02-21-2023 PC Agenda and Packet
A.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
B.1 Consider Amending Chapter 20, Zoning, Adopting Performance Standards for Issuing
Permits for Model Homes.
B.2 Consider Amending Chapter 20, Zoning concerning lot cover limits for properties in the
Residential Single-Family District.
B.3 Consider amending Chapter 20, Zoning, removing the 1,000-foot required separation for
Indoor Gun Ranges from buildings with existing liquor licenses.
C.GENERAL BUSINESS
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated January 17, 2023.
E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
F.1 Year End Review and 2023 Work Plan
F.2 City Council Action Items
G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
H.ADJOURNMENT
I.OPEN DISCUSSION
I.1 Discussion on Lot Cover Variances
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2023
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
1
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will
make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible,
the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be
listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record
based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual
City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that
forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under
State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process.
2
Planning Commission Item
February 21, 2023
Item Consider Amending Chapter 20, Zoning, Adopting Performance Standards for
Issuing Permits for Model Homes.
File No.Item No: B.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Sec. 1-2. – Rules of Construction and Definitions. Defines the term “model
home”.
Sec. 20-264. – Model Home. Lists parking, location, and duration criteria for
model homes requiring conditional use permits (CUPs) or interim use permits
(IUPs).
Sec. 20-572, Sec. 20-592, Sec. 20-612, Sec. 20-632, Sec. 20-642 and Sec. 20-
652 list model homes as permitted used for all low and medium density
residential districts.
Sec. 20-676 lists model homes as an interim use for the R-12 district.
Sec. 20-683 lists model homes as a conditional use for the R-16 district.
3
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendment to Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning model homes"
SUMMARY
Several new residential developments have requested that the city allow them to construct a model
home prior to the full completion of the development’s roads and other infrastructure. The city has
accommodated these requests through a combination of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and
development contracts (DCs); however, the City Attorney has advised us that it would be preferable to
adopt standards within the City Code.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
Model homes and temporary real estate offices are allowed in all of the City’s single and medium
density residential districts as a permitted use and in the city’s high density residential districts as either
conditional or interim uses. Issues have arisen when developers looking to market the development
request that the city allow them to construct a model home prior to the completion of the development’s
infrastructure, for example before the roads are complete. In these cases, the model home needs a
temporary certificate of occupancy (CO) and the city has used a combination of MOUs and DCs to
specify the conditions governing the issuance of these temporary COs and what must be done for the
buildings to be given a permanent CO.
Rather than draft MOUs or insert clauses into DCs in order to accommodate requests for model homes,
staff feels it would be beneficial to adopt performance standards within the City Code clearly outline the
city’s expectations for model homes. This approach has the added benefit of letting the city enact
general standards that apply to all model homes, not just those that are being constructed prior to the
completion of a development’s infrastructure. The proposed standards would include provisions to
ensure all model homes can be adequately accessed by the public emergency services, minimum
parking requirements, and a limit on the period of time that a structure can be used as a model home.
The amendment would also remove sections of the City Code that classify model homes and conditional
or interim uses and remove the associated standards as the general performance standards would
remove the need for these mechanism. Staff believes the proposed changes will create a transparent and
consistent process and standards for any builder looking to erect a model home.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt performance
standards for model homes.
ATTACHMENTS
4
Model Home Issue Paper
5
MEMORANDUM
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
DATE:February 21, 2023
SUBJ:Standards for Model Homes
ISSUE
Several new residential developments have requested that the city allow them to construct a
model home prior to the full completion of the development’s roads and other infrastructure. The
city has accommodated these requests through a combination of memorandums of understanding
(MOUs) and development contracts (DCs); however, the City Attorney has advised us that it
would be preferable to adopt standards within the City Code.
SUMMARY
Model homes and temporary real estate offices are allowed in all of the city’s single and medium
density residential districts as a permitted use and in the city’s high density residential districts as
either conditional or interim uses. Issues have arisen when developers looking to market the
development request that the city allow them to construct a model home prior to the completion of
the development’s infrastructure, for example before the roads are complete. In these cases, the
model home needs a temporary certificate of occupancy (CO), and the city has used a combination
of MOUs and DCs to specify the conditions governing the issuance of these temporary COs and
what must be done for the buildings to be given a permanent CO.
Rather than draft MOUs or insert clauses into DCs in order to accommodate requests for model
homes, staff feels it would be beneficial to adopt performance standards within the City Code
clearly outline the city’s expectations for model homes. This approach has the added benefit of
letting the city enact general standards that apply to all model homes, not just those that are being
constructed prior to the completion of a development’s infrastructure. The proposed standards
would include provisions to ensure all model homes can be adequately accessed by the public
emergency services, minimum parking requirements, and a limit on the period of time that a
structure can be used as a model home. The amendment would also remove sections of the City
Code that classify model homes and conditional or interim uses and remove the associated standards
as the general performance standards would remove the need for these mechanism. Staff believes
the proposed changes will create a transparent and consistent process and standards for any builder
looking to erect a model home.
6
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
February 21, 2023
Page 2
RELEVANT CITY CODE
Sec. 1-2. – Rules of Construction and Definitions. Defines the term “model home”.
Sec. 20-264. – Model Home. Lists parking, location, and duration criteria for model homes
requiring conditional use permits (CUPs) or interim use permits (IUPs).
Sec. 20-572, Sec. 20-592, Sec. 20-612, Sec. 20-632, Sec. 20-642 and Sec. 20-652 list model
homes as permitted used for all low and medium density residential districts,
Sec. 20-676 lists model homes as an interim use for the R-12 district.
Sec. 20-683 lists model homes as a conditional use for the R-16 district.
ANALYSIS
Model homes are a typical feature of many developments and the City Code currently allows
model homes with no standards or review, beyond that which is associated with any other
residential structure, in all of its low and medium density residential districts. Model homes in
the city’s high density residential districts are permitted as either interim or conditional uses and
subject to minimum parking and access standards. Presumably the rational for this higher level
of scrutiny is the more constrained parking typically present in townhome developments;
however, staff is unaware of any conditional or interim use permits for model homes ever being
applied for or issued high density residential developments. This is likely due to the fact that
multi-family buildings typically have a leasing office or other sales mechanism and do not utilize
model homes.
While the conditional and interim use permit requirement for high density residential districts is
unnecessary, there are good reasons to have minimum standards for model homes, especially
those being constructed in a development where infrastructure improvements are not yet
complete. Generally speaking, the city cannot issue a CO until all infrastructure (water, sewer,
roads, etc.) is complete; however, the city has historically used MOUs and DCs to allow for the
issuance of temporary COs for model homes, subject to conditions. These conditions are
designed to ensure that models homes do not pose a safety risk and focus on ensuring that
emergency service vehicles can reach the site and that there is adequate infrastructure present to
meet the requirements of the fire code (i.e., water service, fire hydrants, etc.). Staff is proposing
adopting the conditions (access capable of supporting a fire truck and infrastructure meeting fire
code) typically present in MOUs and DCs into the general City Code as requirements for the
issuance of temporary CO as well as the presence of functional sewer and water services.
Staff is also proposing including provisions requiring the full conversion the model home into a
residence as a condition for the issuance of the permeant CO and a limitation on the period of
time that a structure may be used as a model home. A limitation on the duration that a structure
can be used as a model home is necessary to prevent the permanent establishment of a
7
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
February 21, 2023
Page 3
commercial use within residential districts. These requirements will create transparency and
make it clear what the city’s long term expectations for these structures are.
Finally, a requirement that model homes have at least 3 parking spaces is proposed to ensure that
these structures do not disrupt neighborhoods by utilizing street parking or obstructing streets in
situations where the street parking is not present. Driveways can be used to meet this
requirement which will minimize the visual impact of the parking requirement on the
development, and in cases where additional parking is required, the ordinance requires that it be
removed and the area restored in order for the structure to receive its final CO.
Staff believes the proposed ordinance will establish clear and consistent standards for model
homes and remove the need to govern the issuance of temporary COs for model homes through
MOUs and DCs. For these reasons, staff recommends the adoption of the proposed ordiance.
ALTERNATIVES
1)Do nothing. The city can continue to use MOUs and DCs to accommodate these requests.
2)Add performance standards for model homes into the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative 2. The proposed amendments would read as follows:
Proposed additions in bold, proposed deletions in strikethrough.
Sec 20-264 Model Home
This criterion applies only to dwelling units which are converted into office space on a temporary
basis, removed following occupancy, or leasing of 90 percent of the units or three years after
opening of development.
a) Five parking spaces shall be provided.
b) Lighting shall be provided to ensure safety.
c) The structure must be located within 150 feet of a paved road surface (i.e. bituminous or
concrete roadway).
Sec 20-572 Permitted Uses
The following are permitted uses in an "A-2" District:
a) Agriculture.
b) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
c) Arboretums.
d) Day care center for 12 or fewer children.
e) Group home for six or fewer persons.
f) Public and private parks and open space.
8
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
February 21, 2023
Page 4
g) Single-family dwellings.
h) Temporary real estate office or model home, subject to the requirements of section 20-
963.
i) Utility services.
Sec 20-592 Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in an "RR" District:
a) Agriculture.
b) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter
c) Day care center for 12 or fewer children.
d) Group home serving six or fewer persons.
e) Public and private parks and open space.
f) Single-family dwellings.
g) Temporary real estate office and model home, subject to the requirements of section 20-
963.
h) Utility services.
Sec 20-612 Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District:
a) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
b) Day care center for 12 or fewer children.
c) Group home serving six or fewer persons.
d) Public and private parks/open space.
e) Single-family dwellings.
f) Temporary real estate office and model home, subject to the requirements of section 20-
963.
g) Utility services.
Sec 20-632 Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District:
a) Single-family dwellings.
b) Two-family dwellings.
c) Public and private parks and open space.
d) Group home serving six or fewer persons.
e) State-licensed day care center for 12 or fewer children.
f) Utility services.
g) Temporary real estate office and model home, subject to the requirements of section 20-
963.
h) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
9
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
February 21, 2023
Page 5
Sec 20-642 Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in an "RLM" District:
a) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
b) Day care center 12 or less persons.
c) Public and private parks and open spaces.
d) Single-family dwelling.
e) Temporary real estate office and model home, subject to the requirements of section 20-
963.
f) Townhouses, two-family and multifamily dwellings.
g) Utility services.
