Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2019, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.OLD BUSINESS
C.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Consider a TwoLot Subdivision with a Variance for Reduced Lot Frontage at 3800
Red Cedar Point Road
2.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Permitting Chickens in Residential Districts
3.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Revising the Community Commercial District
Section's Formatting
4.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow Continuing Care Retirement
Facilities in HighDensity Residential Districts
5.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Update Sign Design and Construction
Standards Reference (Building Code)
6.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Clarifying Trash Storage Enclosure
Exemption
D.NEW BUSINESS
E.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 15, 2019
F.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
G.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.City Council Action Update
2.YearEnd Review/2019 Work Projects Annual Report
H.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
I.ADJOURNMENT
J.OPEN DISCUSSION
AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONTUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2019, 7:00 PMCITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.CALL TO ORDERB.OLD BUSINESSC.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Consider a TwoLot Subdivision with a Variance for Reduced Lot Frontage at 3800Red Cedar Point Road2.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Permitting Chickens in Residential Districts3.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Revising the Community Commercial DistrictSection's Formatting4.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow Continuing Care RetirementFacilities in HighDensity Residential Districts5.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Update Sign Design and ConstructionStandards Reference (Building Code)6.Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Clarifying Trash Storage EnclosureExemptionD.NEW BUSINESSE.APPROVAL OF MINUTES1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 15, 2019F.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONSG.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS1.City Council Action Update2.YearEnd Review/2019 Work Projects Annual ReportH.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSIONI.ADJOURNMENT
J.OPEN DISCUSSION
1.Interview New Commissioners
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws.
We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not
appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled
from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the
public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it
is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or
not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or
be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part
of the public input process.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject Consider a TwoLot Subdivision with a Variance for Reduced Lot Frontage at 3800 Red Cedar
Point Road
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No: PC 201902
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two
lot subdivision and approve a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans dated
December 5, 2018 subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Preliminary plat with lot frontage variance for a twolot singlefamily residential subdivision.
APPLICANT
Richard Comer, 3800 Red Cedar Point Road, Excelsior, MN 55331
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District, RSF
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 1.062 acres
DENSITY: 1.88 units/ac
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Sec. 12 “Rules of construction and definitions”
Chapter 18, Subdivisions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, “Variances”
Chapter 20, Article VII, Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single Family Residential District
Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Sec. 20904 “Accessory Structures”
Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Sec. 20905 “Singlefamily dwellings”
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, February 19, 2019SubjectConsider a TwoLot Subdivision with a Variance for Reduced Lot Frontage at 3800 Red CedarPoint RoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PC 201902PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a twolot subdivision and approve a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans datedDecember 5, 2018 subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.SUMMARY OF REQUESTPreliminary plat with lot frontage variance for a twolot singlefamily residential subdivision.APPLICANTRichard Comer, 3800 Red Cedar Point Road, Excelsior, MN 55331SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District, RSFLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 1.062 acres DENSITY: 1.88 units/ac APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, Sec. 12 “Rules of construction and definitions”Chapter 18, SubdivisionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3, “Variances”Chapter 20, Article VII, Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisionsChapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single Family Residential District
Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Sec. 20904 “Accessory Structures”
Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Sec. 20905 “Singlefamily dwellings”
Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Sec. 201122 “Access and driveways"
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing lot to create two lots for singlefamily detached housing. The
northern lot will have an existing nonconforming singlefamily home and the southern lot will be unencumbered. The
applicant will request that the City Council concurrently approve the preliminary and final plat.
The applicant is also requesting a variance from the Single Family Residential District’s required 90foot minimum lot
frontage. The applicant could meet the required 90foot lot frontage for both lots using a diagonal rear lot line; however,
this would result in suboptimal lot configuration and accessing the parcel through this frontage would be impractical, as
the rightofway is unimproved. The existing home is currently accessed via a driveway easement north to Hickory
Road and the applicant proposes retaining that access. The applicant is also proposing that the northern lot line be
designated as the front line for Lot 1, Block 1 in order to align the lot’s orientation with its access to the public rightof
way.
Access to the proposed southern lot is provided by Red Cedar Point Road and access to the proposed northern lot is
provided by a driveway easement to Hickory Road. Sewer and water are available to the site. Staff is recommending
approval of the request.
The full staff report is provided as an attachment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary
plat for a twolot subdivision, and approves a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in
plans dated December 5, 2018, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
Building :
1. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures.
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued.
Engineering :
1. Lot 1 shall have a 10foot drainage and utility easement along its front lot line (northernmost lot line) prior to
recording of final plat.
2. An accurate soils report indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope, and groundwater elevations shall be
provided upon the submittal of grading permits.
3. The contact information for the responsible person(s) for erosion and sediment control best management
practices shall be updated on the plans prior to issuance of grading permits.
4. Review and approval of the use of silt fence and bio rolls for perimeter control shall be conducted by the city
prior to the issuance of grading permits.
5. Add city detail 5302B – Erosion Control for Individual Lots, to the detail sheet.
6. If the 1974 sanitary and water services stubbed off Red Cedar Point Road that will service Lot 2 are inadequate
for use, they shall be abandoned in accordance with city standards and reinstalled.
7. The developer of Lot 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, February 19, 2019SubjectConsider a TwoLot Subdivision with a Variance for Reduced Lot Frontage at 3800 Red CedarPoint RoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PC 201902PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a twolot subdivision and approve a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans datedDecember 5, 2018 subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.SUMMARY OF REQUESTPreliminary plat with lot frontage variance for a twolot singlefamily residential subdivision.APPLICANTRichard Comer, 3800 Red Cedar Point Road, Excelsior, MN 55331SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District, RSFLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 1.062 acres DENSITY: 1.88 units/ac APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, Sec. 12 “Rules of construction and definitions”Chapter 18, SubdivisionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3, “Variances”Chapter 20, Article VII, Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisionsChapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single Family Residential DistrictChapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Sec. 20904 “Accessory Structures”Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Sec. 20905 “Singlefamily dwellings”Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Sec. 201122 “Access and driveways"BACKGROUNDThe applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing lot to create two lots for singlefamily detached housing. Thenorthern lot will have an existing nonconforming singlefamily home and the southern lot will be unencumbered. Theapplicant will request that the City Council concurrently approve the preliminary and final plat.The applicant is also requesting a variance from the Single Family Residential District’s required 90foot minimum lotfrontage. The applicant could meet the required 90foot lot frontage for both lots using a diagonal rear lot line; however,this would result in suboptimal lot configuration and accessing the parcel through this frontage would be impractical, asthe rightofway is unimproved. The existing home is currently accessed via a driveway easement north to HickoryRoad and the applicant proposes retaining that access. The applicant is also proposing that the northern lot line bedesignated as the front line for Lot 1, Block 1 in order to align the lot’s orientation with its access to the public rightofway.Access to the proposed southern lot is provided by Red Cedar Point Road and access to the proposed northern lot isprovided by a driveway easement to Hickory Road. Sewer and water are available to the site. Staff is recommendingapproval of the request.The full staff report is provided as an attachment.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminaryplat for a twolot subdivision, and approves a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown inplans dated December 5, 2018, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact andRecommendation:Building :1. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures.2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued.Engineering :1. Lot 1 shall have a 10foot drainage and utility easement along its front lot line (northernmost lot line) prior torecording of final plat.2. An accurate soils report indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope, and groundwater elevations shall beprovided upon the submittal of grading permits.3. The contact information for the responsible person(s) for erosion and sediment control best managementpractices shall be updated on the plans prior to issuance of grading permits.4. Review and approval of the use of silt fence and bio rolls for perimeter control shall be conducted by the cityprior to the issuance of grading permits.5. Add city detail 5302B – Erosion Control for Individual Lots, to the detail sheet.6. If the 1974 sanitary and water services stubbed off Red Cedar Point Road that will service Lot 2 are inadequatefor use, they shall be abandoned in accordance with city standards and reinstalled.
7. The developer of Lot 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service
connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit application.
Environmental Resources:
1. Any trees removed in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be required to be replaced
at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree inventory,
but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum for the inventory. They will be preserved on Lot 1.
2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities
and remain installed until completion.
Fire Department:
1. The home on Lot 1, Block 1 must be addressed off of Hickory Road.
Parks:
1. Park dedication fees shall be paid for one lot at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval.
Planning :
1. An escrow of 110 percent (110%) of the estimated removal cost for the concrete pad on the interior lot line
between Lot 1 and Lot 2 must be received, and the concrete pad removed within four months of the approval of
the final plat.
Water Resources:
1. All permits and approvals must be received from other regulatory agencies prior to issuing permits.
2. The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee for 1.06 acres at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval.
Should the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary and variance request, it is recommended that the
Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the Chanhassen City Council deny the preliminary plat for a
twolot subdivision with a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, and adopt the attached Findings of
Facts and Recommendation.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report Comer Addition
Findings of Fact (Approval)
Findings of Fact (Denial)
Application for Development Review
Affidavit of Mailing
Subdivision and Final Plat Narrative
Plat Documents
Park Memo
Landscaping and Tree Preservation Memo
Variance Document
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: February 5, 2019
CC DATE: February 25, 2019
REVIEW DEADLINE: March 5, 2019
CASE #: 2019-02
BY: MW, SJ, EH
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Preliminary plat with variance for a 2 lot single-family residential
subdivision.
LOCATION: 3800 Red Cedar Point Road
OWNER AND APPLICANT:
Richard Comer
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District,
RSF
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: Gross: 1.062 acres DENSITY: Gross: 1.88 units/ac
Net: 1.062 acres Net: 1.88 units/ac
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a Preliminary Plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning
Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. This is a
quasi-judicial decision.
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a Variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the zoning code for a variance. The city has a relatively
high 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.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary
plat for a two-lot subdivision and approves a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer
Addition as shown in plans dated December 5, 2018 subject to the conditions of approval and
adopts the findings of fact and recommendation.”
(Note: A motion for denial and appropriate findings of fact are also included at the end of the
report.)
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing lot to create two lots for single-family
detached housing. The northern lot will have an existing non-conforming single-family home
and the southern lot will be unencumbered. The applicant will request that the City Council
concurrently approve the preliminary and final plat.
The applicant is also requesting a variance from the Single Family Residential District’s required
90-foot minimum lot frontage. The applicant could meet the required 90-foot lot frontage for
both lots using a diagonal rear lot line; however, this would result in sub-optimal lot
configuration and accessing the parcel through this frontage would be impractical, as the right-
of-way is unimproved. The existing home is currently accessed via a driveway easement north to
Hickory Road and the applicant proposes retaining that access. The applicant is also proposing
that the northern lot line be designated as the front line for Lot 1, Block 1 in order to align the
lot’s orientation with its access to the public right-of-way.
Access to the proposed southern lot is provided by Red Cedar Point Road and access to the
proposed northern lot is provided by a driveway easement to Hickory Road. Sewer and water are
available to the site. Staff is recommending approval of the request.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Sec. 1-2 “Rules of construction and definitions”
Chapter 18, Subdivisions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, “Variances”
Chapter 20, Article VII, Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single Family Residential District
Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Sec. 20-904 “Accessory Structures”
Chapter 20, Article XIII, Division 1, Sec. 20-905 “Single-family dwellings”
Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Sec. 20-1122 “Access and driveways”
BACKGROUND
Site Constraints
The existing house was built in 1928. The house is nonconforming due to the
lack of a two-car garage and failure to meet the east lot line’s 30-foot front yard
setback.
The high point on the property is at the south most edge near Red Cedar
Point Road with an elevation of 973. The low point on the property is along
the north lot line with an elevation of 949.6.
The existing lot has 148.2 feet of frontage along Red Cedar Point Road,
235.71 feet of frontage along Kirkham Road (platted only), and a lot area of
46,279 square feet.
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 3
The site has a net canopy coverage of 54% percent.
This site is located within Lake Minnewashta and Lake St. Joe’s shoreland management districts.
No wetlands appear to be present on the site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This area has land use classification of Residential Low Density in the city’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan. This classification requires net densities of between 1.2 – 4.0 units per
acre. The applicant’s proposal has a net density of 1.88 units/acre, which is consistent with the
area’s land use plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) District, and the applicant is not
requesting a change to the parcel’s zoning. The proposed subdivision would require a variance
from the zoning ordinance’s minimum lot frontage.
VARIANCE
Sec. 18-60(a) of the
subdivision ordinance requires
that lots abut their full
minimum frontage on a public
or private street as required by
the zoning ordinance and Sec.
20-615(2) of the zoning
ordinance requires that
properties zoned RSF have a
minimum of 90 feet of lot
frontage. The City Code
defines the front lot line as the
lot line separating a lot from a
roadway right-of-way and
further defines roadway as the
improved portion of the right-
of-way. This means that Lot 1,
Block 1’s east lot line is the
front lot line because it has
only 12 feet of the 90 feet of
required frontage along
Hickory Road. The east lot
line also has 35 feet of
frontage along Kirkham Road;
however, since Kirkham Road
is not improved it does not
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 4
meet the City’s definition of a street. Finally, with the east lot line as the front lot line, Lot 1,
Block 1 does not meet the 125-foot minimum lot depth required by Sec. 20-615(3) for an RSF lot
since its average depth would be only 117.2 feet.
The applicant has demonstrated that the subdivision could meet the lot frontage requirements of
Sec. 20-615 using a diagonal lot line as shown in Concept B, though an 8-foot lot depth variance
would still be required. This configuration is not preferred because it would require either the
dedication of additional right-of-way and construction of Kirkham Road, resulting in
approximately 5,640 square feet of impervious surface that the City would be obligated to
maintain, or the construction of a private street resulting in approximately 4,700 square feet of
impervious surface.
A second alternative is that the applicant could also utilize a flag lot configuration to provide
both parcels with access via Red Cedar Point Road. A flag lot would meet all of the requirements
of Sec. 20-615, though it would require a variance for the use of flag lots as provided in Sec. 18-
57(r). This configuration is not preferred because it would result in the creation of at least 1,250
square feet of additional impervious surface within the shoreland management district.
The applicant is instead proposing that the city recognize the parcel’s existing north-south
orientation and the fact that access to Lot 1, Block 1 will be provided by the driveway easement
to Hickory Road by designating the property’s north lot line as the front lot line. This designation
would create a parcel with a minimum lot width of 108 feet, a minimum lot depth of 197 feet,
and a total lot area of 23,239 square feet, significantly over the RSF district’s required 90 foot lot
width, 125 foot lot depth, and 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. This approach would require
a variance from Sec. 18-60(a)’s requirement that the lot abut its full frontage along a public or
private street and a variance from Sec. 20-615(2)’s minimum lot frontage requirement, as the
parcel would not have 90 feet of lot frontage.
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 5
Front Lot Line
The City Code defines the front lot line as the lot line
separating a lot from a roadway right-of-way. The lot line
that separates Lot 1, Block 1 from a roadway right-of-
way is the east lot line. In its current, pre-subdivision,
configuration, 3800 Red Cedar Point Road’s front lot line
is the south lot line; however, access to the home is
provided by a private driveway easement to Hickory
Road to the north. The applicant is proposing to maintain
this northern access for Lot 1, Block 1 and have Lot 2,
Block 1 access Red Cedar Point Road. The graphic to the
right shows the surrounding properties’ directions of
access, indicated by black arrows, as well as the
applicant’s proposed directions of access, indicated by
blue arrows. The applicant is requesting that the City
designate Lot 1, Block 1’s north lot line as the front lot
line in recognition of the parcel’s existing and proposed
street access, orientation, and the general orientation of
the surrounding parcels.
The city may as part of a variance request designate
appropriate house pad configurations. In this case the proposed designation of the north lot line
as the front lot line will create a more typically sized building pad than the relatively narrow 48-
foot wide building pad that would be allowed by applying the front and rear yard setbacks to the
east and west lot lines. The proposed front lot line is not expected to negatively impact the
surrounding properties as it represents a continuation of the existing conditions on the property.
Due to the general orientation of lot and surrounding properties, proposed street access, and
placement of the existing home, staff supports designating the north lot line as the front lot line.
Sec. 18-60(a)
The intent of Sec. 18-60(a) is to prevent the creation of landlocked lots by ensuring that all lots
in the city have access to a street. It provides three mechanisms for this: 1) the lot can have the
required frontage on a public street; 2) the lot can be accessed by a private street; or, 3) the lot
can be a flag lot. The proposed subdivision is atypical in that the parcel has an existing street
access that does not fall into one of the aforementioned categories. The parcel has a private
driveway easement over the vacated portion of Kirkham Road that provides access to the
existing house and will remain in effect after the parcel is subdivided. This private driveway
easement is not technically a private street, but serves the same practical function by
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 6
guaranteeing Lot 1, Block 1’s access to the public road system. Since
access to Lot 2, Block 1 would be provided by Red Cedar Point Road,
the proposed subdivision would not increase the nonconforming nature
of the parcel’s access.
As has been noted earlier in this report, the applicant could theoretically
utilize any of the three mechanisms provided by the city’s ordinance to
access Lot 1, Block 1; however, all of these configurations would
involve the creation of unnecessary impervious surface within the
shoreland management district. Due to the importance of limiting the
amount of impervious surface near the city’s aquatic resources and the
fact that there is an existing access, staff supports granting a variance
from the referenced lot frontage requirement.
Sec. 20-615(2)
The intent of the zoning code’s minimum yard width requirement is to
ensure that lots can accommodate a house and two-car garage while
meeting the district’s 10-foot side yard setbacks and to provide for
adequate spacing between residential driveways. While the proposed Lot
1, Block 1 would not have 90 feet of lot frontage, its shortest lot line is
108.85 feet long, which is well in excess of the district’s 90-foot
minimum. The proposed Lot 1, Block 1 has an existing non-conforming
house and, if the house were retained, would have sufficient available lot cover and space within the
lot’s buildable area to add a garage. In the more likely scenario where the house is replaced, the City
Code provides guidelines for an assumed building footprint. Sec. 18-60(j) of the subdivision
ordinance stipulates that a 60-foot by 60-foot building pad should be assumed when house plans are
not known. Both of the proposed lots can easily accommodate the assumed building pads.
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 7
Regarding the spacing of residential driveways, the lack of 90 feet of lot frontage will not change
residential driveway spacing within the neighborhood as Lot 1, Block 1 will continue to utilize
the driveway it shares with 3737 Hickory Road. It should also be noted that many of the
properties fronting Hickory Road do
not have the required 90 feet of lot
frontage so granting Lot 1, Block 1 a
lot frontage variance will not
materially alter the character of the
neighborhood.
The applicant could theoretically meet
the lot frontage requirements, but all of
those configurations require the
creation of additional impervious
surface within the shoreland
management district. Since both of the
proposed lots would exceed the RSF
district’s minimum lot width, depth,
and area and the proposed access for
Lot 1, Block 1 maintains the existing
configuration of the neighborhood,
waiving Lot 1’s lot frontage
requirement would not be expected to
impact neighboring properties. Given
that the proposed configuration of Lot
1, Block 1 would essentially maintain
the existing conditions along Hickory
Road and that the proposed lot
dimensions can accommodate a the 60-
foot by 60-foot building pad required
by the subdivision ordinance, staff
supports granting a variance from Sec.
20-615’s lot frontage requirements.
PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE
CONSTRAINTS
Existing Home
The property has an existing home
that was built in 1928, and does not
meet the zoning code’s corner lot
setback or two-car garage
requirement. Given the age and
condition of the home, it is likely that
the house will be demolished and
replaced; however, it could be
refurbished. In either scenario, the
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 8
subdivision of the property would not increase the existing non-conformity of the house and any
improvements would need to comply with the relevant sections of the City Code.
Concrete Pad
There is an existing concrete pad located on the proposed lot line separating Lot 1 and Lot 2. If
the property is subdivided in the location proposed by the applicant, it would result in the
creation of a non-conformity, as the concrete pad would not meet the required lot setbacks. Staff
is recommending that the concrete pad be removed as a condition of approval for the subdivision
and that an escrow be provided to ensure that the concrete pad be removed. The applicant will be
required to provide a cost estimate for the removal of the concrete and an escrow for 110 percent
of the submitted estimate.
Site Access
The existing house has access to Hickory Road to the north via a driveway easement. The
configuration of the parcel makes it undesirable for a home situated on the northern portion of
the parcel to access Red Cedar Point Road. Once subdivided, Lot 2 would meet the subdivision
ordinance’s frontage and access requirements along Red Cedar Point Road; however, as is
discussed in the variance section of the report, staff believes that it makes the most sense for Lot
1 to be granted a variance for the city’s lot frontage requirements and to continue to be accessed
from Hickory Road through the existing driveway easement.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department has noted that response to the site is currently complicated by the fact that
the home is addressed as 3800 Red Cedar but has driveway access off Hickory Road. They are
recommending that since Lot 1, Block 1 is proposing to retain access off of Hickory Road, it be
readdressed to reflect this in order to avoid confusion.
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 9
GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL
Grading/Drainage
The applicant is proposing to grade only within the limits of Lot 2. This
grading will accommodate the construction of one new home on the
property, which has been illustrated to the minimum standards set forth by
city ordinances (as the house plans are not known, a 60-foot by 60-foot
building pad and 30-foot wide access driveway were illustrated §18-60).
The proposed grading will route stormwater drainage away from the
building, indicated by drainage arrows on the plans. All grades have been
proposed to meet a 3:1 maximum with no proposed retaining walls on site.
No soils report or geotechnical study was provided within the submittal.
The applicant will be required to provide an accurate soils report
indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope, and groundwater elevations
upon the submittal of grading permits.
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control
The applicant has prepared and submitted a preliminary erosion and
sediment control plan for the grading of Lot 2. The contact for the party responsible for
maintenance of erosion control measures has been left as “TBD.” The applicant will be required
to update the contact information prior to the issuance of grading permits. Furthermore, it is the
recommendation of staff that silt fence be used as perimeter control around the entire site as an
erosion control BMP. The applicant has proposed the use of both bio-rolls and silt fence for
perimeter control. Review and approval by the city of the use of both BMP measures for
perimeter control shall be conducted prior to the issuance of grading permits, and all city
requirements for erosion control shall be met. Lastly, the applicant shall update the detail sheet
of the plans to include the city detail for erosion control for individual lots (#5302B).
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The proposed development of Lot 2 should be designed to meet the city’s water quality and
water quantity requirements. Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required
stormwater management development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development
standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the
design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features.” The proposed
development will need to receive any and all required permits and meet the requirements of
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Stormwater Utility Connection Charges
Section 4-30 of City Code sets out the fees associated with the Surface Water Management Plan
(SWMP). A water quality and water quantity fee are collected with a subdivision. These fees
are based on land use type and are intended to reflect the fact that the more intense the
development type, the greater the degradation of surface water.
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 10
This fee will be applied to the new lot of record being created. It is calculated as shown in the
table below for the current rate in force for 2019:
SURFACE WATER
DEVELOPMENT
FEE
AREA PER ACRE FEE ACRES FEE
GROSS AREA $8,320 1.06 $ 8,819.20
NET AREA 1.06 $ 8,819.20
The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval.
RIGHT-OF-WAY, STREETS AND EASEMENTS
Streets, Driveways & Sidewalk
No new public streets or walkways are required. Red Cedar Point Road provides right-of-way
access to Lot 2, while access to Lot 1 is via an existing shared driveway access off Hickory
Road. Red Cedar Point Road has an existing dedicated right-of-way of 50-feet abutting Lot 2.
While this does not meet the city’s current 60-foot right-of-way requirements, numerous roads in
this area have a non-conforming 50-feet of dedicated right-of-way and the city does not believe it
will be possible to acquire additional right-of-way from the other properties south, east, and west
of the proposed Lot 2. Therefore, no street right-of-way dedication will be required.
EASEMENTS
The applicant is proposing the dedication of 5-foot side and rear, and 10-foot front lot line
drainage and utility easements around Lot 2. However, the applicant is proposing only 5-foot
side, rear, and front lot line drainage and utility easements around Lot 1. As the north lot line of
Lot 1 is defined as the front lot line, and due to the proximity of a public water main to said lot
line, a 10-foot drainage and utility easement shall be provided on the final plat prior to
acceptance and recording.
UTILITIES
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main
No extensions of any public sanitary sewer or water main trunk lines are required. The existing
home on Lot 1 will continue to use the current water and sewer service from Hickory Road. The
newly created Lot 2 will have access to water and sewer service from Red Cedar Point Road via
an existing 10” HDPE water main and an 8” PVC sanitary main. From city records and tie-
cards, there was a PVC sanitary sewer and 1” copper water service stubbed in 1974 to the
proposed Lot 2 off Red Cedar Point Road. The applicant will be required to field verify the
location of these service stubs and assess their serviceability prior to the issuance of building
permits. If the sanitary and water services are inadequate for use, they shall be abandoned in
accordance with city standards and re-installed. As these service stubs have never been utilized,
the development of Lot 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated
with service connections at the time of the building permit application.
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 11
Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hookup fees will be
assessed at the rate in effect at that time. For 2019 rates, the partial hookup fees are:
a) A portion of the water hook-up charge: $2,311.00/unit
b) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $691.00/unit
The remaining partial hookups fees are due with the building permit. The remaining fees for
2019 are:
a) The remaining portion of the water hook-up charge: $5,393.00/unit
b) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $1,611.00/unit
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant for the Comer Addition development did not submit tree canopy coverage and
preservation calculations. No tree removal is shown for Lot 1, but in the event that the existing
house is torn down and rebuilt, the existing ash tree shown on the survey closest to the home will
need to be removed. Staff estimated the canopy coverage calculations as follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 46,279 SF
Baseline canopy coverage 54% or 25,047 SF
Minimum canopy coverage required 35% or 16,197 SF
Proposed tree preservation 33% or 15,246 SF
The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage for the site; therefore the applicant must
bring the canopy coverage on site up to the 35% minimum. The difference between the required
coverage and the remaining coverage is multiplied by 1.2 for total area to be replaced. One tree
is valued at 1,089 SF.
Minimum required 16,197
Less canopy preserved 15,246
Minimum canopy coverage to be replaced 951 SF
Multiplied by 1.2 1,141
Divided by 1089 = Total number of trees to be planted: 1 tree
One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard of Lot 2, when built. Any trees removed
in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be required to be replaced at a
ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree
inventory, but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum for the inventory. They will be preserved on
Lot 1.
The development is not required to install any buffer yard plantings.
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 12
PARKS & RECREATION
The property has access to the Minnewashta
Parkway pedestrian trail and to Roundhouse
Neighborhood Park. The applicant will need to
pay park dedication fees for one lot at the rate in
force at the time of final plat approval. At
today’s rate, that would be a payment of a
$5,800. This fee will be deposited in the city’s
Park and Trail Dedication Fund for utilization
on future park and trail improvements. The
dedication fees are used to improve the city’s
park system. For example, Roundhouse Park
recently had four pickleball courts and one
tennis court installed utilizing $336,000 in park
dedication funds.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Area
(sq. ft.)
Width
(ft.)
Depth
(ft.)
Hard Cover
% / sq. ft.
Notes
Code 15,000 90 125 25 / 3,750
Lot 1 23,139 108.85 197.73 5,784.75 North property line is front lot line
Lot 2 23,140 148.2 173.81 5,785
Total 46,252 1.062
Setbacks: 30 feet front and rear; 10 feet side
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for a two-lot subdivision and approves a lot frontage variance for
Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans dated December 5, 2018, subject to the
conditions of approval and adopts the findings of fact and recommendation:
Building:
1. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures.
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
Engineering:
1. Lot 1 shall have a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along its front lot line
(northernmost lot line) prior to recording of final plat.
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 13
2. An accurate soils report indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope, and groundwater
elevations shall be provided upon the submittal of grading permits.
3. The contact information for the responsible person(s) for erosion and sediment control
best management practices shall be updated on the plans prior to issuance of grading
permits.
4. Review and approval of the use of silt fence and bio rolls for perimeter control shall be
conducted by the city prior to the issuance of grading permits.
5. Add city detail 5302B – Erosion Control for Individual Lots, to the detail sheet.
6. If the 1974 sanitary and water services stubbed off Red Cedar Point Road that will
service Lot 2 are inadequate for use, they shall be abandoned in accordance with city
standards and re-installed.
7. The developer of Lot 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees
associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit
application.
Environmental Resources:
1. Any trees removed in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be
required to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple
on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree inventory, but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum
for the inventory. They will be preserved on Lot 1.
2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any
construction activities and remain installed until completion.
Fire Department:
1. The home on Lot 1, Block 1 must be addressed off of Hickory Road.
Parks:
1. Park dedication fees shall be paid for one lot at the rate in force at the time of final plat
approval.
Planning:
1. An escrow of 110 percent (110%) of the estimated removal cost for the concrete pad on
the interior lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 must be received, and the concrete pad
removed within four months of the approval of the final plat.
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
February 5, 2019
Page 14
Water Resources:
1. All permits and approvals must be received from other regulatory agencies prior to
issuing permits.
2. The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee for 1.06 acres at the rate in force at the time of
final plat approval.
Should the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary and variance request, it is
recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission Recommends that the Chanhassen City Council deny
the preliminary plat for a two-lot subdivision with a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1,
Comer Addition, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Recommendation.”
ATTACHMENTS
1) Findings of Fact (Approval)
2) Findings of Fact (Denial)
3) Application for Development Review
4) Subdivision and Final Plat Narrative
5) Final Plat Documents
6) Park & Recreation Director Memo
7) Landscaping and Tree Preservation Memo
8) Variance Document
g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-02 3800 red cedar point road sub and var\staff report comer addition sub _var_pc.docx
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE: Application of Comer Addition Planning Case 19-02
On February 5, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide a 1.062 acre lot into two
(2) single-family lots with a variance, Comer Addition.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was
preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District and the zoning ordinance if the lot frontage variance is
approved.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
subdivision ordinance.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and
stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental
damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains
adequate open areas to accommodate house pads.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate stormwater drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets.
