05-16-2023 PC Agenda packet
A.6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
B.1 Consider a request for a variance to allow the construction of an accessory dwelling unit
within a single-family home on a property located at 1571 Lake Lucy Road zoned Rural
Residential.
B.2 Consider Amending Chapter 20, Zoning, Adopting Performance Standards for Issuing
Permits for Model Homes.
B.3 Consider Amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions, City Code to revise the list of required
materials for Final Plat Application.
B.4 Consider Amending Chapter 13, Nuisance Light and Chapter 20, Lighting Standards
B.5 Consider Potential Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning, Regarding Single-Family Residential
Lot Cover and Pervious Pavement within the Shoreland Management District.
C.GENERAL BUSINESS
C.1 Sketch Plan Review: Santa Vera PUD Phase II
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated March 21, 2023.
D.2 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 18, 2023
E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2023
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
1
H.ADJOURNMENT
I.OPEN DISCUSSION
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will
make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible,
the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be
listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record
based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual
City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that
forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under
State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process.
2
Planning Commission Item
May 16, 2023
Item
Consider a request for a variance to allow the construction of an accessory
dwelling unit within a single-family home on a property located at 1571 Lake
Lucy Road zoned Rural Residential.
File No.PC 2023-07 Item No: B.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Kathryn Randall
1571 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Present Zoning Rural Residential District (RR)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage 10.2
Density NA
Applicable
Regulations
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a request to utilize a single-family
dwelling as two-family dwelling is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The city has a relatively
high level of discretion with these requests because the applicant is seeking a
deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article V, Floodplain Overlay District
Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection
Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article XI, “RR” Rural Residential District
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection
3
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of a
single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family
dwelling. While variances for uses are not normally allowed, the City Code specifically allows for this
use variance to be granted to facilitate the care of aging family members so long as the structure
maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling, separate utility services are not established, and
the variance will not negatively impact the neighborhood.
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the home was built in 1916 with various permits pulled those most notable
of which were for an addition and septic system in 1996. Numerous other permits for maintenance and
interior work are on file.
In March of 2023, the applicant applied for a building permit for a garage addition with an ADU. Staff
informed them that the ADU would require a variance and the applicant subsequently applied.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second dwelling unit, commonly called an
accessory dwelling unit (ADU), above a proposed garage addition. The homeowner has stated that the
intent of the variance is to allow for her to live in the new accessory dwelling unit while her son and his
family move into the main home to assist with maintaining the property. Since the City Code restricts
lots zoned Residential Single-Family to having a single dwelling unit, a variance is required to permit
this use.
The applicant has stated that they have discussed becoming a multigenerational household for some
time, and that the owner’s age and recent cancer diagnosis has made this right time to move forward
with the project. They have noted that the City Code allows for variances to be issued to permit the
creation of ADUs in cases where there is a demonstrated need and where the home maintains the
exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling. They have clarified that the home will maintain a
single driveway access, utility meter, and sewer connection. Finally, they have stated that the home will
maintain the exterior appearance of a single-family home.
Generally speaking, the city cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 20-59 does allow for the
city to grant variances for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, so long as four
conditions are met. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s proposed plans and statement of need and
believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 20-59 of the City Code for granting the
requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
RECOMMENDATION
4
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
approve the variance request for the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to
the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure
meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
3. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the footing to
the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be
obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet in height require a
zoning permit.
4. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and
the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained
prior to any site improvements.
5. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home.
6. No separate entrance may be created for the apartment above the garage.
7. Separate utility services may not be established.
8. The apartment above the garage may not be rented as a separate unit.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report
Findings of Fact and Decision 1571 Lake Lucy Road
Variance Document
Legal Description
Application for Development Review
Narrative 1571 Lake Lucy Road
Property Survey
Proposed Plan
Landscaping and Tree Preservation Memo
Affidavit of Mailing 1571 Lake Lucy Road
5
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: May 16, 2023
CC DATE: June 12, 2023
REVIEW DEADLINE: June 13, 2023
CASE #: PC 2023-07
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling. While variances for uses are not normally allowed, the City Code specifically
allows for this use variance to be granted to facilitate the care of aging family members so long
as the structure maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling, separate utility services are
not established, and the variance will not negatively impact the neighborhood.
LOCATION:1571 Lake Lucy Road
OWNER:Kathryn Randall
1571 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: “RR” –Rural Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE:10.2 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a request to utilize a
single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling is limited to
whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the
Zoning Ordinance. The city has a relatively high level of
discretion with these requests 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 is requesting a variance to construct a second dwelling unit, commonly called an
accessory dwelling unit (ADU),above a proposed garage addition.The homeowner has stated
that the intent of the variance is to allow for her to live in the new accessory dwelling unit while
her son and his family move into the main home to assist with the maintaining the property.
Since the City Code restricts lots zoned Residential Single-Family to having a single dwelling
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of
a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
6
1571 Lake Lucy Road
May 16, 2023
Page 2
unit, a variance is required to permit this use.
The applicant has stated that they have discussed becoming a multigenerational household for
some time, and that the owner’s age and recent cancer diagnosis has made this right time to
move forward with the project.
They have noted that the City Code allows for variances to be issued to permit the creation of
ADUs in cases where there is a demonstrated need and where the home maintains the exterior
appearance of a single-family dwelling. They have clarified that the home will maintain a single
driveway access, utility meter, and sewer connection. Finally, they have stated that the home will
maintain the exterior appearance of a single-family home.
Generally speaking, the city cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 20-59 does allow
for the city to grant variances for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, so
long as four conditions are met. A variance of this nature has been requested five times since
2000, and all of these requests were granted once the applicants demonstrated that they met or
agreed to meet the ordinance’s requirements. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s proposed plans
and statement of need and believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 20-59 of
the City Code for granting the requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends approval of
the requested variance.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article V, Floodplain Overlay Distirct
Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection
Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article XI, “RR” Rural Residential District
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the home was built in 1916 with various permits pulled those most
notable of which were for an addition and septic system in 1996. Numerous other permits for
maintenance and interior work are on file.
In March of 2023, the applicant applied for a building permit for a garage addition with an ADU.
Staff informed them that the ADU would require a variance and the applicant subsequently
applied.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
7
1571 Lake Lucy Road
May 16, 2023
Page 3
The property is zoned Rural Residential District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a
minimum of 2.5 acres, have front and rear yard setbacks of 50 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet,
and limits parcels to a maximum of 20 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35
feet in height. The property also has a bluff which requires structures to be setback a minimum of
30-feet, a wetland, and is riparian with a 100-foot structure setback. Finally the southeast corner
of the property is located with the 1 percent annual chance floodplain.
The lot is 10.2 acres with 4.9 percent lot cover. The existing pool, driveway, shed, walkway,
retaining walls, deck, fence, patio, and a small portion of the existing home all encroach varying
distances into the required bluff setback and impact zone; however the structure and listed items
appear to predate the bluff ordinance and are nonconforming. The home and existing structures
are a significant distance from the lake, wetlands, and floodplain and appear to meet the relevant
requirements of the City Code. A portion of the existing driveway appears to have non-
conforming setbacks and cross onto neighboring properties. All other aspects of the property
appear to meet the requirements of the City Code.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are bluffs on the property and various existing structures have non-conforming bluff
setbacks; however, the proposed project is located outside of the required bluff setback.
Floodplain Overlay
The southeast corner of the property is located within the 1 percent annual chance floodplain;
however, the proposed project is located outside of the floodplain.
Shoreland Management
The property is within the Shoreland Protection District; however, the project is a significant
distance from the lake and meets the requirements of the shoreland management district.
Wetland Protection
There are wetlands on the property; however, the project is a significant distance from the
wetlands and meets the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance.
8
1571 Lake Lucy Road
May 16, 2023
Page 4
NEIGHBORHOOD
Lake Lucy Highlands
This lot is unplatted; however the Lake Lucy Highlands
neighborhood of large lot properties to the west was
platted in 1986 and the Whitetail Cove neighborhood of
low density homes to the east was platted in 1999. As
the subdivision to the east is newer most of the
properties appear to conform to the requirements of City
Code, though based on aerial photos it looks like some
may have nonconforming lot cover or other elements.
The large lot properties to the west are older and most
appear to be located on bluffs. Given the fact that the
subdivision pre-dates the bluff ordinance it is likely that
many of these properties have nonconforming bluff
setbacks.
ANALYSIS
Single-Family Dwelling as Two-Family Dwelling
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an ADU as part of garage addition. Granting
the requested variance would allow the applicant to construct two dwelling units on a property
zoned for a single dwelling unit. Ordinarily, the city cannot grant variances for uses, i.e. a
variance cannot be granted to use a property zoned single-family residential for an industrial use
like a brick factory; however, Section 20-59 of the City Code allows for the city to issue
variances to use a single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling, so long as four conditions are
met.
Specifically, Section 20-59 states:
A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only
be allowed under the following circumstances:
(1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship.
(2)The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the
maintenance of one driveway and one main entry.
(3) Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.).
(4)The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of
the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
The applicant’s age and recent cancer diagnosis both meet the first requirement and are in line
with the ordinance’s goal of providing the opportunity for residents to age in place. Consistent
9
1571 Lake Lucy Road
May 16, 2023
Page 5
with past practice, staff recommends that a condition prohibiting the separate rental of the ADU
be placed upon the variance to ensure that its long term use remains consistent with the intent of
Section 20-59.
The proposed ADU will be located above the garage and the stairs leading to it can be accessed
via the garage or from the main home through the rear porch. The ADU has approximately 1,450
square feet of living area and will feature a kitchen, dining room, living room, bedroom, two
bathrooms, laundry facilities, and deck. A single driveway access and single main entrance are
present and no separate utility services are proposed. Consistent with past practice staff
recommends that conditions should be placed on the approval preventing the creation of a
separate entrance and separate utility services.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and the renderings of the house’s exterior facades and
believes that they are indistinguishable from those of single-family home. If not for the presence
of a second dwelling unit, i.e. if the space above the garage was storage space or a game room, a
permit could be issued without a variance.
10
1571 Lake Lucy Road
May 16, 2023
Page 6
Given the above, staff believes that the applicant’s proposal meets all of the criteria required to
issue a variance for an ADU on the property and recommends approving the requested variance.
Impact on Neighborhood
The applicant’s home is centrally located on a fairly heavily wooded 10-acre parcel. The nearest
homes are over 100 feet away from the proposed addition and the proposal does not appear to
involve removing the existing trees located along either side lot line. In order to prevent
unintended tree loss, staff recommends the following:
1. Tree preservation fencing should be installed around all existing trees (or groups of trees)
to be saved prior to any construction activities and protection should remain installed
until construction is complete.
2. In areas near trees to be protected, silt fences should be replaced by mulch socks, so no
roots of trees to be preserved are cut from the installation of a typical silt fence.
Alternatively, silt fences could also be installed without trenching, using mulch or dirt to
11
1571 Lake Lucy Road
May 16, 2023
Page 7
secure the bottom of the fence. Note that silt fences are not to be used as tree protection
fencing.
The variance request for an ADU to allow for the applicant to have a multi-generational
household is not expected to generate the traffic, noise, or transient population concerns that can
be associated with placing multi-unit properties within single-family neighborhoods. The city has
granted several variances for ADUs in other neighborhoods and to staff’s knowledge they have
generated no complaints. Additionally, a condition that the ADU not be rented out will be
attached to the variance to prevent the property from subsequently being sold or used as a
duplex.
Given the above, staff does not believe that granting the requested variance would negatively
impact any of the surrounding properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, approve the variance request for the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts
and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code;
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3.Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building
permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet
in height require a zoning permit.
4. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, and all applicable
permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements.
5. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home.
6. No separate entrance may be created for the apartment above the garage.
7. Separate utility services may not be established.
8. The apartment above the garage may not be rented as a separate unit.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
2.Variance Document (Approval)
3.Exhibit A: Legal Description
4.Development Review Application
5.Variance Narrative
12
1571 Lake Lucy Road
May 16, 2023
Page 8
6.Survey
7.Proposed Plan
8.Landscaping Memo
9.Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice
g:\plan\2023 planning cases\23-07 1571 lake lucy rd var\staff report_1571 lake lucy rd_var.docx
13
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Kathryn Randall, for a variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling on a
property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) - Planning Case 2023-07.
On May 16, 2023, 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 Rural Residential District (RR).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
See Exhibit A
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-59 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a
variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling:
a. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship.
Finding:The applicant has stated that they are requesting the variance due to their age and recent
cancer diagnosis.
b.The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of
one driveway and one main entry.
Finding:The garage addition maintains the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, with a
single driveway access and a single main entrance, and conditions have been placed on the variance
to prevent the creation of a separate entrance or altering the exterior so that it no longer maintains the
appearance of a single-family home.
c. Separate utility services are not established (e.g., gas, water, sewer, etc.).
Finding: Separate utility services are not proposed and will not be established, and a condition has
been placed on the variance to prohibit this from occurring in the future.
d. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents
of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit
and intent of this chapter.
14
2
Finding: The variance request for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to allow for the applicant to
have a multi-generational household is not expected to generate the traffic, noise, or transient
population concerns that can be associated with placing multi-unit properties within single-family
neighborhoods. The city has granted several variances for ADUs in other neighborhoods and to staff’s
knowledge they have generated no complaints. Additionally, a condition that the ADU not be rented
out will be attached to the variance to prevent the property from subsequently being sold or used as a
duplex. Finally, it is the intent of Section 20-59 to create opportunities for residents to care for aging
family members through the use of ADUs.
5. The planning report #2023-07, dated May 16th, 2023, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of a
single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure
meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements
may be required after plan review.
3. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the footing to the
top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained
prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet in height require a zoning permit.
4. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements,
including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Riley Purgatory
Bluff Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site
improvements.
5. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home.
6. No separate entrance may be created for the apartment above the garage.
7. Separate utility services may not be established.
8. The apartment above the garage may not be rented as a separate unit.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of May, 2023.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chair
g:\plan\2023 planning cases\23-07 1571 lake lucy rd var\findings of fact and decision 1571 lake lucy road (approval).docx
15
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2023-07
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 the variance request for the
use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described in Exhibit A.
3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code;
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building
permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet
in height require a zoning permit.
4. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, and all applicable
permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements.
5. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home.
6. No separate entrance may be created for the apartment above the garage.
7. Separate utility services may not be established.
8. The apartment above the garage may not be rented as a separate unit.
16
2
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.
Approved by the Planning Commission: May 16th, 2023
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL)Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Heather Johnston, Interim 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\2023 planning cases\23-07 1571 lake lucy rd var\variance document 23-07.docx
17
Exhibit A: Legal Description of Property
18
Az-+4,4 t,,J
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Pfanning Division -7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227 -'ll 00 / Fax: 1952) 227 -1 1 10 CffiOFCIIAI{IIASSXN
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
submittare",". ll tlJ " 23 PC Date:E-lt:-L 5 cc Date: 6- iz- Zg 60-Day Review Da,ot 6' lr:23
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
(Refer to the appropiate Applicatbn Checklist for requircd submittal information that must accompany this application)
I Rezoning (REZ)
I Planned Unit Development (PUD)
I Minor Amendment to existing PUD.................
n Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600I Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100
E ConditionalUse Permit (CUP)n!Single-Family Residence
AllOthers.
............ $32s
............ $425
fl lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
trtr AllOthers...
ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325
... $425
trtrtr!
f] Variance
E Easements ( easements)
fl Suooivision (SUB)
Create 3lots or less ............ .........$300
Create over 3 1ots.......................$600 + $15 per lot( lots)
Metes & Bounds (2lots)........ .......$300
Consolidate Lots............ ............... $150
Lot Line Adjustment. ..$150
Final Plat.... ................ $700
(lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs)*
'Additional escrow may be required for other applications
through the development contract.
E Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300
(Additional recording fees may apply)
p variance (VAR)$2oo
E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
E Single-Family Residence..............fl rutothers $275
n Zoning Appea|..........
n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)
p!!: When multlple appllcadons are processed concununty,
the approprlab fee shall be charged for each appllcatlon.
..... $200
.... $3 per address( addresses)
E m others.
$7s0
$100
$5oo
E Sign Plan Review .............$150
E site Plan Review (SPR)
n ndministrative......... ...$100
I Commercial/lndustrial Districts* ... $500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:
t_ thousand square feet)
*lnclude number of existino employees:
'lnclude number of ryemployees:E Residential Districts ... $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
.............. $150
............... $200
......'..'.'... $500
@ tttotiRcation Sign (cityto installand remove)
[8r Property Owners' List within 500' (citv to generate after pre-application meeting)
F Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that
D Conditional Use Permit
n Vacation
E Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)
Use Permit
6 per documenttrtrtr
Site Plan Agreement
Wetland Alteration Permit
Deeds
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of Proposal:
hbtL
Property Address or Location , i57/ LoLt-Lr,aa U
Parcel#:Legal Description:
TotalAcreage:lB'-Wetlands Present? flVes E lVo
Present Zoning:select-One-z e e Sebet0ae 3 a,nn t
Requested Land Use Designation:S'eleet€ne
32l-.n*1at )atl
Present Land Use Designation:Select One
Existing Use of Propefi:
Knecf box if separate narrative is attached.
TOTAL FEE: _
Requested Zoning:
19
PRINT FORTI
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
SAVE FORM SUBTIIT FORM
copy to the city for processing.
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, 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. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep m)E6lf informed of lhe deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I
further understjand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fe€s, feasibility studi6s, 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:
Phone:Address:
City/State/Zip
Email:
Cell:
Fax:
Signature Date:
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, 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 th€ right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep m)ls61f 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, feaslbility studies, elc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the i and exhibits submitted are true and corect
ruName:
Address:
City/State/Zip
Email:
Signatu re:
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:
Contact
pnone' 4*-4/4-b€ZZ
Cell:
Fax:
Date
Conlact:
Phone:
folf
-
Fax:
Address:
City/State/Zip
Email:
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans requirod 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 th6 applicant within l5 business days of application.
Section 4: Notification lnformation
Property Own6r Via:f,emait I trlaiua Paper Copy Name:Applicant Via: E Email E UaiteO Paper Copy Address
I Engineer Via: E Email D Mailed Paper Copy
Efothef Via:EEmail E Mailed Pep€r copy
Who should receive copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnformation:
7
C
Email:
20
Variance for Accessory Dwelling Unit
1571 Lake Lucy Road
To whom it may concern,
We created our family homestead in Chanhassen 27 years a8o.
We have applied for a building permit adding Sarage, workspace, storage and a future separate living
area for me. During the permit review process, it has come to our attention because there is a planned
future separate living area, we need to apply for a variance for Accessory Dwelling Unit.
This addltion will be attached to the existing residence using the same driveway, utility meters, sewer.
From all view-points the structure will look like a single-family home which it will be with two different
living areas.
For a quite a few years my family has discussed talked of my son and his family moving into my home to
help me with my property as I age. The property takes a lot of work and upkeep, at this time of my life it
is more than I can handle myself especially with my recent cancer diagnosis.
/,W
Kathryn Randall
21
22
S S
S
S
A1
Phone: 952.470.9750
E-Fax: 952.767.5859
info@sharrattdesign.com
I S S U E D F O R
H O M E
ISSUE DATE
464 Second Street
Suite 100
Excelsior, MN 55331
P R O P O S E D A D D I T I O N T O :
C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 2 2 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
LEGAL NOTICE:
THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY, LLC.
C
d
oc
es
ynapm
ahsrra
1 5 7 1 L A K E L U C Y R D .
RANDALL
X
E X C E L S I O R , M N . 5 5 3 3 1REVISIONMEETING SETCLIENT REVIEWCHECK SETESTIMATE SETPERMIT SETARCH. REVIEWBID SETCONSTRUCTION SETVARIANCE/C.U.P. APPL.X
X -SHELLX
23
A2
Phone: 952.470.9750
E-Fax: 952.767.5859
info@sharrattdesign.com
I S S U E D F O R
H O M E
ISSUE DATE
464 Second Street
Suite 100
Excelsior, MN 55331
P R O P O S E D A D D I T I O N T O :
C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 2 2 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
LEGAL NOTICE:
THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY, LLC.
C
d
oc
es
ynapm
ahsrra
1 5 7 1 L A K E L U C Y R D .
RANDALL
X
E X C E L S I O R , M N . 5 5 3 3 1REVISIONMEETING SETCLIENT REVIEWCHECK SETESTIMATE SETPERMIT SETARCH. REVIEWBID SETCONSTRUCTION SETVARIANCE/C.U.P. APPL.X
X -SHELLX
24
A3
Phone: 952.470.9750
E-Fax: 952.767.5859
info@sharrattdesign.com
I S S U E D F O R
H O M E
ISSUE DATE
464 Second Street
Suite 100
Excelsior, MN 55331
P R O P O S E D A D D I T I O N T O :
C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 2 2 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
LEGAL NOTICE:
THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY, LLC.
C
d
oc
es
ynapm
ahsrra
1 5 7 1 L A K E L U C Y R D .
RANDALL
X
E X C E L S I O R , M N . 5 5 3 3 1REVISIONMEETING SETCLIENT REVIEWCHECK SETESTIMATE SETPERMIT SETARCH. REVIEWBID SETCONSTRUCTION SETVARIANCE/C.U.P. APPL.X
X -SHELLX
25
A4
Phone: 952.470.9750
E-Fax: 952.767.5859
info@sharrattdesign.com
I S S U E D F O R
H O M E
ISSUE DATE
464 Second Street
Suite 100
Excelsior, MN 55331
P R O P O S E D A D D I T I O N T O :
C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 2 2 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
LEGAL NOTICE:
THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY, LLC.
C
d
oc
es
ynapm
ahsrra
1 5 7 1 L A K E L U C Y R D .
RANDALL
X
E X C E L S I O R , M N . 5 5 3 3 1REVISIONMEETING SETCLIENT REVIEWCHECK SETESTIMATE SETPERMIT SETARCH. REVIEWBID SETCONSTRUCTION SETVARIANCE/C.U.P. APPL.X
X -SHELLX
26
A5
Phone: 952.470.9750
E-Fax: 952.767.5859
info@sharrattdesign.com
I S S U E D F O R
H O M E
ISSUE DATE
464 Second Street
Suite 100
Excelsior, MN 55331
P R O P O S E D A D D I T I O N T O :
C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 2 2 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
LEGAL NOTICE:
THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY, LLC.
C
d
oc
es
ynapm
ahsrra
1 5 7 1 L A K E L U C Y R D .
RANDALL
X
E X C E L S I O R , M N . 5 5 3 3 1REVISIONMEETING SETCLIENT REVIEWCHECK SETESTIMATE SETPERMIT SETARCH. REVIEWBID SETCONSTRUCTION SETVARIANCE/C.U.P. APPL.X
X -SHELLX
27
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
A6
Phone: 952.470.9750
E-Fax: 952.767.5859
info@sharrattdesign.com
I S S U E D F O R
H O M E
ISSUE DATE
464 Second Street
Suite 100
Excelsior, MN 55331
P R O P O S E D A D D I T I O N T O :
C O P Y R I G H T 2 0 2 2 S H A R R A T T D E S I G N & C O M P A N Y, L L C
LEGAL NOTICE:
THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHARRATT DESIGN & COMPANY, LLC.
C
d
oc
es
ynapm
ahsrra
1 5 7 1 L A K E L U C Y R D .
RANDALL
X
E X C E L S I O R , M N . 5 5 3 3 1REVISIONMEETING SETCLIENT REVIEWCHECK SETESTIMATE SETPERMIT SETARCH. REVIEWBID SETCONSTRUCTION SETVARIANCE/C.U.P. APPL.X
X -SHELLX
28
29
30
31
32
MEMORANDUM
TO:MacKenzie Young-Waters, Associate Planner
FROM:Manuel Jordan, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE:April 20, 2023
SUBJ:1571 Lake Lucy Rd - VAR, Landscaping and Tree Preservation
Applicant is proposing to add an accessory dwelling to the existing home, which will require
installation of a sanitary line from the home to a line that is located in an easement between 6712
and 6740 Lakeway Dr. In the process of installing this connection, several significant trees on
the subject property may be at risk of suffering damage.
Recommendations:
Tree preservation fencing should be installed around all existing trees (or groups of trees) to be
saved prior to any construction activities and protection should remain installed until
construction is complete.
In areas near trees to be protected, silt fences should be replaced by mulch socks, so no roots of
trees to be preserved are cut from the installation of a typical silt fence. Alternatively, silt fences
could also be installed without trenching, using mulch or dirt to secure the bottom of the fence.
Note that silt fences are not to be used as tree protection fencing.
33
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
May 4, 202l,the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that
on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice to consider a request for a
variance to allow the construction of an accessory dwelling unit within a single-family
home on a property located atl57l Lake Lucy Road zoned Rural Residential. Property
Owner/Applicant: Kathryn Randall to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", bY
enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the
envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records'
City k
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this I day of
JENNIFER ANN POTTER
Notary Public-Minnesota
My Commisslon Expires Jan 31, 2027
Public
2023.
34
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Plann Gommission
Tu esday,
tn
6:00 This not startatmmayIhearingM6,2023,p.ay
theonthetheDate & Time:
c BlvdMarket7700ncilCouChambersHallLocation:
Consider a request for a variance
construction of an accessory dwelling unit within
to allow the
atlocatedmehonoaSiartypropele-familyng
ral ResidentialRuzonRoaded1Lake1uL57
Proposal:
RandallicanUOwner:
Road511Lake7Lucy
notice.thissideofreversethetsonlocationA
Property
Location
steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans for the project.
3. Comments are received from the public'
4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission
abouttoinformthofISblicThehearingyoupupurpose
thefromobtainandtothelicant's inputrequestapp
meeti thethethaboutisngnehborhoodDuringproject.g
heari th thehwithleadeic followingublhairngrougCp
discusses the
What Happens at
the Meeting:
Planni Commission
To view project documents before the meeting, Please
Questions &
Gomments:
sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to
https:/lwww.chanhassenmn. oov/i-want-to/subscribe
Notice of Public Hearing
Ghanhassen Pla Commission
Tuesday, May 16,2023, at 6:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until
eve the order of
Hall CouncilCha 7700 Market Blvd
Consider a request for a variance to allow the
construction of an accessory dwelling unit within a
srng le-family home on a property located at1571
Lake Road zoned Rural Residential
Kathryn Randall
1571 Lake Lucy Road
A location is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this Public
applicant's request and to
about this project. During
r hearing is to inform You about the
obtain input from the neighborhood
the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project'
2. The applicant will present plans for the p@ect.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning
Commission discusses the
it
you
MacKenzie Young-Walters by email at
mwalters@chanhassenmn.qov or by phone at 952-227 -1132
lf you choose to submit written comments' please send one
copy to staff in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Planning Commission. The staff report for this
item will be available online on the city's Agendas & Minutes
webpage the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission
sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to
h ttps : //www. c h a n h asse n m n. q ov/i-wa n t-to/s u bsc ri be
Date & Time:
Location:
ApplicanUOwner:
Property
Location
What Happens at
the Meeting:
Questions &
Comments:
@ntac1
is
proposed develoPment
Proposal:
To view documents the meeting,
the city's development webPage at:
wish to to someone about project, please contact
35
Subject
Parcel
Disclaimer
inir .ap is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
,i one- inis map is a compitation of records, information and data located in various city,
-unty, state and federal 6ffices and other Sources regarding the area shown, and is to
beusedforreferencepurposesonly.ThecitydoesnotwarrantthattheGeographic
ir*ormation System (GtS) tiata used io prepare this map are.error free, and the City does
not repr"seni that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other
pripoi" ,"qriring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the
lediction oi geo-graphic f6atures. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuanl to
f'fiinesota Stitut5s imO.OS, Subd. 21 (2OOO), and the user of this map acknowledges
iii.itn" CitV shall no:t Oe liaUte for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
igiles to OirtenO, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought
f! User, its employees or igents, or third parties which arise out of the usels access or
use of data provided.
Disclaimer
ihiJ;;p is neither a legatty recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
"J
onJ. tnir map ts a co-mpilation of recorcis, information and data located in various city,
-*tv, 't.t" an'd federal offices and other Sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used for reference purposes only. The city does not warrant that the Geographic
iniormation System (GlS) tiata used io prepare this map.are.enor free, and the City does
;;i;t;.;;i that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or anv other
puipoJe-requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the
ieoiction of oeoqrapnic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to
rrfiln"sot"-StiiutE.'SaOO.OS, Subd. 21 (2OOO), and the user of this map acknowledges
ii,"i tt'e C,tV in"fi n& Oe ttaOte for any ilamages, and expressly waives all claims, and
,gie;r1Jd1,t"na, indemnify, and hotd harmtess the city from any and a1 ctaims brought
Oi User, its employees or igents, or third parties which arise out of the use/s access or
use of data Provided.
Subiect
Parcel
*I
7
?
t
,Ta
I
I
rlI
L
l-
-t
fr6
,.