Sec 20-652 Permitted Uses
The following are permitted uses in an R-8 district:
a) Townhouses, two-family, multifamily dwellings.
b) Public and private parks and open spaces.
c) Utility services.
d) Temporary real estate office and model home, subject to the requirements of section 20-
963.
e) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
f) Continuing care retirement facility, subject to the requirements of section 20-965.
g) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966.
Sec 20-672 Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in an "R-12" District:
a) Townhouses and multifamily dwellings.
b) Public and private parks and open space.
c) Utility services.
d) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
e) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966.
f) Continuing care retirement facility, subject to the requirements of section 20-965.
g)Temporary real estate office and model home, subject to the requirements of section
20-963.
Sec 20-676 Interim Uses
The following are interim uses in the "R-12" District:
a) Reserved.
b) Temporary real estate office and model homes.Reserved.
Sec 20-683 Conditional Uses
The following are conditional uses in an "R-16" District:
10
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
February 21, 2023
Page 6
a) Churches.
b) Day care center.
c) Group home serving from seven to 16 persons.
d) Health services.
e) Recreational beach lots.
f) Temporary real estate office and model home.Reserved
g) Towers and antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
Sec 20-963 Temporary Real Estate Office or Model Home
a)Purpose. It is the intent of this section to provide for the erection of model homes,
which may include temporary real estate offices, in new residential developments.
As model homes represent a unique temporary commercial use within a residential
context, standards must be applied to ensure their compatibility with this
environment and to prevent the creation of nuisances.
b)Permit requirements. A building permit may be issued for a model home upon
approval and recording of the final plat, provided that:
1. If constructed prior to the completion of public infrastructure improvements,
access must be provided by at least a maintainable Class 5 aggregate base
structurally sufficient to allow the public safe access to the proposed building
site. The proposed access must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a building permit; and,
2. The parcel must be located within 150 feet of a paved road surface (either
concrete or bituminous roadway) or be served by a construction road
meeting the road design and standards necessary to support a fire truck.
3. Adequate utility services must be provided to the model home which shall
include fire hydrants for fire suppression needs as required by the Fire Code.
c)Standards and limitations. Model homes within a residential development are subject
to the following:
1.A temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued for model homes provided the
public infrastructure improvements, excluding the final lift of asphalt and final
restoration, if applicable, have been completed. These improvements must include
approved sewer and water connections to in-service public mains. No permanent
certificate of occupancy will be issued for a model home until all of the public
infrastructure improvements have been completed and approved by the City
Engineer, including final grading and stabilization in accordance with the building
permit and development plans as approved by the City.
2.Model homes and temporary real estate offices shall be utilized solely for
selling lots and/or homes within the residential development in which it is
located.
3.Temporary off street parking facilities equal to three (3) paved spaces per
model home dwelling unit or a model home with a temporary real estate
11
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
February 21, 2023
Page 7
office shall be provided. The head-in parking area on the driveway for the
model home may be used to satisfy the off street parking requirement
provided that the stalls are not in a tandem arrangement and no portion of
the stall encroaches into the public right-of-way. The overall design,
drainage, and surfacing of the temporary off street parking facility shall be
subject to City approval.
4.Use of a structure as a model home shall terminate three years from the date
of the issuance of a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy or
when 90 percent of the building permits for the residential development have
been issued, whichever comes first, unless the period for use of a structure as
a model home is extend by the Community Development Director.
5. No residential certificate of occupancy shall be issued for a model home or
model home with a temporary real estate office until such time as the
structure has been fully converted to a residence in compliance with the
adopted Building Code. Additionally, such conversion shall include, but not
be limited to, parking lot restoration and the removal of signage.
g:\plan\mw\issue papers and reports (drafts)\model homes\model home issue paper.docx
12
Planning Commission Item
February 21, 2023
Item Consider Amending Chapter 20, Zoning concerning lot cover limits for
properties in the Residential Single-Family District.
File No.Item No: B.2
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Section 1-2: defines the terms Lot Cover, Impervious Surface, and Pervious
Pavement.
Section 20-485: limits lot cover in most areas of the shoreland management
district to 25 percent.
Section 20-615(e): states lots are limited to 30 lot cover and that no more than
25 percent of the lot can be covered by imperious surfaces.
Section 20-921: states the requirements for lot cover to be considered pervious
pavement and notes that RSF properties in the shoreland management district
are limit to 25 percent lot cover.
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Chapter 20 of the
City Code to clarify the RSF district’s lot cover standards."
13
SUMMARY
The section of the City Code that specifies the maximum permitted lot cover for the Single Family
Residential (RSF) District is confusingly written.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
When the city adopted an ordinance permitting pervious pavers in 2018 it created design standards and
updated lot cover limits for the RSF district to permit their use. Unfortunately, the language staff
drafted has created some confusion for residents and builders unfamiliar with the City Code. Namely, it
gives the impression that all RSF properties in the city are entitled to 30 percent lot cover by failing to
reference the stricter standard imposed by the shoreland management district. Additional confusion is
created by the fact that the section does not reference standards that need to be met in order for lot cover
to be considered pervious pavement.
Staff is proposing rewriting this section of the City Code to clearly state the standards for RSF parcels
within the shoreland management district and to reference the performance standards for pervious
pavement in the subsection stating the lot cover limits for properties outside of the shoreland
management district. Staff believes this change will help alleviate confusion and help reduce the
misconception that properties within the RSF district are universally entitled to 30 percent lot cover.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the City Code
to clarify the RSF district’s lot cover standards.
ATTACHMENTS
RSF Lot Cover Clarification Issue Paper
14
MEMORANDUM
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
DATE:February 21, 2023
SUBJ:Clarifying Single Family Residential District Lot Cover Limits
Issue:
The section of the City Code that specifies the maximum permitted lot cover for the Single
Family Residential (RSF) District is confusingly written.
Summary:
When the city adopted an ordinance permitting pervious pavers in 2018 it created design
standards and updated lot cover limits for the RSF district to permit their use. Unfortunately, the
language staff drafted has created some confusion for residents and builders unfamiliar with the
City Code. Namely, it gives the impression that all RSF properties in the city are entitled to 30
percent lot cover by failing to reference the stricter standard imposed by the shoreland
management district. Additional confusion is created by the fact that the section does not
reference standards that need to be met in order for lot cover to be considered pervious
pavement.
Staff is proposing rewriting this section of the City Code to clearly state the standards for RSF
parcels within the shoreland management district and to reference the performance standards for
pervious pavement in the subsection stating the lot cover limits for properties outside of the
shoreland management district. Staff believes this change will help alleviate confusion and help
reduce the misconception that properties within the RSF district are universally entitled to 30
percent lot cover.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the City
Code to clarify the RSF district’s lot cover standards.”
15
Clarifying Single Family Residential District Lot Cover Limits
February 21, 2023
Page 2
Relevant City Code:
Section 1-2: defines the terms Lot Cover, Impervious Surface, and Pervious Pavement
Section 20-485: limits lot cover in most areas of the shoreland management district to 25 percent.
Section 20-615(e): states lots are limited to 30 lot cover and that no more than 25 percent of the
lot can be covered by imperious surfaces.
Section 20-921: states the requirements for lot cover to be considered pervious pavement and
notes that RSF properties in the shoreland management district are limit to 25 percent lot cover.
Analysis:
Most residents and builders are not extremely familiar with the City’s Zoning Code. An
individual researching their property in advance of a home improvement project is likely to be
able to find their property’s zoning classification and basic zoning standards without assistance,
but will not typically know to look further. In the case of the RSF district, an individual who only
reads the RSF standards would be left with the impression that their lot is entitled to 30 percent
lot cover, of which 5 percent can be pervious pavement. This easiest to find section of the City
Code provides no additional direction or clues that other sections of the code may restrict the
property’s allowed lot cover.
In this case, both the shoreland management district and pervious pavement performance
standards impact a property’s allowed lot cover. While staff and experienced builders are aware
these elements, it is unreasonable to expect an average user of the City Code to look for
performance standards or assume the existing of an overlay district. In other areas of the City
Code, there are references to relevant performance standards or qualifying sections in order to
help users discover relevant provisions. It is not clear why these types of references were not
included in this section of the City Code and staff believes that their inclusion would
significantly reduce the amount of confusion and resulting frustration that staff encounters over
the RSF district’s lot cover limits.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the
City Code to clarify the RSF district’s lot cover standards. The proposed amendment would read
as follows:
Sec 20-615 Lot Requirements And Setbacks
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional
(e) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces shall be as follows:
16
Clarifying Single Family Residential District Lot Cover Limits
February 21, 2023
Page 3
1.Parcels within the shoreland management district are limited to 25 percent lot
cover.
2.Parcels outside of the shoreland management district are limited to 25 percent
impervious surface and 5 percent pervious pavement for a combined 30
percent maximum lot cover. In order to be considered pervious pavement, lot
cover must meet the requirements of Section 20-921.30 percent, of which no
more than 25 percent can be impervious surfaces.
3. For flag/neck lots neither the area within the neck, nor the lot coverage of the
driveway within the neck shall be included within the calculation of the lot area or
lot coverage of the lot.
g:\plan\mw\issue papers and reports (drafts)\rsf lot cover clarification\rsf lot cover clarification issue paper.docx
17
Planning Commission Item
February 21, 2023
Item
Consider amending Chapter 20, Zoning, removing the 1,000-foot required
separation for Indoor Gun Ranges from buildings with existing liquor licenses.
File No.Item No: B.3
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Section 20-298.5 establishes the specific standards for granting a CUP to an
indoor gun range. Among these standards is a clause that the gun range when
established may not be located in a building that within 1,000 feet of another
building licensed to dispense intoxicating or non-intoxicating liquor.
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20, concerning conditional use permit standards for indoor gun
ranges.”
