Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2020, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Consider a Request for Variances to Permit Construction of a Building on an Outlot
and from the Standards Governing WaterOriented Structures at 3920 White Oak
Lane
C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated June 2, 2020
D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.City Council Action Update
E.ADJOURNMENT
F.OPEN DISCUSSION
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Subject Consider a Request for Variances to Permit Construction of a Building on an Outlot and from the
Standards Governing WaterOriented Structures at 3920 White Oak Lane
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No: Planning Case No. 202008
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to be constructed on
an outlot, approves a variance for a second wateroriented accessory structure, and denies the variance request to
exceed the 250 squarefoot wateroriented accessory structure size limit, subject to the Conditions of Approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to add on an 8foot by 10foot wateroriented accessory structure (WOAS) on their outlot.
Due to the fact the buildings are not allowed on outlots, a variance is required to allow for the construction of a shed on
this parcel. Additionally, there is already a 260square foot patio located on the outlot. Since the City Code limits
WOASs to a maximum size of 250 square feet and limits each property to a single structure, a 90square foot
maximum size variance and variance from the single structure limit would also be required.
The applicant is requesting three variances. The first two, the variance from the prohibition on building on an outlot and
the variance from the one WOAS limit, are consistent with the intent of the city’s Shoreland Management Ordinance
and is necessitated by the unique nature of the applicant’s property. The reasons for granting these variances would not
be broadly applicable to other properties and granting them would essentially allow the applicant to enjoy the same
rights as other riparian property owners. The third variance is not justified by any circumstance unique to the applicant’s
property and would allow the applicant a WOAS beyond what other riparian property owners are permitted.
A full discussion of the requested variances can be found in the attached staff report.
APPLICANT
Chad Lundeen 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: RSF Single Family Residential District
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, June 16, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Permit Construction of a Building on an Outlot and from theStandards Governing WaterOriented Structures at 3920 White Oak LaneSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202008PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to be constructed onan outlot, approves a variance for a second wateroriented accessory structure, and denies the variance request toexceed the 250 squarefoot wateroriented accessory structure size limit, subject to the Conditions of Approval andadopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing to add on an 8foot by 10foot wateroriented accessory structure (WOAS) on their outlot.Due to the fact the buildings are not allowed on outlots, a variance is required to allow for the construction of a shed onthis parcel. Additionally, there is already a 260square foot patio located on the outlot. Since the City Code limitsWOASs to a maximum size of 250 square feet and limits each property to a single structure, a 90square footmaximum size variance and variance from the single structure limit would also be required.The applicant is requesting three variances. The first two, the variance from the prohibition on building on an outlot andthe variance from the one WOAS limit, are consistent with the intent of the city’s Shoreland Management Ordinanceand is necessitated by the unique nature of the applicant’s property. The reasons for granting these variances would notbe broadly applicable to other properties and granting them would essentially allow the applicant to enjoy the samerights as other riparian property owners. The third variance is not justified by any circumstance unique to the applicant’sproperty and would allow the applicant a WOAS beyond what other riparian property owners are permitted. A full discussion of the requested variances can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTChad Lundeen 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: RSF Single Family Residential District
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: .55 acres, .13 acres
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District
Section 20481, Placement, design, and height of structure
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential District
Section 20615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks
BACKGROUND
In December of 2000, the plat for the White Oak Addition subdivision was recorded, with the lots on the lakeside of
Minnewashta Parkway being platted as outlots and required to be combined with the respective lot across the street.
The goal of this designation was to prevent these lots from being sold as buildable lots.
In July of 2001, the city approved a permit for the construction of a singlefamily home and attached garage at 3920
White Oak Lane.
In April of 2017, the city approved a permit for the installation of a sand beach blanket on the outlot.
Note: A patio was constructed on the outlot between 20052008 without a permit (dates based on aerial photos).
Since the city did not require zoning permits for patios in 2007, staff cannot determine if the patio was legally installed
before the permit requirement or illegally installed after the permit requirement went into force.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the first two variance requests and deny the third by adopting
the following motion:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to be constructed on an
outlot, approves a variance for a second wateroriented accessory structure, and denies the variance request to exceed
the 250 squarefoot wateroriented accessory structure size limit, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adopts
the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.”
1. No trees, shrubs or native vegetation shall be allowed to be cleared for the grading or construction of the
building.
2. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.
3. The installation of the shed shall not encroach into any recorded drainage and utility easement associated with the
outlot.
4. The combined area of both wateroriented accessory structures may not exceed 250 square feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, June 16, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Permit Construction of a Building on an Outlot and from theStandards Governing WaterOriented Structures at 3920 White Oak LaneSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202008PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to be constructed onan outlot, approves a variance for a second wateroriented accessory structure, and denies the variance request toexceed the 250 squarefoot wateroriented accessory structure size limit, subject to the Conditions of Approval andadopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing to add on an 8foot by 10foot wateroriented accessory structure (WOAS) on their outlot.Due to the fact the buildings are not allowed on outlots, a variance is required to allow for the construction of a shed onthis parcel. Additionally, there is already a 260square foot patio located on the outlot. Since the City Code limitsWOASs to a maximum size of 250 square feet and limits each property to a single structure, a 90square footmaximum size variance and variance from the single structure limit would also be required.The applicant is requesting three variances. The first two, the variance from the prohibition on building on an outlot andthe variance from the one WOAS limit, are consistent with the intent of the city’s Shoreland Management Ordinanceand is necessitated by the unique nature of the applicant’s property. The reasons for granting these variances would notbe broadly applicable to other properties and granting them would essentially allow the applicant to enjoy the samerights as other riparian property owners. The third variance is not justified by any circumstance unique to the applicant’sproperty and would allow the applicant a WOAS beyond what other riparian property owners are permitted. A full discussion of the requested variances can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTChad Lundeen 3920 White Oak Lane Excelsior, MN 55331SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: RSF Single Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: .55 acres, .13 acres DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, General ProvisionsSection 12, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3, VariancesChapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management DistrictSection 20481, Placement, design, and height of structureChapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential DistrictSection 20615, Lot Requirements and SetbacksBACKGROUNDIn December of 2000, the plat for the White Oak Addition subdivision was recorded, with the lots on the lakeside ofMinnewashta Parkway being platted as outlots and required to be combined with the respective lot across the street.The goal of this designation was to prevent these lots from being sold as buildable lots.In July of 2001, the city approved a permit for the construction of a singlefamily home and attached garage at 3920White Oak Lane.In April of 2017, the city approved a permit for the installation of a sand beach blanket on the outlot.Note: A patio was constructed on the outlot between 20052008 without a permit (dates based on aerial photos).Since the city did not require zoning permits for patios in 2007, staff cannot determine if the patio was legally installedbefore the permit requirement or illegally installed after the permit requirement went into force.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the first two variance requests and deny the third by adoptingthe following motion:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to be constructed on anoutlot, approves a variance for a second wateroriented accessory structure, and denies the variance request to exceedthe 250 squarefoot wateroriented accessory structure size limit, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adoptsthe attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.”1. No trees, shrubs or native vegetation shall be allowed to be cleared for the grading or construction of thebuilding. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.3. The installation of the shed shall not encroach into any recorded drainage and utility easement associated with theoutlot.4. The combined area of both wateroriented accessory structures may not exceed 250 square feet.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact and Decision
Variance Document
Development Review Application
Narrative
Survey
Photos
Engineering Memo
ERS Memo
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: June 16, 2020
CC DATE: July 13, 2020
REVIEW DEADLINE: July 14, 2020
CASE #: 2020-08
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to add on an 8-foot by 10-
foot WOAS on their outlot. Due to the fact the
buildings are not allowed on outlots, a variance is
required to allow for the construction of a shed on
this parcel. Additionally, there is already a 260
square foot patio located on the outlot. Since the City
Code limits WOASs to a maximum size of 250
square feet and limits each property to a single
structure, a 90-square foot maximum size variance
and variance from the single structure limit would
also be required.
LOCATION: 3920 White Oak Lane
(PID 258300010)
Outlot A, White Oak Addition
(PID 258300060)
OWNER: Chad Lundeen
3920 White Oak Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: RSF
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: .55 acres, .13 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to
be constructed on an outlot, approves a variance for a second water-oriented accessory structure
(WOAS), and denies the variance request to exceed the 250 square foot water-oriented accessory
structure size limit, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of
Facts and Decisions.”
Planning Commission
3920 White Oak Lane Variances
Page 2
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant owns two
parcels, one of which is Lot 1,
Block 1 of the White Oak
Addition and the other is
Outlot A of the White Oak
Addition. Lot 1, Block 1 has a
single-family home and the
Outlot provides that home with
access to Lake Minnewashta.
Currently, there is a 260-square
foot patio on the outlot which
was constructed by the home’s
previous owner.
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an 8-foot by 10-foot WOAS, specifically a
storage shed, on riparian property. The applicant is proposing to install the shed near the northern
property line where it will be screened from view by existing vegetation. Since the property is an
outlot, they will need a variance from the city’s prohibition on constructing buildings on outlots,
a variance from Shoreland Management Ordinance’s limits of one WOAS per property, and a
variance from the Shoreland Management Ordinance’s 250 square foot WOAS maximum size
limit.
The applicant intends to use the shed to store kayaks, paddleboards, fishing equipment, and other
similar items near the water. The applicant has noted that their home is over 300 feet from the
lake and that it can be dangerous crossing Minnewashta Parkway with children and equipment.
Additionally, the shed would allow them to securely store items on the outlot when they are not
in use. They have also noted that there are many similar structures, some significantly bigger
than what they are proposing, along the shore of Lake Minnewashta and that adding a small shed
to their parcel would not change the character of the area. Finally, they have stated that their goal
in requesting this variance is to have the same rights and ability to use their riparian lot as other
lakeshore owners.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Planning Commission
3920 White Oak Lane Variances
Page 3
Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District
Section 20-481, Placement, Design, and Height of Structure
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks
BACKGROUND
In December of 2000, the plat for the White Oak Addition subdivision was recorded, with the
lots on the lakeside of Minnewashta Parkway being platted as outlots and required to be
combined with the respective lot across the street. The goal of this designation was to prevent
these lots from being sold as buildable lots.
In July of 2001, the city approved a permit for the construction of a single-family home and
attached garage at 3920 White Oak Lane.
In April of 2017, the city approved a permit for the installation of a sand beach blanket on the
outlot.
Note: A patio was constructed on the outlot between 2005-2008 without a permit (dates based on
aerial photos). Since the city did not require zoning permits for patios in 2007, staff cannot
determine if the patio was legally installed before the permit requirement or illegally installed
after the permit requirement went into force.
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF) District and is located within the
Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of
15,000 square feet, 20,000 if riparian, with a minimum lot width of 90 feet and a minimum lot
depth of 125 feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and
limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet
in height. Riparian properties are allowed one water-oriented structure not to exceed 10 feet in
height and 250 square feet in area. The property also includes an outlot which is not subject to
minimum lot depth, width, and area standards.
Lot 1, Block 1 is a 23,958 square foot flag lot with an estimated lot cover of 24.65 percent. The
home appears to meet all required setbacks. Outlot A is 5,662 square foot parcel with an
estimated lot cover of 4.6 percent and an existing patio that exceeds the 250 square foot size limit
for accessory structures by 10 square feet.
NEIGHBORHOOD
White Oak Addition
Planning Commission
3920 White Oak Lane Variances
Page 4
The plat for this area was recorded in December of 2000 and created 5 lots and 2 outlots. A
condition of approval for the subdivision was that Outlots A and B be combined with Lots 1 and
2, respectively, to provide those properties with lake access without allowing for the possibility
that homes could be constructed on the riparian parcels. As this is a newer subdivision, the
homes were built under the current zoning code and there do not appear to be many non-
conforming properties in the subdivision and surrounding area.
Variances within 500 feet:
There are no known variances within 500 feet of 3920 White Oak Lane.
ANALYSIS
Request At A Glance
City Code Applicant’s Request Staff’s Recommendation
Building on an outlot Not allowed Allowed Allowed
No. of WOAS 1 2 2
Maximum Size of WOAS 250 sq. ft. 340 sq. ft. 250 sq. ft.
Building on an Outlot
The city required the White Oak Addition subdivision to plat the lots abutting Lake Minnewashta as
outlots and required that those lots be linked to the respective lots across the street in order to
prevent those lots from being sold as separate buildable lots. The intent was for Outlot A and Outlot
B to provide the owners of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 1 with lake access without allowing for
the possibility that a single-family home could be constructed on the riparian lots.
Applicant’s Lots and Approximate Location of Proposed Shed
The city had to require these lots be plated as outlots rather than as part of their respective lots due
to the fact that the city’s definition of lot does not allow for the creation of lots bisected by road
right-of-ways. Since the definition of an outlot precludes the construction of a building, the
applicants require a variance to install a shed on the parcel. Were it not for the fact that the parcel is
an outlot, the city’s Shoreland Management Ordinance would allow for the construction of a shed in
Planning Commission
3920 White Oak Lane Variances
Page 5
the proposed location. Staff believes that allowing the applicant the same rights to construct a
WOAS that other riparian property owners in the city enjoy, would be consistent with the intent of
platting the parcel as an outlot and requiring it to be linked to Lot 1, Block 1. Granting a variance to
allow a shed to be constructed would not in any way undermine the city’s ability to prevent a home
from being constructed on the parcel.
The applicant has also noted that their intent in requesting the variance is to minimize the risks of
traversing Minnewashta Parkway by allowing them to securely store items on the riparian portion of
their property, rather than continually having to try to cross the road with these items. Staff
acknowledges that there are increased safety risks associated with attempting to cross a road while
encumbered.
For these reasons, staff recommends approving the requested variance to construct a building on the
outlot.
Second Water-Oriented Structure
The City Code permits
residents to construct a WOAS
within the required 75-foot
shoreland setback, so long as it
is setback 10 feet from the
ordinary high water level and
10 feet from the property’s side
lot line. The code also specifies
that the structure should be
designed and located so as to
reduce its visibility from the
lake and adjacent properties,
suggesting that vegetation,
topography, setbacks, or color
should be used to accomplish this.
Currently, the outlot has an existing WOAS in the form of a patio and fire pit that is located in the
center of the outlot. The city’s policy is that if a resident wants to have both a patio and storage
building within the 75-foot shoreland setback, the two must be connected and meet all other
requirements, i.e. size, height, and setbacks, of the WOAS ordinance.
In this case, the applicant is requesting to locate the shed 10 feet from the north side lot line. The
applicant has stated that this location is screened from the lake by the existing vegetation and from
the road by the outlot’s topography. They believe that the proposed location will be less obtrusive
than requiring the shed to be located on or immediately adjacent to the patio and fire pit in the center
of the outlot.
Planning Commission
3920 White Oak Lane Variances
Page 6
Staff feels the goal of limiting residents to a single structure is to prevent the shoreline from
becoming visually cluttered with many small buildings. Since the proposed location is significantly
less visible than a location meeting the single structure requirement, staff believes that the
applicant’s proposed location for the shed meets the intent of the shoreland management ordinance
by significantly reducing the visual profile of the building.
For these reasons, staff supports the requested variance to allow a second water-oriented structure.
Accessory Structure Maximum Size
The outlot has an existing
260 square foot patio and
fire pit that was installed
between 2005 and 2008.
There is no permit on file
for the structure;
however, since permits
were not required for
patios until 2007, it may
have been constructed
legally without a permit.
This patio and fire pit is
considered to be the
outlot’s WOAS and exceeds the 250 square foot maximum size limit. The applicant is requesting a
variance to add a second 80-square foot WOAS structure to the property which would increase the
total size of the parcel’s WOASs to 340 square feet.
The intent behind the limited Shoreland Management District’s 75-foot structure setback and limit
on the size of the WOAS within that area is to minimize the amount of impervious surface present
near lakes. While an additional 80 square feet of impervious surface on one property is not likely to
pose a danger to water quality, the precedent it establishes and cumulative impact of allowing
riparian properties to exceed this limit could be.
Staff is supportive of the applicant’s first two requested variances because they are in line with the
intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance, are necessitated by the unique nature of the
applicant’s parcel, and granting them will allow the applicant the same use of their riparian property
that other homeowners are entitled to. Unlike the first two requests, the request to exceed the 250
square foot maximum WOAS size limit does not have its genesis in the unique nature of the
applicant’s parcel and is not in line with the intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. All
riparian properties are subject to the 250-square foot limit and all owners must balance their desire
for patio space with their desire for storage space. Since the applicant can remove 90 square feet of
patio to permit the construction of the proposed shed within the ordinances’ limits, staff does not
believe that permitting the applicant to increase the extent of their existing non-conformity is in
keeping with the intent of the City Code.
Planning Commission
3920 White Oak Lane Variances
Page 7
For these reasons, staff recommends denying the requested variance to exceed the 250-square foot
WOAS size limit.
Impact on Neighborhood
Outlot A, the proposed location of the WOAS, is separated from single-family homes by
Minnewashta Parkway and the other riparian parcels along that section of the lake are all lots or
outlots that provide associated single-family homes or homeowners associations with lake access.
Since the parcel already has a dock and patio, the addition of a small shed screened by the outlot’s
vegetation is not anticipated to impact the intensity of use on the lake or the visual presentation of
the outlot as viewed from the lake. Staff believes permitting the applicant to construct the shed in
the proposed location would be consistent with the current character and use of the area; however,
staff feels that permitting the applicant to exceed the 250 square foot size limit for WOAS would
establish a precedent that could alter the character of the city’s riparian properties.
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting three variances. The first two, the variance from the prohibition on
building on an outlot and the variance from the one WOAS limit, are consistent with the intent of
the city’s Shoreland Management Ordinance and necessitated by the unique nature of the
applicant’s property. The reasons for granting these variances would not be broadly applicable to
other properties and granting them would essentially allow the applicant to enjoy the same rights
as other riparian property owners. The third variance is not justified by any circumstance unique
to the applicant’s property and would allow the applicant a WOAS beyond what other riparian
property owners are permitted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the first two variance requests and
deny the third by adopting the following motion:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a building to
be constructed on an outlot, approves a variance for a second water-oriented accessory structure,
and denies the variance request to exceed the 250 square foot water-oriented accessory structure
size limit, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and
Decisions.”
1. No trees, shrubs or native vegetation shall be allowed to be cleared for the grading or
construction of the building.
2. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.
3. The installation of the shed shall not encroach into any recorded drainage and utility
easement associated with the outlot.
4. The combined area of both water-oriented accessory structures may not exceed 250
square feet.
Planning Commission
3920 White Oak Lane Variances
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision
2. Variance Document
3. Development Review Application and Narrative
4. 3920 White Oak Lane Survey
5. Photos
6. Engineering Memo
7. ERS Memo
G:\PLAN\2020 Planning Cases\20-08 3920 White Oak Lane VAR\Staff Report-3920 White Oak Lane_PC.doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Chad Lundeen to construct an 8-foot by 10-foot water-oriented accessory
structure (WOAS) on an outlot zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case
2020-08.
On June 16, 2020, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and
mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Outlot A, White Oak Addition
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Finding: Chapter 20 intends for riparian property owners to be able to construct small,
up to 250 square foot, WOASs within the 75-foot shoreland setback. The ordinance
requires that each parcel be limited to one WOAS and that the structure be located so as
to reduce its visibility from the lake. The applicant’s request to construct an 8-foot by 10-
foot storage shed on the outlot providing lake access for his home is consistent with the
intent of the ordinance. The applicant’s request to allow the shed to be separate from the
existing patio is also consistent with the intent of the ordinance, as it will allow the shed
to be placed in a less conspicuous location where it is screened by vegetation. Finally, the
city’s intent in platting this parcel as an outlot was not to prevent it from allowing the
activaties typically associated with lake access, i.e. dock, swimming, etc., but rather to
prevent the future construction of a home at this location. The requested variances are in
line with the intended use of the parcel.
2
That being said, the Shoreland Management Ordinance limits the size of WOASs to
reduce the amount of impervious surface installed near lakes and to prevent the
construction of large visually obtrusive WOASs. Owners of lakeshore property must
choose how to divide their 250 square feet between patio, decking, and storage uses. It
would not meet the intent of the ordinance to allow the applicant to exceed the 250 square
foot size limit, rather than require that they reduce the size of the existing WOAS.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
Finding: The city’s definition of an outlot does not permit the construction of a building
on an outlot; however, the city’s Shoreland Management Ordinance allows riparian
property owners to construct a WOAS. The applicant’s proposal to construct a small
storage shed is reasonable and would be permitted if not for the fact that the parcel is an
outlot.
The applicant’s request to exceed the 250 square foot WOAS size limit is in excess of
what riparian properties are typically allowed, and the applicant could install the shed
while still meeting the requirements of the zoning code by removing a portion of the
existing patio.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The parcel was platted as an outlot to allow for lake access without the
possibility of a single-family home being constructed. The applicant’s inability to
construct a storage shed on the property is the unintended consequence of this made
during the subdivision process.
The applicant’s request to exceed the 250 square foot maximum size limit for a WOAS,
is the result of the presence of an existing 260 square foot patio, also considered a
WOAS, on the property. While the applicant did not install this patio, there is nothing
preventing the applicant from removing a portion of the patio to eliminate the conflict
with the ordinance’s maximum size limit. There is no circumstance unique to the
property that would justify permitting a larger WOAS.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The proposed location of the WOAS is separated from single-family homes by
Minnewashta Parkway and the other riparian parcels along that section of the lake are all
lots or outlots that provide associated single-family homes or homeowners associations with
3
lake access. Since the parcel already has a dock and patio, the addition of a small shed
screened by the outlot’s vegetation is not anticipated to impact the intensity of use on the
lake or the visual presentation of the outlot as viewed from the lake; however, permitting the
applicant to exceed the 250 square foot size limit for a WOAS would establish a precedent
that could alter the character of the city’s riparian properties.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2020-08, dated June 16, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters,
is incorporated herein.
DECISION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a
building to be constructed on an outlot, approves a variance for a second water-oriented
accessory structure, and denies the variance request to exceed the 250 square foot water-oriented
accessory structure size limit, subject to the following conditions:
1. No trees, shrubs or native vegetation shall be allowed to be cleared for the grading or
construction of the building.
2. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.
3. The installation of the shed shall not encroach into any recorded drainage and utility
easement associated with the outlot.
4. The combined area of both water-oriented accessory structures may not exceed 250
square feet.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of June, 2020.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-08 3920 white oak lane var\findings of fact and decision 3920 white oak lane_var (approval).docx
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2020-08
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to permit a
building to be constructed on an outlot, approves a variance for a second water-oriented
accessory structure, and denies the variance request to exceed the 250 square foot water-
oriented accessory structure size limit.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Outlot A, White Oak Addition.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. No trees, shrubs or native vegetation shall be allowed to be cleared for the grading or
construction of the building.
2. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.
3. The installation of the shed shall not encroach into any recorded drainage and utility
easement associated with the Outlot.
4. The combined area of both water-oriented accessory structures may not exceed 250
square feet.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not
been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
2
Dated: June 16, 2020 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2020 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by
its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-08 3920 white oak lane var\variance document 20-08.doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division— 7700 Market Boulevard OF CHANHASSNMailingAddress— P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317CITY
Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952)227-1110
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Submittal Date j 15 J 4-' PC Date: ! I G., I w CC Date:, f 311 .0 60-Day Review Date: .-1( l`1 1 ,3-e--
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 600 Subdivision (SUB)
Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300
Create over 3 lots 600 + $15 per lot
Conditional Use Permit(CUP) lots)
Single-Family Residence 325 Metes & Bounds (2 lots) 300
All Others 425 Consolidate Lots 150
Lot Line Adjustment 150
Interim Use Permit (IUP) Final Plat 700
In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
All Others 425 Additional escrow may be required for other applications
through the development contract.
Rezoning (REZ)
Planned Unit Development (PUD) 750 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way(VAC) $300
Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Additional recording fees may apply)
All Others 500
0 Variance (VAR) 200
Sign Plan Review 150 Wetland Alteration Permit(WAP)
Site Plan Review (SPR)
Single-Family Residence 150
Administrative 100 All Others 275
Commercial/Industrial Districts* 500
Zoning Appeal 100
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:
thousand square feet) Zoning Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) 500
Include number of existing employees:
Include number of new employees:
Residential Districts 500
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (units)
sits Notification Sign (City to install and remove)
200
El Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre-application meeting)3 per address
29 addresses)
Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)
50 per document
Conditional Use Permit
NN[
1] Interim Use Permit ElSite Plan Agreement
Vacation Variance Wetland Alteration Permit
Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) Easements ( easements) Deeds
TOTAL FEE: $537.00
Section 2: Required Information
Description of Proposal: Request for variance to the no-building clause on our outlot on the east side of MinnewashtaPkwy. We would like to add a water-oriented accessory structure (small '8 x '10 storage shed)
Property Address or Location:
3920 White Oak Lane; Excelsior MN 55331
Parcel #:258300010 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1 White Oak Addition: Outlot A
Total Acreage: 0.55 Wetlands Present? Yes No
El
Zoning: Single-Family Residential District (R - Requested Zoning: Not Applicable
Residential Low Densn Re nested Land Use Designation: Residential Low DensityPresentLandUseDesignation: q
Existing Use of Property: Detached Single-Family
OCheck box if separate narrative is attached.
iYy'd
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I. as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This applicationshouldbeprocessedinmynameandIamthepartywhomtheCityshouldcontactregardinganymatterpertainingtothis
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name:
Contact:
Address:
Phone:
City/State/Zip:
Cell:
Email:
Fax:
Signature:
Date:
PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed ofthedeadlinesforsubmissionofmaterialandtheprogressofthisapplication. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name:
Chad and Lindsay Lundeen Contact:
Chad
Address:
3920 White Oak Lane Phone:
City/State/Zip:
Excelsior, MN 55331 Cell: 612) 327-7096
Email:
lundeenc@vikings.nfl.net Fax:
Signature:
Date: 5/13/20
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:
Contact:
Address:
Phone:
City/State/Zip:
Cell:
Email:
Fax:
Section 4: Notification Information
Who should receive copies of staff reports? Other Contact Information:
O Property Owner Via: EI Email E Mailed Paper Copy Name:Lindsay Lundeen
Ej Applicant Via: [' Email Mailed Paper Copy Address: same as above
Engineer Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip:
lindsavlundeen a(gmail.com
Other' Via: El Email El Mailed Paper Copy Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. 'RINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORK to send a digital
copy to the city for processing. SAVE FORM PRINT FORD 1 .11BMIT FORM
Variance Application: Written Narrative Attachment
Lundeen: 3920 White Oak Lane; Excelsior MN 55331 Lot 1, Block 1 White Oak Addition, Outlot A
To Whom It May Concern:
Our property is split into two separate lots and is divided by Minnewashta Parkway. Our home is
on the west side of the Parkway and our lakeshore lot, termed an "outlot" is on the east side of
the Parkway on Lake Minnewashta.
We are requesting a variance to the no-building clause for an outlot. We would like to build a
small 8' x 10' storage shed near the lake to keep water accessory equipment such as paddle
boards, fishing equipment, life jackets, skis,tubes, a paddle boat, etc.
The garage on our home is 300+feet from our lake shore and currently, we carry the kayak,
paddle board,fishing rods and other equipment back and forth each time we use them. This is
not only inconvenient, but it becomes dangerous at times crossing the road.The Parkway curves
near our property and many vehicles don't adhere to the 30 MPH speed limit. Inevitably, our
three children (ages 6, 9, 11) are involved in carrying the equipment to/from the lake.We would
like to reduce the risk of a catastrophic accident occurring crossing the road.
We have chosen not to keep the items unsecured, in the open,at the lakeshore for the summer
due to potential theft.We are within eyesight of the public beach and pier, allowing many
people to see us use the equipment during the day.We also don't have clear vision of our
lakeshore from the house, making it more difficult to secure or keep an eye on our items or
personal property.
We have read and understand the code Section 20-481, "e" sub-section 2 "water-oriented
accessory structures"
In addition to this written narrative, we have included several photos of our waterfront and
proposed location for the small water-oriented accessory structure.These photos will help
demonstrate the following:
o Show how the trees and growth will help hide the view of the shed when looking at the
lakeshore from on the lake
o There is currently a wood pile and paddle boat near the area we would locate the shed,
and both are barely visible in a photo taken from the dock(in early May)
o Show the proposed location is hidden from the road due to steep change in elevation
o There is no problem meeting the setbacks of'10 from water and '30 feet from road
o Sample structure with the desired look of potential shed
o Show the existing patio and fire pit
When we purchased the home and property in June of 2019,there was an existing patio and fire
pit near the lakeshore. It is essentially shaped as two merging circles (see photos). After some
careful math (A = Trr2) and estimates, we believe the total area to be approximately 260 square
feet.Thus, we are requesting a second variance to the max area of 250 sq. ft.for such
structures. Our new total would be about 340 sq. ft.
This small shed would not change the character of this piece of land. It would simply help us to
use the lakeshore for the appropriate recreation, as it was intended. Our goal is to have the
same rights as any other homeowner on the lake,to have a water-oriented accessory structure
near the lakeshore to store equipment such as life jackets,fishing poles, paddle boards, floaties
and other items. The only reason we are prevented from having this right is because our lake lot
is separated from us by Minnewashta Parkway and is defined as an "outlot". The city has
developed rules to protect this open space and prevent someone from building a home or large
structure on the lot, which makes perfect sense. As we go around our beautiful lake, we see
many such structures, in varying shapes and sizes. Granting us this variance would not alter this
rule or its intention. Granting us this variance would allow us to use our lakeshore as it is
intended to be used and create a safer environment for our family in the process.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
0:Le ivrkl ify
e, LAI ) Efol 5 6
Chad, Lindsay, Eveyln,Titus and Eloise Lundeen
4' -s2 jam 4, N2
N
O 3b"?/
Fao
wa •j.,
s wLo
o1111i
1A
o1
TA-'q
Iws05 -?,?
moCUo .
CD
e1' line
1.0 rn
x
rD
OSki
7;1
Oe fee tMNO•HRNO• k
19?9)
uxiw
IO-
r+
cc
On
N
CD0I
III
0
CL
III
1111
o'
o
O
c
CO F
Q D
n
1,
au
G eL
r
n
r-f- Q
a
O
m
Q
D
D
2
4.
1 •'''.- .:.:.•:..:,.A : ':-!--):A,,1:4, ..:0/../. ._..,,..le 0';' 4.' i ',-'• #. ' ele•. #444 , *
1*A'----''''''' - ,- ' -••, ''','-' ,4'`,.,,A, • a z,\,..-.7i• . .. - ! , •..`.1 1,,p's,.. i 1
it 1 -42 (WO'' 7.• - 4.- •,-: '":9 tr...,';-7, ,L*1 .. i ii i' '• --lf- -‘, .• .., , -04- ,k5? 4-41-
r: w - .1;Art• -•'.‹, : ::- < fli '---Y.ii,41.'-'i.i.• - '.-ii.: a AN.:-.A 01 - .ift- ..e6.- :tivii:", , 4, • .411L44•%•,; , .40M,;:t+...4It AYA"1:',..,.....P.,,AP: .7 ,.... 4j3.-7.."%•;,..`• .:-. C '-'' .'
N's.•-":24;Ya%'P''-:'-•:' • Ai
4', Ti,-/;t6.4140k te 4 i A/ -:-,
11,r.,-'. :.•
il 4.•••z AT:-.14-- 0,-%-wr,;.4!...,,,,-..--,:4: • • -._,- ....,, .--.•t. , .i, ...,..•1 .: - c•i .e.:ft?;-. •,i-•*- ,;*,.-7.4!-At_.i.--_( i--,:, ,•''-.-:,,..i.:.*,-..r. •----,' -6-Li-:.i.,.._,;•, '4,„•) -,' 4-,:.),- . .....,':- .
54_;•:
i-.,.,--.._.•
7,-,.7*,. 7:e.:', .‘111.1,' -"r 1,_ •- .4"':f li,p;S1. ."IP.> e:41kx'4,t ,'...*'-.-1:41',.'.W...4.
rk• •••';',1.--igr,,,s4;1.7441.,--.. ..-!ir , ._... - _ -_p lii-Ifett ,- i ?kg 4' '3:0-04----,.g'4''•''.4..:;4.- •'l'%;•.--` ••.-.=.v7.`,.•=.,-;:---• --;., %,,%,A'... 4,44s_ •A.r."' ‘_ AL''.--',--•tf-'••--.1-. •:'„Wciit. A.,-,.-,.:,_,•- '44 v! =1,17. ,,i--,.. ,- __0..-..--. :•::•..,..,-. - - ... 7-' - , _.::t". ..-,.F:...;::-.. .i.„..i...,.....-.,,-.,,,t_._,7,..7,-,.Ligc-•••tillg'-'3.'t -'',."4 '...;.t':"1.:. :.:-',.i.,...-.,..-,-; 1,_"• _•-'' ..,
iii'''''''-'-‘:: '\ ''.1. '''' T,"04.67-M1 ..i.:-.k.1 0,--:•if 4.- 4„ ,:
rt*
11'.''-1414,64-4.•' '''',1: i.:'-'----- '7'- '-'r;•7W., .1 .--'.72. *.:`, ,-
E'si).--A.09.i7:-•,;;: -'00 Kge,, 2-00:•;74.1-1114# ,:".=''i'7, • ..-. 'il. :t,',A"---4:•.....:•',-;---tt•.,.;,,..'!'.;fr. ',:::.,,':- • . .„..4,,N.:..„. !Ili -i-,1: 1 4* -<-'.44, ii,---).v; _...--1 k.--,-;...i.,--.4":,11. z W74r-.;.' i,..„,r - •
0.--:,7-.: -;ak,14:- -rf. -. - 1,.. 1,it 0;.,.. ...:.•• ,-7... '_?_t-4. ... -:-"..,,,z--. --..,v-z-__,,- 4-,-. •t 'I'S:4 z,,, ,-...4.;•.-. .,-:.., • 7,c..411*. - A% ..4- /.'":- - _•-_;.,_i fwa
wow
Am 5,...,k --,-!"..----4_-_,.4.-... ,-._?::,•fy,::4,,Ir•-- ..,;--5,41,.• .. ..;A: , •:.-• ...-. i•,- ;-- • ,r.t..,
ik ..
A ..1, __..--: , iv.lam !„...i•tiN- 1 - .,- ",'4,-.4%,--ez" .:;•-.-47*....-,-..:ffril ---• .-,..,- rt--;"`: -.,-:-.-,--.. --...,, .0, - - - t . If 4, 1#•;.,•114,•,---c..- - '• - - - , -5,;:.4i;?•,?..k...,.$4. 0.Y1 - .-.
4.iltg. 1. A 0- '. .- '.4--It- l‘iY;': --Aigies' -1.14,414-i•,'.. .;,kift,......445:,5,---'''',.‘'-:: ' • •A,'-'4-4..;i',-•,_i,:-.0:.
r;:-; . .--:.- .?.-:"---*-
7.'.• ;"%.' v'_:-cyt iti 4---- . ' ''''.- -•,if„-,..-- -:N.-vx.. /A, /. :141.---7 ,.:---t--n--•..,"
167,„ "-
A. .-4.7•.-.- 1
s-•_;•-•q,
4`*-- -. ..-- - -- r':'•"-,
42._-7-: - - .'-,.-* ..
i4:7---,t-rqJ.- s„..,iik-. :- ..$4.- -......
r<-,e4 iv ,i. ,•,;,., i :4-qpip
fa ...: -'•..' ;;---; '',
i ' --s. . ' .4"•----''-- -1
Irri -=''' -- -'-A4 ''''' '-' •44-.71-i ..-:,-.-'•..---,43C.-
ile'. fi'::•:..-1:3-::-i--
1.44-7,-:..
1- ' • '-::-. .-'`•i'' ,.;..1,-t•,k•-?" ''..;!,' 7 ...r. . L-; -,,,, ,..."- e- - '-_-,-,---• - --- -- - - •---- -- •-
kla,:=44-..... ,c,.: ,;.-.P...'_-........
4„;:
t•-,, ,, •-•..
i4. i, ...
k.i, 745- 0.0. . .---.,.:-117;?t,-• L-' --i" -"e---,. .,.4.-!
t•--.
t,. -:. i ;-.,,_-....3,-
Alk - -'f•-';...-4:-..-,‘,.. -,-....,-;„ .-: . .,. • 4.-• ,,,.._
11- ---.-:.",--.-;-•... . '.--.:r.,.-....*7"- .. ..---.
40,---.
441.4 .' 1=1.7..-.7.1.
4` - -...;::::".:, "
N'.
S. .:;
I:
x.
11 -----;-- . .
OP
7::-.2":".--:-.''4‘--,71:i.-' ':7t !.-- ?
2'
7.• : ''.._ •'''----.--- 7-Z7--:".-- -:•1-il'AY:
r:11 : : :4:;-
r'..: :- --'.9.-: "1-t•-•
410..r..,....-• • ... -' '111 t-,-,•- -,.., .i. ,,, 5.,,---. ., .„4-.
1;'..-:'Ve' _ .
4....
r.„.
1-, ,_.',..•,,,--*--:-.1„---,T-Le.AZ • ,,i;--%-; ' • •'. .
m"-. ' .A04.
4.4,..,*-**1 :I* -,-,:;c•--.'-- _! ,
i?.--. --,--' , , 4,
t,:fly-, ,7,.....-4_,, ..--•••:-.. ,• ,;_•r ,,...-, ....- _.--...„...-14:.
1, -.. .• - - '"I.:-i-0_...!.'-',..,-. ' •.0'.'w.
7--.. • ..- ....- gailir'''': '
4.- . _,. _ _ 1---.?': .1.‘, .._ • -_...` 52.:-', '-: •'..;''_ l''...-.1; ' --'...---.1ti, ..-",• .-
ki,' ., - E .i.INC;,1-'":„War air...`-' 7 ... -
7... .,. ,_,'.. .., per
7,,X.' - -- -. 7•...,..•,,,,•- • ...;',.,i:.,.., ..,,,-,,%r°?••....-*-;-.,.--' .:•!,1- ::, 4* ' --- ..
7t-4•-*,..,...!-.."." V'‘.::. :,.- -!'.'-•. AL.!1...-
r-.7--.•:.--,- ,... .-_:... .-- •-.
5- --- .------ - -_,---
VIA.JrCile4-„. ••'''''•-,•-•-- '--- 11.-7*i.r.,.7--;- - -';''''-i'--•"`r-
1---.--,---,,-.----- .,_----,f.-...-:.----z.-_-.-_-_---- ,
1.-- -"''' 2,40...... ,.- - _ ---10;---.= ,,. .-•
i.....;....--.-.- ,------7---=--..- -- . --.- - --=--__.--4:-----;_..
1.----=..-t-.11...a9!3:.:_,:ig--„..-, .. .„,-...%-..: ...7m-L-----7,f, - ,. -. - ,----.- -- _- .--- .,-.•.;-.,
7.;...
k A, - - '------'- - ''' - ---,.•.--------i-i--,.---,-''-'''--: .1.- .- -.,. -,•dr.;
rw: ..,:,,,....k. .. __....-- _..,,,..'--.-'•- _.. j.:-......frff,-4,'-_;.0,„--i,-;:-.:---,e...:7,
t ,:.- - -*•71'. '" .;.• .' -4 .*:•• -..- - - - - --*--;-;,...--- ----'-':
A*4ir..-. ..-- _- • ‘.. ,.,- ••. Nallept. z-1,4,...;....,_ _ .---„2 -7. -7-.:-•,..- -",.'.- • y....-,. ‘„......!--. ..,..._;,,,,,....F.._ . . ,.. .
mi
c‘. '''
t*'-- 1--.. __aliera•e,„ , ',. - ' ..- ., . .'-- .:
li-'1 .,.'1..*.*1'1:-,....... -',........7.7.‘-.,,, -... ....,...--' ' .,--s--.-- -I:,
A;.#
1`;7_,ATtilet- -' -`;
AL.--
4... -'"
41-1164.;- -. ._ ...-7-;-"
r_-..-
ISA-7:' '...:',....-.. .., ,}_:_, --- -'.21'---t,
r-'
s .7.'-...--. ..'‘.W-41,•:-..7..-*-.7--.---7.--'1altt. -'.4'-',: -A•,•-, _ '
2,-_ '4de.4* , --.:- 't.''
L..-,..: ' . -.: ,%
B.' , - ,. .Illr- '..". .. - •••'..it--...
1.6. '....."..
16. ,--------W":4Y. '-'-',7
7%,Itt:.44-A,te... '
I: i- 'X';$..-.
30441r,
1.41114.--
119...
0.7.r-/,,•,-..,
t.:.:- •• ' -- * ---'•--- -.:-... •_- '1. - *'----.**--'- * - -
4* -,--- r- - %.,-."--•---• •-••• --;,.--:. =-."..•
ih. -AA ----- - . uk-*;
giiiiiik-4,Eic
0 -117,i(•,••••T:-_- -
I.
Ikish..11434=•• - - - ----•-•' W.N.sx-p-
N.„.--:
If -•
i,.ihlt".4
Vf.ft•,4.,:t'
444 VI44%.
7-'''!.0.1•;."
200 K.\ -r.‘ • - ....
aIr•
f'4INFts ' \
p.,1 t:+2....• 4-k(..... 1,3 C Ck k"):ti t4:koki.‘"‘ \Di trees fr.i,AL. dgy,l .., Al 1 5erivn 3c66)-0-...
Lt.. bo.,4-Also A 04, cocoetr A-1 1'At. e-% .4.4-444 ‘,:i ittro j 61„K. 5().2A- , vi ez+.1(x)-(3 o-pact
r rrPii1 - ii vf' xi' f r t „ r' 9fr , :. LII: 46.1a•" ' a ,?9 dss'7^L2e ir tk:off 1 'i.fin•,<s y , 4,v,,e ; .: + W- ytstB, •i ter•, 9oNs
1-.': t fiA, -. 'aii%,--Atr4
1-t. If_
mo` i:-- .:,
4 to`,•-,,,
t.
4. e,
y p . t
O
Ey44'` ,VL s
1-- :-,',- •
17414,44V44, ;4174r:c.ra,':s4-4'441.4'.-:‘
0.•t`' .,` ,,;(.4.:,-
j ` ,
tr,ti ! ',• :'. 7
v.a, -
i. a;.
e4y^
y- « Az,,`*
X
r-Y;
t,
t
1
I
f °",
fps •fQST :
1 i t• t
1 r
r ,
Z y, 4r I ' + ii 1 1
ti
C a br
a of
0 I l++t 1 i ,i ',' `•/
tY ifom
t
A 11
Y T,
r,
1
I ' • r i 1 r
may4 a ",^.- r , : " 1
tt 1. ( d •, f v 1 I,1
1 \
s ri 44 s-
L
6
1
a 1`' •f
1{
1
1
rg ` v.r.:
e• -
r' 1 1 'I
SII
e ;' 1
Ep{
r
Sa r? -
Ir._41A
r It 1 1 Al t t JO •+ 4 ..
in
r',
1 ty` k •1
y • ,,
e >w ati. I I y'I' ,,; 1t y. Ia , fff itl
if
iiii,
i . 4
Nt: r R f , if el F, I 1.no ., 1 ;
I i '
Al ;
k'.
t I ` t ' I t1
tit
4-e. lil. '
H Ii+1 1 r i ''• _.
i. .,0 li
it
f
41
i
it
F 11 Xrt w il1 { j •11 I t 1
s
ri•P'`>/
T+ 3 1 ' '
Y Vic{ti 1
t'fI
op kii
a• 1 i , ,.i ,,1
4. `
1 is 4
t11 !ilia `\ ii
r
i l ;1 `h 11 1
VrVjVrs. _4J7
t a
4 r ,f, , +. _,2,-,•:„. ...•., . .• : .. ?
rz ...,..p s •,,,..,‘
t..... I t r / -.
ir"''' C -4-
l
1
4. J. s1
h• ,[
eti iQ'
I 11.'.
c, r s .-r '
fiiist
42
2.,)° a 4• ....,4 3
4,
r_ IL _
il ___%,„, __
x,. . t. .Vi
r
VA
j '^
1
ti . jCt , ,
2:-..--------17-s..-- ,-_
T1_
x'
1
y
ci
C%
i
s* !1.4.- . '-• . .'" • c...' ,',1,.-••• '.,. r, .. 7.-- , ..... _A . , f i';-:.• ' ''' '..-... .. . • t,.:•--, . ._ _ __„..--
401",,
A,""8 i ill 8 -444., - . • ' 41p.-t.: -,,,k, • .4, , 4- 144 P7' 4. •-,‘ .',is.'7' - 7... ---r.---i f 11 • 14,,.."'.. ti , ..4 r .
tit
1 ..11, 4 • :-• • .r .....k.11L'14• • W.-•''-.7-, 1. OY'i '' =. - I ."1 At 4,a f 4,',' ' . .'.-.-4'--',.r. 1.,I C14-'•-' i., ,•i ;.4 ,1 '' .-. • 44 -.. •_ • .. ..i.,cf, ,i ;.4. 4, - 1 4.•t...., 6 ., • .: ;,...„,._ :, ..,,,,,,,r,„:„..: . . ,. ........_ . .f,le, I,--r 0'46,,Si.; -',;-,.. ...„,,,,,./ii,;,‘ ..!,,,k. r` _ •-f • i f''.. •.rt;t‘ ,67'..,' - f_-_,,,. .•••;,. -, . .. ki.. ,. •i:r c.- \ ..w..44-A...t -,A. . .,,. •1
t:,-
0,...