36
x name
ADAM LAWRENCE
AIMEE ROESLER
ANDREW HEBERT
ANTHONY D & GRETCHEN A ROEPKE
AUSTIN B GILBERTSON
BO ANDERSEN
BRADY LINDEMANN
BRIAN R & JENNIFER B JOHNSON
BRYAN M SCHOEN
CARL PICKERELL
CHRISTOPHER PAULSON
CHRISTOPHER T ADAMS
DAVID HAMILTON
DENNIS E & SUSAN J SCHEPPMANN
DIANNE G MORIN TRUST
DONALD J & NANCY L GIACCHETTI
EDWARD S RUEDA
GRETCHEN A ROEPKE
GUANG YANG
GWEN M WILDERMUTH REV TRUST
JEREMY M DIETERLE
L ARNASON
D WICKA
N YEADON
JOSHUA M APPLEQUIST REV-TRST
JULIANN M SCHWARTZ ETAL
KATHRYN KENYON RANDALL
MARC & RENEE SCHUBBE
MATTHEW D & STACY A H4SJAD
MATTHEW L & SUZANNE C WOODS
MAXq&JANMGLENN
MOLLY SACKETT
NATHAN L TIEDTKE
Tax add 11
6619 LAKEWAY DR
1660 ANTHEM PL
6566 SHADOW LN
6735 LAKEWAY DR
6675 LAKEWAY DR
1.695 STELLAR CT
1620 ANTHEM PL
6639 LAKEWAY DR
5530 LAKEWAY DR
6612 LAKEWAY DR
1641 ANTHEM PL
6595 TAKEWAY DR
1581 ANTHEM PL
6740 LAKEWAY DR
1441 LAKE LUCY RD
5579 LAKEWAY DR
1621 ANTHEM PL
6735 LAKEWAY DR
1440 LAKEWAY CT
6672 LAKEWAY DR
1460 LAKEWAY CT
1631 ANTHEM PL
2547 BRIDLE CREEK TRL
1450 LAKEWAY CT
6690 LAKEWAY DR
5687 LAKEWAY DR
1571 LAKE LUCY RD
6550 SHADOW LN
1430 LAKE LUCY RD
6745 LAKEWAY DR
6712 LAKEWAY DR
1591 ANTHEM PL
6567 YOSEMITE AVE
Tax add 12
CHAN HASSE N MN 5531 7 7 5 78
EXCE LSIO R,M 553 3 LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55377 -937 5
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-9080
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-4306
CHANHASSEN, M N 55317 -7 57 8
CHANHASSEN, MN 553L7 -7578
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EXCELSIO& MN 55331
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7 579
CHANHASSEN, MN
'53L7CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7 57 8
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 553L7
CHANHASSEN, MN 553T7
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55377 -7 57 8
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9022
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9375
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9382
CHANHASSEN, MN 55377 -7 579
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7579
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-9039
37
ROBERT J & SANDRA A KENDALL 1645 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-9024
ROGER L & CHARLOTTE J FRERICHS 6648 LAKEWAY DR CHANHASSEN, M N 553L7 -7 57 8
RYAN GERALD EGGENBERGER 1580 ANTHEM PL EXCELSTOR, MN 55331
CHANHASSEN, MN 553L7 -937 5D NUGENT
STEPHANIE A GOLDMAN
6560 SHADOW LN
1611 ANTHEM PL EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
E VINCENT LIVING TRUST 6663 LAKEWAY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
THOMAS ANDREW HOGHAUG
THOMAS VINCENT BELLE
6713 LAKEWAY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 553T7 -7579
1675 STELLER CT EXCELSTOR, MN 55331
TIMOTHY J LINDQUIST 1.550 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-9023
TRACY A WILLIAMS REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEME
TRAVIS M ROBERTSON TRUSTAGREEMENT
1655 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSTOR, MN 55331
1601 ANTHEM PL EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-9023LLIAM P STROUT JR 1670 LAKE LUCY RD
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-9080
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
R&PAMELAGASPLIN 1.665 STELLER CT
1685 STELLER CT
38
Planning Commission Item
May 16, 2023
Item Consider Amending Chapter 20, Zoning, Adopting Performance Standards for
Issuing Permits for Model Homes.
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
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 uses 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.
39
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
have requested 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 Memorandum
of Understandings (MOUs) and Development Contracts (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,
staffs opinion is that it would be beneficial to adopt performance standards within the City Code clearly
outlining 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 as conditional
uses or interim uses and remove the associated standards. Staff believes the proposed changes will
streamline the process and 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
40
Model_Home_Issue_Paper (2).pdf
41
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: MacKenzie Young-Walters, AICP, Associate Planner
DATE: April 28, 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 have requested 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 Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) and Development Contracts
(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, staffs opinion is that it would be beneficial to adopt performance standards within the
City Code clearly outlining 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 as conditional uses or interim uses and
remove the associated standards. Staff believes the proposed changes will streamline the process
and create a transparent and consistent process and standards for any builder looking to erect a
model home.
42
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
May 16, 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 its low and medium density residential districts. Model homes in the
city’s high density residential districts are permitted for 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 for high density residential developments. This is likely because 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. 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 of 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 commercial
43
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
May 16, 2023
Page 3
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 ordinance.
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 does not support Alternative 1 and 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.
44
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
May 16, 2023
Page 4
f) Public and private parks and open space.
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.
45
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
May 16, 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.
46
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
May 16, 2023
Page 6
Sec 20-683 Conditional Uses
The following are conditional uses in an "R-16" District:
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.
47
Planning Commission
Standards for Model Homes
May 16, 2023
Page 7
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
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\city code\2023\adopt standards for model homes\model_home_issue_paper (2).docx
48
Planning Commission Item
May 16, 2023
Item Consider Amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions, City Code to revise the list of
required materials for Final Plat Application.
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 18-41 Final Plat- Generally. Lists submittal requirements for applying
for final plat.
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to
Chapter 18 of the City Code concerning final plat application requirements."
SUMMARY
The documents required for the City to record a final plat have changed. As a result, Staff is
recommending that the excess documents listed as submittal requirements be removed from the list of
required items.
BACKGROUND
49
DISCUSSION
The City Code outlines the requirements for final plat submittals under Section 18-41. The current code
requires two mylar copies and a one-inch equals 200 feet scale paper reduction of the final plat as
submittals. The city no longer files mylar plats, while Carver County does, and the city no longer
overlays a one-inch equals 200-foot scale paper reduction on half-section mapping to track subdivisions
of land; all of this is now done digitally. The requirement to include these as submittals is obsolete and
should be removed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed
application requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report Final Plat Requirements
50
MEMORANDUM
To:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
Date:4/26/2023
Subject:Section 18-41 Code Amendment
Issue Summary:
The City Code outlines the requirements for final plat submittals under Section 18-41. The current
code requires two mylar copies and a one-inch equals 200 feet scale paper reduction of the final plat
as submittals. The city no longer files mylar plats, while Carver County does, and the city no longer
overlays a one-inch equals 200-foot scale paper reduction on half-section mapping to track
subdivisions of land; all of this is now done digitally. The requirement to include these as
submittals is obsolete.
Alternatives:
1)Do nothing. Obsolete documentation will continue to be submitted with final plats.
2)Amend Section 18-41 to require only one mylar copy of the plat and eliminate the need
for a one-inch equals 200 feet scale paper reduction.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Option 2 to require only one copy of the final plat mylar and eliminate the
need for the one-inch equals 200 feet scale paper reduction. The revised ordinance could read:
Sec 18-41 Final Plat--Generally
1. Unless otherwise provided in the development contract for phased development, within one
year after the date of the city council approval of the preliminary plat, the subdivider shall file
an application for approval of the final plat. In addition to the application, the subdivider shall
submit:
1. Copies of the plat in such quantities as is required by the city;
2. Two One mylar copies of the plat;
3. One inch equals 200 feet scale paper reductions of the final plat with just street names
and lot and block numbers;
4. A digital copy in .dxf format and a digital copy in .tif and .pdf format of the final plat
shall be submitted. The digital files must be in the current Carver County coordinate
system.
51
Planning Commission Item
May 16, 2023
Item Consider Amending Chapter 13, Nuisance Light and Chapter 20, Lighting
Standards
File No.Item No: B.4
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Section 13-2(c)(24): Governs nuisance light on residential properties. Defines
different types of nuisance light and when it is determined to be a nuisance.
Section 20-913: General performance standards for lighting, with an implied
focus on non-residential properties.
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopts the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 13 and Chapter 20 concerning nuisance light and lighting standards.”
SUMMARY
If strictly interpreted and enforced the nuisance light and lighting standards contained in the City Code
prohibit many common forms of residential lighting.
BACKGROUND
52
DISCUSSION
Many homes in the city have exterior lighting fixtures which violate the city’s nuisance ordinance and
lighting standards. For example, the city declares light crossing a property line after 11:00 p.m. to be a
nuisance if it causes discomfort or annoyance; however, many properties have exterior lights, often
motion activated, which may turn on after 11:00 p.m. and which when illuminated inevitably produce
light that crosses property lines. Similarly, there is often a direct line of sight to these fixtures from a
point five feet above the ground at the property line; however, the concern of the nuisance ordinance
should be the impact on the neighboring homes, not if something is visible from a point on the property
that is a significant distance from the dwelling. Finally, the city’s standards for lighting fixtures on poles
are geared towards commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional lighting fixtures, such as those
that illuminate parking lots, and do not necessarily make sense when applied to the smaller poles and
fixtures commonly found on residential properties.
Staff’s practice has been to rely on the “such intensity as to cause discomfort or annoyance” clause in
the nuisance ordinance to avoid taking action when responding complaints about light fixtures that staff
determines to be typical and serving a valid purpose on residential properties; however, it would be
beneficial to amend the nuisance ordinance’s language to better reflect how the ordinance is actually
interpreted and enforced. To this end, staff is proposing replacing language addressing the property as a
whole with language referring to the dwelling itself, removing the five foot above ground at property
line clause, and adding language exempting typical residential lights from the light trespass category, so
long as the light trespass is incidental to a valid safety or security purpose. Finally, staff proposes
exempting light fixtures on poles on properties with a residential dwelling unit from the general cut off
standards and instead requiring them to meet the requirements of the nuisance ordinance. Staff believes
these changes will help avoid confusion about what is and is not a light nuisance by better aligning the
text of the city’s nuisance light ordinance with historic enforcement practices.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed
amendments to the city's light nuisance and lighting standards.
ATTACHMENTS
Nuisance Light Issue Paper
53
MEMORANDUM
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
DATE:May 16, 2023
SUBJ:Nuisance Light and Lighting Standards
Issue:
If strictly interpreted and enforced the nuisance light and lighting standards contained in the City
Code prohibit many common forms of residential lighting.
Summary:
Many homes in the city have exterior lighting fixtures which violate the city’s nuisance ordinance
and lighting standards. For example, the city declares light crossing a property line after 11:00 p.m.
to be a nuisance if it causes discomfort or annoyance; however, many properties have exterior
lights, often motion activated, which may turn on after 11:00 p.m. and which when illuminated
inevitably produce light that crosses property lines. Similarly, there is often a direct line of sight to
these fixtures from a point five feet above the ground at the property line; however, the concern of
the nuisance ordinance should be the impact on the neighboring homes, not if something is visible
from a point on the property that is a significant distance from the dwelling. Finally, the city’s
standards for lighting fixtures on poles are geared towards commercial, industrial, recreational, and
institutional lighting fixtures, such as those that illuminate parking lots, and do not necessarily make
sense when applied to the smaller poles and fixtures commonly found on residential properties.
Staff’s practice has been to rely on the “such intensity as to cause discomfort or annoyance” clause
in the nuisance ordinance to avoid taking action when responding complaints about light fixtures
that staff determines to be typical and serving a valid purpose on residential properties; however, it
would be beneficial to amend the nuisance ordinance’s language to better reflect how the ordinance
is actually interpreted and enforced. To this end, staff is proposing replacing language addressing
the property as a whole with language referring to the dwelling itself, removing the five foot above
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopts the
proposed ordinance amending Chapter 13 and Chapter 20 concerning nuisance light and
lighting standards.”
54
Nuisance Light
May 16, 2023
Page 2
2
ground at property line clause, and adding language exempting typical residential lights from the
light trespass category, so long as the light trespass is incidental to a valid safety or security purpose.
Finally, staff proposes exempting light fixtures on poles on properties with a residential dwelling
unit from the general cut off standards and instead requiring them to meet the requirements of the
nuisance ordinance. Staff believes these changes will help avoid confusion about what is and is not
a light nuisance by better aligning the text of the city’s nuisance light ordinance with historic
enforcement practices.
Relevant City Code:
Section 13-2(c)(24): Governs nuisance light on residential properties. Defines different types of
nuisance light and when it is determined to be a nuisance.
Section 20-913: General performance standards for lighting, with an implied focus on non-
residential properties.
Analysis:
There are three types of common residential lights that have
the potential to violate the current nuisance light ordinance:
garage lights, motion activated flood lights, and decorative
pole lights. Residents often leave garage lights on
throughout the night or install motion activated flood lights
in order to deter criminals or allow for safer ingress and
egress when arriving home after dark. In both these cases,
lights can be on between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. which would subject them to the city’s direct glare and
light trespass nuisance ordinance. Staff believes that typical
residential lights that serve a safety/security purpose should
not be considered nuisances as long as reasonable efforts
have been made to mitigate their impact on neighboring
residences, and is proposing adding an exemption
to the nuisance code, similar to the one that exists
for street lights, for these types of lights.
Additionally, as it is currently written light trespass
and direct glare are considered nuisances when they
impact a residential property, light trespass, or there
is a line of sight between the light source and a
point five feet above the ground at the property line,
direct glare, at an intensity that causes discomfort or
annoyance. While the “at an intensity that causes
discomfort or annoyance” standard is understood to
mean that an objective party, i.e. the code
enforcement officer, finds a reasonable person
55
Nuisance Light
May 16, 2023
Page 3
3
would find annoying, the language regarding property and property lines can be problematic,
especially in districts where homes can be built close to property lines. In these cases, there are
instances where a light may be uncomfortably bright at the property line but may not be an issue
once it reaches the actual neighboring residence, flood lights often fall into this category. Staff’s
determinations in these instances has been that the impact of the light on the neighboring home is
more important than the issue of if a light can be seen when standing on the property line. For
this reason staff is proposing changing the property/property line language to “another dwelling”
in order to clarify that the intent of the nuisance ordinance is to prevent negative impact on the
home.
Finally, there is a section of the city’s
zoning code that regulates lighting;
however, it is very clear from the
language of this section that it is
intended to focus on non-residential
lighting. Particularly problematic is the
provision regluing pole lights which
stipulates a 90 degree cut off. This
provision, if applied to residential
districts, would prevent the installation
decorative lamp style lights as well as
any other type of light mounted on a
pole that does not have a 90 degree cut
off. Staff believes the language
regulating the 90 degree cut off should
only be applied to properties without a
residential dwelling and that pole lights
on residential properties should be
subject to the nuisance ordinance. This
change should eliminate instances where
typical residential lights are technically
violating the city’s zoning code.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the
proposed amendment.
The proposed amendments would read as follows:
Section 13-2(c)(24)
24. Nuisance light on residential properties.
56
Nuisance Light
May 16, 2023
Page 4
4
a)Definitions.In this section:
1.Direct glare means an excessive brightness contrast producing a sensation
of visual discomfort resulting from insufficiently shielded light source in
the field of view.
2.Intermittent light means any artificial light which flashes, revolves or
fluctuates in such a manner that the variance is easily distinguished by
personal observation.
3.Light source means a device (such as a lamp) which provides visible
energy.
4.Light trespass means light emitted that is visible beyond the boundaries of
the property on which the light source is located.
5.Person means an individual, firm, partnership, trustee, agent, association,
corporation, company, governmental agency, club or organization of any
kind.
b)Direct glare and light trespass declared a nuisance. Glare, light trespass and
intermittent artificial light impacting on residential properties between the hours
of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., which cause loss of enjoyment, comfort or repose,
and use of such properties as determined under subsection 13-2(24)c. of this
section is declared a nuisance.
c)Nuisance determined.
1. Light trespass shall be considered a nuisance when it impacts another
dwelling residential property with such intensity as to cause discomfort or
annoyance.
2. Direct glare shall be considered a nuisance when an artificial light source
has not been properly located, shielded, directed or controlled, and as a
result there is a direct line of sight between the light source or its reflection
and a point five feet above the ground or higher at the property line of
other residential property if to another dwelling with such intensity as
to causes discomfort or annoyance.
3. Intermittent light shall be considered a nuisance when it impacts upon
another dwelling a habitable area of other residential property with such
intensity and variance as to cause discomfort or annoyance.
d)Production of light nuisance prohibited. No artificial light source shall be installed,
allowed to be installed or permitted on any property which light sources is an
intermittent light source, or due to its intensity or physical characteristics, causes
direct glare or trespasses onto a residential property in such a manner as to cause a
nuisance during the hours of 11:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m.
e)Responsibility.It shall be the responsibility of every installer of artificial lights and
every owner or occupant of property on which artificial lights are installed to
comply with subsection 13-2(24)d. of this section.
f)Exemptions.The provisions of subsections 13-2(24)d. and e. of this section shall
not apply where:
1. Such lights are caused to be installed by the federal, state or local
government or agency, to light public ways or areas for public benefit; or
2. Such lights are required by law for safety reasons and there is no practical
way to control them to eliminate the nuisance.