8. Variances. – 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 intent of the zoning code’s minimum lot frontage is to ensure
sufficient space for a building pad that can accommodate a house and garage
while meeting the district’s 10-foot side yard setbacks. The proposed lot width of
108.85’ is in excess of the district’s 90’ minimum and can easily accommodate
the 60-foot by 60-foot building pad required by ordinance. The variance is needed
only because the lot width does not front a public street; however, access is
provided by an existing private driveway easement. Since both access and
minimum lot dimensions are provided, the requested variance is consistent with
the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and 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: In order to comply with the minimum lot frontage stipulated in the
zoning code, atypical lot configurations or the construction of a private or public
street would be required. These configurations would also result in increased
impervious surfaces within the shoreland management district. The applicant’s
proposed lot dimensions exceed those required by the zoning code and the
existing private driveway easement provides reasonable access to Lot 1, Block 1.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations
alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner.
Finding: The plight of the landowner is the result of the fact that right-of-way for
Kirkham Road was dedicated to the city, but the road was never constructed and a
portion of it abutting the property was subsequently vacated. During the vacation
process, an easement was placed over the vacated portion of the right-of-way to
provide access to the house located on the northern half of the parcel. The
landowner’s inability to meet the lot frontage requirements stems from the unique
circumstances of the property is not the result of the landowner’s actions.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The proposed variance would allow for the northern portion of the
property to continue to be accessed from Hickory Road via a private driveway
easement. Since this is a continuation of the existing conditions within the
neighborhood, it will not negatively impact or alter the character of the locality.
The proposed lots associated with the variance request both exceed the district’s
minimum dimensions and would not be atypical for the area.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in
Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this
Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
10. The planning report, Planning Case 19-02, dated February 5, 2019, prepared by
MacKenzie Walters, et al, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for a two-lot subdivision, and approves a lot frontage variance for
Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans dated December 5, 2018 subject to the
conditions of approval.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of February, 2019.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:___________________________________
Chairman
g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-02 3800 red cedar point road sub and var\findings of fact (approval).docx
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE: Application of Comer Addition Planning Case 19-02
On February 5, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide a 1.062 acre lot into two
(2) single-family lots with a variance, Comer Addition.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was
preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision as proposed does not meet the requirements of the
Single-Family Residential District. A variance from the district’s minimum lot
frontage is required.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
subdivision ordinance.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and
stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental
damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains
adequate open areas to accommodate house pads.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets.
8. Variances. – 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 intent of the zoning code’s minimum lot frontage is to ensure
sufficient space for a building pad that can accommodate a house and garage
while meeting the district’s 10-foot side yard setbacks. The proposed lot width of
108.85’ is in excess of the district’s 90’ minimum and can easily accommodate
the 60-foot by 60-foot building pad required by ordinance. The variance is
needed only because the lot width does not front a public street; however, access
is provided by an existing private driveway easement. Since both access and
minimum lot dimensions are provided, the requested variance is consistent with
the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and 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 homeowner could subdivided the property by dedicating right-of-
way and constructing a public road, upgrading the private driveway to meet
private street standards, or by utilizing a flag lot. The inability to create the
preferred configuration for the lots is not a practical difficulty.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations
alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner.
Finding: The plight of the landowner is the result of the fact that right-of-way for
Kirkham Road was dedicated to the city, but the road was never constructed and a
portion of it abutting the property was subsequently vacated. During the vacation
process, an easement was placed over the vacated portion of the right-of-way to
provide access to the house located on the northern half of the parcel. The
landowner’s inability to meet the lot frontage requirements stems from the unique
circumstances of the property is not the result of the landowner’s actions.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The proposed variance would allow for the northern portion of the
property to continue to be accessed from Hickory Road via a private driveway
easement. Since this is a continuation of the existing conditions within the
neighborhood, it will not negatively impact or alter the character of the locality.
The proposed lots associated with the variance request both exceed the district’s
minimum dimensions and would not be atypical for the area.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in
Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this
Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
9. The planning report Planning Case 19-02, dated February 5, 2019, prepared by
MacKenzie Walters, et al, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the
preliminary plat for a two-lot subdivision, and denies a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1,
Comer Addition, as shown in plans dated December 5, 2018.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of February, 2019.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Chairman
g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-02 3800 red cedar point road sub and var\findings of fact (denied).docx
RECEIVED
JAN 0 4 2019
CTIANIIASSEN PLAI,II{II{G DEPT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM ENT
Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 *cTTYoICnAl{na$sril
APPLIGATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Submittaror,"t\q\rq eco"t",A[Sltl ccDate:al:Sltq 60-DayReviewor", 3/ Slr?
Section 1:all that
(Refer to the appropiate Application CheckJist for requircd submittal information that must accompany this application)
tr Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ... $600
E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... $100
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
E Single-family Residence ................................ $325
E rut otners................... .................$425
lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
! ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325E rut otners................... .................S425
Rezoning (REZ)
n Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750
n Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100
E ntt others.......... ..... $500
Z Suooivision (SUB)' Z Create 3lots or less
E Create over 3 lots...n $600 + $15 per lot
tr
( lots)
-a t n Metes & Bounds (2lots) .............$300'sr/tz E Consolidate Lots.......... ...............$150"*Q Lot Line Adjustment... .................$150'Q Final P|at............... ......................$700
(lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
'Additional escro^, may be required for other applications
through the development contrac{.
E Vacation of Easements/Righlof-way (VAC)........ $SOO
(Additional recording fees may apply)
tr
E Variance (VAR)$200
! Sign Plan Review. ........ $150
E Site Plan Review (SPR)
E Rdministrative............. ................ $100
n Commercial/lndustrial Districts* ...................... $500
Plus $10 pel!,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet)
"lnclude number of extslrno employees:
*lnclude number of nCly employees:
E Residential Districts.... ................ $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
[J Singte-family Residence....fl Rtt otners............................
$1 50
$275
$100E Zoning Appeal
E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)... ..... ....... $500
EIE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
tNom"ation Sign (city to instatt and remove) ....... $200
/ eroperty Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre.application meetins)
&;il;;;*") qgd, 0", address
E Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that ?pply)...........n ConditionalUse Permit tr lnterim Use Permit
E Vacation ' Z Variance
fl Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) tr Easements ( easements)
Section 2:lnformation
Description of Proposal:
Property Address or Location:
Parcel #:Legal Description:
TotalAcreage: /,Ob Wetlands Present? E Yes
Present Zoning: Select One Requested Zoning:Select One
Present Land Use Designation: Select one Requested Land Use Designation:Select One
Existing Use of Property:
EChecf box if separate narrative attached.
B/oo/c1
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 aftached 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 are true and correct.
Name:Contact:
Phone:Address:
tJo
City/State/Zip:
Email:
Signature:
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 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.fr
cer: S,Aa,a €
?1 , Nl/ z\
contact: 13.YV C o
^ e "Getr,
t
Phone: q92'+-l+ '5rt5 t
Lotz'q\=nq3U
emait: 'a C-o*Z 822 hotrra 1l ' (bwt
Signature:
PROJECT-
Name:
Address:
Who should receive copies of staff reports?
Property Owner Via:Applicant Via:Engineer Via:Other* Via:
E rrllaiteO Paper Copy
E vtaiteo Paper copy
! trlalteo Paper Copy
E tritaiteO Paper Copy
Cell:
Fax.,
Date:
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
conract: D(1)rufu'
Phone:
*Other Contact lnformation:
Name:E Email
E Emalt
E Emait
E Emait
trnntr
Address:
City/StateZip:
Email:
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.
Section 3:Owner and lnformation
Date:
Name:
Address:
City/StateZip:
Section 4: Notification lnformation
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
cor-rNTY oF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
January 24,2019, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing to consider a two lot subdivision with a variance for reduced lot frontage located
at 3800 Red Cedar Point Road for property zoned Single Family-Residential (RSF),
Planning Case File No. 2019-02 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.
-T
t
issen, Deputy
Subscribed and sw.orn to before me
this- {sday of Jan,.n-r.r..,-lr-, 2}lg..^***6 ,,
itAN-M. STEcKLING
) HotarY Public-Minnesota
Uy Cornrnfaero^n-exerc^Jan st' eot g
otuV frUficl
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
lnformation System (GlS) 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 5466.03, 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, indemnlfy, 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.
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 nol warrant that the Geographic
lnformation System (GlS) 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 5466.03, 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, orthird parties which arise out of the user's access or
use of data provided.
(TAX_NAME)D
(TAX_ADD_L1D
(TAX_AD D_L2D, (TAX_ADD_L3D
<<Next Record><TAX_NAMED
(TAX_ADD_LlD
(TAX_AD D_L2D, (TAX_AD D_L3r
Disclaimer
I
!
ffi:iq&!;'
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:Tuesday, February 5,2019 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:Citv Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard
Proposal:
To consider a two lot subdivision with a variance for reduced
lot frontage located at 3800 Red Cedar Point Road for
property zoned Single Family-Residential (RSF).
Applicant /
Owner:Colson Customer Homes / Richard Comer
Property
Location:
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
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 on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the proiect.
Questions &
Comments:
lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the city's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2019-02. lf you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie
Walters by email at mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
phone at952-227-1132. lf you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be
available online on the project website listed above the
Thursdav prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up!
City Review Procedure:
. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City
ordinances require all property within at least 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the appli@tion in wriiing. Any interested
party is invited to attend the meeting.
. Staff prepares a report on the subject applicataon that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Councal may reverse, affirm or
modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and mde amendments take a simple
majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to rcmmercial/industrial.
. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard.
Some applications due to thear @mplexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is enmuraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s).
. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any
correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be
included in the report. please contact the Planninq staff person named on the notification.
Date & Time:Tuesday, February 5,2019 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start
until later in the eveninq, dependinq on the order ofthe aqenda.
Location:Citv Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard
Proposal:
To consider a two lot subdivision with a variance for reduced
lot frontage located at 3800 Red Cedar Point Road for
property zoned Single Family-Residential (RSF).
Applicant /
Owner:Colson Customer Homes / Richard Comer
Property
Location:
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
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 on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the proiect.
Questions &
Comments:
lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the city's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2019-02. lf you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie
Walters by emailat mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
phone at952-227-1132.|f you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item wi!! be available
online on the project website listed above the Thursday
prior to the Planninq Commassion meeting.
Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www. ci. chan hassen. m n. us/notifyme to sig n u p !
City R.eview Procedure:
. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City
ordinanes require all property within at least 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the applietion in writing. Any interested
party is invited to attend the meeting.
. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a re@mmendation. These reports are
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Councal. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify
wholly or partly the Planning Commission's rercmmendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority
vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be pro@ssed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is enouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the prcject with any interested person(s).
. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondene
regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be included in the report,
please contact the Planninq staff person named on the notification
PIN
256500030
2s6500080
256600070
256600090
2s6600440
256530010
2s6600190
250080400
256600510
2S5500080
256600420
2s6600s80
256600430
256600150
256600530
256600100
256600460
256600200
256600240
256600t20
256600470
256600480
256600130
256600170
256600180
254100010
256600210
25660023r
254100020
258770020
250082200
2s0081900
250081100
258770010
250083000
2s0081000
2s7920020
TAX_NAME
THE PALMER REV LIV TRUST
]OANNE T KIMBLE
GARY PETERSON
TIMOTHY HENRY
PAUL REIMER
ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP
PATRICK R GORMAN
KEVIN R PROHASKA
MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER
GREGORY BOHRER
JILL D HEMPEL
COLIN.IJONES
MICHAEL L CORRIGAN
ERIC MCKAY
RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING
CHRIS & KRISTINE WEDES
CAROLYN A BARINSKY
MARIA E WHITE
TABB&KAYMERICKSON
TIMOTHY J NELSON
JAMES PATRICK ROSS TRUST
WILLIAM R HAUGH
LOUIS JASON RIPPLE
BRENDA LEE BLAHA
EDWARD H & CHERYLA BIXBY
ROANE REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
CLAYTON BURKE
HEIDI ANN MARX
RICHARD H COMER
MICHAEL D & CYNTHIA H WENNER
DANIEL P MULHERAN
JASON A JERNELL
BERNARD & HELEN LEACH
DAVID G WAGNER
DAVID M LARSON
ROBIN LEIGHTON ROBEY
KATHLEEN L ROUSAR
TAX_ADD_11 TAX-ADD_12
7034 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR
10210 28TH AVE N MINNEAPOLIS
13260 BRASS PKY ROSEMOUNT
13600 MARINA POINTE DR # 1509 MARINA DEL REY
14455 WESTRIDGE DR EDEN PRAIRIE
15250 WAYZATA BLVD SUITE 101 WAYZATA
3063 DEVON LN MOUND
350 SUPERIOR BLVD APT 259 WAYZATA
3633 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR
3706 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR
3707 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR
3710 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3711 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR
3715 HICKORY LN EXCEEIOR
3715 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCEEIOR
3716 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR
3719 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR
3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3720 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR
3724 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR
3725 CEDAR RD S CHANHASSEN
3727 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR
3728 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR
3733 HICKORY RD EXCEBIOR
3735 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR
3738 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR
3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
38OO RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3801 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3815 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3821 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3830 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3831 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3837 RED CEDAR POINT DR EXCELSIOR
3840 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
3841 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR
SHAPE.STATea0
7058 RED CEDAR CV
3632 HICKORY RD
3714 HICKORY RD
3713 SOUTH CEDAR DR
3861 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3737 HICKORY RD
7141 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
3706 HICKORY RD
3707 SOUTH CEDAR DR
3710 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3711 SOUTH CEDAR DR
3715 HICKORY RD
3715 SOUTH CEDAR DR
3716 HICKORY RD
3719 SOUTH CEDAR DR
3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3720 SOUTH CEDAR DR
3724 HICKORY RD
3725 SOUTH CEDAR DR
3727 SOUTH CEDAR DR
3728 HICKORY RD
3733 HICKORY RD
3735 HICKORY RD
3738 HICKORY RD
3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD
38OO RED CEDAR POINT RD
3801 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3815 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3821 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3830 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3831 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3837 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3840 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3841 RED CEDAR POINT RD
TAX_ADD-13
MN 55331
MN 55441-3265
MN 55068-2772
cA 90292
MN 55347-1700
MN 55391
MN 55364-9017
MN ss391-2266
MN ss331-9686
MN 55331-9768
MN ss331 9688
MN 55331
MN 55331-9688
MN 55331-9769
MN s5331-9688
MN 55331-9768
MN 55331-9688
MN 55331
MN 55331-9687
MN 55331-9768
MN 55317
MN 55331-9688
MN 55331-9768
MN 55331-7769
MN 55331-7769
MN 55331
MN 55331
MN 55331-9676
MN 55331-7765
MN 55331-7766
MN 55331-7766
MN 55331-7766
MN 55331-7765
MN 55331-7766
MN 55331-7766
MN 55331-7765
MN 55331-7766
257920070
250081700
250081600
256600140
256600161
256500010
256500020
256500040
2s6s000s0
2s6s00060
256500070
256500090
2s6s00100
256500110
256500130
256500120
256500140
256500150
256500180
256500170
256500160
250082300
256600230
256600t62
256600570
250080710
256530020
256500190
256600160
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
CHANHASSEN
CHAN HASSEN
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
EXCELSIOR
SAINT MICHAEL
EXCELSIOR
CHANHASSEN
HOLLY M SCHISSEL LIV TRUST
MARK R JOHNSON
IV]ATHEW C & STACY M GJETSON
THOMAS P O,BRIEN
TODD A JACKSON
MARGO J JESKE
QUAI D,ANJOU LLC
GREGORY P ROBERTSON
JAMES R BJORK
KRISTI WILSON
ROBERT E BRUERS
CAROL J H ERGOTT
COYO&SANDRASSHELBY
]ANE EVANS
ALYCE FULLER
CLARAI & IAMES O GINTHER JR
MAURICE J & ALICE L LEUTHNER
PATRICIA L RICHARDSON
JAMESF&DOLORESLIPE
GLENFORD M & SUSAN GALE SHULL
GERALD L REASON
PETER MOE
GREGORY G & JOAN 5 DATTILO
ELIZABETH J NOVAK
GARRETT VINCENT
THOMAS & MARY MANN
KILIAN CONSTRUCTION INC
RED CEDAR COVE TOWNHOUSE
ROGER L & DOROTHY P DOWNING
3851 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3859 RED CEDAR POINT RD
3901 RED CEDAR POINT RD
449 SUMM ERFIELD DR
621 BROKEN ARROW RD
7024 RED CEDAR CV
7028 RED CEDAR CV
7038 RED CEDAR CV
7044 RED CEDAR CV
7048 RED CEDAR CV
7054 RED CEDAR CV
7064 RED CEDAR CV
7068 RED CEDAR CV
7074 RED CEDAR CV
7075 RED CEDAR CV
7078 RED CEDAR CV
7085 RED CEDAR CV
7095 RED CEDAR CV
7096 RED CEDAR CV
7098 RED CEDAR CV
7099 RED CEDAR CV
7161 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
T2Ol JUNIPER
7210 JUNIPER
7211 JUNIPER AVE
7221 MINNEWASHTA PKY
8751 6OTH ST NE
PO BOX 181
PO BOX 651
MN 55331-7766 3851 RED CEDAR POINT RD
MN 55331-7766 3859 RED CEDAR POINT RD
MN 55331-7752 3901 RED CEDAR POINT RD
MN 55317 3734 HICKORY RD
MN 55317 3732 HICKORY RD
MN 55331-7795 7024 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7795 7028 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7795 7038 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331 7044 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7795 7048 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7795 7054 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331.7795 7064 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7795 7068 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7795 7074 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7795 7075 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331,7796 7078 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7796 7085 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7796 7095 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7796 7096 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-7796 7098 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331 7099 RED CEDAR CV
MN 55331-9667 716]. MINNEWASHTA PKWY
MN 55331-9614 0 Not supplied
MN 55331-9613 7230 JUNTPER
MN 55331 7211JUNIPER AVE
MN 55331-9668
MN 55376 3871 RED CEDAR POINT RD
MN 55331-0181
MN 55317,0651 7200 JUNTPER
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JAN 0 4 2019
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
VARIANCE REQUEST
ST]BMITTAL NARRATTVE
RED CEDAR POINT
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
December 21,2018
Lot 2 Block 1 Leach Addition- see attached for len4hy description
3800 Red Cedar Point Road, Chanhassen, MN
25-4L00O20,1.05 acres
SITE !NFORMATION
legal Description;
Address:
PID & Acreage:
The parcel has been in the same family since 1954. When we began the process to sell the property at 3800 Red
Cedar Pt Rd, we discovered that the lot size was large enough to become two parcels. Each parcel, when the split
is made, has 23,139 sq ft which is well within the minimum lot size as required by City code. The property is zoned
RSF and will retain this designation when split.
After a survey was made, we were informed by the City planning department, that we would need a variance to
complete this sub division.
The proposed request for a variance applies to Lot #1 on the plat. ln 2004 the City vacated a portion of Kirkham
Road and deeded it to 3737 Hickory Rd. At the same time a lifetime easement was granted to 3739 Hickory Rd (Lot
#1). This vacated portion is the driveway for both properties and also contains City utilities (sewer/water) for both
properties. The variance request is for 45ft at this location. 3739 Hickory Rd is the EMS street address for 3800 Red
Cedar Pt Rd. Lot #1 abuts Kirkham Rd.
Lot#2, on the plat, abuts Red Cedar Pt Rd and thus complies with all City codes and parameters.
An alternate plat was also developed that eliminates the need for a variance, but it is felt that this configuration
wouldn't allow proper access from that frontage. By going with our original plat, we feel we would be providing
the City with a better product- two equal lots with similar square footage.
JUSTIFICATION
a) The requested variance results in a subdivision that would be in harmony with RSF zoning standards. This
variance creates two lots that are consistent with some surrounding properties. lt should also be noted
that other Red Cedar Point neighborhood residential lots are of a smaller size and have had various
setback variances granted for construction.
b) The variance is not being requested for the property owner to use the property in a manner not
permitted by RSF zoning standards.
c) The variance is not being requested for economic considerations alone. The variance is being requested to
create two lots with typical configuration.
d) The plight of the current property owners revolves around the vacated portion of Kirkham Rd leaving said
owner with less than the required 90' frontage required by City code.
e) The essential character of the locality will not be changed or altered by granting this variance.
Variance Narrative Pagelof 2
f) The variance is not being requested for an earth sheltered structure.
CONCLUSION
By granting this variance, we feel that development of this property will be consistent with other single family
residential lots. Each lot will have simple access to public roads. Each lot will have public services as required
by City code. And each lot will be in harmony with its surroundings.
Variance Narrative Page2of 2
Ac(Jacent Owner:
K.athleen Rou5ar
3841 Red Cedar Pomt R.oad
I I I I I
I I
I I I
I
I I
\ \
95fJ.tJ
I I I I ,l --!-Y 0 -a 51.8
' I \ \ I ' I -:-�i/ "
\.ii ?\ -"''' \ � I k. i I' I a, I \ I \ '1\ I C I \ I \ ' \ I'
\(
>-950.7 -,
tsidence-, "':::1 0,373,5 �! '" 949.9
�
950.
94!:J.tJ
' '
949. I
-,-'
r---__ 94lUJ
Adjommg Owner:
Roane Revocable L1vmg Ti ust
373,5 H/Cko,y R.oad
Property Zoned, PUDR
A' ,
948.6
Planned Umt Devell./Res1den al Dist.
949.2
\ I I I I I I ! ,. 'i I' I I/\-1I I, I' I /\-
I: I:I ',
1/\-
1 ; I I
r, ,-r--. I-r' f--I I I I L_ L ./
I A I ,' r -I I_I � I- -L _ / I I I L _
,,,.,.. ,-r, A r, r, ,.." •• 1-,-1 I- - I I F_I I- r I-., I I I I\ I I 1-'L-L-"f ll\�/ 11>1
• Ar A f A I,--I J I A r� I I -,-JI// 11\11\1 r-IFl/ F_I -- 1--1 I F_I I I,, > I Y L-• • f I.__,, t I I f \
Adpcent Owner:
Ga,y $ Marsha Stolt
3734 H,cko,y R.oad I ' I V I r'-:------<1---Manhole per pf.ans\ L (not found!._ _ _ _\ HICKORY ROAD ----1-\ \ --=-----="'"�'-'--'----,t,t_-_--:__--�-----------
----
I I
974.8
----;I ----1
Adjacent Owner;
David f-Ruth Wagner
I I
974. I
. ,, (1 ' , >
I
\ \ \ I I \ I \ \
\ \ \ \
>, I ' I�\ f
\� I I
I I I
I I !
I I
\ \ \
I
I I X f366.tJ
I I I
I I I LOT
I I \ \
\ I \ I
\ II
\ 967.�/ '-,,1 Proposed Drainage
& UU/ity Easeme
2
568.6
383 I Red Cedar Pomt Road
Ad_pcent Propert1e�/'zoned:
Smgle Family R..es1dent1al
I
I I I
,', '_, ,'',_,
Ac!Jacent Owner: ,-,,_,Michael I-Cynthia Wenner
3801 Red Cedar Pomt Road
, , , , ,
Ac!Jacent Owner:
Patrick Goraman I3737 H,cko,y R.oad I
---.. South line of Vacated Kirkham Road
\ -�
Adjacent Owner:
Ehzabeth Novak
72/0Jumper
Adjacent Owner:
Clayton Burke
3750 Red Cedar Pomt R.oad
Adjacent Properties Zoned:
5mgle Family Res1dent1al
A4Jacent Owner:
Heid, l\nn Marx
3755 Red Cedar Pomt R.oad
·•
7
PROPOSED
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:
I I I 15 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 51I I I I _____________ J L ____________ _
c:, c:,-
----------�----------Road R.Jght-of-WilY
BEING IO FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY LINES AND 5
FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, UNlfSS OTHERWISE
SHOWN.
I I
I I
basis of bearings is assumed
SCALE IN FEET ------
0 30 60 90
Legend of Symbols & Abbreviations
® 5teel Fost
o Denotes Iron Monument Set
•Denote5 Iron Monument Found.i::,. Light
9-HydrantP Fower f'o/e
ffijj @ Catch Ba5m5 Q Manhole
xaxJ.O Denote, Ex,stmg Efevat,on
VICINITY MAP
no scale
SITE
,v,,,, ·:, .. ,/;/.;... �,
•----
Property located in Section 8, Township 116, Range 23,
Carver County, Minnesota.
I I
I I
PRELIMINARY PLAT PREPARED FOR:
JERRY CONE
6320 Minnewashta Wood Drive, Excelsior, MN
I I Legal Description I I
Lot 2, Block 1, LEACH ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota.
I I Zoning & Development Information 11
ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS:
Current and Proposed Zoning -RSF Single-Family Residential
Setback Requirements per Zoning Ordinance:
Main Structure Only
Front -30 feet
Interior Side -10 feet
Rear -30 feet
(refer to City Code for more specifics)
Minimum Lot Requirements:
Lot Area -15000 sq.ft
Lot Width -90 feet
Lot Depth -125 feet
Building Requirements
Building Height - 3 stories or 35 feet.
Maximum Lot Coverage -25%
CITY OF CHANHASSENRECEIVED
JAN O 4 2019
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
PROPOSED LOT INFORMATION
Proposed Number of Lots ; 2
Area of Lot 1, Block 1; 23139 sq.ft
Area of Lot 2, Block 1 ; 23140 sq.ft
Area of Right of Way dedication ; N/A sq.ft
Developer: Owner: Colson Custom Homes
216 Water Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Richard Comer
3800 Red Cedar Point Road
Excesior, MN 55331 Attn Rodney Colson 612-275-8871
11 Miscellaneous Notes 11
Title commitment showing property description and encumbrances of record not provided.
Survey subject to change with proper documentation and per County maps portion of Kirkham
Road appears to have been vacated but ownership not clarified.
Address: 3800 Red Cedar Point Road, Excelsior, MN 55331
PIO No. 25-4100020
Total Area of Parcel ; 46279 sq. ft
Benchmark: Centerline of RCP culvert at the invert of theapron on the downstream end towards the
lake. Culvert is connecting a small pond with Minnewashta Lake, localed at Landings
Drive & Minnewashta Parkway, NE of 6541 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior.
Elevation ; 944.81 feet
Dimensions shown subject to change with approval of final survey.
Underground utility locations information from City. Locations are only approximate, contact Gopher
State One Call prior to any excavation 651-454-0002
Property located in Zone •x• ( an area of minimal flooding) per FEMA map 270051005B, effective
date July 2, 1979.
11 PRELIMINARY PLAT 11
COMER ADDITION
CITY OF CHANHASSN, CARVER COUNTY, MN
Prepared By:
DEMARC
LAND SURVEYING & ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North Minnea�is, Minnesota 55428
File No.
(763) 560-3093 Demardnc.con,
I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Prepared October 24, 2018.
Signed
F.B. No. 1104-38 inv. 88191 F:\survey\leach add1t1on -carver\2-J -comer\comer addition -carver\F'rehminary Plat 88191 .dwg
MEMORANDUM
TO: MacKenzie Walters, Planner II
FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE: February 5, 2019
SUBJ: Landscaping and Tree Preservation, Comer Addition
The applicant for the Comer Addition development did not submit tree canopy coverage and
preservation calculations. No tree removal is shown for Lot 1, but in the event that the existing
house is torn down and rebuilt, the existing ash tree shown on the survey closest to the home will
need to be removed. Staff estimated the canopy coverage calculations as follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 46,279 SF
Baseline canopy coverage 54% or 25,047 SF
Minimum canopy coverage required 35% or 16,197 SF
Proposed tree preservation 33% or 15,246 SF
The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage for the site; therefore the applicant must
bring the canopy coverage on site up to the 35% minimum. The difference between the required
coverage and the remaining coverage is multiplied by 1.2 for total area to be replaced. One tree
is valued at 1,089 SF.
Minimum required 16,197
Less canopy preserved 15,246
Minimum canopy coverage to be replaced 951 SF
Multiplied by 1.2 1,141
Divided by 1089 =Total number of trees to be planted 1 tree
One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard of Lot 2, when built. Any trees removed
in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be required to be replaced at a
ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree
inventory, but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum for the inventory. They will be preserved on
Lot 1.
The development is not required to install any buffer yard plantings.
Recommendations:
1. Any trees removed in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be
required to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple
on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree inventory, but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum
for the inventory. They will be preserved on Lot 1.
2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any
construction activities and remain installed until completion.
g:\plan\js\development review\comeraddn
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2019-02
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen City Council approves a variance from City Code Article XII, Section
20-615(2), lot setbacks, allowing a minimum public street lot frontage of 0 feet.
2. Property. The variance is for the Comer Addition subdivision situated in the City of
Chanhassen, and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, Carver County,
Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof.
2
Dated: February 5, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by
its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Permitting Chickens in Residential Districts
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending
Chapters 4, 5, and 20 of the City Code.”
BACKGROUND
City staff has received numerous requests from residents asking that the city reexamine its policy of classifying
chickens as farm animals and limiting them to parcels of at least 10 acres in size.
RECOMMENDATION
The city defines chickens as farm animals and restricts them to parcels in the rural residential and agricultural estate
districts with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The recent interest in backyard chickens is due to increasing interest in
locallysourced foods.
Staff conducted a review of how other cities in the area regulate chickens and 44 of the 62 cities surveyed allowed
chickens in nonagricultural districts. About half of those required permits and placed restrictions on types of and
numbers of chickens as well as on things like butchering and chickens running at large. Staff believes that setbacks,
permitting requirements, and basic performance standards can mitigate the potential noise and odor nuisance concerns
associated with backyard chickens.
Please see the attached staff report for a full analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Survey of MN Cities
Chicken Essay
Chicken Application and Permit Form
OITTOT OHANIIASSTN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
February 19,2019
Backyard Chickens
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapters 4,5, and 20 of the City Code."
ISSUE
City staff has received numerous requests from residents asking that the city re-examine its
policy of classifying chickens as farm animals and limiting them to parcels of at least 10 acres in
size.
SUMMARY
The city defines chickens as farm animals and restricts them to parcels in the rural residential and
agricultural estate districts with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The recent interest in backyard
chickens is due to increasing interest in locally sourced foods.