4ti ,,,,,,,, .- .,• . ;••.- • •-,, ..: ...-z.-„,,,..,-......-:.;:*.- - , - - -•_ f•••• -...i :... t:-....-„,ti.1.„. e...1/4 A , N, F,- .., ',..:•,..-',...„.,. .Y.- /.- ',:.:,ZI", •:;;"-- ,. . ' .ti'ik•0
1,t ' 1
4.
rii," - •-• s,,,s'--/ , '"••••4".'7';'.44-3'''.' 1-PV• i•••'.. • • ' /"..›,..*7- ' --•- :•• ,,,•:•.AA'', - ' T‘11 11111111111ritil..---.
1.,)
1, ',-.4-t' -1C-i---1t.itl., .'; •41.4.- -:7 :•f• . --...,- - •--'* , ' , .,,' .''.."p"- • "P 14.,T.L -1".1.
4 - -"Will:1k*, -;
e- ' '' ' .i. -,_:::-..:.'-'--.'4-4••_, . -,-.7 •-t
1.8 ••'4 ?::r,,
Jr',....".S'g, r •• ..•-• •• 1,.4. -4, -k..4 -- ...., -
4 , •-:1." ' '.-Pr.
l'—',
L. . -....,,'4-.- • -,1
pf
P. .V'. t As; .. 7 -_,"-:'
4.-...'.•,
S f'- •
70
4.Y.: -• ,
1 I .1 ! .
47
P 1 1 ...,, • Itii4-:•t iI141 7"(r`i
Nt-,tis'
its,
j4./.. . 1 -- - -
i f ."--
t .„..,• ic-
i 1 - i -- f ••-• lk-
4
T _ a Art. ,...4 -...„ 1 .: • -,., e - i -; .--,
4 - . 1,... • ,, '.,...`, ,, , ---•;,_ . .
4„.,. , N,,. ',rt...
1 ' p„,,, NN k ..,....,_. ...4, . , . , ..... ......
1‹... -
T ' ' -. -;
i- / . -' --z-ri•-4.:4-,•;-t -1 J I
Z • i': - 1.-. 8 . s.4. ".'•' ., :•;- --8[''.., '._
4- =k i•,.. i" .•t ;- - ,7110.-....\,il - 4. , •
mi.
it. %
4 - c. f, r1... -,,
4
141 .
1
I, l...,
N-
1.
1* .. 1? i 4' I .r- ,,,
s_
i • 'q " 1t”,
1 i i4. ;. , 1 . ii'
r
I I eft.
i.,,, -..,----'''.•:
1; i. , , •
o k
A.:•••,Y,
1'•. I&-A:' ' •'..-:, •Ilt.'- ' - . -V •. A tr. •.-
i- •liwair-- 7. • 7
z
q•• . •
pe--.- 4,• -..•---..„-.e. A4:-. -... .‘'7 4 4 ..
f I-' ',..,..., ,
A •to, 7' Jr" ,Iii,..,- it
a- , .,:. .,,,,. : „.„,,- ,. ,.,,.,„ , ,..,.,,, i. , . . .,-,,',.,i • ....... $ ,,,,,-. ,,tiii.'r114• . ' ‘.:". :\ ‘. -
si.-'",'
7,----"
7:1%;:'1,1.:1:4"-,:,A , • /t
ti1,,,,,-. --- - A. ...;„-; .3: =0,-....- `: : - ?;.-.`" .
1'. • ' ' ' '
i. . - . • ..-,-- -::', . .--:.. 11.'i'''''' - i'.,3 - '% ..-.: ' -:.: - !', 4 - .... i , . , .
I.y.,• -, ..-1,._. .1,• N--:-• - --; '.. —: -- . - - ,,,,.....,.-7"
4 ,t • . • ,.. ..., '--,„ - -S, • —41 t•--- _,_.• l'.; .0 ,•-•1-T.- • 1 •.,' 4e,.....• •• • : .• i 1,/ , At....i,:....,5 .4.,7 L,L, ., ,5n--_ -;•.."6, . ,..-.. .5
t " .":.., i -"-4 -.1.'i ,..
i • ".1'-;; ".*.?-•' ,%.
t ' " ' pe-..\--t. • '".
1 -, ,t\ki" ' "....• - ,t ,',.. i ..,,,- ef,:",i • -.. , •, l,.1,1A' ,i,,,,,. i\ f ', d1
1 ' -,. , ../ ,
7 • --';.•
7-- - 1::..'.r,...;.,: -:
t • -f tr• „ie.,.• .. , „. 1 . ,•,•-.4. / t-.4.7-: . .-.._. *Is, .--.-.,,-..,. ", . ... -::41, , '- ,, , /14,, ,,,. ;
I ... -•-...4 .„ ,...: •
1• ,
4 '.., . -.....'' :
1.'‘..
6/,:,...‹--,.... .-_---- ...-- • , -
s,t x144,41 sI( •71::nx41At
7. Mil 1
4i t.1 is al I . .• .1 ' .
i
C
up
v)
I
Q)
0-
0
c
fD
0
0
Ipll 111.7...\,,CU
4-0O
0-
4-
0
4-
O
i \. A. CL
co
t x
1111 _.,` 73
C
4-' V)
4,,llUMfi
F
e s
111 trii.
f s
rftkiiininat
P
i'
1' •
s
i i f
1_
a
1 - T •
1,11/ •
shor.; IL,
1 i
Ar
F
ii LI' •
i-
t 4:,,
r
t a-
t .l D i E
J
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner
From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Date: 6/4/2020
Re: Water Oriented Accessory Structure Variances at 3920 White Oak
Lane – Planning Case 2020-08
The Engineering and Water Resources Department have reviewed the Variance submittal for
3920 White Oak Lane. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments
and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in
the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of
possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are
requirements that Engineering and Water Resources recommends be formally imposed on the
developer in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the
City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
General Comments/Findings
1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been
reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and
transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. A
recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details,
including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or
discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to
submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as
applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will
review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require
modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards,
the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the
City Engineer.
2. It is the opinion of the Engineering and Water Resources Department that the proposed
variance can be be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen
Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and
City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained
herein, and can be approved.
3. The applicant is proposing the installation of an 8’ x 10’ storage shed on Outlot A of the
associated property. The installation of the shed, as proposed, does not encroach into
the 10 foot drainage and utility easement abutting the northern property line of Outlot
A. There are no public utilities located within the Outlot. See proposed condition 1.
4. The request to place the second water oriented accessory structure (WOAS) in the
Outlot meets the intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance and the platting of
the subdivision.
5. The addition of this second WOAS would bring the total square footage of WOAS on the
Outlot to approximately 340 square feet. A maximum of 250 square feet is allowed for
WOAS. See Proposed Conditions 2.
Proposed Conditions
1. The installation of the shed shall not encroach into any recorded drainage and utility
easement associated with the Outlot.
2. All WAOS on the Outlot will need to be no more than a combined 250 square feet.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE: June 16, 2020
SUBJ: 3920 White Oak Ln., Variance to construct a building
The beachlot has had many trees and shrubs removed over the years and replaced with turf grass
even though only limited clearing of vegetation in a shoreland area is allowed. Staff
recommends that no vegetation be allowed to be cleared for the grading or construction of the
building. The property owners should, over time, replace vegetation on the beachlot to help
protect water quality and reduce run off.
Recommendation:
1. No trees, shrubs or native vegetation shall be allowed to be cleared for the grading or
construction of the building.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Subject Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated June 2, 2020
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: C.1.
Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from its June 2, 2020 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated June 2, 2020
Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated June 2, 2020
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JUNE 2, 2020
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder,
Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters,
Associate Planner; Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator; Richard Rice, IT Manager;
Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist; Erik Henricksen, Project Manager; and Charlie Howley, Public
Works Director/City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Jeff Franz 8950 Sunset Trail
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCES TO INSTALL A SEPTIC
SYSTEM IN THE NW CORNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 565 LAKOTA LANE.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked for
clarification of the term non-imminent failure of the septic system. Commissioner Reeder asked
if the current septic system could be fixed. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one
spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Skistad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve a variance allowing the placement of a pump line, tanks,
mound and dispersal area within the 50 foot bluff setback and the 20 foot bluff impact zone
and the 10 foot property line setback variance for the mound and dispersal area subject to
the conditions of approval and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the relevant
agencies.
2. The applicant must show proposed erosion control on survey and install erosion control
as needed to prevent off-site erosion.
3. The septic system must be located as proposed in the survey and design received buy the
City on May 1, 2020 as part of the variance request.
Planning Commission Summary – June 2, 2020
2
4. The property owner shall enter into an Encroachment Agreement with the City for the
area of the individual sewage treatment system (septic system) that encroaches into the
public easement. The final area of encroachment shall be determined by an as-built
survey of the septic system, and the Encroachment Agreement shall be recorded prior to
issuance of the Certificate of Compliance.
5. All underground components encroaching into the public easement and identified in the
Encroachment Agreement shall be detectable by customary locating equipment (i.e. the
installation of tracer wire). The tracer wire shall be tested and approved prior to issuance
of the Certificate of Compliance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDING CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 TO REMOVE
RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR REGIONAL LIFESTYLE CENTER PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUD).
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked for
clarification of the definition of a lifestyle center and the logic behind changing the percentages.
Commissioner Reeder asked for clarification on why the percentage for residential is being
changed from 20 to 30 percent. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and
the public hearing was closed.
Von Oven moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council remove the 20 percent cap from regional commercial
centers and allow the residential component to be constructed before the commercial
component. Lifestyle centers would still be subject to the standards and guidelines
contained in Section in 20-509.
The proposed amendment would read as follows:
Section 20-502 – Allowed Uses.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development
plan.
(1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in
the Comprehensive Plan. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be
delineated in a PUD development plan.
(2) Where the site of the proposed PUD is designated for more than one land use in the
Comprehensive Plan the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or
Planning Commission Summary – June 2, 2020
3
such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve
the purposes of this article and the Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Residential development in a regional/lifestyle center commercial PUD may only
occur in conjunction with a commercial or office development and may not encompass more
than 30 percent of the proposed development.
All voted in favor, except for Commissioner Skistad who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 6 to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND AMENDMENT TO THE AVIENDA
PUD.
Kate Aanenson introduced Mark Nordland and Eric Padget with Level 7 Development who
provided background information on this project. Kate Aanenson and Erik Henricksen
presented highlights from the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked for
clarification on how the sub-districts would develop, height of buildings allowed in each sub-
district, lighting regulations, and the signage plan. Commissioner Reeder asked how similar
architectural styles will be achieved, he commended the use of underground stormwater storage,
timing for construction of the ring road, the amount of on surface parking and the possible use of
a parking ramp. Commissioner Von Oven asked staff to explain how the plan went from having
5 retaining walls to 2, the number of drive thru’s available on the site, and review of the parking
plan. Commissioner Noyes asked at what point changes can no longer be made to the plan.
Commissioner Skistad asked for clarification on the height of buildings in Section 2 before
commenting she likes the changes to the plan. Commissioner McGonagill asked about the
proximity of parks and playgrounds to residents within Avienda. Chairman Weick asked where
the plan stood on the 30 percent residential before calling the public hearing to order. No one
spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Reeder moved, Noyes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Planning Case 2017-19 to rezone 118+/- acres of property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate
District to Regional Commercial-PUD Subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as
shown in plans from Landform dated April 14, 2017 and June 12, 2017 and adoption of the
Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUD
Reeder moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the Rezoning of 118 +/- acres from Agricultural Estate
District, A-2 to PUD Regional Commercial including “Exhibit A Avienda Design
Standards”. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Planning Commission Summary – June 2, 2020
4
SUBIDIVISION
Reeder moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 19 lots, 3 outlots,
and dedication of public right-of-way, plans prepared by Landform dated May 1, 2020,
subject to the following conditions:
Engineering
1. If subsequent phases require retaining walls they shall be privately owned and
maintained.
2. As large, landscaped boulevards are proposed, the applicant shall add a note to the typical
sections to identify a corridor for installation of private utilities such as power,
communication, gas, etc.
3. The applicant shall show the road profiles and a horizontal alignment table in the plan set
for all public roads prior to final plat.
4. The public roads constructed with this development are: Bluff Creek Boulevard,
Avienda Parkway, Sunset Trail and Mills Drive. All other roads and drives constructed
with this development will be privately owned and maintained.
5. The applicant proposes an Ultimate Plan for the Bluff Creek intersection with Powers
Boulevard that includes two-lane entry into the roundabout. The city requires this
Ultimate Plan be constructed at this time, but the roadway can be striped for one-lane
only.
6. Staff recommends the applicant add traffic calming measures to Avienda Parkway near
the residential areas of development. Specifically, the applicant shall incorporate
pedestrian-friendly crossing features to the intersection at Mills Drive and Avienda
Parkway.
7. Trails and pedestrian walks not located within public right-of-way shall be privately
owned and maintained.
8. ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps shall be constructed at all intersections and median
refuges per the MnDOT standard details.
9. Sanitary and water main structures shall not be located within landscaped medians or
roundabouts. Final review of the location of sanitary sewer mains and water mains, and
their appurtenances, will be conducted prior to final plat and/or permitting.
10. All sanitary and water mains constructed within the right-of-way shall be publically
owned and maintained.
11. Private sanitary and water mains shall inspected and constructed to meet the city’s
requirements for public utilities.
12. The developer will be required to complete the water main loop along Lyman Boulevard.
13. Permanent stormwater management controls and the associated permits are required in
accordance with all underlying jurisdictional authorities, including but not limited to the
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, prior to construction activities.
14. The applicant must provide a figure clearly identifying the areas to be irrigated with areas
quantified, which is not included in the current plans.
Planning Commission Summary – June 2, 2020
5
15. The portion of the development with single-family housing must pay a water and sanitary
service partial hook-up fee at a rate in place at the time of replat. The remaining hook-up
fees would be paid with the building permits.
16. The developer shall work with the Building Department to determine the city SAC and
WAC fees for commercial and multi-family buildings. The hook-up fees for commercial
and multi-family buildings are due with the building permit at the rate in place at that
time.
17. The developer shall escrow funds for installation of traffic signals at Sunset Trail, Powers
Boulevard and Audubon Road. The escrow amount shall be based on the Carver
County’s cost participation policy as published on their website.
18. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other
agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDot,
Carver County, RPBC Watershed District, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA,
etc.).
19. A drainage and utility easement shall be placed over any outlots.
20. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary
Zone to the city.
Landscaping
1. Parking lot islands shall be linear areas incorporating planting area and stormwater
management.
2. If the applicant chooses to install the minimum requirement sizes of parking lot
landscaping islands, then silva cells, engineered soil or other accommodations must be
used.
3. No more than 20% of the total trees should be from any one genus and no more than 10%
should be from any one species.
4. A reuse watering system should be considered to irrigate all plantings within the site.
5. Drought tolerant plants shall be incorporate into the overall landscape plan.
6. Proposed landscaping plant materials shall be selected based on site conditions.
7. At a minimum, overall tree cover should be at least 20-25% or higher in commercial
areas and a minimum of 30-35% or higher in residential areas.
8. Any landscaping located within the ROW shall be covered by an encroachment and
maintenance agreement.
Park and Trail
1. Incorporate meaningful park-like places, including the provision of appropriate recreation
equipment, site furnishings, and landscaping adjacent to residential components.
Planning Commission Summary – June 2, 2020
6
2. Preserve the woodlands identified in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Provide a blanket
trail easement over the entire preserved area to accommodate the installation of natural
surface public trails.
3. Provide an attractive public trail connection from the north entering the Bluff Creek
Overlay District.
4. Incorporate traffic calming into all pedestrian crossing locations.
5. Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring
parkland dedication.
Building Official Comments
1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
3. Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a building permit and must be designed by a
professional engineer.
4. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5. Building plans (when submitted) must include a code analysis that contains the following
information: Key Plan, Occupancy Group, Type of Construction, Allowable Height and
Area, Fire Sprinklers, Separated or Non-Separated, Fire Resistive Elements (Exterior walls,
Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental Use), Occupant Load, Exits Required
(Common Path, Travel distance), Minimum Plumbing Fixture Count.
6. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are
submitted.
7. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the Code
requirements for the proposed building, including but not limited to allowable size, protected
openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when
complete building and site plans are submitted.
8. Every building, containing any plumbing fixtures and/or receptors, must have its own
independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buildings may
be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises and connected
to a public or private sewer. (MSPC 713.0)
9. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior to
final plat of the property.
Planning Commission Summary – June 2, 2020
7
Fire Department Comments
At the time of site plan, review the design for the private street, adjacent to the preservation
area that accesses the Senior Housing and Townhouses needs to accommodate for emergency
apparatus.
Conditional Use Permit
The Conditional Use Permit was already approved and will be reaffirmed with the revised
preliminary plat with City Council approvals.
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Conditional
Use Permit to encroach into the Primary Zone and required buffer for the construction of Bluff
Creek Boulevard subject to conditions in the staff report:
1. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary
Zone to the city.
2. The developer shall provide the city with a management plan for the area and submit to the
city for review.
3. Monuments indicating the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be placed at every other
property corner and at an angle of deflection greater than seven percent, but in no case
shall they be greater than 150 feet apart.
4. The developer shall not encroach into the Bluff Creek Primary Zone.
5. The developer shall comply with the with the 40-foot Primary Zone setback and preserve or
create a 20 foot buffer from the Primary Zone.
6. The buffer will be required to have a vegetation management plan and soil amendments.
Wetland Alteration Permit
The Wetland Alteration Permit was already approved will be reaffirmed with the revised
preliminary plat with City Council approvals.
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit to 4.4659 acres of permanent wetland impacts subject to conditions:
1. The applicant needs to supply the needed additional information to the city. The
additional information is needed to determine if the project meets the WCA requirements.
2. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting is needed to review the application.
Planning Commission Summary – June 2, 2020
8
3. If the application is deemed to meet the avoidance and minimization criteria of the WCA,
a mitigation plan that adequately replaces wetland functions and values is needed.
4. City staff has reviewed mitigation options. City staff recommends the applicant provide
wetland mitigation via the purchase of wetland bank credits, at a ratio of 2:1, in
accordance with WCA requirements. This condition has been met - see attachment.
5. The applicant shall contribute $300,000 to the city for water quality improvement
projects within the watershed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHAPTERS 1, 18, 19, AND 20 STORMWATER AND WETLAND ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS AND LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES.
Matt Enmacht presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Weick asked for clarification on
what happens when a project falls under two WMO’s. Commissioner McGonagill asked about
ownership of dedicated drainage and utility easements. Commissioner Reeder asked if
developers are paying the cost for the City to review watershed plans, if it is common for other
cities to be the permitting authority, and how the City will handle changes made by the WMO’s
in the future. Commissioner Von Oven asked for clarification on why the WMO’s were okay
with these proposed changes. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and
the public hearing was closed.
McGonagill moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the approval of updating ordinances amending Chapters 1, 18, 19, and 20 to
align city ordinance with the Local Surface Water Management Plan and updated local
Watershed Management Organization Rules. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 5, 2020 as presented.
ADMNISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson presented updates on action taken
by the City Council at their May 26th meeting and noted that there were items scheduled for the
next two Planning Commission meetings.
McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at
9:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 2, 2020
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder,
Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters,
Associate Planner; Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator; Richard Rice, IT Manager;
Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist; Erik Henricksen, Project Manager; and Charlie Howley, Public
Works Director/City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Jeff Franz 8950 Sunset Trail
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCES TO INSTALL A SEPTIC
SYSTEM IN THE NW CORNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 565 LAKOTA LANE.
Walters: Alright, thank you. As was mentioned this is a request by Francisco and Heather Silva
to place a septic system, replace a septic system at 565 Lakota Lane. The item will also go
before the City Council on June 22nd for final approval and they are requesting to locate the
septic system within the 50 foot bluff setback, 20 foot bluff impact zone and 10 foot property
line setback. So a little overview of the area. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate. This
zoning district is designed for septic properties. Has a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Has
required 50 foot front and rear setbacks, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a maximum of 25 percent
impervious coverage. Properties with bluffs are also subject to a 30 foot bluff setback or they
must meet the existing principle structure setback. It was built before 1991 and then there’s a 20
foot impact zone from the bluff where vegetative removal is limited. Septic systems are subject
to a 50 foot bluff setback and a 10 foot property line setback as well. So this particular parcel is
2.57 acres. It has about 4.7 percent lot cover. The primary structure was built significantly
before the existing bluff ordinance was passed and so it has a non-conforming 6 foot bluff
setback. It has a non-conforming 34 foot front yard setback. It has a patio that has a non-
conforming 27 foot front yard setback. The existing septic system is actually located about right
here and is actually within the bluff and it has a non-conforming driveway with multiple
accesses. The applicant is requesting to install a new septic system in the northwest corner of the
property. To do that they would need to install the pump line, mound, dispersal area all within
the 50 foot bluff setback and mostly within the 20 foot bluff impact zone as well. The mound
and dispersal area would be located within the 10 foot property line setback and some of the
dispersal zone would be, dispersal area sorry would be within the city’s right-of-way. The
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
2
applicant’s justification is the existing system when they do an evaluation when houses go for
sale and it was found to be in a state of non-imminent failure. This requires that the septic
system be replaced within a couple years. There’s no location on the property that’s outside the
50 foot bluff setback. They created a proposed location that creates as much separation as
possible between the proposed septic system and the top of the bluff. It’s not possible to install
in a down slope location because there’s no way to get equipment down there so essentially
they’re requesting this location because there isn’t another viable location on the property. This
graphic I created helps demonstrate the constraints they’re under in siting the property. There’s a
30 foot well setback where no septic system can be. The yellow line here is the 50 foot bluff
setback. This is the 20 foot impact zone and this is the approximate top of the bluff. This is the
topographical survey of an aerial of the property. As you can see there’s pretty steep slope back
here. It’d be over 500 feet to get down to where it begins to even out and the only access would
be through the Hennepin County Railroad Authority’s trail system. We don’t believe it would be
possible to get permission to bring in equipment through there. Given the site constraints it’s
staff’s opinion that this is the only viable location and for that reason staff is recommending
approval of the variance.