3.Such lights are porch, garage, and/or motion activated lights located,
directed, and shielded to illuminate the owner’s property for safety
and/or security reasons, and the light trespass is incidental to these
57
Nuisance Light
May 16, 2023
Page 5
5
purposes and reasonable efforts have been made to mitigate the
impact of these lights on neighboring residences.
Sec 20-913 Lighting
a) Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible
beyond the limits of the site from which it originates.
b) No light which is flashing, revolving or otherwise resembles a traffic-control signal shall be allowed
in any area where it could create a hazard for passing vehicular traffic.
State law reference(s)—Similar provisions, M.S. § 169.073.
c) Lighting fixtures on poles shall comply with the following:
1. All fixtures on properties not containing a residential dwelling must be shielded, high
pressure sodium or light-emitting diode (LED), with a total cutoff angle equal to or less
than 90 degrees. Pole mounted fixtures on properties containing a residential dwelling
must comply with Section 13-2(c)(24).
2. Fixture height shall not exceed 30 feet. Recreational facility light poles shall not exceed 75
feet in height.
3. Photometrics shall incorporate existing light fixtures, public or private, that may impact
the site.
4. All outdoor light fixtures existing and legally installed prior to February 22, 1999, are
exempt from the requirements of this article, unless work is proposed in any one-year
period so as to replace 50 percent or more of the existing outdoor light fixtures, or to
increase to the extent of 50 percent or more the number of outdoor light fixtures on the
premises.
d) Wall-mounted lighting in commercial, industrial and institutional districts shall comply with the
following:
1. All wall-mounted light fixtures shall be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less
than 90 degrees.
e) Lighting shall not be directed skyward except for lighting designed for illuminating the United
States of America flag.
g:\plan\city code\2023\nuisance light\nuisance light issue paper.docx
58
Planning Commission Item
May 16, 2023
Item
Consider Potential Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning, Regarding Single-
Family Residential Lot Cover and Pervious Pavement within the Shoreland
Management District.
File No.Item No: B.5
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
N/A
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
59
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Pavers in Shoreland and RSF Lot Cover Staff Report
Memo From Water Resources Coordinator - Permeable Pavers within the Shoreland Overlay District
Email Comment from Nelson
RPBC Watershed Memo
60
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Eric Maass, AICP, EDFP, Planning Director
MacKenzie Young-Walters, AICP, Associate Planner
DATE: May 16, 2023
SUBJ: Pervious Pavers in Shoreland and Single-Family Residential Lot Cover Limits
Introduction:
Currently the City’s ordinances limit properties that are zoned Residential Single Family (RSF)
and which are located within the Shoreland Overlay District to 25% of total impervious lot
cover.
Properties with the same “RSF” base zoning designation but which are outside of the Shoreland
Overlay District are permitted the same 25% impervious lot cover but are eligible for an
additional 5% lot coverage through the use of permeable pavers for a total of 30% impervious lot
coverage.
While Staff has a clear understanding of that differentiation, the City Code as its currently
written has created confusion for property owners and contractors. Staff seeks the opportunity to
clarify the existing ordinance language.
In addition to clarity of ordinance language, it’s not uncommon for Staff to receive requests from
property owners within the shoreland overlay district to inquire about expanding their
impervious lot coverage to 30% through the same additional 5% of permeable pavers.
City Council considered this general topic during their roundtable discussion and following that
discussion asked for the opportunity to review in greater detail.
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 percent 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.
61
Single Family Residential District Lot Cover Limits
May 16, 2023
Page 2
Background:
The RSF District’s lot cover section should be rewritten to improve clarity. Currently it does not
reference the city’s pervious pavement standards for going beyond the 25 percent impervious
surface lot cover limit. Additionally, it does not reference that properties within the Shoreland
Overlay District are subject to more restrictive lot cover limits. This section of the city code
requires amending to clarify how much lot cover and what type of lot cover is allowed, as well as
providing a reference to section of the city code that governs pervious pavements.
The Shoreland Overlay District is considered those areas of the city within 1,000 feet of a lake or
300 feet of a stream. The Shoreland Overlay District has a specific ordinance that outlines
performance standards for properties that fall within its boundaries. Those performance
standards are meant to provide enhanced protection of adjacent water resources.
The DNR provides a model Shoreland Overlay District ordinance. This model is the basis for
the current City of Chanhassen Shoreland Overlay District ordinance. Modifications to the city’s
shoreland overlay district require review and approval by the DNR.
The City’s Water Resources Engineer has provided a technical memo outlining the ways in
which a permeable paver system works as well as the benefits and drawbacks of the systems as
they exist today.
When considering an ordinance amendment related to water resources, the city has a number of
partner agencies with technical expertise to draw from. Complete responses from those agencies
can be found in the City’s Water Resources Engineers report.
Planning Department Analysis:
When considering an ordinance amendment, it is important to understand the number of
variances as well as inquiries from residents looking to exceed the current ordinance limitations.
Provided below is a summary of information dating back to 2004 as it relates to variance
applications related to impervious lot coverage.
In this case, about 27%
of the variances the city
receives involve lot
cover, and staff has
received 36 variance
requests involving lot
cover between 2004 and
2022, roughly two a year. Of these 36 variances, 21 were for properties within the Shoreland
Management District and only 5 of those 21 exclusively dealt with lot cover, the other 17 also
included a setback or other type of variance request. Of the 5 requests that exclusively dealt with
62
Single Family Residential District Lot Cover Limits
May 16, 2023
Page 3
lot cover, 1 was approved, 2 were approved for a variance smaller than what was requested and 2
were denied. Of the 21 total shoreland variances with a lot cover component, 7 involved a
proposed reduction to the existing amount of lot cover and the requested lot cover could have
been approved without a variance, if the applicant had not also been requesting a setback
variance. Of the 14
remaining requests where a
variance for lot cover was
required, 5 were approved, 4
were approved for a smaller
variance than was requested,
and 5 were denied.
In addition to actual land use applications received by the City and which receive formal review,
it’s important to also consider the number of general inquires related to lot coverage as there
could be an increased number of property owners interested in pursuing additions, but which do
not seek to go through the formal process to seek approval due to their need to be approved for a
variance.
The Associate Planner’s 2022 call log currently totals 630 general inquiries. From that list of
inquiries, approximately 151 of those calls involved some discussion of lot cover. In 24 of those
151 calls staff identified that lot cover could potentially be an issue for a project. Out of those 24,
8 individuals asked about the possibility of a lot cover variance. It should be noted that the high
number of calls involving lot cover is to be expected as the most common question planning staff
gets is what are my setbacks and lot cover, and the more relevant number is probably the
percentage of time that lot cover is identified as a possible issue, or about 16% of the time.
Staff attempted to track down the results of the cases where individuals inquired about the
possibility of a variance, under the presumption that these represented projects that were least
likely to be speculative. Based on
notes and permit records, 3 of
those 8 had indicated that they
were only researching a possible
project and 3 ended up not going
forward with a planned project, 1
was able to go forward without a
variance, and 1 requested a
variance.
It should also be noted that in 5
of these 8 cases lot cover was the
only barrier to the proposed
project, in the other 3, setbacks or
other provisiosn of the city code also neccesitated a variance.
63
Single Family Residential District Lot Cover Limits
May 16, 2023
Page 4
Expanding Pervious Paver Ordinance to include Shoreland Management District
Staff has been asked to explore the desirability of amending the Shoreland Management District
to allow for RSF properties within the district to have an additional 5 percent lot cover in the
form of pervious pavers. This change would bring the treatment of pervious pavers on properties
zoned RSF within the Shoreland Management District into line with how they are treated on
other properties zoned RSF. In considering this change the city must balance the advantages of
granting residents increased options for improving their properties and reducing the frequency of
variances with the potential for increased lot cover that could negatively impact surrounding
properties and nearby water resources. Negative impacts to surrounding properties could include
increased size or quantity of structures that impact other residents’ views of the lake. While the
city ordinance does not explicitly protect views, people often consider the views and scale of a
neighborhood when purchasing a home and anticipate that their views and the scale of their
neighborhood will stay roughly consistent.
Peer Cities
Staff conducted a survey of peer and neighboring cities in an attempt to determine how much lot
cover they permitted outside of and within their shoreland overlay district and how they treated
pervious pavers.
Community % of Impervious
Allowed outside of
Shoreland Overlay
District
% of Impervious
Allowed inside of
Shoreland Overlay
District
Notes
Chanhassen 30% 25% 5% additional allowed outside of
overlay district if through use of
permeable pavers
Chaska Appear to use floor
area ratio (FAR) to
limit lot cover
30% Pavers don’t count
Elk River 25% 25% Pavers count in shoreland
Inver Grove
Heights
Sliding impervious
scale based on lot
size (10-40%),
+10% with CUP
25% +10% in shoreland with
stormwater management plan
and CUP.
Lino Lakes 40% 30% Pavers exempt with engineered
plans.
Prior Lake FAR and 30% rear
lot
30% Pavers count, sidewalks under 3’
exempted
Rosemount 30-40% District Standards Pavers treated case by case,
allowing some with engineered
plans.
Savage 30-60% 25% Pavers Count
64
Single Family Residential District Lot Cover Limits
May 16, 2023
Page 5
Stillwater 25-30% 25% Pavers Count
Minnetonka FAR 30% within 150’ of
OHWL
75% outside of 150’
of OHWL
Count within shoreland, void
space up to 30% is exempt if
engineered.
Victoria 35% 25% Paver systems under 2% lot area
exempt.
Shorewood 33% 25% Pavers only allowed if property
is over and willing to reduce.
Waconia 35% 25% Pavers Count.
Clarifying RSF Lot Cover Standards
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 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 25 percent can be imperious surface. This easiest to find section of the City Code
provides no additional direction that other sections of the code may restrict the property’s
allowed lot cover or what is needed for lot cover to be considered non-impervious.
In this case, both the shoreland management district and pervious pavement performance
standards may impact a property’s allowed lot cover. In other areas of the City Code, there are
references to relevant performance standards or qualifying sections in order to make users aware
of relevant provisions. Staff believes that their inclusion would significantly reduce the amount
of confusion that residents experience over the RSF district’s lot cover limits.
POTENTIAL MOTIONS:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the City Code
to clarify the RSF district’s lot cover standards as drafted by Staff.”
Or
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the City Code
to allow an additional 5% of impervious lot cover in the form of pervious pavers within the
Shoreland Management District and to clarify the RSF district’s lot cover standards as drafted by
Staff.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Ordinance Language Revision Option 1
Draft Ordinance Language Revision Option 2
65
Single Family Residential District Lot Cover Limits
May 16, 2023
Page 6
Draft Ordinance Language Revision Option 1:
The City Council votes to direct Staff to amend the ordinance such that properties within the
Shoreland Overlay District be permitted to utilize impervious pavement up to 5% of the lot area
raising the total impervious lot coverage to 30%.
Sec 20-485 Stormwater Management
(e) Lot coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area, except as follows:
1. Parcels zoned Residential Single Family (RSF) 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.
2. Thirty-five percent for medium/high density residential zones; and
3. Seventy percent in industrial zones within the Lake Susan Shoreland District.
Sec 20-615 Lot Requirements And Setbacks
(e) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved improved surfaces is 30 percent,
of which no more than 25 percent can be impervious surfaces. shall be as follows:
1. Parcels 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.
2. 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.
Sec 20-921 Pervious Pavement
5. District restrictions:
1. Planned Unit Developments Residential Districts (PUDR) are limited to the lot
coverage specified by their ordinance and/or compliance table. For PUDRs created
before June 11, 2018, the terms hardcover, hard surface, impervious surface, and
similar phrases, shall be understood to mean lot cover inclusive of both pervious
pavements and impervious surfaces, and in no circumstance shall the failure of the
ordinance or compliance table to mention pervious pavements be understood to mean
that pervious pavements are not subject to the lot cover, hardcover, hardscape, or
similarly identified limits that govern the PUDR.
2. Shoreland Management District restricts properties zoned Single-Family
Residential District (RSF) to 25 percent lot coverage.
66
Single Family Residential District Lot Cover Limits
May 16, 2023
Page 7
Draft Ordinance Language Revision Option 2:
The City Council votes to direct Staff to only clarify the existing language and that properties
within the Shoreland Overlay District should continue to be limited to 25% of impervious lot
coverage.
Sec 20-615 Lot Requirements And Setbacks
(e) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved improved surfaces is 30 percent,
of which no more than 25 percent can be impervious surfaces. shall be as follows:
1. Parcels within the shoreland management district are limited to a total of 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.
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.
67
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From: Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
Date: 5/11/2023
Re: Permeable Pavers within the Shoreland Overlay District
Summary
The City is considering allowing permeable pavers within the Shoreland Overlay District to
offset the maximum percentage of lot cover. The question for consideration is due to the
frequency of variance requests related to lot cover in such areas; the idea of having consistency
of maximum lot cover percentages across the City’s similar zoning districts; and the theory that
when properly designed, constructed, and maintained, permeable pavement can successfully
mitigate the negative effects of runoff to the downstream water resources.
It is the opinion of the City’s Water Resources Staff that although each individual site specific
situation would be inherently unique (having varying levels of risk and effectiveness), it is
generally understood that permeable pavements do not have the same level of water quality
benefits than natural/vegetative surfaces. And therefore, permeable paver use within a
Shoreland District should be subject to more scrutiny than non Shoreland areas.
More detailed background information is provided in this memo, along with the opinions of the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and a local Watershed District.
68
Background
Lot cover, or impermeable surfaces caused by urbanization and the construction of buildings
and pavement, can have several negative effects on receiving water resources.
These effects can include:
• Increased runoff: Lot cover prevents rainwater from infiltrating into the ground and
replenishing aquifers. Instead, the water flows over the surface and increases the
volume and velocity of runoff, which can cause flooding and erosion in nearby streams
and rivers.
• Reduced infiltration: When rainwater cannot penetrate the soil, it cannot recharge
groundwater supplies. This can lead to a decrease in the water table, which can cause
wells to run dry and streams to dry up.
• Water quality degradation: As runoff flows over the land, it picks up pollutants such as
oil, fertilizers, and pesticides, and carries them into nearby waterways. This can lead to
decreased water quality and harm aquatic ecosystems and the organisms that depend
on them.
• Increased temperature: Urban areas with increased lot cover tend to be hotter than
surrounding areas due to the absorption of heat by buildings and pavement. This can
lead to warmer water temperatures in streams and rivers, which can negatively impact
aquatic life.
The increase in stormwater volumes and discharge rates generated by the construction of
impervious surfaces can cause issues if not mitigated by the construction of stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMP). Permeable Pavers are one type of BMP.
The following sections provide background information to inform Chanhassen’s Planning
Commission and City Council.
What are Stormwater BMPs?
Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) are a set of techniques and practices designed
to manage and treat stormwater runoff, which is rainwater and other precipitation that flows
over the ground and into storm drains or other bodies of water. Stormwater BMPs are designed
to reduce the negative impacts of stormwater runoff, such as flooding, erosion, and pollution
generated by impervious surfaces.
69
Overall, stormwater BMPs work by mimicking natural systems and processes to manage and
treat stormwater runoff by facilitating infiltration, filtration, settling, and evapotranspiration.
There are a variety of commonly used stormwater BMP practices including infiltration basins,
biofiltration basins, wet ponds, rain gardens, green roofs, and permeable pavers.
What are Permeable Pavers?
Permeable pavers are a type of hard surface that are designed to allow water to pass through
the gaps between the pavers and into the ground below.