Staff conducted a review of how other cities in the area regulate chickens and 44 of the 62 cities
surveyed allowed chickens in non-agricultural districts. About half of those required permits and
placed restrictions on types of and numbers of chickens as well as on things like butchering and
chickens running at large. Staffbelieves that setbacks, permitting requirements, and basic
performance standards can mitigate the potential noise and odor nuisance concerns associated
with backyard chickens.
RELEVANT CITY CODE
Sec. 1-2 - Rules of construction and definitions: Includes chickens under the definition of "Farm
animals".
Sec. 20-1001 - Keeping: States that farm animals are allowed on farm property zoned A-2 or RR
with a minimum area of 10 acres.
PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227. I I I 0
77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Backyard Chickens
February 19,2079
Page2
BACKGROUND
The City Council last investigate the possibility of allowing backyard chickens in May of 2009.
At that time, fewer cities had experience with allowing chickens in non-agricultural districts, and
there had been a history of issues caused by chickens wandering from an agricultural property to
an adjacent subdivision. For these reasons, the City Council elected to maintain its existing
prohibition on farm animals in non-agricultural districts and passed Ordinance 480 on June 22,
2009, which further defined a farm as a tract of land more than then 10 acres in size to avoid
ambiguity.
On December 14,2015, the City Council passed Ordinance 612, which amended Sec. 20-1001 to
clarify that farm animals were only allowed on A-2 or RR parcels with a minimum parcel area of
10 acres.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: BeneJits of Chickens
The recent rise in the popularity of backyard chickens is linked in part to the growing local food
movement. As people have become more aware of the impact of agriculture on the environment
and concerns have increased over the uses of pesticides and genetically modified organisms,
GMOs, individuals have become more interested in knowing where their food comes from and
producing their own produce. Many cities have responded to this trend by establishing
community gardens, allowing beekeeping, and permitting residents to own chickens.
Chickens are one of the few agricultural animals that can thrive in the space provided by
residential lots, and they can provide their owners with a source of eggs and meat. While egg
production varies by breed, many hens can lay around five eggs per-week during their egg laying
cycle. Though many people choose only to raise chickens for eggs, they can also provide a
source of fresh poultry.
In addition to being a source of food, chickens can provide other ecologically friendly services.
They can provide a natural means of pest control for gardeners as they eat many different types
of insects and larvae. Homeowners can utilize mobile pens to allow chickens to forage in gardens
between plantings or place chickens adjacent to gardens where they can eat insects before they
can reach the garden. Chickens can also be fed leftover vegetables and unseasoned meat scraps,
which helps to reduce the amount of food waste a household generates. Finally, chicken
droppings are rich in plant nutrients and can be used for composting as part of a strategy to
minimize the use of fertilizers.
Beyond their ecological benefits, chickens can also provide a mechanism to teach children about
nature, animal care, and food systems. Many owners also feel that chickens make good pets, and
derive a sense of companionship from them.
Issue 2: Concerns with Chickens
Backyard Chickens
February 19,2019
Page 3
Chickens have been confined to agricultural districts in many cities due to concems over noise
and odor nuisances, chickens running atlarge, and their potential to attract pests and predators.
Historically, the City of Chanhassen has received complaints when chickens have escaped from
their coops and wandered onto neighboring properties. The most recent chicken-related
complaint the city received was in June of 2018 when several chickens being kept on a property
in violation of City Ordinance escaped from their pen and got into the neighbor's yard.
In addition to the complaints that can be generated when chickens get loose, they have the
potential to violate municipal noise ordinances. This is especially the case when roosters are
present since they crow loudly multiple times a day. Hens can also make noise, especially when
laying an eggor if frightened, but they are significantly quieter than roosters and their clucks
typically do not carry far. Some breeds of chickens are nosier than others are, and could
potentially disturb nearby neighbors.
Chicken coops and waste can also be a source of noxious odors. Moist and poorly ventilated
chicken coops can produce ammonia and an unpleasant smell. If owners do not regularly remove
waste from coops and runs strong smells can be produced, and inadequately cleaned chicken
runs may produce offensive odors after rainstorms when waste is moist.
Finally, keeping chickens can attract rodents and predators. Rodents can be attracted to chicken
feed when it is not stored in properly sealed containers, and many animals including cats, dogs,
coyotes, raccoons, skunks, snakes, and raptors prey on chicks, chickens, andlor eggs. The
presence of backyard chickens can attract these animals to residential neighborhoods, especially
if the chicken coop and run are not property secured.
Issue 3: Survey of Minnesota Cities
Staff found a spreadsheet compiled by ba<
advocates that noted if various Minnesota
allow chickens. Using this list as base, stt
summarized the ordinances governing chi
Minnesota cities. The tables to the right st
of staffls research. Staff found that
44 of the 62 cities allowed
chickens in residential areas with
an additional 16 cities only
permitting chickens in agricultural
areas. Two cities prohibited
chickens in all districts. Of the 44
cities that allowed chickens in
residential districts, 26 required
ry backyard chicken
esota cities did or did not
se, staff researched and
Lg chickens in 62
ght summari ze the results
Summary
Allowed 44
Ag Only 1,6
Prohibited 2
Total 62
Requirements for cities that allow chickens outside of Ag.
Minimum lot size 7
Limit to specific residential districts 3
Require permit/license 26
Require additional setbacks 25
Limit number of birds 40
Total number of cities 44
permits and l0 limited chickens to certain residential districts or established minimum lot sizes.
Other common provisions were requiring additional setbacks for chicken coops and runs, 25
cities, and limiting the maximum number of chickens,40 cities.
Backyard Chickens
February 19,2019
Page 4
Issue 4 : Typical Conditions/Limitations
Most cities that allow chickens in residential areas havt
it necessary to establish provisions regulating the keepi
chickens in order to mitigate the concerns highlighted t
in this report. By far the most cofilmon restriction is a I
the number of birds that may be kept, with 40 of 44 surveyed
cities establishing a maximum number of birds. Staff could
not identify a universal standard for the number of birds
allowed, although 16 cities have limited properties to a
maximum of four chickens. The rationale behind limiting the
number of chickens is to minimizethe potential for
the flock to generate offensive odors and excessive
amounts of noise. City staff is proposing that
Chanhassen limit the number of chickens based on
a parcel's lot area, in recognition of the fact that
the city has some large parcels that could
accommodate larger numbers of chickens without
negatively affecting surrounding properties. The
proposed limits are listed in the table to the right.
ve found
ping of
I earlier
r limit on
urveyed
could
a
ting the
Maximum number of Chickens
Limit # of cities
2 1.
3 4
4 L6
5 4
6 5
8+4
Based on lot size 6
Total 40
Proposed limits on number of Chickens
Lot size Number of chickens
less than 1 acre 4
1to 2.5 acres 8
2.5 to 10 acres 16
10 acres +no limit
In order to limit the potential for backyard flocks to create noise nuisances, most cities, 33 of 44,
prohibit roosters, and of those that allow roosters, two require a special rooster permit. Several
other cities also took the precaution of banning crowing hens. Staff is proposing that Chanhassen
prohibit both roosters and crowing hens.
Other common provisions that staff identified were prohibitions on chickens running atlarge,
breeding chickens, keeping chickens in the house or garage, and butchering chickens. Staff
believes that since roosters are already prohibited and only a modest number of birds are
permitted outside of agricultural areas a further prohibition on breeding chickens would be
redundant. Similarly, staff is proposing that chickens be kept in enclosed coops and runs or a
fenced area at all times which should address the issue of chickens running at large.
The prohibition on butchering chickens likely comes from concems that the activities associated
with killing and cleaning a chicken could offend or disturb neighbors. Staff proposes to address
this concern by prohibiting the outdoor butchering of chickens. Finally, staff does not believe it
is necessary to adopt the prohibition on keeping chickens in garages. If an owner wished to
convert a portion of their garage to serve as a chicken coop, assuming it could meet the required
setbacks, staff does not believe it would create an issue. Due to the potential for chickens to
spread disease or create unsanitary conditions, staff does believe it is appropriate to prohibit
them being kept as household pets.
As was noted earlier, many cities require permits for the keeping of chickens and some require
that neighbors within a certain radius be notified. Several cities that require public notification
also require that a certain percentage ofthe neighbor's consent to the presence ofchickens. Staff
Backyard Chickens
February 79,2019
Page 5
believes that requiring a permit is necessary to ensure that owners interested in keeping chickens
are aware of and comply with the any enacted provisions governing backyard chickens, and that
asking applicants to notiff their neighbors of their intent to own chickens can forestall potential
future issues between neighbors.
Finally, many cities, 25 of 44, also require chicken coops and runs to meet setbacks beyond what
are typically required within their zoning districts. Generally, cities require these structures to be
located in rear yards, be setback a minimum distance for neighboring residential structures, and
be setback a minimum distance from the property line. The largest setback staff found was I l0
feet from residential structures not occupied by the owner, with 50 and 25-foot setbacks being
more cornmon. Staff is proposing that a 25-foot setback from adjacent residential structures be
used, as it should create a reasonable buffer while also allowing smaller lots to accommodate
chicken coops. Additional proposed setbacks are limiting the coop and run to rear yards and
requiring them to be setback 10 feet from the lot line. These standards are consistent with how
the City Code regulates other accessory structures.
Staff is also proposing that standards be enacted requiring chickens be provided with a minimum
of four square feet within the coop/run, the coop/run be enclosed and soundly constructed,
coop/run be well ventilated, feed be kept in rodent-proof containers, and that waste be disposed
of on a weekly basis. Staff believes that these standards will help provide for the welfare of the
chickens and minimizethe potential for the creation of nuisances.
ALTERNATIVES
Do nothing. This would limit chickens to agricultural properties over 10 acres.
Allow chickens in areas zoned RR and 42.
Allow chickens on parcels one acre or larger, and adopt general performance standards
and permit requirements.
4) Allow chickens on all lots with single-family residential as the principal use, and adopt
general performance standards and permit requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative 4. Staff believes any residential property that can meet basic
setbacks can accommodate hens without creating a nuisance for surrounding properties, and that
adopting general performance standards will provide a mechanism staff can use to address
chickens that do become nuisances. The text of the proposed ordinance is provided below.
Sec. a-30(bX23)
Chicken Permit. . ...$25.00
Sec.5-126 -129. - Reserved
ARTICLE V. - Chickens
l)
2)
3)
Backyard Chickens
February 19,2019
Page 6
Sec. 5-130. - Definitions.
In this article, the following terms have the stated meanings:
"Chicken or domesticated chicken" means a subspecies of the species Gallus domesticus.
"Coopo' means the structure for the keeping or housing of chickens.
"Hen" means a female chicken.
ttRooster" means a male chicken.
66Run" means an enclosed and covered area attached to the coop where the chickens can
roam unsupervised.
Sec.5-L31. - Purpose of Ordinance.
The purpose of this ordinance is to provide minimum standards for the keeping of
domesticated chickens. This article enables residents to keep chickens on a non-commercial
basis as an accessory use to a residence, while limiting the adverse effects
of the activity on surrounding properties. Such adverse effects can include noise, odors,
unsanitary conditions, attraction of predators, chickens running at large, unsightly
conditions, and similar adverse conditions.
Sec.5-132. - Permit required
1) No person shall maintain or keep domesticated chickens without a permit issued by the
city. Properties exceeding 10 acres where agriculture is a permitted use are exempt
from the permit requirements of this article.
2) Application for a permit required by article shall be made to the city upon a form
furnished by the city. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established by resolution shall
be paid to the city when the application if filed.
3) In order to be issued a permit the applicant must:
a. Have as the principal use of the property a single-family residential structure.
b. Submit a notarized statement to the city stating that they have informed all
adjoining neighbors that they intend to keep chickens.
c. Not have had a prior chicken permit revoked by the City of Chanhassen.
d. Meet the density and setback requirements listed in Sec.5-133.
Sec. 5-133. - Density and Setbacks
1) No person is permitted to keep more than the following numbers of chickens on any
lot within the city, based upon the size of the parcel:
a. Lots smaller than one acre: 4 chickens
b. Lots one acre or larger but smaller than two and one-half acres: 8 chickens
Backyard Chickens
February 19,2019
PageT
c. Lots two and one-half acres or larger but smaller than ten acres: 16
chickens
d. Lots larger than ten acres: No limit
2) The coop and affached run must be located in the rear yard and must be setback a
minimum of 25 feet from all adjacent residences that are not occupied by the
applicant and be setback a minimum of 10 feet from any lot line.
a. On corner lots, coops and runs may not be located in any yard with street
frontage.
b. On double frontage lots, coops and runs may not be located in any required
front yard.
Sec. 5-134. - Standards of Practice
The following standards of practice apply to all properties governed by this article:
I) No roosters or crowing hens are allowed.
2') No outdoor butchering of chickens is allowed.
3) Chickens must be kept in a coop or run whenever they are unsupervisedl however
when supervised they are allowed in a fenced area.
4) The coop must:
a. Be maintained in good condition.
b. Be enclosed and constructed of durable materials to prevent entry by
predators or the escape ofchickens.
c. Be built to protect the chickens from extreme heat or cold.
d. Provide at least 4 square feet per chicken.
5) The run must:
a. Be maintained in good condition.
b. Be affached to the coop.
c. Be enclosed and constructed of durable materials to prevent entry by
predators or the escape of chickens.
d. Provide at least 4 square feet per chicken.
6) The chicken's living area must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition.
7) Odor shall not be perceptible at the lot line.
8) All stored manure shall be placed within a fully enclosed container. All manure not
used for composting or fertilizing shall be removed weekly. The coop and run must
be kept free from trash and accumulated manure.
9) Feed must be stored in a rodent proof container inside of a structure.
10) No person may keep any chickens inside a house.
Sec. 5-135. - Revocation of Permit
A chicken permit issued under this article may be revoked by the Community Development
Director if it is determined after an inspection by city staff that the permit holder has not
maintained the standards set forth in Sec. 5-124 or that chickens are being kept in such a
manner as to constitute a public nuisance.
Backyard Chickens
February 19,2019
Page 8
Sec. 5-136 - 145. - Reserved
Sec. 20-1001. - Keeping.
The following animals may be kept in the city:
(1) Household pets are an allowed use in all zoning districts.
(2) Horses in the A-2, RR and RSF zoning districts in accordance with chapter 5, article III.
(3) Honey bees in accordance with Chapter 5, article IV.
(4) Chickens in accordance with Chapter 5, article V.
(5) Farm animals are an allowed use on all farm property zoned A2 or RR, which permit
agricultural use, with a minimum parcel area of l0 acres, except as otherwise specifically
provided in the City Code. Farm animals may not be confined in a pen, feed lot or building
within 100 feet of any residential dwelling not owned or leased by the farmer.
(6) Wild animals may not be kept in the city.
(7) Animals may only be kept for commercial purposes if authorized in the zoning district
where the animals are located.
(8) Animals may not be kept if they cause a nuisance or endanger the health or safety of the
community.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Survey of MN Cities
2) Chicken Essay
G:\PLAN\City CodeV019V0l 9-01 Various\Chickens\Staff Reports Chickens.docx
City Allowed Permit Required Min lot size
Afton Yes Yes None
Andover Rural Possible CUP None
Anoka Yes No None
Apple Valley Ag only No None
Arden Hills Ag only No None
Blaine Ag only No None
Bloomington Yes No None
Brooklyn Park Ag only No 5 acres
Bursnville Yes Yes None
Centerville Yes Yes 10,000 sq. ft.
Champlin Ag only No None
Chanhassen Ag only No 10 acres
Chaska Ag only No None
Columbia Heights Silent NA NA
Coon Rapids Yes Yes None
Cottage Grove Yes Yes 3 acres
Dayton Ag only CUP 90,000 sq. ft.
Eagan Yes Yes None
Edina Yes No None
Elk River Yes No 2.5 acres
Falcon Heights Yes Yes None
Fridely Yes Yes None
Ham Lake Ag only No 5 acres
Inver Gover Heights Yes Yes None
Lake Elmo Yes Yes .5 acres
Lexington Yes Yes 10,000 sq. ft.
Lino Lakes Ag only No None
Little Canada No NA NA
Mahtomedi Yes Yes NA
Maple Grove Yes No 1 acre
Maplewood Yes Yes Not R-1s
Mendota Heights Yes Yes No
Minneapolis Yes Yes No
Minnetonka Yes No No
Montrose Ag only No None
Mounds View Yes Yes No
New Brighton Yes No No
New Hope Yes No No
Newport Yes Yes No
North Oaks Silent NA NA
North Saint Paul No NA NA
Oakdale Yes Yes No
Otsego Yes Yes No
Plymouth Ag only No None
Prior Lake Ag only No None
Ramsey Yes No .75 acres
Richfield Yes No No
Robbinsdale Yes No No
Rosemount Yes No No
Roseville Yes No No
Saint Anthony Ag only No None
Saint Paul Park Yes Yes No
Savage Yes Yes No
Shakopee Yes No No
Shoreview Yes Yes R1, RE district
Shorewood Yes No None
St. Michael Ag only No None
St. Paul Yes Yes No
Stillwater Yes Yes RA, RB district
Vadnais Heights Yes Yes No
West St. Paul Yes No No
White Bear Lake Yes Yes No
Setbacks Bird Limit
25' from res structures 5 per .5 acres
100' from non-owner res None
accessory building 4
None None
None None
None None
50' from non-owner res 4
None None
No front/side yard 4
25' form non-owner res, 15' lot line 4
None 1 per acre
100' from non-owner res NA
None Sliding
NA NA
30' from non-owner res, rear only, 10' lot line 4
110' from non-owner res, rear yard, 50' property line 4
None None
25' from res structures, 10' rear, 5' side 5
None 4
25' from res structures, rear yard, 10' lot line 12
20' form res structures 4
30' from lot lines 6
None None
25' from res, 10 from lot lines 3
20' from non-owner res, rear, gen setbacks 4-22 (sliding)
25' from res, rear, 15' from lot lines 4
None Sliding
NA NA
20' from res, rear, 5' from lot lines 6
None 6 per .5 acre
rear/side, 5' from lot lines 10
rear/side, 10' from lot lines 4
20' from non-owner res, rear 6
not front 1 per .1 acre
None None
20' from res, 20' from lot lines 8
25' from res, 5' from lot lines 6
None 3
50' from res, 10' from lot lines 4
NA NA
NA NA
No None
Double setback of principal building 1 per .1 acre
None None
None Sliding
30' from res, 10' from lot lines 16 +4 per .25
None 3
None 2
None 3
Standard None
500' from platted land None
50' from res, rear, 4
50' from res, 10' lot lines 4
50' from res, 10' lot lines 5
30' from res 4
Buildable area 6
None Sliding
Standard 15
Standard 5
50' from res, 20' lot lines, rear 5
100' from non-owner res 4
50' from res, 5' lot lines, rear 4
Other Provisions
No roosters, no commercial
No sewer or water
No rooster, not a large, right to terminate
Note: From March 2018 community News letter
No roosters, no killing, not at large, no dwelling/garage
No roosters, not at large, kill only in R1-a
No roosters
No roosters, no killing, not at large, no dwelling/garage
Written consent of neighbors, no roosters, not at large
No roosters, no killing, not at large, no dwelling/garage
No roosters, no killing, not at large, no dwelling/garage
No roosters, no killing, not at large, no dwelling/garage, leg band id
No roosters, no killing, not at large, may impound
No roosters, no killing, no dwelling/garage no breeding, 350' public notice,
No roosters, no at large, no dwelling/garage, 150' public notice
No roosters, no outdoor killing, no at large, no dwelling/garage, 150' public notice (70% consent)
No roosters, no breeding, need training
no roosters, no killing, 100% neighbor consent, leg bands
no roosters, no killing,
roosters need special permit, more than 6 need special permit, no killing, no at large
no roosters, need fence
no roosters, no killing, not at large, 350' public notice w/ council approval
no roosters, no killing, not at large, inform city
no roosters, can get council permit for more
no roosters, no breeding, consent of 75% of neighbors within 150'
consent of 75% of neighbors within 150'
no roosters
not at large
need City Council permit for more than 2 or roosters
not at large, may impound and kill
Silent so allow, treat coup as shed.
Council can grant special permit.
no roosters, no breeding, no killing, not at large, no dwelling/garage
no roosters, not at large, may impound and kill
no roosters, not at large, may impound and kill
no roosters, no killing, not at large
no roosters, not at large
no roosters, two tiers of permits, for tier 2 need consent of 75% of neighbors within 150'
no roosters, no killing, not at large, not in house
no roosters, no killing, no dwelling/garage
no roosters
no roosters, no breeding, not at large,
Continue to Page 2
Per City Code Section 5-132, a permit is required to keep chickens.
Section 1: Applicant Information
Name of Applicant:
Address:
Street City State Zip
Phone: ( ) Alternate Phone: ( )
Email:
Section 2: Property Information
Zoning: _________________________________ Lot size (acres): ___________________________________________
Number of chickens: ___________________________________________________________________________
Chickens Permitted
0 to 1 acre: 4 chickens 1 to 2.5 acres: 8 chickens 2.5 to 10 acres: 16 chickens 10+ acres: no limit
Name of Landowner:
Address:
Street City State Zip
Phone: ( )
Address of Property (if different): _______ _
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Supporting Documentation
The following documents MUST be submitted along with the application:
Survey of property showing proposed chicken coop and run*
Notarized statement declaring that applicant has informed all adjoining neighbors of intent to keep chickens
*Coop and run must be kept in the rear yard and be setback 25 feet from adjacent residential structures and 10
feet from lot lines.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chicken Application & Permit Form - $25
City of Chanhassen Chicken Permit
2
Section 4: Notice
I have familiarized myself with the attached Chanhassen City Code Chapter 5-130-135 Chickens pertaining to backyard
chickens and subsequent ordinance amendments pertaining thereto, and will abide by the provisions contained therein.
I hereby consent to inspection of the premises as provide by Chanhassen City Code Chapter 5-135, and understand that
all facts set forth in this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Failure to meet the standards
described in Chanhassen City Code Chapters 5-130-135 may result in the revocation of this permit.
Applicant’s signature Date
Complete and submit form with required attachments to: City of Chanhassen
Attn: Chicken Permits
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
For office use only
Date Received: $25 Fee Paid: Permit Number:
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the submitted application and find it to be in compliance with the ordinance.
Approved by: Date:
Comments:
g:\plan\forms\permits\chicken permits\chicken permit form - blank.docx
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Revising the Community Commercial District Section's
Formatting
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.3.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending
Chapter 20 of the City Code.”
BACKGROUND
The “CC” Community Commercial District is formatted differently than every other zoning district within the city.
RECOMMENDATION
When the city established the “CC” Community Commercial District in 2009, the ordinance was passed without its
sections being broken into subsections. In the interests of improving the Code’s readability, staff proposes adding
subsections to this section of the City Code. This change would bring this section of the code in line with how the city’s
other zoning districts are structured.
Please see the attached staff report for a full analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Community Commercial Area
OITY OF OHA['I[IASSI[{
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
February 19,2019
Community Commercial District Formatting
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapters 20 of the City Code."
ISSUE
The "CC" Community Commercial District is formatted differently than every other zoning
district within the city.
SUMMARY
When the city established the "CC" Community Commercial District in2009, the ordinance was
passed without its sections being broken into subsections. In the interests of improving the
Code's readability, staff proposes adding subsections to this section of the City Code. This
change would bring this section of the code in line with how the city's other zoning districts are
structured.
RELEVANT CITY CODE
Chapter 20, Article XVIII-A. - "CC" Community Commercial District. This article stipulates the
intent, permitted uses, pe(mitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and lot requirements and
setbacks of the Community Commercial District.
ANALYSIS
Uniform formatting helps make the City Code more navigable. The more reference points that
are present within the Code, the easier it is for staff to direct people to specific passages.
Additionally, listing subsections makes it easier to amend the City Code as ordinance
amendments can target specific subsections for revisions, rather than needing to work at the
section level.
PH 952.227.l I 00 . www.ci.cha nhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227.1 I I 0
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN'MINNESOTA 553I7
Community Commercial District Formatting
February 19,2019
Page2
ALTERNATIVES
1) Do nothing. The difference in formatting does not impact the functionality of the City
Code.
2\ Amend the city's Community Commercial District to bring its formatting in line with the
other zoning district's
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Altern ative 2. The proposed ordinance would be as follows:
ARTICLE XVIII-A. - ''CC'' COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Sec.20-741. - Intent.
(a) The intent of the Community Commercial District is to provide for moderate to large-
sized commercial development. These large-scale commercial and office users need high
visibility along arterial roads. While smaller scale ancillary commercial uses may be
permitted integral to the principal use, the primary use of a building shall be medium to
large-type users with a minimum tenant space of 15,000 square feet. The intent of the
district is to accommodate larger uses. The creation of multi-tenant, small user, strip
centers is prohibited.
(b) Location criteria for Community Commercial uses are: Access to arterial and collector
streets, preferably at intersections with collector and arterial streets; moderate to large-
sized sites; public water and sewer service; environmental features such as soils and
topography suitable for compact development; and adequate buffering by physical
features or adjacent uses to protect nearby residential development.
(c) The total building area on a single level or floor for an individual use shall be no more
than 65,000 square feet.
Sec.20-742. - Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in a $CC)' District:
(1) Arts and crafts suPPlY store.
(2) Automotive parts and accessories.
(3) Bookstore.
(4) Building supply center.
(5) Consumer electronics and appliance store.
(6) Drugstore.
Community Commercial District Formatting
February 19,2019
Page 3
(7) Furniture and home furnishings.
(8) Garden center.
(9) Grocery store.
(10) Health and dental clinics.
(11) Hobby, toy and game stores.
(12) Office.
(13) Office equipment and supply.
(14) Personal services.
(15) Sewing and fabric store.
(16) Sporting goods.
Sec.20-743. - Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in a"CC" District:
(1) Antennas.
(2) Automatic teller machines (ATMs).
(3) Parking lots and ramps.
(a) Signs.
(5) Temporary outdoor sales and events (subject to the requirements of Section20-964).
(6) Utility services.
Sec.20-744. - Conditional use.
hefollowingareconditionalusesina.(CC,'District:
(1) Drive-through facilities.
(2) Gun range, indoor (only in conjunction with and accessory to a sporting goods store).
(3) Screened outdoor storage.
Sec.20-745. - Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "CC" District subject to
additionat requirements, exceptions and modification set forth in this chapter:
aJ
Community Commercial District Formatting
February 19,2019
Page 4
(1) Minimum lot area: One acre.
(2) Minimum lot depth: 100 feet.
(3) Minimum lot frontage: 100 feet.
(4) Maximum lot coverage: 70 percent.
(5) Maximum building height: Four stories; 50 feet.
(6) Setbacks: Building/parking:
a. Front: 25 feet.
b. Side: 10 feet.
c. Rear: 10 feet.
d. Parking setback exemptions:
i. There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street,
another off-street parking area.
ii. Parking setbacks may be reduced to 10 feet along public streets if the applicant
can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that 100 percent (100%) screening
is provided at least five feet above the adjacent parking lot.
Secs. 20-74 6-20-7 50. - Reserved.
ATTACIIMENT
Community Commercial Area Map
g:\plan\city codeVOl9U0l9-0 I various\cc formating\staff report cc formating.docx
4
Community Commercial District
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow Continuing Care Retirement Facilities in High
Density Residential Districts
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.4.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending
Chapter 20 of the City Code.”
BACKGROUND
The performance standards for continuing care retirement facilities mention medium and highdensity districts, but they
are only listed as permitted uses in R8 – Mixed Medium Density Districts. This discrepancy should be reconciled.
RECOMMENDATION
Between its initial draft on June 5, 2012 and its adopted form on October 22, 2012, the proposed ordinance was
altered in three significant ways:
1. Continuingcare retirement facilities were changed from a conditional to a permitted use;
2. Density limits were changed from 10 dwelling units per acre to a maximum gross density of 16 beds per acre;
and
3. It was only listed as allowed in the R8 district, rather than the initial R8, R12, R16, and OI districts.
Staff believes that the first two changes were deliberate refinements of the initially proposed ordinance, but that the
failure to list continuingcare retirement facilities as a permitted use within the R12 and R16 districts was an
unintentional oversite. Staff proposes adding these facilities to the list of permitted uses for the R12 and R16 districts
to correct this omission.
Please see the attached staff report for a full analysis.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, February 19, 2019SubjectAmendment to Chanhassen City Code to Allow Continuing Care Retirement Facilities in HighDensity Residential DistrictsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.4.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendingChapter 20 of the City Code.”BACKGROUNDThe performance standards for continuing care retirement facilities mention medium and highdensity districts, but theyare only listed as permitted uses in R8 – Mixed Medium Density Districts. This discrepancy should be reconciled.RECOMMENDATIONBetween its initial draft on June 5, 2012 and its adopted form on October 22, 2012, the proposed ordinance wasaltered in three significant ways:1. Continuingcare retirement facilities were changed from a conditional to a permitted use;2. Density limits were changed from 10 dwelling units per acre to a maximum gross density of 16 beds per acre;and3. It was only listed as allowed in the R8 district, rather than the initial R8, R12, R16, and OI districts.Staff believes that the first two changes were deliberate refinements of the initially proposed ordinance, but that thefailure to list continuingcare retirement facilities as a permitted use within the R12 and R16 districts was anunintentional oversite. Staff proposes adding these facilities to the list of permitted uses for the R12 and R16 districtsto correct this omission.Please see the attached staff report for a full analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
OITI OT OHAI{IIASSIN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
February 19,2019
Continuing Care Retirement Facilities
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the City Code."
ISSUE
The performance standards for continuing care retirement facilities mention medium and high-
density districts, but they are only listed as permitted uses in R-8 - Mixed Medium Density
Districts. This discrepancy should be reconciled.
SUMMARY
Between its initial draft on June 5, 2012 and its adopted form on October 22,2012, the proposed
ordinance was altered in three significant ways: l) continuing care retirement facilities were
changed from a conditional to a permitted use; 2) density limits were changed from 10 dwelling
units an acre to a maximum gross density of 16 beds per acre; and, 3) it was only listed as
allowed in the R-8 district, rather than the initial R-8, R-12, R-16, and OI districts. Staff believes
that the first two changes were deliberate refinements of the initially proposed ordinance, but that
the failure to list continuing care retirement facilities as a permitted use within the R-12 and R-16
districts was an unintentional oversite. Staffproposed adding these facilities to the list of
permitted uses for the R-12 and R-l6 districts to correct this omission.
