Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2020, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Consider a Request for Sign Variances for the Existing Monument Sign Located at
306 W. 78th Street (Chapel Hill)
C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 4, 2020
D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.City Council Action Update
E.ADJOURNMENT
F.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 18, 2020
Subject Consider a Request for Sign Variances for the Existing Monument Sign Located at 306 W. 78th
Street (Chapel Hill)
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No: Planning Case No. 202003
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 6foot high ground
lowprofile sign with 35.33 square feet of total display area of which 16 square feet may be an Electronic Message
Center (EMC), subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a 6foot high ground lowprofile sign with 35.33 square feet of sign
display area, 16 square feet of which will be an EMC. The city’s sign code would allow for a 5foot high ground low
profile sign with 24 square feet of sign display area, 12 square feet of which could be an EMC. The existing ground
lowprofile sign and EMC meet the requirements of the city’s sign code.
A full analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.
APPLICANT
Ben James, Blue Label Creative, 240 Galpin Court, #120, Chanhassen, MN 55317
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: OI
LAND USE:Public Semi Public
ACREAGE: 4.84 acres
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, February 18, 2020SubjectConsider a Request for Sign Variances for the Existing Monument Sign Located at 306 W. 78thStreet (Chapel Hill)Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202003PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 6foot high groundlowprofile sign with 35.33 square feet of total display area of which 16 square feet may be an Electronic MessageCenter (EMC), subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a 6foot high ground lowprofile sign with 35.33 square feet of signdisplay area, 16 square feet of which will be an EMC. The city’s sign code would allow for a 5foot high ground lowprofile sign with 24 square feet of sign display area, 12 square feet of which could be an EMC. The existing groundlowprofile sign and EMC meet the requirements of the city’s sign code.A full analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report. APPLICANTBen James, Blue Label Creative, 240 Galpin Court, #120, Chanhassen, MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: OILAND USE:Public Semi PublicACREAGE: 4.84 acres DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 1, Generally
Section 201253, Variances
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 1, Generally
Section 201265, General Location Restrictions
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 1, Generally
Section 201267, Uniformity of Construction, design, etc.
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 1, Generally
Section 201276, Electronic Message Center Signs
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 2, Signs Allowed in Specific Districts by Permit
Section 201302, Neighborhood business, fringe business and office and institutional districts
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2006, a permit was issued for the existing monument sign and EMC.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to allow a 6foot high
ground lowprofile sign with 35.33 square feet of total display area of which 16 square feet may be an Electronic
Message Center, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a sign permit from the city.
2. The Electronic Message Center (EMC) must comply with the city’s Electronic Message Center Standards, save
that it may have an EMC display percentage of 45.29 percent.
3. The ground lowprofile sign must meet the city’s design standards.
4. The ground lowprofile sign shall be located in the same position as the existing monument sign.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact (Approval)
Findings of Fact (Denial)
Development Review Application
Affidavit of Mailing
Variance Document
Exhibit A
Email from Daniel & Jeanne Burke
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: February 18, 2020
CC DATE: March 9, 2020
REVIEW DEADLINE: March 17, 2020
CASE #: 2020-03
BY: MacKenzie Young-Walters
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a 6-foot high
ground low profile sign with 35.33 square feet of sign display area, 16 square feet of which will
be an electronic message center (EMC). The city’s sign code would allow for a 5-foot high
ground low profile sign with 24 square feet of sign display area, 12 square feet of which could be
an EMC. The existing ground low profile sign and EMC meet the requirements of the city’s sign
code.
LOCATION: 306 W. 78th Street
APPLICANT: Ben James
Blue Label Creative
2460 Galpin Ct. #120
Chanhassen, MN 55317
OWNER: Chapel Hill Academy
Kassie Grosz
306 W. 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: OI
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Public Semi Public
ACREAGE: 4.84 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: 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 Ordinance 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 recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 6-
foot high ground low profile sign with 35.33 square feet of total display area of which 16 square feet
may be an electronic message center, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached
Findings of Fact and Decision.”
(Note: A motion for denial and appropriate findings of fact are also included at the end of the
report.)
Chanhassen Planning Commission
Variance for Sign at 306 W. 78th Street
February 18, 2020
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the height of their existing sign to six feet, a 1-
foot variance, and increase the sign’s display to 35.33 square feet, a 11.33 square foot variance,
to accommodate a larger EMC panel. The applicant had initially approached staff with a
proposal for an 8-foot high sign with 48 square feet of display area; however, after staff
expressed concern with the extent of the proposed height variance, the applicant revised their
request to minimize the extent of the requested variance. The applicant is proposing to use the
existing sign’s base so the location of the sign would not change.
The applicant is requesting the variance because they feel that the size of the sign’s existing
EMC panel does not allow them to effectively advertise the various activities that are held at
their facility. For example, weekend religious services are held on the property and they have
found that the existing EMC does not allow them to effectively convey the name, date, and time
of services. As a result, they are required to use banners and other temporary signage to advertise
the services. In addition to these secondary uses of the facility, Chapel Hill Academy also hosts
numerous after-school meetings, programs, and athletic events, all of which would benefit from
additional visibility. The applicant believes that a more flexible advertising space is necessary to
promote these events.
The applicant has noted that the OI zoning district does allow public/community signs on
property owned or leased by a governmental agency to be up to 8 feet high with 120 square feet
of display area, 40 square feet of which may be an EMC. These signs are significantly larger
than what they are requesting, and they feel that as a private school they have very similar needs
to public school in terms of having a large enough EMC display area to advertise extracurricular
events and after hours meetings.
Existing Sign Proposed Sign
Chanhassen Planning Commission
Variance for Sign at 306 W. 78th Street
February 18, 2020
Page 3
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 1, Generally
Section 20-1253, Variances
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 1, Generally
Section 20-1265, General Location Restrictions
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 1, Generally
Section 20-1267, Uniformity of Construction, design, etc.
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 1, Generally
Section 20-1276, Electronic Message Center Signs
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 2, Signs Allowed in Specific Districts by Permit
Section 20-1302, Neighborhood business, fringe business and office and institutional
districts
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2006, a permit was issued for the existing monument sign and EMC.