The pavers are installed over a layer of permeable aggregate, such as crushed stone, which
allows water to pass through it and into the soil below. In applications where the underlying
soils have poor infiltration an underdrain is used to drain excess water. Systems with an
underdrain act as a filtration system where total suspended solids (TSS) are removed by the
rock media layers. A layer of geotextile fabric is placed between the pavers and the aggregate
layer to help prevent soil erosion and keep the pavers stable.
Permeable pavers are used for a variety of applications, including parking lots, walkways, and
patio areas. They offer several advantages over traditional pavement materials, including
reduced stormwater runoff, improved water quality, and reduced need for stormwater
management infrastructure.
Benefits of permeable paver systems
70
Infiltration/Volume Abstraction – Properly designed and maintained permeable pavers
systems do promote infiltration for surface water runoff into underlying soils, however the
abstraction volume capacity is constrained by the underlying soil characteristics.
Water Quality – Permeable paver systems provide some water quality benefit. Infiltrated
stormwater runoff provides TSS and Total Phosphorus (TP) reductions while filtrated runoff is
typically limited to TSS removals.
Discharge Rate – Both infiltration and filtration permeable paver systems provide stormwater
runoff attenuation which acts to reduce peak discharge rates.
Limitations of permeable paver systems
Design - Permeable paver systems may not be suitable for all applications. They are best suited
for flat or gently sloping sites with well-draining soils. If the site has heavy clay soils, high
groundwater levels, or steep slopes, permeable pavers may not be a feasible option.
Maintenance - Permeable paver systems require regular maintenance to ensure that they
continue to function properly. This includes removing debris, such as leaves and sediment, from
the paver joints and replacing any damaged or displaced pavers. If the paver system becomes
clogged or damaged, it may not function properly and could lead to flooding or erosion.
Climate - In colder climates, permeable paver systems may be susceptible to damage from
freeze-thaw cycles. Ice and snow removal can also be more challenging with permeable pavers,
as traditional deicing salts can clog the paver joints and reduce permeability.
Underlying soils – Permeable paver systems work best when installed over well drained soils
such as sand or gravel. The underlying soils in Chanhassen are predominately clay which have
poor drainage. Clay soils act to limit the volume abstraction of the permeable paver system and
make it more likely to fail from freeze-thaw cycles.
Evapotranspiration – Permeable paver systems are void of plants that act to absorb soil
moisture and transpire water into the atmosphere which reduces water volumes into receiving
water bodies. Therefore, permeable paver systems act similar to pavement which have minimal
evapotranspiration.
Habitat/Aesthetics – Permeable pavers systems would take away potential habitat and have
little to no natural aesthetic value.
Heat Island Effect - The heat island effect refers to the phenomenon where urban areas are
significantly warmer than surrounding rural areas. This is caused by a combination of factors,
including the absorption and retention of heat by materials such as concrete and asphalt, as
well as the reduced amount of vegetation and green spaces in cities. The heat island effect
impacts water resources by raising the temperature of surface waters which can cause negative
impacts on the ecosystem. Pervious pavers act to increase the heat island effect when
compared to managed lawns or native greenspace.
71
Comparison Table: Land Cover Practice Ability to Provide Specific Water Quality Benefit
Habitat Evapo-
transpiration
Heat
Island
Effect
Water
Quality
Volume
Abstraction
Volume
Discharge
Rate
Attenuation
Native/Natural High High High High High High
Rain Garden High High High High High High
Lawn Low Medium Medium Low Medium Low
Impervious
Surface None Low None None None None
Permeable Paver None Low Low Low Low Medium
The comparison table is a high-level qualitative analysis with values ranging from high to none
of the various land cover practices typical within Chanhassen rated on their ability to provide
water quality benefit. While permeable pavers would provide water quality benefits when
compared to traditional impervious surfaces, they do not provide the same benefits as natural
landscapes or surface BMPs such as rain gardens – namely habitat, evapotranspiration,
offsetting the heat island effect, and volume abstraction.
How do other agencies view permeable paver systems?
The use of permeable pavers within the Shoreland Overlay District was coordinated with the
water management organizations that regulate the City of Chanhassen including the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
(RPBCWD), Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), Lower Minnesota River Watershed
District (LMRWD), and the Carver County Water Management Organization (CCWMO). The
LMRWD outlined recommended conditions if permeable pavers would be allowed in the
Shoreland Overlay District including design criteria and maintenance. Both the DNR and
RPBCWD were strongly opposed to the use of permeable pavers. The DNR hydrologist
correspondence and the memo provided by the LMRWD are included herein.
What does the local stormwater management plan say?
The Local Stormwater Management Plan adopted in December of 2018 is intended to provide
the City of Chanhassen with information and direction in the administration and
implementation of water resource management activities within the City during the period
2018-2027. It 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.
The Local Stormwater Management Plan includes goals and policies to help achieve those goals.
Included below are the most pertinent sections regarding the use of permeable pavers.
72
Goal 2 reads: “Achieve water quality standards in lakes, streams, and wetlands consistent
with their designated uses and established classifications.”
Within Goal 2 there is a policy outlined that is relevant to the implementation of permeable
pavers within the shoreland overlay district:
Policy 2.15 Maintain a shoreland ordinance consistent with DNR requirements and
recommendations to promote and encourage shoreland protection.
The DNR strongly discourages the use of permeable pavers within the shoreland overlay district
to offset lot cover because of their limitations and likeliness to become impervious surfaces
over time. DNR Hydrologist Taylor Hunkier stated “We do not view its use as consistent with
the intent and purpose of the shoreland rules, which are to protect water quality and habitat
value of shoreland areas”
The model ordinance provided by the DNR explicitly calls out permeable pavers as an
impervious surface.
Conclusion
While properly designed and maintained stormwater BMPs generally act to offset the negative
impacts created by impervious surfaces, permeable pavers are still generally not considered an
effective substitute to natural surfaces by the local Water Resources community at large.
The predominant underlying soil in Chanhassen is clay which causes practical design restrictions
with permeable pavers which can lead to a loss of function or deterioration of the paver system
itself. As such, if a permeable paver system is not functional or is destroyed it is unlikely to be
maintained or replaced in kind without additional City Staff involvement.
Furthermore, it is difficult to determine if a permeable paver system is operating properly
which can cause difficulties during inspection and confirming that the BMP is providing the
water quality benefit intended. The most likely outcome of allowing permeable paver systems
within the Shoreland Overlay District would be a net increase of impervious surfaces generating
additional stormwater volumes and pollutant loads into the local water resources.
Lastly, Chanhassen’s Stormwater Management plan outlines that the City should maintain an
ordinance consistent with the DNR’s requirements and recommendations – allowing the use of
permeable pavers would be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the adopted plan.
73
From:Terry Jeffery
To:Seidl, Joe; ssobiech@barr.com; Linda Loomis; Della Young; Ben Rolland; jwisker@minnehahacreek.org;
klarson@co.carver.mn.us; pmoline@co.carver.mn.us
Cc:Huinker, Taylor (DNR)
Subject:Re: Permeable Pavers in Chanhassen
Date:Monday, May 1, 2023 3:56:59 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
We looked at this about a decade ago and concluded it was antithetical to resource protection.
Further, I do not believe the DNR allowed it.
We looked at pro-rating it as well. Eg. 50% credit. You have already hit upon the biggest
problem.
> How do you assure it is designed correctly? Installed correctly?
> What sort of permeability testing is required? Not all areas would be conducive to
infiltration.
> Would you require an easement? If not, how would the city insure that a subsequent
homeowner won't pull it out in favor of stamped concrete or other impervious materials?
> 25% impervious surface is already 15% more than the coverage where we know water
quality is degraded.
> Beyond water quality, part of the impetus for the rule was the view scape from the public
water. It was an effort to keep shoreland areas more naturalized and avoid the proliferation of
human made structures.
Bottom line, the RPBCWD would be opposed to this allowance.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Happy to discuss further or draft an official memo to
your planning commission or others.
Kind regards,
Terry
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Seidl, Joe <jseidl@chanhassenmn.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 1:25:39 PM
To: Terry Jeffery <tjeffery@rpbcwd.org>; ssobiech@barr.com <ssobiech@barr.com>; Linda Loomis
<naiadconsulting@gmail.com>; Della Young <della@youngecg.com>; Ben Rolland
<brolland@minnehahacreek.org>; jwisker@minnehahacreek.org <jwisker@minnehahacreek.org>;
klarson@co.carver.mn.us <klarson@co.carver.mn.us>; pmoline@co.carver.mn.us
<pmoline@co.carver.mn.us>
Cc: Huinker, Taylor (DNR) <Taylor.Huinker@state.mn.us>
Subject: Permeable Pavers in Chanhassen
Good Afternoon All,
74
Technical Memorandum
To: Linda Loomis, Administrator
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
From:
Karina Weelborg, Water Resources Scientist
Della Schall Young, CPESC, PMP
Date: May 9, 2023
Re: Permeable Pavement Use Recommendation
Permeable or pervious pavement is a best management practice (BMP) that can reduce
runoff and transport of sediments to receiving waters by mimicking porous soils and
allowing for stormwater infiltration. Recently, the City of Chanhassen (City) requested
feedback from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR); Riley
Purgatory Bluff Creek, Lower Minnesota River, and Minnehaha Creek watershed
districts; and Carver County on the use of permeable pavement because the City may
update its shoreland overlay district policies to allow greater permeable pavement
coverage. The request presented an opportunity for the LMRWD to consider the
opportunities and challenges of using this BMP within the watershed and provide a
review of them. Young Environmental reviewed material on permeable pavement and
presents a summary of the review and recommendations below .
Permeable Pavement Performance
Permeable pavement is a paved surface that contains open joints or pores that facilitate
the filtration of stormwater for temporary storage or infiltration. The most commonly
used forms of permeable pavement include interlocking pavers, permeable asphalt, and
permeable concrete. Permeable pavement is generally designed to treat rainfall landing
directly on the pavement surface, but it can accept runoff from nearby impervious
surfaces. When properly installed and maintained, permeable pavement has the
potential to last 20–30 years, providing reductions in stormwater volume, temperature,
and pollutant loads (MPCA, 2022). However, there are concerns and limitations
associated with permeable pavement performance, particularly in cold climates such as
Minnesota.
Propensity to Clog
Like all filtration BMPs, pervious pavers are likely to become filled with sediment over
time. Clogging, defined as an inability of the permeable pavement to infiltrate water
75
LMRWD Permeable Pavement Use Recommendation
Page 2 of 5
because of sediment buildup, generally occurs within one year of installation. The
inability of the permeable pavement to infiltrate can lead to flooding, pollution of surface
waters, and increased volumes in municipal storm sewers.
Early clogging in cold climates is often due to salt and sand application during the winter
months (Selbig & Buer, 2018). To prevent clogging, the MPCA recommends a minimum
maintenance of sediment removal twice per year with a vacuum sweeper (MPCA,
2022). Researchers have seen good recovery of permeable pavement following
maintenance for sediment removal (Kuruppu, Rahman, & Rahman, 2019). Removal is
more effective with higher-intensity cleaning processes such as pressure washing and
vacuuming, compressed air and vacuuming, and manual disturbance of the aggregate
(Selbig & Buer, 2018). Unfortunately, aggressive maintenance practices can damage
the pavement and decrease its life span (Alsobrooks, 2020).
Additional methods to reduce clogging include decreasing t he drainage area to no
greater than two times the size of the permeable pavement area. The upgradient
drainage area should be managed to reduce the amount of sediment that reaches the
permeable pavement. When possible, upgradient areas should be heavily vegetated or
contain additional sediment-control BMPs.
Pavement Durability
A major factor in the reluctance to implement permeable pavement as a BMPs is its lack
of durability (MNDR, n.d.). Given the porous nature of the material, permeable
pavement is not as durable as its impervious counterpart. Permeable pavement should
not be used in high-traffic, high-speed areas or areas repeatedly used by heavy
vehicles. It should be used in only low-impact areas, such as low-speed residential
areas, parking lots, alleys, and sidewalks. The high failure rates of permeable pavement
have been attributed to unfamiliarity with the material, leading to faulty installation and
improper maintenance (Dauphin County Conservation District, 2006). With proper
installation and maintenance, permeable pavement can provide a benefit to the
environment for 20–30 years.
Performance in Cold Climates
Permeable pavements can provide benefits to cold climate areas such as Minnesota.
During thaw/freeze cycles, the porous subbase below the permeable pavement acts as
a thermal insulator, preventing thermal transfer to the ground surface below (Gulliver,
2020). Additionally, snowmelt occurring during freeze/thaw cycles filters through
permeable pavements rather than refreezing on the surface . However, runoff containing
salts or sands from winter application can negatively affect the performance of
permeable pavements. The subbase aggregate material often retains water containing
salts, which washes out of the system and into surface waters during the spring
snowmelt. Sand application is also likely to clog the permeable pavement system
immediately following the spring snowmelt, requiring additional maintenance.
76
LMRWD Permeable Pavement Use Recommendation
Page 3 of 5
Additional concerns arise with the use of interlocking permeable pavers. Snowblower
blades can catch on modular pavers (Lake Superior Streams, 1999). This can damage
or dislodge the paver and slow snow removal efforts. In areas with snowplow traffic,
permeable asphalt and concrete should be used in place of permeable i nterlocking
pavers.
Dissolved Contaminants
Permeable pavement has been shown to remove sediments and sediment-bound
pollutants from storm water. However, permeable pavement does not adequately
remove dissolved contaminants. Research has shown that in some cases, dissolved
phosphorus and nitrate concentrations in the permeable pavement effluent are greater
than in runoff, likely due to leaching from trapped vegetation or biological activity (Danz,
Selbig, & Buer, 2020; Drake, Bradford, & Van Seters, 2014). Additionally, permeable
pavers should not be placed in areas near fuel or toxic chemicals (MPCA, 2022).
Permeable pavers do not contain reactive media to remove these chemicals, allowi ng
them to infiltrate through the permeable pavement and be transported to ground or
surface waters.
Permeable Pavement Regulation.
Although no definition of impervious surfaces is included in the state shoreland statutes,
the MNDNR includes permeable pavement in its definition of impervious surfaces within
its example shoreland ordinance (MNDNR, 2022). The MNDNR considers permeable
pavement an impervious surface because it is a hard surface that removes vegetation
and habitat.
Three adjacent watershed organizations—Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed
District (RPBCWD), Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and Prior Lake–Spring Lake
Watershed District—were also reviewed for regulatory information on permeable
pavers. Currently, none of the watershed management plans or district rules list
regulations for the use of permeable pavement. However, a May 1, 2023, email from
Terry Jerry, RPBCWD administrator, stated the district would be opposed to allowing
the use of permeable pavement based on a decade-old study that concluded it was
antithetical to resource protection.
Recommendation
Presenting a permissive instead of restrictive approach to the use of permeable
pavement within the LMRWD, staff recommends approving the following maintenance
and use requirements when reviewing proposed developments within the LMRWD:
• Permeable pavers should be installed in only low-traffic and low-impact areas
with interlocking pavers in areas without snowplow traffic.
77
LMRWD Permeable Pavement Use Recommendation
Page 4 of 5
• The ratio of drainage area to permeable pavement area should not exceed 2:1 .
• Upgradient drainage areas should be vegetated or contain other sediment-
control BMPs.
• Maintenance to remove sediment should occur at a minimum frequency of twice
per year with annual filtration monitoring to assess the product’s efficacy.
This memo will also be sent to the City for its consideration.
References
Alsobrooks, A. (2020). Permeable Pavement Fact Sheet. Department of the
Environment.
Danz, M., Selbig, W., & Buer, N. (2020). Assessment of Restorative Maintenance
Practices on the Infiltration Capacity of Permeable Pavement. Water.