SUMMARY
The city’s conditional use permit (CUP) standards for indoor gun ranges requires that they be located in
a building at least 1,000 feet from any establishment with a liquor license; however, there is no similar
provision preventing establishments with liquor licenses from locating near indoor gun ranges. Staff has
18
been advised to either remove the 1,000-foot requirement or apply it to the city’s liquor licensing
standards.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
When the city adopted the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards that govern gun ranges, the city
drew heavily from St. Joseph’s ordinance which included the 1,000-foot separation clause. The intent
behind this provision is to reduce the likelihood that intoxicated individuals will patronize the range by
preventing people from having a few drinks at a nearby bar and then walking over to the range. While
staff agrees that this is an undesirable situation, the provision does not actually prohibit gun ranges from
being patronized by people who have consumed alcohol, nor does it address other intoxicating
substances.
Additionally, since the provision only prevents the issuance of a conditional use permit for a gun range
within 1,000 feet of an establishment with an intoxicating liquor license, there is nothing preventing an
establishment serving intoxicating substances from locating near an existing gun range. Since a brewery
has already located within 1,000 feet of the gun range, amending the code to prevent a second brewery
from locating within 1,000 feet of the gun range would not prevent the concern. Also, a flat distance
may not be the most relevant factor in determining if an establishment with an alcohol license would
interact with gun range as it is possible that an establishment with an alcohol license could open across
a major thoroughfare from a gun range, in which case foot traffic between the two entities would be
unlikely.
Rather than using distance to create separation between the uses, staff believes it would be better to
amend the ordinance to prevent the presence of intoxicating substances and individuals under the
influence of these substances from gun ranges. This change would directly address the concern of
intoxicated individuals using firearms and also expand the prohibition to include intoxicating
substances beyond alcohol.
A full discussion is included in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council remove the 1,000
foot separation requirement.
ATTACHMENTS
Gun Range CUP Standards
19
MEMORANDUM
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
DATE:February 21, 2023
SUBJ:Indoor Gun Range Distance from establishment with liquor license
Issues:
The city’s conditional use permit (CUP) standards for indoor gun ranges requires that they be
located in a building at least 1,000 feet from any establishment with a liquor license; however,
there is no similar provision preventing establishments with liquor licenses from locating near
indoor gun ranges. Staff has been advised to either remove the 1,000-foot requirement or apply it
to the city’s liquor licensing standards.
Summary:
The city’s prohibition on gun ranges opening within 1,000 feet of any establishment with a liquor
license is intended to help ensure the safe operation of the range by making it more difficult for
individuals under the influence of alcohol to utilize the range; however, there is no
complementary section of the City Code preventing establishments with liquor licenses from
locating within 1,000 feet of a gun range and a taproom was recently opened within 1,000 feet of
a gun range.
The goal of preventing the mixture of intoxicating substances and firearms is worthwhile;
however, as currently embodied the 1,000-foot separation clause does not actually prevent the
location of establishments selling intoxicating substances near gun ranges, nor does it necessarily
follow that the separation of these establishments prevents the mixing of intoxicating substances
and firearms. Rather than amend the City Code to state that establishments with intoxicating
liquor licenses cannot be located within 1,000 feet of a gun range, staff proposes amending the
City Code to remove the distance requirement and instead prohibit the presence of intoxicating
substances and the presence of people under the influence of such substances within the gun
range.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20, concerning conditional use permit standards for
indoor gun ranges.”
20
Relevant City Code:
Section 20-298.5 establishes the specific standards for granting a CUP to an indoor gun range.
Among these standards is a clause that the gun range when established may not be located in a
building that within 1,000 feet of another building licensed to dispense intoxicating or non-
intoxicating liquor.
Analysis:
When the city adopted the Conditional Use Permit standards that govern gun ranges, the city
drew heavily from St. Joseph’s ordinance which included the 1,000-foot separation clause. The
intent behind this provision is to reduce the likelihood that intoxicated individuals will patronize
the range by preventing people from having a few drinks at a nearby bar and then walking over
to the range. While staff agrees that this is an undesirable situation, the provision does not
actually prohibit gun ranges from being patronized by people who have consumed alcohol, nor
does it address other intoxicating substances.
Additionally, since the provision only prevents the issuance of a conditional use permit for a gun
range within 1,000 feet of an establishment with an intoxicating liquor license, there is nothing
preventing an establishment serving intoxicating substances from locating near an existing gun
range. Since a brewery has already located within 1,000 feet of the gun range, amending the code
to prevent a second brewery from locating within 1,000 feet of the gun range would not prevent
the concern. Also, a flat distance may not be the most relevant factor in determining if an
establishment with an alcohol license would interact with gun range as it is possible that an
establishment with an alcohol license could open across a major thoroughfare from a gun range,
in which case foot traffic between the two entities would be unlikely.
Rather than using distance to create separation between the uses, staff believes it would be better
to amend the ordinance to prevent the presence of intoxicating substances and individuals under
the influence of these substances from gun ranges. This change would directly address the
concern of intoxicated individuals using firearms and also expand the prohibition to include
intoxicating substances beyond alcohol.
Alternatives:
1. Remove the 1,000-foot separation requirement.
2. Add a 1,000-foot separation requirement to liquor licenses.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends alternative one. Staff feels the existing provision is unnecessarily restrictive.
Sec 20-298.5 Gun Range, Indoor
1. The gun range shall not be located on any lot adjacent to an existing residential district.
21
2. The gun range when established shall not be located within 1,000 lineal feet, measured
from building to building, of an establishment licensed to dispense intoxicating or
nonintoxicating liquor. Indoor gun ranges shall not sell or dispense intoxicating liquors.,
nor shall they be in a building which contains a business that sells or dispenses
nonintoxicating or intoxicating liquors. No alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs or
controlled substances, as such terms are defined by Minnesota statutes or the City
Code, shall be permitted on licensed premises. No person under the influence of
alcohol or drugs shall be permitted to enter or remain in the premises.
3. The use, occupancy and construction of the building shall conform to the Minnesota State
Building Code.
4. The building and method of operation shall comply with M.S. ch. 87A.
5. The building and method of operation shall conform to the applicable Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, and OSHA standards for indoor
ventilation, emission into the atmosphere, indoor sound levels, lead containment and
outside noise standards.
6. The design and construction of the gun range shall completely confine all ammunition
rounds within the building and in a controlled manner. The design and construction of the
gun range shall be certified by a registered engineer in the State of Minnesota. The certified
plans shall include the specifications and construction of the bullet trap(s), ceilings, exterior
and interior walls and floors. The certified plans shall state what type and caliber of
ammunition the range is designed to totally confine.
7. No ammunition shall be used in the range that exceeds the certified design and construction
specifications of the gun range.
8. Firearms shall not be stored on the premises when the range is closed for business, unless
they are stored in an acceptable gun safe or other secure locking device.
9. On-site supervision shall be supplied at all times by an adult who is an experienced range
operator. The range operator shall be responsible for the conduct of their place of business
and the conditions of safety and order in the place of business and on the premises.
10. Each range shall have a clear and concise safety plan. The plan must be signed, published,
and reviewed at specific intervals and distributed to all range users to study and use.
11. The range operator shall provide and maintain proof of liability insurance which shall
require the insurer notify the city manager in writing of cancellation of the policy, a change
in the limit of the policy, and/or a change in policy ownership. Said policy shall be available
for inspection by the city manager and/or his/her assigns at all times.
12. On-site instruction shall be given only by firearms instructors certified within the prior five
years by an organization or government entity that has been approved by the Minnesota
Department of Public Safety. Current certificates for firearms instructors shall be on
display in a conspicuous location in the premises and available for public inspection.
13. An outside security plan for the general grounds shall be submitted to the city for review
and approval.
14. The transport of firearms on the premises, to the premises, and from the premises shall
conform to state law.
15. Minors shall not be allowed in the range unless accompanied by an adult at all times. This
provision shall not be interpreted to prohibit minors from participating in a firearm safety
class which is supervised by an adult instructor.
22
16. In the industrial office park district, retail sales and rental shall be limited to gun-related
material and equipment with a maximum display area of 20 percent of the floor area.
17. In multi-tenant buildings, the gun range shall be soundproofed to prevent the sound from
being heard by persons in adjoining units.
23
Planning Commission Item
February 21, 2023
Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated January 17, 2023.
File No.Item No: D.1
Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its January 17, 2023 meeting minutes."
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
24
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Minutes dated January 17, 2023
25
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 17, 2023
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Noyes, Kelsey Alto, Erik Johnson, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller,
Edward Goff.
MEMBERS ABSENT:None.
STAFF PRESENT:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project
Engineer, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Keri & Cordell Mack 6621 Minnewashta Parkway
Peter Eskuche 18318 Minnetonka Blvd, Wayzata
Mary Van Beusekom 6610 Rocky Island, Excelsior
GENERAL BUSINESS:
1. Chair and Vice Chair Positions
Senior Planner Al-Jaff stated that former Chairman Mark Von Oven was elected to City Council.
While the Vice Chair acts as the Chair during the absence of the Chair, the Planning Commission
must appoint a new Chair and Vice Chair to serve until April so that there is someone to serve as
backup for the current Vice Chair. A new election will be held on April 4, 2023.
Commissioner Schwartz moved, Commissioner Goff seconded to nominate Commissioner
Alto as Vice Chair. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded to
nominate Commissioner Noyes as Chairman. All voted in favor and the motions carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 6621 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
Associate Planner Young-Walters gave a presentation on the item, noting the Applicant is
proposing to demolish the existing home and replace with a new single-family home and patio;
they are also proposing a designated guest parking area that encroaches into the city’s right-of-
way. The Applicant has noted it is unsafe to back out on to Minnewashta Parkway and the road
does not allow on-street parking. The Applicant also noted they are improving the non-
conformity with regards to the lake setback by moving the house further back from the lake, and
26
Planning Commission Minutes – January 17, 2023
2
that the constricted building pad does not allow for building on the lot without setback variances.
They also propose vegetative buffers and rain gardens to offset.
Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer noted the proposed plans show increased impervious area and
one concern is that the storm water would run directly into Lake Minnewashta. The Applicant
proposed a vegetative buffer and two rain gardens; Staff’s assessment is that increase in
impervious surface cannot be offset by those improvements as they are required within the city
nonetheless. He spoke about the parking pad within city right-of-way and noted Engineering
cannot be in support due to Article 17-5 of the City Ordinance. Engineering feels there is
adequate room on the site for parking and a turnaround.