RELEVANT CITY CODE
Sec. 1-2. Defines the term "continuing care retirement facilities".
Sec.20-652. Lists continuing care retirement facility as a permitted use in the R-8 district.
PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chan hassen.mn.us . FX 952.227. I I I 0
77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I47 .CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Continuing Care Retirement Facilities
February 19,2079
Page2
Sec. 20-965. Establishes performance standards for continuing care retirement facilities, and
states that they should be located in medium or high-density residential districts with a gross
density net exceeding l6 beds per acre.
BACKGROUND
On June 5,2012, staff presented an issue paper on continuing care retirement facilities to the
Planning Commission. This report proposed definitions and suggested making them conditional
uses within the R-8, R-12, R-16, and OI districts with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units
per acre.
On June 6,2072, staff submitted an issue paper on continuing care retirement facilities to the
Senior Commission and requested comments.
On June 11,2072, staff presented an issue paper on continuing care retirement facilities to the
City Council. The City Council requested staff conduct additional research on how these
facilities were treated by surrounding cities.
On October 2,2072, a proposed ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission, which
established definitions related to continuing care retirement facilities, listed them as permitted
uses in the R-8 zoning district, and established performance standards for these facilities was
tabled.*
On October 16,2012, a proposed ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission, which
established definitions related to continuing care retirement facilities, listed them as permitted
uses in the R-8 zoning district, and established performance standards for these facilities was
presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recorlmended approval.*
Ordinance No. 574 was passed by the City Council on October 22,2012, establishing definitions
related to continuing care retirement facilities, listed them as permitted uses in the R-8 zoning
district, and established performance standards for these facilities.*
*This code amendment was linked to and processed in conjunction with Planning Case2012-15:
Beehive Home's Assisted Living Facility.
ANALYSIS
The City has numerous senior-oriented apartments located within its residential districts, and as
the population ages, there is a growing demand for facilities that can provide a continuum of care
from independent to assisted living. Many of these types of facilities meet the city's definition of
continuing care retirement facilities. Currently, any continuing care retirement facility would
need to either be located in an R-8 "Mixed Medium Density District" or within a Planned Unit
Development, like the recently approved Riley Crossing (formerly Mission Hills) project. There
is no reason not to allow continuing care retirement facilities within the R-l2 and R-16 "High
Continuing Care Retirement Facilities
February 19,2019
Page 3
Density Residential Districts" and staff believes the ordinance's failure to list these facilities in
those districts was an elror of omission.
Staff believes that the ordinance's failure to list continuing care retirement facilities as a
permitted use within the R-12 and R-l6 districts is the result of the fact that the ordinance
proceeded concurrently with the Beehive Home's Assisted Living Facility, a continuing care
retirement facility that was requesting to locate within an R-8 district. Sometimes when a code
amendment is drafted in response to a request to allow a specific use, the included provisions are
very narrowly constructed to meet the needs of the specific request. It is likely that when the
ordinance was revised between its hypothetical iteration in June 2012 and its final form
responding to a direct request to allow these facilities in the R-8 district, its broader intent was
overlooked.
As adopted, the ordinance that governs continuing care retirement facilities lists a maximum
density of 16 beds per acre, a number that is consistent with the upper threshold of density
permitted in areas guided for Residential High Density, which permits densities of 8 to l6 units
per acre. Additionally, the adopted performance standards for continuing care retirement
facilities specifically states, "The facility shall be located in a medium or high-density district..."
This means that the only change that would be needed to permit continuing care retirement
facilities within the R-12 and R-16 districts is adding these facilities to the list of permitted uses
since the rest of the regulatory framework already contains provisions that accommodate the
placement of these facilities within high-density residential districts.
ALTERNATIVES
l) Do nothing. PUDs can accommodate this use in higher density districts.
2) Amend the City Code to list continuing care retirement facilities as permitted uses in the
R-12 and R-16 districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative2 as it is in line with the original intent of Ordinance 574 and there
is no compelling reason not to permit continuing care retirement facilities within high-density
residential districts. The proposed ordinance would read as follows:
Sec.20-652. - Permitted uses.
The following are permitted uses in an R-8 district:
(1) Townhouses, two-family, multifamilydwellings.
(2) Public and private parks and open spaces.
(3) Utility services.
(4) Temporary real estate office and model home.
(5) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
J
Continuing Care Retirement Facilities
February 19,2019
Page 4
(6) Continuing care retirement facility, subject to the requirements of section 20-965.
(7) Adult daycare, subject to the requirements of section20-966.
Sec.20-672. - Permitted uses.
The following are permitted uses in an "R-12" district:
(1) Townhouses, two-family dwellings and multifamily dwellings.
(2) Public and private parks and open space.
(3) Utility services.
(4) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(5) Adult daycare, subject to the requirements of section20-966.
(6) Continuing care retirement facitity, subject to the requirements of section 20-965.
Sec. 20-681. - Permitted uses.
The following are permitted uses in an "R-16" district:
(1) Multifamilydwellings.
(2) Public and private parks and open space.
(3) Utility services.
(4) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(5) Adult day carc, subject to the requirements of section 20-966.
(6) Continuing care retirement facility, subject to the requirements of section 20-965.
g:\plan\city codeVO19\20l9-01 various\cont. care ret. facility\staffreport continuing care retirement facility.docx
4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject Amendment to Chanhassen City Code to Update Sign Design and Construction Standards
Reference (Building Code)
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.5.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending
Chapter 20 of the City Code.”
BACKGROUND
Sec. 201270 of the City Code requires that all signs meet the design and construction standards set forth in Chapter 4
of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Sign Code. The city does not have a copy of this book.
RECOMMENDATION
The currently referenced sign design and construction standards are derived from a 22yearold manual that the city
does not have on file. It is unlikely that most sign designers and contractors have access to this book, and in practice,
the city’s building officials use the Minnesota State Building Code when reviewing sign permits. Staff recommends that
the sign code be amended to reference Appendix H of the International Building Code instead of the 1997 edition of
the Uniform Sign Code.
Please see the attached staff report for a full analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Appendix H of the International Building Code, Signs
OITY OT OIIAI{HASSII'I
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
February 19,2019
Referenced Sign Code
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the City Code."
ISSUE
Sec.20-1270 of the City Code requires that all signs meet the design and construction standards
set forth in Chapter 4 of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Sign Code. The city does not have a
copy of this book.
SUMMARY
The currently referenced sign design and construction standards are derived from a 22-year-old
manual that the city does not have on file. It is unlikely that most sign designers and contractors
have access to this book, and in practice, the city's building ofEcials use the Minnesota State
Building Code when reviewing sign permits. Staff recommends that the sign code be amended to
reference the Appendix H of the lnternational Building Code instead of the 1997 edition of the
Uniform Sign Code.
RELEVAI\T CITY CODE
Sec.20-1270. - Uniform Sign Code. Requires signs to meet the design and construction
standards of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Sign Code.
BACKGROUND
The city attomey's office contacted the city to ask if we had a copy of the reference book
available. Staff was unable to find a copy of the book within City Hall.
PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227. I I I 0
77OO I'4ARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Referenced Sign Code
February 19,2019
Page2
ANALYSIS
While the 1997 Uniform Sign Code does have detailed sign construction standards, Appendix H
of the International Building Code also has provisions that ensure signs will not pose a risk to
life, health, property, and public welfare. The city currently has numerous copies of the
Intemational Building Code on file and both the city's building inspectors and sign contractors
are familiar with its requirements. Adopting a separate manual to govern sign construction and
installation needlessly complicates sign permit review.
ALTERNATIVES
l) Do nothing and purchase a copy of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Sign Code.
2) Amend the city's sign ordinance to adopt Appendix H of the International Building Code
rather than the 1997 edition of the Uniform Sign Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative 2.The proposed ordinance would read as follows:
Sec.20-1270._@CompliancewithMinnesotaStateBuildingCode
The design and construction standards as set forth in Appendix H of the International Building
Cod as may be amended, are adoPted.
ATTACHMENT
l) Appendix H of the International Building Code
g:\plan\city code\20 19\20 I 94 I various\sign design standards\sign code reference staff report.docx
2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject Amendment to Chanhassen City Code Clarifying Trash Storage Enclosure Exemption
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.6.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending
Chapter 20 of the City Code.”
BACKGROUND
Section 20912(b) exempts covered garbage cans in agricultural and singlefamily districts from the prohibition on
exterior incineration of trash or garbage.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Code has two provisions that stipulate where garbage containers may be stored; one is designed to govern
commercial, industrial, and multifamily users, and the other is a universal provision. In order to avoid applying the
section of the code that governs other uses to singlefamily districts, a clause was added exempting singlefamily
districts from those standards; however, the storage portion of the ordinance also contains the provision prohibiting the
exterior incineration of trash. The result is that both the storage portion of the ordinance and the prohibition on exterior
incineration do not apply to singlefamily districts. Staff proposes amending this section of the code to apply the
prohibition on the exterior incineration of trash to singlefamily districts.
Please see the attached staff report for a full analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
OITY O[ OIIAI{IIASSTI'I
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
February 19,2019
Trash Container Storage
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the City Code."
ISSUE
Section 20-912@) exempts covered garbage cans in agricultural and single-family districts from
the prohibition on exterior incineration of trash or garbage.
SUMMARY
The City Code has two provisions that stipulate where garbage containers may be stored; one is
designed to govern commercial, industrial, and multi-family users, and the other is a universal
provision. In order to avoid applyng the section of the code that governs other uses to single-
family districts, a clause was added exernpting single-family districts from those standards;
however, the storage portion of the ordinance also contains the provision prohibiting the exterior
incineration of trash. The result is that both the storage portion of the ordinance and the
prohibition on exterior incarnation do not apply to single-family districts. Staff proposes
amending this section of the code to apply the prohibition on the exterior incineration of trash to
single-family districts.
RELEVANT CITY CODE
Sec. 16-21. - Container storage. Requires garbage and refuse containers to be located out of
public view except on day ofpick up.
Sec.20-912. - Storage of garbage and trash. Does not permit incineration of trash or garbage and
prohibits exterior storage of trash or garbage unless screened. Also exernpts detached single-
family residential districts from these provisions.
PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227. I I I 0
77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Trash Container Storage Code Amendment
February 19,2019
Page2
ANALYSIS
Section 20-912(a) of the City Code requires that trash or garbage be stored either in an enclosed
accessory building or in closed containers within a total screened area. It also prohibits the
exterior incineration of trash or garbage. Section 20-912(b) states that Section 20-912(a) does not
apply to covered garbage cans in agricultural and single-family districts. Staff believes the intent
of Siction z}-gl2(b) was to exempt single-family homes and agricultural properties from the
potentially onerous storage requirements of Section20-912(a), instead leaving their trash storage
iegulated by Section 16-21 which simply requires that garbage and refuses containers be located
oul of public view except on day of pick up. However, since the provision prohibiting
incineration is located within Section 20-912(a), Section 20-912(b) also exempts single-family
and agricultural districts from the that prohibition.
Staff recommends that Section 20-912(a)'s two provisions be separated out and that single-
family and agricultural districts only be exempted from the storage portion of the ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES
l) Do nothing. To date, no one has made the case that they are allowed to burn covered
garbage cans.
2) A-"na Sec.20-912 to only exempt covered garbage containers from the enclosed storage
provisions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Altern ative 2. The proposed ordinance would read as follows:
Sec. 20-912. - Storage of garbage and trash.
(a) No exterior incineration of trash or garbage is
(b) No exterior storage of trash or garbage is permissible except in an accessory
building enclosed by walls and roof, or in closed containers within a totally
screened areas.
(c) Subsection (a b) does not apply to covered garbage cans in agricultural and single-
family districts.
g:\plan\city codepo19\2019{l various\trash storage\trash storage staffreport 021919.docx
2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 15, 2019
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: E.1.
Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from the January 15, 2019 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated January 15, 2019
Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated January 15, 2019
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JANUARY 15, 2019
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, Mark
Randall, and Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Todd Hoffman, Park
and Rec Director; and Erik Henriksen, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Mary & Allan Olson 7461 Windmill Drive
Tim Nordberg 2126 Majestic Way
Neil & Abby Ellis 7284 Bent Bow Trail
Mauricio Goes 6930 Ruby Lane
Matt Chambers 2169 Red Fox Circle
Dake Chatfield 2700 Majestic Way
Mehdi Ayouche 2102 Majestic Way
Ann Nye 1641 West 63rd Street
Bill & Jill Borrell 2300 Longacres Drive
Jim Freebersyser & Michelle Treptau 6935 Ruby Lane
Larry Stueve 7324 Fawn Hill Road
Cherree Theisen 2072 Majestic Way
Scott Wosje 7125 Northwood Court
Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue
Courtney Jennings 7406 Moccasin Trail
Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way
Melissa Murrujo 1973 Topaz Drive
Jay Gerczak 1941 Topaz Drive
Geri Stewart 1893 Topaz Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER REZONING PARCEL (GALPIN SITE) FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
(RR) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (PUD-R),
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND SUBDIVISION OF 191 ACRES
INCLUDING THE PRESERVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES AND THE
CREATION OF 191 LOTS.
Planning Commission Summary – January 15, 2019
2
Kate Aanenson presented planning aspects of the staff report on this item. Todd Hoffman
addressed park dedication and plans to expand Lake Ann Park with the use of density transfer.
Erik Henriksen discussed engineering aspects of the plan regarding easements, right-of-way,
streets, retaining walls, and utilities such as sanitary sewer and watermains. Commissioner Tietz
discussed his fundamental issue with the density transfer and how the plan was tested and
verified. He also asked for architectural variation on the front facades of the homes.
Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification on sizing of catch basins, how runoff will be
handled and turning movements onto Galpin Boulevard from the development. Commissioner
Weick asked about the amount of earth being moved, and the difference between gross and net
acreage numbers. Commissioner Madsen asked how overall density, steep slopes on the north,
through traffic, width of the lots on the south end, buffers and water runoff to the south
neighborhood were addressed. Joe Jablonski, representing Lennar Corporation as the Director of
Entitlements and Forward Planning, addressed issues related to elimination of the street
connection to the north, lot sizes, architectural styles, grading plan, phasing plan for final plats,
and meeting neighborhood park needs. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Geri Stewart,
1893 Topaz Drive expressed concern with the buffer between her property and new houses being
built and requested a conservancy buffer. Dake Chatfield, 2200 Majestic Way, which is on the
south side of the property, expressed concern with the property being clear cut and the amount of
buffer being provided. Scott Wosje, 7125 Northwood Court, speaking as President of the
Longacres Homeowners Board, explained that from the perspective of the people who live in the
Longacres neighborhood this development is not good for them. Josh Kimber, 2060 Majestic
Way explained that after this item was before the Planning Commission and City Council he
expected to see 3 plans as requested, and that the lots abutting the southern border are not of
similar size to existing lots. Cherree Theisen, 2072 Majestic Way discussed having been one of
the first houses on Majestic Way and being told that the stand of trees on Prince’s property
would not be removed when the property sold, expressed concern with runoff from this property
onto her yard. Jim Freebersyser, 6935 Ruby Lane suggested that the City buy this property to
end the nonsense of development and say no to this PUD. Todd Simning, 2145 Wynsong Lane
and speaking as a builder/developer, noted he is pro development but would recommend tabling
or not approving the item until outstanding engineering issues are addressed and understood.
Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. Joe Jablonski addressed issues such as density and
tree removal. After comments and discussion by commission members the following motion
was made.
McGonagill moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the proposed motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends to City
Council to approve the rezoning for 191 acres from Rural Residential District (RR) to
Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) including PUD ordinance for Galpin
Design Standards; and the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the subdivision preliminary plat creating 191 lots, 3 outlots and dedication
of the right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated December 5,
2018 subject to conditions in the staff report; and the Chanhassen Planning Commission
Planning Commission Summary – January 15, 2019
3
recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of
wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; and the Planning Commission
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Commissioners McGonagill,
Tietz and Randall voted in favor of the motion for denial. Commissioners Madsen, Weick
and Aller voted against the motion for denial. The motion is tied with a vote of 3 to 3.
There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.
APPROAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2018 as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Chairman Aller congratulated the new members to the
City Council and commented that the Chanhassen Red Birds were announced as State
Champions.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson discussed the City Council action
update items and future Planning Commission agenda schedule.
Commissioner McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 15, 2019
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, Mark
Randall, and Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Todd Hoffman, Park
and Rec Director; and Erik Henriksen, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Mary & Allan Olson 7461 Windmill Drive
Tim Nordberg 2126 Majestic Way
Neil & Abby Ellis 7284 Bent Bow Trail
Mauricio Goes 6930 Ruby Lane
Matt Chambers 2169 Red Fox Circle
Dake Chatfield 2700 Majestic Way
Mehdi Ayouche 2102 Majestic Way
Ann Nye 1641 West 63rd Street
Bill & Jill Borrell 2300 Longacres Drive
Jim Freebersyser & Michelle Treptau 6935 Ruby Lane
Larry Stueve 7324 Fawn Hill Road
Cherree Theisen 2072 Majestic Way
Scott Wosje 7125 Northwood Court
Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue
Courtney Jennings 7406 Moccasin Trail
Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way
Melissa Murrujo 1973 Topaz Drive
Jay Gerczak 1941 Topaz Drive
Geri Stewart 1893 Topaz Drive
Aller: Happy New Year. Welcome to everyone. I’m pleased to see that the commission room
is full of our resident ready for our first Planning Commission meeting. Today is January 15,
2019. For the record we have a quorum. This Planning Commission is a recommending body to
the City Council. That means we want you and suggest that you follow the items before us to the
City Council for final action when they come up and we’ll let you know when they come up.
Also all the items that we see, all the packages that we review are on the City’s website so feel
free to, if you haven’t already when you go home take a look at the documents that are there in
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
2
preparation for any time that you want to come visit or whether you want to follow this particular
item to the City Council for further action. Any person wishing to appeal a variance decision
made by us sitting as a Board of Appeals and Adjustments may do so. That should be done in
writing within 4 days. Public input is accepted when the Planning Commission opens the public
hearing portion of any item. Tonight we do have a public hearing item before us so we’ll be
taking testimony and again welcome to all present and we look forward to hearing your
comments. Any persons wishing to speak are requested to come to the podium. State your name
and address and your representational capacity, if any and then state your position either for or
against the item or just your comments regarding the item. We look forward to hearing them.
Any item is introduced first by the staff and they make a presentation of the report. Again that
report is on the website. Once the staff makes it’s presentation the applicant or developer can
come up and make a presentation. The public hearing is held. Once the public hearing is held
it’s closed and then the commissioners will make discussion and take whatever appropriate
action they deem necessary at that time. So with that we will begin with our public hearings and
item number one.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER REZONING PARCEL (GALPIN SITE) FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
(RR) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (PUD-R),
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND SUBDIVISION OF 191 ACRES
INCLUDING THE PRESERVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES AND THE
CREATION OF 191 LOTS.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. This item again
it will be scheduled to go forward to the City Council on February 11th. I just want to remind you
that we did have a meeting on this in the concept. That was held at the Planning Commission on
July 17th and the council also discussed the concept on August 13th. Again the concept was part
of the PUD process the applicant chose to go through to get feedback on that and we’ll talk a
little bit more about that as we move forward. So the request tonight is to rezone the property
from RR to PUD Residential. It’s also for the subdivision, a preliminary plat of 191 lots and a
wetland alteration permit for a 1.2 acres. Don’t have a map on that one. The concept review was
for low density. The site is guided low density. Excuse me, the land use designation is low
density. 1.2 to 4 units an acre. The zoning is rural residential, 2 ½ acres. Rural residential
typically is not serviced by sewer so in order for this project to go through the project proceeds
consistent with the land use guiding which allows 1.2 to 4 units an acre. So in looking at that the
applicant put together the different iterations of a, this is again was under the concept review. If
it was laid out as a traditional residential single family which would be an RSF zoning district
which allows 15,000 square foot lots. Also within the zoning would be compatible would be an
R-4 which allows for twin homes and 15,000, excuse me 10,000 for the lots and single family
homes for 15,000. Again the zoning also provides for residential low medium which allows
9,000 square foot single family homes and 7,260 square foot lots for twin homes and, or a PUD.
Now the only way you could get the RLM zoning district or the PUD would be you would have
to give preservation of a significant amount of woods so for example the Fox Wood is one that
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
3
we’ve done recently where we preserved a significant amount of upland trees and created a trail
through there and the lots were allowed to be smaller. So this applicant chose to go forward with
the PUD allowing for the density transfer. So in looking at this and meeting with perspective
people that were looking at purchasing the property the Comprehensive Plan for this area
adjacent to Lake Ann and to Lake Lucy was shown to be preserved so in order to that
preservation to take place with the dedication of open space in lieu of purchasing the property the
applicant and the City felt the PUD process would be the best way to go through to pursue the
preservation without purchase of the property that was deemed in the Comprehensive Plan to be
an area to be preserved. So with that.
Hoffman: Thanks Kate. Chairman Aller and members of the Planning Commission my name is
Todd Hoffman. It’s a pleasure to be here this evening. I serve as the Parks and Recreation
Director for the City of Chanhassen and I’ll go over the slides that have to do specifically with
the expansion, proposed expansion of Lake Ann Park. Significant size piece of property and
then talk briefly about some trail planning that’s taking go in that area as well. So if we go back
to 6-28-18. I can do it Kate from here I think. So the, or excuse me the Park and Recreation
Commission took a look at the concept plan as well and their recommendation to the City
Council at that time in the early stages of the development process was to say okay, we
understand the property owner has the right to develop their property. The Comprehensive Plan
and the Park System Plan says but our preference is to preserve that large area between the two
lakes. Not put homes in there. Preserve it as park space but obviously they own the property.
We don’t. How are we going to gain access to that property? Two ways. Well a number of
ways to do it. So park dedication takes about 10 percent of any development and so that’s about
9 acres, give or take in this scenario. It’s also, it’s another way of calculating it. It’s 1 acre per
75 people so for every 75 people you’re bringing into a new neighborhood the City can ask for 1
acre. That’s about 9 acres. But in total there’s just about 50 acres of upland in the area that
we’re going to be talking about. So maybe click forward. Is there a map? Yeah there we go.
So this is just gives some context about the, we’ll get back to the other stuff once we get to that
map. This will give you a context about what’s being planned in this general area. If you take a
look at the yellow lines on the outside of the entire area, so you’ve got Lake Lucy to the north.
Galpin to the west. Highway 5 and Audubon to the south and Powers Boulevard. Those all have
comprehensive trail systems and neighborhoods on them and the goal is to get all of those people
connected to this large expansion of Lake Ann Park. So Lake Ann Park currently is 100 acres in
size. Has many amenities but this proposed expansion will add about another 100 acres to the
park with all natural treed areas, some wetlands and then this trail system. So those lines that
you see there are representative of what has been in the City’s Comprehensive Plan for a long
time and so everybody that’s either owned this property or has proposed to develop it or any
citizen that has lived in the area could have had access to the comprehensive planning documents
and could have learned what the City was proposing for this property, both for parks and trails
into the future. That just again text I’m not going to read but that’s what the Comprehensive
Plan says is we’re going to build parks and trails within a half mile of everyone’s front door.
Connect our parks and our neighborhoods via trails. That’s what our comp plan says. Again
same thing. It talks about the 9 acres. So to accomplish that you have this large area inbetween
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
4
the lakes where the red arrows are and the red circles. That you could plat homes in but it’s just
simply, it’s not very desirable for a variety of reasons to do it. If you’re a developer or a
potential homeowner that might be desirable but from the City’s comp plan it says let’s get those
homes out of that area. Allow them to be transferred to the west and to transfer that density out
and so going back to the park dedication, 9 acres. That’s the first you can get so you’ve got 41
acres left to acquire. The City’s not in a position to buy 41 acres of property from Lennar but
they’re willing to go ahead and say we’ll work with you on this transfer of density. What we
want to do is we want to abide by your City’s Comprehensive Plan. We think it’s a good idea as
well. Provide all the open space for all the neighbors but we also have to financially you know
turn a profit. Make money in this deal just like any other developer and so same goes for the
land owner. When they sell the property they want to obtain the highest and best value of the
property and you just can’t, simply can’t say we’re going to take your property from either the
landowner or Lennar. So then this is what you accomplish with that transfer of density. All of
that open space. The large wetland area which is over 40 acres in size. 50 acres of upland
inbetween the two lakes is preserved and the density transfer is to the west into that
neighborhood. Gives you a little more of a graphical representation of what we’re talking about.
So the green is all upland. The light blue is the wetland area. That’s a large wetland that runs
north and south. It also drains, it drains from the south to the north. Drains into Lake Lucy and
then eventually Lake Lucy drains into Lake Ann so that gives you at least some scale of the size
of the area that’s proposed to be preserved as part of both the park dedication, 9 acres and then
the density transfer out of the other 41 acres. So this just, the City recently finished a Park
System Master Plan and this speaks to that. Development master plan defines the extent of the
park expansion to the west and north and that’s what’s being done so the Park System Plan, and
all that citizen input that was a part of that process just about 18 months ago said that this is the
number one priority in our city. So when residents were asked what’s the biggest parks and trail
priority in our city? They said preserving this area inbetween the two lakes is our number one
priority as a community. Last summer the City Council identified a key financial strategy that
said we want to start planning for this. We think it’s important for the future of our community.
We want to communicate to residents what we’re thinking. Redefine, or define that
Comprehensive Plan trail system a little bit more and so this is a concept trail plan that would
show how the trails would connect, both through Lake Ann. Around the east side of Lake Ann
and then connecting up to Greenwood Shores Park. That’s where the creek is so you would have
your first bridge at that location then you, is the cursor showing? There we go, fantastic. So
this trail here would continue. There would be a bridge over the top of the creek at this location.
The trail would continue to the north. Second bridge over this creek and then the trail would
connect to a dead end trail at this location right here which goes up to Lake Lucy Road. So
that’s the first leg. Second leg would continue down around Lake Ann and work it’s way over to
a boardwalk. This would be a boardwalk across the narrowest part of this neck down wetland
and this is where the Lake Ann Interceptor comes through and so that’s where the large sewer
line goes through for Met Council and then this would be the main connection, not just to the
new neighborhood but also over along to the back side of this wetland to Galpin Boulevard into
the adjoining neighborhoods so everybody can have access to this comprehensive trail system.
And then eventually if this property ever subdivides then the final piece could be developed and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
5
you would complete that ring around Lake Ann. But even without this parcel here you can still
access Lake Ann Park from the new developments and it will continue to, the trail to the north.
So you start making those connections that everybody would like to see happen around this area
to preserve a very significant stand of forested area that would otherwise be developed into
homes and you preserve that large wetland area so it becomes a common public space that
everybody can access and gain access to and it’s a benefit for all. Park System Plan identifies
those trail gaps and community input trails are the highest value amenity in our system.
Connections to our Lake Ann are key and the desire is for more trail access to parks and natural
areas, just what I talked about. That’s probably it for me. And so as we continue through, I’ve
been in the city a number, a good number of years. This no doubt represents the largest park
dedication opportunity that the City has ever been faced with so it’s a significant opportunity I
think for the citizens of Chanhassen to realize long range plan in the City’s Comprehensive Plan
but it does take that density transfer of housing and that’s the trade off and so I think that’s one
of the biggest talking points as the Planning Commission moves forward. Thank you for your
time.
Aanenson: So I talked about the rezoning portion of the property…the purpose of the PUD and
what we were trying to accomplish was using that as a tool so now we’re going to talk about the
preliminary plat which has a lot more of the planning aspects and then significant amount of
engineering so the preliminary plat then includes 191 lots. Of that the development area is 51
acres and it’s on 191 gross acres of land so there’s 3 outlots. The largest being the preservation
area and then 2 outlots that are located here and up here and then there’s right-of-way that will be
dedicated with this as a part of Galpin Boulevard. There is right-of-way being dedicated for that
when that gets built in the future and so all the right-of-way is taken out as is the outlot area as
far as taking the density so it is well under the 1.2 to 4 units an acre which is a requirement of the
low density zoning district. So within the PUD one of the things that we look at besides the
preservation is a variety of housing types so within this you can see there’s 4 different housing
types and this was some of the issues that were brought up and I’ll let engineering go through a
little bit more details but the original design showed the through street which is the preferred
direction for the fire department but I’ll let the developer go into a little bit more detail but
meeting with some of the neighbors to the north that they felt like having the two cul-de-sacs
was the preferred. So this was one of the designs. So these are all, these are in the shoreland
district which requires the 15,000 square foot lots so those would be the largest lots. It’s also,
while talking about the shoreland district the DNR supports the density transfer and the
preservation of those amenities next to the lake for water quality. And then the next, there’s
some transitional zoning that came up at your concept plan. Some transitional, some larger lots
here on the south side so that’d be 10 lots there so you can see within the PUD there’s 3, excuse
me 4 different lot sizes and then they’ve got the 34 lots here and then the largest would be the
116 of those lots. Included in your packet we put the PUD ordinance in place so one of the goals
I know would be the variety of housing types and then also we calculated all the lots. We went
through and measured all the lots to make sure they met compliance and then also that they
provide an opportunity because we know houses are flexible. Sometimes people want to add a
screen porch or a deck so there was an opportunity for that so we went through that exercise too.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
6
So within that PUD ordinance there’s also an attachment of the housing types so within each, so
for example the landmark series, there‘s different facades and then there’s different floor models
and I’ll let the developer talk a little bit more about those but it’s my understanding that some of
those will be changing over the summer. They might do a little bit different branding on those
but we are going to make those a part of the PUD ordinance that they are similar and that they
mix up the facades on the exterior and so they’d be different housing types so that has been
demonstrated with the PUD which is also one of the requirements. Also the setbacks. The 20-25
foot setbacks. 7 ½ between yards. Again you have that in other zoning districts in the RLM.