Dauphin County Conservation District. (2006). Best Management Practices Fact Sheet
Porous Concrete. Dauphin, PA.
Gulliver, J. (2020). Permeable Pavement for Road Salt Reduction. Minneapolis:
MnDOT.
Kuruppu, U., Rahman, A., & Rahman, M. A. (2019). Permeab le Pavement as a
Stormwater Best Management Practice. Environmental Earth Sciences.
MNDR. (n.d.). Permeable Pavement (Asphalt, Concrete, or Pavers). Retrieved from
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/water_access/bmp/pervious_pavement_bmp.html
MPCA. (2022). Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Retrieved from
https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Main_Page
Nguyen, N. P., Sultana, A., Areerachakul, N., & Kandasamy, J. (20 22). Evaluating the
Field Performance of Permeable Concrete Pavers. Water.
Selbig, W., & Buer, N. (2018). Hydraulic, Water -Quality, and Temperature Performance
of Three Types of Permeable Pavement under High Sediment Loading
Conditions. Reston, Virginia: USGS.
Selbig, W., Buer, N., & Danz, M. (2019). Stormwater -quality Performance of Lined
Permeable Pavement Systems. Journal of Environmental Management.
Sprouse, C. E., Hoover, C., Obritsch, O., & Thomazin, H. (2020). Advancing Pervious
Pavements through Nomenclature, Standards, and Holistic Green Design.
Sustainability.
Tota-Maharaj, K., Oluwaseun Adeleke, B., Staddon, C., & Sweileh, F. (2021). Feasibility
of Low-Carbon Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) for Stormwater
Management. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering.
78
LMRWD Permeable Pavement Use Recommendation
Page 5 of 5
TRCA. (2016). Permeable Pavement. Low Impact Development Stormwater
Management Practice Inspection and Maintenance Guide.
79
From:Huinker, Taylor (DNR)
To:Young-Walters, MacKenzie; Bauman, Matthew (DNR); Petrik, Daniel (DNR)
Cc:Maass, Eric; Seidl, Joe; Howley, Charles
Subject:RE: Possible Change to Shoreland Ordinance
Date:Thursday, May 4, 2023 3:20:41 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi MacKenzie,
Thank you for reaching out about the interest in allowing permeable pavers. The DNR strongly
discourages the use of permeable pavers as a pervious surface. We do not view its use as consistent
with the intent and purpose of the shoreland rules, which are to protect water quality and habitat
value of shoreland areas. Below are some important items, which detail why DNR still views
permeable pavers as a hard surface:
· While properly maintained permeable pavement may be an effective way to reduce the flow
of untreated stormwater into surface waters and to recharge groundwater, it does not
replace the benefits of native soils and vegetation in shoreland areas, such as erosion
prevention, nutrient uptake, and the preservation of fish and wildlife habitat and the natural
scenic character of shorelands.
· Allowing the widespread use of permeable pavement undermines these benefits and the
emphasis of using vegetation and natural drainage systems in the state shoreland
management rules:
§ The stormwater provisions in rule (MR 6120.3300, Subp. 11) emphasize the
use of existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces
to convey, store, filter, and retain storm water runoff before discharge to
public waters.
§ The land alteration standards in rule (MR 6120.3300, Subp 4.) also emphasize
the use of vegetation in the shore impact zone (SIZ) to slow, filter and
infiltrate water through restrictions on vegetation removal in the SIZ.
§ The rules prohibit the placement of hard surfaces in the shore impact zone
(SIZ) and the bluff impact zone (BIZ) unless needed for water access, water-
oriented accessory structures, and a limited number of specialized
exemptions.
· Broad residential use of permeable pavement increases the probability that it will eventually
be replaced with impervious surfaces by subsequent property owners (usually without a
permit). Likewise, broad residential use of bioretention (rainwater gardens) increases the
probability that they will eventually be “filled in” by subsequent property owners who don’t
like their looks or maintenance requirements.
Is there a specific problem the city is running into with the existing standard? We would need to
know more information on why the city is not able to comply with the impervious surface limits.
Taylor
80
From: BONNIE NELSON <hbcnelson@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 3:23 PM
To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>
Subject: May 16 2023 Planning Commission comment letter from Bonnie Nelson
To: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission
From: Bonnie J. Nelson, PE. Resident since 1987. Retired Civil Engineer
Date: 5/12/1987
I am writing to you today to strongly support retaining the 25% maximum impervious surface ordinance
and NOT to consider adding a 5% allowance for permeable pavers within a Shoreland Management Zone
(SMZ).
The expert opinions provided to and by City Staff consistently conclude that permeable pavers are likely
to fail within a year, and should be considered as an impervious surface. Their use in not recommended
in areas that have clay soil, high groundwater, or steep slopes – all of which are prevalent in
Chanhassen.
Variance requests to the pervious surface ordinance are frequently denied, or reduced in scale. I
conclude that the City Staff is relying upon case-by-case criteria when reviewing the variance requests.
They are able to support allowing owners with small lots in a SMZ reasonable use of their property. It
seems that the system is working well. As far as use of staff resources, wide-scale use of permeable
pavers would likely require inspection and follow-up to ensure proper maintenance. This would likely
take more time than process the limited number of variances received each year. A properly maintained
pervious paver system should be vacuum-swept twice a year! This seems unlikely.
A likely outcome of adding additional 5% allocation for pervious pavers would be that existing
homeowners and developers would take this opportunity to increase the overall area of impervious
surfaces resulting in more stormwater and pollutants being discharged to our already degraded lakes,
streams and wetlands. The DNR considers pervious pavers to be an impervious surface.
Chanhassen should be a leader in protecting our lakes, one of the reasons we have been listed as a #1
city to live in. The agenda item and supporting documentation did not provide any substantive reason to
change the existing standard. They did provide a basis for clarifying the ordinance, which I support. Folks
should be able to easily identify that their property is located within a SMZ, and subject to stricter
standards.
I have lived in Chanhassen since 1987, across the street from Lotus Lake. I have watched while dozens of
small houses in my area were torn down and replaced with multiple large homes. Natural shorelines
have been replaced with riprap, and trees that stabilize the steep banks removed. I urge the City of
Chanhassen to be a leader in protecting our water resources and leave the 25% maximum impervious
surface requirement intact for SMZ.
Sincerely,
Bonnie J. Nelson
Bonnie J. Nelson, PE
401 Highland Drive, Chanhassen MN 55317
81
protect. manage. restore.
18681 Lake Drive East
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-607-6512
www.rpbcwd.org
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission
Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer
FROM: Terry Jeffery, Administrator for Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
DATE: May 12, 2023
RE: Impervious Coverage in Shoreland Districts
It is the district’s understanding that the City of Chanhassen is considering carving out an
exception to limits on impervious coverage in shoreland overlay districts through the allowance
of pervious pavement. For the reasons that follow, we are strongly opposed to such an action.
Before fully understanding the implications of such a measure, it is important to understand
that the reasoning for the impervious coverage limit was both for water quality protection and
to prevent a proliferation of human made structures negatively impacting the viewscape of a
resource that belongs to everyone, namely lakes, rivers, and streams.
The US Environmental Protection Agency classifies watershed by the amount of impervious
surface. Those subwatersheds with >10% impervious coverage are classified as sensitive, a
subwatershed with 10-25% impervious coverage is considered degraded, and a subwatershed
with greater than 25% impervious coverage is considered non-supporting. Numerous studies
have clearly demonstrated a negative correlation between the amount of impervious surface in
a watershed and the health of that watershed.
While one might wish to argue that a pervious paver patio or driveway is, by definition,
pervious it overlooks the fact that not all pervious areas are created equally. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service office of the USDA recognizes this by assigning different curve
numbers to different areas. A curve number is positively correlated to runoff and negatively
correlated to infiltration. The higher the curve number, the greater the runoff and the less the
infiltration. For instance, a lawn in the typical clay soils found in Chanhassen has a curve
number of 87 to 90 whereas a woodland stand on the same soils would have a curve number of
70 to 77. This difference is more pronounced when the underlying soils have a high infiltration
rate initially: lawns would have a curve number of 70 and the woods would have a curve
number of 30.
The problems only compound when considering the fate of these features in the future.
82
2
• How do you ensure that they are constructed properly and in the appropriate location?
There is a need for infiltration testing and soil sampling. It may be necessary to over-
excavate the areas to reach suitable soils or require a significant depth of porous soil
materials to be placed. Then there are other places where depth to groundwater or the
soil profile make infiltration impracticable. Finally, the construction of these facilities
requires a level of technical knowledge that not every landscaper or bituminous
contractor possesses.
• How will the city ensure that these facilities are maintained in perpetuity and that the
same functionality remains? There is significant cost associated with inspecting these
features to assure compliance with an operations and maintenance plan. This cost is
most likely to be borne by the city is the form of hiring additional inspectors.
• What is to prevent a homeowner from tiring of the look of a pervious paver system and
deciding to replace it with stamped concrete or bituminous surface? Easements would
be the most obvious way. Is the city prepared to require individual homeowners to
place easements over their driveways and patios? Would they be willing to go back to
landowners that modify their areas and compel them to put them back to the approved
condition? Wetland buffers are a very good example of the difficulties that arise when
trying to achieve compliance.
While the individual homeowner may wish to have features they might be afforded if they did
not live on a lake or stream, these encumbrances have been in place for many decades and
were known prior to purchase of the property. Moreover, the lake or stream is not owned by
them alone but rather is a public amenity for all.
The district and the city spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year working to improve
and protect the waterbodies in the area. This proposal is antithetical to that aim.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. I am available should you wish to discuss
further.
83
Planning Commission Item
May 16, 2023
Item Sketch Plan Review: Santa Vera PUD Phase II
File No.Item No: C.1
Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS
Prepared By Eric Maass, Planning Director
Applicant Hansen Homes
Present Zoning Planned Unit Development District (PUD)
Land Use Residential High Density
Acerage 3.82
Density Residential High Density allows for a net density of 8-16 units/acre.
Applicable
Regulations
The site was previously developed under a Planned Unit Development "PUD."
The PUD ordinance has been included in this case for reference.
SUGGESTED ACTION
No formal action is requested. Staff has been working with the property owner/developer and would
like the opportunity for that group to get general feedback from the Planning Commission prior to
making any formal submittals.
SUMMARY
The current PUD allows for multi-family residential defined as multi-storied apartments or
condominium units. The PUD prohibits townhouses, detached townhouses, and detached single-family
homes.
The property owner/developer is interested in developing the remainder of the site and is interested in
incorporating a mix of housing options, including the permitted apartment but also incorporating
detached single-family homes and attached townhomes.
84
The Developer has met with the city staff's development review committee and received general
feedback as it relates to the proposal. The Developer also met with the Planning Commission and City
Council in July of 2022, but because there are new members on both bodies, the sketch plan is being
brought back in front of both groups.
Staff is generally supportive of the proposal but had comments relating to recommended revisions to
reduce the amount of tree loss due to detached garage location, and stormwater needs.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide general feedback as it relates to the
conceptual development plan but specifically the incorporation of detached single-family homes and
townhomes as the PUD currently does not allow for them, and the city has broad discretion for whether
or not it would approve a PUD amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
2023-05-11 Santa Vera Concept Images
2023-05-11 Santa Vera Concept Site Plan
Ordinance 541 Saratoga 3rd Addition PUD
Concept Letter dated July 20, 2022
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
unit C2 bed unit C2 bedunit A1 bedunit A1 bed entry /lobby /laundryexerciseroomcommunitystairunit D1 bed unit D1 bedstairunit A1 bed unit A1 bedunit E2 bedunit A1 bed
2100510041003100210011000999
998
997
996
995
994993
992
991
991
990993 99499599
699799899999910001001
9929939949959969969979989999911000999998997999998997996995994993991
992
993
994
99099699799899910001001100210031004100699599499
2
99
3
6267633461593 story apt bldg(32 units)32 garageparking spaces2 req'd32 req'd(25% compact= 8 stalls)62 total parkingspaces (3 ADAstalls req'd)141516 exist garagespaces (18 req'd)18 exist aptunits (8) 1 bed,(10) 2 bed21 exist parkspaces (18 req'd)new sidewalk2 storysinglefamily2 storysinglefamily2 storysinglefamilyfire apparatus 'Y'turn around22'x22'garage22'x22'garage2 req'dCsediment pondw/ (2) retentionponds andundergroundstorage540 Lake Street, Excelsior, MN 55331PH: (612) 701-7117MAGNEYARCHITECTURE+ darin duchd e s i g nsanta vera PUD site planmay 11, 2023SCALE: 1/64"= 1'-0"22'x22'garage330 req'd (25%compact = 7.5stalls)1413314'x22'garageaddition14'x22'garageadditiongarage FFE=994'-0"1st story FFE=1004'-0"entry FFE=997'ccccccc
95
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.541
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby
amended by rezoning all property within Lot 2, Block 1, Saratoga 3`d
Addition to Planned Unit
Development — Residential.
Section 2. The rezoning of this property incorporates the following development design
standards:
Saratoga 3rd Addition Zoning Standards
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD high density residential development. The use of the
PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more
sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be underground. The development shall proceed
through the site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. The PUD
requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site
design. Except as modified by the standards below, the development shall comply with the
requirements of the R-12, High Density Residential District.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to multi -family residential uses. A total of 46
units are permitted on the site.
Multi family Residential — This shall be defined as multi -storied apartments or condominium
units.
C. Prohibited uses
Townhouses
Detached Townhouses
Detached Single -Family Homes
d. Setbacks
96
Street Frontage Minimum Setback Building/Parking (feet)
Laredo Drive 50/50
Saratoga Drive 50/50
Santa Vera Drive 50150
Interior Lot Line 15/50
The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 65%
e. Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material
compatible to the building.
2. All material shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls
shall be face brick, stucco with metal, wood, rock face block and stone accents. The
structure shall have a pitched roof.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted or broken face.
4. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
5. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing
material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. Wood screen
fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully
screened by compatible materials.
6. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or
other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through
building design or appropriate landscaping. The building(s) shall have varied and
interesting detailing. The use of a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing,
such as change in material, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual
relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass and scale of
the wall and its views from the public ways shall be prohibited.
7. Space for recycling shall be provided.
8. There shall be no underdeveloped sides of building. All elevations visible from the
street shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities.
L Site Landscaping and Screening
1. Landscaping along streets shall comply with buffer yard standard B. Interior lot lines
shall comply with buffer yard A, 10 feet in width. A landscape plan must be
presented for approval with the site plan review process.
2. Storage of materials outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan
review.
g. Signage
1. Signage shall comply with the sign ordinance for residential districts.
2. All signs shall require a sign permit.
2
97
h. Lighting
All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light levels shall be no more than'/2 candle at the
property line. Light fixtures shall not be more than 20 feet in height. This does not
apply to street lights.
i. Alternative Access
1. Separate pedestrian access shall be provided from the site to the public sidewalk and
trail system.
Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the
aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office
for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the
notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference
and made a part of this ordinance.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of May, 2012 by the City Council of the City of
i n, Minnesota
77 1 ..+••
Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
Published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 14, 2012)
3
98
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Newspapers
State of Minnesota)
SS.
County of Carver )
Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil-
lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
amended.
B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.
was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
and publication of the Notice:
abcdefghijkhnnopqrstu z
y:
Laurie A. Hartmann
Subscribed and sworn before me on
this day of 2012
No ublic
r NO TP}RY PUBLIC - UMI SOTA
iY C0NVISSIOR EXPIRES 01131/13 :A
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.59 per column inch
99
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 541
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE; THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning
ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning all property within Lott, Block
1, Saratoga 3rd Addition to Planned Unit Development - Residential.