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is zoned Office Institutional District (OI). The parcel has an area of 4.84 acres with
frontage along W. 78th Street, Great Plains Boulevard, and Frontier Trail. There is a 5-foot high
ground low profile sign with 24 square feet of display area, 9.5 square feet of which is an EMC,
along the W. 78th Street frontage. The principal building also has a 12.2 square foot wall sign on
the western elevation and a 41.625 square foot wall sign on the southern elevation.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Surrounding Land Use:
Chapel Hill Academy is located on the eastern
edge of downtown and serves as a transition
between downtown’s commercial uses and the
single-family residential neighborhoods to the
east. The properties to the north and east are
zoned Single-Family Residential District
(RSF). The properties to the south are zoned
Agricultural Estate District (A2), Office
Institutional District (OI), and Central
Business District (CBD). The properties to the
west are zoned CBD, OI, and High Density
Residential District (R12).
Chanhassen Planning Commission
Variance for Sign at 306 W. 78th Street
February 18, 2020
Page 4
Sign Variances within 500 feet:
400-416 W. 78th Street: Monument sign within the lot’s 10-foot setback and wall sign along the
east façade.
Non-conforming signs within 500 feet:
Chan Prairie Laundry Center located at 7720 Great Plains Boulevard has a pylon sign that does
not conform to the current ordinance.
RELEVANT SIGN CODE
Detached Signs in OI District
Ground Low Profile Business Signs
User # of Signs Height Display Area
Business/Institutional Sign 1 5’ 24 sq. ft.
Governmental Unit 1 per frontage 8’ 120 sq. ft.
Note: EMCs are allowed for both types of signs; however, EMCs on signs owned by governmental units are
limited to 40 square feet in size.
Electronic Message Centers
EMC Maximum Display Area Table
Sign Display Area (square feet) EMC Display
0-24 50%
25-64 45%
65-80 40%
• May not be located within 50 feet of a street intersection.
• May not be located within 125 feet of a residential district.
• Use of EMCs within 500 feet of single-family residential homes shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Note: This is a partial list of standards. Additional provisions govern brightness, glare, distracting
images, and other similar issues that can arise with the use of EMCs.
ANALYSIS
The City Code states that sign variances may only be granted if “it is shown that by reason of
topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause
hardship; provided that the variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect
the spirit or intent of this article.” In this case, the site is flat with good visibility from W. 78th Street
Chanhassen Planning Commission
Variance for Sign at 306 W. 78th Street
February 18, 2020
Page 5
so topography cannot be used to justify granting a variance; however, the city could find that Chapel
Hill Academy’s institutional nature creates a need for flexible advertising space beyond what is
permitted by the ordinance that constitutes “other conditions” creating a hardship.
As was noted earlier in the report, the OI district does allow governmental entities to erect ground
low profile signs that are up to 8 feet high with a maximum sign display area of 120 square feet, 40
square feet of which can be an EMC. While Chapel Hill Academy, as a private entity, is not entitled
to this larger category of signage, its large number of activities throughout the year and the facility’s
use by multiple entities gives it a use profile similar to that of a public building. This need to inform
people about the time and location of various activities throughout the week necessitates some form
of changeable signage and the applicant has stated that the existing 9.5 square feet of display area
does not allow them to effectively convey this information. Staff believes that the requested 35.33
square feet of display area, 16 square feet of which will be an EMC, represents a good faith effort
by the applicant to request the minimum variance needed to remedy their hardship.
The requested increase in sign height stems from the prefabricated nature of EMC displays. The
applicant has stated that the 16 square foot EMC would come in an 8-foot by 2-foot panel and its
10-inch increase in height over the existing EMC required them to request a 1-foot height variance.
While the city could require the applicant to reduce the height of the static display portion of the
sign, bringing it into compliance with the ordinance would leave the applicant with only a 17-inch
high cabinet to display their name and logo. This alteration would also require the applicant to
request a 14.26 percent variance from the city’s maximum EMC display area ratio, as the EMC
would then be 59.26 percent of the sign’s display area. Staff believes that maintaining the intended
ratio between static and EMC display area on ground low profile signs and allowing the applicant
adequate static display area is of greater importance than preventing a relatively minor increase in
sign height.
It should be noted that the applicant’s proposal does slightly
exceed the permitted EMC display area ratio with the EMC
being 45.28 percent of the sign’s display area. Given the
standardized size of EMC displays, the applicant would have
to significantly reduce the size of the EMC display to bring the
sign under the City Code’s 45 percent limit. Staff does not
believe that .28 percent or .11 square feet of display area
represents a substantive departure from city standards.
In addition to satisfying the hardship requirement, the city
must also find that the applicant’s proposal does not adversely
affect the spirt or intent of the city’s sign ordinance. The OI
district’s limits on ground low profile sign height and display
area was intended to prevent the placement of large
commercial or advertising signs within a zoning district that is
often located near residential uses. The location and orientation
of Chapel Hill Academy’s sign means that it is not visible from
Chanhassen Planning Commission
Variance for Sign at 306 W. 78th Street
February 18, 2020
Page 6
any of the nearby residential properties and the site’s location at the edge of the CBD means that
commercial scale signage is already present in the area.
Additionally, the OI district allows signs owned by government entities within this district to exceed
the limits imposed on private signs in an acknowledgement that some institutional uses would
require larger signage. While there are good reasons not to allow all institutional uses with the OI
district signage on this scale, Chapel Hill Academy’s use as a private school is a unique one that has
similar signage requirements to a public school. For this reason, staff believes granting a variance
for a modest increase in sign display area and height would not be inconsistent with the intent of the
ordinance.
Finally, the sign ordinance is intended to ensure that signs do not create safety hazards. To date
there have been no issues with the existing sign. Since the proposed sign will be in the same
location and given the scale of the proposed height and size increase, there are no safety concerns
associated with the requested variance.
SUMMARY
The proposed monument sign would require a 1 foot height variance and 11.33 square foot
display area variance. While the proposed sign is larger than what the ordinance allows, the
unique nature of the applicant’s use requires a larger EMC component than would ordinarily be
allowed. The proposed variance is the minimum required to provide an adequate EMC display
area, and is not a significant departure from the ordinance’s standards. The proposed sign does
not pose a safety risk.