Weick: Great, thank you MacKenzie. At this time I’ll just go ahead and allow Planning
Commissioners to jump in if you would like to ask a question of MacKenzie.
McGonagill: MacKenzie this is Mike McGonagill. The question I had for it, I guess reading the
write up this was went into non-imminent failure in November of 2016.
Walters: Correct I believe.
McGonagill: And so since that time they’ve just been trying to come up with a solution. I guess
the term non-imminent failure, what that means from septic standpoint…like you said a couple
years so that it’s not, they haven’t been in violation of anything but just that this needs to get
fixed, is that correct?
Walters: My understanding of how it works is once it’s in that, it’s a non-compliant state it
means it’s not actively leaking but it needs to be repaired and brought up to code. I can’t
remember if it’s a, I honestly can’t remember the exact number of years they have but they have
an absolute threshold where it has to be updated and I know they’re approaching that.
McGonagill: Okay thank you, that was my question. There’s a time limit to this?
Walters: Yes.
Reeder: Mr. Chairman is there no way that you can fix the current system? I don’t know
anything about systems but is that not an option?
Walters: No, is my understanding.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
3
Weick: Because it was inspected correct?
Walters: Yeah they, again I’m not a septic designer but whenever houses are put for sale they do
an inspection and if it’s determined to be in this state you need a new septic system.
Reeder: You have to move it somewhere else is that the question?
Walters: That is my understanding because once the again I would defer that question to the
septic designer if they’re there but my understanding is once the soils are disturbed you can’t re-
use the site.
McGonagill: Yeah Commissioner Reeder I believe what happens is the soil gets saturated to the
point where there’s activity through it that septic systems have a certain life and after that life it’s
a natural decline. There’s a way to move produce out of the septic system you know. It just
reaches it’s limit of ability to infiltrate the water and do it’s job.
Reeder: Okay.
Weick: Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: Yes. I think this is the one that we heard, didn’t we hear this one?
Aanenson: No there’s a couple other ones that are coming in. So this is an older subdivision and
these were put in a long time ago while they were 10 acre lots. As MacKenzie pointed out.
Skistad: I thought this was one that we had approved.
Aanenson: No I was just going to say these were put in with one septic. Any rural lot that would
go in now requires that they provide two drain field sites for that specific reason but because of
the slopes on all these lots you’ll probably see another one here soon so there’s letters out on
some other lots that are in the same situation and so obviously we try to work with them and we
did the one that was right by the golf course. Going into Bluff Creek Golf Course. That was the
most recent, I think I believe the last one.
McGonagill: Off of 101 or something and that came down the slope and we went through it.
Skistad: Okay. Well…I guess I don’t have any more questions. It makes sense to me when I
went through it.
Weick: Okay and I remember too Commissioner Skistad we had a very similar case to this one
relatively recently that I was confused as well.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
4
Skistad: Okay.
Weick: Any other comments from our commissioners? And hearing none I would invite the
applicant to make a presentation or comments if they are available. And there is no one in the
room and I don’t believe we have anyone on the telephone or on the Zoom call. That’s okay.
It’s certainly not required for the applicant to make a presentation. Staff has done an excellent
job. I will open the public hearing portion. Anyone wishing to comment on this item may come
forward and do so if they’re here in the chambers or speak up online. And I don’t know if I
should give it a few minutes with the phone number or we’re okay? I think we’re okay. I’m
going to go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item and open it up again for
commissioner comment and/or motion. If we can get that up on the screen that would be great.
Yeah if there are no comments or questions I would certainly entertain a motion from one of the
commissioners.
Skistad: I’ll motion to approve it.
Weick: Thank you. Do you see it there in front of you? Can you read the motion?
Skistad: I do. I did it on my phone so it’s a little small so bear with me. The Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a variance allowing the
placement of a pump line, tanks, mound and dispersal area within the 50 foot bluff setback and
the 20 foot bluff impact zone and the 10 foot property line setback variance for the mound and
dispersal area subject to the conditions of approval and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Skistad. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Randall: Second.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Randall. I will open it up for any final comments
to the commissioners. And hearing none we’ll have a roll call vote.
Skistad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve a variance allowing the placement of a pump line, tanks,
mound and dispersal area within the 50 foot bluff setback and the 20 foot bluff impact zone
and the 10 foot property line setback variance for the mound and dispersal area subject to
the conditions of approval and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the relevant
agencies.
2. The applicant must show proposed erosion control on survey and install erosion control
as needed to prevent off-site erosion.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
5
3. The septic system must be located as proposed in the survey and design received buy the
City on May 1, 2020 as part of the variance request.
4. The property owner shall enter into an Encroachment Agreement with the City for the
area of the individual sewage treatment system (septic system) that encroaches into the
public easement. The final area of encroachment shall be determined by an as-built
survey of the septic system, and the Encroachment Agreement shall be recorded prior to
issuance of the Certificate of Compliance.
5. All underground components encroaching into the public easement and identified in the
Encroachment Agreement shall be detectable by customary locating equipment (i.e. the
installation of tracer wire). The tracer wire shall be tested and approved prior to issuance
of the Certificate of Compliance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Weick: Thank you MacKenzie.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDING CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 TO REMOVE
RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTIONS FOR REGIONAL LIFESTYLE CENTER PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUD).
Aanenson: This is mine.
Weick: Kate.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. So this is an item that obviously affects the next item on the
agenda but when we wrote the city code in 2009 clearly this ordinance, it was based on the
Comprehensive Plan which we put in place with the PUD ordinance so if you recall in 2008 we
hadn’t really contemplated a regional lifestyle center but we had a market study brought to us
and the City contracted…to see if it was even something viable to move forward with would be a
lifestyle center and having put the lifestyle center on a survey and through the Comprehensive
Plan process we did on that the City adopted that the potential of the lifestyle center. In doing
that the thought was that we’d put it into the PUD and then put restrictions on it so it would not
become all, a residential. We wanted it to be a true lifestyle center which meant based on our
definition in drafting the PUD that the lifestyle center would be a mix of office, retail and the
like and at the time we put a cap of 20 percent on it and that was so if you look back 20 years
ago, or 10 years ago it’s a lot different today then what we thought so looking at it now we
recognize that really the housing is the genesis for some of the other stuff to come forward. The
offices. The retail. The things that we, the City desires to have as a part of that. So by
restricting the residential and also the PUD also said that the residential had to go, or I mean the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
6
commercial had to go first so it’s kind of inverse of what we’re saying now because the
residential is what’s going to create the market for the other stuff to come. So in order for that to
go forward with the next project we’re recommending the change to the 30 percent so again in
the PUD ordinance it would still be bound by the mix of use and the like but it would cap the
percentage of residential at 30 percent. In addition it does not have to be the first thing to be
built so those would be the changes to the PUD ordinance. So the ordinance is before you in the
draft form. Again it’s for the regional lifestyle center so there’s only going to be one regional
lifestyle center in the city unless we annex something and we have another 100 acres in the
setting so again this would be the performance standards that would generate so that ordinance is
attached. So our motion would then be to recommend the Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council to approve the proposed amendment to the City’s PUD standards and I’d be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Weick: And I will open it up for commissioners to ask questions on this item at this time.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman this is Commissioner McGonagill. Kate in what, two questions in
laymen’s language define for me, here’s the two questions. What a lifestyle center is, just kind
of the whole concept. I know you’ve got a write up this is kind of what it is. And the logic
where you started at 20 percent and you arrived to go into 30 percent. You know whether one
goes with one or the other is another issue but just, those are the two questions. Just simply what
is it. What’s the concept and then why the percentages.
Aanenson: So good questions. So the lifestyle center is really intended to be a mix of uses.
Like I said the office, the retail. Whether that be support commercial and then the office
component. Some restaurants and those sort of things so it’s a true mix and then also having the
housing there. We’ve always talked some housing as a buffer on this site but also some vertical
housing. Some senior housing has always been shown as a component of this. So the intent
when we looked at it before was there was residential housing was hot. We’ve had a lot of
requests to take our industrial land and make it all be housing and we’ve always steered away
from it. In our Comprehensive Plan stated that we really want to be fiscally responsible.
Provide that opportunity for industrial development and if you look over the last few years you
can see how much we’ve done as far as office/industrial expansion and new space so we were
concerned that if we didn’t cap it and regulate that, that someone might go put too much
residential or do all office so. Actually if the lifestyle center didn’t go forward the underlying
zoning, so we actually guided this dual guided. We also said if for some reason this didn’t come
to fruition that it could be developed as a straight office park but we know that market right now
is really struggling too so we believe this is the best balanced approach moving forward knowing
what we know today and what we didn’t know in 2008 when we drafted it.
McGonagill: So okay go to the percentages. How you went from 20 to 30.
Aanenson: Again looking at what, it seemed like a good mix with everything else in there. We
felt that was a good number. The number of units.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
7
McGonagill: Okay.
Noyes: Is the 30 percent based on the current proposed development? The proposal or is it
based on just a number that you feel is the right amount to have?
Aanenson: We think it’s the right number to have. They might be looking at you know maybe
potentially a little bit more than that but we thought that was the right number to have.
McGonagill: Kate one other follow up question. Perhaps I think within, I’m taking a scenario
now. Let’s say the residential component gets built out. Commercial lags. Will the covenants
for those homes contain the fact that commercial’s going to be built so we’re, future Planning
Commission’s not sitting here faced with an issue when that commercial’s stuff starting to be
built. People say oh no we don’t want that in our back yard. You know what I’m saying because
there’s going to be a lot of open space around there for a period of time around some of those
homes and I just wanted to be sure you know how will it be clear to the residential owners that
this is what they’re actually buying into? You follow the question?
Aanenson: Sure yep. That’s a good question. So again the PUD is the guiding document for the
entire development so anybody buying into that development or anybody choosing to build in
that development it’s going to be bound by, and we’ll talk about this at a future item. The design
standards. All the architectural stuff. All of the proposed uses are laid out currently so any
changes to that would require the developer to come back in and request changes to that so.
McGonagill: Okay thank you.
Aanenson: This really is just a master planned community is really what it is.
McGonagill: Yeah and this, not that it goes without saying, this is all in conformance with your
Comprehensive Plan.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
McGonagill: …what we have at the Metropolitan Commission. We haven’t changed anything.
Aanenson: Correct. And so to go back we’re kind of jumping into the next topic but again so
this is part of a larger environment assessment document that was done on this entire piece of
property because this piece of property lagged at least 5 years behind the requirement from the
law is they have to update that so again before they came back in 2017 and got approvals we
updated all the environmental documents to make sure looked at all the traffic studies. We
looked at all that so if you look at why we came up with those percentages we’re still within that
traffic modeling and trip generation and all those thresholds so it’s consistent with that and that’s
what we tied it back to.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
8
Reeder: Mr. Chairman Commissioner Reeder. I’m not sure I understand, it seems like the
ordinance is 20 percent and then we’re talking about a PUD that’s 30 percent. How did we get
from A to B?
Aanenson: Why are we increasing it to 30 percent?
Reeder: Right.
Aanenson: The PUD right now says you can only have 20 percent and so to move the
development forward with a higher number, which they believe to make the project work as I
stated earlier the mix what we know now today, that the, having that density population just like
we know in the downtown where we have higher density of population that is supporting the
commercial and the residential. To get those things to come in you need that density of
development so what we know now it’s different than what we thought about in 2008.
Reeder: Oh are you suggesting that 30 percent is the correct number now because what I see in
the ordinance is that you’re eliminating the percentage requirement is the question…
Aanenson: Right. No, it would stay, be capped at 30 percent in the PUD correct. So this PUD
applies to the overall regional lifestyle center. That will address the PUD, that’s parochial to the
Avienda project on the next item.
McGonagill: What Commissioner Reeder’s asking is that we’re adjusting the ordinance to go
from 20 to 30.
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: And really you’re setting up the next agenda item in a sense.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
McGonagill: Thank you.
Reeder: Okay my second question was, I understand that it probably makes more sense to allow
the residential development to occur before the commercial so that you have a basis of the need
for commercial retail office but my question is, what is the 20 percent or the 30 percent,
whatever number you lie on, is that land area or is it value or what is it?
Aanenson: So again if you look at what we have in the, with a percentage of floor area ratio
that’s in the PUD in the next item. We’re kind of co-mingling two topics here.
Reeder: I understand that but I don’t know how to talk about one without the other.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
9
McGonagill: Well generally in, what you’re saying Kate in the code, regulation you’re
proposing or the change to the ordinance you’re going from 20 to 30 percent cap. That 30
percent is 30 percent, that’d be for anybody. It’d be 30 percent of available footprint, floor
space, acreage, I think that’s what Commissioner Reeder’s asking.
Aanenson: Sure I’ve got it. I’ve got it on the front page of the staff report for Avienda. It says
density. It assumes a 70 percent site commercial with a floor area of .3 and 30 percent site
residential of the density of 16 units an acre. So that’s what we based it on.
Reeder: I’m sorry. Give me an English language translation. Density of what?
Aanenson: 16 units an acre.
Reeder: So it doesn’t, we’re not talking about the number of acres it might be consumed by
residential. If I put a 22 story residential in there is that my 30 percent?
Aanenson: All the sites that are identified for residential are identified in the plat and they’re all
identified and it doesn’t exceed the 30 percent so if we get to that item we can go through that
specifically. They’re all called out on specific lot and blocks and identified, the type and
approximate number of units.
Reeder: And so what you’re, go ahead.
Skistad: As I say Commissioner Reeder this is Commissioner Skistad and if you look at your
item 3, and I don’t know if you can flip there to agenda item 3, PUD ordinance and sign details.
Go to page 3 that has a map and in Sections 4 and 5 so it just, it’s a little bit easier to see it. It’s
kind of a map of the whole site but the 5 specific areas. It gives you a visual. I don’t know if
you can get to that. I know we’re on the wrong agenda item but.
Reeder: I appreciate that. I’ve seen that drawing. I understand what they’re trying to do. My
question is, what is the 30 percent of? I mean is it acres or what? If I come in with what’s on
that plat showing the residential as proposed and build all that, how much commercial retail do I
have to build?
Aanenson: It’s based on acreage.
Reeder: Excuse me?
Aanenson: It’s based on acreage. And there’s a development table over here and it’s based on
acreage so it ties back.
Reeder: That was my question.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
10
McGonagill: So Kate to clarify, and I think I understand what you’re saying. Let me just see if I
say this correctly. On this site we’re not talking about item 3 here. We’re just talking about a
example site that under the ordinance now 70 percent of the acreage would be commercial and
as…came in would have a specific floor area ratio. That’s not set by code. It’d just say 70
percent of the acreage is set for commercial. 30 percent of the acreage is residential with a
density that would be set by the PUD.
Aanenson: Well we’re getting a little confused here. So the PUD encompasses all 118 acres so
we have to go back to the 118 acres. Take that 30 percent of that of residential and then 70
percent would be commercial/office/industrial so.
Skistad: And there’s only one PUD for all of Chanhassen so that’s all we’re voting on is
Avienda essentially.
Aanenson: Correct. This is the only one, the only regional commercial we’ll have in the city.
That’s correct. It only applies to this particular project. If for some reason we found another 115
acres to do a regional commercial and then it would fall under the same criteria.
Reeder: Commissioner Reeder, so if you amend the PUD in the future and all the residential
becomes single family, that still meets the 30 percent criteria the way you’re dividing it correct?
Aanenson: This PUD change only applies to the regional commercial zoning district. There’s
only one regional commercial zoning district in the city.
Reeder: Then my question was if Avienda was changed, somebody came in and requested it all
be single family it would require, it would still have 30 percent of the acreage and that would be,
meet the criteria according to this ordinance.
Aanenson: No because there’s only two underlying zoning districts in this. The zoning, the land
use can only be regional lifestyle center or office. That’s the only, so if this project did not get
built as shown and they chose to try to come in and subdivide it they’d have to do a land use
amendment which is another process to go through the Planning Commission public hearing.
Submit it to the Met Council and then to re-guide the land because there’s only two choices on
here. Regional commercial or office industrial.
Reeder: And to make sure I understand so regional, either one of those designations does not
allow some form of residential? Does it specify type of residential?
Aanenson: Right now it allows 20 percent residential. It doesn’t specify 16 units an acre. They
have gone to the level of specifying what types they’re going to show.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
11
Reeder: Okay my only point is if I, what I think you’re doing is removing the 20 percent
requirement so that when you deal with the PUD that comes in under this property by maybe by
some subsequent developer that would be an open door that they could come in and say we
would like to have 40 percent residential. Is that not true?
Aanenson: I’m confused, sorry.
Von Oven: I actually have the same question so maybe I can help restate it. If we forget about
agenda item 3 for a moment and this agenda item all by itself, all it does is remove the 20 percent
cap, is that correct?
Aanenson: It moves it to 30 percent. It doesn’t remove it completely. It only moves it to 30
percent.
Von Oven: I think maybe where we’re getting confused is in the agenda in the recommendation
it doesn’t say that so I guess.
Skistad: I’m sorry, what?
Weick: Could you repeat that, I’m sorry Commissioner Von Oven. Can you repeat that?
Von Oven: Yeah and I may be just looking at the wrong place. I’m looking at our agenda.
Agenda item 2 and the recommendation from staff, staff recommends that the City remove the
20 percent cap for regional commercial centers and allow the residential component to be
constructed before the commercial component and then there’s another sentence but there’s no
mention of 30 percent.
Weick: Okay.
Von Oven: And so on it’s own, in it’s own right I feel like we are, we’re on a process here to
potentially vote to move this 20 percent to 30 percent but this item on it’s own unless the motion
is made differently than the recommendation states here would just remove the cap.
Aanenson: I would agree with you so it should say, it should be at the 30 percent cap and that’s
what the Comprehensive Plan has so, so we can change that ordinance to state the 30 percent.
Von Oven: That’s correct.
McGonagill: Commissioner Von Oven that’s the same question I had. I was going where’s the
30 percent?
Reeder: I agree that was what was causing me concern.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
12
Aanenson: Okay. So we can amend the ordinance. I know we have.
Weick: Bear with us for a moment.
Skistad: There’s a farm isn’t there that’s right next to this area?
Weick: Yes.
Skistad: So I’m just entertaining so what if they decide to do the same thing. So then they
would automatically get a 30 percent. I don’t know that there’s enough land there.
Weick: I don’t think there’d be enough land to qualify for the PUD.
Skistad: Because that was my other question when I was going through this is if we give up the
option we maybe once we get to that point we don’t want 30 percent anymore. We want a
different number and now we’ve.
Aanenson: Right, so that was the concept. So if you look at the recommendation on page 4 was
to strike out number 3 which was the, only 20 percent and we struck that out. So if the concern
is you want to keep it at 30 percent because we actually took that out, this PUD that we’re
coming in is capped at 30 percent so that’s the lock on this one. You’re approving it that way.
Otherwise if you’re not comfortable doing that you can put part of number 3 back in which is
struck out and say a residential development in a lifestyle center PUD may only occur in
conjunction with commercial and office development but cannot be constructed more than 30
percent. If that’s what you want to do. Or leave it as we had it assuming that this PUD is
coming in which you have the discretion to approve or not approve that 30 percent which is what
we’re recommending.
Reeder: Mr. Chairman I would prefer to change it to some number because as we see in this
particular project, we’ve been working on it since 2016 and it may or may not go forward so I
think we want to have ourselves in a position to deal with whatever does come forward.
Weick: I think that’s fine.
Aanenson: That’s fine.
Weick: We will amend the.
Aanenson: So if I may Chair. So it’d be under your recommended approving ordinance would
be at number 3 as I stated. That the residential development and lifestyle center occur in
conjunction with the commercial office development and cannot exceed 30 percent so that would
be the new number 3 under the ordinance.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
13
Weick: And I think, I think that would be, I think I probably speak for everybody that that’d
probably be the best way to handle it. Moving forward. Commissioner Reeder does that answer
your questions?
Reeder: Chairman it does. The only other thought I have is, is it possible in the future to amend
this PUD to the extent that they sell off part of the remaining 70 percent so that then the 30
percent would become 50 percent?
Aanenson: No, the PUD on the next item goes over the entire property so they would have to
come back and change, come back before this body and ask for a change because you’re
approving a preliminary plat and a PUD ordinance with it.
Reeder: Okay. With that Mr. Chair I think we’re on the right road to put a number in there and
I’m assuming that the proposed PUD, the next item is going to go through and I’m just
wondering what would happen if question but I think we need to.
Weick: I appreciate that and thank you for raising your comments. Very helpful. Are there
other, you know we spent some time on that topic. I don’t want to short change anybody else.
Are there any other questions or comments from commissioners at this time?
Reeder: Mr. Chairman not to be cause too much trouble here but I had questions. I read through
and I honestly can’t tell you if it’s in this, I don’t think it’s in this agenda. Maybe in the last one.
The next agenda item but there’s a comment in there that, about similar architecture style and
I’m, you know maybe we need to talk about that at the next item but I don’t understand similar
architectural style when we’re talking retail commercial and residential.
Weick: I believe that is in the next item.
Reeder: I think you’re right.
Weick: Yeah I don’t think that’s in this section.
Skistad: This is Commissioner Skistad and I’m wondering if it would make more sense to
discuss agenda item 3 and table this one? It feels like it’s out of order to me.
Aanenson: Yeah except that you could not approve item 3 without approving item 2 but that’s.
Skistad: Okay.
Aanenson: Well they’d both have to be approved to move forward.
Skistad: Together to move forward?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
14
Aanenson: Yeah.
Weick: Yeah.
Aanenson: So we can make a couple different motions that’s fine.
McGonagill: Well I think Mr. Chairman at the end of the day a lifestyle center like this is
something we’re trying to see in our city. Avienda obviously with everything else going on has
struggled a little bit to develop it. I think with this agenda item we’re giving them some
flexibility to phase their construction given the way the economic picture has changed and with
the growth of the residential platform from 20 to 30 percent you give them a little bit more
flexibility and revenue potential to make this economic. I think with the change in the ordinance
as Commissioner Reeder has proposed it doesn’t leave it open ended to whatever could happen
in the future. There are some large tracts of land that possibly could be developed in a PUD and
I think this the way it fits in. You know it’s fairly generic, fairly simple and in a way to me it
cleans up an open ended issue that Commissioner Reeder talked about so you know I’m okay
with it I guess is what I’m saying sir.
Weick: Okay thank you. Do we, is this a public hearing?
Aanenson: Yes it is.
Weick: Okay but there’s no applicant?
Aanenson: We’re the applicant.
Weick: Yeah, well and we’ve heard from you. Alright before I open the public hearing again I
do, I just want to be sure you’ve all been heard with your questions. Are there any other
commissioner comments or questions at this time for Kate and staff?
