2019 04 02-pc ws-sumCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WORK SESSION – FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
SUMMARY MINUTES
April 2, 2019
The meeting started at 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Doug Reeder, Michael McGonagill, John Tietz, Mark Undestad and
Steven Weick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Randall, Laura Skistad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; George Bender,
Assistant City Engineer; Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator; Sara Flagstad,
Administrative Support Specialist; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Young-
Walters, Associate Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT: None
A. WORK SESSION ITEMS
1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Mark Undestad nominated Steven Weick as chair. Michael McGonagill seconded. The
commission voted 5-0 to approve the chair.
Mark Undestad nominated Mark Randall as vice-chair. Michael McGonagill seconded. The
commission voted 5-0 to approve the vice-chair.
2. Adoption of Bylaws
Mark Undestad moved and Doug Reeder seconded a motion to approve the Planning
Commission bylaws. The commission voted 5-0 to approve the bylaws.
Kate Aanenson advised the Planning Commission that they have a joint meeting with the City
Council on April 22, 2019. This meeting provides the Planning Commission an opportunity to
discuss the city with Council. It would include a discussion of the 2019 work plan from the
memorandum dated February 5, 2019. Kate asked if the Commission wanted to add anything.
Michael McGonagill proposed that the Planning Commission conduct a lessons learned
discussion of larger projects after they have completed the public hearing process to review and
evaluate project outcomes. Mike McGonagill suggested that they want to hear the best
engineering recommendations.
John Tietz asked whether the city should permit accessory dwelling units.
John Tietz also asked how they could be informed of changes to projects after they have gone
through the public hearing process. He requested that they be provided with additional updates
on the status of the larger developments. There was a general discussion of the possibility of
“work sessions”.
Kate Aanenson provided an update of the Galpin development (“The Park”).
3. Development Review Process Discussion
Kate Aanenson discussed the comprehensive plan process including the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan update and that other amendments to the comprehensive plan are reviewed by the Planning
Commission including text, land use and special plan studies.
Kate Aanenson discussed the zoning amendment process including rezonings and code
amendments. Such amendments must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
MacKenzie Young-Walters went over some recent code amendments (bee and chickens).
MacKenzie Young-Walters discussed variances from City Code: zoning, subdivision and sign.
Each has separate standards that must be met, which are specified in the City Code. He showed
two examples of a variance; one met the criteria for approval, the other did not.
Bob Generous discussed the subdivision process. There are three types of subdivisions:
Preliminary and Final Plat, Metes and Bounds and Administrative.
An example of a metes and bounds subdivision on Forest Avenue was shown. Metes and bounds
subdivisions are limited to the creation of two lots and must meet all the requirements of the City
Code and be accessed via an approved public or private street. All the information for a plat may
be required. Metes and bounds subdivisions go to City Council for a public hearing.
Administrative subdivisions are not technically subdivisions of land as defined by State Statute
and City Code. A lot line adjustment was shown along Lake Minnewashta where a neighboring
property owner purchased a portion of a neighbor’s lot to add to their own. Other examples of
administrative subdivisions are when a commercial parcel is split into two parcels, each of which
is five acres or larger with a width of 300 feet and when a residential or agricultural parcel is
split into two parcels each of which is 20 acres or larger with a minimum width of 500 feet.
Administrative subdivisions, as the name implies, are handled by city staff and are not reviewed
by the Planning Commission or City Council.
The Arbor Glen development was shown as an example of a preliminary and final plat. City
staff requires that an extensive list of plans be submitted as part of the required review. The
Arbor Glen development included a rezoning to PUD-R, a Conditional Use Permit for
development within the Bluff Creek Corridor, Subdivision review and a Variance for a perimeter
setback requirement.
Kate Aanenson reviewed the Wetland Alteration process. She showed an example of The
Preserve at Rice Lake development. The review included requirements to avoid wetlands, if
possible, minimize impacts, when necessary, and mitigate any wetland impacts. The city is in
the process of amending its wetland and stormwater ordinances so it can again become the Local
Governmental Unit (LGU) for wetland and stormwater issues. This will streamline the
development review process.
Renae Clark presented her view of wetland and stormwater issues based on her background with
the Watershed District.
Bob Generous discussed the Site Plan Review process. Site plans are required prior to
construction of buildings except for single-family and duplex homes, expansions of buildings by
less than 10%, remodeling of a building, construction of agricultural buildings and accessory
residential buildings. Site plan reviews are governed by Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6 of the
City Code and must meet the findings in section 20-110. The Control Concepts site plan was
shown as an example of a site plan.
Conditional Use Permits and Interim Use Permits were discussed by MacKenzie Young-Walters.
Conditional uses must meet certain criteria or conditions as outlined in the City Code. Interim
Use Permits are reviewed in the same fashion, but have a sunset date to the use. Conditional Use
Permits run with the property and are for the use, not the person. Conditional uses do not expire,
but if not used for six months or longer or if the property is subdivided, the Conditional Use
Permit is voided.
Kate Aanenson noted that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation/Decision are a critical
component of city review because it provides the basis for the city’s decision on a project. The
findings of fact are used if the city’s decisions are ever challenged.
Kate Aanenson showed a sample of the jurisdictional review document (agency review request)
that is sent out for every development review application.
Kate Aanenson reviewed the environmental review process. Chanhassen is classified as a
Second Class City. She noted that environmental reviews, specifically an Environment
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Alternate Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) are only
required for large projects. The city’s normal review process already reviews many of the issues
that would be required for an environmental review. She showed an example of the 2005 MUSA
AUAR, which was required to be updated in conjunction with the Avienda development.
Kate Aanenson opened the meeting for questions.
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 16, 2019 and will include review
of city code amendments for designating front yards, permitting boarding kennels in the
industrial zone, and requiring tree diversity based on the 30-20-10 rule.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Submitted by Bob Generous, Senior Planner
g:\minutes\pc\2019\summary\4-2-19 work session-pc-sum.docx