For these reasons staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the requested sign variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to
allow a 6-foot-high ground low profile sign with 35.33 square feet of total display area of which
16 square feet may be an electronic message center, subject to the Conditions of Approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a sign permit from the city.
2. The Electronic Message Center (EMC) must comply with the city’s Electronic
Message Center Standards, save that it may have an EMC Display percentage of
45.29 percent.
3. The ground low profile sign must meet the city’s design standards.
4. The ground low profile sign shall be located in the same position as the existing
monument sign.
Chanhassen Planning Commission
Variance for Sign at 306 W. 78th Street
February 18, 2020
Page 7
Should the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request, it is recommended
that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and attached Findings of Fact and
Decision:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance request to allow a 6-
foot-high ground low profile sign with 35.33 square feet of total display area of which 16 square
feet may be an electronic message center, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision Approval
2. Findings of Fact and Decision Denial
3. Development Review Application
4. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice
5. Variance
6. Exhibit A
G:\PLAN\2020 Planning Cases\20-03 Chapel Hill 306 W. 78th Street Sign Variance\Staff Report Chapel Hill_PC.doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION (APPROVED)
IN RE:
Application of Ben James on behalf of Chapel Hill Academy for sign variance to allow a 6-foot
high ground low profile sign with 35.33 square feet of sign display area, 16 square feet of which
will be an electronic message center (EMC).
On February 18, 2020, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed sign variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Office Institutional Distract (OI).
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Public Semi Public.
3. The legal description of the property is provided in Exhibit A.
4. Sign Variance Findings:
a. The City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may grant a
variance from the requirement of this ordinance where it is shown that by reason of
topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this ordinance
would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does
not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this ordinance.
Finding: As a private school, Chapel Hill Academy is a unique use within the
community with a use profile similar to that of a public building. The frequent number of
after school events, meetings, and weekend uses creates a need for a larger EMC than
would ordinarily be permitted by City Code. Given this, requiring Chapel Hill Academy
to meet the sign standards intended for other private institutional uses within the district
would create a hardship.
The City Code makes provisions for larger signage within the Office Institutional District
for public uses, and Chapel Hill Academy’s requested sign variance is significantly
below this threshold. Since larger signs are already permitted in the area and the proposed
sign will not pose a safety risk, the requested variance does not adversely affect the spirit
or intent of the ordinance.
2
5. The planning report, Planning Case #20-03 dated February 18, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie
Young-Walters, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 6-foot-high
ground low profile sign with 35.33 square feet of total display area of which 16 square feet may
be an electronic message center, and recommends the sign variance be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a sign permit from the city.
2. The Electronic Message Center (EMC) must comply with the city’s Electronic
Message Center Standards, save that it may have an EMC Display percentage of
45.29 percent.
3. The ground low profile sign must meet the city’s design standards.
4. The ground low profile sign shall be located in the same position as the existing
monument sign.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of February, 2020.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: ___________________________________
Steve Weick, Chairman
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION (DENIED)
IN RE:
Application of Ben James on behalf of Chapel Hill Academy for sign variance to allow for a
6-foot high ground low profile sign with 35.33 square feet of sign display area, 16 square feet of
which will be an electronic message center (EMC).
On February 18, 2020, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed sign variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Office Institutional Distract (OI).
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Public Semi Public.
3. The legal description of the property is described in Exhibit A.
4. Sign Variance Findings:
a. The City C ouncil, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may grant a
variance from the requirement of this ordinance where it is shown that by reason of
topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this ordinance
would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does
not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this ordinance.
Finding: The site is flat and there are no conditions on site that would create a hardship.
The site currently has a sign and EMC that meets the requirements of City Code and
provides them with the same height, display area, and EMC capacity as any other private
institutional use in the city. Granting a variance to increase the sign’s size would not be in
line with the ordinances intent of limiting the size of ground low profile signs and their
associated EMC within the Office Institutional District.
5. The planning report, Planning Case #20-03 dated February 18, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie
Young-Walters, is incorporated herein.
2
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance request to allow a 6-foot-high
ground low profile sign with 35.33 square feet of total display area of which 16 square feet may
be an electronic message center
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of February, 2020.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: ___________________________________
Steven Weick, Chairman
COI UN]TY DEVELOPHENT DEPART ENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P-O. 8ox 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phonet (952) 227-1300 lFax: (952\ 227-1,110 *cnYotculr{rrAssru
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPME REVIEW
S$.nitlel Dele: I Lo rc Date:L CC Dare:z0
(Rerat lo lhe qprwido Apdkdb Ched<ld lq rcqutod elb/7,t4al hr'o|lmdtot l'r,af nus! @oryany thkt @pfr@tbn)
E qomprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600E Minor MUSA line for faiting on-site sewers..... $1OO
E SubdMsion (SUB)
D Create 3 lots or less
E Creats ov6r 3 lots..-.
.....$300
5 per lotE Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
E Single-Family Residance .E ell otters.........
...............$600 + $1
$32s
$425
tr
D
( lots)
Metes & Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300
Consolidate Lots . . .... ... ......... . 6l s0
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln conjunction with 6ingte-Famity ResU€nce.. $32SLl AllOhers......... ............ .... $42 s
trtr Lot Line Adjustment..$rs0
Final P|at........................ s700
E Razoning (REZ)
(lncludes S4"5O escrow for attorney costs).
'Addlio.ul ssclorv msy ba .Bqlitrd tur o0|€ applcalio€
lhough I|. dardop.norf contraat
E Vacation of Easomsnts/Righr-of{ray (VAC)........ $30O( ddfiio.El r!co.dh0 ft.s fttay 4dy)
! Vadance ryan)....................................................0200
trtrtr
Planned Unit Development (PUD)....
Minor Amendment t. *l"ti"s pUb .........,,..,..
$7s0
$100
$s00All Others
E Sign ptan Review................................................... Sl SO ! W€tland Alteratjon Permittr (wAP)
E Site Plan Review (
f| Adminisratue
SPR)Single Family Residence .. $150
..s275...... $ 100 All Others......
