The URL can be used to link to this page

11-04-24 Agenda And Packet A.6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 Consider a variance to allow an addition to a single-family home that would encroach into the bluff and required bluff setback at 6261 Galpin Boulevard. C.GENERAL BUSINESS D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 17, 2024 E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION H.OPEN DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2024 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 9:00 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. 1 Planning Commission Item November 4, 2024 Item Consider a variance to allow an addition to a single-family home that would encroach into the bluff and required bluff setback at 6261 Galpin Boulevard. File No.Planning Case #24-18 Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Applicant Property Owner, Chris Campbell. Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF) Land Use Residential Low Density Acerage 6.05 Density 1.2 - 4.0 Units per Acre Applicable Regulations Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances. Chapter 20, Article 20-XXVIII Bluff Protection. Chapter 20, Article 20-VI Wetland Protection. Chapter 20, Article 20-XII “RSF” Single-Family Residential District. SUGGESTED ACTION Proposed Motion: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested bluff variance for the construction of an addition at 6261 Galpin Boulevard subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision." SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to build an addition in the bluff and bluff impact zone. The addition has a footprint of 1,200 square feet, contains a two-car garage, workshop, and office space. This addition would be located on the north-west corner of the existing house which was built in 1986 into the bluff. 2 BACKGROUND The house at 6261 Galpin Boulevard was built in 1986 into the bluff on the property. This property is heavily encumbered by bluffs and wetlands, roughly 95% of the property is covered by the natural features and their corresponding setbacks and buffers. The space that is unencumbered by the aforementioned is a small portion of the house, driveway, and front yard. The proposed addition to the home is a reasonable request for a property which is zoned for residential use and the practical difficulty of adhering to the city's ordinances is a result of the unique features of the property based on the amount of wetland and bluff area located on the lot and the historical location of the homes original construction which was not constructed by the applicant. The proposed location of the addition would impact three trees on the bluff. All yard area of the property is natural prairie, reestablished by the current owner to protect the natural features of the property. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance to build an addition into the bluff at 6261 Galpin Boulevard. ATTACHMENTS Development Review Application Narrative Full Plan Set 6261 Galpin Variance Staff Report Findings of Fact Planning Commission Presentation Affidavit of Mailing 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date: PC Date: CC Date: 60-Day Review Date: Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) Comprehensive Plan Amendment.........................$700 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Single-Family Residence ................................$400 All Others.........................................................$600 Interim Use Permit (IUP) In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$400 All Others.........................................................$600 Rezoning (REZ) Planned Unit Development (PUD) ..................$750 Minor Amendment to existing PUD.................$100 All Others.........................................................$600 Sign Plan Review...................................................$150 Site Plan Review (SPR) Administrative..................................................$100 Residential/Commercial/Industrial Districts.. $750** Subdivision (SUB) Plat 3 lots or less...........................................$500 Plat over 3 lots.............................................$1250 Metes & Bounds (2 lots)................................$300 Consolidate Lots............................................$150 Administrative Subd. (Line Adjustment)........$150 Final Plat ..... $700* Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........$300 (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR)....................................................$200 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Single-Family Residence...............................$150 All Others.......................................................$275 Appeal of Administrative Decision .......................$200 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA).................$500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Notification Sign (City to install and remove)......................................................................................................................$200 Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)...........................................................................$ per document Conditional Use Permit - $50 Interim Use Permit - $50 Site Plan Agreement - $85 Wetland Alteration Permit - $50 Easements (____ easements) - $85 Vacation - $85 Variance - $50 Metes & Bounds Sub (2 deeds) - $250 Deeds - $100 TOTAL FEE: *Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs. **Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: Property Address or Location: Parcel #: Legal Description: Total Acreage: Wetlands Present?Yes No Present Zoning: Requested Zoning: Present Land Use Designation: Requested Land Use Designation: Existing Use of Property: Check box if separate narrative is attached. 4 Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This 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 myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Signature: Date: PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Signature: Date: PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: Property Owner Email______________________________ Name: Applicant Email______________________________ Address: Engineer Email______________________________ City/State/Zip: Other* Email______________________________ Email: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. 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 copy to the city for processing. Oct 2, 2024 5 October 3, 2024 Variance Application Supplement – 6261 Galpin Blvd (5) Written description of variance request. We are requesting approval to build an addition to our existing residence that will be partially constructed into/on a bluff. Construction on terrain qualifying as a bluff are regulated per the following: Per Sec 20-1401 Structure Setbacks a) Structures, including, but not limited to, principal buildings, decks and accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and the side of a bluff at least 30 feet. b) On parcels of land on which a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback from the top of the bluff is five feet or existing setback, whichever is more, for additions to an existing building. Any new buildings will have to meet the 30-foot setback. Our request is specific to consideration of paragraph a). Our 1,602 sqft 3-bedroom home (not 4 bedrooms as noted in property records), constructed in 1986, is situated on a 6.05-acre parcel with a majority of the site bounded by a marsh and bluff. The existing structure is considered a split level built into, and on, terrain classified as a bluff and would be non-complying under current zoning ordinance. The terrain that is not considered to be in the bluff is utilized primarily for an existing driveway, approximately 450 ft long, accessed from Galpin Rd. We desire to construct an addition that will contain a garage/storage space and a home office. Our current 2-car garage was reduced in depth by the previous owner and has insufficient space for normal garage storage, yard maintenance equipment, and larger vehicles such as a pickup truck. A home office is needed due to the job requirements: over 70% of my employment activities are executed from my home office. This activity is currently carried out in a spare bedroom but as our aging parents spend more time with us, I need to vacate my office when they visit which is very disruptive to employment activities. The proposed location is the only viable area for the addition given the site features and drainage swale from the adjacent properties along the top of the bluff. We are proposing a 2-story addition with the floor levels matching the primary structure. The floor levels and height of the addition will match the height of the main level. Materials will match the existing structure. 