Von Oven: I’m just going to clarify this one more time just to be sure. I’m looking at page 4 of
the staff report. I see recommendations down there. 1 is going to stay. 2 is going to stay. 3 is
going to have all of those lines removed and that number’s going to change from 20 percent to
30 percent, is that correct?
Weick: I believe in number 3 we will keep the first sentence only and we will change it from 20
percent to 30 percent.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Weick: So the first sentence we’ll keep. We’ll make it 30 percent but then we will strike
beginning with the residential component.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
15
Aanenson: Correct.
Weick: Through the end of that paragraph.
Von Oven: Got it, thank you.
Weick: Cool. With that I will open the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone within the
room wishing to come forward or on the telephone, the number has been up for a little while
now. Don’t know if we have anyone who’s called in. We have not okay. And seeing nobody
come forward in the chambers I will close the public hearing portion and open it back up for
commissioner comment or certainly accept a motion. Understanding that the, I don’t think we
need to restate it but again, we only need to restate it in the motion but the section 20-502 we’ve
added back in the first sentence of number 3.
Aanenson: As modified.
Weick: Right so it will be as modified in your motion. And added 30 percent instead of 20
percent. So the motion would be to approve the amendment to the city code Chapter 20 as
modified.
Von Oven: I’d make a motion.
Weick: Okay.
Von Oven: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve
the proposed amendment as modified in the City’s PUD standards.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Von Oven. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Reeder: I’ll second that motion.
Weick: And thank you Commissioner Reeder. We have a motion and a second. Any comment
or clarification before we vote?
Von Oven moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council remove the 20 percent cap from regional commercial
centers and allow the residential component to be constructed before the commercial
component. Lifestyle centers would still be subject to the standards and guidelines
contained in Section in 20-509.
The proposed amendment would read as follows:
Section 20-502 – Allowed Uses.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
16
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development
plan.
(1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in
the Comprehensive Plan. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be
delineated in a PUD development plan.
(2) Where the site of the proposed PUD is designated for more than one land use in the
Comprehensive Plan the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or
such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve
the purposes of this article and the Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Residential development in a regional/lifestyle center commercial PUD may only
occur in conjunction with a commercial or office development and may not encompass more
than 30 percent of the proposed development.
All voted in favor, except for Commissioner Skistad who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 6 to 1.
Weick: It passes with a 6 to 1 vote of all commissioners present. Thank you to everybody and
Kate for a really thorough discussion on that. It is a little confusing and I appreciate everybody’s
attention to the detail. Moving to item 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND AMENDMENT TO THE AVIENDA
PUD.
Weick: And I give it to Kate.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman and commissioners. So again this is an amended preliminary
plat and the PUD so the layout of the plat has changed and we’ll go through that and the PUD
ordinance itself. So before we get too deep into the history of this I know the developers are on
our Zoom and I think they want to give a little update. Included in your packet we have the PUD
ordinance. We have the design guidelines. We have our PUD ordinance. The background and
the plat which our engineer and staff will go through but I’d like to maybe just let the developers
kind of talk about where they were in 2017. Where they are today. Introduce themselves and
then we’ll go back and go through the report itself so if you could bring in everybody on this
project that’d be great.
Mark Nordland: There we go, can you hear us?
Weick: Yes we can.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
17
Mark Nordland: Thank you. These Zoom meetings are fun. Mr. Chair, commissioners, thank
you. My name is Mark Nordland representing Level 7 Development. I also have Eric Padget
here who will speak in a minute also representing Level 7 as the developer of this project. Just to
tee this up and introduce it. We obviously have been before the City of Chanhassen for some
time on this project. It was 2016 when I first stood in front of a Planning Commission that
looked different than it does today because this project has taken so long that many of you
weren’t there. Most of you weren’t but we got the PUD approved in 2017. Since then we’ve
been working to get the wetlands permit approved which we were successful in doing and then
we had an enormous stormwater permit to get approved which we did and through all this the
market has continued to evolve and so we’ve been trying our best to create a super high quality
development that will meet the needs of the city of Chanhassen and really be a jewel for the city
while at the same time meeting the needs of the marketplace and as all of you have probably
watched this project the market has changed a lot. In 2006 somebody was talking about putting a
Nordstrom on this site and now obviously the retail landscape and the way that people shop and
receive services has changed considerably so we appreciate your patience in hanging in there
with us while we’ve been working through it and this last, hopefully last tweak to the PUD really
fills in some of the gaps that weren’t fully flushed out in 2017 and also moves and collapses one
of the roads within the development that we think really makes it more usable for pedestrians and
the way that people will want to shop and do multiple things about the place so with that I’m
going to turn it over to Eric Padget and he will walk you through the changes.
Eric Padget: Hi, Eric Padget also representing Level 7 Development. We’re standing up at a
podium to pretend like we’re actually at city hall so. Mark and I introduced the team. I thought
it’d be helpful to show this project, the PUD that was approved back in 2017. As Mark
mentioned there has been a lot of things that been resolved since this was approved. We talked
about the wetland alteration permit. The wetland bank credits have actually been purchased. We
got, we have an agreement now with the City on the conservation easement on the southwest
portion of the property so that area will be put in easement for perpetuity which I think is a great
win for the project. We’ve also worked through a lot of the technical engineering things that
were causing some problems just with not only the cost side but even… As Mark mentioned the
market has really changed and even more drastically here in the last couple weeks but as, after
this project was approved and we went out to the market on the project we got a lot of feedback
on some of the layout, specifically the ring road that’s been, comes on the northeast portion of
the property and how that becomes almost like an old regional mall type concept and how that
ring road can create barriers for pedestrians and connecting between the two retail areas. So we
wanted to work through that and I think the benefit of eliminating that road too for the City is,
that’s actually less infrastructure that the City has to maintain. While it also creates a better, in
our opinion a pedestrian environment and connectivity. We’ve also reduced the amount of retail
on the site by over 100,000 square feet and that’s really been about the change in the bricks and
mortar kind of world that we’re living in now. You know tenant interest has been good. We
have a really strong interest in the residential components which was the last agenda item and a
lot of those folks understand that really the rooftops are going to have to precede some of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
18
office and retail developments that happen here while many of the retailers are interested in this
site, I think that they’re ready to see some movement on the site before they’re ready to commit.
So what we, the major change is really kind of the placement of how we oriented the site. The
2017 district plan on kind of bottom left of your screen is how the district was laid out before so
we had office that kind of was on the north perimeter of the site and we had really two different
districts that were segregated by Bluff Creek Boulevard and we wanted to connect those better
together. Really you’re removing that ring road but you’re also just allowing a lot more cross
traffic in that area and it’s not really a major change in our opinion but it’s changing the internal
circulation not necessarily the major circulation of the site. So it allows then better for folks that
live in the residential area to connect through the site and into the village. The retail area and
also up into the retail district up in the northeast corner. We took the office component to the site
they were up to the north and moved those down into the mixed use section on the southeast
side. It’s our opinion that will allow for you know maybe potentially a corporate user. A larger
corporate campus type user or three different buildings or four different buildings etcetera to,
that we can develop as the demand comes. The other benefit here is it allows us to use the grade
to our advantage. When we had the big box retail on this corner before it required us to build
large retaining walls because they need large expanse of just flat sites. By using the grades here
we could have underground parking in the office building just using the natural grade and it
allows us to remove a lot of the big retaining walls. So that’s kind of the main repositioning of
the districts in the site. And the PUD planned amendment which is in your packet, again the big
components of it we reduced 100,000 square feet of pure retail uses on the site. We also
enhanced in our opinion the mixed use area on the south side. We’ve added some residential
components. I think we had a large senior facility here before and that was really challenging as
it impacted the conservation area and so we’ve switched that over to a small lot single family
type residential unit. But then I think one of the really cool aspects is how we oriented this
village retail area and it creates a village green area. Kind of a private and operated by the
developer or the owner but a village green area where people can congregate. There can be you
know there’s, we’ve seen all kinds of different concepts and I’ll show you a couple as a teaser
but you know maybe a bandshell or maybe there’s outdoor uses like a skating rink like they have
in Central Park and Maple Grove. Those type of uses but I think this village green area really
will be a nice amenity for the project. And then also as Kate mentioned we really spent a lot of
time enhancing the design guidelines. I think in 2017 we had more of a word document and we
really spent quite a bit of time really setting the table for what our expectations are from end
users on what the theme of this site is and how it’s all going to kind of work together. So the
design guidelines which are in your packet it really does set the framework. It addresses things
like streetscape and signage and architectural guidelines but it also stormwater, street hierarchy,
you know all kinds of different kind of public space expectations and again it’s a framework.
It’s not the end design but it’s kind of setting the expectations of what we think the site should
look like. And we use that design guidelines to drive really what the boulevard landscaping will
look like on Bluff Creek Boulevard and Avienda Parkway and even down into the entry
monumentation and the project signs throughout the project. This is just an example of the
village retail in the packet. You know it really talks about the architectural materials. The
difference. How the buildings will orient with each other. How they’re landscaped. The
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
19
enhanced sidewalk areas. Material colors. We really want to have this be a first class lifestyle
center and we want to hold the end users accountable for what that design looks like. On signage
the map in the center identifies the areas where we expect to have project signage including some
tenant signage for the retail areas but really even the project ID signs. We’ve got the project ID
signs look very similar to this. We’ve got them located at kind of the main access points and the
main hard corners of the project and we really want to make sure that when people enter into
Bluff Creek Boulevard from Powers or even Lyman that they get that sense of arrival when they
come into the lifestyle center. We also have the tenant signs, retail tenant signs really just at the
two main entrance points into the project off of Bluff Creek and Powers and then off of Lyman
Boulevard and Sunset Trail on the north. And then we have smaller tenant signs throughout
Bluff Creek Boulevard and then even on the north side to allow the retail tenants to get exposure
out onto the main roadways into the project. I touched on the village green area. This is just a
screen shot of some concepts that we’ve been working through. Again really a public plaza area.
A gathering area for the guests and residents of this area. We think it’s, you know you could do
things like farmers markets. You could have outdoor yoga classes. You could do a variety of
things here and really create that sense of place around some of the hospitality or restaurant type
uses that we expect in that area. So I’m sure on top of your mind is what’s the project timing.
You know prior to the pandemic and recent events our focus was really to get the site mass
graded as soon as possible. We were trying to get that done this year along with what we call
our Phase 1 roadway infrastructure so mass grading the entire 80 acres of developable site here
and then putting in Bluff Creek Boulevard connecting over to the neighborhood to the west and
then Avienda Parkway up to Lyman. That was the plan to be the first phase so all of your trunk
utilities, roadways and then really trying to enhance the roads with the boulevard landscaping
and really create that again sense of arrival with the entry monumentation here and here. Phase 2
would be our first tenants as discussed in the previous agenda topic. We’ve had strong interest
from the residential developers out there specifically on the small lot single family homes and
then we have really good interest on the multi family and senior components of the project. We
were expecting all of those to come along with us this year or early next year. Everybody’s a
little bit on pause right now but I think as things progress and we all find out what is on the other
side of the pandemic and the economy here we’ll invigorate those conversations. And then the
office and retail components, again we’ve had great interest from a variety of folks and the
message has just been you know once we start seeing the roads go in and the dirt moving we’ll
engage further. At this point I can answer questions or we can hand it back to Kate and staff to
dig into the staff report.
Weick: Great and thank you very much. We will turn it back to Kate at this point and let her go
through the staff report and then we’ll open it up for questions for everybody.
Aanenson: Yeah because there might be some questions regarding the plat too so if they’re
available for that, if that’s alright.
Eric Padget: I will stop sharing my speech.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
20
Aanenson: Alright, there you go. So mine will be slightly repetitive but I’ll go through the
power point. I just want to remind everybody that’s new to the commission where we’re located.
So we’re just at the intersection of Powers and Lyman and access off of 212. So obviously the
connection as was pointed out by Mr. Nordland and Mr. Padget, the biggest issue is getting that
connection of Bluff Creek Drive and that’s a big issue so here’s the property itself. Again the
other issue is that this area, the outlot will be preserved in perpetuity. At the last go around there
was a request for a variance on that and that was recommended for denial and this is also an area
that’s preserved so when we talked about the density it includes all that area. That’s the unique
attribute of a PUD because you’re preserving sensitive areas. That you also take advantage of
that and that would be in your hard cover and your overall density application. So I just want to
go through the background. As Mr. Nordland and Mr. Padget talked about we’ve been doing a
lot of work since it was approved in 2017 trying to work through all the wetland issues. Getting
that permitting. Also working through some of the grading and storm water management and
now I think taking that plan out to market has actually worked into a better project in the fact that
we’ve reduced that large retaining wall on the south side which was pretty substantial so again,
so because of that the final plat and grading, the final plat’s only good for so long so it was
extended. They are working on the grading permit. Pretty much got that done and then really
kind of went back and re-examined some of the kind of the guiding principles on that so the
extension then went to the last extension by the City Council on December 9th gave the
additional 60 days so it ends at the end of June. This is scheduled for a work session with the
City Council. They want to hear what the Planning Commission has to say and then they’ll have
a meeting on that after, after they have a work session so that’s kind of the background. So the
request tonight is to look at the regional commercial zoning, the PUD and the design standards
and I’ll spend some time going through that and then also there’s a plat involved so two things
that you’ll be looking at tonight. The wetland alteration permit has been approved as stated and
attached in your packet. They’ve done some of the wetland banking but there’s some other
things they need to do that were a part of that condition that would be carried forward with the
approval when this goes up through City Council and then there was a conditional use for
developing in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and that include Bluff Creek Drive. It nicked a
little corner of that. As Mr. Padget talked about there was a senior housing project kind of
pushed into that bluff that we were uncomfortable with and now I think with those single
detached townhomes it’s a good fit in there. So kind of on a bigger scale, this again is the project
area. So the acreage are described over here so each lot is defined as, so this is what we call the
development plan. So the PUD ordinance also references this as the development plan so this is
the preservation area and as, we’ll go through the sub-districts but these are all identified by
acreage and the density and the like so that’s already specified for each site. So that also ties
back to the plat. So when they would come in. Now what you’re approving tonight, you’re
approving the framework. Each project or each development would have to come back through
the Planning Commission for site plan approval which means we’d notify people within 500 feet.
There’d be a public hearing. You’d make a recommendation to go to City Council so what
you’re looking at tonight is the framework for the process that we’ll be able to move through
together. So again the PUD design standards which we talked about earlier, so we referenced the
PUD itself but there’s more detail in the PUD ordinance. We also use our office industrial
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
21
standards for some of the design materials. We use our parking standards. We also use our
multi family development standards as it would apply in our parking ratios. Those would apply
but anything beyond that would also be in the PUD ordinance itself and we’ll spend a few
minutes going through that. So again as I stated the development plan must follow the
preliminary plat, which we’ll go through later. The development plan which I just showed you
and then the Avienda design guidelines so the PUD by reference is adopting all 3 of those
documents. So they all coexist so we have frame of reference on what we’re approving on each
lot. As long as we’re at the PUD, maybe we’ll go through the district master plan. So these are
some of the changes and again I think these were good changes because we, the regional plan
came in. They had all of the commercial on the south side which on the south side then you have
the truck travel. The loading docks and the like and moving that to the north side, letting it kind
of into the Lyman Boulevard creates, and these are fantastic views as you look over that wetland
to the south. The MnDOT wetland there. Fantastic views and so then the senior housing nestled
in there instead of being trying to squish right in through here and they put the single family here
and single family detached on the westerly side and then the extension of the public street to
connect that neighborhood where there’s a long cul-de-sac. Again multi family up here. I know
I was asked by a resident in the area regarding the multi family so they’ve identified those as
senior housing. Again our ordinance as we look at in the Comprehensive Plan how we look at
senior housing. There’s different types of senior housing. It could be a coop. It could be
assisted living. It could be independent living. Condos so each project will come in and meet
the market. What that market says it should be at that time. And so we haven’t identified or they
haven’t either and I don’t think we’d want to tie them to that. Just like we’re not saying
specifically on certain uses. They may have identified a hotel or coffee or something but as far
as the housing the market forces will take, will drive that as it would with the larger retail. What
those market forces would be. So again the internal village district is kind of the, as they say
here is kind of the broadest variety, highest density. Most intensity of development, kind of
where most of the activity is going to be. Then you’ve got your lower density on the perimeter.
Your two senior housing projects which are number 4. The trip probably more true retail on the
north and then the office and then some of the supportive uses there which may include a hotel
and some like I said some of the coffee shops and the like in that area. So again supportive of
those changes. With that I know Mr. Padget went through the site plan so one of the goals in the
PUD that we tried to accomplish too I think when it came through before we had so much detail
in there and it was really pretty restrictive and anytime you make any change to that you have to
come back through a public hearing so the goal in this go around with the public hearing is to
agree on those principle framework issues and leave some room there as we know the market
may change so there’s some flexibility so that’s why we’ve adopted all 3 of those. So if you
look at the uses, the uses that we permitted are the same uses that we permitted before. Those
are all the same. The one thing we did do is change some of the square footages so I think we
were like, they could only be bigger than 18,000 square foot I think was our cap for some of
those uses. We didn’t want to see a big box user which we agreed before and will continue to
agree they could be one big box and that was 98. That could have been a larger grocery store
and that was agreed at the previous one so that hasn’t changed. It’s up on that smaller and the
junior variety or something like that we agreed to increase that and that doesn’t mean it has to be
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
22
that big but just gives them that flexibility. We wouldn’t have to come back and amend the PUD
so we tried to build that PUD, that flexibility in. Again the hotel, the support services, again we
tried to leave those more generic terminologies so we weren’t sure what fell in. Tried to use the
more again generic universal accepted terms so again we’ve always prohibited and will continue
to you know the club warehousing, wholesaling, auto related, gas station, boats, motor sales
those sort of things but we also put in there that based on their design guidelines or interpretation
and the Community Development Director that there could be interpretation. If there’s not
agreement on that then they would always appeal that interpretation to the Planning Commission
which is built into the city code. So the height, those are pretty consistent with before. As
indicated now with the change in the grading there’ll be more underground parking and the
intensity of the center area would be greater with the apartment buildings and some of the
entertainment so we left, a lot of stuff is at one story but then the hotel at 3 stories and that’s
consistent with what it was before. The hotel in this area. And then the low density housing
standard of 35 feet which is what’s standard in that area surrounding it already and so if there’s
any questions on that. Again parking follows with our current city ordinances. I did want to
make a couple, note a couple changes in the PUD itself. One would be on page 8. So I’ll go
through the signs here real quick. So we identified, these signs are consistent with what was
there before but we got more specific in the drawings and so it was clear on that. So we have the
sign dimensions and the, if you recall we had the, on this big wall over here there was, this sign
was also on the wall. Quite a few of them along that whole thing and we thought that was a
visual, a little too much so I think what we settled on is a larger sign on here and then elimination
of all those other signs. Now we know there will be signs on the buildings themselves but we
thought that was good so all these signs that would be this type of sign will all be the same size
except for this one so on page 8 we’d want that to see all dimension signs on the project
identification be the same except for the sign facing Highway 12 which would be consistent with
their design guidelines. So this would be the larger one. The rest of them are all smaller. And I
think I’ll show those. So if you look at the entrance here, so these are the smaller signs. If you
look on the entrance coming in so you still have these sale signs here which would be to not
exceed and that’s another just a clarification on page 10. They cannot exceed the 80 square foot
area and they’re showing a 60 foot square area of sign area. The rest of it is more architectural to
give a sense of entrance and then the Avienda entrance sign itself where this one would be 8 ½,
almost 9 feet tall. So those are just in locations off of Powers. One coming off the roundabout
and then Lyman and at the corner of Lyman and Powers. So that’s showing the different
locations of those. Again wall signs is pretty consistent with what we have in our city ordinance.
This is on the bottom so that we just referenced the city code on that already. Those are pretty
consistent. Again we want them to introduce some unique things that are out there and not all be
the same so those would be the changes and I did put that in my motion just clarification on that
because everybody already had their packet. I didn’t want to make that without putting those as
part of the record. So and the plat itself, so this would be the staff report that I’m referencing
now. So again we talked about the history of the project. The uses. I simplified. Someone
asked me if this was a similar report. No because I took a lot of the stuff that was in, I listed all
of the permitted uses in the staff report. I just took all those out and just put them into the PUD
is where they belonged just for the redundancy. Again I did do another of the districts. I put that
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
23
back in there but I’d like to spend just a little bit of time on the preliminary plat. So it’s pretty
much consistent to what it was before. Mr. Padget went through the big changes. This ring road
that doesn’t go through. Again that was one of the things we talked about with traffic calming
and so the other one, that’s this connection needed to be made. Mills Drive and that will go
through that residential and then that time, this was part of the environmental assessment
document that the street needed to go through and then for fire protection we wanted this street
to go through and then this is another entrance again through the environmental document to get
into the site. So these are all the lots and blocks. There’s 19. I was asked about the number of
lots. I think some of these were made smaller in the area. Again they can combine lots if they
wanted to if they create another lot they would have to go through revise the preliminary plat so
these lots are not all going to be platted at once. Just like with Lennar they’ll come in and do
phases and they’ve already indicated too some of the phases they anticipate the housing would
come in first and then we’ve always stated and we’ll commit to that being the low density
transitioning from the existing neighborhood to the west. I think there’s some engineering stuff
here but I just want to make a couple comments on the rest of the staff report before I give it,
turn it over to Erik Henricksen and then I’ll take it back. There was on page 15 of the staff report
there was a comment regarding the 2000 AUAR. That’s been resolved so we’re going to take
that comment out. So if we can state that that’s one of the amendments, I’ll be taking that out
before it goes to City Council. There was another question regarding boulevard trees and the
planting, planting in the city right-of-way and in that circumstance if you go down Bluff Creek
Boulevard there are plantings there. The City maintains those. The City Forester says those are
difficult to maintain so our recommendation on that is that they feel strongly about that feature.
It is very nice but we’re going to have them enter into a landscaping maintenance agreement on
that so that condition would be modified. That’s condition 8, kind of 8 and 9 combined and
that’d be modified that boulevard trees can be located in the right-of-way if they’re covered by
an encroachment or maintenance agreement. So there was a change from 18 to 19 lots. That’s
been pointed out and yes there is one more lot. Same amount of acreage and then there’s
dedication of right-of-way for the public streets and then there’s the outlots. I pointed out the
outlot up here. Outlot A and then a wetland. So at this time I’ll turn it over to Erik who’s going
to Zoom in. Erik Henricksen and I will be the person that advances the slides.