! Commsrciaulndustial Districts....................... $SOO
Plus $10 p€r 1,000 square feet ot building area:( lhousand square fe€t)
'kEfrde ,rrnber olglghg crnpbt!6: _
E Zoning App€al. -................... $tOO
E Zoning Ordinanc€ Arnendment (ZOA)....-........... S5OO
IIQIE: Wh.i lrrllthh ?plc.ttoo. -. Foc....d cor.urrq y,Itr .ppF9.h.lb. drdl b. .fi.r!.d tor..cfi +patc.doo.
'lrrctie number of @ly omployees
D Residenthl Disldcts ..........$500
Pk s $5 per (hvslling unit ( units)
ft f.fainca$on Siqn (ciry to instet dro r€mo,r)$200
EI Property Owners' List within 5OO' (O'ty !o g.i.r.tG !ff.r pr6-.pcIc.tbn nEdhg)$3 per address
d Escrow for Recording Documents (check a lhatE Conditional Use Permit
E Vacation
E Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)
!!![ addresses)
applv)..........................
E- tnterim Use Permit
EF variance
tr $50 per document
Site Plan Agreement
I Easements (_ easements)
tr!Wetland Alteration Permit
Deeds L,ooTOTAL FEE:
Doscription of Proposal:
Prop€rty Address or Location:9oc.vJ. za>(\pn-f
Parcel #:1505 ro Legal Descriptlon:
Wellands Prasent? E Ves E HoTotal Acreage:
P16sent Zoning . Select One Rsquastad Zoning . Select One
Present Land Use Desig nation. Select One Requested Land Use Designation . Sol8ct One
Existing Use of Property:
Ecnecf Oox tt separate narrative is attached.
a
Section 1: Application Type (check alt that apply)
Section 2: Required lnformataon
s 60-Day Review Dale:,I
erty Owner and Applicant InformatiorSection 3: Prop
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing lhis appllcation, l, as applicsnl' represent to have obtainod
authorization from th" prop.rty o*,n* io ife itris apptication. iagree i6 Oe OounO by conditions.of apptoval, subiect only to
ir," ,ight to ouj""t
"t
ttri rriarings on'ine application or ouAng thi appeat perlod. tf.thi:
"tp]i1T,1l"-t-not
b€€n shnod bv
il; ;#rty ffi;;, r nare atritreo separaie documenutb; d tull-li:gal capacity to file lhe applicatlon. This.application
should be procsss6O tn my name andi", th" p"rty *tro, the City should contact rogarding any mattor perlaining to this
;;;x;td": i witr reep mysett inlomeo of ths d'eaoiines for submiision of mata]ial and tho progress of this appllcatlon' I
iiir,"ir"o..t""a tfrjt a6omnaf fees maioe ctrarged tor consulting fees, feasibility studiss, etc. with 8n estimato prior to
"ii ,-rrttirilti""i" pro"""o mr, ur" "rroi. r""rtdtt"ttt" infomalbn and exhibits 6ubmttted are true and conect'
oD vue t&v 7 Pgfit,{{Contact:6N dft11Name:
?lbo 6kL ti i1 ZO PlttfiB:
Csll:
Fari
Date
qi 2 - 3oo- o/{f
/-2/-20Signature:
PROPERTY ER:ln signing lhis applicatlon, I , as propsrty ownor, have full leg at copaclty to, and hereby do'
authorize the filing oflhis applicadon. I understand thal conditions of approval are binding and agrse to be bound bY lhose
conditions, subject only to the rig ht to object at the headngs or during the app€al Periods.I will ksep mysef intormod of
the deadlines for subm ission of material and the progress of thls application. I further understand that additional feos maY
b€ charged for consultirE feos, feasibility studlss, etc. with an estimale prior to any sutholizallon to procssd with the
study. lcertify the information and ixhibits submitted are true and coneci.
-)
Name A5&1 ?-t-Contact .
P]r,ne q.<t-q4q-?b/ { ev. /ob
Cell:
Address:
City/Statezip:/
Email:Fax;
Date I -)t )
Signature:
Contacl:
Phone:
@ll:
Fax:
Who should rocelvs coploa of 3tafi reports?'Other Contacl lnformetlon:
Namg:
Addrsss:#ropery
EIlAppticantE Engineer
D ouer
owner via: {EYratt E
Ma: El€mail E
Vra: D Email Tl
Mailed Paper CoPy
Mailed Paper CoPy
Mailed Paper CoPY citylstalezip:
Email:via: El Email E Maihd PaPer coPY
aoolication shall bs made within 15 business days of application submittal- A
siliiG mairea to the applicsnt wihin 't5 business days of application'A determination of complstenoss of the
ffitten notice of aPdication defici€ncies
iredUinformationreq byplansallbetu[mand ust byaccompani€dstmuThisapdication thetorefaronicati appropriatefithisBeforeingapplrsronsOrdinanceprovCityapplicableandordinanc€proceduraltheapplicablsdeterminetospecificDepartmentnningand confer with the Pla
roqulrements and ,ees.
INSTR UCTIONS TO APP LICANT : Complets allnecessary form ffelds,
to city along with ]equired documents
thsn solect SAVE FORM to sav6 a copy to your
and pafnent. SUBMIf FORM to sond a digital
device.and deliver
SAVE FORTT SUBMIT FORYcopy to the city for Processing
Address:
Clty/Statezlp: c ll *tJ tk+g ({'p ,t4 ,v iS3 I 7
emait b.rrQ blu-[abl creol' vu . zn".
PROJE6 ENGINEER (if aPpli6ble)
Nam€:
Addrass:
CityEtateZiP:
Emall:
and
ChecklistApdicalion
Section 4: Notification lnformation
PRINT FORU
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
( ss.
COUNTYOFCARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
February 6,2020, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City ofChanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice of Public
hearing to consider sign variences for the existing monument sign located at 306 W. 78tb
Street (Chapel Hilt); Zoned Ofiice Institutionat District (OI), Planning Case File No. 2020-
03 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an
envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in
the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch
owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County,
Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
vw(
Subscribed and
thisL6 day o
to before me
f L 2020.