Sometimes we use the 5 and 10. You’ve seen it a couple different ways. The nice thing when
you get to the 7 ½ it really kind of eliminates storage in the side yards because you don’t have a
10 foot side yard to put storage. And also it’s my understanding that they’ll also be submitting
homeowners association rules of how they’ll regulate that. If you look at some of the other
neighborhoods that Lennar’s done they have those requirements. So that is pretty much the
subdivision itself. How it’s laid out so just wanted to remind everybody kind of what we talked
about. This was a slide we showed doing the concept kind of the forestry area. So if you look at
where the, kind of the open area is here. The preservation of this area of the woods. So the City
Forester put quite a bit of detail in the comments for the preservation and yes there are some
woods that are going to be removed but also significant portion of the woods will be saved. So
in looking at that we also looked at the fact that if you did a traditional subdivision there would
also be, could you do some custom grading? Potentially but there’d also be some tree loss with
that too so I’ll go in a little bit more detail of the preservation area. Everything in that shaded
like this is in the preservation area. Then you can see some of the grading limits. I know some
of these edges of the wetlands are important but we’ll talk about that in the wetland in a minute
but the nice thing about on this side of the wetland you kind of preserve these existing edges.
But in the tree canopy the minimum about 9 ½ acres was not included in the calculations so you
don’t get to double, you have to dedicate something so you can’t double count that so the canopy
is a little bit less than what was calculated as far as the total preservation area. There’s, so a
recommendation of revegetation of the landscaping. I think there’s some areas that we think
preserve some of those edges along the wetland. Also along Galpin Boulevard for those typical
buffers so there will be trees that will be put into the back yards or the front yards on those lots
and then we’ll be looking at that with the final grading plan but there’s a pretty detailed report
from the City Forester then on that and feel good about the direction that we’re moving in that
regard in the forestry and landscaping plans. With that I’ll turn it over to engineering to go
through.
Henricksen: Alright thank you Kate. Good evening everyone, commissioners. My name’s Erik
Henricksen. I’m the project engineer with the city. I’ll be presenting the engineering review for
easements, right-of-way, streets, retaining walls, utilities such as sanitary sewer and watermains.
Beginning with easements and right-of-ways. As you can see from the map the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services has a 20 foot easement that bisects the site diagonally from the
northwest corner to the southeast corner. There are two locations the applicant is proposing to
impact their easement. One is location A where they’re going to be constructing the Street Z and
location B where they’ll be grading for some lots off of Street G. The council or MCS has been
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
7
provided and supplied the plans and have no comments or concerns at this time regarding the
impacts to their easement. If there are any changes to any of grading plans MCS will again be
provided the plans for comments. Right-of-way dedication will be required along the east side of
Galpin Boulevard. This is per Carver County’s comments along with Highway 117 corridor
study and the typical roadway sections identified in the County’s draft 2040 Comprehensive
Plan. The corridor study did identify that specific, there were specific right-of-way needs right
here. It indicated that a 50 foot dedication from the center line of Galpin Boulevard would be
required. This has been illustrated on the preliminary plat by the applicant. In order to satisfy
the County and City’s conditions the applicant will be required to produce cross reference
submittals such as grading plans, profiles and respective cross sections at key locations such as
intersections where ponds kind of abut the right-of-way and other key locations identified by the
City. These will be subject to review by the County prior to recording of the final plat. The
applicant is proposing to construct 5 stormwater basins. From the preliminary grading plans and
grading details drainage from individual lots will be routed away from buildings into a series of
catch basins and reinforced concrete pipe in the back drainage utility easements located in the
back yards. Drainage from proposed public streets will be collected through catch basins located
next to curbs and routed to stormwater basins for treatment. The applicant has not provided in
their narrative or in the preliminary plans details regarding whether the site will be mass graded
or will undergo a phase approach. The applicant shall supply a mass grading plan or a phased
grading, whichever is applicable for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of
grading permits. Lastly the stormwater best management practices and proposed facilities for
treating runoff have been evaluated and are found to be feasible to meet the City’s stormwater
master plan or management plan and the stormwater standards. All required updates addressed
in the staff report to the preliminary models must be addressed and submitted to the City for
review. Additionally this development falls within the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed
district. They have been provided plans. Pending any comments from the watershed district the
applicant shall address those as well. More grading. There are two bluffs within the site. It’s
kind of difficult to see but this hashed area up here is what has been identified as a bluff within
their site plan. This is located behind the lots of 111 through 115 off Lucy Ridge Lane. There is
a second bluff located behind the lots of 125 and 126 abutting Street Z. As you can see the
grading plans do not indicate the location or extents of the bluffs and their appropriate buffers
and setbacks. This may impact grading of these areas and any subsequent construction of
retaining walls or building pads in the area. Thus the applicant would be required to submit
updated grading plans that illustrate these bluffs and their setbacks while adhering to bluff
protection ordinances prior to issuance of grading permits. The preliminary grading plans do
illustrate grading for Basin 400 that will encroach into the southern section of the City’s well
house number 3 and water station site located off of Galpin Boulevard. As addressed under the
water section of the staff report the applicant will be required to perform site improvements to
the well house number 3 site. One of the improvements is the inclusion of the realignment of the
access off of Galpin Boulevard. As you can see from the preliminary grading plans that hasn’t
been incorporated yet so we want to see the coordination of this access and it being illustrated on
the grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. Furthermore this access point is one
of those key locations that we’d like to see the cross reference material for the Galpin project
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
8
that’s scheduled in 2022 to insure proper alignments, elevations, and the like. The preliminary
grading plans indicate drainage of back yards from these lots here. This stems from Lot 164
down to Lots 174 which abut Street A. This runoff will be, will go directly onto the proposed
trail. Runoff from these lots will degrade the trail and unnecessarily and warrant undue
maintenance and upkeep. Furthermore runoff would actually go directly into the Wetland 11
untreated so the applicant shall submit revised grading and stormwater plans to deal with the
stormwater here. One of the recommendations might be either to swale it or as they proposed
prior to is to install the catch basin and RCP system to come into Basin 400 for treatment. East
of Lot 111 abutting Street A the applicant is proposing a stormwater conveyance system. The
preliminary grading plans indicate a grade of up to approximately 30 percent which runs
perpendicular or across slope to the stormwater system. Maintenance and repair activities on
such a steep slope are difficult and can pose safety concerns. The applicant shall adjust the
grading plans for a more appropriate grade. Engineering does recommend not more than 10
percent over the utility. Additionally staff does have concerns about slope stability in this area
here. The applicant shall submit an updated geotech report which will include the soil types, the
ground water elevations and slope stability calculations for this area based on the proposed
structure to be constructed on this lot here. Retaining walls. There are 3 retaining walls that are
proposed on the preliminary plans. All of these retaining walls do exceed a height of 4 feet.
Therefore they’re going to have to be designed by a professional engineer or landscape architect.
Those designs will have to be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of grading permits so
that we can review their stability. Wall 1 is approximately 200 feet long and ranges from 6 to 8
feet in height. The construction of this wall appears to be within a bluff setback area. That was
discussed earlier. This is Street Z. This is Lot 124 and 125. The retaining wall may have to be
adjusted but this is going to be pending the updated grading plans so engineering will be excuse
me looking at that for review. Wall 2 is approximately 170 feet long. This here will require, this
is another key location that we’re going to want to see cross reference material because of the
proximity to the right-of-way line which we discussed earlier on cross reference material. Wall 3
to the south here is approximately 420 feet long and ranges from 4 to 10 feet in height. The
retaining wall is offset approximately 10 feet from a stormwater conveyance pipe that you can
see from the drainage and utility easement here. This retaining wall will have to be adjusted to
maintain a 1 ½ to 1 buffer from the bottom of the stormwater pipe to the bottom of the retaining
wall. This is for maintenance purposes along with structural stability of the wall to give it an
appropriate buffer if those maintenance activities have to be conducted. Moving now to streets.
The applicant is proposing the construction of 9 new city streets and the extension of 2 existing
streets. The City shall own and maintain the streets after acceptance of the public improvements
by the City Council. All newly constructed street sections shall be designed to meet the current
standards specifications and details and detail plates for residential streets. After review by
engineering they do appear to meet the majority of all our detail plates and standards. One
addition will be the, from the detail plate for our residential streets would be the addition of
draintile on both sides which weren’t provided. The proposed streets in line with existing ones
off Galpin Boulevard which are Longacres Drive and Hunter Drive. These alignments promote
full access management and circulation of traffic and also match the design considerations for
the Galpin Boulevard construction and the Highway 117 corridor study. These new streets and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
9
extensions will result in 6 cul-de-sacs with 5 of the 6 proposed cul-de-sacs meeting city code.
Street Z, a newly constructed street and cul-de-sac in the northern section of the development
exceeds the maximum length for a cul-de-sac per the city ordinance. As proposed Street Z has a
length of 1,576 feet measured from the center line of Galpin Boulevard to the center of the turn
around radius of the cul-de-sac. Engineering recommends the approval of the cul-de-sac as the
topography would require substantial grading for a through street and the loss of significant trees
that would alter the physical character of the property and the surrounding parcels. Furthermore
as Kate mentioned the residents to the north in the Ashling Meadow neighborhood strongly
opposed the through street. Because and since Street Z has not been proposed as a through street
the stub off Ruby Lane is no longer necessary. Ruby Lane services no driveways and will not be
required for future connections. Therefore the developer will be required to remove the hard
surface, restore the area to the existing natural conditions and construct half street improvements
which would be curb and gutter to maintain continuity of Topaz Drive and the drainage along
Topaz Drive. The City will reach out to the abutting property owners to see if they are interested
in the vacation of the right-of-way. However all utility easements will remain in place. Then
here the sidewalk located at the intersection of Galpin and Street E terminates to, with no
proposed connectivity to, at the intersection to the existing trail system on the west side of
Galpin. Using the manual of uniform traffic control devices approved practices for pedestrian
crosswalk and intersection improvements the applicant shall construct that connection. Water
and sanitary sewer. The applicant is proposing to construct an 8 inch PVC C900 watermain and
8 inch PVC sanitary sewer main throughout the entire development as well as streets. The
watermains and the sanitary sewer mains shall be owned and maintained by the City after
acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. The staff report enumerates the
comments and conditions regarding both systems. However all those comments and conditions
addressed are in regards to the building and construction permits. Overall the applicant has
proposed systems that meet the City’s best management practices, construction standards and
standard specifications for construction for the installation of public utilities. The only major
change to the preliminary plans would be the addition of a back feed location for the long dead
end of Street Z which shall connect to the existing stub off of Ruby Lane. There’s an existing
watermain that was stubbed out during this, the construction of a stub out of Ruby Lane.
Aanenson: Thank you. So now we’re onto the third action which is the wetland alteration
permit. So as we mentioned before there was a 41 acre wetland that’s going to be preserved.
There are 3 impacted, excuse me 5 impacted wetlands and those include 12 and 12A. These two
wetlands here and then wetlands 3, 4 and 5 would also be impacted so if you look at the total of
wetlands on the site, 1.2 acres of 47.54 acres are being impacted so 3 percent of the wetlands are
being impacted so this is going through a wetland alteration permit process. We are
recommending approval as we’ve done with other applications but there’s, it’s still moving
through the process so we are supporting the alteration permit itself. So before we get to the
motion there are a lot of conditions in the staff report. All those conditions, I mean there might
be some modifications to the plat itself. That’s not that uncommon. As the project engineer
indicated there’s condition to mitigate all that and we believe that all those things can be
accomplished with some modifications. That may be if we have to stay away from a bluff or to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
10
get a trail through there might be some changes or reconfigurations or maybe even a loss of a
couple of lots as it moves through those modifications. But with that we do believe that it, that
this project again with all the conditions of approval could move forward so with that we are
recommending approval of the rezoning to the PUD. PUD Resident including the design
standards. As I indicated we put together specific design standards calling out the different plans
and the standards that we would recommend for that. In addition we’re recommending approval
of the subdivision with 191 lots, the 3 outlots, the dedication of the public right-of-way and the
plans proposed here tonight and then also that we approve the City recommend that the City
Council approve the wetlands. We also have attached Findings of Fact so with that I’d be happy
or any of the staff would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission has.
Aller: A lot to digest.
Tietz: Andrew?
Aller: Any questions at this point of staff?
Tietz: Chairman Aller.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Yeah I have a couple things Kate and Todd. Obviously preservation of open space and
parkland is pretty critical but I have a fundamental issue with the transfer of density. The June
plan or concept plan that we, that was presented in July illustrated 54 lots on the Lake Ann parcel
or the east parcel. And my question and one of my questions on this is how was the plan tested
and verified? To my knowledge there is no grading plan, wetland assessment other than the plan
that we saw here. The impact on wetlands. Whether they’d be filled. Tree removal or inventory
of trees on any of that parcel and obviously the shoreline and wetland setbacks. I don’t know
that there is, that plan was tested so I can’t logically say that there were 54 buildable lots or if
there were 70 buildable lots or 20 buildable lots. To follow up on that I really question the, if the
acreage is feasible for development because of it’s accessibility. There’s wetland crossing on the
south. There’s wetland and steep slopes connecting to either Topaz or Lake Lucy Lane on the
north. If not feasible economically or the ability to obtain approvals for those two connections,
developable, to make it developable, then the lot count is irrelevant so I guess I’d like the staff’s
comment on that. I just, there’s no evidence that that plan was tested to the level that we see on
this, or on this current set of plans.
Aanenson: So is your question is would you like to see a full blown engineering plan on that
then I would think they would probably move towards that as an option for cost.
Tietz: Well I’m just not sure that it’s developable period. Under current regulations crossing the
wetland and traversing the slope and connecting to the north, we always have issues with the
north, with the traffic issues and they illustrated a change in their plan to create two, one long
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
11
cul-de-sac which the fire department in our document says that they do not agree with that even
through engineering says that it’s feasible but the fire department disagrees with that. So I’m
just questioning whether or not that connection to the north would be obtainable and the crossing
of the wetland to the south is it, obviously anything is financially feasible if you have enough
money but, and the duration of trying to get a permit for the wetland crossing. If the land is not
technically developable there’s no transfer of density.
Hoffman: Commissioners I’d be glad to address some of that. So density transfer is a tool that
we want to use and so the City wants to have access to a density transfer tool to make this
possible. It’s a negotiation and so there was a 54 lot count at one time. Now we’re down closer
to 41 lots being transferred out of that area. So are 41 lots developable in that area? That’s a
negotiation. We’re not, if the City Council directs us to go out and decide if those lots are
absolutely buildable into that area that may be something we would have to do. But it’s a
negotiation. You just can’t take these people’s property from them. Is it accessible? Sure. It
could be accessible from the south. It’s got a dry land connection from the south. Does it have
value? Absolutely and so if it’s not developed during this subdivision you could just simply
hang onto it. Lennar could hang onto it and sell it when the south piece develops and you can
just drive right into it. And so the City is attempting or recommending to both the Planning
Commission, the Park Commission and the City Council that we utilize the density transfer.
Right now it’s somewhere in area of 41 lots. Could 41 lots be developed in that property?
That’s a question that you’d have to ask yourself. Staff believes it is. It’s valued at that. That’s
an area that you could put 41 lots. If we can transfer that out and move it to the west that’s a way
we can access millions of dollars of property that the City would not otherwise have the ability to
go ahead and purchase so it’s a tool that we want to use. How far you want to test that tool,
that’s a discussion item.
Aller: Do you have a second one?
Tietz: Well yeah a couple more but I think that was the most critical one and I’m not sure, where
did the 41 comes from Todd? I’ve never seen it in any publication.
Hoffman: So if you take a look at there was originally 119 lots over there. Now I think we’re
down to 160 and so that equals you know about 41 that are being transferred over there. So we
have 160 lots now. I think there was 119 on one of the original plans so you know it’s, again
that number if fluid. It goes from it started at 54. It could be down to 41. It might be
somewhere inbetween. That’s a negotiable number.
Tietz: Okay. Can the, and my second question would be related to the Galpin, the standards for
the PUD. It doesn’t appear that there’s a lot of standards applied in there other than the setbacks
and so forth. And I’m just curious whether that can be amended to include other items?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
12
Tietz: Such as trail lighting. Such as way finding. I’m also concerned about the appearance on
the street front that all the models that have been submitted to us have the standard garage
compliment which will be a wide open mouth to every one of those high density units. I’d like
to personally see that a significant percentage of those lots have garages that enter 90 degrees to
the street because it gives, it changes the character of the neighborhood that the setbacks as
opposed to everything being lines up just 20 feet back from the right-of-way. There should be
some variation. I think architecturally we deserve to have the benefit of some alteration to the
strict picket fence street frontage and I’d like to see further discussions of that maybe after the
meeting and as this plan progresses.
Aanenson: Sure.
Tietz: To have an opportunity to have the Planning Commission and others address those site
specific things. Ashling Meadows has a wonderful neighborhood facility that was built in
conjunction with the development. They have the community building of their own. It’s not city
owned to my knowledge. It has a pool and it has wonderful facilities for the neighbors and that’s
just the immediate property to the north. Items such as that could certainly have been considered
in this development so those are a couple of questions I have.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Erik I’ve got a couple technical questions for you. When you were going through
the catch basin size and I was just looking at that, the amount of water coming in there because
it’s a fairly large footprint of the subdivision. Particularly I was thinking about Basin 400 and
some of the others, how did the sizing of that because I worry about if those basins overflow
impacting the houses in proximity and then as it went into the wetland. I guess it’s Wetland 1 to
the south if I get this right. Or Wetland 11 I guess to the south and it was backing up into those
homes so tell me about catch basin size and water handling because that is, that will be an issue
with this given the fact it’s low and there’s going to be a lot of rain off if there happens to be a
significant rain event.
Henricksen: The stormwater analysis and the models provided were reviewed first by our Water
Resources Coordinator or our previous Water Resources Coordinator. Right now she’s no longer
with the City and then along with a consulting agent so when it comes to the sizing of the rate
control and volume control for the stormwater system it was inputted into hydrocad. Those
models were provided to the City from their stormwater management report they were meeting
all the hydraulic conveyance requirements. However through the review of the model there were
some changes that we needed to see about some of the variables they used so that is actually
some of the resubmittals that we’re waiting for in order to insure that those size requirements
have been met.
McGonagill: What size rain event were you thinking? You know it’s in the model because I’m
not familiar with the hydrocad you’re using.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
13
Henricksen: Okay yeah, the rate control or those standards are for the 2 year, the 10 year and the
100 year I believe that is one of the requirements for the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed
district requirement that they’re also conducting a review on. The actual intensities of those
events I don’t have on hand. I’d be happy to.
McGonagill: So maybe the simpler question, are the basins designed for 100 year event? 10
year event?
Henricksen: Yes.
McGonagill: So they’re designed for 100 year event?
Henricksen: Yeah.
McGonagill: Okay. Next question. In the package Carver County talked about the access roads.
Entering from the subdivision onto Galpin and they were talking about the need I think for you
know proper turn lanes. I think it was off Street A and Street E. To have enough wide so they
can turn in there to traffic. Were those addressed?
Henricksen: Is that for the full access control off Galpin?
McGonagill: Perhaps. Maybe I don’t have my terminology right.
Henricksen: So the Highway 117 corridor which was a study that was completed by Kimley-
Horn. They did an evaluation on a couple proposals for best access management control. They
did include right turn lanes, left turn lanes for both north and south bound but that’s off of
Galpin.
McGonagill: No I’m talking about off of the streets in, what kind of, did they put the tur lanes
into Streets A and E on this subdivision or are they just straight stops?
Henricksen: So the, that project won’t have any effect on the actual access points for…
McGonagill: Okay I’ll try it this way. Street A and E run into Galpin.
Henricksen: Right.
McGonagill: Are there going to be turn lanes on Street A and E?
Henricksen: Okay so we haven’t received those, that cross reference material that’s being
requested for those key intersections.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
14
McGonagill: You haven’t received that from the developer?
Henricksen: We have not yet.
McGonagill: Okay.
Henricksen: That’s part of the what we need to see prior to issuance of final plat to insure that
we have proper widths.
McGonagill: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: I actually just follow up to that and I’m, is there any indication how those intersections
at Longacres and Hunter will be managed? Whether it’s like stop sign or stop light, do we have
any?
Henricksen: Those two intersections will have stops from the east and west but north and, up
and down Galpin Boulevard will be, it will be free flowing with left and right turn lanes. The
Highway 17 corridor study there will be, on Galpin there will be improvements to install cul-de-
sacs north and south of this development but for these locations you’ll have no stop control.
Weick: And is there, did you do any estimate of how much dirt, earth will need to be excavated
off of this property? Do we have any, and I can ask the developer that too.
Henricksen: The developer should be able to answer that. That’s a part of the comments with
the, that we weren’t given any type of mass grading or phased grading approach with that. When
we get that grading plan obviously we want to see haul routes, stockpile routes. We want to see
cut, fill sheets and that kind of things so we can.
Weick: Okay. I just was wondering if there was an early estimate on that or not. Okay. And
then I just had two other questions I think probably Kate. On page 1 when it talks about the
acreage and it talks about gross versus net. Can you just clarify the difference between gross and
net?
Aanenson: Yeah. So we take the wetlands out for net. So gross is a total acre of 191 so then we
would take out stormwater ponds, right-of-way, wetlands, those all come out.
Weick: Okay. Actually that’s my last question.
Aller: Great, any additional questions at this time? Commissioner Madsen.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
15
Madsen: These I think are for Kate. When we looked at this request last time there were some
areas of concern and I was just wondering if you could summarize if and how those areas of
concern were addressed. The first was there was a concern of overall density. Another one was
steep slopes on the north side and the through traffic. A third one is the width of the lots on the
south end along with the buffers to that south neighborhood and water runoff in that south
neighborhood.
Aanenson: Yeah I’ll address some and I’ll let the developer address them too but regarding the
steep slopes and that was where the two cul-de-sacs came into play kind of blending those two
neighborhoods. Preservation along here. I know the trees that are on this property are of interest
to the people to the north. Those are some of the areas that were of concern so these are all
15,000 square foot lots and I know there’s a greater buffer creating for some of those existing
homes and again I’ll let the developer talk to that. On the south end those lots were made larger
on the south end abutting the 15,000 square foot lots to the south. Also the project engineer
talked about the retaining wall and drainage to pick up some additional water that’s coming off
the backs of those lots there and providing a conveyance for those to get treated so those lots
were transitioned to be larger lots so there’s a better buffer there. I think some of the challenge
too with that retaining wall is to provide, continue to maintain some of that buffer on the south
but as we pointed out in the staff report as a general rule we don’t require a buffer between single
family single family. That’s, you know we usually try to buffer between higher intense uses but
through the preservation of the, if you came with the retaining wall there may be some areas that
they can try to preserve through that area. I’ll let the developer, as far as stormwater and the rest,
those have been as the project engineer indicated, I believe those have been addressed.
Obviously there’s still some minor tweaking for those as we locate some of the trail connections
that might again impact the total number of lots and as we talked about maybe a free right or a
free left on some of these. The widening of the intersections of the streets also a potential for
some of the lots too, to not make the total. Did I answer them all?
Madsen: I think you did.
Aanenson: Okay.
Madsen: One follow up question.
Aanenson: Sure.
Madsen: There was a letter from the fire marshal and he was not sure of the width of some of
the cul-de-sacs and indicated what the required width needed to be. Will that all, if it is found
that those widths need to be adjusted will that all be incorporated into what they will be required
to do?
Aanenson: That’s correct. So there’s a difference of opinion, the City hasn’t adopted those
standards but that would be the fire marshal’s request so we’re working through that issue but
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
16
yes that would also impact the number of lots. So to be clear the 191 would be the ultimate. It
may be less than that as we work through some of the trail connections and the right-of-way at
the end of the cul-de-sac, those sort of issues. And as we, the touch down point at Galpin
Boulevard as we talked about that. If there needed to be additional turn lanes or something of
that there.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions based on those? Hearing none if the, oh
Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: You know…talked about averages. Lot averages. The front yard width averages. I’m
assuming that we have no averages anymore. That if this plan does proceed forward that
minimum lot sizes would be minimum lot sizes. It’s not an average of a lot size. It’s not an
average of a front width. If it’s 65 or 90 or 75.
Aanenson: You’re correct. So if you look at the compliance table, yep. We put those in the
compliance table. Each lot has.
Tietz: I just want to be sure that
Aanenson: Agreed.
Tietz: Now you always spoke of averages.
Aanenson: No.
Tietz: In the previous submissions.
Aanenson: No. There is a, and that might have been just in general but no we calculated all
those. We also asked them to give us an area for additional…per lot so we checked all those but
we do measure at the building setback line which is how we turn in any zoning district so but
you’re right, they are all calculated and those are all in the table that’s with the PUD ordinance.
Tietz: But on additional buildable per lot, I know Steve we’ve always had a lot of discussions
about preserving space for people to do something in the future. Some of these lots have
dramatic drop off’s.
Aanenson: Correct.
Tietz: They may have theoretically space for that future gazebo or, but there’s no way you can
build it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
17
Aanenson: That’s correct. So those.
Tietz: How do we protect in this process that every lot has a buildable area that’s been set aside
for future?
Aanenson: So as with other parts of the city people are also living on bluff areas that they have
not the potential so what we talked to with the developer is that as part of the disclosure with
those lots that have maybe a more scenic view but not as much space to add something else on,
that those are all part of their disclosure documents because we do have other lots in the city but
also abut a bluff or, yeah so we’ve asked them to put that in their disclosure documents and I’ll
let Lennar talk a little bit more about that.
Tietz: I guess to avoid variances for the first homeowners.
Aanenson: Absolutely and we don’t, yeah. We don’t want that.
Aller: Okay hearing none we’ll have the developer come forward. If you could state your name
and address and representational capacity. Tell us about your project.
Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe
Jablonski here this evening representing Lennar Corporation as the Director of Entitlements and
Forward Planning.
Aller: Welcome back.
Joe Jablonski: Thank you. I was taking some notes so if I missed anything feel free to stop me.
I’m going to kind of back up a little bit and want to go through a few of the changes that we
made and some of the things that we’ve been working on since you originally saw this back in
July and council saw it in August. We have gone back. We have met with, we did hold a
neighborhood meeting. We had, I had met individually with some of the neighbors as well and
in doing that some of the things that we’ve done and changes that we’ve made, I’m going to kind
of walk them through on this plan here. As staff mentioned we did change the north portion
quite a bit. We eliminated that road and that was something that was very important to the
neighbors to the north. Connectivity and the reduction of traffic concerns was very important to
them. There were some challenges related to the grades and some of that stuff that had to be
looked at more closely as well but the decision to do that was really based off of the importance
of not having those connections to the neighborhood. They really wanted to keep the
neighborhoods separated and we were able to support that with this plan and in doing so these
couple lots that you see here also changed significantly from the original concept. We actually
had lots backing up to that area. What we’ve done here has allowed us to preserve a lot more
trees as a buffer between the two neighborhoods. That was important to some of the residents
that lived right up against the back of it. It also allowed some, there’s a fair amount of grade
change from the back of this property line down to the back of this area down there. It ends up
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
18
being about a 30 foot grade change and leaving some of that northern part natural allows it to be,
keep that slope. Keep some of those trees that were there and we recognize the importance doing
that. Lot sizes. We did go back and change the south end quite a bit. We had a series of smaller
cul-de-sacs. There were approximately 54, 55 foot wide, what we referred to as villa lots in that
area. We reduced that down to 34 and put them a little bit more centrally located in through this
area and what we did along the south property line is we expanded those to be 75 feet wide so we
did make them 20 feet bigger than what we originally proposed to help match up to the
neighbors to the south. One of the things that we also learned at the neighborhood meeting was
the importance of not only planting a buffer there but also trying to preserve some of the trees
that were allowed on the south side. So after we conducted our tree inventory we did go back
and were able to preserve some trees along the south. It’s about a 20 foot corridor that we hope
to maintain up through about halfway where the transition to the grade becomes challenging and
we have to put in a retaining wall. But in doing that it does help relieve some of the water and
we’ll be adding storm sewer to the back of those too to help relieve some of the water that was
brought up as well. Architecturally we are proposing a variety of house plans. We do have two
very distinct styles. One of them in the smaller lot area is more of a villa type product where we
would see full maintenance type of product that would be catered to folks that don’t want to
maintain yards. Folks that aren’t interested in maintaining the exteriors of their homes. That
will be handled by a homeowners association. So it really is the type of product that as needs of
people change and whether it’s spending time in other parts of the country or just don’t have the
time or don’t want to spend time doing that kind of thing we feel it’s an important piece of the
neighborhood to allow something that’s a little it different. We did cut back the number of those
a little bit but that was just as much to demonstrate a reduction in the lot count as it was
recognizing that there’s a real need for that type of product. It’s a very under served market so
we felt it was very important to maintain and keep some of that. The predominant or the single
family that you see throughout I did mention that we did do some larger lot sizes adjacent to the
neighborhood there. Those would be a plan style that could accommodate up to 4 car garages. It
is a little bit bigger type of plan. We did, the rest of the plans in the interior we have a variety of
styles. Some of them have been submitted for the packet but we have at least a selection or a
catalog of 10 homes which each have 4 to 5 house plans. We’re constantly changing them. As
Community Director Aanenson mentioned we tend to constantly change and evolve our house
plans to meet the desires of the market and in doing so recognize that we would have to maintain
the architectural standards that are set forth in the PUD. It would be probably more interior type
changes. Name changes to the plans. And variety in façade and what that does is it helps create
a dynamic neighborhood. I think our neighborhoods stand up very well to the test of time and
variety and we do have a, we also impose a monotony code that doesn’t allow for us to put the
same house across from or on either side of a home to continue that trend for variety throughout
a neighborhood. Color packages are also looked at very closely. We have an in-house design
team that reviews that to make sure that the neighborhood is full of variety and interest. Talk a
little bit to the north property. What we were planning to do which is a little different from the
original concept, we’re looking at sectioning that portion off to potentially allow custom builders
or to even allow a different developer to proceed with that portion of it recognizing that they
would be part of the overall PUD and that would have to appear to the rest of the PUD but
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
19
knowing that you know in some capacity we may participate in it but also recognizing that
there’s strong interest from the custom building world that may like to take a crack at some of
that as well. Let’s see. There’s a couple questions about grading and earth work that I heard.