Mr. Young-Walters spoke about practical difficulties and noted staff supports the requested front
and shoreland variances, as the width of the lot does not provide a viable building pad.
Regarding the driveway, the Applicant would have reasonable use and quite a bit of off-street
parking even if the segment that encroaches into the right-of-way were removed. The four-car
garage accommodates parking with four cars in front of the garage plus another three cars. Mr.
Young-Walters noted the driveway is decreased from existing and the home footprint has
increased by 1,800 square feet. Staff believes there is reasonable use on this parcel without the
requested lot cover variance. Staff recommends approval of the setback variances and denial of
the requested lot cover and parking area variances.
Cordell Mack, Applicant, shared about his family’s 25 year history in the area noting the concept
is to build a home that keeps their family and extended family near. He appreciates city staff’s
involvement with the complexity on the property. Mr. Mack noted the family lives in the current
home and they know what it is like trying to move cars around so a 16-year-old can exit the
property safely onto Minnewashta Parkway. He shared about the difficulties with snow removal
due to limited setbacks and the difficulties in moving the cars around to exit the property and the
lack of off-street parking. They have lived this reality and are not asking for “wishes” that are not
practical. Mr. Mack spoke about excessive speeds and industrial trucks using the road and stated
they must get this right to enter and exit the property safely. He noted this is trying to accomplish
a project that is minimal to their family needs, that they can grow with, they can keep their
children around them, and provide safety.
Peter Eskuche appreciates staff’s work on this project and noted the biggest “miss” is the fact
that it is a very low lot and they cannot have a basement. To accommodate mechanical storage
they must make it up in the garage and cannot build a three-story house and still meet the
conforming building height. In analyzing the driveway, the circle drive that is currently there is
very challenging, and he demonstrated that the current design allows every garage stall and guest
spot to back out and exit safely. The additional space for the house is due to the lack of basement
and is a practical difficulty. Mr. Eskuche noted the Applicant accommodated the City’s
recommendation and pushed the house toward the street which pushed the car stalls toward the
street, as well. He spoke about the rain gardens and vegetation noting the Applicants are trying to
mitigate everything hardcover so that it is not going into the lake. Regarding scale of the house,
there is data that shows local cities’ such as Minnetonka whose permits show an average house
size of 4,300 square feet; this house is slightly larger than that and is a multi-generational house.
He believes the house is in the spirit of the Code and is reasonable.
27
Planning Commission Minutes – January 17, 2023
3
Commissioner Alto understands how frustrating parking is and asked if that is a top priority, and
if it is the number one concern, why did they purchase a home on a street that did not have street
parking?
Mr. Mack replied they honestly did not know how big of an issue it would be until living in the
home.
Commissioner Alto asked if moving from a four-car turnaround to a three-car turnaround would
make a large difference to the Applicant.
Mr. Mack does not know. He noted it is not just where the car is placed but where the other car is
and whether a car can safely back up without hitting two other cars while exiting. It is a rubix
cube and he knows there is need for ample space and flexibility with younger drivers around
their property. He noted they want to be collaborative and find solutions with the city; they are
focused on the function of having a property that works well.
Commissioner Schwartz noted allowing this exception in the right-of-way would open the
floodgates with everyone wanting an exception. He thinks the burden is on the Applicant to
conform to City Code to the greatest extent possible. He asked if there is way to put their heads
together that would work for the family and conform to City Code which would be the best
approach.
Mr. Mack noted if the spirit of the project is understood and it is literally about the right-of-way
issue, they are more than happy to accommodate and collaborate on that. His only comment is
that this is a unique property.
Commissioner Soller wonders about some space being eliminated in the parking area. He also
wants to think about the hardcover variance as that is potentially the toughest one.
Mr. Mack noted if the concern is around the overall lot coverage that is much more of a
threshold issue that will determine the outcome of the project.
Commissioner Alto understands Lake Minnewashta lots are extremely unique and challenging
and noted the Commission has to be consistent in the way they are handled. Approving things
like this is how they continue to get larger and larger houses with lot covers and it snowballs.
She wants to be sure the next person doesn’t ask for 10% lot coverage and then the next person
asks for 12%. Ms. Alto asked what 7% looks like in this case?
Mr. Young-Walters noted it would be substantial and provided context onscreen showing the
existing home and the expanded footprint which is an approximately 1,800 foot increase an
almost doubles the footprint of the home. He noted about 450 square feet of that expansion is
offset by the removal of other hardcover on the property. The homeowner could make additional
redesigns (remove additional patio, use a deck over grass) but they could not get the 3,700 square
foot footprint while maintaining the 2,500 square foot driveway.
28
Planning Commission Minutes – January 17, 2023
4
Commissioner Schwartz asked about the difference between a rain garden and retention pond.
Mr. Henricksen replied a rain garden has some sort of infiltration and native planting and does
not hold water while a retention pond holds water.
Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing.
Mary Van Beusekom, 6610 Rocky Island Lane, would like to know if the building would
interfere with her view of the lake.
Mr. Young-Walters believes the peak of the roof is in the mid-thirties, approximately 35 feet. He
does not know the fall of that property relative to her home. The Applicant is not requiring a
height variance as the height proposed is permitted under City Code. Mr. Young-Walters noted
the city received a note from a neighbor (included in the packet) who expressed their support for
the requested variance and noted the challenges with parking and snow storage.
Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Soller asked about precedence with the right-of-way and asked if any other
variances encroach into the right-of-way on Minnewashta Parkway.
Mr. Young-Walters replied in the negative, not to his knowledge. There are non-conforming
encroachments such as a house to the north where a turnaround may go into the right-of-way a
few feet. He would have to do some homework to determine whether it is illegal or legal non-
conforming. Two have non-conforming dual accesses creating a U-shaped driveway, one of
which was required to be removed as part of a variance for a garage expansion. Within the city,
the Horseshoe Curve variance is the only time he is aware of the city granting a parking pad in
the encroachment and staff was not in support for many of the same reasons as with this
application.
Commissioner Soller asked regarding hardcover, does the city see many variances granted
greater than 1.13% lot cover?
Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative, however it requires a huge amount of context. One
property was granted a 3% lot cover variance but was a 1,600 square foot property and lot cover
was required to be removed. On Red Cedar Point, one will see variances going into the 30%
range, however lots there are substandard and half the size of City Code. In his opinion, going by
percentage is not the best metric because it is inter-related with lot size.
Chair Noyes noted this calculation is approximately 1,332 square feet larger than existing. He
asked how many on the lake have been seen that are 1,332 square feet?
Mr. Young-Walters needs to do research to give an intelligent answer. He noted 1,300 is a lot
and it is pretty rare that the city gives variances over 30%. Typically it is because of a smaller
lot. He does not recall ever seeing a total lot cover in the 7,000 range as an eligible variance. He
29
Planning Commission Minutes – January 17, 2023
5
clarified that staff would support a 1.13% lot cover variance which is the extent of the existing
non-conformity.
Commissioner Soller asked about the uniqueness or hardship of not having a basement on the lot.
Mr. Young-Walters replied staff believes a house of reasonable size can be constructed within
the confines of the Code.
Chair Noyes believes residents need to have the opportunity to use and develop their properties.
However it must be within the guidelines the city has put together. He realizes this lot has
practical difficulties, however every time they talk about lakeshore property, they are talking
about practical difficulties. Chair Noyes noted they could set a precedent here that creates an
avalanche situation because this is a big variance. He thinks there could be some room to look at
redesign efforts and make the house smaller; he stated 1,300 square feet is a lot and this is a
mammoth house.
Commissioner Alto agreed.
Commissioner Soller clarified three stories is out of the question due to the height.
Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Goff feels for the homeowners but noted the Commission cannot set a precedent.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Goff seconded that the Chanhassen Board of
Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 7.13% lot cover variance, denies the
requested variance for a parking area in the right-of-way, approves the requested 30-foot
shoreland setback variance, approves the requested 13-foot front yard setback variance,
and approves a 1.13% lot cover variance for the construction of a home and patio, subject
to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED DECEMBER 6, 2022
Commissioner Goff noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated December 6, 2022 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE:
Mr. Young-Walters shared the city has rolled out the short-term rental licensing with four sent in
so far.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Goff seconded, to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning
Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
30
Planning Commission Minutes – January 17, 2023
6
Submitted by Sharmeen Al-Jaff
Senior Planner
31
Planning Commission Item
February 21, 2023
Item Year End Review and 2023 Work Plan
File No.Item No: F.1
Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations City Code section 2-46.03 (e) Reports
SUGGESTED ACTION
Review and make recommendations for 2023 activities.
SUMMARY
Annually, the Planning Commission reviews activity from the previous year as well as prepares a
preliminary work plan for the upcoming year.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
Please review the report and prepare any additions or corrections that should be made prior to
32
forwarding to City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission may provide additional items to review/research or additional projects to
undertake in 2023. Any other projects that the Commission would like to see staff address will be added
to the list. Subject to Planning Commission concurrence, staff will forward this report to the City
Council.
ATTACHMENTS
2022 Year In Review 2023 Work Plan
33
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life -Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE: February 21, 2023
SUBJ: 2022 Year in Review and 2023 Recommended Work Plan
BACKGROUND
As required by the City Code section 2-46. 03 (e) Reports: The Commission shall make an
annual written report to the Council containing the Commission recommendation for the ensuing
year.
Staff estimates an April 1, 2023, population of 26,514. The 2020 Decennial U.S. Census
population was 25,947. The city's 2010 Decennial Census population was 23,952.
Below is a summary of items the Planning Commission reviewed in 2022 as well as possible
work projects for 2023. If there are additional items, projects, or research the Planning
Commission would like to undertake for 2023, please provide direction to staff.
2022 REVIEW
Planning staff reviewed nine fewer development review applications in 2022 than in 2021, 17
versus 26. Included as part of these applications were one site plan review, four subdivisions,
one Planned Unit Development amendment, and seven variances, which resulted in 16 cases
being reviewed by the Planning Commission. In addition, the Commission reviewed 18 Code
amendments. One Planning case was a metes and bounds subdivision, which is reviewed by City
Council.