(Seal)
4v\Notary Public
-T
rt*t retrtt!.ea
MihryPtdo.illrt$
Subject
Area
DbcldnBt
ThE map is neitmr a bgally Ecorded n€p nor a girvey and i8 not anGnded lo b€ used
as one. Thls riap is a compihtion of recads. info.matioo and data located in vafuus cjty.
county, state arld fodeaal ofices and other sources rcoading the area shown, and is lo
be used br relbEnce puDooes only The City does nol $anait that the Geooraphic
lniofination syslem (Gls) Data used to Fepare thas map are enor free, a.tr lhe city does
not rep.esent that the GIS Oata can be us€d for navroatonal, faal(ing or any other
purpos€ requirino exacbng measuEmenl of distance or diredion or precjsion in lhe
dedction of Oeographic feat,re3- The p,eceding disalaamer it Povided puEuant to
Minne.ota St.Me€ S,t66.03. Subd. 21 (2000), .nd the us$ of this map actnowledges
that the City shall not be liaue fo( any alama06. and expre3sly waives all daims, and
agrees to (bl€nd, indernn y, and hold hamless the City from any and alldaims brcught
by Uier. ils employees or agenls. or thid panies whiah aise out of the use/s acc6s or
use ot clata provided.
<TAX_NAMET
ITAX_ADD_L1>
(TAX ADD L2)
Subiect
Aaea
Dlcl.lmer
This map is neither a leoally recorded mep nor a sudey and is nol intended to be used
as ona. This map is a compilaton of records. anfo.rnato.r and data located in vadoirs crty.
county, sble and tede6l olrces and other sources reg6rding th€ aree shown. and is lo
be used br rebrence purpos€s only. The Cily does r|ot warant lhat the Geooraphic
lnfurmation System (GlS) Oata (l3ed to p.epare this map are enor free. and the City does
nol aepaes€nt that trE GIS Oata can be used fo. naMgafDnal. t_acking o. any olher
purpoGe requidng exactng meaauemgnt of dbtance or direclioi or preosron in the
deliclion of geo06phic Gatures. The preceding aligdaimer is provid€d puGuant to
Manneroia Sletles S,t66.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map aclnorvledgtss
Slat the City shall not be liaue ,or any damag€s, and expre'$ly waives all daim3, and
aorees to debnd, indemnify, and hold hamless the cily from any and all claims b.orrght
by User, ib employ€es or agents. or f\id panbs vrhicfi aise out ol ihe user's acc*s or
use of data p@vided.
1
t
t
t
\
iail:
i
I
Ii
"i
JI
I
I
l
i
I
i-r
,trt; .I
rNext RecordrITAX_NAMET
ITAX_ADD_Llr
ITAX_ADD_L2r,
j i-l
I
t
I
I
.:EA
!\
iii::I
J
n
"r
. t_l
al,: ir,
!
E
_a
F
E
ci,o9t-
ooNoN
ao
-(g
f
-o
o)
LL
joE
ofF
p
o
E
I
a;
,E
,E
-q
o2!0
o
o
=ooF.
FT
o;
o)_o
E(0E
cloo
oI
o
.9
,ao
oco
l
c
-c)6.9
3E
ExEE:ro
ENE--
ori
E8.xooco(J
:6€g
E9
c@o f.-
9B
-(O:'3
E5'-",9coooo_9
o
Eo
c
o)d)
N
I(,
.(t,
(oY
o
.2
o
oB
o
eo
oE
!-9U)t
(oEl.- s.o>=>oot
(a<
EIE-g a
Y -(,, !: o
IrtE [a E
-EF; Eo d
EEeE [*": E
E a3E s;1s
SEEE Ee-ieE€*F bXEP
;; TC E EEE
s*;r iiE=ti'i 3,3eEx
gEE+ EEE;Fq
=r.= (a(rF(J(L:P;PE&tr€ E()6-c.i<'is
ol
E
ID
Q'
E
o
Eoo
E']c
ca
E
0,E
o
o
o.
s
e
F
ll,
. .e :E.-c o): ts - >< c: -]v rn o5 s.3i€'E€> ia>1" q rit>!
fr : E ; E5t$
EEEEIEif!s stQE?Er 5t ElHSleEsi
tei|EEE'tE
H sEliEs E:*
EEilEiEEiE
o.lf
qi6
o
d)
E
E]6c
?c
Ea
o)
(5
.cc(!.cq
q
=;>
o
oo
oi
-oo
B
_o
--o
o.c,
o
E
IDa(\,o
o-l
Eo
o
c)p
Eco
r1)
f
.=
E
6
c)
ooo-
oEcq)(,)o
(f,c
ID{)
Ec
0).c
=co
=oo
=c
rl)
opco
(s
Eo
o
q,
rl)
o
o-5c,9o
E
IrJz
- o E -P .e-,i EEg:*, e=r Be :
lEiiiteEEEEliiEi
isiEiigrEEEEEiii
E[i l;EEEEiEE$EEE
EEiEEiiigiiEEiEE
i;eE!EE:iiiEgIEEEF6.
a
I
5
E
!
-a
_g
II
_e
s
q
o
(!IoJ
EooILIo.
o
Eo.
iio
3o
oao
o-
>trr.9
altleto-J
9a(, ,=
*'E
eOr! .c
=;
c6 ..o9gEoo
o=OE
=ooc,
ED
5o(,
=t9.9.= .a
E.9oF
-90Eo,Eo- .soEo6sf,ogz3
lot!
troEo
.D
Eoo
=EIEEOLlDr! (,o=-EoE
=o-o ride
OE
eEEo.ze
o6a!
a!!
o
co,a
Eoott
.E
.go-
c
o
o
CL
G
P,
=F
: ea$}ci.
EiEgiEEi
Ae;IgffiEcE
gi*l;Eg;€€
EEilEEH;EI
(,
o,
E
E
.2
F
E
ciocf-
ooNoN
od
of
-ooLL;(E!