The way that the grading plan appears to be working out is the area up in, whoops sorry about
that. The north portion will likely be able to kind of balance on it’s own. That’s approximately
85,000 yards to finish this north portion which would be this cul-de-sac and this portion and the
ponds that go with it. That’s not final numbers but it’s the ballpark that we’ve been going off of.
The south portion could, it looks like we can grade that probably in two phases. We would start
at the south end where the watermain utilities start at this intersection. We would have to
connect into the Met Council interceptor line and our first phase of development or first final plat
would probably be in this area here. The grading for the completion of the south section is about
a 285,000 yards so it’s a, obviously there’s a lot of earth work to move but it’s not, for something
of this size it’s not an uncommon type of number for earth work. Let’s see what else did we
have here? I think I mentioned that the final plat area for the first phase would be in here.
Moving on from there I would expect that we would do this in about 4 to 5 final, subsequent
final plats which would allow us would take out about 5 to 6 years for final buildout. That’s not
fully considering what exactly happens up on this north end but that’s kind of what our range or
our target absorptions and what our vision of the property is. We do recognize and we see that
we think that this is going to be a real asset to the City of Chanhassen. Not only to the new
residents here but the existing residents and to have the trail connectivity and the ability to access
public space and that much public space. It’s one thing when you work in a 5 acre park or a 10
acre park, a pocket park or something like that but this is something here that has the opportunity
to be incredibly special for the city with the two lakes. Trail connections to a major regional
park and we think that it will be a tremendous asset not just to our community but to the overall
community of Chanhassen. Let’s see we have met, sat down and met with the engineering staff.
He did a good job of going through some of the details of that. There’s a lot of items in there
that need to be worked on but as we went through them item by item we feel that we can address
the items in the report and we’ll do so as we get to final plans. Final construction drawings and
before we address the permitting process so I’m confident that we will be able to continue
working through those. I guess if there’s any other questions I’d be happy to answer them for
you. I guess there were a couple questions about street frontage, architecture, and some variety.
We have offered as part of the packet we did include a side loaded plan that was, we refer to as
our next gen plan. That is a little bit different type of concept or housing type that it’s, we refer
to it as the home within a home. It is a, it has it’s own grandmother suite. Architecturally it is a
side loaded garage so it does allow for that to be incorporated into our plan set. I know that staff
has some concerns about how exactly that’s used but from an architecture standpoint and from
the streetscape it does allow an additional plan style that could meet some of the desire for the
side loaded garage and I’d be happy to talk about that a little bit more if needed. As far as the
community center, a neighborhood amenity. In our opinion the park is the neighborhood
amenity. We really try to highlight the use of open space and community space and when we
build isolated communities that aren’t attached to large regional parks and large systems like
that, that’s when our marketing platform tends to focus more on the smaller neighborhood type
private features which is what at one time Ashling Meadows was. You know it was kind of a
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
20
stand alone community in an area that wasn’t real highly developed but now you’ve got the parks
into place and the addition of this park and the trail system and we feel that that is more than
adequate to support the recreational needs of the neighborhood. So I hope I answered the
questions. I do have a couple of drawings here just cross sections that might help show a couple
of areas. This is a cross section of the, it’s referred to as Street Z. The long cul-de-sac so this is
looking to the south from the Ashling Meadows neighborhood. So if you were in this house here
and this would be your home, this is the elevation approximately of where our homes would be.
So they do sit down because of the topography and where the street gets cut in. They do sit
down a little bit. We did preserve quite a bit of tree space inbetween the two and it just kind of
gives you a little picture of relationship wise how that works. I do have some that overlook the
park space. This shows how much wooded area is being preserved through there and helps
highlight the wetlands, the low areas. The low areas in the wetland, this wetland is along the
edge of it is full of trees as well. I do have one more here on the south. This is the cross section
for the south neighborhood approximately halfway down the street. The existing home this time
is on this side. So originally the spacing between the back of the house and the property line was
at 50 feet. We were able to free up a little bit more space and we limited the depth of the house
pads on the first 10 homes that, we made them wider and we elected to limit the depth that those
houses could be so we were able to create 50 feet to the tree line and then another about 20 feet.
25 feet between the tree line and the property line. And we’re also proposing to plant trees
within there too so we are creating a pretty substantial buffer not just for the existing homes but
also for our residents looking into their back yards so with that I’ll be happy to answer any
questions and recognize that there’s several people here that probably want to talk so if I have to
come back up I won’t be too far.
Aller: Alright thank you. Questions?
McGonagill: Yes Mr. Jablonski. When you on your grading plan I was trying to interpret this
from the package and I was having trouble. Could you point out the areas where you have the
maximum elevation change and how much of an elevation change there is within the grading
plan because you know it doesn’t have to be exact but orders of magnitude because with the
285,000 yards you’re moving there’s a lot of dirt. You know it’s going to be cut and refilled so
could you show me that. Show us, the commission where those points are and how much of an
elevation change there is. Because there’s quite a bit of elevation on the site and you know for
sure.
Joe Jablonski: The most significant change from top to bottom would be from the north property
line down to the backs of these lots that go down to the wetland and inbetween there we have to
cut in a flat road which is why you start seeing a retaining wall kind of down along here. You
can see that there’s quite a bit of slope off the back of these. That’s where from top to bottom
there’s the most.
McGonagill: So about how much?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
21
Joe Jablonski: From this property line down to here it’s about 30 feet.
McGonagill: Of cut that you’re going to have to cut?
Joe Jablonski: No not that we have to cut. Some of that is being made up by the walkout
elevation too so we’re proposing 10 foot basements on there as well to help make up from the
front of the house to where the walkout elevation is, that helps make up some of that. So we’re
cutting the road in but allowing the natural topography that’s out there in some degree to set the
elevations of the houses. The other places, and I didn’t bring a full cut fill map but the other,
let’s see if I have that. The other places that we’re moving the largest amounts of dirt is where
on the edges of, let’s see. I apologize. This might be as easy as anything. So there’s a fairly
significant hill kind of right in the middle and then it starts dropping down to the wetland and
from the top of the hill down to the wetland again you’re probably looking at about 30-35 feet
and the areas that are getting the most cut and fill, the elevation is locked at Galpin so we’re
coming in at Galpin and gradually sloping it down to the wetland area so what we’re doing is
kind of taking that hill and starting to pull that out and down to fill in the areas to set the
basement elevations that are an acceptable level above the wetland but starting to fold that grade
down out of that hill and pushing it through down towards the wetland.
McGonagill: How much are you going to have to pull it down?
Joe Jablonski: From the top to the bottom?
McGonagill: (Yes).
Joe Jablonski: Well the elevation along the wetland has to be built up about 12 feet so there’s
about and I think there’s about 6 feet but a lot of the dirt coming from here is actually coming out
of the pond. Because we do have to excavate fairly large ponds in there too.
McGonagill: Right okay.
Aller: Any additional questions at this point?
Tietz: Commissioner Aller.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Back in July the council requested additional concepts to be submitted and I think that if
you look at your concept from June and July of this year that all I see is really a subtle variation
of the original concept. Can you explain your process and why there weren’t other submissions
made that would be considered alternative concepts? Personally I don’t consider this an
alternative concept.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
22
Joe Jablonski: What we have elected to do is meet the desires of the request that we felt were
necessary. Out of the comments, out of the neighborhood meetings, out of the council, the items
that, the big ticket items that we felt could be addressed through our planning, we’ve done that
and elected to move forward with the plan that you see before you tonight.
Tietz: So it was really just in response to neighborhood requests and not really looking at it from
a technical standpoint of what else could be done with the property to potentially preserve more
of the vegetation and more of the terrain, is that accurate?
Joe Jablonski: There’s a million different ways that this property could be developed. This is
the way that we’ve elected to move forward.
Tietz: One concept.
Joe Jablonski: I wouldn’t say it’s one concept.
Tietz: Okay. The intent, in approving a PUD of this nature, and this is from the ordinance, is
that the product reflects a higher quality of design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Can you explain how your proposal achieves these expectations?
Joe Jablonski: We have a product that is designed to meet the market demands. We are
proposing or self imposing a higher standard of architecture and exterior materials than is
required by code.
Tietz: But is it higher than anything else in the community?
Joe Jablonski: Higher than some communities certainly.
Tietz: Okay. Can you explain your sustainable practices that have been incorporated in this
plan and design?
Joe Jablonski: Is this from the PUD language?
Tietz: No, this is just a question. What are your sustainable practices that have been
incorporated in this design?
Joe Jablonski: I apologize I don’t understand the question.
Tietz: Well there are sustainable design practices. Whether it’s reclamation of water and reusing
it for irrigation. There’s a lot of sustainable practices that are being used in other communities
and in other practices today. What is Lennar doing on this project?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
23
Joe Jablonski: We’re following the standards in the code. We haven’t, we’ve elected at this
point not to go into water reuse because, and we may change our minds on that when we start
getting comments back from the watershed that it’s something that as we get into further design
and planning. We have looked at the area of the townhouses using water reuse but at this point
because of the proximity to the ponds it didn’t make sense. Sustainability wise I would say that
the amount of preservation we’re doing is by far exceeding what is required both I the 50 acres
and our willingness to not disturb the wetlands.
Tietz: Okay. That’s all I have.
Aller: Additional questions at this time? Thank you sir. Okay at this point in time we’ll open
up the public hearing portion of this item. It’s an opportunity for those present to speak either
for or against an item before us. In particular the item that we’ve just been presented with.
We’d ask that you come forward. Don’t step on each other’s toes as you come forward. Go
ahead and speak your mind but do so politely and respectfully as we would expect all citizens of
Chanhassen to do. I understand that there have been several meetings. We’ve had several
presentations before us where people have had an opportunity to speak so what I’d like to do is
concentrate on those areas that are most important to you. This is a public forum and an avenue
to put our thoughts and our processes down so the City Council then can take additional action
on it at a later time so we want to make sure that we’re clear in our intentions for them. So with
that I will open the public hearing portion of the item. Any individual wishing to speak either for
or against the item please step up to the podium.
Geri Stewart: I guess I don’t have specific for or against. My name is Geri Stewart and I live at
1893 Topaz Drive so it’s that northern zero with the cul-de-sac. I just have a concern that
supposedly, well we did get a buffer and I was very excited about it for a while until I saw that,
the cul-de-sac has got houses that are backing up kind of almost to my yard but I don’t know
how deep that buffer is and it turns out that the buffer is part of two yards. They crammed two
houses in on either side up against and that property actually belongs to those yards so if they can
do anything they want with that what’s to keep them from building a pool right behind my yard
or have a huge ugly swing set or cutting down all the trees that supposedly were a buffer. I was
just wondering if there’s anything that can be done to truly make it a buffer. Make it
conservancy. Make it some kind of thing that they’re not allowed to cut down the trees. I don’t
know how easily the City gives variances on that. I just, I think it’s nice that they wanted to
make the buffer but I would really like it to be a real buffer instead of having that one house at
the end and then several houses that go past the cul-de-sac at this end. That’s kind of my
personal thing there.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Geri Stewart: And I would like to know how much space that is. It’s a little drawing. If the
road has to be graded they may wind up having to cut down a lot of the trees just to put that road
in. I don’t know how in the end, how much of a buffer it will really be. L
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
24
Aller: Great, thank you. Any additional comments? Individuals wishing to come forward,
speak for or against the property that would be great. And while he’s stepping forward I would
also note that we did receive an email correspondence from Gregory Stewart which has been
received and read and will be made part of the package.
Dake Chatfield: Alright my name is Dake Chatfield. I live at 2200 Majestic Way. I’m in the
southwest quadrant of the development being planned. You can see my home is here so we’re
looking at Galpin Boulevard here and Majestic Way on the south side here and so I’m right in
this corner lot here and I think my questions are probably to Mr. Jablonski. There’s quite a bit of
old growth woods and forest here and looking at the plan I guess I’m assuming that all that’s
going to be clear cut and houses will be put in there. So this is the same thing only with the
overlay. So I guess a question is, is all that woods going to be clear cut. And then I want to
make sure I understand the buffer here. On the south side it looks like a 25 or 20 to 25 foot
buffer which I guess is not super significant in my opinion. That’s, I mean that’s half the size of
this room or whatever. That’s not a very big buffer and so if I were to offer any
recommendations I think if you know these neighbors could get a little bit bigger buffer
inbetween there that would be my recommendation.
Aller: Thank you. Welcome sir, please state your name and address for the record.
Scott Wosje: Okay thank you for giving me a moment. Scott Wosje. W-o-s-j-e, 7125
Northwood Court in Chanhassen. Longacres neighborhood.
Aller: Welcome.
Scott Wosje: I actually, thank you. I actually sit, I’m the guy that didn’t show up for the
Longacres Board meeting and they made me President again this year so. So we did talk
amongst the Board and amongst the 222 homes. We’ve tried to gather some information and
everybody has their own perspective. You know Mr. Hoffman, actually I’ve gone to the Park
and Rec Commission to try and say hey, get us a mountain bike trail. Carver Trails is a non-
profit that I’ve helped start that’s trying to develop mountain bike in Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver
County so very much support the parks and Kate I’m sure has a perspective of it meets the city
code let’s do it. Perspective is everything and so that’s what I guess I’m trying to say. If you
live in Ashling Meadows the perspective be this helped us a little bit. If you live in Longacres
the perspective is this is going to hurt our home values. The developer seem to be concerned
with keeping a buffer but yet is going to clear cut everything along the Galpin Boulevard. When
my son was born in 2001, January of 2001, December of 2001 I put him in a back pack and
every weekend I walked through Prince’s land and would say hi to, believe it or not Roger Prince
Nelson would be out and he would be out and about. Larry Graham who used to live in the
rambler that was torn down were out and about and they invited us over. I walked that land a lot.
The contour of the land leads me to believe that this is questionable whether that this can really
happen. There’s a lot of unknown. As I’m sitting here listening I’m going, it seems like we’re
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
25
trying to force something and so the perspective is the developer says well hey we’re, we want to
develop this. Let us do this. The City has a perspective. The Longacres perspective is this is not
good for us. They’re clear cutting everything. We’ve been used to having this. The density
transfer doesn’t seem to be fair because you’re dumping everything on our side of the
neighborhood. Again that’s our perspective. Everybody has a fair perspective. I would also like
to love to know who, or I would love to hear your motion actually because the proposed motion
is the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve this. I
would like to hear your motion not, I’m guessing that’s a city staff. I want to hear what your
motion is or what your proposed motion is because I don’t know how this proposed motion can
move forward. I also wonder what the plan is for the development on the south. You’re pushing
all this traffic onto Galpin but what happens when there’s a development on the south and does it
make sense to spread that traffic out a little bit more. If this would get approved I would also ask
that you would lower the speed limit. At 45 there’s a lot of people that use the sidewalks and as
you know or may or may not know the grade going up and down along Galpin is somewhat
dangerous and there’s a lot of, that sidewalk’s also very close to Galpin as well so a lot of
thoughts. I’m trying to think if I have, I just was writing a couple meandering thoughts. But I
guess I would respectfully ask with all the unknown variables I would ask you not to approve
this motion and actually get another plan because as council or whatever, John Tietz say, I mean
I’ve watched this all along and I was expecting to see another plan and we don’t see another plan
quite honestly so thank you for your time.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments?
Josh Kimber: Good evening everyone. Josh Kimber, 2060 Majestic Way. I’m on the south side
of the lot. You know what I’ll be honest with you, when we were here in July and August I
mean I left both this meeting and the City Council meeting you know feeling pretty good. The
comments that we had, both from City Council and what you provided the developer I think
were spot on and I guess I just don’t think that we see that reflected in this plan. At the Planning
Commission, or at the City Council meeting 3 council members did express the desire to see a
Plan C and they spoke about it as seeing 3 separate plans that they could look at and that actually
didn’t happen which was a little disappointing. Specifically asked for 3 plans to go through
concept review but a lot of their comments were matched a lot of the residents and the quote that
Mayor Laufenburger said at the time was, he used closely similar when speaking to lot sizes and
he said similar, similar buffers and similar hard cover and again I just don’t see that in this plan.
Specifically when speaking to lot sizes right, actually this one’s a better view. When I look at lot
sizes here there are 3 proposed lots to 2 lots and to me I don’t look at that as similar lot sizes or
of similar sizes. Also the image that was shown showing the side view of the buffers, I don’t
believe that happened either. Now I know that we use creative words to talk about how there’s
expanded lots or larger lots but the old lot sizes that were in this southern side were those villa
houses and overall if you look at what was proposed versus what is proposed on this south side
we actually added 5 houses so they removed 14 houses from the north but added 5 houses to the
south so I understand that this line of homes did receive a larger density but overall at that
southern lot this whole, that whole package is actually more houses than what was on the other
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
26
side which is a little disappointing. Another comment that was left out tonight was when staff
provided comments on the concept review was the desire to keep a tree line to that south side
which is where I reside and that essentially has been gone away. They did provide a copy of
what trees would be removed and they do keep some of these trees now on the south side but a
majority of those trees that my neighbor so generously talked about do get removed. All the
trees on the south side, all the trees along Galpin which is really disappointing in my mind.
Overall, and I don’t, there’s some weird math that happens in these plans but when you look at
the canopy plan it talks about how there are 42 acres of canopy to be removed and there’s a total
of 52 acres of development so that means 80 percent of this plan to put houses in removes trees
and that’s extremely disappointing to me and I wish that overall I wish you guys would deny the
plan to move forward. I think it’s important that we see 3 comprehensive plans or concept
review plans side by side and not look at this. I don’t look at this as Plan C. I look at this as
Plan A2 so thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Cherree Theisen: My name is Cherree Theisen. I live at 2072 Majestic Way. I too am
neighbors with these guys. I was one of the very first houses built on Majestic Way. When I
built I’m repeating the story that you have heard at the other meetings but it doesn’t seem like
it’s sunk in with anyone. Went to the City and I asked okay I plan on being here for a while.
There’s this wonderful natural tree line. If Prince sells that property what’s going to happen and
they said we will never remove that natural tree line and I went alright. So our whole
neighborhood, I don’t have to show you but our entire back yards were for the most part treeless.
Our kids were young. They could run. They could play football. They could play soccer. They
could do whatever. My kids grew up in that back yard with the neighbor’s kids. I look out and I
see a wall of trees. My house is one of them that he’s planning on going in there and clear
cutting the whole damn thing. And then also putting in that water treatment thing, I would like
to show you the pictures of my west wall of my house that was collapsing 2 years after it was
built because of the drainage that was coming down in. I had to remove everything on the west
side of the house. Have the wall pushed back out. Steel beams, the City of Minneapolis came,
or State of Minnesota came to engineer these beams that had to go in my basement to hold my
house up and keep that wall where it’s supposed to be. They took out all the clay that was on the
west side of the house. They put in 2 sump pumps. Ripped up my whole totally finished
basement. I mean I spent thousands of dollars and I did all that work myself when I moved in so
it kind of hurts a little bit more than the average bear. However it’s very discerning to find out
that what you’re going to do is going go what, 25 more feet up? More water’s going to come
down into my yard. It’s going to come into Joshua’s yard. It’s going to come into my
neighbor’s yard and we’re all going to get flooded again. I have two sump pumps running
constantly and my basement has flooded more than once. Now there appears to be an awful lot
of effort put into this new development for the north side. Meetings with the people. No one
came down to the south side and invited any people from the south side to discuss. Nothing has
been changed down there. Like Josh said I look at those plans and here’s my back yard. To
have nothing back there now but there’s going to be 3 houses there for 2 houses on our side of
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
27
the street. If this goes on I’m outta here and I know you don’t care but I do. I’ve been here since
’95 and I’m getting dry mouth so I’ll shut up.
Aller: Thank you for your comments.
Jim Freebersyser: My name is Jim Freebersyser, F-r-e-e-b-e-r-s-y-s-e-r. I live at 6935 Ruby
Lane in the Ashling Meadows neighborhood. We’ve been tracking this project as it’s gone along
and come to previous meetings and it’s pretty clear that the builder is doing as little as possible in
terms of giving us other options. They’re understand as a businessman that they’re trying to
minimize their up front costs but I would suggest that the City consider a really radical option
which is the City should buy the property and just end this nonsense. End this monstrosity that
seems to be just like a train hurtling down the tracks trying to force fit this whole project. I
would be more than willing to see my taxes go up and even localize that levy to the people who
are affected than to continue to do this. I’d much rather see it stay the way it is so my
recommendation would be that the planning committee could consider that as an option and say
no to this PUD.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Please sir.
Todd Simning: Todd Simning, 2145 Wynsong Lane. I’m just across I guess the west side from
Prince’s property and full disclosure I’m a builder/developer. Pro development because that’s
how I make my living. I would actually recommend tabling or not approving the plan tonight
myself. I’ve heard many instances from Erik over here that there’s a lot of items out there, issues
out there that just aren’t fully completely understandable from grades to drainage to bluffs to, I
mean you name it. I mean from drainage pipes or whatever that he mentioned over there. He
went through a litany of items. In my opinion anything that the Planning Commission would
look at tonight to say that I give approval to something, you really need to have a full
understanding of what you’re approving and with the plan tonight you don’t. I have no problem
with density transfer. It’s my business. I’ve done it before. I’ve done it in the city of
Chanhassen. I’ve worked with Kate. I’ve worked with Todd. They’ve been very good to work
with. In the case of the ghost platting with 54 lots, Todd’s saying it’s a negotiation. 41 lots.
Let’s call it that. Without having a true understanding of what the impact is on grading. When
you look at, when you look at the west side what they’re doing, it’s a mass grade. The only way
they’re getting lots in there they need to completely rip down all the trees and they need to
completely grade it out to make it work. What do you think’s going to happen on the other side?
You think they’re really going to fit 54 lots in there? 41? Call it 32. I don’t know what it is. I
don’t think anybody actually knows what it is so when you’re in negotiation I’m with the City. I
think it’d be a really super cool area and I think it’d be a great park area. But you’re negotiating
with something you don’t even know yet. And it could be 100. Okay? I’d take that chance to
say that it’s probably less than 54 and probably less than 41 but to be honest with you if you
don’t really know what you’re negotiating with how could you really actually give them the
density transfer? Whether it’s myself. Whether it’s Lennar. Whether it’s Gonyea. I don’t care
who it is. Whoever it might be if you actually don’t know the impact you’re negotiating with
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
28
yourself without, not even knowing what you’re negotiating with. So just again pro
development. Something’s going to be there. I just want to see it be the best plan that it can and
I think as good stewards of Chanhassen, as elected public officials you just owe it to yourselves.
You owe it to the City. You owe it to everybody, to all of us, just to make certain you know
what kind of decision you’re making before you actually make it and so if it meant it took
another 60 days to actually kind of look at it and see what the real impacts are, take that time.
It’s okay. So that’s all I have. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Aller: Any other individuals wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item?
Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing on this item. I will invite Mr. Jablonski
if you’d like to comment or make comment after hearing any of those items. Again
understanding the comments weren’t something that you could truly anticipate so we’d love it if
you could do your best to comment on those items that you can or let us know that there’s
additional work or information that needs to be done.
Joe Jablonski: Mr. Chair and members of the commission. I was taking some notes but if I
missed some things I apologize. As far as the north portion, it was the recommendation of staff
in the report that conservation buffering or a conservation easement be placed over the areas that
tree preservation was proposed especially in the more significant standing areas and I agree that
that’s a good idea and we support that so while we don’t have a prepared conservation easement,
that is something that we will continue to work on with staff and imagine that would be more of
a final plat type of condition as well or on a document that would be resolved with the final plat.
Let’s see the, you know I think one of the things and it’s difficult for me to say this or potentially
difficult for people to hear this but there is a willing seller out there that wants to see their
property sold. We’re a developer who is in the business of developing property and building
houses. The overall density that we’re proposing on this is at the very low range of what is
allowed in RS-1 and you know there’s concerns and of obvious nature over the tree removal but
we’re also meeting the City’s standards. We’re meeting the tree replacement requirements. We
do have some adjustments to make within our plan but we feel we can make those. We have
done what we can to preserve the perimeters and buffer the perimeters. And properties of this
nature, there’s change that occurs and change can be difficult and at the same time there’s certain
rights and there’s certain rules set up within the city code that allows for tree replacement. Tree
preservation. Tree canopy. That’s why you have those systems in place and we’re meeting
those guidelines and our desire is to meet those guidelines and part of the density trade, it’s
difficult for us to consider or even propose giving up 50 acres of land as well but it’s important
to understand that that’s part of the trade here is you’re not just getting a small park. You’re not
just getting a small area or a neighborhood park. You’re getting a very substantial area that has a
very substantial cost to it and there was a suggestion that you know perhaps the City could
entertain buying it. That’s a possibility but right now the contract is with us. We have a contract
to purchase it and so right now to me that’s not an option and that’s because there is a valid
contract in place. It is something you know the City could certainly discuss if the City would
like to entertain or make an offer to us to do it, you know that’s something that is a whole
different conversation but there is value there. It has been serviced by sewer and water. It is
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
29
guided for development to occur on it so regardless who the former owner was and what the
property was intended to do by the former owner, right now the intent is to sell it and for it to be
developed and we’re playing within the guidelines of the code. We’ve asked for a PUD but we
feel that we’re giving up a substantial amount of area in exchange for some of the requests that
we’re making. You know there’s certain items in here that we will continue to work with staff
on but the conversation of what could or could not be done in the south area is, or the eastern
part is, as Mr. Hoffman mentioned, that’s part of the negotiation. We feel that part of the trade
off for some of these other things occurring is that the City is getting a much larger park than
what is required of us and that’s, you know I think that addresses quite a few of the concerns
here. Maybe not necessarily the way that people want to hear them. I do want to point out that
we are proposing storm sewer along the Majestic Oaks property line to help alleviate some of the
water concerns or the stormwater concerns. That is the reason why we’re putting storm sewer
near that property line to pick up some of that drainage of that area and in doing so we have to
take down trees to do that. We have to put that as far back as we can to pick up as much water
from the Majestic or the Royal Oaks neighborhood as we can. We’re not necessarily required to
do that but that’s one of the items recognizing the concerns that were brought up that we’ve
elected to address. I don’t know if there’s, was there any other specific items that I missed?
Aller: Any additional questions while he’s up? No thank you.
Joe Jablonski: Thanks.
Aller: Alright so now it’s time for the Commissioners to speak amongst themselves. Pros.
Cons. Thoughts. Motions. Actions.
McGonagill: You just want us to start down the line?
Aller: You can go ahead. Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: First thanks for all the citizens that came tonight and have been coming and
particularly to the staff. You put a lot of work in this. You have and to the developer as well. A
lot of time. A lot of money. A lot of effort and trying to work. It’s a difficult problem. This
property is a jewel and all of Mr. Hoffman’s work is trying to preserve that jewel and I really
appreciate that. I’m in favor of development. I think development’s good. I mean that’s why
we live here. I really enjoy Chanhassen. We have a development we live in, in a beautiful
setting and this property as I say is a jewel and I do believe it deserves a beautiful setting for that
jewel and it needs to be done in a proper way. One of the things on the Planning Commission
that we take very seriously is a couple of things when we look at proposals that we cited. Two
things. One is what I call function. Does it meet the function but also does it meet form.
Function, engineering term, does it meet function. Stormwater drains. Driveways. Egress and
plain and clearly meets function. It’s functional. It works. Homes build there. People can get
there and has a lot of other really great attributes and so that’s done. Then you look at form and
there’s a lot of really pluses to the form. Like Mr. Hoffman said beautiful park. Access to trails.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
30
And things that are really good so when I started looking at the question of form, and I’ve been
looking at this for the last few days, how do you do that and what’s lens you look through so I
pulled out the Comprehensive Plan because that’s where we should go. That’s the plan that
governs our growth. I mean that’s why it’s here. It lays it out so as I went through the plan, and
citizens please bear with me because I’m really talking here to, now to my commissioners. Is
that what I found when I was going through it in my rudimentary way was that really in some
ways there’s a lot of benefits to what we’ve seen here from the developer and from staff but
there’s also some limitations. When I look at natural resources in Section 1.7.3 of Natural
Resources there’s 9 goals and of those goals 4 are violated in the plan. It does not preserve
natural slopes wherever possible. It doesn’t preserve wooded areas, plant communities and
native habitat. It does not minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. I realize they do with their
plan but when I look at the amount of soil that’s going to be moved and the soil mixing that’s
going to occur that bothers but more importantly it does not increase overall tree cover in
Chanhassen. That’s goal 5. Also with that it does not increase canopy cover on private and
public lands to a minimum standard of 50 percent. I noticed in the cutting plan that they said
they’re, what they’re going to cut and they’re going to add plants, add trees back but they’re still
33 percent short. And they said well they would fix that and I’m going, and I said how are you
going to fix it when the density’s that high. I mean I drove around over the last days and went by
other developments that have this kind of density and it’s hard to get trees in there so I just don’t
think that’s possible to do goal 6 which is maintain a healthy and diverse urban forest. But all
things you can’t have everything but that’s just the first piece. And then when I looked at I guess
densities. Yes you can do mixed use. You can move, increase densities. Alternative homes and
it goes through that but then I went back to the primary goal that we come in on land use and our
goals and policies. Again I’m an engineer myself but I have to look at principles. Does it meet
form? And when I looked at that I said one of the things that it says here and it’s particularly in
the fourth point that our goal is to create a mixture of development capable of providing high
quality of life and a reliable tax base here in Chanhassen. I agree with that. High quality of life.
That’s why I joined the Planning Commission a year ago was wanting, I’ve been here 20 years. I
wanted to continue to have that for not only myself but also for the people that would follow me.
It’s a wonderful place to live. So in that what it says in the four negatives it says we will support
low density residential development in appropriate areas of the communities in such a manner
and I quote this, to mainly aesthetics of existing single family areas and to create new
neighborhoods of similar character and quality. It also goes on in one of the other statements
that transition should be created between different land uses and the more important the
transition zone it has to have been these land uses. And to me the way this looks it’s a real big
change in land use. I’m a simple person so what I ended up doing and I took the plat of this
development. I laid it up against a base plat that we all get. The big plan plat and said what does
this look like, and it didn’t fit. And then I took Google Earth and did it again and laid it on there
and then I started imaging what it would look like in 20 years. We are going to clear cut trees.