Building Permits
In 2022, the city issued building permits for 48 dwelling units, which was approximately 25
percent of our projected housing growth for 2022. We are projecting a two percent (2%) increase
(approximately 200 units) in total housing stock for 2023. As can be seen in the average
residential building permit data for the 2000s (71 single-family and 93 attached units), there is
currently sufficient approved single-family residential lots available for development with a lot
inventory of 69 platted single-family lots, but a deficiency of attached single-family lots with 53
lots available. Given this inventory, preliminarily approved housing developments and current
housing demand, the city should not be able to achieve its housing projection.
PH 952.227.1100 • www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us • FX 952.227.lll0
noo MARKET BOULEVARD · PO BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN · MINNESOTA 55317 34
Planning Commission
Community Development Annual Report
February 21, 2023
Page 2
Other Permits
Bee Permits – 1
Chicken Permits – 5
Temp Events – 27
Seasonal/Special Sales – 5
Special Events – 2
2023 WORK PROGRAMS
Staff
The Planning Division will be reorganizing due to the retirement of Kate Aanenson, the
Community Development Director, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, and Jill Sinclair, Natural
Resource Specialist.
Short Term Rental
On October 10, 2022, the city adopted requirements for short term rental, section 20-961 of the
Chanhassen City Code. Short-term rental is defined as rental of residences for periods of less
than 30 days. The city will begin licensing short term rental properties in early 2023.
Development Review
•The Avienda Lifestyle Center PUD at Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard was approved
in 2018, grading was completed in 2022, a 39-unit cottage home development was given
final approval in 2022, the road network will be paved in 2023 and additional multi-
family and commercial development (site plans) will be reviewed in 2023.
•Industrial development will be reviewed along Highway 5 west of Audubon Road.
•New commercial and residential projects will continue on an in-fill, lot-by-lot basis
including potentially redevelopment of existing commercial areas in the downtown.
City Code
•With the adoption of the Local Water Management Plan on December 10, 2018, and the
hiring of a water resources engineer as the Water Resources Coordinator, staff will assist
in the drafting revisions to the wetland ordinance and the surface water management
requirements of City Code.
•The city will need to make numerous minor code corrections and revisions, including a
review of the sign code, that staff has been compiling over 2022, which will be brought
forward in 2023 for adoption.
35
Planning Commission
Community Development Annual Report
February 21, 2023
Page 3
Comprehensive Plan
The city is required by the Metropolitan Land Plan Act (MN§473) to update our Comprehensive
Plan every ten years. The City of Chanhassen is designated by the Metropolitan Council as an
Emerging Suburban Edge Community. The city adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan on
February 10, 2020.
•In 2021, the city reviewed and approved revisions to the roadway functional
classifications, which were submitted to the Metropolitan Council. The map amendment
was deemed inconsistent with the current 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) (as
amended). Dell Road south of State Highway 5 to the city limits is classified as another
arterial, and the amendment misidentifies the road as a major collector (which is
inconsistent). Additionally, the Engineering Department would like to include additional
roadway segments and connections deficiencies.
•Staff will bring chapters of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission
for discussion and review in conjunction with our long-range planning.
Miscellaneous
Staff will provide periodic items for long-range planning as the hearing schedule and time
permits. Some items in addition to the Comprehensive Plan include housing demands and trends,
demographic statistics, mixed-use development, sustainable development, retail landscape,
development trends, redevelopment issues, transportation projects, electric vehicle charging
stations, senior-friendly cities, etc.
A joint Aging, Economic Development, Environmental, Parks, and Planning Commissions tour
may be scheduled for late summer 2023.
ACTION
The Planning Commission may provide additional items to review/research or additional projects
to undertake in 2023. Any other projects that the Commission would like to see staff address will
be added to the list. Subject to Planning Commission concurrence, staff will forward this report
to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Permits and Inspections
2.Development Review
3.Community Development Mission Statement
g:\plan\planning commission\annual reports\2022 year in review 2023 work plan.docx
36
1
PERMITS
and
INSPECTIONS
BUILDING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
The Building Division contains two support staff, one building official and four inspectors. Eric
Tessman is the Building Official for the city. The inspectors review building plans for
compliance with building codes, inspect buildings under construction, and enforce property
maintenance issues. Support staff issue the building permits, schedule inspections, receive all
permit applications and distribute building plans for city review.
37
2
In 2022, the city issued no permits for projects with building permit valuation in excess of one
million dollars. However, there was a $633,000 valued permit as well as a $800,000 valued
permit. The city issued 1,491 permits worth $30,151,606 for residential additions and remodeling
in 2022. Historically, we average 1,167 such permits.
Commercial and Institutional Construction
There were no significant, new commercial, industrial or institutional projects in 2022. The total
valuation for all new commercial, industrial and institutional projects in 2022 was $2,091,474.
Tennant finish and remodeling activity had 59 permits with a valuation of $11,952,955.
New Single-Family Home Construction
Year Permits Average Valuation Total Valuation
Average New
Single-Family
Home Values
Excludes Land Cost
2022 48 $552,525 $26,521,191
2021 98 $503,774 $49,369,812
2020 68 $411,529 $27,984,000
2019 40 $637,390 $25,495,591
2018 49 $406,275 $19,865,000
2017 55 $420,195 $22,798,000
Inspections
2022 Building Inspection Activity
2022 Building Activity
Residential Building
Permits
1st
Quarter
2nd
Quarter
3rd
Quarter
4th
Quarter Total
Residential Single-Family 15 10 14 9 48
Residential Townhomes 0 0 0 0 0
Apartments/Senior Facilities 0 0 0 0 0
Total Residential 15 10 14 9 48
Year Building
Inspections
Mechanical
Inspections
Plumbing
Inspections
Total
Inspections
2022 3,775 1,619 1,655 7,049
2021 6,732 1,368 1,430 9,530
2020 3,413 1,171 1,323 5,907
2019 3,467 1,708 1,667 6,842
2018 2,863 1,425 1,551 5,839
2017 2,583 1,490 1,405 5,478
38
3
Commercial Building
Permits
1st
Quarter
2nd
Quarter
3rd
Quarter
4th
Quarter Total
New 0 0 0 2 2
Redeveloped 0 0 0 0 0
Remodeled 9 21 20 22 72
Total Commercial 9 21 20 24 74
A significant amount of the building permit activity, totaling _ permits, which occurred in 2022,
was due to household remodeling and addition construction, and building re-roofs which resulted
from summer thunderstorms.
Available Lot Inventory (End
of Quarter) 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter
Single-Family Lots 77 88 75 69
Residential Townhome Lots 53 53 53 53
Total Available Lots 130 141 128 122
Total Permit History 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Single-Family 49 40 68 98 48
Townhomes 56 28 0 0 0
Apartments/Senior Facilities 268 0 0 110 0
Commercial 72 76 70 74 61
Total Number of All Permits 445 144 138 282 109
39
4
Residential Building Permits Issued
Year Single-Family Duplex Townhouses Apartments Dwelling
1981 22 2 24
1982 19 2 21
1983 60 8 36 104
1984 108 34 24 166
1985 189 38 20 18 265
1986 246 8 8 262
1987 289 2 32 323
1988 352 26 34 412
1989 307 14 62 383
1990 197 197
1991 191 191
1992 228 Attached Single-Family* 228
1993 251 16 267
1994 269 110 379
1995 216 197 65 478
1996 170 37 207
1997 177 97 274
1998 263 162 425
1999 187 88 277
2000 124 34 162 320
2001 85 44 100 229
2002 54 246 300
2003 59 94 243 396
2004 76 16 92
2005 60 24 0 84
2006 89 42 48 179
2007 65 86 18 169
2008 28 38 66
2009 71 14 85
2010 71 30 101
2011 106 62 168
2012 107 78 185
2013 89 86 0 175
2014 57 96 0 153
2015 80 24 0 104
2016 48 0 76 124
2017 55 12 0 67
2018 49 56 268 373
2019 40 18 0 58
2020 68 0 0 68
2021 98 0 110 208
2022 48 0 0 48
Average 126 62 62 203
40
HOUSING PERMITS 541
1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PLANNING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
The Planning Division consists of the Community Development Director, three planners and a
natural resource specialist. The Planning Division saw extensive shakeup for 2023 with the
retirement of the Community Development Director, Senior Planner and Natural Resources
Specialist. Planning staff enforces the zoning ordinance, reviews building plans, prepares current
and long-range plans for the community, discusses development potential for individual
properties, reviews development proposals and coordinates this review with other departments
and agencies, prepares reports for the Planning Commission and City Council, provides
information about the community to businesses, property owners and the general public,
performs research projects and writes ordinances and resolutions.
42
2
There were 16 cases reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Planning Cases
TYPE 2018 2019 2020
2021 2022
5 Yr.
Avg.