IDfF
q
p
t
c;
E
q
,q
s
E
6
o
(E
=ooF-t-
6
o.o
Eo
o
cao
or
_ol6,.9 i
sE
ErEClo
3Nc,i
P=
E8.xoOE
oO
- rl)eg
eHa.Er-6g=E
E,H 1,rrjqbob
EE=c oE
8E-e
iD
Eo
c(,6
N
o
.e
oY
{i
oc
.9
o
op
o
P
E
EsE-Ou)o
tbEl.- c
-.9si<oto-(t, <
P-
=--tDEE 8
*-t= Ec ;
EEEE ETeEiE p'- 8=3 E
:gEEE e"aE!
EE-q3:EEE::x.s 9Ers=oo...,s bE=8
gEEE EEEB
3 Est ei€ EH
IEE; -EpE F E
FOc\-r(,FN(Y)i
.6 ..o9EC,oo
o=OE
=ogo
oi
-,r>
o
d)
E
hoc
lc
q
c
c)
(5Eco.c
':(.,
=
=;
tttoocoo,oo)oc,EO
Eo
Eo,
EE;9
9. _a.0a
ovo()tE -c'Ei v
3e
XE
-oo-Q-scJ(5o)'6c
b8o)E.>5
EE
:gaeeEo)Loi
=9HI
cil
a
t=e::EEE=Ei'lE'i
EEEEiEiiEEiEiEii
EEiEEiEEEEiiEEii
iEi'iiiiiggi:EEEE
IEBESTEESEgE:EE{€
EgEE;E:iEiEEiBEEg
E
E
!,;
E
E
.:
a
t!o
CIq.
uo
;o
tq,
CIo
o-
>trtooEo-Geto-J
I iit
6' ,=ctq:o- :af=
-OG.t
=i
{,
E
F
06
o
t!o
o
oooJ
;ooILIo.
iri
Ei:
c6
o
clo
a o oooz = :::; 3 fifrBz. z zzz333=333==3=E =I*F-===trt trRttri- t., trtr= 7=Ei3 E 3 E B
= = = = E E E; i==1 o <L az - d = d e dl.- F. F. b I.- i\ L t E bo bo I - I (, E (, r (, (9 (9t\ r\ F r\ F r\ F F (J F F (J E 9.r oJ cl O < 6 @d dr { lO F .r (,l (,t.n O O r,t = O Fr O !-l !-{ O O (,O O O O O Fl r{ H 6l N 0 6l'- f! 6 l'\ (O t.o rO \O (Om (n an fi, (n (n (n (n f\l <. st <t o st t- F F- F F N l\
o6:=d! .o
ttt thzza<dB>EE=>33>>==>>d> t-^ ; t t-^ t-^, 1., t t 5 t t 5 5,
odi<EEE<E=<<E=<<do (, ib I i- to i- E 1.. i)o - r bo i\ I I (,
( O F O r.\ r.\ F- !, F\ F\ (J lJ F N (J (, !1le.\ (O r- O O.{.{ r{ N N <t <l rn \O O O
= F O O N N a{ N N r\,\ N a\r a\ a! H 6I.,) F\'{ N''{'\I N N N N N N AI N N \' I'T
m !-r or rn !-r o o) m or @@st@ outr- q!n!n!o$@s.{ O Or rn.{ rn Ct1 !-r O (h (h an (h $tfrt YO rnOl r.l (o -iF-F-F-F-FF.F \O r.\ Nt\Nl.\ !|.Nr..) !(O\tF-<hF Or9999qo,rq ,9,9, r e,99qq f 9f Y9o99h9\F F F- F- l- F F F t. t. t. t. t. I (O N N N t\ t\ l.\ t\ F t\ I.\ a\ F {r F\ F. F F F Fut i{ i-r i{ H c{ rr Fr r.l Fl Fl rr Fl r.l o (Y| ..1 r{ ..1 r{ r{ .r .{ .{ rr r.l rr rr !t d r.l r.l r.l ..1 H.\,r m m.o m m m m.n.n,n (n m m 9 I (ll (n (n (n dl .n .n rn rn - (n rn (rt.rl q) rn.n.n ro .n mr\ ui I,) rn ut Ln r^ ur !n ,r r,1 vr In In rQ =,A ur./r r/l sl r/r ur.'| 6= !n!n6 |J) Q !,) v) t^ lri ui r..iT ln 6 l^ rri rri rn In ul ur r^ r^,^,^ I lij H 6 l,l !1 14.^.^ !,1 .n i;6 r./1 .^ !^ (l rn !^ In !n In ui.r z z z z z z z z z z z z z z tn $ z z z z z z z z a\ z 2 2 z a z z z z z z z
-. t^ z z z z z z z z z z z 2 z ! S < z z z 2 z z z z I z z 2 z * S z z z z z z': - r! r! ur ur r =r - > r! r! r! r! .? r! = r! r! r r r uJ-t= th ti tn th ti rr\ th vt v\ th tn ta ti c) ; - v\ v\.tl vl ta tl .a vl -'vl vl v\ vl 2 z, vl Ul q\ !\ q\ th
^.> .rr ur .h.h.h th th t1 th 6 = ..i i, r./l th.rl tr t\ th tt 2 .rr tt tt arr = t\ t\ ul t.t tt vt th
= ? LT I I I I I E E E - - - ul vr )i - E I - - - -- z - - - - -- i! - I I - I I<,2 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z iii > z z z z z z z z ^'z 2 z z = z z z z z z z
< < IEEEIEE--- III=* JE I IE I I II = I E E E c]= I - -- -:!l: G O O O O O O O O L, () 9 !,, (J > iJ (, u 9 I u () (J u 9 E 9 u 9 9 6 > 9 I 9 9 9 O
oo
F 660
6o Jroro(o @--;d. =1:1 p5.,o-;frfrJ >o 6999 z1nAc.ZiiG,
fi =;3==;33a8;==:E=r= = = = == ==; :=r;?E=E===
=,fr E = GdC- h h:: E h
=
a E ? E E atrtrBEa4a tr h E E 3 E < E k k k
A=E=EEE=FE==TE=#EE!EEEEEEEBEEEIi3E=EEEE-l ot F (J F- F- N (J F- r- (J (J 5 F U O i,a ! ts l\ F F r\ r\ F r-l r\ F F > \O vt Ot N Or <' !n (Ox <n (o F- o o .{ .{ N N N rl <t In lo o l- a\ r< (tl <l (D F- .r !n (h ..r o o o ..r H .! (h 4 m o o o< tr O O N arl r{ c{ N .! N .\ N N N sl rO Ot O O O O O Fr d .t <tl F. F F O tl Ot Fr r{ m lo \O rOF !-r N .\{ .! N N N N N N N N N N c{ N l\ ltl llt (n (n rn.n fn.n.r, sl <l I Ia In ln F- F- F- F. N F.