Will the trees go in? Will it be back and I just could not get there. And so I had to ask myself a
question. Does this development, does this plan, following the core principles for our
Comprehensive Plan, which is our structure that allows our plan that allows the City to flourish,
will this neighborhood allow itself to flourish in it’s position, will it flourish in position relative
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
31
to the other neighborhoods in close proximity. Will it be additive or will it be subtractive? And
so from the environmental standpoint it’s a plus because of the park but with the surrounding
neighborhoods and the rest of Chanhassen that’s where it kind of gets dark. A little bit cloudier
to see. So as I said at the beginning this is a choice piece of property. It’s a wonderful jewel. It
needs a beautiful setting. I do believe there ought to be a Plan C setting better. I’m not, I don’t
look at this and I say does it meet my personal test on, particularly when I look what’s in our
plan and when I looked at the overall design. So pros and cons are all there but I’ve concluded
personally that it’s not additive for the City. It’s not additive for what we want and I’m not in
favor of it. And I would encourage you, my fellow commissioners and the City Council to do
the same. Thank you.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Andrew I’ll probably add to what Michael has just stated but you know the plan proposes
diversity in housing type and size yet the process of developing the property has reduced, if not
eliminated the natural diversity. The loss of habitat, flora and fauna. There’s loss of visual
diversity. Disruption of natural water flow. Loss of wetlands and topographic diversity. Mass
grading accompanied by the loss of vegetation and if I look at the sheets that were submitted of
the inventoried trees there’s over 2,600 inventory trees on the site and looking at the ones that are
going to be saved I’m guess that there’s over 90 percent of the inventoried trees which were trees
of significant size are going to be lost through this process of mass grading. Included edge and
as we all know the edge is the most diverse area in the landscape. The edge is where you have
vegetation change. You don’t have the big canopy trees. You’ve got, well you’ve got buckthorn
I know but you also have a lot of dogwoods and other understory trees that provide a diversity
for habitat and for birds and just for visual diversity and that zone will be lost. It’s significant
resulting in, and this will result in a new, a very basic plan with little natural diversity. This is
not a call for no build but rather a question of what is the proper carrying capacity of the resource
to create a truly high quality development. What makes a neighborhood and what makes our
community? What does Chanhassen want of this, for this prime development site? What is
proposed is just another housing development planned to the maximum allowable within the
transfer of density with no distinguishable character. That’s all I’m going to say.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I guess in some ways my view differs from your’s. I do see that there have been some
changes to the plan. Some of the streets have been changed. Maybe it’s not a large enough
change that you know others have requested but I do see that the developer has listened. Has
made some changes. Trying to preserve some of the steepest of the slopes. Preserving some of
the trees. And then as I understood it I believe that there might be even an easement on the north
side. For the buffering that neighborhood. I’m not sure if there’s an easement on the south side
but I see that the developer has listened to the concerns of the neighbors on the south side and it
sounds like they are going to address some of the water issues that were not of their making and
to try to improve that. He showed us some of the additional footage for that buffer down there
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
32
but it was limited because of those improvements that he wants to put in. I do see that the lots on
the south side are larger to be more comparable but are definitely smaller than the ones on the
south side but I don’t know that our zoning requires that lots have to be exactly the same size
from neighborhood to neighborhood when it’s all single family. So perhaps there is more that
could be done to preserve this unique and wonderful property but they have proposed to preserve
a huge amount of parkland to keep it pristine. To keep it natural and as what I’ve heard from the
Park and Rec Director was when they went out and spoke to citizens of Chanhassen that one of
the most important things that they wanted was the trail connectivity. Was to have this unique
park which I think is a unique asset, not to just this neighborhood but to the surrounding
neighborhoods and to the whole city so perhaps there are some tweaks that do need to happen to
preserve those steep slopes. Maybe you can preserve more of those trees. I don’t know all the
particulars of all that but I do see an effort to try to listen, adjust the plan and work with the city
so you know I am leaning in favor of it.
Aller: Commissioner Weick. Thank you everyone for your position. Yeah this is tough
because our hands are tied. There are, there is more than one option out there as I understand it
and that is for the developer to develop the land as they wish and not give us a park and go ahead
and develop that land around the lake and probably in so doing make the lots bigger all over the
property. Probably save some of the grading issues and we wouldn’t have to sit here and debate
it at all because we would not be able to connect the park around Lake Ann. As I understand it.
I, you know maybe my understanding is wrong but they certainly don’t need to be here to listen
to this and you know maybe that’s an elephant in the room but it truly comes down to a hands are
tied type of decision. Do you want the 50 acres or don’t you? And really that’s what it comes
down to. To get the 50 acres we have to stuff a bunch of houses on the southwest side of that
property. I mean that’s it. I mean that’s the trade off. I don’t see a solution where you can say I
want the 50 acres and I don’t want 190 lots or whatever it is stuffed on the southwest side. I’d
love for that to be the case. And I think it’s noble to say I’m going to vote no because I don’t
like that but understand what you’re voting against which is a really nice big jewel of a park for
the City of Chanhassen. I’m not, I don’t know how I’m going to vote I’ll be honest with you but
I, our hands are absolutely tied here. This is not, this is not a good position for us to be in. I
mean you can join in. I’m not trying to, but that’s the way I see it so I’d love to hear otherwise
and I hear you know people that I do care. I do care about the houses and I do care about the
potential for flooding. That does matter to me. I hear that the contour, some, I’m sorry I don’t
know who said it but you know they say the contour of land just doesn’t work. You’re right but
when they’re done just flattening it, it will work and that’s what they’re going to have to do.
They’re going to have to flatten it and they’re going to have to take out all the trees and to do
that then the other side of it is we get a park. I hate it. I hate it. I hate that there could be, I
actually wrote it down before all this even started. I said it’s not much of a choice, and this was
before this whole thing even started. I said I’m sad that there’s nothing I can do. I would be
proud of the legacy of the lake preservation and that park and embarrassed by the legacy of the
housing density and those are the choices that I have to face as a planning commissioner and I
hate that.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
33
Aller: Commissioner Randall.
Randall: Yeah I agree with you. It’s a tough decision. I mean I read through all the stuff
tonight. Immediately I thought of the people on Majestic right away because of the flooding
issues. You know is that going to be an improvement? Is that going to fix the problem for them
or is it going to make it worst? You know Lennar will be long gone after, if they do have
flooding issues but at the same time if it improves it it makes their property better. I went with a
lot of different angles on this. Looking, trying to make a decision. Whether it be decisions that
we’ve made in the past with variances for cul-de-sacs and if it’s going to be a through street right
off of, we dealt with that a few weeks ago. Or few months ago. This is another compromise
where do we make, were we thinking that same way on that side? I don’t know if we were or
not. That bothered me. I looked at the aerial photos back to 1937 to see what this area was like.
There was farms in the Topaz development. There was farms at Majestic. There was wooded
coverage in this lot because it was undevelopable without moving, until the value got there for
them to move the earth to develop it and that’s where they’re at right now so it’s the growth of
the city. I get the trade off. I think the point on a lot of different angles that need to be taken yet,
or there’s a lot of moving parts to this but now all the moving parts have been totally figured out
and that’s a concern of mine too without moving forward and right now I’m still undecided so
I’m hoping we have more discussion and get some input from you guys so.
Aller: I agree that it’s a tough position to be in and I look to our responsibility, my responsibility
as a commissioner to try to please not just the neighboring community. Not just one particular
section in a plan but the entire city and the entire plan. I mean we spent the better part of last
year creating that plan and one of the biggest things that we all talked about and discovered as
we went through week after week, or bi-weekly was the integration of that plan. How traffic
interplayed with the environment and how the tree cover and the water structures all had to
interplay and then we went through that process where we were hearing about the visioning of
the city and I heard big things about where do we want to go and were we going to fast to
develop and here we have an opportunity to preserve a pristine piece of land with an incredible
size. An incredible stature for all citizens and for all residents and one of the biggest problems
that we’ve been facing as a planning commission over the last year was the infill. We’re running
out of developable property in such big sizes so we’re infilling and we’re putting pocket
properties in and we’re doing a lot of variances because the properties have gotten older and the
needs of the community have changed. So when I look at the process that we’re going through.
We’ve got 65 different items that still have to be met and I agree that there’s a lot that still has to
be done. Commissioner Weick with his trees, I’m surprised to hear you say anything other than
no and I’m glad to hear that you recognize you know those responsibilities as we all do and I’m
on your side. There’s a plan to be looked to and guidelines that we’ve created as a community
over time but I think those change but the one thing that we can do and have an opportunity to do
now is to move this forward and that’s one of my things that I’ve always done here on the
commission is I try to move them forward with the guidance to the City Council because we’re
not making a final decision tonight. With the guidance to the City Council to further input of the
community so that they can have the opportunity to modify this plan, to tweak it and they’ve
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
34
shown the ability to listen to the community. Make changes. Some are small. Some are large
but I think if they take it to heart, you know the comments about the ability to do things that are
grander and in a long term sense and benefit to the city and the community and I think they will.
I hope they will and when I vote I try to look at that positive side and that’s where I am right
now. I’m going to vote I hope in what’s in the best interest of the community as a whole.
Tietz: Andrew this isn’t just about natural resources. I know I said and talked a lot about
diversity and natural resources. It’s about creating a neighborhood. It’s creating a neighborhood
for people. People who want to be there and is this going to be a model neighborhood in
Chanhassen or is this going to be just another neighborhood by a large national developer? I
could go to Brooklyn Center, I could go to Omaha, I could go to anyplace and find lots stashed
on the site. Now we’re creating a site, we’re creating, there’s been said several times tonight
we’re creating a flat site to do what this happened. You know what this is proposed to be and
there’s a lot of flat sites around. Maybe not in Chanhassen but there’s a lot of flat sites around to
stuff houses on. …opportunity here to create a model neighborhood that people are excited.
We’ve got all the resources. We have schools. We have parks. Nothing against the potential of
getting a large piece of land against, adjacent to Lake Ann. I fully support that. I just disagree
with the amount that is being stuffed onto this property. This is a giant variance is what we’re
being asked to approve. The biggest variance that I’ve ever been a part of. It’s a PUD but
essentially it’s a variance because all the rules are being negotiated and massaged to make it
happen.
Aller: Well I agree with you but also a PUD by definition is a variance. I mean.
Tietz: I know.
Aller: It is so we’re talking about the same thing. We’re talking about taking a piece of property
in it’s raw state which includes everything from the Lake Ann setback all the way to Galpin and
modifying it to some degree.
Tietz: Changing all the standards.
McGonagill: Chairman?
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Appreciate the comments of fellow commissioners. I’ve been exactly where
you’re at. I’ve been all over the map on this. I look at it one way as a citizen. I look at it
another way as a planning commissioner so I actually pulled out and pull out the job description
of a planning commissioner and again I look at it. What’s our job? You know and it’s really to
look at summarizing subdivisions, flow, design of use of land. I’m not on the parks and rec
commission. I’m on the Planning Commission and as such I agree with you Commissioner
Weick. Parks are beautiful. The subdivision is not what I want. It’s, I’m sad, I would be sad to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
35
see it in here particularly where it’s at because it’s such, it’s surrounded by beautiful
subdivisions. It’s got the lake. It’s got everything there. I just go it’s the wrong spot for this.
It’s not wrong for Chanhassen but it’s the wrong spot for this kind of development and so I had,
when I put on my planning commissioner hat that’s how I got to where I am. It is just a lot of
things about it don’t meet what we would say to be an aesthetic of what Chanhassen is. And I
took some more encouragement on that, and I don’t know if any of you all had the chance to do
it but from our new mayor in her comments last night. She commented in her, after her swearing
in ceremony that she wanted to see Five C’s for Chanhassen. I won’t go through all of them.
She can do it better than I but it’s community, communication, collaboration and the last two
were commitment to excellence and a commitment to Chanhassen and those two are where I’m
at and in that commitment to excellence she said take aim for excellence. We do not want
mediocrity and I agree with that 100 percent and I think listening to her and the comments of the
other council members and particularly the one on Chanhassen that together we can build a
better community is what put me where I am in this camp. As hard as this is and what it means
to the 50 acres over by the lake, I worry about that. How does this all work? But as a planning
commissioner I’m not committed to mediocrity and neither is the council, at least our mayor and
I’m with that so that’s how I got there. Thank you.
Aller: Any additional comments?
Randall: I have one.
Aller: Commissioner Randall.
Randall: I, you know I go back and forth here but there was one element in here that I really
thought of and it went back to some of these other variances we’ve dealt with in the past and it
was the one from the Fire Marshal.
Weick: Yeah.
Randall: And that was, you know I man it seems simple but have we gone that far with this that
we’re going to allow that when we wouldn’t do it somewhere else and that’s the issue I have
with it. It doesn’t get fixed I mean you know I might be somewhere else but right now just for
that one little thing I mean it seems simple but it’s not because we wouldn’t allow that
somewhere else so. So that’s why I’ll be voting no for it.
Weick: But if we’re voting no then what’s the next step for him? What do you see as the next
step? What does tomorrow look like?
McGonagill: Well I do believe the way the process works, Chairman you can correct me, we’re
making a recommendation to City Council and the City Council has to act on it. Now they do
take us under advisement but they have made decisions in the past I understand and 180 degrees
from what the Planning Commission has recommended. But as a body we’re here to advise
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
36
them and that’s what we’re doing. Now have we dumped them a big problem in their lap?
Absolutely but they get the big bucks for that you know and so, you know they ran for this so I, I
understand Commissioner Weick. What is the option? It’s like I looked, I had to get another
way because I always think of analogies. Yes that park we could get is beautiful but I can’t let
that blind me in one eye and lose sight in the other. You know I can do that but I still have to
have a subdivision that meets what we want here and that’s when I got here so yes, they have to
sort that out. They have more resources than perhaps we do but that’s, I appreciate their problem
and I’m glad I’m not there.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Just wanted to make one comment about the cul-de-sac and normally I would never go
along with that because of the Fire Marshal’s comments but the reason it arose, the cul-de-sac
came about was after listening to concerns about traffic flow and safety the plan was changed
based on the comments that citizens had so do you go back to having you know, having it cut
through the steepest areas and disturbing the dirt more and perhaps having more runoff and more
concerns with traffic or do you go with the long cul-de-sac? Maybe there’s another plan but this
is a, it’s a very unique property. I don’t have enough engineering background to come up with
another plan but this is the one that we have to make a recommendation on today.
Aller: Additional comments? I’ll entertain a motion.
Randall: We can make a motion really quick but will all our comments be forwarded to the City
Council?
Aller: Yeah the verbatim Minutes will be received.
Randall: Okay perfect.
Aller: It’s part of the package and part of, and which is the transparency that we all have and so
I’ll add on to the comments that have been made before too that I would hope that everybody
present, everybody watching, we’re dealing with, when we’re dealing with water issues and
canopy issues and I think I heard the Mayor say last night that she wanted us all to get up and
participate so I would appreciate it if everybody would go plant a tree. Bottom line is, is that
we’re always looking for somebody else to plant trees for us and we have our own yards so let’s,
if we want a buffer, truly want a buffer, create one on your own property. I think that’s the best
way to guarantee that you’re going to have that buffer. Protect your own property. Protect your
own wetlands. Stand up for them. We are trying to do our best to stand up for the community
which is why you know I vote and of course why we differ in our comments because we are
diverse. We’re a diverse segment of the community. We’re from different backgrounds. From
different areas in town and we look at things differently which has given us a great perspective I
think over the last year as a working commission so we’re not always in lock step but I think that
after discussion our votes normally are unanimous or close to it because of the fact that we’re all
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
37
looking to do what’s best for the city and if that doesn’t necessarily play out in tonight’s vote
that’s fine but thank you for your participation and your comments and let’s entertain a motion
and move this thing forward and see where we’re at with our recommendation to City Council.
Would anyone like to take a stab at a motion? This is why a lot of times we take the one that’s
on there.
McGonagill: I guess Mr. Chairman I’m a little bit, help me on the Robert’s Rules of Order here
a little bit. We have a motion in front of us that the planning staff has proposed to us to act on
that’s on the agenda. So do we have to vote on that? Do we vote it down? I’m just, I don’t
understand process as well.
Aanenson: You can modify the motion.
Aller: That is a motion that has been presented because it’s.
Tietz: Easy to present.
McGonagill: I lost my screen. I lost my screen. That’s okay
Aller: It is easy for us to use because it goes through the report and provides us with that
information but as we have in the past we can modify it to add comments. To add conditions.
And this is a recommendation and it can be voted up or voted down depending upon how you
want to present it.
McGonagill: May I ask a process question?
Aller: Sure.
McGonagill: Okay. In the motion I don’t, I think where we’re getting hung up, I don’t think we
have, I offer this as an opinion. That I don’t think we have a problem with the first state of
rezoning the PUD. You know that one is fine. Where we’re getting the, where we have a lot of
debate on is the number of lots. The density and the way it’s created in the plans by Pioneer
Engineering. This is where we’re having I believe most of the debate so this part of the motion s
okay. This part probably is okay on the wetland piece. The third piece. And then we of course
have the attached Findings of Fact and recommendations so it’s this middle one if I correctly
look at it where we are not having agreement on what…
Aanenson: Chairman Aller if I may. All the conditions are tied to each other so once you rezone
the property it’s rezoned so you’d really have to recommend denial of all of them because
they’re all tied to that specific plan. That would be my recommendation.
McGonagill: Okay that answers my question.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
38
Aanenson: Thank you.
McGonagill: Thank you. Well then I will offer a recommendation for denial of the proposed
motion that this recommend denial of the motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends to City Council to approve the rezoning for 191 acres from Rural
Residential District (RR) to Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) including PUD
ordinance for Galpin Design Standards and the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council approve the subdivision preliminary plat creating 191 lots, 3 outlots and
dedication of the right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated
December 5, 2018 subject to conditions in the staff report and the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28
acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report and the Planning Commission
also adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations.
Aanenson: Can I get a clarification, excuse me. So we’re recommendation on all of the issues.
Is that what the intent was?
McGonagill: Well I understood I couldn’t break them apart so therefore I have to.
Aanenson: Okay.
McGonagill: That’s what you said and I’m following. Okay.
Aanenson: Again I just want to make sure I understood the motion. I’m sorry.
McGonagill: Proposing the motion.
Aller: So we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Tietz: Second.
Aller: Having a.
Weick: Can I have a clarification please on the vote because I want to be perfectly clear.
Aller: We have a motion with a second.
Weick: So a vote for this motion is a vote against.
Aller: The proposal.
Weick: The proposal.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
39
McGonagill: Thank you for that because I probably had it screwed up.
Aller: Okay?
McGonagill: Thank you Commissioner Weick.
Aller: So having a motion and a second and a vote in favor of the motion is for a denial of the
presentation.
McGonagill: Correct.
Aller: Everybody okay with that? Any other discussion based on that?
McGonagill moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the proposed motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends to City
Council to approve the rezoning for 191 acres from Rural Residential District (RR) to
Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) including PUD ordinance for Galpin
Design Standards; and the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the subdivision preliminary plat creating 191 lots, 3 outlots and dedication
of the right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated December 5,
2018 subject to conditions in the staff report; and the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of
wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; and the Planning Commission
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Commissioners McGonagill,
Tietz and Randall voted in favor of the motion for denial. Commissioners Madsen, Weick
and Aller voted against the motion for denial. The motion is tied with a vote of 3 to 3.
Aller: So we have a 3-3 which is not unexpected in a situation like this and that’s why we toss it
to the people who make the big bucks. With our thanks to the community for their presentations.
Please note that you have been heard. We are still listening. We know that the developer is
listening. The City is listening and this matter will go to the City Council on what date Kate?
Aanenson: The 11th.
Aller: The 11th.
Aanenson: 11th of February.
Aller: The 11th of February. Let’s take a minute while the room clears.
There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
40
APPROAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2018 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS.
Aller: Anybody wishing to make comments? I just on behalf of the commissioners here would
like to welcome and congratulate the present City Council as constituted and we look forward to
them looking at our recommendations. Although they’re not going to be thrilled with this and of
course this is not our doing. It’s not their doing. It’s the community growing and we’re all
going to have growing pains so we appreciate them and on the 11th I’m sure they’ll work through
a lot of the information that we provided them. Also congratulations to the Red Birds who were
champions and they had their presentation or announcement last night at the City Council
meeting and I think that’s about it.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: I’ve got a council update, if that’s alright.
Aller: Please.
Aanenson: Okay. So the council did approve the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan. It is up
for review so just like you have procedures, they have 15 days to determine if it’s complete.
There’s a couple things that didn’t align between engineering, looking at some modeling for
sewer and what we had for projections so those were all straightened out so we’re in the process.
So they also our plan will then also go to what they call a community development committee to
get that approved so they’ll write their final recommendation so we anticipate that happening.
The flood plain ordinance was adopted. Through that whole process we tried to keep pubic
involvement and appreciate Commissioner Madsen’s help on that but we didn’t have anybody
show up to any of the hearings but again we tried hard to do some outreach on that one too. The
Holasek Farms, the business park was approved by the City Council. It is in the final plat. I did
mention that I did meet with the developer of that and so that is hopefully they’ll be closing in
February. I think the middle lot’s been eliminated based on poor soils but it’s going to be a very
nice industrial park and they do have a tenant moving in there so we’ll probably see some work
on that this spring.
McGonagill: Kate question on that and my favorite subject is the pipeline. Any, heard anything
from Magellan? What are they talking about that?
Aanenson: That building’s being completely removed in proximity to that so I haven’t heard
anything more on that. I just found out about that.
McGonagill: You mean they’re removing that building completely?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
41
Aanenson: Completely yep.
McGonagill: They’re not building the building in the back.
Aanenson: Correct in the middle. In the far back but not in the middle so there’s the Magellan
Pipeline has got 100 feet on either side of it now so.
McGonagill: So will it still be between the two buildings?
Aanenson: Yes.
McGonagill: Okay.
Aanenson: But significantly. Like I say with the middle building being gone it’s.
McGonagill: Yeah well it’s mostly about you know the.
Aanenson: Yeah they’re not grading or anything in that area now so it’ll be left…
Tietz: Is that a phase decision by Mark?
Aanenson: It’s really poor soils. If you remember there was a lot of stockpiling.
Tietz: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yeah there’s a lot of stockpiling to correct those soils so I think just the cost of all
that was just, so that’s just going to be eliminated.
Tietz: So it’s gone away forever?
Aanenson: Yeah. So it’ll just be, yeah correct
Aller: So it’s gone.
Aanenson: Just the two buildings.
McGonagill: There will be, there will be a building on one side of the pipeline and there will be
another building on the other side.
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: So they will have to still go through.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
42
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: Padding and crossing, how they cross that.
Aanenson: Yeah, yep, yep, yep. But I mean the building, the second building…second building
is quite a bit further, closer to the pipeline so now there’s a significant, a couple hundred feet but
yes, they still have to go through all the requirements yep.
McGonagill: Yeah okay. Well just something to be sensitive to.
Aanenson: Sure.
McGonagill: Is for them to insure they get a good engineering study of how many, how much
point load they can have. They need a pad above that pipeline to build a ramp above it so they
can spread the load with the dumpsters.
Aanenson: Yeah, yeah.
McGonagill: But after the meeting we can talk about that
Aanenson: Yep, yep. Yeah. And then the Venue project, they did the final, the registered land
survey. This is the first time I’ve done one of those where it’s actually, it’s an abstract in the air
because the final plat for the Venue is actually the Aldi building so the had to wait for the
parking ramp to get built and then they do the survey based on that parking ramp so that’s been
done and recorded. They actually pulled the permit for the Aldi although we don’t anticipate
that starting until April so that will be under construction. So that’s what I had for, so the
council will have, just had their first meeting last year and there wasn’t much action item on
that. I take that back. Paisley Park. They did approve, you looked at that, the temporary to
allow liquor at those 12 special events, yep.
Aller: Special permits right
Aanenson: Yep.
Aller: Special events.
Aanenson: Correct yep so that’s on there. I do want to tell you we do have a meeting in 2 weeks
and there’s a variance on and that’s up in the Lake Minnewashta area and then we also are going
to give you our year end report. There’s some exciting things in our year end report. We did a
lot of development so we’ll talk about that.
Aller: Great.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
43
Aanenson: And I did mention to the 3 people that their terms are up so I’ll be sending out
notices reminding you if you want to reapply so we’ll be doing those interviews. I think that
second meeting in February. We’re trying to get those to the City Council. I think they’re
looking at maybe trying to block out a couple of meetings to do more at once instead of trying to
plug up all the work sessions so I’ll let you know about that.
Aller: I think it helps give them a better idea too.
Aanenson: Yes, right because they’re just kind of, when they interview over a month they kind
of you know, yeah so I think that will be good so that’s what I’ve got. Just as a side note I’m
hearing rumors about possibly Avienda kind of starting to rumble up a little bit now too so I’ve
been getting some inquiries from the developer and some of the residents so, so if you recall on
that one we have to go back and amend that PUD. They’re going to shift up some of the internal
uses in there an move those around and so you’ll have to look at that PUD again too so, they got
approval to do the grading so now they’re working on that. Then they can come forward with a
PUD amendment so anticipate that so. So that’s all I have.
McGonagill: I’ll just compliment how the Panera turned out next to Chick-fil-A.
Aanenson: Oh thank you.
McGonagill: I didn’t really have a, I was really concerned a little it about the parking and traffic
flow in there. It turned out okay.
Aanenson: Yeah it looks nice. It’s always hard to visualize something when you see it and those
are compact sites right there. Those retrofits of substandard storm water measurements so
they’re very complex so yeah they just got their final CO.
Aller: And that was the big delay with Chick-fil-A. Was working that underground.
McGonagill: I know they, of course I wasn’t on the commission then but they dug one heck of a
hole when they were working through all that.
Aller: Yeah. Well thank you one and all for a difficult but good meeting. We’re at our finest
when we have the community present and asking us the hard questions and I look forward to
working with you. On that motion to adjourn.
Commissioner McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject City Council Action Update
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: G.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Action Update
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2019
Galpin Site Update (Work Session)
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2019
Discuss Galpin Site Preliminary Plat & Rezone PUD (Work Session) Council reviewed revised
plans and advised taking
item back to Planning
Commission for
comments
Discuss Applebee’s Site Redevelopment (Work Session) Council encouraged
developer to find an
alternate business for the
site
The minutes for these meetings can be viewed from the City’s website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links.
g:\plan\forms\city council action update.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject YearEnd Review/2019 Work Projects Annual Report
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: G.2.
Prepared By Robert Generous, Senior Planner, AICP File No:
ATTACHMENTS:
2018 Year in Review & 2019 Recommended Work Plan
CITYOT CHANIIASSXN
Chanhasen is a Community for Life - Providing forToday and Planning forTomorow
Planning Commission
Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Director
Bob Generous, AICP, Senior Planner
February 5,2018
2018 Year in Review and 2019 Recommended Work Plan
BACKGROUND
As required by the City Code section 2-46.03 (e) Reports; The Commission shall make an
annual written report to the Council containing the Commission recommendation for the ensuing
year.
Staff estimates an April I ,2019 population of 26,355.
Below is a summary of items the Planning Commission reviewed in 2018 as well as possible
work projects for 2019. If there are additional items, projects, or research, the Planning
Commission would like to undertake for 2019, please provide direction to staff.
2018 REVIEW
Planning staff reviewed two fewer development review applications in 201 8 than in 2017 .
Included as part of these applications were three conditional use permits, four planned unit
developments (PUD), one rezoning, three site plan reviews, four subdivisions, and nine
variances, which resulted in 20 cases being reviewed by the Planning Commission. In addition,
the Commission reviewed six code amendments.
In 2018, the city issued building permits for 373 dwelling units, which was almost double the
projected housing development primarily due to two apartment projects: Riley Crossing Senior
Housing (formerly Mission Hills) and The Venue. We are projecting a2 percent (Zoh) increase
(approximately 200 units) in housing stock for 2019. However as can be seen in the average
residential building permit data (132 single-family and 69 attached units), there is currently a
slight deficiency of approved residential lots available for development with a lot inventory of
103 platted single-family lots and 6l attached single-family lots.
PH 952.227 .1100 . WWW. Ci. Cha nhaSSen. mn. US - FX 952.227 .lll0
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
77OO MARKET BOULEVARD . PO BOX 1-47 . CHANHASSEN . MINNESOTA 55377
Planning Commission
Community Development Annual Report
February 5,2018
Page2
2OI9 WORK PROGRAMS
Development Review
Staff anticipates the development of the Galpin Site property west of Lake Ann in 2019.
Additionally, a major residential project for 2019 will likely be the housing component of the
proposed Avienda Lifestyle Center. We continue to have discussions about previously approved
but undeveloped multi-family projects. We have had numerous discussions with office industrial
developers and anticipate development proposals will come forward in 2019. New commercial
and residential projects will be included as part of the Avienda development and will continue on
a lot-by-lot basis as the population increases as well as the redevelopment of existing commercial
areas that have reached their effective design utility.
With the City Council approval of a development stage (final plat) review for the Avienda
Lifestyle Center PUD at Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard in 2018, grading will be competed
in2019 and some development (site plans) will move forward. Staff anticipates the PUD will be
amended in conjunction with the grading and infrastructure stage. The preliminary plat and PUD
rezoning were approved in 2017.
City Code
With the adoption of the Local Water Management Plan on December 10, 2018, staff anticipates
assisting the Water Resources Coordinator in the drafting of revisions to the wetland ordinance
and the surface water management requirements of City Code. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan is
at the Metropolitan Council. Once they have competed their review, the city will need to make
amendments to the city code to implement the Plan. Additionally, there are numerous minor
code corrections and revisions that staff has been compiling over 2018, which we will bring
forward as time permits in20l9.
Comprehensive Plan
The city is required by the Metropolitan Land Plan Act (MN$473) to update our Comprehensive
Plan every ten years. The City of Chanhassen is designated by the Metropolitan Council as an
Emerging Suburban Edge Community.
The Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for the local decision-making process. The
cornerstone of such a comprehensive planning process is the development and adoption of goals
and policies which identify the desired qualities and overall vision for the future of the
community. These goals and policies are based on the needs of the city along with the unique
characteristics and values of the community. The Comprehensive Plan is divided into ten
chapters: Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Natural Resources, Parks and Trails, Transportation,
Sewer, Water, Surface Water and Capital Improvements and Implementation. The goals and
Planning Commission
Community Development Annual Report
February 5,2018
Page 3
policies established for each chapter will serve as guidelines for specific recommendations for
future development.
The city has submitted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for Metropolitan Council review, which
has until April27,2019 to complete their review. The Plan may not be adopted until the
Metropolitan Council has competed their review and finds the plan in conformance with the
Thrive MSP 2040 plan.
Miscellaneous
Another joint Environmental, Parks and Planning Commission tour will be scheduled for late
summer 2019.
ACTION
The Planning Commission may present additional items, which they may revieilresearch in
2019. Any other suggestions that the Commission would like to see staff address will be added
to the list. Subject to Planning Commission concurrence, staff will forward this report to the
City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
l. Permits and Inspections.
2. Development Review.
3. Community Development Mission Statement
g:\plan\planning commission\annual reportsV0l 8 year in review.doc
PERMITS
and
INSPECTIONS
BUILDING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
The Building Division contains 2.5 support staff, one building official and four inspectors. In
August 2018, Eric Tessman became the new building official for the city. The inspectors review
building plans for compliance with building codes, inspect buildings under construction and
enforce property maintenance issues. Support staff issue the building permits, schedule
inspections, receive all permit applications and distribute building plans for city review.
[n2018, the city issued 14 permits for projects with building permit valuation in excess of one
million dollars.
Commercial and Institutional Construction
New Single-Family Home Construction
Project Location Value
Mamac Systems 8189 Century Boulevard $1,200,000
Panera Bread 531W.79th Street $1,000,000
Lifetime Fitness 2900 Corporate Place $17,000,000
The Venue 441W.78ft Street $20,000,000
Mission Hills Senior Housins 620 Aldrich Drive $21,000,000
West Park - 8 permits for 8
buildinss with 48 units West Park $9,896,000
Aldi Grocery Store 551 W. 78th Street $2,000,000
Year Permits Average Valuation Total Valuation
Average New
Single-Family
Home Values
excludes land cost
201 8 49 $406,275 $19,865,000
2017 55 $420,195 s22,798,000
20t6 46 $401,63 8 $ 18,834,000
20r5 80 $373,t28 $30,397,000
20r4 57 $388,965 $21,863,000
20r3 89 $342,413 $30,715,000
Inspections
Year Building
Inspections
Mechanical
Inspections
Plumbing
Inspections
Total
Inspections
201 8 2,863 r"425 1.551 s.839
2017 2.583 1,490 7,405 5,478
2016 1 7))1,459 1,770 5,951
2015 3.83s 1,681 1,770 7,286
2014 3.594 2,189 1,736 7,519
20t3 3.712 ) ?))2,323 8.357
2
Comparison to Other Communities
The city maintains a list of Key Financial Strategies Communities, which it uses as similar
communities to Chanhassen in regard to growth and size, as a measure for the city.
2018 Building Permit Activity
Key Financial Strategy Cities
Chanhassen 904 s 62.964.418 1.037 $ 64.443.100 986 $ 116.001.545
Andover 638 $ 46.900.983 731 s 32.780.4-58 E93 $ 39.E00.074
Chaska 1.416 $ 70.33r.176 826 $ 105.409.067 698 $ 57.621.261
Cottage Grove 3.560 $ 97.E83.3r7 1.834 $ 147.846.087 1.388 $ l10.9_59.370
Farmington 1.184 $ 38.928.257 609 s 17.r56.162 580 $ 25.r66.797
Lino Lalces 762 $ s3.391.9r4 5-432 $ 50.984.047 3.356 $ 50.990.945
Pdor Lake 1.503 $ 77.504.700 956 $ 54.377.400 1.107 $ 75.217.4E6
Rosemorurt 1"006 $ 79.s50.070 1.037 $ 74.700.000 1.049 $ 87.2E7.106
Savage 1.058 $ 86.E78.100 1.333 s 8-5.844.033 1.464 $ 9E.012.973
Stillwater 655 $ 30.800.24s 1.574 $ -56.859.721 1.531 $ 82.809.77r
Residential Single-Family
Apartments/Senior Facilities
2016 2017 ]sI8
Building
Pennits
Construction
l"alue
Building
Permits
Consbuction
Value
Building
Permits
Conshuction
Value
Residential Building
Permits 1't Quarter
znd
Ouarter
3.d
0uarter
4th
Ouarter Total
12 8 t6 13 49
Residential Townhomes 7 l1 9 29 56
0 268 0 0 268
Total Residential t9 287 25 42 JIJ
Commercial Building
Permits I't Quarter
znd
Ouarfer
3.d
Ouarter
4th
Ouarter Total
New 0 I 0 1 2
Redeveloped 0 0 0 0 0
Remodeled 6 31 8 1l 56
Total Commercial 6 32 8 t2 58
Single-Family Lots
Total Available Lots
Single-Family 57 100 48 55 49
Townhomes 96 4 0 12 56
Apartments/Senior Facilities 0 0 76 0 268
Commercial 82 109 109 73 72
Total Number of All Permits 23s 213 275 140 445
4
Available Lot Inventory @nd
of Ouarter)ltt Quarter 2nd Quarter 3td Quarter 4th Quarter
130 122 106 103
Residential Townhome Lots 98 87 78 61
228 209 184 164
Total Permit History 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Residential Building Permits Issued
I 980 4t l8 40 99
l98l 22 2 24
t982 t9 2 21
1 983 60 8 36 104
t984 108 34 24 t66
1985 189 38 20 18 265
1986 246 8 8 262
t987 289 2 32 323
1988 352 26 34 412
1989 307 t4 62 383
1990 t97 197
1991 191 l9l
1992 228 Attached single-family*228
1993 25r t6 267
1994 269 110 379
1995 216 t97 65 478
t996 170 37 207
t997 t77 97 274
1998 263 162 425
t999 187 88 277
2000 124 34 t62 320
2001 85 44 100 229
2002 54 246 300
2003 59 94 243 396
2004 76 t6 92
200s 60 24 0 84
2006 89 42 48 179
2007 6s 86 18 169
2008 28 38 66
2009 7l t4 85
2010 7t 30 l0r
20tt 106 62 168
20t2 t07 78 185
2013 89 86 0 175
20r4 57 96 0 153
20t5 80 24 0 t04
20t6 48 0 76 t24
20t7 55 t2 0 67
2018 49 56 268 JIJ
Average t32 69 71 214
Year Sinsle-Family Dunlex Townhouses Aoartments Dwellins
HOUSING PERMITS
Housing Permits
600
500
4oo
!Esm
z
2@
1(()
0 !ooFooorN0!oQts@QoFNoi6@F@E88E888888888888EEEEEEEEENNNNNNNdNNNNNNNNNNN
year
6
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PLANNING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
The Planning Division consists of the Community Development Director, three planners and a
natural resource specialist. The planning staff enforces the zoning ordinance, reviews building
plans, prepares current and long range plans for the community, discusses development potential
for individual properties, reviews development proposals and coordinates this review with other
departments and agencies, prepares reports for the Planning Commission and City Council,
provides information about the community to businesses, property owners and the general
public, performs research projects and writes ordinances and resolutions.
7
There were 104 applications submitted to the Planning Division resulting in 20 cases reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
PLANNING CASES
TYPE 2014 2015 2016 20r7 2018
5
Yr.
Ave.
18
Yr.
Avg.
SIGN PERMITS 48 92 75 37 62 63 62
VARIANCES 7 9 12 l3 9 l0 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 5 6 J 2 3 4 4
INTERIM USE PERMITS 3 3 4 0 0 2 2
REZONINGS 2 3 2 1 1 2 2
SITE PLAN REVIEWS 8 6 J 3 J 5 7
PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS 2 5 2 3 4 3 4
SUBDIVISIONS 1l 5 4 3 4 5 8
VACATIONS J I J 6 I J 4
WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMITS 1J 0 2 I 1 I 2
CODE AMENDMENTS 5 2 I 13 6 5 9
LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENTS I I 0 0 I I 2
TOTAL 98 123 lll 82 95 104 ll5
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
CASE #PROJECT NAME GROSS
ACRES
NET
ACRES
TOTAL
UNITS
GROSS
DENSITY
NET
DENSITY
2007 -02 The Arbors 2nd
Addition 2.08 2.08 J t.44 t.44
2015-01 Mission Hills Senior
Housing 8.64 8.64 150 17.36 17.36
20t7-tt The Venue 4.02 4.02 134 JJ.J aa -JJ.J
201 8-10 3861 Red Cedar
Point t.02 0.88 2 1.9s 2.26
TOTALS t5.76 t5.62 189 tt.99 12.t
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Project Location Developer
Building
Square
Feet
Acres Type of Use
Holasek
Business Park
8610 Galpin
Boulevard
Eden Trace
Corporation 449,3s0 54.3 Office
Warehouse
TOTAL 449,350 54.3
9
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
STATISTICS
LOT INFORMATION
]ASE PROJE('T \A1IE
lApprorcd
-
SINGLE,FAI\IIL'I DETACHED
_ Prcrious Plals and Prrcc{s
)4-l SUB lttinncseshls Landinls
4L!@_Oliv$md
)4-10 SLts Brcndcn Pond
)4-l I SUB Poitrre Lake Lu.\
l5-10 SUB Forcil llcedoss
illqslE_ Nnoh Hill
15-22 SUB Thc Fronlicr
l!:L!gp_- Llnmorc Addition 1ll2ll99t
l00r-l :Bi8$@ds --3l2JP)l00l-10 Lakel-uct Ridgc 5l28l2mn
f@a Ktrob Hill2nd 1/221200i
f0O2-6 Bover Lakc ilinns'rshta Add. 8l26l2$i
X-05 Scfllers \\ st 1llA2W
N-m xenlon Blufr 4llzDw
X-2J Lotus vierr Addition lllol2m:
N-Jl Hiddcn Crek l\ledo$s 6ll1l2m:
H-36 Pibehunt 1ll4l2m!
N43 Highcrsr (YoberN F.m ) 4lll/2@a
)5{2 Crssics 5Bl200:
)!E__ Johtr Hcnry' ---{!!4@:)5-14 .LekcHsrrison 1ll2/2@:.
ILll!q!:?!L Froltier 2nd Addition 8n1l2w
)5-25 l\tinnc$rhsla crek Hills 8l2Y2W:
)5-26 Hanlcur Addition 9D9nN:
)llf_ Stoncfield 4/l0rm(
)7-02 ThcArho6 1lgn$i
l!qf_ For Bill 7t9t2w
)?-0? ceuer 4l21nwi
)6-14 Thc Prscn'c (t4 BluffCNk) 6l26l2w
09-01 Apple TrN Estrlcs 6/8/2W
10-09 : PioBer Pess g/lln0lt
0-12 Rcll(lons on Lrkc Rils A28n0ll
f0D-19 Wtosotrg 2ll,/20ll
101344 Fdhem 15th Add 8126n011
101349 Blulfcreekri'oods 812612011
l0l3-D Prsene at Ri.c Leke 8ll?20l1
!9!!:l!__ Csmden Ridge (in.luds hlns) 9/9n017
folJ-lE L.ke St. Jm's Corc 9/912017
f9!!92_Homminsbird Hcishts l/27nol4
f0l4{6 Arhor Core ___5D@1
lgllu_Bouldercovc 6l9nOV
l9!L!2_ Bl.cI !n rlnot Acrcs 2nd 5/27nol4
fol+lt Vishs.tBcnt Frrm lU2lnOV
l0l4-30 2061 1\'.65th strd lud6 & Bou_L!12!!2q!f
10l+36 2631 Forst Arcoue llld6 & Bou lr8/20ll
f0l5{t RedstoftRidgc 5n6nil:
f0l5-16 Arbor Glen TD4nOli
l9!r:!!_Glaccum 9/l4t20l:
1016-09 Atrihcm otr thc P.rl 8DA20ll6
1016ll Fosood lnSnolt
f!!!!l=- Fewn Hill 8n8/20ti
f0l8-10 3t6l Red Ccdrr Poirt 1qnilt
l0llt-I3 Gletrdrle Dnr( HomG
pllql_ Gelpin Bouler ard Prepcrn
TOTAL
UNITS/LOTS
\IACANT
LOTS,/LNIT
IUNSI KULI EU
TJNITS PER['IIT PERNIIT PERI\IIT PERI IIT PERN,IIT
20n
PERTIITI
I{I I l0
I 2 2
8
2t 2t
l9 l8
t9
12
3 6
,t li I
t0 l0 l
48 2 I I
I
I
2l 2t 3
1l 5 I )I
I
l
:r8 4 l4 I
5 I
I
2
30 I 29 I I
22 ))o
l:t8 '|l:] I '|8 t2 9 l2 6
7 I 6 I )
94 I
4 l
4 4
1 I
l4 l
29 22 3
8 8 2
)I I
I 1 I
l 21
I I I
I5 l3 4 I
1 I
4 I I
lli t2 6
4 I
l7 4
7 t4
5 I 1
I I
5
SUBI UIAL IINULL-!ANIILI
PERCENT VA(]ANT
t.009 t03
tn10/^
EI 65 92 l6 s5 19
I
PrclimincD approrrl or not rsordd
I
I
PERCENT \IACANT
I
-
ltt Ltt-rlrttll
@ u rtort crcrc(sf, sD td + snho ostntg',
f003-J PUD Highl.nds on BlufiCrek 6/l5D0/)4
)!:LLLibetI on BlnfiCrNk Y21nW
X-26 hkEide Tonahous6 lo?3nml
fq!3:19_- South$ 6t vill.ge Tostrhouss 9l9a0l1
f0f5-01 lllssion Hills scnior Hoo3log 5l8a0li
fg!L!L$ 6t P.rr 1t24D0ti
r.m9 103
t0.2vr
9l)6 Et 65 92 .t6 55 49
2.
417 t0 407 59 56 4
l0l 7 94 7t 1
3tt
2
64 2 52
St]BTOTAL I\TULTI-FANIIL}'
PERCENT \:ACANT
921 6l 866 86 88 il t2 56
I
:
1002-7 SP Eulldins C Villrs6 on the Ponds -!q!EgUX-26 .Lek6idccotrdos lU21l20U
lL!:-.]9t8_,PoweNRidseAp.(mcnls l2llll2ffi.
f!!:jql,MissionHillsSenlorH@slng 5/81201',
l0l7-l I VcDue 7ll0n0l"
l0l7-10 Avietrda
SUBTOTAL NTULTI-FAITtILt'
I
til 88 16
t14 t:r4
I :t4 134
76 268
I Ut Al- trttrL I t-iANtlLl
PFR'FNT vIT'ANT
149 t.2t 0 xt ll 124
IUIALrcSIULA TIAl
DTR'FNT
2..r68 252
tn 6./-
2.1 l6 t7l l5l r03 t2l 61 t7l
10
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
STATISTICS
Final Plat GROSS ROW \\'ETLAND/ MISC. PARK \ET TOTAL GROSS NE
ASE PROJECTNAME
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
Approved ACRES ACRES PRIMARY/ ACRES LAND ACRES LiNITS DENSITY DENSITI
POND ACRES
I SUB Highlands of Leke St. Joe
-4 SUB \Yindmill Run
-8 SUB Royal Oaks Estates
-10 SUB htus Lake \\'oods
6/26t1993
9/28/1995
-l I SUB Oak of l\linnervashta
-12 SUB Tower Heights
SUB Shenandoah Ridge
-15 SUB Church Roed
.16 SI.JB TJO
-25 SUB Minger Addition
8t23/1993
8t8t1994
I SUB Minneu'ashta Landings
SUB Olivewood
Shadow Ridge
Mission tlills/Singlefamill
\\/oodridge Heights
10/24n994
!/104997
SLJB Creekside
0 StlB Brenden Pond
Poinle Lake Lucy
Hobens Wild Woods Farm
Forest Meedous
Meadous rl Longecres
1
t0t9/1995
994
PUD Trotten Ridge
1-3 PUD \Yillos Ridge
Sione Creek
Ithilien Addition
Bluff Crek Estei6 8t24/1
PUID Wmds rt Longacr6 6t27t199.4
PUD Springfield
Lrke Luc) Estrtg
Knob Hill
Dempsey Addition v8/L
SLJB The Frontier l0,r411996
Oak Ridge of Lake Minnewashta
Slather Addition
SUB Melodl Hill
Arundel
Rice Lrke Mrnor Estets
Rook Plece
15 SUB Black Welnut Acres 6t2411
7t22lt!8 SUB Song Addition
1 SUB Highover Addition tltl
-l I SUB Monson, Sunridge Addition
Lvnmore Addition
f,ric Petercon
Nickolal
SllB Brozorlck
Smith Hill Addition
Arrou'heed Developmenl
Sendl,Poinr
I SUB Mrrsh Glen
SUB Lucas lgel Addition 1D3DNI
Summerlield 2nd Addition
Arvidson's Addition
\i'hite Oak Addition
Ashling Meadous
-3 _BigWoods 8/27/2001
-6 Trist.n lleighrs 6/111200l
-10 Le\e Lwy Ridge 5D8l2N2
-2 Knob Hlll 2nd 7/22/2N2
2 24 Hidden Creek Estet6 7n2l2w2
Yasserman Ridge
Boyer Leke Minneweshla Add.
7 \lfillon'Ridge 3rd Addition
Countryside
Burlewood
Welnut Grove 2nd
Settlers Wst
Kenyon Bluff
l,otus Vierl Addition lll0/2005
-26 Frontier 2nd Addition 8123/2W
31 Hidden Creek Meedoss 6/13n0f5
36 Pin€hursl
Yoberrl' Farm (Highcrmt)
o/MaiMFl,WhdV tt
RESIDENTIAL
DEVBLOPMENT
STATISTICS
Final Plal \\ETLAND/ \IISC. PARK
PRINIAR}/ ACRES I,A\D
NT,T TOTAL GROSS N['
ASE PRO,IECT NA]\I},Approved ACRES ACRtrS ACRIS I.iNITS DE\SIT\ DE\SIT}
-05 John Henrl I 1l .,
E For Den
4 Lehe Harrison 7tw2a05
-21 Frontier 3rd Addition
-25 Minnewahsta Creek Hills
-26 Harvieux Addition
Bluff Creek Twinhomes
Stonefield 4n0t2006
4n0/2006
t0
Christienson Sub #034
Eidn€rs Mets & Bounds
Boulder Cove
The Arbors
For Hill
Gcuer
l,otus Woods
Applc Tree Eslit6
Sem Metes & Bounds
Pioneer Pass
42
10-12 Lakevieu (Reflections at Lake Riley)
12-16 Wynsong
3-04 Fretham lsth Addition
Bluff Creek Woods
Preserve rt Rice Lake 8/
3-13 Camden Ridge
3-18 Lake St. Joe's Cove
4-02 HummingbirdHeights
4-06 Arbor Cove
Frethrm l9th Addition
Boulder Cove
4-Black Walnut Acres 2nd
Vist s rt B€ntz Frrm
2061 W.65th Street Metes & Bounds
2631 Forest Avenue Meles & Bounds
Redstone Ridge
Arbor Glen
Glrccum
Anthem on the Prrk
Forrood
Frwn Hill
The Arbors 2nd Add.
3E6l Red Ceder Point
Glendele Drive Homes
Galpin Bouleverd ProPerO
2014-30
20t4-36
I
6
17-15
-02
I
SUB'TOTAL
PERCf,\T
lauuJeNqLY
1.791.t9 24t35
8.54"
329.27 7.65
It.4Y. 0.4oh
70.s1 I,r43.05 2*109.00
3.9.h 63.8v" AYG 1.29 2.02
PUD MissionHillsflltulti-femill'
Autumn Ridge
Oak Pond/Oak Hills
Prairie C reek Townhomes
-3 PUD Powem Place
7 SP Lake Susan Hills Townhomes
Centennial Hills
North Bay
Townhomc al Crekside
Walnut Grove (sf. sm lol + twnhouses
Lake Susan Apertment Homes
9 SPR Powers Ridge APrrtmcnts
Arboretum Village
Presbyterirn Homes
Highlands of Bluff Crek
Libertl on BuffCreek
The Preserve
G.tessy Plate
SouthWest Village
Lakeside
Mission Hills Senior Housing
Wat Psrk
t0t14t2N2
I
6-
2n2t201
7t24t201
erpM&r,P.srF0u6dty t2
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
STATISTICS
13
PRO.IECT NAME ACRIS ACRES PRIMARY/ ACRES LAND ACRES UNITS DENSITY
624.623 78.967
12.6"1lt
2.416.52 320.32
125.73 3.25 44.93 371.746 3,r26
AVG
5"435
AVG
20.1"/,, 0.5"1, 7.2'1, 59.5'%,rtll
455.00 10.90 115.50 1,514.80
I
13.3yo 18.8"1, 0.s.1 4.8'/" 62.7v"
g/phPasi.Pr6st,Futurddssity
I 960 CENSUS 3,411
1970 CENSUS 4,879 7,468 43%
I 980 CENSUS 6,359 1,480 30%
I 990 CENSUS 11,732 5,373 84%
1995 ESTIMATE 15,588 3,856 33%
1996 ESTIMATE 17,027 1,433 9%
1997 ESTIMATE 17 ,571 550 3%
1998 ESTIMATE 18,331 760 4%
t999 ESTIMATE 19,357 1,026 6%
2000 CENSUS 20,321 964 5%20,327
2001 ESTIMATE 20,982 661 33%21,700
2002 ESTIMATE 21,561 579 2.8%21,345
2003 ESTIMATE 22,376 1,394 65%21,600
2004 ESTIMATE 23,431 1,055 4.7%22,042
2005 ESTIMATE 23,652 221 0.9%22,518
2006 ESTIMATE 23,864 212 0.9%22,017
2007 ESTIMATE 23,506 (358)-t.s%22,395
2008 ESTIMATE 23,153 (3s3)-1.5%22,590
2009 ESTIMATE 22,806 (347)-1.5%23,629 '.
2010 CENSUS 22,952 146 0.6%22,952
2011 ESTIMATE 23,179 227 1.0%23,247
20t2 ESTIMATE 23,484 305 1.3%23,779
2013 ESTIMATE 23,954 470 2.0%24,755
2014 ESTIMATE 24,388 434 1.8%
2015 ESTIMATE 24,655 267 t.t%25,194
2016 ESTIMATE 24,951 296 r.2%
2017 ESTIMATE 25,273 322 1.3
201 8 ESTIMATE 26,088 815 3.2
2020 PROJECTION 26,882 794 3.04%26,700
2025 PROJECTION 29,022 2,140 8%
2030 PROJECTION 30,834 1,812 6%31,700
2035 PROJECTION 31,995 1,161 4%
2040 PROJECTION 33,384 1,389 4.3%37,100
t4
CHANHASSEN POPULATION Number Increase Percent
Increase Met Council
The Arbors 2nd Addition
The applicant requested final plat approval for three riparian lots for a single-family subdivision as well as
approval of the development contract and project construction plans and specifications.
THE ARBORS SECOND ADD'T'ON
r-.-@
.-*>-- --t-hff*.-4-&i-i--
\
\
)
\,
\
I
I
\
\
L
(lilk
I'a--
-F---*)*---)- Ltb a
--hah--a
G.:g'ri
i'jj,t',Ct:
;
\
\
-;liri s7. i':
:Hla(
I
I
I
I
Isl
g ir!
s|!i
rili
rit
I
,
I+
,ti
f)
lit'
-1
:ft;*si.:: EA"'
\'t
\\
15
I
I
3861 Red Cedar Point
The applicant, Estate Development Corporation, subdivided the existing lot into two lots for a single-family
detached housing. The applicant also requested a variance from the Single-Family Residential District's
required 90-foot minimum lot width. The applicant could meet the required 9O-foot lot width for both lots
through the use of a half-cul-de-sac ("eyebrow"); however, this would result in increased lot coverage.
16
Riley Crossing Senior Living (formerly Mission Hills Senior Living)
The applicant, Michael Hoagberg, amended the Planned Unit Development, replatted 8.64 acres into one lot,
and received site plan review for the construction of a four-story, 134 unit, senior housing apartment with an
attached day care center and eight twin homes.
t7
The Venue
The applicant, Chanhassen Frontier LLC, requested site plan approval to construct a 134 unit, six story
apartment building and a 19,000 square foot commercial retail building in conjunction with a Registered Land
Survey.
h Elevation
South Elevation
l^
I
1-:
t.
I
I
It
tlt!!
II
titlt
!t,t
r E rrlr r & r tli E a rll alrllt,tj!.1't,!I r-rr--
E ! ilrE D € ! tqq g s lqt :l!il'l#N'.
r E l5a 5 n r rrr g t c$e llllrL!ffi"-r!
I I tll I r I aal ! I rll I . rrr ! t
- .- j:; -r ?tr-r!t. ! ! r !!! ! ! t;; ! ! !!! I r
rt I rI t
fr ! l; !
rt : rI t
tr. - j*
fiir !!!!
Holasek Business Park
The applicant, Eden Trace Corporation, rezoned from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park
(IOP) to permit development of an office-warehouse development. They are also subdivided creating three lots
and one outlot with the dedication of right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard. Access to the lots willbe via a private
street south of Lynan Boulevard. In conjunction with the development, a Wetland Alteration Permit was
required to fill wetlands on the site. They also received Site Plan Review for a total of 449,350 square feet of
buildings in three office industrial buildings with areas of 161,500 or up to 179,500 square feet with a
mezzanine (Building A),109,250 square feet (Building B) and 160,600 or up to 178,600 square feet if Building
A does not have amezzanine (Building C).
i(n I
tt.r;.
19
It
il
il
!{:&.* -- - I
i: i{.8f !t + ;
qE9n D.!4 st
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Subject Interview New Commissioners
Section OPEN DISCUSSION Item No: J.1.
Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community
Development Director
File No:
BACKGROUND
An ad was placed in the Chanhassen Villager on January 10, 17 and 24, an article appeared in the Chanhassen
Connection which was mailed to all residents on January 25 and 26, and information was also posted on the city’s
website and Facebook page. The application deadline was Friday, February 1. The following applications have been
received:
Planning Commission
Vacancies Three 3year positions
Terms Expiring on March
31, 2019
Andrew Aller (Reapplied)
Nancy Madsen
Steven Weick (Reapplied)
New
Applicants & Addresses
1. Antonio J. Fricano, 980 Lake Lucy Road
2. Bala Chintaginjala, 8982 SW Village Loop*
3. Douglas Reeder, 590 Broken Arrow Road
4. Gerald Cook, 9920 Delphinium Lane
5. Lynn Pelto, 6581 Foxtail Court
6. Annette StockLind, 8104 Dakota Lane
7. Natalia Sander, 6671 Amberwood Lane
8. John Kunitz, 6441 Bretton Way
9. Laurie Susla, 7008 Dakota Avenue
10. Laura Skistad, 2284 Stone Creek Lane West*
First Meeting in April April 2, 2019
*As of Wednesday, February 13, an interview confirmation has not yet been received.
Attached is the application and questionnaire for the 11 new applicants mentioned above along with a scoring sheet.
Traditionally, the Planning Commission does not interview incumbents and incumbents do not participate in the interview
process.
After the interviews, the Commission generally ranks their preference for candidates. The preference ranking, as well
as the incumbents’ applications, will be forwarded to the City Council for their interviews on February 26 and March
11, 2019. Appointments will be made on March 11, 2019.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, February 19, 2019SubjectInterview New CommissionersSectionOPEN DISCUSSION Item No: J.1.Prepared By Kate Aanenson, CommunityDevelopment Director File No: BACKGROUNDAn ad was placed in the Chanhassen Villager on January 10, 17 and 24, an article appeared in the ChanhassenConnection which was mailed to all residents on January 25 and 26, and information was also posted on the city’swebsite and Facebook page. The application deadline was Friday, February 1. The following applications have beenreceived:Planning CommissionVacancies Three 3year positionsTerms Expiring on March31, 2019 Andrew Aller (Reapplied)Nancy MadsenSteven Weick (Reapplied)NewApplicants & Addresses 1. Antonio J. Fricano, 980 Lake Lucy Road2. Bala Chintaginjala, 8982 SW Village Loop*3. Douglas Reeder, 590 Broken Arrow Road4. Gerald Cook, 9920 Delphinium Lane5. Lynn Pelto, 6581 Foxtail Court6. Annette StockLind, 8104 Dakota Lane7. Natalia Sander, 6671 Amberwood Lane8. John Kunitz, 6441 Bretton Way9. Laurie Susla, 7008 Dakota Avenue10. Laura Skistad, 2284 Stone Creek Lane West*First Meeting in April April 2, 2019*As of Wednesday, February 13, an interview confirmation has not yet been received.Attached is the application and questionnaire for the 11 new applicants mentioned above along with a scoring sheet.Traditionally, the Planning Commission does not interview incumbents and incumbents do not participate in the interviewprocess.After the interviews, the Commission generally ranks their preference for candidates. The preference ranking, as wellas the incumbents’ applications, will be forwarded to the City Council for their interviews on February 26 and March11, 2019. Appointments will be made on March 11, 2019.
ATTACHMENTS:
Commission Interview Scoring Sheet
INTERVIEW SCORING SHEET
5=High/1=Low
Name
Years Lived in
Chanhassen
Knowledge
of Community
Commitment
to Position
Knowledge of
Major Issues
Involvement in
Community
Total
Points
Antonio J. Fricano
Bala Chintaginjala
Douglas Reeder
Gerald Cook
Lynn Pelto
Annette Stock-Lind
Natalia Sander
Jacob Coleman
John Kunitz
Name
Years Lived in
Chanhassen
Knowledge
of Community
Commitment
to Position
Knowledge of
Major Issues
Involvement in
Community
Total
Points
Laurie Susla
Laura Skistad