Section 2. The rezoning of this property incorporates the following
development design standards:
Saratoga 3rd Addition Zoning Standards
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD high density residential
development. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design
standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All
utilities are required to be underground. The development shall proceed
through the site plan review based on the development standards outlined
below. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher qual-
ity of architectural standards and site design. Except as modified by the
standards below, the development shall comply with the requirements of
the R-12, High Density Residential District,
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to multi -family resi-
dential uses. A total of 46 units are permitted on the site.
Multi -family Residential- This shall be defined as multi -storied apart-
ments or condominium units.
C. Prohibited uses
Townhouses
Detached Townhouses
Detached Single -Family Homes
d. Setbacks
Street Frontage Minimum Setback Building/Parking
feet
Laredo Drive 50/50
Saratoga Drive 50/50
Santa Vem Drive - 50/50
Interior Lot Line 15/50
The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 65%
e. Building Materials and Design
L The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher
quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equip-
ment shall be screened with material compatible to the building.
2. All material shallbeof high quality and durable. Majorexterior
surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stucco with metal, wood, rock face
block and stone accents. The structure shall have a pitched roof.
3. Block shall have a weatheredface or be polished, fluted or broken
face.
4. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with
the primary structure.
5. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of
compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building
or background. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process
machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials.
6. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, ex-
posed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added
architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscap-
ing. The building(s) shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use
of a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in.
material, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief
prn1!ded in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass and
scalelof the wall and its views from the public ways shall be prohibited. T Spacefor recycling shall be provided.,.
8. There shall be no underdeveloped sides of building. All eleva-
tions visible from the street shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual
qualities.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
1. Landscaping along streets shall comply with buffer yard stan-
dard B. Interiorlot lines shall comply with buffer yard A,10 feet in width.
A landscape plan must be presented for approval with the site plan review
process.
2. Storage of materials outdoors is prohibited unless it has been
approved -under site plan review.
g. Signage
I. Signage shall comply with the sign ordinance for residential
districts.
2. All signs shall require a sign permit.
It. Lighting
1. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light levels shall be no more
than % candle at the property line. Light fixtures shall not be more than
20 feet in height. This does not apply to street lights.
i. Alternative Access
1. Separate pedestrian access shall be provided from the site to the
public sidewalk and trail system.
Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be
republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately
mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicat-
ing the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the
notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby
incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its
passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of May, 2012 by the City Council
of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday,.June 14, 2012; No.
4648)
100
July 20, 2022
Mr. Gary Hansen
Hanson Hometech
7920 Kerber Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Hansen Homes 2022 Development Project Concept (621 Santa Vera)
Planning Case #2022-09
Dear Mr. Hansen:
This letter is to confirm that on July 11, 2022, the Chanhassen City Council reviewed the concept
plan for Lot 2, Block 1, Saratoga 3rd Addition. Based on this review, the City Council directed that
you may proceed with the development stage application of the Planned Unit Development –
Residential (PUD-R) amendment, preliminary plat, and site plan. However, you should address their
concerns regarding providing more detail on the overall development, addressing the appropriate
mix of housing, building a sense of community, fitting in with the surrounding housing values,
transitioning from the existing neighborhoods, addressing compatible building heights, preserving
trees, evaluating traffic stacking and parking concerns, and maintaining our generational housing
opportunities.
At the development stage application, you will need to address the following items:
1. The proposed development must address the Comprehensive Plan inconsistency.
2. The proposed development must prepare tree preservation and landscaping plans as
appropriate for subdivision and site plan review.
3. Recommend use of a private street to provide access into the site and that the private street be
located at the existing intersection of Laredo Drive and Del Rio Drive.
4. A traffic impact study performed by a licensed engineer is recommended to accompany the
preliminary construction plans. The study will describe: key traffic issues, the characteristics
of the surrounding transportation system including operations of key intersections including
but not limited to Kerber Boulevard and Santa Vera Drive and W. 78th Street and Laredo
Drive, existing and background conditions, site-generated conditions, as well as on-site
circulation as a through-connection is not recommended (i.e. an adequate turnaround within
the development meeting City Ordinances).
101
Mr. Gary Hansen
July 20, 2022
Page 2
5. Pedestrian connectivity is warranted along Saratoga Drive and Santa Vera Drive to connect
existing trail and sidewalk pedestrian routes. Public pedestrian routes through the private
development, as indicated on the last page of the concept plans, is not recommended.
6. The applicant will need to confirm the existence and limits of all existing wetlands onsite as
outlined by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A wetland delineation report will be
required with the preliminary plat submittal.
7. The Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) also has rules that regulate
wetlands and wetland buffers. The applicant will need to meet both City and Watershed
wetland rules.
8. The applicant shall include stormwater routing and grading as part of the preliminary plat
submittal. The design will need to account for all existing stormwater generated by the site
and upstream properties to perpetuate existing flow patterns. Based on the impervious area in
the preliminary plans, permanent stormwater BMPs will be required to treat stormwater and
reduce runoff rates.
9. It is recommended that the applicant provide increased levels of water quality treatment to
alleviate the stress on downstream stormwater infrastructure. The applicant shall oversize
water quality treatment BMPs by 50% to allow treatment of stormwater from public ROW.
An alternate approach would be to outlot areas on the property to be used for public
stormwater treatment. In both cases, the City would adjust stormwater fees to help fund the
improvements.
10. The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be
subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with
Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal
System (NPDES Construction Permit). The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
is a required submittal element for preliminary plat review.
11. Municipal sanitary sewer and potable water services are available and extend into the site to
service the needs of the conceptual plans. However, these public mains will be required to be
relocated by the developer to accommodate the layout of the future development.
12. Public drainage and utility easements will be required over the public utilities.
13. The development will be assessed and required to pay all appropriate sanitary sewer and
water fees as outlined in the City of Chanhassen’s Fee Schedule at the rate in effect at the
time of final plat and/or site plan approval.
14. A stormwater management plan is required for preliminary plat review.
15. The proposed development appears to exceed the one (1) acre of new impervious area and
will therefore require permanent stormwater BMPs to be constructed as part of this
102
Mr. Gary Hansen
July 20, 2022
Page 3
project to be owned and maintained by the owner. A stormwater maintenance agreement and
associated operations and maintenance plan is required for all private stormwater BMPs.
16. The proposed development is located within the RPBCWD and is therefore subject to the
Watershed’s rules and regulations which include water quality, water volume abstraction,
and rate control. A permit from RPBCWD will be required.
17. City Ordinance sets out the fees associated with surface water management. Water quality
and water quantity fees will be collected with a subdivision.
18. Building permits must be obtained before beginning any construction.
19. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
20. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements
may be required after plan review.
21. The apartment building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
22. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the Code
requirements for the proposed buildings, 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.
23. Apartment building plans 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.
24. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
25. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
26. Road widths, parking lots, and entrances will need to be within fire apparatus access road
minimum widths which could lead to no parking on either side of the road if done to only
minimum standards.
27. Multiple hydrants will need to be put into the development.
103
Mr. Gary Hansen
July 20, 2022
Page 4
28. If the current, existing apartment building does not have a fire sprinkler system, it will need
to have one installed when adding the 3rd level.
29. The new apartment building will need a full fire sprinkler system.
30. If only two townhomes are side by side, a fire sprinkler system is not required. If adding
three or more, they will need fire sprinklers.
31. Meet all parking standards.
32. To proceed with the development of the site as proposed, the applicant would need to
complete the preliminary PUD process and amend the PUD zoning for the site. The project
would also require subdivision review and approval.
33. Site plan approval is required to approve development of the townhouse and apartment units.
34. Park Dedication fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission
and approval.
At the development stage application, you will propose the specific amendments to the existing
PUD-R regulations for the property. The submittal must be consistent with section 20-518 of the
Chanhassen City Code. As part of the pre-development meeting(s) for the property, we will
determine the appropriate application requirements, e.g., preliminary platting, site plan review,
rezoning, etc.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1131 or
bgenerous@chanhassenmn.gov.
Sincerely,
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
Enclosure
ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
Jerry Ruegemer, Parks & Recreation Director
Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist
Joe Seidl, Water Resources Coordinator
Eric Tessman, Building Official
Charlie Hansen
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-09 621 santa vera dr\concept confirmation letter.docx
104
Planning Commission Item
May 16, 2023
Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated March 21, 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 March 21, 2023 meeting minutes"
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
105
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 21, 2023
106
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2023
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He noted he will adjust the agenda and
begin with the Administrative Presentation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Noyes, Erik Johnson, Perry Schwartz, Edward Goff, Kelsey
Alto, Ryan Soller.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Olivia Adomabea, Community
Development Intern, Mackenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior
Planner; Eric Maass, Planning Director, Water Resources Engineer Joe Seidl.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Tim and Nancy Crain 1956 Andrew Court
Michael Huber 8976 Southwest Village Loop
Len Simich Southwest Transit
Matt Fyten Southwest Transit
Leigh Stoakes Xcel Energy
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION
Planning Director Eric Maass invited Sharmeen Al-Jaff forward noting she has served the
community for 32 years, spanning 5 decades, and he commends her for her work and for all she
has done for the City of Chanhassen and its residents. He thanked her and shared this will be Ms.
Al-Jaff’s last Planning Commission meeting as a staff member.
Chair Noyes congratulated Ms. Al-Jaff on her retirement.
Ms. Al-Jaff stated it has been an honor and a pleasure serving the residents of the community.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 746 CARVER BEACH ROAD - CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
BUILD A POOL, FENCE, AND RETAINING WALLS
Community Development Intern Adomabea gave a summary of the staff report noting the
applicant is requesting to build a pool, fence, and retaining walls within the require bluff setback
and impact zone. The plat was recorded in 1927, zoned single-family residential, with a lot cover
of 18.8% which is lower than the required 25%. The home was constructed prior to the city’s
bluff ordinance and has numerous non-conforming features. The applicant is asking to rebuild
existing retaining walls in poor condition, construct a swimming pool at the current location of a
107
Planning Commission Minutes – March 21, 2023
2
concrete patio, and reinstall fencing that is in poor condition. Staff recommends the retaining
wall request is approved. Regarding the pool, it would be an expansion from 240 square feet of
the concrete patio with a 275 square-foot pool apron, which would add to the lot cover
calculation. Although the project will create an expansion, it is already within the disturbed area
within the bluff and will not exceed the 25% lot cover, hence staff recommends approval of the
pool request. Regarding fencing, the existing fence on the southern property extends beyond the
property line and the applicant wants to resolve that and pool fencing is required by code. Staff
recommends approval of the fencing request. Given that the majority of the applicant’s rear-yard
is encumbered by the bluff and that the portion in question has already been disturbed, Staff
believes the applicant’s request is reasonable. The applicant has revised the original proposal to
add 10 square feet and 35 square feet of new impervious surfaces within the bluff setback, and it
has its genesis in the circumstances associated with the home's age and the property's
topography.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the existing disturbance has modified the integrity of the bluff.
Ms. Adomabea stated that the applicant indicated that the retaining wall is failing due to erosion.
If the bluff had not been disturbed, erosion would not have been a problem on the property.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the construction of the apron will further disturb the integrity of
the bluff.
Ms. Adomabea replied in the negative noting the boundary of the proposed pool is not within the
bluff area.
Mr. Young-Walters noted in talking about disturbance of the bluff, it is very clear that during
development they leveled-off a bit of the northwest portion of the bluff to create the building pad
and used a series of retaining walls. Some of those walls are not in great condition so part of the
application is to repair and re-stabilize those walls. Regarding the pool, they will be replacing a
deteriorating boulder wall with a new concrete wall that would shore up that portion of the slope
and improve the property from a stability standpoint.
Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments.
Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Goff seconded that the Chanhassen Board of
Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to construct a swimming pool,
retaining walls, and a fence within the required bluff setback and impact zone, 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.
2. SOUTHWEST VILLAGE - PUD AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN AMENDMENT
TO ALLOW A MULTITENANT USER AND A DRIVE THROUGH FOR A COFFEE
SHOP, 680 SOUTHWEST VILLAGE DRIVE
108
Planning Commission Minutes – March 21, 2023
3
Senior Planner Generous gave a summary of his written report noting the applicant is requesting
an amendment of an existing PUD to permit a coffee shop with a drive-through, an amendment
to sign requirements, and site plan approval for a 12,600 square foot multi-tenant commercial
building. The plan is very consistent with commercial development seen in the community, is
guided for mixed-use, and Mr. Generous gave history of the property and existing buildings upon
it. Regarding signage, the applicant proposes a sign at the location of the drive-through, which
would need to be non-illuminated and a monument sign one foot taller than permitted. Staff does
not support this amendment. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting and Mr. Generous
heard that it went well and that neighbors were in favor of the project. He shared about site-plan
review of the building, coffee shop, and drive-through area noting access is from Great Plains
Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. As part of the development, the applicant would provide storm
water improvements and an emergency fire access. The city has worked extensively with the
architect on an interesting, architecturally pleasing design.
Water Resources Engineer Seidl shared about stormwater and water routing on the existing
property noting that minimal grading is needed to facilitate construction of the site. The design
utilizes three separate storm water BMPs (Best Management Practices) to treat and detain
stormwater before discharge. He noted some concerns from staff regarding the proposed
irrigation and reuse system in that it does not seem the system is large enough to store the water
needed to properly irrigate the area. Staff is asking the applicant for additional information and
potentially adjusting the design.
Mr. Generous stated staff recommends approval of the amendment to the PUD for mixed-use
development and approval of the site-plan for a 12,600 square foot commercial building with
drive-through coffee shop.
Commissioner Schwartz encourages the use of clean energy or alternative energy sources within
the building.
Commissioner Alto noted the parking lot would have street lighting and she does not think a lit
sign would be any brighter than what the lot currently is.
Mr. Generous noted the PUD currently prohibits illuminated signs to the south and that would
need to be changed. It also only permits signs on walls that are entrances or street frontage.
Commissioner Soller clarified the motion as written would not allow for the illuminated light
facing south or the monument sign expansion.
Mr. Generous replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Goff asked if they have looked at traffic impacts in the area, and with the
Southwest Transit buses.
Mr. Generous replied in the affirmative noting a traffic study was done on the project and there
are fewer trip generations than originally proposed as part of the estimate. There were no
conflicts and level of service will not be degraded.
109
Planning Commission Minutes – March 21, 2023
4
Commissioner Soller asked to look at the overhead of the drive-through noted he has been
impacted by poorly designed drive-throughs and wants to be sure this is situated properly. He
thinks it looks quite sensible.
Len Simich, representing the owner, was a former CEO of Southwest Transit. He introduced
Matt Fyten, the interim CEO at Southwest.
Matt Fyten noted this transit-oriented development is a great project and they are excited about
it.
Mr. Simich noted regarding environmental sustainability, the plans already have a lot including
geothermal wells, landscaping, pavers, and there are some federal grants that will help, also.
Mr. Fyten shared they have been active in sustainability space and have received over $11
million in federal funds over the last year for various sustainability activities. On this site they
will install five EV charging stations within the parking ramp and are looking at a raised solar
roof on the top-level deck of the parking ramp.
Commissioner Alto asked whether the lawn could be a pollinator habitat rather than just sod.
Mr. Simich replied they can look at that noting the goal is to be as efficient as possible without
damaging the aesthetics and they are open to anything. He asked the Commission to get specific
requests to them and they will try to work those in. He shared about other sustainability pieces
they will incorporate including LED lights on the site, the irrigation system, rainwater
harvesting, and occupancy sensors to cut back on electricity use. Mr. Simich stated Southwest is
here to work with the city and comply with them. He shared about a multi-use patio on the site
and access for emergency services.
Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing.
Michael Huber is in favor of solar panels on the roof and the EV charging stations. He has
previously mentioned putting solar panels on the roof would hide the HVAC units. He is in favor
of not having illuminated lighting on the site and he was concerned about the traffic and the
homeowners association being responsible for part of the shared roadways. He does not know if
the association can renegotiate due to the increased traffic going into the coffee shop.
Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz is encouraged to hear about the alternative energy items the applicant is
proposing and wishes something was embedded in City Code that made it a requirement.
Commissioner Noyes asked to discuss signage on the site.
Commissioner Alto spoke about the monument noting it is only one foot to be in compliance.
Regarding the coffee shop sign, most traffic is in the morning or during the day and people will
110
Planning Commission Minutes – March 21, 2023
5
know it is there whether there is a lighted sign or not. She is okay with the sign as long as it is
not lit and meets the city brand standards for signage.
Commissioner Johnson agrees that a lighted sign is not necessary. Regarding adding height to
the monument, is it really necessary as the buildings will also have signs on them and will be
seen from the road.
Commissioner Schwartz noted an illuminated sign indicates that a business is open. In the winter
when it gets darker at 4:00 p.m. it could suggest to customers that the businesses are not open.
Commissioner Goff stated the way it reads now the two sign variances are not included. If
approved, it will get the Applicant off and running and the Commission may see them again for a
sign variance. It was mentioned that the applicant has worked closely with the city. He would be
in favor of moving forward with the motion as-is.
Mr. Generous noted the applicant is allowed to have a lighted sign on the east and west
elevation. It is the south elevation that is directly facing residential that is prohibited because
there is no entrance and it is not street frontage.
Commissioner Schwartz moved, Commissioner Soller seconded the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends approval of Southwest Village Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Mixed-Use, Transit-Oriented Development PUD, Amendment Ordinance, and site plan
approval for a 12,600 square foot one-story commercial building with a drive-through
coffee shop as shown in plans dated February 17, 2023, subject to the conditions of
approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
3. XCEL SERVICE CENTER- REZONING FROM A-2 TO PUD, SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, 1891 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD
Senior Planner Generous gave a summary of the Staff report noting the Applicant is requesting a
rezoning from Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development Office Industrial PUD,
as well as site plan approval and wetland alteration permit for development on the site. The land
use plan has guided it for office industrial use on the north side, and Mr. Generous shared about
topography and wetlands on the site. This PUD is specifically for the Xcel Service Center which
defines five buildings, parking lot, storage buildings, and a communications tower. Mr. Generous
noted a maintenance building for the servicing of boom trucks that will be extended 55 feet in
the air. He shared about sewer, water, storm water treatment, an outdoor storage area on the site,
and walked the Commissioners through the proposed design. The top of the vehicle storage
building will be constructed and designed to install solar panels at a later time. Mr. Generous
shared about architectural design, sidewalks, an employee patio area, lighting, and landscaping.
Water Resources Engineer Seidl stated this is a very challenging and complex site regarding
stormwater design and water resources. There are two wetlands on site, as well two waters of the
U.S. under Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, which are a tributary to Bluff Creek, and a
tributary to the tributary of Bluff Creek. He also noted a 42-inch culvert that conveys water to
111
Planning Commission Minutes – March 21, 2023
6
wetland 2, and very steep grades. He spoke about documented erosion problems on the site, as
well as grading and erosion control plans with installation of retaining walls, erosion and
sediment control plans, and stormwater design including BMPs to maintain existing drainage
patterns on the site. Mr. Seidl gave detail on the wetland alteration permit, noting it is a vigorous
process and the applicant worked with the city on revised designs, the City of Chanhassen and
the Army Corps of Engineers also need to approve the permit, and explained the process of
wetland mitigation banks and credits.
Mr. Generous noted staff recommends approval of the rezoning and site plan approval for the
five buildings, communication tower and screen, outdoor storage, and wetland alteration permit
subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Commissioner Schwartz asked why it is not possible to mitigate the wetland on the property or
within the City of Chanhassen.
Mr. Seidl noted that is a great question that he also asked. He noted it has been proven that
smaller wetland mitigation projects are not very successful, and the Army Corps of Engineers
would not approve an application showing wetland mitigation on site. This is what was approved
by the Technical Evaluation Panel and it is common. He clarified the process of purchasing
wetland credits in the State.
Commissioner Goff asked if the entire site will be fenced.
Mr. Generous replied the yard area will have security fencing with gates.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if any yard lighting will adversely affect the townhomes to the
south.
Mr. Generous replied they should not as they will all be directed on site with a 90-degree cutoff.
Leigh Stoakes, Project Engineer with Xcel Energy, explained the goal of the project is to
combine the Waconia and Shorewood Service Centers into a single site. This site in Chanhassen
met their criteria, and although it is a very challenging site, he thinks it will be an asset to the city
and will provide a critical service.
Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing.
Nancy Crain lives just west of the development and shared concerns regarding the lighting. She
noted the Coulter Boulevard is at a high point in Chanhassen and everything goes down to the
south. If they go up 60 feet it will probably clear the tree line and have visibility for quite a
distance. The idea of having a lighted sign on the building runs counter to the way the residential
neighborhood feels with marshland, the creek, woods, and wildlife. She uses her deck in the
evening and enjoys a dark night sky. She thinks the impact on residents is worth considering and
she hopes they will not have a lighted sign on the building.
112
Planning Commission Minutes – March 21, 2023
7
Tim Crain noted they live in the townhouse units and spoke about a berm with some trees but
noted the high point is where this facility will be and there will be some light pollution from the
sidewalk and parking lot lights which will filter down into the backyards of some residents. He
shared Ms. Crain’s concern about the light from the sign on the 60-foot building noting the light
will project and residents will see that from their properties. He noted he went to the open house
and said the building looks nice, the land looks nice, they are keeping much of the area natural,
but his main concern is lighting and light pollution.
Mr. Stoakes commented on the lighting noting they are proposing two signs, one on the north
facing Highway 5 and they would like to have that lit. The sign on the south side, which would
be on the fleet garage, is a secondary sign and because it is facing a residential area, the
advantage to have it lit is not there. He noted in this case the secondary sign does not have to be
lit and he stated they want to be a good neighbor and not a nuisance.
Commissioner Schwartz asked Ms. Crain if that sign was not illuminated would it satisfy their
concern?
Ms. Crain replied in the affirmative, noting it would.
Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing.
Mr. Generous suggested the Commissioners memorialize the condition regarding the secondary
sign, noting that will also help city staff with direction in the future.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Goff seconded the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #2023-01 Xcel Service Center,
including rezoning the Planned Unit Development Office Industrial Park PUD, site plan
approval for five buildings, a communication tower, and screened outdoor storage, with the
agreement that any south-facing signage will not be lit, and a wetland alteration permit
subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
GENERAL BUSINESS: None.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MARCH 7, 2023:
Commissioner Goff noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated March 7, 2023 as presented.
ADJOURNMENT:
113
Planning Commission Minutes – March 21, 2023
8
Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting, Commissioner Soller seconded. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning
Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
OPEN DISCUSSION
Submitted by Eric Maass
Planning Director
114
Planning Commission Item
May 16, 2023
Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 18, 2023
File No.Item No: D.2
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 April 18, 2023 Work Session minutes"
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
115
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Work Session Minutes dated April 18, 2023
116
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WORK SESSION SUMMARY MINUTES - 6:00 P.M.
APRIL 18, 2023
CHANHASSEN FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kelsey Alto, Edward Goff, Erik Johnson, Eric
Noyes, and Perry Schwartz.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Ryan Soller.
STAFF PRESENT: Olivia Adomabea, Planning Intern, Sam DiMaggio, Economic Development
Manager, Bob Generous, Senior Planner, Eric Maass, Planning Director, Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk,
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner.
PUBLIC PRESENT: Unnamed resident.
WORK SESSION:
Called to Order at 6:15 p.m. by Eric Noyes
A.1. Planning Commission Appointments and Oaths of Office
At 6:15 p.m., Kim Meuwissen administered and the two Commissioners, Eric Noyes, and Steve Jobe,
recited their Oaths of Office and signed the Oath document before a notary public.
A.2. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Perry Schwartz nominated Eric Noyes as chair. Kelsey Alto seconded the nomination. There were no
other nominations. The Commission voted 6–0 to appoint Eric Noyes as Chair.
Edward Goff nominated Kelsey Alto as Vice-Chair. Perry Schwartz seconded the motion. There were no
other nominations. The Commission voted 6–0 to appoint Kelsey Alto as Vice-Chair.
A.3. Adoption of Bylaws
Eric Maass noted that annually, the Commission was required to adopt their bylaws.
As part of the discussion, a time limit of 5 minutes per speaker was recommended, which is similar to
City Council procedures. The Commission discussed this item and determined that it was adequate time
to allow for public input in the process but would also limit individuals from going on and on about issues
that may or may not be pertinent to the discussion. No formal timekeeping was anticipated, and the chair
would manage it.
A second item of discussion was changing the start time for the Planning Commission to an earlier time.
The initial discussion was for a 5:30 start which would allow individuals to come in on their way home
from work should they wish to attend a meeting. The Economic Development Commission has this start
time, and the Parks and Recreation Commission will be discussing it as part of their bylaw discussion.
While the Commission felt that an earlier start was appropriate, there was some concern that 5:30 was too
early. Commissioners were concerned that people may not be able to make it that early and may interfere
with dinner. As a compromise, a 6:00 was proposed with a corresponding limit of 9:00 end for the start of
new business.
117
2
The Commission questioned how the agenda was determined. Staff advised them that we look at the
applications and try to determine which item would be able to be reviewed more quickly and try to put
those on first to get participants out sooner, rather than having to wait on a more complicated and or
contentious item.
Regarding the 9:00 end time, there was discussion that sometimes the item may not be able to be
completed in that time frame and it may need to be tabled. However, the Commission felt that once an
item has been started, the preference was to take it through for a decision, rather than bringing it back on
the next agenda.
Steve Jobe moved to approve the Planning Commission Bylaws with the amended 5-minute speaker limit
and 6:00 start and 9:00 end to the meeting. Kelsey Alto seconded the motion. The motion was approved
6-0.
MINUTES
B. 1. Approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated January 17, 2023, and March 7,
2023
Erik Johnson moved, and Kelsey Alto seconded a motion to approve the January 17, 2023, minutes. The
Commission voted 5 – 0 to approve the minutes.
Kelsey Alto moved and Erik Johnson seconded a motion to approve the March 7, 2023, minutes. The
Commission voted 5 – 0 to approve the minutes.
DISCUSSION & EDUCATION
1. Role of Planning Commission
Eric Maass stated that the Planning Commission is an appointed advisory body to City Council and
primarily acts on applications related to the City’s zoning code and comprehensive plan.
C.2. Economic Development 101
Sam DiMaggio introduced herself to the Planning Commission and told them she had been with the City
for approximately 8 months. Economic development deals with job creation, investment in the
community, creating economic well-being, and improving the quality of life. Her job is to provide
connections between developers, landowners, and businesses and direct them to the appropriate city staff
to coordinate and facilitate their projects.
Sam DiMaggio went through various actions and programs she worked on in Shakopee, Le Sueur, and
Farmington. She also noted that Eric Maass did the same function in Hastings.
Sam DiMaggio is an advocate for businesses in Chanhassen. She is working on a Business Retention and
Expansion Program (BR&E), is using new software for tracking activities, has joined the Chamber of
Commerce as Ambassador and is a member of Buy Chanhassen. She serves as a contact for new and
existing businesses. She noted that new development on green field sites is difficult because most of the
sites are challenging. She noted that development and redevelopment is challenging due to increased costs
and lack of employees. She relies on the comprehensive plan to provide guidance on development.
118
3
C.3. Development Triangle – Pyramid of Discretion
Eric Maass reviewed the development review development discretion levels with the Commission. The
Decision Pyramid shows the levels of city discretion from highest discretion for Comprehensive Plans
and lowest for building permits. Legislative-type reviews, such as Comprehensive Plan amendments,
Code amendments, and rezonings create policy and have the highest levels of discretion. He pointed out
that some items were quasi-judicial in review, which requires that the Planning Commission review a
project in relation to the regulations in City Code.
Comprehensive Plan – legislative. City has the greatest discretion since it is creating policy and vision for
the community.
Zoning – legislative. City has the greatest discretion since it is creating policy and vision for the
community but must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Subdivision – quasi-judicial. Does it meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, comply with
Code and be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Conditional Use Permits and Interim Use Permits – quasi-judicial. Conditional uses are permitted uses but
must meet conditions for their use. The City may require reasonable conditions to mitigate the uses
impact. Interim Use Permits are reviewed in the same fashion but have a sunset date to the use.
Variance – quasi-judicial. Variance process whereby the Planning Commission sits as the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments, where individuals are requesting a deviation from City Code.
Site Plan Review – quasi-judicial. Site plans are required prior to construction of new buildings. The City
has limited discretion, rather determines if the project complies with City regulations
Finally, building permits, which the Planning Commission does not review, but it has the least amount of
discretion for the City. If the plan complies with Code, it must be approved.
Staff pointed out that it was critical that the Planning Commission be cognizant of the timeframe for
review of such items, which must be completed within 60 days unless the City takes a 60-day time
extension, or the applicant grants an extension to the review timeframe.
C.4. 2040 Comp Plan Overview with Focus on Land Use and Housing Chapters
MacKenzie Young-Walters discussed the Land Use and Housing Chapters of the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan. The Land Use Chapter guides all the land within the community to show what uses can go where
based on the City’s vision of the community. The land is divided into residential, commercial, office,
industrial and open space and public spaces. The residential land uses are further divided into different
densities of housing from Large Lot to High-Density Residential. Within the residential lands, there are
various housing types that can be built.
Within the housing chapter, the city included a projected housing demand schematic breaking down the
housing demand for different types of housing and ownership categories. This study was prepared by an
outside consultant in 2014 so some of the assumptions may need to be revised. In calculating housing
demand, staff had to prepare land use absorption rates for each land use within the community to satisfy
the Metropolitan Council’s requirement for meeting our minimum housing density as an Emerging
Suburban Edge community of 3 units per acre. Based on our analysis, we can meet that standard.
119
4
C.5. Ongoing & Future Development
A map of the short-term and long-term development areas was shown to the Commission, which is
included in the Comprehensive Plan. This map was overlaid with the five-year development activity that
has been reviewed by the Commission.
Bob Generous went through an inventory of commercial and residential projects that have been reviewed
by the Planning Commission over the past five years. The status of each project was discussed. There are
two redevelopment opportunities that may come forward within the downtown area this year.
C.6. Planning for the Future & Sustainability
Eric Maass presented some trends in planning and sustainability including housing practices beyond the
building code, housing affordability, multigenerational, corporation acquisition of single-family homes,
multifamily housing, and changing parking requirements. Additional issues related to the changing
climate include landscaping and irrigation, electrification (EV charging), and the future of traditional gas
stations. Hydrogen as an alternative fuel source was also discussed. The changing retail market was
presented. The future of work including the aging population and the increase in remote work was
discussed. Finally, the issue of health was addressed including the aging of the population and the health
effects of green space.
ADJOUNMENT
Steve Jobe moved, and Eric Noyes seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The Commission voted 6
– 0 to adjourn.
The work session ended at 9:10 p.m.
Submitted by Eric Maass
Planning Director
Prepared by Bob Generous, Senior Planner, MacKenzie Young- Walters and Jenny Potter, Sen. Admin.
Support Specialist
120