=
:=EEEIEEgET;sE=EEEsEE=====gElEEaEigurl,
O O <) <) <) <> o c) O O O O O O !r O O t'{ O O O tl O .n rh O O O O -r O .r d !'r O O O ON <t O O 6r @ -l !n @ <l m l.\ F. a! an .l O !r d O t'r O O o) Or N H m Fr N <t O N a\l sl (h C) O.n r.r N < o.n d o o.i' (t' o (Yr.n r{ c,.\r st st.r <, \l { fn fn -r o o o o rr d.! .r .\ o !/r !.{7 0 0 0 m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o <t o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o .r o
= O O O N O O O <l O O O o o o o o ol O O .! O O O o o o ir .n !,) 6 O .n o o o o ^l Oo- !n l'| rn rr rn rl| ln co !n !n rn rn 1,) (,, ur F or ur i/t !.i vr .,) ro Ln !n r^ !o l- r-r (!r !n rr !t) !n !n !n r{ rn(n O <) <) O O O N O O O O O O m rn Or O O O O O O O O O <t i (n i m O O .n .n .O O mrn !n rn rn rn rn rn !n rn !n vt !/.} rn rn r'| (n rn rn rn ra ul rn r,' rn rn rn !n (n (^ rrt 1,' I^ 1,' 1/} !n rn !n rna{ a\l .\l a\.l a! a{ .! a^.| N a! a! a.J
B-6ai
IanuJ
F\ N l'\
600
co@@
t\ th th JJz z = rr r r r rrr rS I a -L L n E .(.<.. ! Ea_1_1_!!!!_!9t 6 E 6 a6r=6Ea?E ? ? e EeEiEaE!l -E !.l -G'r.r
g o o g o E g o !! !! !! o g o o o r oJ at t- G, & oc ot oc d t e e d I G(,I19 I(,IrrIst\sJ rl!qqq6r
N N @ @ Ol O) () r{.r rO N.r !-.r fi! lo O O.{'{ rr.| 6 N NO O O O O O r d -{ -{ @ O <, <, O N N N N N N -l a!(o lo ro (D (o (o (o (o @ r.o.\| F F F F. t- F- F- F- F- t\ @ t\F- l.\ l.\ l.\ l.\ l.\ l.\ a\ N F. N N N F r\ t\ F- l- l\ F. N an i.
@.! =l ...J @.! CD Or 01 (ll NNNrnmma!NNF. rO<l@(oOFTOToOOO OO .{ .r !-r rr lar .r .r -r ?r { q)FOF- (O Ctr (O F. (O \O \O (O (o l.\ lD (O F\ F. r- F. F. F. r.o .\r + Ct('r(h F. F ('r( c Ot (h Or Ot Ol Or Or Ot Or Ol Ol Or q) OOO* rl rl rl * rl F * * rl rl * * rl * rl rl * rl rl r'. r.. m P * r.. n.i .l !.1 H ..{ Fl !.1 !.1 !.1 !.t !-l r-l Fr .r O ; !r J !'rar' rn rn d) an rn rn m m m m m (o ao ao (o (n (n an an (n an ut ; m m rY,!n ,l In In !n In rn llt rJl rJt r/t rJt r^ !/l r,' r, Ut rrt 1,l Vt Ut Ia <h ' I,) In rn!,' Vt r,' rn r/t ur 1,l rn rn rn rn ra !n !n rn rn !n !/l !/1 rn rJl 6 :! .r rn ra I^z z z z z z z z z. z z z z z z z z z z z z z a -;z z z
; i i i ; ; 2 2 2 2 2 2 i i 2 i i i 2 2 i i2x 2 2 2
t1 tt th t/, \h t, th ti th tn th vt a a vl ta vl ttt vl v\ q\ vl = -6 6 vttn tn th v1 v1 th t^ t^ t^ ta v1 .a vt,a a vt irl .h,i aia .hIZthvtth
II-IIIIEIIIEEEEIIIEEEE>E-IIz z z zzz z z z z z zz zzzz z z zz z 6q zzz
IEIIIEIIIEEIIIIIII---II(JIIIU (J (J (J (J (J U (J U U (J U (J (J (J (J (J !,' (J 9 (J I.) IJ I L, (.) L)
ooo
(oaoao-!z z ,,, 2 ,,, E E ,,, d, d, t d d, d, d,< =;1->ir>iE i ** *-**** a---:-:99:gsl-'!
k 6 k 6 i6=rAr=eE ? ? ? rerrE ! U I s xE5E5E599599H9HHHPHP9P==:IIT(9I(9 I(9IaaIaqt! (url!aa:JF\F\@@orqrod ri .n (D c) o .r .'. .n - - * g g g g
O O O O O O !r i tr i i OO O O.\.! N.{ N...1 O <) - - - -!D \O \D \O (O \O rD (D (D (D (O T- t- F- t- N N l'\ N N l\ a\ in (J (J (J LJN l.\ l.\ l.\ F. l.\ l.\ l.\ F. F\ F. l.\ F. l.\ l-\ F\ l.\ F\ T\ r\ r\ co co o- o- o- t!