Henricksen: Alright thank you Kate. Mr. Chairman and commissioners it’s good to see
everybody again albeit Zoom. For the record my name is Erik Henricksen. I am the Project
Engineer with the City and I’ll be presenting 4 brief slides highlighting the changes reflected in
the updated preliminary plat and plans as they pertain to streets, grading, storm water and public
utilities. As you can see from then street layout from 2017 compared to the updated 2020 layout
and as Eric previously discussed there are a few changes. First the illumination of the northeast
and east portion of what’s proposed as Avienda Parkway or as it’s been nicknamed the ring road.
The illumination of this portion of public right-of-way was reviewed by staff to ensure the goal
of connectivity to the area. As addressed in the updated AUAR or what’s been commonly
referred to as the environmental study, we did a review to ensure that that connectivity and the
goal was maintained. Staff found that this layout is acceptable and meets the requirements of
connecting the existing corridor of Bluff Creek Boulevard and the northern neighborhoods
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
24
known as Preserve at Bluff Creek via Mills Drive and Avienda Parkway. Other than the
illumination of that portion of Avienda Parkway the previously proposed public right-of-ways do
remain. Those are Bluff Creek Boulevard, Avienda Parkway, Mills Drive and Sunset Trail. All
the conditions previously approved such as the requirement that Bluff Creek Boulevard be
designed and designated to the MSA standards of the Minnesota State Aid standards and other
requirements of public trails and sidewalks along the right-of-way to be installed do remain and
are illustrated in the proposal. Kate we can go up to the next slide. Since the preliminary
approval of the site and again as Eric previously discussed there have been multiple proposed
layouts to address the needs as it relates to their potential internal users. As these inner changes
have occurred since the initial approval in 2017 there have been subsequent changes to the
proposed grading plans in which the applicant and their engineers have been in contact with the
city staff and other jurisdictional stakeholders. Ultimately mass grading of the site is similar in
nature to what was previously approved. However due to subsequent changes of potential users
and placement of buildings in different areas coupled with their engineer’s utilizing the existing
site grades to now incorporate those structured parking within buildings that Eric previously
discussed. The previously proposed retaining walls have been able to be eliminated. The only
two potential walls that could remain from the current proposal are on the north end of the site or
abutting Lyman Boulevard and those would be evaluated when the site plans are submitted for
the individual lots. As with any retaining wall over 4 feet in height engineered plans will be
required as a part of that submittal. We can go to the next slide.
Aanenson: Before we move it.
Henricksen: Yeah.
Aanenson: I just have, I know I did receive a request from a neighbor regarding visibility On
River Rock what this would see for some of those buildings there. So they have the ability to go
3 stories. We won’t know until they come in. That’s what they can go to so we’ll see what they
come in with but again all those will go through site plan review and have the opportunity to
comment specifically on the location of those as they advance.
Henricksen: Okay thank you. So it’s briefly been discussed but I’m going to give it a little bit of
a history regarding the stormwater on the site. The previously provided 2017 plan, that initial
plan did not meet all the requirements of the City and Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District’s regarding surface water and stormwater management. However over the course of
2017 and 2018 the applicant made amendments to the overall management of surface water on
the site and worked with the City and the Riley-Purgatory who’s the watershed district for this
development, to meet their’s and our requirements. By 2018 the management and preliminary
plans conformed with the rules and regs of both organizations, us and Riley and they received an
approved permit from Riley-Purgatory and initial approvals from the City. As plans have been
amended the applicant has another hearing scheduled before the district, and that’s scheduled for
tomorrow actually June 3rd. We did receive Riley-Purgatory’s report which was prepared for the
hearing and that report found that, accepted the variance requested for compensatory storage
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
25
which will be addressed separately. The proposed amendments to the plans will conform to the
rules triggered by Riley-Purgatory and they were found to be met so they are on track to getting
that approved amended permit. Illustrated by the image on the left is the initial stormwater
management proposed. It’s related to the initial mass grading and is in accordance with their
SWPPP. Temporary basins, are first to be constructed with, which will transition to permanent
stormwater basins which is depicted by the image on the right so during the construction of
ultimate development buildout. A majority of the permanent basins which are seen in blue on
the ultimate storm plan will be underground detention basins. The light purple areas are where
open air basins are proposed. Furthermore due to the complexity of the stormwater management
on site the applicant is proposing to own and maintain all stormwater management facilities
which will include facilities that capture stormwater from the public right-of-way as well. Let’s
move to the last slide. So last thing I’ve seen from the 2017 and 2020 public utility plans, the red
lines represent public sanitary sewer mains and the blue lines represent public water mains. The
2017 preliminary plans were designed to incorporate one larger sewer shed and one smaller
sewer shed. This resulted in the size of pipe to be about 12 inches. Proposed to be 12 inches for
the larger area in order to adequately handle the flows generated from the development.
However the updated 2020 plans more evenly divide the sewer shed to allow for a smaller 8 inch
main. Public water mains, public main sizes remain the same between the two submittals.
However the 2020 utility plan would utilize internal and potential private water mains to
complete the internal looping of the system. Although the internal development’s water main
will help bridge the loop of the public system the developer will be required to complete a
subsequent loop along Lyman Boulevard. And with that I’ll give it back to you Kate.
Aanenson: Thank you. So with that there was one other thing on the staff report that I wanted to
comment on and that was on page 21. The east and west bound driving lanes of Bluff Creek was
a concern of the fire department. Making sure that they were increased from 16 to 20 feet so for
fire department and that one’s been resolved too so we would take that condition out so as we
say amended that would be it. Park and trail comments are in here too. I know I’ve been asked
on that Outlot A. It’s the intent to keep that natural. At one time we looked at the street
connecting it. By the time we put the retaining wall and built that street we pretty much lost a
big swap of trees through there so ultimately that might be something that might be a wood chip
trail or something like that. More of a natural kind of for allowing those neighbors from the
south to get to the north in that but park and trails the fees would be required with the plat and
then when they go through site plan with each phase. So with that again with this you’re, we’re
recommending that you approve the rezoning from Agricultural Estates to the PUD and that
would be based on the PUD ordinance which includes the design standards and the layout and
then with that you’re also, we’re recommending that you approve the preliminary plat creating
the 19 lots and 3 outlots and dedication of public right-of-way as shown in the plans dated May
1st and that the staff report as amended. The comments that we made including the PUD
standards and that we, that you the Planning Commission also adopt the attached Findings of
Fact and I’d be happy to answer any questions you have.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
26
Weick: Great. And for this it’s a big presentation and we had presentations from both the
people representing the Avienda development as well as staff so on this item I think it would be
best if we go through kind of in a roll call style instead of just having it to be open. As I talk
here I’ll give Commissioner McGonagill a head’s up that I’ll probably call on him first but we’ll
go through. It doesn’t mean that if we passed you by we’ll certainly give you an opportunity to
circle back around and ask more questions but I think at least initially it will help us if we go
through one at a time and ask questions. Again either of the gentlemen representing the Avienda
development or staff. Erik or Kate in this case. So Commissioner McGonagill hopefully I’ve
talked for enough to give you a chance to collect your thoughts and I’m going to put you on the
spot and see if you’d like to make comment.
McGonagill: I have some questions, thank you Mr. Chairman. I have some questions and it’s
mostly about, some of these are about process because Avienda was approved for someone who
wasn’t there so Kate the first series, most of these will be coming to you. I’m on page 6 of the
staff report and I just wanted, this is a process question or if we were in Canada process question.
When I look at the fact of the sub-districts what you’re saying is each of those 5 sub-districts will
basically be improved separately when we come back through. For example a plan would come
in for District 3 and is that the way that works?
Aanenson: No I think they just identified them by kind of unique attributes like one would be
you know kind of low key residential. Some of it’s going to be housing, senior housing. One’s
going to be the more active area. So could the apartments in number 2 come right after the low
density housing or the senior housing at the same time? Yes. So I think it’s just whatever the
market bears Mr. McGonagill so.
McGonagill: Okay so my question though you’ve said, and this is okay thank you. That we
would see separate applications. Would it be like you know that we’d look at height and all this
with the building or by, how does that occur?
Aanenson: That’s a great question. It’s by each project on each subdivision. So for example if,
I’m just going to zip back to the other slides here. For example if this project came in there was
one master developer that came in and wanted to build all these homes that would be one project.
Just like you’d look at a subdivision for all these lots.
McGonagill: Okay.
Aanenson: This project came in you would look at that just like any other application so.
McGonagill: For instance for example in Sub-District which has the 3 offices at the bottom right
hand corner you could have someone come in for one of those. That could be one project and
somebody else could come in for another, is that, could that be split that way?
Aanenson: That’s correct or they could all 3 come in at once correct.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
27
McGonagill: So you, it just depends on how they want to do it and how they develop that. So
you could see this fractured a little bit I guess is my question.
Aanenson: Correct and I think you know once they’ve got the infrastructure with Bluff Creek
Boulevard that’s kind of the thread that’s going to hold it all together so whatever the market
bears and wants to move. You know there’s someone that’s got interest in doing a hotel that
could go. So a lot of it has to do with how the infrastructure timing goes too besides the road.
Sewer, water, stormwater and the like but each project would require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. Notification to the residents and then City Council approval.
McGonagill: So a developer would come in and decide working with your staff of what is going
to be a discreet project to go forward with, whether it’s a whole district or half of a district or
building within the district that would be the project onto itself that we would see coming
forward is that kind of the way the process would work?
Aanenson: Yes.
McGonagill: Okay. So let’s walk then through if you could for me the districts. I’m back again
on page 6. The Sub-District 1 is retail. These are larger buildings and so this kind of a core
retail approach. Do these have limits on height?
Aanenson: Yes. That would be in the PUD ordinance. So each.
McGonagill: And so what would those be?
Aanenson: So for the retail one story.
McGonagill: One story so that’s Sub-District would be one story and I’m going to through all
the districts so much as just as a head’s up. So that’s retail only. One story. Larger scale. Sub-
District 2, the village. These have both commercial and residential is that correct?
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: And so the residential piece is off on the left side and that is some sort of storied
building of limited in height?
Aanenson: Yeah it’s 5 stories excluding the underground parking correct.
McGonagill: So it’s kind of like the View we have downtown?
Aanenson: The Venue, not quite as tall but it could be I guess depending on the underground
parking, you have 6 stories.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
28
McGonagill: Right so it’s like that kind of concept.
Aanenson: Yes.
McGonagill: You could have commercial around it. You could have a grocery store underneath
it. It’s that kind of approach.
Aanenson: Right that’s the intent of this district correct.
McGonagill: Okay. Then if I go to the right of that, of the 5 story building yes the green area.
Are those one stories or two stories to the right?
Aanenson: Here?
McGonagill: No down. To the east of your 5 story.
Aanenson: This?
McGonagill: Yes.
Aanenson: That’s entertainment so you know depending what that could be. It could be, so if
you look at the building code for story it’s really parochial to the use. Like they had talked about
it could be some, it could a tournament place for indoor sports. So it could be a taller bubble
kind of thing. So depending on what that would be but that could be you know when we say one
story it still could be maybe 24-30 feet depending on the use because it’s labeled entertainment.
McGonagill: And again that would be a project onto itself if they come in for example.
Aanenson: Absolutely yep.
McGonagill: If they come in with a hockey rink or something.
Aanenson: That’s correct, yep you’d see that.
McGonagill: So and then it just goes onto lower buildings out to the east. Sub-district is mixed
use. This is like you said hotel, offices limited to 3 stories or a project if they wanted to get a
unique height is that correct?
Aanenson: That’s correct.
McGonagill: In Sub-District 4 is multi-use. This is higher than city and this again could be
storied, 3-5 story in Sub-District 4?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
29
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: So what’s the limit? 5 or 3? In 4.
Aanenson: 4 is the senior housing, yep. So the residential on that. The senior housing. We
have 3 stories, 40 feet excluding underground parking.
McGonagill: Okay very good. And then 5 is your lower density.
Aanenson: Yep 35 feet correct.
McGonagill: 35 foot.
Aanenson: Yep.
McGonagill: Okay thank you because that helps me get a picture in my mind what it could look
like and also the process they could go through. It would appear to me by doing this, by having
the sub-districts the way you have them now and by having a unique projects you’re trying to
give the developer the maximum amount of flexibility under the master plan to develop this is
kind of what your logic has been, is that right?
Aanenson: Yes I mean they had this district before. I think based on the grading it’s allowing
the underground parking based on how they’ve changed some of that. So I think that, that much
hasn’t changed. I think just the fact that this, the internal apartment maybe but the hotel was
always proposed at 3 stories. I think the office being on this side which I thought that was going
to be a little bit taller than maybe a grocery store or something like that but again looking at you
know the it’s kind of probably more quiet at nights and on the weekends as opposed to maybe
the grocery story 7 days a week kind of thing.
McGonagill: One of the questions that I had Kate when you were going through the signage,
particularly the large boulevard signs for Avienda and I was trying to go through it in my mind
quickly but I couldn’t do it quick enough. Where I’m going with this is on light pollution. We
have a particular development you know on the corner of Highway 5 and Galpin and it’s very
large lit letters. You know that, I’m not going to go back in history of that but you know it’s just
very, very large and there’s a high, some people would say a high level of light pollution from
those letters. What is this going to be like from a lighting standpoint and particularly at night?
Aanenson: Yep.
McGonagill: And I go back and think about this is, I know this is not what you’re doing but I
think about the problem they had over on Vikings Drive over in the other side of town when they
built the Vikings Center on you know they put those big lights up. It was just.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
30
Aanenson: No, that’s a great question, yep. So what we had on this is that for typically we don’t
allow signage facing residential so on this we talked about where you could put it on two sides
internally but we know like on the hotel there isn’t any residential right there. They may get 3
sides. One would be on Powers. One might be to the south on the internal so we’d look at that.
Going back to that sign the developer requested a larger sign than, and was granted a variance.
Also we’ve regulated the NITS. The illumination levels so we wouldn’t be getting that again
and we would make sure that any signage that would go up that those would all be checked
because that is bright, I would agree with you. I don’t think it’s their desire to do that just to be
tasteful but I can let them comment on that.
McGonagill: Okay. On all these signage too Kate, these are all what I would call a staple sign.
We’re not talking about an LED moving type sign that has a lot of action within it because the
reason I say is, this is right next to a major highway and I do kind of sometimes don’t know if
that’s the safe as people would say it is if somebody’s driving and watching the sign at the same
time you know what I’m saying?
Aanenson: Yeah and I think that’s where we did spend a lot of time in the last go around on this
and I think we really worked hard to try to clean it up and simplify it. Like I said there was a lot
of those what I would call the flags that were on this side besides the large sign. While those
were not illuminated so we felt the signs that give you a sense of arrival that highly articulated
architectural signs are better and then just the individual, the tasteful signs they give you the
name recognition would be on the buildings themselves. Otherwise just the way finding sign.
The consistent theme with the monument and those are lower profile and so we think that the
sign package again represents what they’re trying to convey in their architectural standards.
McGonagill: Yeah I noticed like you’ve had it now too and you still is that your residential abuts
residential so you don’t have an issue of lighting pollution at night, etcetera coming out of…
Aanenson: Yeah, yep. And like I stated there is some concern from the people to the south and
we’ll address that when those projects come in. I didn’t talk a lot about the street furniture but if
you look in their design guidelines that was one of the things we spent some time on at the last
iteration is, so they really introduced a lot of those features and so instead of again for not, or to
avoid redundancy so it’s right after the sign thing in their design guidelines. Some of those nice
street furniture things that we’ll look at through the site plans when they come in and that’s some
of the trellises. The landscaping. The benches. Those sort of things that make it a nice place
that you want to experience which is what they want too so. So that wasn’t in the PUD but it’s
adopted via their design guidelines.
McGonagill: And I realize you’re going back through stuff that was there before.
Aanenson: No that’s fine but that’s other new so.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
31
McGonagill: …it went through it so Mr. Chairman I think that’s my basic questions. Thank
you.
Weick: That’s great. Thank you for those clarifications. I will move to Commissioner Reeder.
If you have questions or comments right now.
Reeder: Chairman I do. First of all I think this is a wonderful project for this city, for any city so
if this happens in any part of what’s shown I think it will be a wonderful addition to Chanhassen.
One of the questions I asked earlier, just curious there was a comment in there somewhere about
similar architectural style and I assume that will all be controlled as each project comes in but
what caught my attention was is it possible to have similar architectural style between residential
single family homes and retail and whatever or is that not the intent?
Aanenson: Well I’ll let the developer speak to that but I think there’ll be some common themes
but I don’t think we want it to all be matched too overly matched. Depending on who the
developer is for the low density single family I’m pretty confident that they’re going to do an
excellent job but maybe Eric if you want to, Padget wants to comment on that.
Eric Padget: Yeah sure. You know there’s certainly we want to have timeless architecture
throughout the entire project. I think in the design guidelines we’ve really tried to lay out a look
and theme throughout the entire project. Of course you’re never going to have a detached
townhome look the same as a 5 story apartment but if you use similar materials and color themes
throughout the project it gives it that consistent theme and that’s why we established the design
guidelines as different projects come in this is kind of what we want the folks to do from an
architecture standpoint so in the back of that design guidelines we laid out kind of some different
pictures of what we think would be a good fit for the project for each different district so those
start on page 37. Well actually before that but you know so we are just trying to make sure that
they’re all high quality materials and they all tie together.
Reeder: Okay likewise when you’re dealing with office buildings, will they be able to design the
building the way they want to or is that, it’s controlled by you I assume and then it would go to
the city for PUD approval is that correct?
Eric Padget: Yeah that’s exactly right. This is, we set up a design guidelines to kind of be a
template to show people what we want but it still goes through an architectural approval for the,
I’ll call it homeowners association or property owners association and then it will come through
Planning Commission and City Council the typical process.
Reeder: Right so I wouldn’t be able to paint my house purple if I wanted to.
Eric Padget: Without approval.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
32
Mark Nordland: It’s more natural materials and earth tones. Not everybody has the same beige
but then we just want them to not be…
Reeder: Okay another question that on the building height I think I understand what you’re
saying. The building height is going to be controlled by our ordinances in the various areas and
there again that would come in as a project and it will go through staff approval and Planning
Commission approval.
Aanenson: That’s correct. Again so these are setting expectations so as the developers have
stated that they’ve got their standards that they would, you know when they’re talking to people
and then they would submit a site plan and then it would come before and so they know what the
height, the capacity can be before they come forward.
Reeder: Okay. I’ve got to say I really like the amount of underground stormwater retainage as
opposed to having ponds over. I think that’s a, I know that costs some money but it certainly is a
big asset to this project and I commend you for that. A question on the road construction. Will
they be required to build the whole ring road before anything else is built or how does that work?
Aanenson: Erik Henricksen, do you want to comment on that one? It’s my understanding that
the only thing that needs to be built right away would be Bluff Creek Boulevard and I think they,
and maybe Eric Padget you were talking about maybe doing this at the same time but Bluff
Creek Boulevard needs to be built first. Either Eric.
Henricksen: Yeah no that’s correct. That’s I think the original intent. As far as looping it all
together I think Phase 1 as it’s being proposed would also include Avienda that ties us up to the
north to Sunset Boulevard, or Sunset Trail which connects us to Lyman. The idea being once
you’re starting to dig in your utilities so we have deep sewer in the area you’re going to want to
have this installed as well so as I’ve seen it through first phase the Bluff Creek, Avienda and
Sunset Trail would be proposed.
Eric Padget: That’s correct.
Reeder: Okay thank you. My last question is on parking. There again I apologize for coming in
4 years after you started on this project but as I look at this, it appears to me that like 30-40
percent of the entire project other than the residential area is on surface parking. It would be
great if a lot of that was in some kind of a parking ramp or something.
Aanenson: Yeah and so I think that was one of the changes that was made from last time so the
multi-family housing, the main apartment building and as indicated the office also now will have
underground parking so that’s going to help reduce the amount of surface parking. And just like
Villages on the Pond we have opportunities where we look at some of the peak times that they
can share some of that parking. That may be the office has extra capacity in the evenings and
that’s when we’ll bring all those projects forward and evaluate that as we go.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
33
Reeder: Oh I think the underground parking is great. I think that’s a big help but my thought
was as we build the commercial areas, if we could put a parking ramp in we could then have
room for more or actual retail space should it ever be, the market whatever drive that and I don’t
know if that’s ever been a discussion with staff or not.
Aanenson: I think the developer would be thrilled if they had so much retail they had to do that
but I’m not sure we’re at that point yet but that could be an amendment.
Reeder: But the City would not require them to limit the amount of surface parking so that we
don’t have wall to wall asphalt.
Aanenson: I’m not sure what that would do to the overall project. I can let Mr. Padget.
Eric Padget: Yeah I mean I think the project as designed today is meeting what we believe the
market demand could be. I don’t think at this point surface parking from just a cost perspective
would make a ton of sense and the density probably not there for the, I’ll call it the short term
that would drive a requirement to add parking structure.
Mark Nordland: Initially it’s tricky getting certain markets, the consumer will adopt that it
works. Obviously the large advantage to office and multi-family but if they’re going to go to a
grocery store in Chanhassen and somebody’s going to make you park in a structure that’s going
to be prohibitive. They’re going to go to another grocery store because of the suburban type
environment like this is readily available. Obviously people do it in more urban and even you
know really close in suburban type markets but it just, I don’t think Chanhassen consumers are
ready to do that and therefore the retailers aren’t ready to sign up for that…environment.
Reeder: No I get that. I guess I was thinking more of the office use. Are you talking
underground parking for the office and how much of the required need would be underground
parking?
Mark Nordland: It really depends on the tenant that’s coming in and what they desire and
demand and need. It obviously costs more to do that so need to be able to pay more rent but then
we could expand those structures to be a little bit taller or a little bit deeper into the hill to do you
know more than one level below grade parking there. You could do two potentially but I believe
that they’re currently at least schematically designed with one level of underground parking.
Reeder: And Mr. Chairman I think that’s all the thoughts I have right now.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Reeder. Commissioner Randall.
Randall: Can you hear me now? I have no comments.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
34
Weick: Okay and yes we can. Thank you. I will move to Commissioner Von Oven.
Von Oven: Yes thank you. So I think my first question is for the City Engineer. Is that Erik?
Can you, can you please just give me the 60 second primer on what is the change that causes this
to move from 5 retaining walls to 2?
Henricksen: This is Erik, the Project Engineer. City Engineer will be Charles Howley.
Von Oven: Oh sorry.