6 (6) Written justification of how request complies with the findings for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20-58) as follows: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed addition use is an acceptable purpose and consistent with the comprehensive plan. b. When there are practical diHiculties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical diHiculties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical diHiculties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The site terrain causes a practical difficulty in accommodating a reasonable and much needed use. The proposed location for the addition accommodates the owner ’s need with the least amount of impact to the bluff and marsh. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Economic factors are not a consideration of this request. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The wooded bluff and marsh are unique characteristics of this property but severely limit the potential to added needed function without building on the bluff. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The addition will have no impact on the character of the property. Of the 6 adjoining properties along the top of the bluff, it appears that only 1 will have sight lines to the addition and then only during the winter when the forest is not vegetated. We are acutely aware of the delicate nature of the bluff and have made considerable investment in the preservation and enhancement of the site through planting of native species and mitigation of invasive species. The design of the addition will include site design and landscaping to prohibit erosion of the bluff. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. This addition does not qualify as earth sheltered. Additional info: 1. Current impervious lot coverage is only 4.5%. The proposed improvements are estimated to increase total coverage to approximately 4.57% impervious. 2. We are aware of Sec 20-1403 Removal Or Alteration Of Vegetation. Removal or alteration of vegetation within a bluff impact zone will receive prior approval of the community development director. 7 8 Scale:Project number:Date:PRINTED:© 2024 ALBERS DESIGN LLC 10/2/2024 11:35:49 AMCarley and Chris CampbellCAMPBELL RESIDENCE ADDITION6261 Galpin BlvdExcelsior, MN 55331S 10OPTION 4 3D24002OCT 2, 20241 3D Option 4 9 980982984990 992 100 0 10 0 2 100 4 1006 1008 1010986 984Scale:Project number:Date:PRINTED:© 2024 ALBERS DESIGN LLC 1/8" = 1'-0"10/2/2024 11:35:50 AMCarley and Chris CampbellCAMPBELL RESIDENCE ADDITION6261 Galpin BlvdExcelsior, MN 55331S 11CONCEPT -MAIN LEVEL24002OCT 2, 20241/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL - OPTION 4 10 974980982984990 992 9 8 8 99 0 99 2 100 0 10 0 2 100 4 1006 1008 1010 984Scale:Project number:Date:PRINTED:© 2024 ALBERS DESIGN LLC 1/8" = 1'-0"10/2/2024 11:35:51 AMCarley and Chris CampbellCAMPBELL RESIDENCE ADDITION6261 Galpin BlvdExcelsior, MN 55331S 13CONCEPT GARAGE LEVEL24002OCT 2, 20241/8" = 1'-0"1 GARAGE LEVEL - OPTION 4A 11 PROJECT: Bluff Setback Variance Request (Planning Case 2024-18) PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW DATE: November 4, 2024 60 DAY ACTION DEADLINE: December 2, 2024 DRAFTED BY: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner STAFF REPORT DATE: October 28, 2024 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting a variance from Article 20-XXVIII Bluff Protection, they are proposing an addition to their single-family home. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. LOCATION: 6261 Galpin Boulevard, Excelsior, MN 55331 (Subject Property) OWNER: Chris Campbell (“Applicant”) CURRENT ZONING: Residential Single-Family (RSF) 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 6.05 Acres PROPOSED MOTIONS: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested encroachment into the bluff and required setback subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 12 6261 Galpin Blvd October 28, 2024 Page 2 of 5 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether the proposed project meets the standards in the zoning ordinance for a variance. The city has a moderate level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi -judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 20-1401 Structure Setbacks and Section 20-1403 Removal or Alteration of Vegetation, which requires structures to be set back from the bluff 30 feet and limits alteration of vegetation within a bluff impact zone. The applicant is proposing an addition that contains a garage, workshop, and home office. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances. • Chapter 20, Article 20-XXVIII Bluff Protection. • Chapter 20, Article 20-VI Wetland Protection. • Chapter 20, Article 20-XII “RSF” Single-Family Residential District. CONTEXT PHOTOS BACKGROUND The house at 6261 Galpin Boulevard was built in 1986 into the bluff on the property. This property is heavily encumbered by bluffs and wetlands, roughly 95% of the property is covered by the natural features and their corresponding setbacks and buffers. The space that is unencumbered is a small 13 6261 Galpin Blvd October 28, 2024 Page 3 of 5 portion of the house, driveway, and front yard, creating a narrow linear area to build, roughly 62 feet wide and 16 feet deep at the deepest point. The proposed location of the addition would impact three trees on the bluff. The yard area of the property is natural prairie, reestablished by the current owner to protect the natural features of the property. ZONING OVERVIEW Bluffs are delineated by the following characteristics: 1. The slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluff. 2. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or greater. 3. An area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. The Applicant has provided a survey that delineates the portion of the property that is encumbered by area defined as “Bluff” as described above. From the delineated bluff line there is a required setback of 30 feet for a structure at the toe of the bluff. City code outlines an exception for additions to structures built prior to June 1, 1991, however, this only applies to the setback from the top of a bluff. The proposed addition encroaches on the toe of the bluff; therefore, the exception does not apply. In addition to the bluffs present on the property, the property also contains wetland areas which further restricting the potential buildable area on the property in addition to the bluffs. The wetland on the property roughly follows the 968-foot topographical line on the survey and is classified as a “Manage 2 wetland”. This type of wetland requires a 20-foot permanent buffer strip with over 50% native vegetation, and a 30-foot principal structure setback from the 20-foot buffer. This is a lot of record, so the property owner may establish a buffer in exchange for a decreased structure setback, with the reestablishment of the native plants by the owner the buffer is 100% native vegetation. The proposed addition will not encroach into the wetland setbacks or wetland buffers. However, the wetlands are important to consider because the bluff area on the west side of the proposed addition directly abuts, or overlaps in some areas, the wetland buffer and setbacks. This significantly limits the buildable area of the property and creates the practical difficulty in complying with the zoning ordinance based on circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. ANALYSIS The following analysis is a review of the six aspects of a variance request that a City must consider and establish findings for in order to approve such a request. These are established by Minnesota State Statute and included in city code chapter 20, division 3, variances. 