SIGN PERMITS 62 36 16 56 53 45
VARIANCES 9 10 10 17 7 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 3 1 1 2 0 1
INTERIM USE PERMITS 0 1 1 4 0 1
REZONINGS 1 0 1 2 0 1
SITE PLAN REVIEWS 3 5 2 2 1 3
PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS 4 1
4
0 1 2
SUBDIVISIONS 4 4 1 6 4 4
VACATIONS 1 3 2 2 2 2
WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMITS 1 1
0
0 0 0
CODE AMENDMENTS 6 24 5 14 18 13
LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENTS 1 0
0
0 0 0
TOTAL 95 86 43 105 86 88
Residential Subdivisions
CASE # PROJECT NAME GROSS
ACRES
NET
ACRES
TOTAL
UNITS
GROSS
DENSITY
NET
DENSITY
2021-12A Earhart Farm 117.14 11.6 19 0.49 1.64
2022-02 Cunningham 2nd Add. 3.36 3.29 2 0.6 0.61
2022-08 Goodman Homestead 1.38 1.38 1 0.72 0.72
TOTALS 121.88 16.27 22 0.18 1.35
43
3
Site Plan Review
Planning Commission Attendance 2022
Project Location Developer
Building
Square
Feet
Acres Type of Use
SRI
#2022-04
10500 and 10520
Great Plain Blvd RSI Marine 80,000 8.33
Four 20,000 sq.
ft. boot storage
buildings
TOTAL 80,000 8.33
44
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
STATISTICS
Final Plat GROSS ROW WETLAND/MISC.PARK NET TOTAL GROSS NET
CASE PROJECT NAME Approved ACRES ACRES PRIMARY/ACRES LAND ACRES UNITS DENSITY DENSITY
POND ACRES
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
93-1 SUB Highlands of Lake St. Joe 5/8/1995 36 0.4 11.54 0 24.06 33 0.92 1.37
93-4 SUB Windmill Run 6/14/1993 17.92 3.37 0 0 14.55 35 1.95 2.41
93-8 SUB Royal Oaks Estates 6/26/1993 13 2.2 0 0 10.8 23 1.77 2.13
93-10 SUB Lotus Lake Woods 9/28/1995 4.47 0.32 0.3 0 3.85 7 1.57 1.82
93-11 SUB Oaks of Minnewashta 7/24/1995 35.83 9 3 8 15.83 45 1.26 2.84
93-12 SUB Tower Heights 7.1 0.6 0 0 6.5 13 1.83 2.00
93-14 SUB Shenandoah Ridge 9/13/1993 11.5 3.5 0 0 8 20 1.74 2.50
93-15 SUB Church Road 8/23/1993 3.3 0 0 0 3.3 4 1.21 1.21
93-16 SUB TJO 8/23/1993 1.06 0 0 0 1.06 3 2.83 2.83
93-25 SUB Minger Addition 8/8/1994 9.95 2.08 0 0.15 7.72 17 1.71 2.20
94-1 SUB Minnewashta Landings 6/13/1994 19.7 1.7 0 0 18 27 1.37 1.50
94-3 SUB Olivewood 6/8/1998 25.95 4.6 14.8 0 6.55 8 0.31 1.22
94-4 SUB Shadow Ridge 9/12/1994 15.99 2.15 1.9 0 11.94 17 1.06 1.42
94-5 PUD Mission Hills/Single-family 10/24/1994 7.1 0 0 0 7.1 16 2.25 2.25
94-7 SUB Woodridge Heights 3/10/1997 37.9 3.67 6.7 0 27.53 46 1.21 1.67
94-8 SUB Creekside 5/8/1995 39.5 4.2 5.7 5 24.6 44 1.11 1.79
94-10 SUB Brenden Pond 11/28/1994 23.3 3.6 7.2 0 12.5 21 0.90 1.68
94-13 SUB Pointe Lake Lucy 4/10/1995 18.15 1.63 5.62 0 10.9 19 1.05 1.74
94-15 SUB Hobens Wild Woods Farm 11/28/1994 1.87 0 0 0 1.87 3 1.60 1.60
95-10 SUB Forest Meadows 10/9/1995 20.2 2.2 0 5 13 19 0.94 1.46
92-4 PUD Meadows at Longacres 5/9/1994 95 10 24 0 61 112 1.18 1.84
93-2 PUD Trotters Ridge 8/23/1993 32.5 7.44 5.6 0 19.46 49 1.51 2.52
91-3 PUD Willow Ridge 3/23/1992 30.3 4 8.39 0 17.91 37 1.22 2.07
92-1 SUB Stone Creek 2/22/1993 81 10.04 0.96 8 62 141 1.74 2.27
92-4 SUB Ithilien Addition 7/27/1992 9 1.8 0.9 0 6.3 17 1.89 2.70
92-5 SUB Bluff Creek Estates 8/24/1992 61.45 7.9 19.7 0 33.85 78 1.27 2.30
93-3 PUD Woods at Longacres 6/27/1994 96.77 13.1 10.87 0 72.8 115 1.19 1.58
93-6 PUD Springfield 5/12/1997 80.8 20.2 0.5 5.3 54.8 134 1.66 2.45
95-3 SUB Lake Lucy Estates (Whitetail Cove)12/14/1998 16.36 2.08 4.86 0 9.42 17 1.04 1.80
95-20 SUB Knob Hill 5/20/1996 8.35 1.1 0.66 0 6.59 12 1.44 1.86
95-21 SUB Dempsey Addition 1/8/1996 5.11 0.04 0.96 0 4.11 7 1.36 1.70
95-22 SUB The Frontier 10/14/1996 8.9 0.09 0.2 0 8.61 9 1.01 1.05
96-2 SUB Oak Ridge of Lake Minnewashta 5/6/1996 11.8 2.1 0 0 9.7 23 1.95 2.37 96-3 SUB Slather Addition 4/8/1996 1.22 0 0 0 1.22 2 1.64 1.64
96-4 SUB Melody Hill 9/9/1996 4.57 0.73 0 0 3.84 10 2.10 2.60
96-7 SUB Arundel 1.32 0 0 0 1.32 2 1.52 1.52
96-8 SUB Rice Lake Manor Estates 7.06 0 1.24 0 5.82 2 0.28 0.34
96-9 SUB Rook Place 8/12/1996 1.08 0 0 0 1.08 2 1.85 1.85
96-15 SUB Black Walnut Acres 6/24/1996 3.28 0 0 0 3.28 1 0.30 0.30
96-18 SUB Song Addition 7/22/1996 8.3 0 1.75 0 6.55 1 0.12 0.15
97-1 SUB Highover Addition 8/11/1997 48.99 13.83 2.83 0 32.33 54 1.10 1.67
97-11 SUB Monson, Sunridge Addition 5 0 0 0 5 2 0.40 0.40
98-1 PUD Lynmore Addition 7/12/1999 6.39 0.83 2.12 0.64 2.8 8 1.25 2.86
98-10 SUB Eric Peterson 6.32 0 3.59 0 2.73 2 0.32 0.73
99-3 SUB Nickolay 3.7 0 0.91 0 2.79 2 0.54 0.72
99-4 SUB Brozorick 1.44 0 0 0 1.44 2 1.39 1.39
99-5 SUB Smith Hill Addition 5/10/1999 1.33 0 0 0 1.33 2 1.50 1.50
99-10 SUB Arrowhead Development 10/23/2000 0.91 0 0 0 0.91 2 2.20 2.20
99-11 SUB Sandy Point 12/13/1999 1.47 0 0 0 1.47 2 1.36 1.36
00-1 SUB Marsh Glen 7/24/2000 13.41 1.45 1.91 0 10.05 19 1.42 1.89
00-2 SUB Lucas Igel Addition 7/23/2001 1.09 0 0 0 1.09 2 1.83 1.83
00-3 PUD Summerfield 2nd Addition 10/23/2000 5 0.95 0 0 4.05 10 2.00 2.47
00-8 SUB Arvidson's Addition 11/27/2000 2.47 0 0 0 2.47 4 1.62 1.62
00-9 SUB White Oak Addition 10/9/2000 3.4 0.6 0 0 2.8 5 1.47 1.79
2000-15 Ashling Meadows 4/9/2001 40.03 6.39 4.78 0 0 28.86 51 1.27 1.77
2001-3 Big Woods 8/27/2001 6.3 1.1 0 0 0 5.2 9 1.43 1.73
2001-6 Tristan Heights 6/11/2001 1.15 0 0 0 0 1.15 2 1.74 1.74
2001-10 Lake Lucy Ridge 5/28/2002 18.57 2.4 7.16 9.01 17 0.92 1.89
2002-2 Knob Hill 2nd 7/22/2002 7.59 1.22 0.57 0 0 5.8 9 1.19 1.55
2002-4 Hidden Creek Estates 7/22/2002 22.28 3 8.5 0 0 10.78 20 0.90 1.86
2002-2 PUD Vasserman Ridge 7/22/2002 68.76 8.69 27.92 1.94 0 30.21 84 1.22 2.78
2002-6 Boyer Lake Minnewashta Add.8/26/2002 13.59 1.26 2.34 3.25 6.74 10 0.74 1.48
2002-7 Willow Ridge 3rd Addition 5/28/2002 2.09 0 0 0 0 2.09 2 0.96 0.96
2003-7 Countryside 6/14/2004 5.93 1.02 0.58 4.33 10 1.69 2.31
2003-12 Burlewood 12/8/2003 5.17 1.75 3.42 9 1.74 2.63
04-10 Walnut Grove 2nd 6/14/2004 3.09 0.5 1.1 1.49 4 1.29 2.68
04-05 Settlers West 7/12/2004 44.56 4.17 0 16.13 24.26 48 1.08 1.98
04-03 Kenyon Bluff 4/12/2004 2.16 0.24 0.37 1.55 3 1.39 1.94
04-23 Lotus View Addition 1/10/2005 2.83 2.83 2 0.71 0.71
04-26 Frontier 2nd Addition 8/23/2004 2.61 0 0 2.61 5 1.92 1.92
04-31 Hidden Creek Meadows 6/13/2005 19.24 2.02 5.96 11.26 21 1.09 1.87
04-36 Pinehurst 3/14/2005 27.62 4.28 0.14 23.2 41 1.48 1.77
04-43 Yoberry Farm (Highcrest)4/11/2005 35.79 5.54 4.53 0.39 25.33 57 1.59 2.25
05-02 Crestview 5/9/2005 3.36 0.6 2.76 5 1.49 1.81
g:/plan/Past,Present,Future/density 1
45
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
STATISTICS
Final Plat GROSS ROW WETLAND/MISC.PARK NET TOTAL GROSS NET
CASE PROJECT NAME Approved ACRES ACRES PRIMARY/ACRES LAND ACRES UNITS DENSITY DENSITY
05-05 John Henry 4/11/2005 1.19 1.19 3 2.52 2.52
05-08 Fox Den 4/25/2005 2.77 0.64 2.13 6 2.17 2.82
05-14 Lake Harrison 7/12/2005 62 6.17 20.9 1.53 4.42 28.98 38 0.61 1.31
05-21 Frontier 3rd Addition 7/25/2005 0.77 0.77 2 2.60 2.60
05-25 Minnewahsta Creek Hills 8/22/2005 1.4 1.4 3 2.14 2.14
05-26 Harvieux Addition 9/29/2005 1.99 0 0 0 0 1.99 3 1.51 1.51
