Schwartz said that there seemed to be a disconnect between the scientific observations and residents’ lived experiences in traffic studies. He asked if it was reasonable to combine both areas to find a compromise. He stated that there was no ability to overlap, which he found disturbing. Chairman Noyes said connector streets were made to handle large levels of traffic. He did not know which roads were connectors before this conversation. The objectives of the roads might not fit into residents’ desires because they do not fit into the way of life. Commissioner Rosengren said that he would prefer not to make the connection because Nez Perce would operate similarly to a connector road, which Peaceful Lane was not set up to handle the extra traffic. He said he would not support turning Nez Perce into a connection unless there was support to redo roads. He voiced concerns about future problems. Chairman Noyes clarified that Outlot A was in the city right-of-way. Mr. Maass responded that the city currently owns the condemned right-of-way. Chairman Noyes asked if the opportunity existed to make the connection in the future, if it was desired by other Planning Commissions or City Council. Mr. Maass answered that a connection could be made in the future, but that it was not common for this to occur with future street 29 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 17 reconstruction projects. If it was to be connected, it would likely be during the initial development of the property. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the city was considering widening Pleasant View. He said it was a scary road. Mr. Maass answered that Pleasant View is planned for reconstruction in the coming years. He said that the city staff knew the challenges that Pleasant View presented and hoped to address many of them in a future reconstruction project. Commissioner Soller said that it seems as if the Planning Commission was ready to consider what was on the table. Mr. Maass said that the Planning Commission could take each item on its own as a recommendation or make a single recommendation. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit, and recommends approval of the variance, for the subdivision on Pleasant View Road 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 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2025 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated February 18, 2025 as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 1. DISCUSSION ONLY: ORDINANCE XXX: DENSITY BONUSES AMENDMENT Mr. Maass reviewed Housing Policy 1.7.2 in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He bolded the “as defined by the City” since the City Code did not specify the details. He showed two prospective developments, Santa Vera Phase II and 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard, that would like to utilize the density bonus. Mr. Maass said that the density bonus is within the Comprehensive Plan but is not something that can be used until the details of a density bonus are outlined in city code. He presented the income limits for the metro area determined by the United States Housing of Urban Development. He said that the staff reached out to other cities for example ordinances for similar bonuses. They discussed potential bonuses with private developers to gauge usability. They drafted an ordinance based on this feedback and said that the density bonus would be eligible for use in R-8, R-12, R-16, PUD-R, and the Central Business District. He said that developers 30 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 18 indicated that 80 percent of Area Median Income was aligned with common Metro area market rents. He discussed that the city would require that the bonus units would remain affordable for a period of twenty years. Chairman Noyes asked where the money came from in this situation. Mr. Maass said that as drafted the density bonus is a non-fiscal tool and the city would not be required to participate financially in the project and offset reduced rental revenue. He commented that the city does not often give housing TIF. Chairman Noyes asked if other cities were similar in economic terms and residents’ background as Chanhassen. Mr. Maass responded that they looked at the spectrum. They were proposing the density bonus as an option for high density housing, rather than a requirement which is what is seen with inclusionary housing ordinances. Chairman Noyes asked how they knew it was affordable for twenty years. Mr. Maass answered that the developer would have to provide annual reports to the city to make sure that they met compliance for the Area Median Income. It was similar to the senior housing TIF requirements. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was a difference between the size and the quality of the affordable units. Mr. Maass reviewed the requirements for the bonus units, including that they needed to be distributed throughout the building, and should be the same design, size, and materials as the market rate units. He said that the unit type should be consistent as a percentage with the rest of the development. He said that the city would look at the geographic distribution if it seemed like an incorrect fit. He commented that they did not require every multi-family area to have bonus units, but there would be benefits to having affordable housing throughout the community. He said that over ninety percent of workers commuted into Chanhassen. He commented that they were setting up guidelines to follow if developers wanted to include the information. Mr. Maass reviewed the timeline for the project. Commissioner Rosengren clarified that the ordinance was granting that the developer could have greater density than the zoning allows. Mr. Maass provided an example and confirmed this information. Commissioner Rosengren asked what would happen if they stopped meeting the eighty percent and were out of compliance with their zone. Mr. Maass answered that compliance with affordability requirements would be outlined in a contract between the City and developer and if a developer failed to abide by that contract, the city would have grounds to sue the property owner for failure to operate by the contract. Commissioner Jobe asked about the thirty percent run-off area. Mr. Maass responded that it would not preclude any property from meeting other zoning requirements of the city including maximum impervious lot coverage. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the city had a population base that would qualify for affordable housing. Mr. Maass answered that there is a need for affordable housing. 31 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 19 Commissioner Schwartz asked about the twenty-five percent threshold. Mr. Maass answered that it would be at least eight units per acre. Commissioner Schwartz asked about transferring the property to a market rate if the housing sat vacant. Mr. Maass said that the bonus units are required to be held for renters with qualifying income levels. Commissioner Rosengren highlighted the need to encourage the development of the style so people who work here would also live here. He expressed the positive of the suggestion since it was not a mandate. Mr. Maass asked if there was anything they wanted to be added. Chairman Noyes asked about how the Area Median Income was calculated. Mr. Maass explained that HUD utilized the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington area to determine Area Median Income. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. OPEN DISCUSSION: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, provided an update to Pioneer Ridge. He said that it would be on the City Council Work Session on March 10. The City Staff issued a sixty- day extension for the project. The developer submitted an updated concept that revised the northern portion to a detached villa. He said that the City Code did not have a detached villa definition, so there would be a process to go through for it to be approvable. He said it could be on the City Council agenda as early as March 24. Commissioner Rosengren asked about the removal of trees for bats and if it would push out the start of the project until next year. Mr. Maass responded that the federal government had recommendations for tree removal that were potential habitats for the bat. The developer was meeting with their engineer to see if there were restrictions related to the timing of tree removal. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director 32