14 6261 Galpin Blvd October 28, 2024 Page 4 of 5 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The requested variance fulfills the intent of this chapter and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. “When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.” The property owner proposes to build an addition to an existing principal structure. The existing principal structure was built in 1986 and built partially into the bluff. The proposed addition is a reasonable request and the location of the existing principal structure in the bluff creates a practical difficulty in the proposed addition complying with the city code. Additionally, the property has significant wetlands present on site further restricting the buildable area on the property which restricts the opportunity for a detached structure to serve the same purpose as the proposed addition to the principal structure. The construction of the home in 1986 into the bluff and the presence of wetlands on the property create a practical difficulty in using the property in a reasonable manner in a way that would comply with city code thus a variance is necessary. 3. “That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.” The purpose of the variance is not based upon economic considerations alone. 4. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.” The home was built in 1986 by a previous owner of the property. The dwelling is restricted by the bluff and wetland on the property. 5. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The Applicant is proposing an addition in character with the current primary structure. 6. “Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in M.S. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter.” This is not applicable to the request. 15 6261 Galpin Blvd October 28, 2024 Page 5 of 5 ENGINEERING/WATER RESOURCES/NATURAL RESOURCES REVIEW Staff from the engineering, water resources, and natural resources have reviewed the proposed addition to a single-family home that would require a variance in order to be constructed. Based on their review, conditions have been incorporated into the below recommended conditions that will protect wetlands, ensure permitting through the appropriate watershed district, and ensure tree protection where appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the adoption of the attached findings of fact and action, subject to the conditions stated below. CONDITIONS 1. 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. 2. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 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. Shall obtain all other required permits and adhere to regulations from other agencies, such as Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 5. Provide a grading sheet to show how grading from the new structure will tie into the bluff. 6. Install silt fence around the improvements and other BMPs as necessary. 7. No construction staging on the bluff or the wetland. 8. Add the edge of the tree canopy line to the building plans. 9. Tree protection fencing should be placed outside of the dripline of trees that are intended to be preserved. 16 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application by Owner Chris Campbell for a bluff and bluff setback variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2024-18. On November 4, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The property legal description as described in Exhibit A. 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The requested variance fulfills the intent of this chapter and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The property owner proposes to build an addition to an existing principal structure. The existing principal structure was built in 1986 and built partially into the bluff. The proposed addition is a reasonable request and the location of the existing 17 6261 Galpin Blvd November 4, 2024 Page 2 of 4 principal structure in the bluff creates a practical difficulty in the proposed addition complying with the city code. Additionally, the property has significant wetlands present on site further restricting the buildable area on the property which restricts the opportunity for a detached structure to serve the same purpose as the proposed addition to the principal structure. The construction of the home in 1986 into the bluff and the presence of wetlands on the property create a practical difficulty in using the property in a reasonable manner in a way that would comply with city code thus a variance is necessary. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based upon economic considerations alone. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The home was built in 1986 by a previous owner of the property. The dwelling is restricted by the bluff and wetland on the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The applicant is proposing an addition in character with the current primary structure. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This is not applicable to the request. 5. The planning report #2024-18, dated October 28, 2024, prepared by Rachel Arsenault is incorporated herein. DECISION The Planning Commission approves the requested variance to build an addition to the single- family home within the bluff and require bluff setbacks subject to the following conditions. 1. Proposed building improvements shall be built consistent with the plans submitted with the variance application. 2. 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. 18 6261 Galpin Blvd November 4, 2024 Page 3 of 4 3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 4. 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. 5. Shall obtain all other required permits and adhere to regulations from outside agencies, such as Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 6. Provide a grading sheet to show how grading from the new structure will tie into the bluff. 7. Install silt fence around the improvements and other BMPs as necessary. 8. No construction staging on the bluff or the wetland. 9. Add the edge of the tree canopy line to the building plans. 10. Tree protection fencing should be placed outside of the dripline of trees that are intended to be preserved. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of November 2024. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman 19 6261 Galpin Blvd November 4, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A 20 Planning Case #2024-18 Variance Request Planning Commission – November 4, 2024 Applicant: Chris Campbell Requesting a variance to build an addition to a single-family home into the bluff and required setbacks at 6261 Galpin Boulevard. 21 Location Zoning - Residential Single Family (RSF) 2040 Comprehensive Plan - Residential Low Density 6.05 Acres = Proposed Addition 22 Site 23 Survey Full Property Survey Bluff Bluff Setback Wetland Wetland Buffer Wetland Setback Legend 24 Survey Bluff Bluff Setback Wetland Wetland Buffer Wetland Setback Legend 25 Proposed Addition Bluff Setback Legend Proposed Addition Bluff 26 Zoning Overview A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: 1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 6. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in M.S. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. 27 Planning Commission Discussion 28 Public Hearing 29 Planning Commission Discussion 30 Proposed Motion “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested bluff variance for the construction of an addition at 6261 Galpin Boulevard subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 31 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. coL.lNTY OF CARVER ) I, Jenny Potter, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on October24,2024,lhedulyqualifiedandactingCityClerkoftheCityofChanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice Consider a request for a variance to allow an addition to a single-family home that would encroach into the bluffand required bluff setback at 6261 Galpin Boulevard. Zoned Single Family Residential. Property Owner/Applicant: Chris Campbell to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid 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 ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. lL<- Jenny P Citv Clerk Subscribed and swom to before me this Zi day of C ttob€/ e4 AMY K. WEIDMAN Notary Public-Minnosota Ly Comm|doo Erplro! Jan Ot, Z0e7 Notary Public 7n ,2024 1/ 'j< /'t ) 32 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Date & Time: Monday, November 4, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Consider a variance to allow an addition to a single- family home that would encroach into the bluff and required bluff setback at 6261 Galpin Boulevard. Applicant: Chris Campbell Property Location: 6261 Galpin Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During 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 project. 3.Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4.Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public. 5.Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project documents before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe Date & Time: Monday, November 4, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Consider a variance to allow an addition to a single- family home that would encroach into the bluff and required bluff setback at 6261 Galpin Boulevard. Applicant: Chris Campbell Property Location: 6261 Galpin Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During 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 project. 3.Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4.Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public. 5.Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project documents before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe 33 Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and 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 Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and 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 Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Next Record»«Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Subject Parcel Subject Parcel 34 Tax name Tax add l1 Tax add l2 ADAM D WARE 6211 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ALFRED G & SHARAN ERICKSEN 6120 MURRAY CT SHOREWOOD MN 55331 BRADFORD W & SUZETTE C YAEGER 23060 SUMMIT AVE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 BRENT V & LORI K PETERSON 6330 STELLER CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 BRIAN L & PAULETTE J SCHRUPP 1911 MOLINE CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 BRUCE D & SUSAN KOEHNEN 1830 KOEHNEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9049 CANDACE NOREEN GOODERUM 1841 PHEASANT DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANTEL M ERICKSON 6155 MURRAY CT SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 CHRISTIANNA S & MICHAEL L LACOURSE 23080 SUMMIT AVE SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN CAMPBELL 6261 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 CLARK EICHELBERGER 1820 PHEASANT DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DAVID & MARY STACKEN 1901 MOLINE CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DAVID G & HEATHER DURENBERGER 6321 STELLER CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DAWN L MILLER 1831 KOEHNEN CIR W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DENNIS & SUSAN PIPAL 1770 RINGNECK DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DOUGLAS & SHERRY SWANSON 1780 KOEHNEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9049 DOUGLAS C CARLSEN 6310 STELLER CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8042 DUANE F & LORI P ANDERSON 1750 RINGNECK DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EFIM SHUKALOVICH 6200 CARDINAL AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EMILY HANCHARENKO 6231 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 GERALD L & CAROL L COX 6200 CARDINAL DR SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 IVAN CHIHANG LEE 1799 KOEHNEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 J J PAPKE & D J PAPKE 6180 CARDINAL DR SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 JACOB JOHNSON 6210 CARDINAL AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JACQUELINE RAE SNYDER 1780 RINGNECK DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JAMES R KROUPA 6311 STELLER CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JASON & TRICIA MILLS 6281 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8884 JOHN FLOOD 22695 MURRAY ST SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 JOHN S & LYNDA M G HARTMANN 22845 MURRAY ST SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 JOSEPH C & ANN M SCHLEIF 3201 COUNTY RD 92 N INDEPENDENCE, MN 55359 JOSEPH MARK HOESCHEN 6320 STELLER CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 35 KEITH A HAMBERG 1779 KOEHNEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9051 KEITH J & MICHELLE M O'BRIEN 6290 CARDINAL AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KENNETH A & SHERRI S HIGDON 22765 MURRAY ST SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 KENT S ANDERSON 1900 MOLINE CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9057 KRISTIN J & JOHN B MCMURTRY R 1790 RINGNECK DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KRISTOPHER W THOELE 6291 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KYLE B JOHNSON 1901 MELODY HILL CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 M.P. AND J.K. COURTNEY FAMILY REV TRUST 1940 MELODY HILL CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MADELEINE SLAMA 6221 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARGUERITE JEANNE AHMANN 6271 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARIANNE I KILKER 6140 MURRAY CT SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARK A & CHRISTINE L SASS 6275 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8884 MICHAEL E & COREEN C BOMSTAD 1810 RINGNECK DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MR & MRS JEFFREY R FETZER 6090 GALPIN LAKE RD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 NATHAN J & MALINDA M SCHMIECHEN 22785 MURRAY ST SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 PATRICK L & STACY L WARD 1789 KOEHNEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9051 PETER A NOWLING 1760 RINGNECK DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PETER BONAHOOM 1830 PHEASANT DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 RICHARD B BAKKE 1910 MOLINE CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9057 ROBERT KIM & NANCY KIM 23070 SUMMIT AVE SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 RONALD B & ROCHELLE M BERG 6301 STELLER CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 SANDRA WALIGOSKI 6160 MURRAY CT SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SARAH & JOE DIFRANCESCO 6180 MURRAY CT SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SARAH S BROWNE 1800 PHEASANT DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 SCHWARZINGER TRUST 1820 RINGNECK DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 STACY L NYSTROM 1851 PHEASANT DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 STEVEN W & MARY E THOMAS 1810 PHEASANT DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 SUZANNE R ROENSCH 6301 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8884 THOMAS B & KATHERINE KRANTZ 1800 KOEHNEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9049 TIMOTHY G & EUNICE C SWANSON 1801 KOEHNEN CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9051 TODD J & LESLIE K PEDERSEN 1800 RINGNECK DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 TODD & KIRSTEN SIMONSON ORGAN 421 CHAN VIEW #321 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TYSON ANDREW BARRETT 6204 CARDINAL AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 36 VANESSA A & JOEL T BAARDSETH 2030 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 WILLIAM H KOCH II 6300 STELLER CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 37 Planning Commission Item November 4, 2024 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 17, 2024 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its September 17, 2024 meeting minutes" SUMMARY BACKGROUND Additional public comments received electronically are included with the minutes. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION 38 ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 17, 2024 with Public Comment 39 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Perry Schwartz, Edward Goff, Katie Trevena, Jeremy Rosengren. MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Jobe, Ryan Soller. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Rachel Jeske, Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Kory Hanson, Sergeant. PUBLIC PRESENT: John Sonnek Charles Cudd Company Rodney Provart Hope House Richard Coffey 180 Degrees John Roers 7451 Beacon Court Jason Christensen 3331 West 78th Street Lisa Roers 7451 Beacon Court Larry Ruby 7561 Beacon Court Debby Ruby 7561 Beacon Court Haley Ness 7591 Beacon Court Derek Schluender 7521 Beacon Court Ryan Stinson 3360 West 78th Street Suchitra Sriram 7581 Beacon Court REORDER AGENDA: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, requested that the Planning Commission prior to adopting the agenda, amend the agenda such that Planning Case #24-09 would be considered first under Public Hearings. The Planning Commission amended the agenda as proposed prior to its adoption. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTING YARD AT 1591 PARK ROAD (PLANNING CASE #24-09) Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, reviewed the history of the site and summarized the proposed site plan. She stated that the request was in line with the zoning overview. She 40 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 2 reviewed the conditional use permit conditions required by the applicants, including the need to work with the water resource department. Commissioner Schwartz asked why they would approve the request if the property owner had not addressed the city’s concerns about the disrepair. Ms. Arsenault responded that the applicant was remedying the situation on the property to come into compliance. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the staff was concerned about the length of time that had passed with disrepair. Mr. Maass explained the history of the property and said that the property owner was taking steps to come into compliance. The conditional use permit is the next step to gaining compliance with the City Code. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the proposed contracting yard conditional use permit at 1591 Park Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR APPROVAL FOR AVIENDA TOWNHOMES ADDITION (PLANNING CASE 24-17) Eric Maass, Community Development Director, gave a summary of the staff report, noting the changes from the 2021 Plat to the 2024 Plat, including the lot depth increase and the mechanical building code section 401.4 requirement. Commissioner Schwartz asked a question about lots eight, nine, ten, and eleven. He asked if those lots complied and were five feet in the front and five feet in the back. Mr. Maass answered that the lots would conform and there would be ten feet from the building edge to the property line. Commissioner Trevena asked about how this situation came about. Mr. Maass stated that the building department noted them in their plan review process. John Sonnek, Vice President of Construction at Charles Cudd Company, explained the size of the outlot changed to address the problem. The line was moved approximately six feet in the backyard and approximately five feet in the front yard. He said that it would be better for the clients to not have the vents on the roof. 41 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 3 Commissioner Schwartz asked about overflow parking and snow storage when the development was settled. Mr. Sonnek said that the snow could be moved to be stored in the stormwater storage area, where it could melt. Commissioner Schwartz clarified that there were no changes to the buildings, but the lot sizes. Mr. Sonnek stated that the vent used to go out the side but will now go out the back. Since the soffit was five feet from the property line, they had to adjust the property line size. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trevena noted an incorrect date in the finding of facts and decision. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend the City Council approval of the Avienda Townhomes Addition preliminary plat prepared by Landform dated August 23, 2024, subject to the conditions within the staff report and adopt the findings of fact and recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 3. HOPE HOUSE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (PLANNING CASE #24-16) Eric Maass, Community Development Director, reviewed the timeline of the project and noted that the recommendation would be considered at the City Council on October 14. He provided an overview of the existing conditions and explained the proposed site plan and landscaping plan. He summarized the Group Home conditional use permit and site plan, noting the City Code requirements. He explained the staff recommendations for the conditional use permit. Chairman Schwartz asked about the use of the existing facility and how many residents could be on the property. Mr. Maass stated that the applicant would build the addition but did not know the long-term use of the existing home. The maximum number of residents if the CUP was approved would be eight on the property. Commissioner Schwartz referred to a letter submitted by a resident. He asked if it was within the staff's purview to consider the discrepancies between the email and the applicant’s comments. He stated there were disturbing statements in the email. 42 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 4 Mr. Maass responded that the city’s purview is whether the conditional use permit request adheres to City Code. He stated that the property owner and applicant must agree to submit truthful and honest information. Commissioner Rosengren asked what was in the scope of the review. Mr. Maass stated that the conditional use permit could be revoked if the operator did not adhere to the conditions. He provided an example of what would cause the revocation of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Rosengren clarified that the annual review could not determine incidents that had occurred. It was solely limited to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Schwartz stated that the number of residence would be reduced by two to bring the resident count to six if the conditional use permit was revoked. Chairman Noyes reviewed the purpose of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schwartz voiced concerns about the allegations and commented that it was difficult to focus on the zoning with the ongoing issues. Chairman Noyes responded that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council and noted the need to focus on the assigned task. Commissioner Rosengren asked if it was within the purview to include a provision to make sure that the City Council reviews the public concerns. Chairman Noyes stated that the discussion was documented in minutes and would be presented to the City Council. He said that they can add things to the conditional use permit. Chairman Noyes said that the City Council would receive the minutes and the written comments received from residents. He stated that the city could add conditions to a conditional use permit, but they need to be related to the use requested. Commissioner Schwartz stated that some residents would share their concerns about why it was not a good idea. Chairman Noyes said that the Planning Commission needs to hear the public’s opinions, but they need to understand the focus of the Planning Commission. He said that the City Council would look at the project at a larger scope, but the Planning Commission would need to look at the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the street address of the location since it had an Excelsior address but was within Chanhassen. 43 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 5 Rodney Provart, Executive Director for Hope House, introduced himself and explained the purpose of the additional two rooms. Commissioner Rosengren asked about the nine rooms and asked if one would always be empty. Mr. Provart clarified that they were licensed for eight residents, so one room would be empty. Commissioner Schwartz asked what was being done with the empty rooms in the other house. Mr. Provart answered that they would evaluate what other social services might be appropriate for the region with those rooms. Commissioner Schwartz questioned the purpose of the flex rooms when Hope House is an overnight shelter. Mr. Provart explained that individuals can stay for up to ninety days. Commissioner Schwartz asked what the residents would be doing during the day. Mr. Provart answered that the residents would be going to school. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the shelter was serving only residents from Carver County. Richard Coffey, from 180 Degrees, responded that most of the residents were from Carver County. Commissioner Goff asked about how Open Hands Foundation, Hope House, and 180 Degrees interacted. Mr. Provart summarized the history of the opening of Hope House and the partnership established with 180 Degrees and Westwood Community Church. Commissioner Schwartz stated that the teens were troubled. He asked about the precautions to ensure the safety of residents, staff, and neighbors. Mr. Coffey responded that the teenagers might also just be homeless. He explained the intake process for the teenagers and the 24-hour staffing model. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the policies in place if an incident occurred. Mr. Coffey responded that there was a 24-hour crisis team. They can also call 911. The team goes through training to understand how to de-escalate a situation. Commissioner Trevena asked about the statement to double the capacity of beds. 44 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 6 Mr. Provart answered that it was a wording error. He explained they made a modification since the initial application and would now only be seeking approval for a capacity of eight persons. Commissioner Schwartz discussed the email from a neighbor about the differences between the stated purpose and the reality. Commissioner Schwartz read the statement from the neighbors. Mr. Provart responded that the intent was eight, which is also limited by state licensing. Commissioner Schwartz read a statement from a neighbor that stated teens from various counties had stayed at Hope House. He commented that some residents were on probation, including individuals wearing ankle monitors. Mr. Coffey stated that they operate shelters across the state. There are some situations where a teen from another county might be placed in a different county. This is dependent on the needs of teenagers and available openings. He stated the goal is to not have youth who are violent in the shelter. He did not know of a case with a youth on probation in the shelter. He stated that they do not take violent youth through their vetting process. Commissioner Trevena asked if the condition for the conditional use permit stated that it had to serve youth from Carver County. Mr. Maass responded that it was not a condition. He said that it is not uncommon for a proposal to evolve as staff considers comments. Mr. Coffey commented that their homes could only serve up to eight youths. Chairman Noyes stated that an individual from Carver County Sherrif Department could answer questions regarding safety. Sergeant Hanson from the Carver County Sherrif Department introduced himself. He read the numbers from the previous years, noting that there were eighteen calls for service and two calls were criminal in nature. Commissioner Schwartz asked if some of the teens were wearing ankle monitors. Sergeant Hanson noted that two calls were criminal in nature. Chairman Noyes requested a general example of other calls for service. Sergeant Hanson stated that other calls could be mental health, staff assistance, or different criminal in nature calls. Chairman Noyes asked how the calls to Hope House compared with calls to other group homes. Sergeant Hanson did not have this information. 45 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 7 Mr. Maass reviewed the public safety calls since October 6, 2023 and a snapshot of the general vicinity to show what occurred in the neighborhood in the last thirty-one days. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. John Roers, 7451 Beacon Court, stated that there were twelve criteria for the conditional use permit and seven of the twelve requirements were not met. He said that Hope House detrimentally impacted the neighborhood. He reviewed the different ways he thought the criteria were not met. Jason Christensen, 3331 West 78th Street, reviewed how an incident impacted his family and himself. He stated that the incident brought anxiety, questions, and concerns. He noted an uptick in police vehicles in 2022, and that the house brought safety concerns. He said it applied to rules number one, four, and six of the conditional use permit. He noted that there were seven runaways from the house. Lisa Roers, 7451 Beacon Court, restated that seven of the conditional use permit factors were failing. He noted that Westwood seemed to see the positive side of the occasion and did not communicate about the worst-case scenario. She stated that many of the residents had probation officers and no neighbors received a letter about the project. She commented that the residents were criminals and were leaving their facility. She voiced concerns about building a facility for only two more beds, about communication with Westwood Church, and about home assessment values in neighborhoods with a group home. Chairman Noyes requested that the communication timeline be displayed. He asked about the timing of the communication and if it was typical to the city’s standards. Mr. Maass stated that the City Code does not require a neighborhood meeting but does encourage a neighborhood meeting to gather feedback and to work with neighbors. Chairman Noyes asked about the postcards and if they were reminders for the public hearing at the Planning Commission. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Larry Ruby, 7561 Beacon Court, is a member of the Arbors Homeowners Association. He commented that he thought the conditional use permit should be denied. He provided a background of requirements for the Arbors Homeowners Association and stated that they r equire architectural design standards. He said that the design is commercial rather than residential, which is not compatible with the design of the nearby single-family residential homes. He commented that the police presence is unsettling. He questioned how they would be able to operate a larger facility. Debby Ruby, 7561 Beacon Court, voiced agreement with what had previously been shared. She expanded on the 911 calls to the sheriff. She stated that she found 21 calls to the sheriff. She reviewed the types of calls, including a threat to kill everyone, juveniles on probation, juveniles 46 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 8 with ankle monitors, and juveniles who could be violent. She stated that the number of residents was showing as eight and asked about the process for Hope House to increase residential capacity since they had bedroom space. She asked what it would take for 180 Degrees to be licensed for a larger group of residents or if Hope House could utilize a different group to increase its residential facility. She voiced confusion about the cost of the renovations to only add two more beds. Haley Ness, 7591 Beacon Court, stated that she felt her family’s sense of security was being jeopardized with the expansion of the Hope House. Derek Schluender, 7521 Beacon Court, said that the Department of Human Services completes an audit of the facility every year. He reviewed the repeated violation of the Hope House. The violation was associated with training and onboarding promptly. He encouraged the Planning Commission to not pass the conditional use permit. Ryan Stinson, 3360 West 78th Street, voiced the importance of understanding the safety associated with the Hope House since it has a high probability of impacting the safety around it. Suchitra Sriram,7581 Beacon Court, voiced concerns about the safety in the neighborhood and how it impacted the perception of safety for her mother. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the conditional use permit items referenced by the residents were applicable in the annual review. Mr. Maass responded that the conditional use permit would be applicable with the annual review if it was in the City Code. He commented that the annual review does not require an action on behalf of the city. Commissioner Schwartz asked if any of the concerns raised by the residents were a part of the City Code. Mr. Maass reviewed the conditional use standards and the process followed by the city when considering the conditional use permit application. He stated that the original request was for sixteen beds and considered if there was capacity for these beds. This request was dropped to eight beds. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the concerns raised by the residents applied to the City Code concerning the existing facility. Mr. Maass stated that the existing facility is licensed by the state. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was anything in the City Code that impacted the proposal. Mr. Maass said the existing property, with a capacity up to six persons, is a permitted use. 47 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 9 Chairman Noyes stated that the residents expressed concerns about crime that could happen in the future. He commented that there were many calls within the operation of the business. He said that if the Planning Commission does not approve this site plan r eview, the Hope House can still operate in the current condition. Commissioner Schwartz said that the city cannot do anything about the alleged safety concerns, but if the city approves the conditional use permit and the alleged safety concerns continue, the city can take action in the annual review. Mr. Maass responded that the requirement for a group home over six people requires an annual public hearing. If there is a violation of a conditional use permit, the city does not need to wait for the annual review to consider revocation of a conditional use permit, if issued. Commissioner Schwartz stated that the neighbors would have more power if the conditional use permit was reviewed. Mr. Maass answered that the city could call for a revocation of the conditional use permit if the city had evidence of a violation of one of its conditions of approval. This would not revoke the permitted use. He stated that the group home would lose the ability to have eight individuals reside in the group home but could still have six individuals. Commissioner Goff said there are state records of the individuals in the home. He said that no one received the mailers since the radius is one-quarter of a mile. Mr. Maass responded that the city mailer was sent to the respective neighborhoods, even if it was more than one-quarter of a mile. He reviewed the general issuance standards and the conditional imposable on permits that the staff analyzes when an application is received. Chairman Noyes clarified that the site improvements would need to meet the standards, not the business of itself. Commissioner Schwartz clarified it was the facility that would need to meet the standards, not the use of the facility that would need to meet the standards. Commissioner Trevena asked about the zoning areas and how the proposed building did not meet the neighborhood aesthetics. Mr. Maass clarified that the Hope House was zoned rural residential. He said that the city does not have architectural standards for this zoning district, but staff reviewed the proposed elevations, and they are consistent with what to expect for a rural residential building. He said that the proposed construction material would match residential construction. Commissioner Rosengren said that on the surface of the application, it seems like it would help the teenagers better than the current facility. He stated that it seemed difficult to not approve this, as it meets the guidelines of the use of the property and what is in the scope of the Planning 48 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 10 Commission. He encouraged sending a statement to the City Council to encourage more communication between the neighborhood and the organizations that manage the Hope House. Chairman Noyes clarified that the business does not need to meet the conditional use permit, but the site plan needs to meet the conditional use permit. Commissioner Goff said that there was no clear communication. He asked if there was a way to increase communication between the business and residents to improve relations and alleviate concerns. Chairman Noyes stated if they table the request, it does not change the Planning Commission’s abilities. He said that whether they recommend to approve or deny the request, Hope House will still operate there. Commissioner Schwartz said that the residents’ comments were on the record and that the City Council would see the comments. Chairman Noyes responded that the City Council meeting is on October 14 and the City Council has a larger purview. Mr. Maass reminded the Planning Commission that the city must act on a land-use application within 120 days. Commissioner Schwartz said that the site plan meets the conditional use standards. Commissioner Schwartz moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the conditional use permit with the conditions as presented and the site plan for the construction of a group home with a capacity up to 8 persons located at 3010 W 78th Street, Excelsior, MN, and adopt the findings of fact and decision. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated September 3, 2024 as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, noted that the meeting on October 1 would likely be canceled. 49 Planning Commission Minutes – September 17, 2024 11 Commissioner Schwartz requested information about the Civic Campus project. Mr. Maass responded that the foundation work and the elevator shaft work was nearly complete. He stated that the city secured a grant to help with the costs of solar panels. Chairman Noyes asked if there was an analysis completed about how much money the city would save by utilizing solar. Mr. Maass stated that he would look into this and would report back. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Schwartz moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director 50 Additional Public Comments Received 24-16 51 Ryan Stinson 3360 W 78th Street The Arbors Development Excelsior,MN 55331 9.16.24 Mayor:Elise Ryan -eryan@chanhassenmn.gov City Council Members: Mark Von Oven -mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov Jerry McDonald -jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov Haley Schubert -hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov Josh Kimber -jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov Chanhassen City Hall 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen,MN 55317 Dear Mayor Ryan and Members of the City Council, I write to you today as a deeply concerned resident of the Arbors development.Over the past year,our neighborhood was the site of an alarming and violent incident at the Hope House (Westwood Church)less than three months ago.That evening,as many of us returned home, we were greeted not by the peace and security we expect in Chanhassen,but by the sight of over 10 police cars and a SWAT team armed with assault rifles.This event and lack of response from Westwood church has left us questioning the safety of our neighborhood.Further infringing on this concern is the proposed development of the Hope House (Westwood Church)expanding from 4 beds to 16 beds in our backyards. This development undoubtedly will lead to an escalating pattern of violence with a profound impact on our community.The sense of security that drew us to this neighborhood has been shattered with the lack of response regarding the incident as well as the shogun deceptive neighborhood meeting we had with Westwood last week. We understand that shelters for troubled adolescents provide necessary services,but when those services come at the cost of our safety,it becomes an issue that can no longer be ignored. I implore you to take immediate action on stopping this development and focus on the issues impacting our neighborhood.The Hope House needs to focus on improving the operations of their existing facility to ensure the safety and security of our neighborhood,not building a new facility that will compound the threat to our families.Whether it’s through enhanced security measures,stricter oversight of local facilities,or more frequent communication between law enforcement and the community,something must be done before another violent incident occurs.Our neighborhood is on edge,and without decisive intervention,I fear it’s only a matter of time before these issues escalate further. 52 The residents of Arbors deserve to live without fear for our safety or the safety of our children. We need reassurance from our city leaders that our concerns are not falling on deaf ears.I respectfully ask that the Council and Mayor prioritize the security of the Arbors homeowners and address the ongoing threats that have unsettled our once-peaceful community. Thank you for your time and consideration.We eagerly await your response and,more importantly,decisive action. Sincerely, Ryan Stinson Resident of Arbors Development 53 From: The Wang-Mathur Family Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:10:44 PM To: Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov>; Jeske, Rachel <rjeske@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Comments for Sept 17th Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Case No. 2024-16 (CUP for Hope House Expansion) Dear Mayor Ryan, Chanhassen City Council, and Chanhassen Planning Commission Members, As residents of the Arbors community, we are writing to strongly oppose the approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2024-16 applied for by the Open Hands Foundation (OHF) to be implemented near the Westwood Church area for the Hope House expansion. Our reasons are based on the materials submitted to the City for approval, the history of the existing Hope House, and inconsistencies in the information provided by the OHF at the informational meeting held at Westwood Church on September 