05-36 Bluff Creek Twinhomes VOID
05-37 Stonefield 4/10/2006 17.63 2.23 15.4 30 1.70 1.95
05-44 Christianson Sub #05-44 4/10/2006 1.05 1.05 2 1.90 1.90
06-02 Eidness Metes & Bounds 1/23/2006 2.18 2.18 2 0.92 0.92
06-10 Boulder Cove 9/25/2006 13.69 1.95 1.23 10.51 39 2.85 3.71
07-02 The Arbors 4/9/2007 19.83 3.05 0.9 15.88 22 1.11 1.39
07-03 Fox Hill 7/9/2007 1.69 0.3 1.39 3 1.78 2.16
07-07 Gauer 4/23/2007 1.09 1.09 2 1.83 1.83
07-09 Lotus Woods 7.6 0.9 0.29 0.5 5.91 11 1.45 1.86
09-01 Apple Tree Estates 6/8/2009 7.43 1.04 0.65 5.74 7 0.94 1.22
09-02 Senn Metes & Bounds 23-Mar-09 3.66 3.66 2 0.55 0.55
10-09 Pioneer Pass 9/13/2010 63.4 10.52 17.58 0 8.71 26.59 94 1.48 3.54
10-12 Lakeview (Reflections at Lake Riley)2/28/2011 50.48 6.86 19.85 4.83 18.94 66 1.31 3.48
12-16 Wynsong 1/28/2013 9.37 2.3 7.07 4 0.43 0.57
2013-04 Fretham 15th Addition 8/26/2013 2.29 0.1 2.19 4 1.75 1.83
2013-09 Bluff Creek Woods 8/26/2013 3.57 0.78 2.79 3 0.84 1.08
2013-12 Preserve at Rice Lake 8/12/2013 13.22 1.66 7.56 4 16 1.21 4.00
2013-13 Camden Ridge 9/9/2013 22.93 4.62 1.27 3.5 13.54 58 2.53 4.28
2013-18 Lake St. Joe's Cove 9/9/2013 4.04 0.97 0.15 2.92 8 1.98 2.74
2014-02 Hummingbird Heights 1/27/2014 1.667 0.93 0.737 2 1.20 2.71
2014-06 Arbor Cove 6/9/2014 3.26 3.26 4 1.23 1.23
2014-08 Fretham 19th Addition 1.51 1.51 4 2.65 2.65
2014-09 Boulder Cove 6/9/2014 13.38 2.42 2.86 8.1 31 2.32 3.83
2014-12 Black Walnut Acres 2nd 5/27/2014 2.4 0.37 2.03 1 0.42 0.49
2014-18 Vistas at Bentz Farm 10/27/2014 19.645 2.04 7.88 9.725 15 0.76 1.54
2014-30 2061 W. 65th Street Metes & Bounds 11/24/2014 0.69 0 0 0 0.69 2 2.90 2.90
2014-36 2631 Forest Avenue Metes & Bounds 12/8/2014 2.57 2.57 2 0.78 0.78
2015-08 Redstone Ridge 5/26/2015 2.74 2.74 4 1.46 1.46
2015-16 Arbor Glen 7/24/2017 8.49 3.9 4.59 18 2.12 3.92
2015-18 Glaccum 9/14/2015 3.12 0.86 0.44 1.82 4 1.28 2.20
2016-09 Anthem on the Park 8/22/2016 8.96 1.81 1.84 5.31 12 1.34 2.26
2016-13 Foxwood 7/25/2016 43.55 4.68 20.86 18.015 46 1.06 2.55
2017-06 Lotus Woods 7/22/2019 1.16 0.11 1.05 2 1.72 1.90
2017-15 Fawn Hill 8/28/2017 11.64 1.11 4.45 6.08 10 0.86 1.64
2007-02 The Arbors 2nd Add.3/26/2018 2.08 2.08 3 1.44 1.44
2018-10 3861 Red Cedar Point 7/9/2018 1.024 0.14 0.884 2 1.95 2.26
2018-13 Glendale Drive Homes 8/26/2019 2.297 0.155 2.142 5 2.18 2.33
2019-01 The Park 8/12/2019 158.45 5.94 9.93 40.33 90.7 11.55 55 0.35 4.76
2019-01 The Park 2nd 1/27/2020 38.42 3.95 0.3 21.1 13.07 57 1.48 4.36
2019-01 The Park 3rd 12/14/2020 10.02 1.95 8.075 26 2.59 3.22
2019-01 The Bluffs @Lake Lucy (The Park 4th)9/14/2020 32.41 3.81 2.17 12.67 13.76 31 0.96 2.25
2019-13 Berrospid 11/9/2020 2.02 0.06 1.96 3 1.49 1.53
2019-17 Boylan Shores 6/22/2020 2.71 0.06 0.75 1.9 3 1.11 1.58
2020-06 Ann Nye 5/26/2020 6.4 0.12 3.84 2.44 2 0.31 0.82
2020-12 901 Carver Beach (Chaparral)5/27/2020 2.4 0.005 0.9 1.495 2 0.83 1.34
2020-22 Deer Haven 5/10/2021 2.81 0 0 0 0 2.81 4 1.42 1.42
2021-09 2300 Melody Hill Rd 5/10/2021 1.3 1.3 2 1.54 1.54
2021-12 Erhart Farm 6/13/2022 117.14 3.29 25.11 76.45 0.69 11.6 19 0.16 1.64
2021-15 Eagle Bluff 8/9/2021 4.1 0 2.5 0 0 1.6 2 0.49 1.25
2022-02 Cunningham 2nd 6/13/2022 3.36 0.07 3.29 2 0.60 0.61
2022-03 Morin withdrawn
2022-10 Fox Hill 2.47 0.364 0.141 1.965 4 1.62 2.04
SUBTOTAL 2,177.06 261.00 374.23 146.28 174.63 1,220.92 2,523.00
PERCENT 12.0%17.2%6.7%8.0%56.1%AVG 1.16 2.07
MULTI-FAMILY
94-5 PUD Mission Hills/Multi-family 47.18 11.6 5.87 0 29.71 208 4.41 7.00
94-18 PUD Autumn Ridge 28.13 4.29 0 0 23.84 140 4.98 5.87
92-3 PUD Oak Pond/Oak Hills 24.19 2.09 1.8 0 20.3 141 5.83 6.95
94-7 SP Prairie Creek Townhomes 4.6 0 0 0 4.6 24 5.22 5.22
87-3 PUD Powers Place 9.7 0 0 0 9.7 48 4.95 4.95
95-7 SP Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 7.29 0 0 0 7.29 34 4.66 4.66
95-8 SP Centennial Hills 2.2 0 0 0 2.2 65 29.55 29.55
95-1 PUD North Bay 52.1 2.92 8.66 26.38 14.14 76 1.46 5.37
96-3 PUD Townhomes at Creekside 7.03 2.18 1 0.21 3.64 25 3.56 6.87
96-4 PUD Walnut Grove (sf, sm lot + twnhouses 05/27/97 49.8 6.81 0.2 0 42.79 247 4.96 5.77
g:/plan/Past,Present,Future/density 2
46
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
STATISTICS
Final Plat GROSS ROW WETLAND/MISC.PARK NET TOTAL GROSS NET
CASE PROJECT NAME Approved ACRES ACRES PRIMARY/ACRES LAND ACRES UNITS DENSITY DENSITY
99-9 SPR Lake Susan Apartment Homes 6/28/1999 9.9 0 0 0 9.9 162 16.36 16.36
99-19 SPR Powers Ridge Apartments 12/11/2000 21.34 0 1 0 20.34 344 16.12 16.91
99-2 PUD Arboretum Village 5/14/2001 120.93 21.59 26.29 2.9 16.9 53.25 342 2.83 6.42
2001-13 SP Presbyterian Homes 10/14/2002 5.11 0 0.3 0 0 4.81 161 31.51 33.47
04-01 Highlands of Bluff Creek 6/15/2004 6.52 0.86 1.8 3.86 16 2.45 4.15
05-11 Liberty on Buff Creek 3/27/2006 91.02 11.45 40.06 39.51 407 4.47 10.30
06-14 The Preserve at Bluff Creek 6/26/2006 79.86 10.85 34.31 0.35 34.35 153 1.92 4.45
06-05 Gateway Place 2/27/2006 6.2 0.25 0.38 0 5.57 48 7.74 8.62
06-18 SouthWest Village 9/9/2013 2.773 1.547 0 0 0 1.226 36 12.98 29.36
06-26 Lakeside 10/23/2006 26.29 1.74 4.06 1.44 19.05 101 3.84 5.30
2012-15 Beehive 10/22/2012 2.2 2.2 25 11.36 11.36
2015-01 Riley Crossing (Mission Hills Senior)2/12/2018 8.64 8.64 150 17.36 17.36
2017-12 West Park 7/24/2017 9.8 0.79 9.01 64 6.53 7.10
2017-11 Venue 12/10/2018 4.02 4.02 134 33.33 33.33
2020-02 Moments of Chanhassen 2/24/2020 3.5 0.34 3.16 48 13.71 15.19
2021-04 Lake Place 1/25/2021 3.68 3.68 110 29.89 29.89
2021-22 Avienda Townhomes 10/24/2022 16.86 1.53 4.88 5.88 4.57 39 2.31 8.53
SUBTOTAL 650.863 78.967 127.6 8.13 50.81 385.356 3,348
PERCENT 12.1%19.6%1.2%7.8%59.2%AVG 5.14 8.69
TOTALS 2,827.93 339.97 501.83 154.41 225.44 1,606.27 5,871
PERCENT 12.0%17.7%5.5%8.0%56.8%AVG 2.08 3.66
g:/plan/Past,Present,Future/density 3
47
5
CHANHASSEN POPULATION Number Increase % Increase Met Council
1960 CENSUS 3,411
1970 CENSUS 4,879 1,468 43%
1980 CENSUS 6,359 1,480 30%
1990 CENSUS 11,732 5,373 84%
1995 ESTIMATE 15,588 3,856 33%
2000 CENSUS 20,321 4,733 30.4% 20,321
2005 ESTIMATE 23,652 3,331 16.4% 22,518
2010 CENSUS 22,952 -700 -3%22,952
2015 ESTIMATE 24,655 1,703 7.4% 25,194
2020 CENSUS 25,951 1,296 5.3% 26,700
2021 ESTIMATE 26,271 320 1.2%
2022 ESTIMATE 26,399 128 0.5%
2023 ESTIMATE 26,514 115 0.6%
2025 PROJECTION 27,262 863 3%
2030 PROJECTION 28,656 1,394 5% 31,700
2035 PROJECTION 30,469 1,813 6%
2040 PROJECTION 31,589 1,390 5% 37,100
48
6
DEVELOPMENTS
Erhart Farm (PC #2021-12A)
A 19-lot subdivision with multiple outlots to the west for future development. The entire site is
117 acres. However, the final plat for the first phase consisted of 19 lots with a net acreage of 11
.6 acres. Outlot B contains a wetland and Outlot C contains stormwater ponding. The
development will connect Eagle Ridge Road to West 96th Street. In the future, Eagle Ridge
Road will connect to Powers Boulevard.