Henricksen: Oh no you’re fine just that point of clarification. It really has to do with the moving
of the building pads and where their users and where their buildings are located so it comes
down to flat building pads compared to as Eric Padget was describing being able to kind of dig
into the hillside to create underground parking…floor elevations. We didn’t get necessarily on
each preliminary plan a kind of cut fill or you know real in-depth grading plan. We’re kind of
looking more just at existing topo and that’s more or less up to their design engineers to manage
the earth work there but in short that’s kind of where you see those eliminations. The two that
remain to the north are still potential. The grades from Lyman to the proposed buildings now are
showing that they can meet the maximum 3 to 1 slopes. I believe it’s 3 to 1 without the
installation of retaining walls. They left them in the preliminary plans in the event as when those
site plans come in or those individual reviews come in, depending on the actual building layout,
there’s still a possibility of having retaining walls there so we did keep that in with the
presentations and some of the conditions as far as it goes with retaining walls.
Von Oven: Got it. Thank you. The second question I think is for Kate. You know as I was
running through all the documents I noticed that there’s, and I’m trying to find it now but I can’t
find it. There’s very specific information about the number of drive thru’s. I think it allocates
like one to the potential grocery story and one to a mixed use and 3 for something else. My
question is, was there any discussion or is there something in here that I’ve missed that either
guides or instructs the creation, use, allocation of drive up given that the whole environment has
changed and we’re seeing so much retail now working off of this drive up mentality. Is that part
of the conversation yet?
Aanenson: We already accommodate drive up already in our current, at restaurants so we can
accommodate that. People drive up and it used to be at Applebee’s when they were there you
could drive up. They provide spots for that. So we would accommodate that when they would
come for, come through site plan review. I think the difference with that is the drive thru’s and
the stacking and some internal circulation, what that does so that’s why it was limited. Again
we’re trying to make this more experiential. We know there’s some neighborhood but this is
going to serve the neighborhood in that area. That people are going to know want to drive
through to get coffee on the way to work. On the way home. Pick up some things so we try to
accommodate that so but yes, when a site plan came through we could certainly accommodate
the pick up as a part of that too.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
35
Von Oven: Got it. And so then I think that it’s probably the same response, and I’m still
learning the process here but on a subject of like parking that would be part of the individual site
plans? Like okay here comes subdivision 2, and so that would be part of those. That’s not to be
included in this right now or is that?
Aanenson: That’s a great question and I like your idea. So definitely that’s part of the street
furniture that we want to incorporate in here. That there’s an opportunity because we would
hope people in this neighborhood would bike and maybe there’s an ice cream store or there’s
movies as part of entertainment and that’s an opportunity to ride your bike and we try to get
those all on the developments that come in so thank you for that comment. Yes we’ll make sure
that’s part of the street furniture.
Von Oven: Thank you. This is all the questions I have at this time.
Aanenson: You had some help.
Weick: I love it. Those are good ideas and maybe in addition to street furniture we can include
bike parking in some of those underground areas as well and protected. Okay thank you
Commissioner Von Oven. How about Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: My question really ties into what was discussed kind of at the beginning about how
much has changed since this project was approved in 2017. I don’t think many of us thing
change is going to stop or probably slow down given on what’s going on in the world. At what
point in this overall project can the wholesale project design not be significantly altered or
significant changes can no longer be made. I want to make sure that we’re not being too
restrictive but I also don’t think it’s in everybody’s best interest.
Aanenson: That’s a great question. I will say this and I’ll let Mr. Padget talk about it too but
we’ve really spent the last two years trying to work through, I mean they’ve taken this out. The
great thing about their being the developers is they’ve got an opportunity to vet it to some pretty
influential and smart people and to see what they think they need to do to make this come to the
marketplace I think so we spent a lot of time saying what are the things, again building flexibility
is what we were trying to do. So the heights and some of those things really haven’t changed.
We tried to maybe clarify some of the uses to build in so it’s not nuance. You can only have a
thread shop but not a yarn shop. We try to kind of make those more generic terms so I think we
worked really hard on those sort of issues but in the wholesale, the road alignment except for the
loop on the one side and the uses they shift sides but for the most part adding the residential was
really the biggest change but I’ll let Mr. Padget comment on that.
Eric Padget: Yeah I know, let me make sure I’m on. No I think that’s exactly right Kate. I
mean there is timelines associates with approvals so you know right now we’re asking for
amendments to our current approvals which could expire this year. We’ve been working very
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
36
diligently I think with staff to get some of these updates and give us a little more time to get the
market forces where we want them to. You know quite frankly we were ready to go earlier this
year. We had financing pretty close to being finalized and a couple tenants ready to go and the
world changed a little bit on all of us but the key thing is that we’re still talking. We’re still
trying to make enhancements to the project and I think we’re getting closer to where you know
some of retailers or tenant interest will be. I will tell you right now from a retail perspective
they’re all looking at the site but it has to be perfected. Right? They have to know that their
customers can get easy in and out. They also expect some level of design quality but right now
there’s not a lot of retailers that are building a lot of bricks and mortar but if you can create the
situation where it’s the right push for them then they’ll be ready to go so that’s what we’re really
trying to do is to set the table for them to be able to execute.
Noyes: Thank you. That’s helpful.
Weick: Other questions Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: I do not have any other ones thank you.
Weick: Okay. And Commissioner Skistad. I don’t know if you’re on mute. There you are.
Skistad: Alright can you hear me?
Weick: We sure can. Go ahead.
Skistad: Okay.
Weick: Thanks.
Skistad: The only question I had was the second, the number 2. Literally section 2 and if I count
the buildings and I know it’s not the design now so we could potentially have like 8 different
buildings in there that are 5 story high and have the, on the bottom floor retail and the rest are
high density apartments of some kind. Is that correct?
Aanenson: No. There’s only the apartment building is right here. That could be 5 stories. This
is entertainment. Like I said that would be one story but it, depending what type of
entertainment would direct it. These are all retail. These are all one story. All these retail are
one story.
Skistad: Okay.
Aanenson: So the only one that’s tall is this one.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
37
Skistad: Okay so there’s one apartment building in there. That was just my point of clarification
so.
Aanenson: Yep.
Skistad: Otherwise I mean all of my other questions were answered and now that I’ve seen both
plans I am, I think it’s really, it has been greatly improved and I’m more excited about it.
Weick: Thank you. That is good to hear Commissioner Skistad. I know we’ve kind of gone
round robin here and I just want to open it back up in case somebody has thought of something
else or had another question pop into their mind so please just chime in now if you thought of
something while we were going through that process.
McGonagill: I’d cut in Mr. Chairman.
Weick: Great.
McGonagill: I’m Commissioner McGonagill. Kate on the, with residential development we do
have an intent in our Comprehensive Plan to have proximity for the residents. This is a
residential question. We have the intent to have proximity to parks and playgrounds within
certain, within our subdivisions. The, you talked about the street furniture but I don’t think that’s
what we’re talking about here so do we meet our Comprehensive Plan guideline for parks and
playgrounds to the residents that would be in Avienda?
Aanenson: So there is a park in Pioneer Pass which is to the west. In addition like I said we’ll
put the, we’re looking at potentially a wood chip trail through here or the like. There’s also the
wooded trail on this side over here. They had proposed an amenity with that apartment building.
They talked about putting a swimming pool or something in there and this entertainment could
also be some sort of recreation also.
McGonagill: Okay I just know that’s a standard we try to adhere to. I didn’t think about that
when we were asking it. I think this next one’s for Erik. Erik the way I looked at this, putting on
my pipeline hat, one good thing about eliminating the part of the ring to the east it eliminates all
the dead heads in the infrastructure on water lines and sewer lines.
Henricksen: Correct.
McGonagill: So that’s good because you get rid of the, you know just the maintenance issues of
dead heads or dead spots with that kind of stuff and that’s never a really good thing. And I guess
finally the approach as I’m reading through this is, in a way you’ve downsized this. This is to
the developer. You’ve downsized this enough to make small enough bites in today’s market that
you think people would come in on. That’s what you’ve had to do.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
38
Eric Padget: That’s correct.
McGonagill: I mean yeah you were talking big developers and big hotels and all this before but
it moved on you and you just said okay I’ll downsize this and therefore the residential piece
comes up some. That’s small enough bites. You have this over here so that’s what you’re trying
to still keep the concept but make it now a little bit more manageable.
Eric Padget: Yeah and I think that’s the concept of a lifestyle center right? You have a variety
of different uses and we’re re-positioning some of the uses based on what we foresee as the
market demand over the next couple years.
Weick: Great thank you. Anything else Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Oh I think I’ve had plenty of air time. I’m good.
Weick: And any other commissioner comment at this time? Kate I’ll ask a question. As it’s
mapped out now the master plan does that meet, what does that come in that 30 percent
residential?
Aanenson: Pretty close.
Weick: Pretty close okay so we’re kind of right.
Aanenson: Yeah we’ll see when they bring them in how that all works out. I think they’ve
maximized that. We’ll see if they can meet all the parking standards and everything else when
they come in.
Weick: Okay. I just didn’t know if what we were seeing sort of gets to the top end of that or if
there still was room to.
Aanenson: No they’re at the top end.
Weick: Okay perfect. Thank you. So with that I will open the public hearing portion of this
item. The phone number has been up on the screen for a little while and I would invite anyone
within chambers who would like to come forward and speak, comment on this item. Seeing no
one come forward in the chambers, do we have anyone on the phone? No, as of now we do not
have anyone on the phone. I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open back up
for commissioner comment, discussion and motion. I guess I’ll open by saying I appreciate my
fellow commissioners really obviously doing some homework on this one. There was a lot of
paperwork and clearly I think we’re all really engaged in this and really wanting this to be a
success and I think that underlies every question and every concern that we might bring up is that
you know I think very much want this to be successful for the city of Chanhassen and so if we
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
39
can help play a part in that I think that’s special for our group. With that I will turn it over to my
fellow commissioners again for comment and/or a motion.
Reeder: Mr. Chairman I would make a motion if you’d put it up on the screen so I could read it.
Weick: I wish I could. There we go.
Reeder: Mr. Chairman I move that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve the rezoning of 118 plus or minus acres from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to PUD
Regional Commercial including Exhibit A, Avienda Design Standards. Are these separate
motions then? I assume they are.
Aanenson: You can take it all in one.
Weick: You can do them all together yes.
Reeder: I would move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 19 lots, 3 outlots and dedication of
public right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Landform dated May 1, 2020 subject to
conditions in the staff report as amended. Planning Commissioner also adopts the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendations.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Reeder. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Noyes: Commissioner Noyes, I’ll second.
Weick: We have a second. Thank you Commissioner Noyes. Before we vote any last
comments from our commissioners? Again I appreciate everybody’s hard work on this one
including staff and the representatives from Avienda. This is a special project. We will roll call
vote.
Reeder moved, Noyes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Planning Case 2017-19 to rezone 118+/- acres of property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate
District to Regional Commercial-PUD Subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as
shown in plans from Landform dated April 14, 2017 and June 12, 2017 and adoption of the
Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUD
Reeder moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the Rezoning of 118 +/- acres from Agricultural Estate
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
40
District, A-2 to PUD Regional Commercial including “Exhibit A Avienda Design
Standards”. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
SUBIDIVISION
Reeder moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 19 lots, 3 outlots,
and dedication of public right-of-way, plans prepared by Landform dated May 1, 2020,
subject to the following conditions:
Engineering
1. If subsequent phases require retaining walls they shall be privately owned and
maintained.
2. As large, landscaped boulevards are proposed, the applicant shall add a note to the typical
sections to identify a corridor for installation of private utilities such as power,
communication, gas, etc.
3. The applicant shall show the road profiles and a horizontal alignment table in the plan set
for all public roads prior to final plat.
4. The public roads constructed with this development are: Bluff Creek Boulevard,
Avienda Parkway, Sunset Trail and Mills Drive. All other roads and drives constructed
with this development will be privately owned and maintained.
5. The applicant proposes an Ultimate Plan for the Bluff Creek intersection with Powers
Boulevard that includes two-lane entry into the roundabout. The city requires this
Ultimate Plan be constructed at this time, but the roadway can be striped for one-lane
only.
6. Staff recommends the applicant add traffic calming measures to Avienda Parkway near
the residential areas of development. Specifically, the applicant shall incorporate
pedestrian-friendly crossing features to the intersection at Mills Drive and Avienda
Parkway.
7. Trails and pedestrian walks not located within public right-of-way shall be privately
owned and maintained.
8. ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps shall be constructed at all intersections and median
refuges per the MnDOT standard details.
9. Sanitary and water main structures shall not be located within landscaped medians or
roundabouts. Final review of the location of sanitary sewer mains and water mains, and
their appurtenances, will be conducted prior to final plat and/or permitting.
10. All sanitary and water mains constructed within the right-of-way shall be publically
owned and maintained.
11. Private sanitary and water mains shall inspected and constructed to meet the city’s
requirements for public utilities.
12. The developer will be required to complete the water main loop along Lyman Boulevard.
13. Permanent stormwater management controls and the associated permits are required in
accordance with all underlying jurisdictional authorities, including but not limited to the
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, prior to construction activities.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
41
14. The applicant must provide a figure clearly identifying the areas to be irrigated with areas
quantified, which is not included in the current plans.
15. The portion of the development with single-family housing must pay a water and sanitary
service partial hook-up fee at a rate in place at the time of replat. The remaining hook-up
fees would be paid with the building permits.
16. The developer shall work with the Building Department to determine the city SAC and
WAC fees for commercial and multi-family buildings. The hook-up fees for commercial
and multi-family buildings are due with the building permit at the rate in place at that
time.
17. The developer shall escrow funds for installation of traffic signals at Sunset Trail, Powers
Boulevard and Audubon Road. The escrow amount shall be based on the Carver
County’s cost participation policy as published on their website.
18. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other
agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDot,
Carver County, RPBC Watershed District, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA,
etc.).
19. A drainage and utility easement shall be placed over any outlots.
20. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary
Zone to the city.
Landscaping
1. Parking lot islands shall be linear areas incorporating planting area and stormwater
management.
2. If the applicant chooses to install the minimum requirement sizes of parking lot
landscaping islands, then silva cells, engineered soil or other accommodations must be
used.
3. No more than 20% of the total trees should be from any one genus and no more than 10%
should be from any one species.
4. A reuse watering system should be considered to irrigate all plantings within the site.
5. Drought tolerant plants shall be incorporate into the overall landscape plan.
6. Proposed landscaping plant materials shall be selected based on site conditions.
7. At a minimum, overall tree cover should be at least 20-25% or higher in commercial
areas and a minimum of 30-35% or higher in residential areas.
8. Any landscaping located within the ROW shall be covered by an encroachment and
maintenance agreement.
Park and Trail
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
42
1. Incorporate meaningful park-like places, including the provision of appropriate recreation
equipment, site furnishings, and landscaping adjacent to residential components.
2. Preserve the woodlands identified in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Provide a blanket
trail easement over the entire preserved area to accommodate the installation of natural
surface public trails.
3. Provide an attractive public trail connection from the north entering the Bluff Creek
Overlay District.
4. Incorporate traffic calming into all pedestrian crossing locations.
5. Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring
parkland dedication.
Building Official Comments
1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
3. Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a building permit and must be designed by a
professional engineer.
4. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5. Building plans (when submitted) must include a code analysis that contains the following
information: Key Plan, Occupancy Group, Type of Construction, Allowable Height and
Area, Fire Sprinklers, Separated or Non-Separated, Fire Resistive Elements (Exterior walls,
Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental Use), Occupant Load, Exits Required
(Common Path, Travel distance), Minimum Plumbing Fixture Count.
6. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are
submitted.
7. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the Code
requirements for the proposed building, including but not limited to allowable size, protected
openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when
complete building and site plans are submitted.
8. Every building, containing any plumbing fixtures and/or receptors, must have its own
independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buildings may
be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises and connected
to a public or private sewer. (MSPC 713.0)
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
43
9. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior to
final plat of the property.
Fire Department Comments
At the time of site plan, review the design for the private street, adjacent to the preservation
area that accesses the Senior Housing and Townhouses needs to accommodate for emergency
apparatus.
Conditional Use Permit
The Conditional Use Permit was already approved and will be reaffirmed with the revised
preliminary plat with City Council approvals.
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Conditional
Use Permit to encroach into the Primary Zone and required buffer for the construction of Bluff
Creek Boulevard subject to conditions in the staff report:
1. The developer shall dedicate the Conservation Easement containing the Bluff Creek Primary
Zone to the city.
2. The developer shall provide the city with a management plan for the area and submit to the
city for review.
3. Monuments indicating the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be placed at every other
property corner and at an angle of deflection greater than seven percent, but in no case
shall they be greater than 150 feet apart.
4. The developer shall not encroach into the Bluff Creek Primary Zone.
5. The developer shall comply with the with the 40-foot Primary Zone setback and preserve or
create a 20 foot buffer from the Primary Zone.
6. The buffer will be required to have a vegetation management plan and soil amendments.
Wetland Alteration Permit
The Wetland Alteration Permit was already approved will be reaffirmed with the revised
preliminary plat with City Council approvals.
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit to 4.4659 acres of permanent wetland impacts subject to conditions:
1. The applicant needs to supply the needed additional information to the city. The
additional information is needed to determine if the project meets the WCA requirements.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
44
2. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting is needed to review the application.
3. If the application is deemed to meet the avoidance and minimization criteria of the WCA,
a mitigation plan that adequately replaces wetland functions and values is needed.
4. City staff has reviewed mitigation options. City staff recommends the applicant provide
wetland mitigation via the purchase of wetland bank credits, at a ratio of 2:1, in
accordance with WCA requirements. This condition has been met - see attachment.
5. The applicant shall contribute $300,000 to the city for water quality improvement
projects within the watershed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Weick: I also vote in favor giving us a unanimous 7 to 0 vote on this item. Thank you again. I
can’t say it enough. Thank you to everybody involved. This is a big project and an important
project. With that I will pull up my agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHAPTERS 1, 18, 19, AND 20 STORMWATER AND WETLAND ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS AND LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES.
Weick: We look at some amendments and corrections, right?
Aanenson: Modifications.
Weick: Modifications to Chapters 1, 18, 19 and 20 in the Stormwater and wetland ordinance
amendments.
Aanenson: I’m just going to take the microphone here and let Matt sit here. This is our Water
Resources Coordinator, Matt Unmacht so I’d you to welcome him and this is his first meeting so
maybe he can just take a minute and introduce himself to the Planning Commission.
Weick: Perfect, Thank you and welcome Matt. It is great to have you. And I promise we’re a
gentle group. I promise. We’re just getting settled here in the chambers. We’re just switching
around. And the floor is your’s Matt.
Unmacht: Thank you. Thank you commissioners. Good evening. As Kate said my name is
Matt Unmacht. I am the Water Resources Coordinator here at the City. I’ve been at the City
since February of 2020. I’m here before you today to present some proposed city code ordinance
amendments along with amendments to the City’s local surface water management plan. Also
attending via Zoom is Erik Henricksen, our Project Engineer. You guys met him in the Avienda
meeting and Charlie Howley, the City Engineer and Public Works Director is also on the call.
Together us 3 developed these proposed ordinance amendments and local surface water
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
45
management plan amendments. We thought it might be a good idea before we dive into the
actual proposed amendments to go over a brief sort of background on what is surface water and
storm water. Why it’s important. How it’s regulated, etcetera. It’s important to delineate
between surface water and storm water. Surface is fairly obvious. It’s any body of water above
ground including lakes, streams, wetlands, ponds, etcetera. But the Minnesota Stormwater
Manual defines stormwater as any of the water running off the land surface after a rainfall or
snow melt event. Stormwater including melted snow or ice eventually does one of the following.
It runs off into a surface water, soaks to or infiltrates the ground or evaporates back into the
atmosphere. So why do we need to manage stormwater? The long version is that over the past
century the construction of homes, roads, malls, commercial buildings, etcetera have
dramatically increased the amount of impervious surface on the landscape. Impervious surface is
any surface in which water cannot immediately soak into the ground. It’s also known as hard
surface. Additionally we have modified the landscape to facilitate rapid drainage of stormwater
runoff from developments along with increased use of pollutants such as lawn fertilizer and
motor oil. The short version as you can see on the slide needs to be managed to mitigate
pollution and mitigate flooding. Quality and quantity. So 4 main factors have contributed to the
increased need for stormwater management. Increased hard surface in recent decades. That’s
that impervious surface I mentioned. Active construction sites with exposed soils. Increased
intensity and frequency of precipitation events and a historic lack of regulation to manage
stormwater. So what can be done to properly manage stormwater? So I’ve listed some examples
on the slide. It can detain runoff and release it slowly to reduce flooding. Capture and treat
runoff to reduce pollutant loads. Minimize erosion and sediment and promote infiltration and
water re-use. So how is stormwater regulated? There are many agencies at the federal, state,
watershed and local levels that have jurisdiction over surface and ground waters here in the state.
These jurisdictions can and often do overlap. Some state level agencies that regulation various
aspects of surface water and storm water are listed on that slide. So before we dive into the
ordinance too much we wanted to go over a quick background on the watershed districts and
watershed management organizations within the city. There are 4. So I use the term watershed
management organizations and watershed districts more or less interchangeably. That’s kind of
the intent but there are 4 of them within the city. You can see them on the map on the slide and
these organizations they are political subdivisions of the state by statute and they have levy
authority. This largest one within the city is Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed district.