10, 2024. Since we are unable to attend tonight's Planning Commission Meeting in person due to travel and scheduling conflict with a school event, we are submitting our written comments here for the meeting tonight. We were one of the earliest residents of the Arbors community, moving here in 2010 before most of the homes were constructed. We decided to settle and raise our family here because of the walkability of the neighborhood for our kids and our aging parents, and for its close proximity to the Minnetonka School district. When Hope House opened eight years ago, we along with many neighbors had concerns over how little communication was provided by Westwood Church and OHF regarding the use of 3010 W 78th St for use as a teen shelter. We had zero information on the effectiveness of the intake process for accepting teens in crisis, nor the controls in place for the safety of the neighbors and Hope House's residents and staff. Nevertheless, we were sympathetic to its cause to provide shelter to teenagers in need and adopted a wait-and-see attitude about the impact Hope House had in our area. However, our current feelings about Hope House have changed, and particularly due to recent disturbing incidents and learning about OHF's plan for expansion of Hope House. We are struggling to have enough trust in OHF and the level of transparency with which it operates. According to the Hope House Senior Program Manager (Mr. CJ Hallman) at the Sept 10th informational meeting, there have been at least four "Level-1" critical incidents reported on the premises, with the last one in June 2024 which required numerous police vehicles and police officers with SWAT team capabilities to diffuse. This was extremely disturbing to us and others as our feelings of safety and security we had for our neighborhood have diminished significantly. We used to encourage our elderly parents to take their walks all the way from our home to Highway 41 along W 78th St., and our children also took walks or rode bikes using the same route. Following the June incident, we have warned our elderly parents and our teenage children to completely avoid the area near Hope House out of concern for their safety. We have also become more vigilant when driving past Hope House and keeping a closer eye on our surroundings when we walk outside of our home. 54 At no time did OHF reach out to the neighbors after what happened in June 2024 or attempt to allay any concerns we may have regarding the critical incidents involving so much law enforcement presence in our neighborhood. We believe that it acted in bad faith by not being forthright about the happenings in June and excluding neighbors in the impact study when they applied for the CUP for its expansion. In the Sept 10 meeting to the neighbors, OHF stated that their intent is to only house 8 residents, 1 per bedroom. However, their “Signed Application Hope House CUP” document states twice on page 3 that their intent is to double the number of teenagers served and that this is a foundational premise of the expansion in applying for this CUP. This is a discrepancy that cannot be easily overlooked. In addition, OHF representatives informed us during the meeting that all the teens served by Hope House were from Carver County. They also emphasized that they would not take in any teens who have criminal records of violence. However, a 10-month police report summary from Oct 2023 to Aug 2024 indicates that teens from various counties have been staying at Hope House, contrary to what OHF representatives have said. Furthermore, there were teens who were on probation, some wearing ankle monitors, and even a few who have made threats against staff and other residents--with the most serious one involving physical altercation with a knife in the June 2024 incident. Given all this eye-opening information that was not provided by OHF and Hope House representatives, it is difficult for us to trust that OHF will stick to their stated intention of only increasing the number of teens served to 8 as they had claimed in the meeting with the Arbors neighbors. Finally, we have serious concerns about Hope House's intake process for accepting at-risk teens as they have not been able to reliably keep their residents and staff safe. When asked by one of our neighbors what new processes have been put in place to mitigate the likelihood of another incident like the one in June from happening, the OHF and Hope House representatives were not able to answer this question clearly or satisfactorily. In our estimation, allowing the expansion of Hope House would have the following consequences: • When the number of residents increases from 6 to 16, with all things equal, combinatorial math would suggest that the probability of domestic conflict between any two teenagers would increase by a factor of 8, while the probability of risk to the community would linearly increase by over a factor of 2.6. • Since the previous Hope House structure will be renovated with flexible bedrooms/office and still be operational after the new structure is built, we are also concerned that the number of teenagers served could even exceed 16 at the discretion of OHF if they apply for new operating license with DHS since they have the physical capacities to room more teens (given the data provided by OHF about the number of teens served versus that they have to turn away, they have been under pressure to increase the number of teens they want to serve). Furthermore, it is hard to believe that they are willing to spend around 3.5 million dollars on this project just to ultimately increase the number of beds by 2, for a total of 8, as they earnestly told us at the Sept 10th neighbors meeting. Allowing the construction of a 8- bedroom structure is an enabler to significant capacity increase in the future. This increase will not require any public hearings. Therefore, the denial of the CUP is the Arbors residents’ last opportunity to oppose this development. 55 • Numerous real estate experts agree that property values are demonstrably reduced near teenage crisis centers. Buyers would not be considering this neighborhood if they were looking for a new home in this area and found out that there is a sizable teen crisis shelter a short walk from the neighborhood, especially if walkability is important to them. We expect our property values will be negatively impacted by the expansion of Hope House. We believe that these teenagers in crisis do require support resources in order to help them stay safe and protect them from the dangers of being homeless. We would ask the City to explore for better solutions, perhaps with Carver County and other surrounding counties, to provide safety and shelter to at-risk teens than allowing the expansion of a youth shelter that hasn't instilled much confidence and trust in a low-density residential neighborhood, potentially putting local residents at risk. Given our experience living in the Arbors for the last 14 years, the approval of this CUP to expand Hope House will have a significantly negative impact on the sense of safety and wellbeing of our neighborhood, and potentially depreciate property values in the area. Therefore, we ask the Chanhassion Planning Commission, the City Council and the Mayor to reject this CUP and not allow this project to proceed. Thank you, Priyadarshee D. Mathur and Ting-Hsien Wang 7531 Beacon Ct Excelsior, MN 55331 56 From: Kristi Langemo Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 9:50:46 PM To: DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Hope House Concern To our Esteemed Mayor and City Council Members, My family lives at 7571 Beacon Ct, directly behind and overlooking Westwood church and the Hope House. After learning of the expansion plans and reviewing the lengthy crime report from the past 10 months I am extremely concerned about the expansion potential. We have two teenage daughters and we often see police lights at the house. After reviewing the plan details, our family is nervous about the Hope House doubling its capacity in such close proximity of our house. Even with a small current size, the amount of activity that has required law enforcement is startling. I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow night, so I send this email outlining me concerns and in solidarity of those Arbors residents who will be in attendance tomorrow. I want to thank you in advance for doing your diligence to make certain this expansion is in the best interest of our city and our neighborhood. Kristi Langemo 57