49
7
Cunningham 2nd Addition (PC #2022-02)
A two-lot subdivision with a variance for the use of a private street on 2.81 acres
50
8
Goodman Homestead (PC #2022-08)
A lot consolidation or replat subdivision on 4.1 acres.
51
9
RSI Marine (PC #2022-04)
A mixed use Planned Unit Development (PUD) which would facilitate the construction of four
20,000-square foot boat storage buildings. The entire site is 8.33 acres and results in a floor area
ration of 0.22.
52
53
Planning Commission Item
February 21, 2023
Item City Council Action Items
File No.Item No: F.2
Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
54
City Council Action Update
55
City Council Action Update
Monday, January 23, 2023
6730 Golden Court – Metes and Bounds SUB – APPROVED
Monday, February 13, 2023
Fox Ridge Estates (Formerly Fox Hill) Final Plat – APPROVED
Extend Variance Request for 3703 South Cedar Drive - APPROVED
Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the City’s website at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links.
56
Planning Commission Item
February 21, 2023
Item Discussion on Lot Cover Variances
File No.Item No: I.1
Agenda Section OPEN DISCUSSION
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
SUMMARY
During a previous meeting the Planning Commission had several questions about the extent and type of
lot cover variances that the city has historically issued. Staff has compiled a spreadsheet that contains
relevant information about ever lot cover variance that has gone before the Planning Commission since
2004. This spreadsheet will provide the background and context for a discussion on lot cover variances.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
Key takeaways:
57
35 lot cover variances requested of which 7 (20%) have been denied, and 6 (17.1%) were
approved only after further action was taken to reduce the extent of the requested lot cover
variance.
24 of the 35 (68.5%) had non-conforming lot cover, and 12 of those 24 (50%) were required to
reduce the pre-existing lot cover. An additional 3 of the 24 (12.5%) had their variance denied
11 requests were received for properties over their districts minimum lot size. Of these 11, 8
(72%)were denied and 2 (18%) were required to reduced the existing non-conforming lot cover.
The 5,800 sq. ft. is the largest lot cover variance approved as measured by total square footage (a
property with 7,215 sq. f.t had a request to increase to 8,064 sq. ft. denied). The average change
in lot cover from existing is 165 sq. ft. The average final square footage for a property requesting
a lot cover variance is 3,701 sq. ft.
45.02% is the largest percentage of lot cover approved by the city. The average change in lot
cover from existing is 2.76%. The average final lot cover percentage for a property requesting
variance is 30.05%
The average size of a lot requesting a lot cover variance is 12,920 sq. ft.
RECOMMENDATION
Please review the attached spreadsheet and send staff any questions that you believe may require
research prior to the meeting. Our goal is to provide you with as much general information on the topic
of lot cover variances as possible.
ATTACHMENTS
Lot Cover Variances
58
Lot Size Min Lot Size Overagesq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. % sq. ft.% Sq. ft.%%04‐07 3637 South Cedar 11,761 20,000 4,704 40.00% 4,704 40.00% 0 0.00% 15.00% Approved with condition that new home note exceed existing 40% lc.05‐10 9015 Lake Riley Blvd 12,936 20,000 3,415 26.40% 3,363 26.00%‐52‐0.40%1.00% PC tabled 7.86% (1,016 sq. ft.) before approving 1% (129 sq. ft.)05‐18 380 West 86th St 15,180 15,000 4,437 29.23% 3,974 26.18%‐463‐3.05%1.18% PC denied 4.23% (653 sq. ft.), CC Approved 1.18% (179 sq. ft.)05‐32 8491 Mission Hills Cir 20,595 15,000 6,614 32.11% 5,148 25.00%‐1,466‐7.12%0.00% Initial request of 4.5%(926 sq. ft.) was denied by PC, CC denied 2.76% (568 sq. ft.)05‐34 8005 Cheyenne 12,803 15,000 3,721 29.06% 3,721 29.06% 0 0.00% 4.06% Applicant acquired nearby land and reduced driveway to keep nonconforming static, without this would have been an 11.12% (1,249 sq. ft. ) variance.06‐04 3633 South Cedar Dr 15,196 20,000 3,454 22.73% 4,162 27.39% 708 4.66% 2.39% Initial 6.05% (919 sq. ft.) PC denied, CC approved 2.39% (363 sq. ft.)06‐31 3735 Hickory Rd 5,991 20,000 1,588 26.51% 1,734 28.94% 146 2.44% 3.94%07‐19 2101 Pinehurst Dr 19,423 15,000 4,513 23.24% NA NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 7.4% (1,437) denied by PC, 3.3% (641) denied by CC.07‐20 2081 Pinehurst Dr 20,307 15,000 5,056 24.90% NA NA 0 0.00% 0.00% Initial 4.6% (932 sq. ft.) tabled, revised 2.6% (527)denied08‐24 3830 Maple Shores Dr 28,100 20,000 7,215 25.68% NA NA 0 0.00% 0.68% 3.7% denied by PC and CC09‐15 3625 Red Cedar Point 6,770 20,000 0 0.00% 2,525 37.30% 2,525 37.30% 12.30% Total excludes portion of road on property.09‐17 2111 Pinehurst 18,000 15,000 4,478 24.88% NA NA 0 0.00% 0.00% PC and CC denied 1.38%11‐07 10036 Trails End Rd. 15,847 15,000 3,922 24.75% NA NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 4.3% (681 sq. ft.) denied by PC and CC12‐07 6561 Troendle Cir 15,323 15,000 5,010 32.70% 4,888 31.90%‐122‐0.80%6.90%13‐15 960 Carver Beach Rd 6,024 15,000 0 0.00% 1,855 30.79% 1,855 30.79% 5.80%14‐21 960 Carver Beach Rd 6,024 15,000 1,848 30.68% 2,048 34.00% 200 3.32% 9.00%14‐27 9015 Lake Riley Blvd 12,900 20,000 3,324 25.77% 3,676 28.50% 352 2.73% 3.50% Initial request of 4.2% (541 sq. ft.) was denied by PC, 3.5% (451 sq. ft.) was approved by CC14‐32 7015 Sandy Hook Cir 12,632 15,000 2,827 22.38% 3,499 27.70% 672 5.32% 2.70% PC denied 4.8% (606 sq. ft.), CC granted 2.7% (341 sq. ft.)16‐11 3627 Red Cedar Point 11,656 20,000 3,970 34.06% 3,473 29.80%‐497‐4.26%4.80%16‐22 6845 Lake Harrison Cir 17,927 15,000 4,441 24.77% NA NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 8.14% (1,459 sq. ft.) denied PC, 4.2% (753 sq. ft.) denied CC17‐05 1392 Ithilien 14,810 15,000 4,525 30.55% 4,345 29.34%‐180‐1.22%4.30%17‐20 7221 Erie Ave 8,529 15,000 2,417 28.34% 3,066 35.95% 649 7.61% 9.00% Initial request of 12.4% lc (1057 sq. ft.) was tabled by PC and applicant required to redesign to reduce lc percent and vacate alley to increase lot size to 9,010.17‐21 204 78th St West 8,981 15,000 2,538 28.26% 2,380 26.50%‐158‐1.76%1.50%18‐01 3617 Red Cedar Point 9,203 20,000 3,353 36.43% 3,319 36.06%‐34‐0.37%11.00% Lapsed18‐04 7555 Walnut Curve 14,283 15,000 3,776 26.44% 4,266 29.87% 490 3.43% 4.90%18‐07 1110 Lake Susan Drive 11,263 11,200 3,013 26.75% 3,157 28.03% 144 1.28% 3.00%19‐03 3617 Red Cedar Point 9,203 20,000 3,353 36.43% 3,257 35.39%‐96‐1.04%10.40%19‐10 6641 Minnewashta Pkw 15,950 20,000 4,777 29.95% 4,466 28.00%‐311‐1.95%3.00%19‐11 3713 South Cedar Drive 9,545 20,000 2,809 29.43% 2,561 26.83%‐248‐2.60%1.83%19‐14 690 Carver Beach Rd 6,000 15,000 1,258 20.97% 2,040 34.00% 782 13.03% 9.00%20‐17 7727 Frontier Trail 8,819 15,000 1,756 19.91% 2,822 32.00% 1,066 12.09% 7.00%20‐19 7016 Dakota Cir 14,451 20,000 3,879 26.84% NA NA 0 0.00% 1.84% Withdrawn, staff was recommending denial of 3% lot cover variance which was a 163 sq. ft. new lc.21‐25 3703 South Cedar Drive 5,899 20,000 2,798 47.43% 2,656 45.02%‐142‐2.41%20.02%22‐01 3711 South Cedar Drive 7,687 20,000 3,151 40.99% 3,119 40.57%‐32‐0.42%15.57%22‐17 6621 Minnewashta Pkw 22,194 20,000 5,800 26.13% 5,800 26.13% 0 0.00% 1.13% 7.13% (1,332 sq. ft.) denied by PCExisting LC Approved LCCase AddressNotesChange59