You can see it’s outlined in green on the map. It takes up a bulk of the eastern and central part of
the city. Minnehaha Creek is the next largest and is located on the northwest part of the city and
includes Lake Minnewashta. Lower Minnesota River is on the southern part of the city and
Carver County Watershed Management Organization is located in a small sliver on the western
part of the city. For the rest of my presentation I’ll refer to all 4 of these as watershed
management organizations or WMO’s. Each WMO within the city has it’s own rules and
regulations for stormwater and water resources related issues and each WMO has developed and
implemented it’s own policies, regulations, goals and watershed needs. So regulation within the
city. Currently the City has it’s own surface water regulations and performs it’s own stormwater
reviews but the underlying WMO’s also have their own rules and regulations. As of right now
stormwater permitting falls on the WMO’s. This is a redundancy and it can actually be onerous
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
46
and needlessly confusing for project proposers. One of the major goal of our proposed ordinance
amendments is to consolidate and clarify this review process. This will be achieved by having
the City take on sole permitting authority for stormwater review while also maintaining the rules
and regulations of the underlying watershed management organizations. And I’ll get into the
process on how we actually maintain permitting authority in a little bit. So the actual
amendments that we are proposing. So why are we here today? We identified 4 main goals that
we wanted to accomplish with these ordinance amendments. Number one was to align the city
code with the adopted local management plan. That plan was adopted in December, 2018 and
we need to align the code with what’s outlined in the plan. Number two is to align the city code
with the latest versions of the watershed management organizations rules and regulations. We
are proposing to have project proposers meet the stormwater needs of each underlying WMO
rather than having one standard across the whole city. This is an important point that we kind of
want to hit home. As I stated before each watershed management organization within the city
has it’s own watershed needs and goals and policies that they’ve developed throughout the years
so by having the underlying, by having the project proposers meet the stormwater needs of the
underlying WMO rather than one standard allows us to continue to meet the needs that are within
that WMO. The third goal is that it’s the City’s goal to take on future stormwater permitting
authority. We plan to obtain agreements between the WMO’s and the City through a
Memorandum of Understanding. This process comes after City Council approval of amendment
updates. And number 4, it’s similar to number 2 but the City is mandated by state statute to
update our local controls and our plan to be in conformance with the underlying WMO’s rules
and plan when they are in conflict. So we’re proposing 4 chapters for revision. Those that are
up there. Also some minor revisions to the local surface water management plan. So I’ll get into
the actual proposed revisions right now. Chapter 1, Definitions. These revisions only include
minor definition updates to land disturbance and the local surface water management plan
definition. The land disturbance definition is helping to align the City’s definition with the
watershed management organization’s definition. Chapter 18, the majority of the revisions to
Chapter 18 which is Subdivisions reference that all design requirements and all required plan
submittals can be found under Chapter 19. Currently these requirements are scattered throughout
Chapter 18 and Chapter and it can be confusing. This allows for more clear and consolidated
listing of what project proposers are required to submit with their subdivision submittals when it
comes to surface water management and points them to one area of the code for all requirements
and submittals. Lastly under Chapter 18-76 there was a clarification that easements are required
over stormwater conveyance structures along with drainage ways and other surface water
empowerments. Revisions to Chapter 19 constitute the bulk of the ordinance revisions presented
before you today and they help us to align with the 4 goals that we outlined below. So bear with
me a little bit. We’ll get a little bit technical here but I’ll try and kind of go through it briefly.
Section 19-140 simply updated the language to reference the local water management plan which
was formerly known as the Surface Water Management Plan or SWMP and introduces language
that all surface water management must abide by the underlying WMO’s rules and regulations.
Section 19-141 more specifically addresses the underlying WMO’s and incorporates their rules
by reference. Another addition to 19-141 is the use of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s
Minnesota Stormwater Manual as a design guide for applicable construction and maintenance
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
47
techniques associated with stormwater BMP’s. Rather than listing out the numerous types of
stormwater and surface water empowerments and BMP’s project proposers can now utilize the
vast resources that the MPCA has compiled and continue to update with the stormwater manual.
As discussed previously with Chapter 18 regarding required plans and submittals the updates to
19-142 is where all these requirements will be housed. All in one place rather than multiple
sections. This more clearly defines the required submittals staff needs in order to evaluate if the
goals of the local water management plan and ordinances and underlying WMO’s are being mat
by any project proposer when surface water management is required. In the event that a project
proposer does not trigger surface water management by the underlying WMO there are some
general elements that will still be required of project proposers in order to meet the goals and
policies of the local water management plan. These indices are captured under the updates to
Section 19-143 that list out more general requirements as it pertains to quality and quantity.
Section 19-144 stormwater facility planning was formerly titled major facility design elements.
With the introduction of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual as a design guide and requirements
of plan submittals under 19-142 this section was amended to address the required facility
planning in regards to regional detention areas. One of the goals of the local water management
plan is to promote the use of regional facilities rather than small individual facilities. It was also,
this section was also updated to address the requirements of easements over such systems.
Minor changes to Section 19-145 which is erosion and sediment control are being proposed, one
of which being an increase from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet of land disturbance will
trigger the requirements of this section. Most underlying WMO’s have a more restrictive
requirements for erosion control. However in the event that the underlying WMO does not
require erosion or sediment control based on the project proposer’s land disturbance area and
similar to the intent of Section 19-143 this update aligns with the goals of the local water
management plan to protect surface water during construction activities. Section 19-146 was
moved to Chapter 20 under wetlands and Section 199-147 surface water development fee was
updated to more clearly identify how fee credits are calculated. Previously it was possible for
project proposers to receive large credits to the surface water development fee if treating the
stormwater to NURP standards. To date all developments are required to treat to or exceed
NURP standards and staff believes that development should not get a fee credit for meeting
ordinances and the underlying WMO’s rules and regulations. Rather fee credits will be
calculated based on the additional water quality volume that a facility’s built for or in other
words if a project proposer over sizes the stormwater BMP to treat and handle additional off site
stormwater. As with Chapter 18 Section 20-109 was updated to route designers and project
proposers to Chapter 19 for the requirements of plan submittals and design requirements.
Chapter 20, Article 6 wetland protection is also proposed for revision. The majority of
amendments to this section include updating verbiages and references to the Wetland
Conservation Act eliminating the City required permanent wetland buffers and native vegetation
in buffer strip requirements. Please note that buffer strips will still be required but their widths
will be determined by the underlying WMO which is similar to how the stormwater requirements
will now be required. We’re also proposing some amendments to the City’s local surface water
management plan. I’m not sure what sort of background the commission, I know there are some
new commissioners, have on the plan so I’ll go into that really quickly. The local surface water
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
48
management plan is prepared in conformance with Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota
Rules 84-10. The goal of the plan is to provide the City with information and direction in the
administration and implementation of water resources management activities from 2018 to 2027
and serves as a guide to projects, provides for effective allocation of resources and sets forth a
funding plan for projects and programs over the next 5 to 10 years. As I stated earlier the current
plan was adopted in December of 2018. It was previously titled the Local Stormwater
Management Plan but we are proposing to change the title to Local Surface Water Management
Plan given that the plan involves more than just stormwater. It involves lakes, streams, wetlands,
etcetera within the city. The proposed revisions with the newest plan are minor and this is not
meant to be a major overhaul of this plan. …to this plan include clarifying definitions, updating
maps, updating tables and changing local controls for city regulations from the most stringent
watershed management organization rules to the actual underlying watershed management
organization rules. Again this meets the needs and goals of the actual underlying watershed
management organization in which a project would exist rather than having one standard rule
throughout the city. We sent a memo to the watershed management organizations with these
revisions that I just presented to you on May 19, 2020. As of today only Lower Minnesota River
watershed district has provided comments. Those were received this morning actually and city
staff will work to address those comments. Any comments, any other comments received from
the watershed management organizations from this day forward will be considered and if
necessary will be incorporated into the red line city code documents provided to City Council.
No comments were received from the public via email or via phone call. Just sort of an outline
next steps. These revisions are anticipated to be on a council work session some time in June or
July. Assuming they are approved by council final adoption occurs 10 days after approval when
they are published in the Chanhassen Villager. After that date we can begin the process of
developing Memorandums of Understandings with the watershed management organizations.
That’s how we obtain the permitting authority and we anticipate having the MOU’s adopted
through council by mid-September of this year. In summary Chapters 1, 18, and 19 are being
updated to bring the City’s stormwater ordinances in compliance with the previously approved
local water management plan and to align the underlying WMO’s rules and regulations in order
to obtain permitting authority from the WMO’s to the City. In addition minor revisions are
being made to the local water management plan to align the underlying WMO’s rules and
regulations in order to obtain permitting authority from the WMO’s to the City. And what that I
will open it up for questions.
Weick: Matt thank you.
Unmacht: You’re welcome.
Weick: That was really good and I like at the beginning the information you gave is really
informative and I’m sure helpful for all of us. I’ll start off with one question. If a project in the
future goes over more than one WMO does it just, you just have to meet both of those?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
49
Unmacht: Yeah that’s a good question. Erik do you know what the protocol would be there?
Would it follow the more stringent rules?
Henricksen: Typically, first of all can everybody hear me?
Weick: Yes.
Henricksen: Typically the watershed district or WMO’s jurisdictional boundaries actually
follow property lines and not the actual watershed district itself so an example could be Riley-
Purgatory’s watershed district, the actual where the water goes follows topographic boundaries
but in order to implement their rules they have to create jurisdictional boundaries that follow
property lines so the event you’d be speaking of would be a property that would have to be
combined through a subdivision somehow or a lot combination so in essence then the WMO’s
underlying boundary would have to be changed so I really can’t foresee that event occurring
because again it’s based on property lines. So if someone comes in and they want to develop a
piece of property, it’s either going to be one or the other.
Aanenson: Except for the Nye subdivision. That was in two watersheds correct?
Henricksen: No, well it’s in two watershed watersheds as far as topographic boundaries.
However in 2018 Riley-Purgatory and Minnehaha Creek went through a boundary change and it
was determined that the majority of the property as a whole fell in Riley-Purgatory so they came
to an agreement on that that property would follow rules and regs on Riley-Purgatory. That
being said Lot 2 on that subdivision is, the majority is actually in Minnehaha but it’s still one
property.
Weick: That’s really helpful Erik. Thank you.
Unmacht: Thanks Erik.
Weick: That makes sense. I’ll open it up for other commissioner questions.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I have just two minor ones. Matt when you looked at Section 19-
144 when it was talking about the over stormwater infrastructure there’ll be dedicated by an
easement or have an easement dedicated. Who’s the easement dedicated to? To the City? Who
owns the easement?
Unmacht: The City.
McGonagill: Okay and so and there’s regulations that govern what can be put up on that
easement. For example a homeowner can’t build something on top of that easement?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
50
Unmacht: It’s my understanding they would need an encroachment agreement if they wanted to
do anything within that drainage and utility easement.
McGonagill: Okay so access to the infrastructure is maintained or whatever we need to do and
that would be part of the development plans that we would see correct?
Unmacht: Correct, yep.
McGonagill: And this is a real basic question. I was sitting here just scratching my head
because I remember talking about this a couple, 2-3 years ago. We said we were going to adhere
to the most stringent regulations and now you’re saying we’re going to go by the WMO,
whichever governs the property he’s in.
Unmacht: Correct.
McGonagill: And you may have said this at the start and I missed it, what was the philosophical
change that made us move from the more stringent one to wherever it resides?
Unmacht: Yes so that’s a good question and one of the main points that we kind of were
considering when we were developing so each watershed management organization within the
city develops their own policies, goals. They develop their own watershed needs. Their rules
and regulations reflect those needs so if we have one stringent policy throughout the city what’s
applicable in say Minnehaha Creek watershed district might not be applicable in Lower
Minnesota watershed districts and it might not meet the needs of that actual watershed so rather
than having one, rather than going to the most stringent we’re actually meeting the needs that are
outlined by the actual watershed districts themselves.
McGonagill: And what cause that change to occur because for a while we were going with the
most stringent?
Unmacht: That was a staff, that was a decision made by city staff.
McGonagill: To change?
Unmacht: Yep.
McGonagill: To make it, and the reason was?
Unmacht: Like I said the, the watershed management organizations develop their own needs and
standards and they also have their own regulations that regulate various aspects of stormwater
and it’s not, it’s not every watershed management organization addresses all the same issues. So
if we just go with the most stringent it might not always apply to that area, if that makes sense.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
51
McGonagill: Yeah I understand. They’re going to have different things they’re going to
emphasize. You may have an area of very stringent requirements in one and it’s silent on the
area you really want to talk about.
Unmacht: Correct. Yep for example you know not to get too technical but one watershed
district might have extra rules for total suspended solids and the other might not address total
suspended solids at all. Or total phosphorus, those sorts of things.
McGonagill: Correct, okay. I understand that so it’s, you went with it because, which is I think
better for both the landowner and some of the watershed districts they have goals. Unique things
that the water district is striving to maintain and protect. Therefore we’re going, we’re backing
up in a sense and going to…by WHMO to meet the target’s that’s unique to the other WHMO.
Unmacht: That’s exactly right and we’re…that it’s actually more beneficial to do water and the
watershed themselves by going this route.
McGonagill: Makes sense, thank you Matt.
Unmacht: Yep.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner McGonagill. Other comments from commissioners or
questions?
Reeder: Mr. Chairman, Reeder. Let me put my arms around this and make sure I understand
what we’re doing here. It appears to be that a simple explanation is that whenever, if I was a
developer coming into this city rather than sending a plan over to the watershed district that city
staff will handle that using the regulations that are set up by the watershed? By the water
management group. Is that what it is?
Unmacht: That’s a great way to say it. That’s exactly right. City staff will be handling the
review but the rules will be set forth by the watershed management organization.
Reeder: Okay which I can see that as a benefit to the developers as I’ve watched the years and
sat there waiting for a water management organization to respond to something we were trying to
build. My question is, I assume there’s some city costs in us taking over their work to some
extent. Are we setting up a system so that the developers pay that cost or?
Unmacht: So I might have Erik speak to that but in terms of cost, in terms of labor that was kind
of laid out within the local water management plan that the City was willing and able to take on
that review process but if you mean actual, are you referring to actual costs from the developer
from like a fee standpoint?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
52
Reeder: My question is I assume that we’re going to put more staff time into it if we’re doing all
the work on it that will cost the City something, are the developers paying that cost?
Unmacht: Charlie do you want to chime in on that one? Whether or not the developers are
paying for it I don’t exactly know. Is Charlie there?
Howley: I’m here Matt.
Unmacht: Oh, did you hear me?
Howley: I did yeah. I’d be happy to answer that. So right now with any permit application or
development application there are fees that the applicants pay. Some of those fees are set up to
cover city review staff or consultant review staff and other fees are meant to collect to do
projects. Future stormwater projects, things along those natures so when we go through the next,
after we get through the code updates and we develop these MOU’s with the districts we’re also
going to develop basically a permit application that the City will use that the developers can fill
out and in doing that we will review our fee schedule and make the determination at that time if
we need to tack on a nominal fee as a part of the application to kind of cover our internal
expenses but generally city staff, we don’t really charge our time to any specific tasks that, we
are employees that work on stuff all day every day and yes this will take us longer to review
stormwater permit applications but we don’t see it as it’s going to be over burdensome that we’re
going to have to hire two more staff members. We’re still going to negotiate it with our current
staffing level and meet the required review timelines.
Reeder: In fact can we now charge a developer, does the water management organization have
some fees that they would have to, that they would now collect and the City has fees so that
when we go doing it all would we, would the developer simply pay whatever fees we needed?
Howley: Yes Commissioner, this is Charlie again. Right now many applicants, many developers
have to pay both us and the watershed districts separate. Say letters of credit for securities. They
definitely pay the watershed district permit application fees which again are meant to cover their
staff time to review the actual permits. The watershed districts generally use consultants and
that’s what they use their money to pay their consultants for so when we obtain the permitting
authority and as part of the negotiations with our MOU’s the developer won’t have to pay
anything to the watershed districts. It will all be processed through us so it won’t be double
dipping or they won’t have to pay twice. Those fees will.
Reeder: Sounds good. I think that’s the way it should go and I think that would make it simpler
to everybody. My other question was has any city ever done this before?
Unmacht: It’s my understanding that it’s not uncommon at all for cities to have stormwater
permitting authority but I’m relatively new to this area so I don’t know, Charlie or Erik do you
guys know?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
53
Howley: Commissioner this is Charlie again. Yes. There are plenty of cities that do this
stormwater permitting reviews for the watershed districts. But if your question is about our
approach of using the rules of the underlying district and not the most restrictive, I’ve seen it
both ways and it’s about 50/50 out there in the metro area at least so no we’re alone on an island
on this by any stretch.
Reeder: Okay that’s, I assumed that that was not unusual and I have no problem with your
approach of using the underlying water management rules. Oh the statement was made that we
sent this stuff over to the water management organizations. Only heard response from one of
them. Generally as you talk with them, their staff people, with their consultants, do we think
that they generally agree with this approach?
Unmacht: Yeah I think so. They’ll certainly have comments on the actual revisions themselves
and they’ll, they will prepare a memo as a response but I believe we have actually reached out to
the leaders of those organizations to let them know that they were coming before we actually
sent them the formal revisions and I think all 4 were supportive. Charlie correct me if I’m wrong
but they were supportive. Of course they wanted to see what actually came in writing but it’s my
understanding that they’re supportive of what we’re doing.
Reeder: Thank you okay. Final question is, I assume in the future there will need to be changes
made to the rules in the various water management organizations so how will we handle that?
Will we just allow them to change the rules and then enforce them as they change them?
Unmacht: Yeah that’s our plan. We are adopting the rules by reference so as they change their
rules our reference won’t change so the goal is to not have to update our ordinances every time a
watershed management organization updates their rules.
Reeder: Okay, Mr. Chairman I think it’s a good idea so I would support it.
Weick: Thank you, yeah thanks a bunch. Any other commissioners with questions for Matt? Or
Erik or Charlie. Hearing nope. Mark do you have or is that just.
Von Oven: Yeah it’s alright. I’m having a little trouble here. Okay. Yeah I think it’s a great
idea. I think it’s in the best interest of the developer. It’s in the best interest of the City. I’m
having a little trouble, and I guess I worry a little bit about it is the City’s intent to enter into this
MOU and there were no responses. Can you just speak a little bit to why would, maybe I’m just
thinking bad things about them but why would the MOU’s be okay with this? It almost seems
like a loss of power, a loss of revenue and a loss of control. So is there a reason why they’re all
just totally cool with this?
Unmacht: That’s a good question. I believe they, you know this reviewing stormwater is not a
fun thing that they’re doing and it’s not a major part of their day to day and they, at least I know
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
54
for Riley-Purgatory they consult this work out anyway so it’s not even work that staff was doing
in the past so it’s actually less expense that they’ll likely have. I can’t speak for the other ones.
I’m not sure exactly how their processes work but it’s my understanding that it’s actually less
burdensome and with the fact that we’ll still be meeting the watershed district needs of the
underlying WMO’s that they’re supportive in that sense too because yes they’re losing review on
it but that doesn’t mean that their goals still won’t be met within the underlying WMO.
Von Oven: Okay so that actually helps me a little bit. I think I maybe misunderstood all this.
You changed the name of it so now the actual name is the local surface water management plan,
right? That is comprehensive that it’s lakes and rivers and pretty much all surface water but the
process change here is just permitting for stormwater? It’s not all of the above that exists in the
local surface water management plan?
Unmacht: It’s actually our goal to take on stormwater permitting authority but that also includes
some other permitting rules within each city so be it erosion and sediment control, wetland rules
within the city, so those are all, that will all be flushed out in the MOU’s. The Memorandums of
Understanding that we’ll develop with the watersheds. So we haven’t nailed on exactly what,
how comprehensive the permitting that we will take from them but that stormwater will certainly
be a part of that.
Von Oven: Okay so if a lakeshore owner wanted to do riprap and they needed to go get a permit,
we’re not sure yet whether that would still go through the watershed management organization or
the City. That will be determined through the MOU and the negotiations?
Unmacht: That’s correct.
Von Oven: Okay, got it. Thanks. That’s all my questions.
Weick: Those were good. Asked a couple of mine as well. How about anyone else? I know
we’ve talked about some of these Kate I think for a while.
Aanenson: We’ve been working on some of this, Matt got this dumped in his lap right out of the
gate. This is something that we’ve been trying to resolve for quite a while so he’s done a great
job.
Weick: Yeah it will be nice to see this moving forward I think.
Aanenson: It is a public hearing too.
Weick: Oh it is?
Aanenson: Yep.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
55
Weick: Alright. Well I will open the public hearing portion of this item and invite anyone to
come forward and offer comments on this item. I will also entertain telephone calls which I
don’t believe we have at this time. I’m trying to talk really slowly just in case someone’s dialing
or something but we have to be fair right? So seeing no one come forward in chambers or
having anyone call in at this time I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and
open it back up to our commissioners for comment, notes, and/or a motion. And the motion you
should see now on your screen. While we’re thinking about this one I will say again thank you
Matt. It’s nice to meet you.
Unmacht: Yeah nice to meet you too.
Weick: We look forward to working with you. I think watershed issues do come up on a lot of
projects.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think the other thing that we were really trying to reconcile is we have one
position and the watershed has a different position and the developer’s stuck inbetween and the
double security. That was a big issue too. Sometimes it would be hundreds of thousands so.
Weick: Wonderful. Well thank you.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I’ll propose the motion.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the approval of updating
ordinances amending Chapters 1, 18, 19 and 20 and the local surface water management plan
revisions.
Weick: Thank you. We have a valid motion from Commissioner McGonagill. Do we have a
second?
Von Oven: I’ll second.
Weick: We had a second from I believe Commissioner Von Oven.
Von Oven: Correct.
Weick: Alright. I’m getting good with voices.
Von Oven: Just wait until you meet us in person.
Weick: Alright well we have a valid second. Any comment from commissioners before we
vote? Hearing none we will roll call vote.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
56
McGonagill moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the approval of updating ordinances amending Chapters 1, 18, 19, and 20 to
align city ordinance with the Local Surface Water Management Plan and updated local
Watershed Management Organization Rules. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Weick: So the stormwater ordinance amendments pass unanimously at 7 to 0. Thank you again
to everybody for their attention to this matter this evening and thanks Matt.
Unmacht: Thank you.
Weick: This was really good.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 5, 2020 as presented.
ADMNISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Weick: And Kate any presentations?
Aanenson: Yep council update. So on their May 26th the City Council did approve the PUD
amendment and then they also approved the Nye subdivision. The one lot subdivision. I also
wanted to let you know we will have a meeting in two weeks. Just a variance and then we also
have an application coming in, we anticipate on Friday for a use down in Gedney Pickle site.
Here’s a conditional use for some manufacturing so we anticipate that coming in so you’ll have
things on the next two meetings so I think for the short run here we’re still kind of anticipating
Zoom meetings so I appreciate you coming in Chairman but we’ll send that out to everybody
else. I try to send out the day before so you’ve kind of got it and yeah. And for some reason
you’re going to be on vacation or something we just let myself or Jean know so we want to make
sure we have a quorum so with that it was a long meeting and I appreciate everybody’s great
comments. You got a lot accomplished tonight so thank you.
Weick: Yes.
McGonagill: Kate can you update us on the process, you know the City Manager is retiring.
Can you update us on the process that you’ve all been told?
Aanenson: Yeah they’re looking at an interim city manager for a few months so I think that
process is in the works. The council will be reviewing those and then during the, that time of the
interim they’ll be posting for a replacement yeah. Big change.
McGonagill: It is a big change.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 2, 2020
57
Aanenson: Yeah, yep.
McGonagill: Been there a long time and I hope everybody takes time to work through that so
good luck to everyone.
Aanenson: Yes, yeah.
Weick: Great, thank you Kate. At this time I would certainly accept a motion to adjourn.
McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at
9:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Subject City Council Action Update
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: D.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Action Update
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2020
Release of Development Contracts for McGlynn Park - APPROVED
Minutes for this meeting can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links.
g:\novusagenda\pc\2020\6-16-20\cc action update.docx