=
c o oA * Hf; E :5 s x E;- zoYZ
E ; E i- =5 E>=
=Eg9= g H g i== =Eo,:ES E i,=+-
zuia; *=s s E; E;fiEE=i? s ;;EEg;
i3::E E!gE ; i3 ?ili: E g E=E;E:Et
=EE#338E83?qgEE==gEgE=YE3=Eo o o o oo o o o c) o o oo ooo o o o o o o o o o oO F- !-l an O (o O rn L'l O <t -r @ N rn O N Fl tl N In O @ O aO m mr-r !-l !-r N o H O O !-r N O rYl m.! (n..1 o N O O O rn O.! -r O.{.n o o o.\r o <t o o !t o o o o o o o o o o o \o o o o o Qa\r o o o a{ o.{ <l o.\r <t o <) (, o o o o rn (l o m o (n o F or.r rn rn rn r-{ (n .{ @ ra t-r 6 rn I/) rn rn rn rn tn o o vt !.1 vl !.1 ul()orno fyl m m o (n o.\r (n 0 (\r o o o o o o o (o ro o o o o rYt a.r oul l,r rn r^ rn ra rn .n rn .a u) r^ rn r/) r/r rn vt rn vl v) vl ra ul .n Lr) rn r^.!.{ N'{'{'{'{ N N N N N N N'{'{ N N N N N N N'TI'{'! N
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2017-08
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 the variance request to allow a 6-foot high
ground low profile sign with 35.33 square feet of total display area of which 16
square feet may be an Electronic Message Center (EMC).
2. Property. The variance is for properties situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described in Exhibit A.
3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a sign permit from the city.
2. The EMC must comply with the city’s Electronic Message Center Standards, save
that it may have an EMC Display percentage of 45.29 percent.
3. The ground low profile sign must meet the city’s design standards.
4. The ground low profile sign shall be located in the same position as the existing
monument sign.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not
been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: March 9, 2020
2
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 ,
2020 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 18, 2020
Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 4, 2020
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: C.1.
Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from its February 4, 2020 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated February 4, 2020
Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated February 4, 2020
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
FEBRUARY 4, 2020
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, and
Laura Skistad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and Doug Reeder
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff,
Senior Planner; and George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Joy Gorra 1680 West 78th Street
Jeff Schuler 7900 Excelsior Boulevard
Patrick Sarver 4931 West 35th Street, St. Louis Park
Elizabeth Wright 7900 Excelsior Boulevard
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONG PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST
78TH STREET AND WEST OF LAKE ANN PARK FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (RR) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-16), LOT
CONSOLIDATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 UNIT CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FACILITY.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff and George Bender presented the staff report on this item. Patrick Sarver,
project manager introduced Jeff Schuler, the architect for the project and Elizabeth Wright,
owner/operator of the Moments of Lakeville and proposed owner/operator of the Moments of
Chanhassen. Mr. Sarver addressed issues associated with setbacks, landscaping, architecture,
poor soils, and continuing to work with the watershed district. Commissioner Tietz pointed out a
pinch point at the front of the building that may need to be addressed. Chairman Weick asked
for clarification of the wetland buffer requirements. Commissioner McGonagill asked for
clarification of the 100 year flood elevation, landscaping impeding trail access, security
operations, costs associated with city and county services for this facility, and the possibility of
expansion on this site. Commissioner Randall asked about residents in this facility being
bothered by the 4th of July events and traffic. Commissioner McGonagill continued by asking
staff to work with the parks department to find an outside refuge. Commissioner Skistad asked
about the impact of this development on the neighboring property owner. Chairman Weick
opened the public hearing. Joy Gorra, 1680 West 78th Street, noted she is in the long term
Planning C omission Summary – February 4, 2020
2
residential care business herself, voiced support for this location but expressed concern with the
south elevation and the need to safeguard this vulnerable population. Ahmet who is a consultant
working with his wife’s construction company and who is working on the Moments of Lakeville,
discussed what Elizabeth Wright has done in Lakeville and her vision for Moments of
Chanhassen. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing. After comments and discussion by
commission members the following motions were made.
Tietz moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends approval of Planning Case #2020-02 to rezone 3.5 acres of property from RR,
Rural Residential District to R-16, High Density Residential District and adoption of the
Findings of Fact. All voted in favor except for Wieck and Skistad who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Tietz moved, McGonagill seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the site plan consisting of a 65,000 square-foot continuing care facility
with wetland and front yard setback variances, Planning Case #2020-2 for The Moments of
Chanhassen as shown in plans dated January 6, 2020, and including the attached Findings
of Fact and Recommendation, and subject to the following conditions:
Engineering
1. A turning movement analysis utilizing the largest anticipated design vehicle shall be
provided to ensure there is adequate spacing and no conflicts within the required
turnaround, the driveway entrance/exit, and with the traffic control devices located on
West 78th Street (raised median, pavement striping, etc.) prior to the issuance of building
permits.
2. An updated existing condition survey shall be submitted with revised plans that includes
the full extents of the construction limits for review and approval by the city prior to
recording of the Site Plan Agreement.
3. Plans shall be updated to provide a planting and revegetation plan specific for grading
within the wetland buffer prior to the commencement of grading operations.
4. Plans shall illustrate the location of the required wetland buffer monumentation prior to
issuance of building permits.
5. A minimum 5-foot setback shall be adhered to at all times along the wetland buffer and
plans shall be resubmitted for review and approval by the city prior to recording of the
Site Plan Agreement.
6. Bottom wall elevations and top of wall elevations for the entire wall section of all five (5)
retaining walls shall be provided prior to the commencement of grading activities.
Planning C omission Summary – February 4, 2020
3
7. Revisions and updates to the erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be submitted to meet
the requirements of the NPDES Construction Permit and Sec. 19-145 of City Code prior
to the commencement of grading activities. This will include, but is not limited to:
updated language in the SWPPP to be site specific and not general language pulled
directly from the permit; BMPs to protect planned infiltration/filtration areas; provide
redundant (double) perimeter sediment controls when a surface water is located within 50
feet of the project’s earth disturbances; location of stock pile for grading and for topsoil,
haul routes, etc.
8. The applicant shall submit updated plans and modeling to provide for the required
abstraction and obtain a RPBCWD permit prior to the issuance of building permits.
9. The applicant shall provide an operation and maintenance plan (O&M) for the private
stormwater BMPs. The O&M of private stormwater BMPs is required in perpetuity and
must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator, or their designee, to be recorded
against the benefiting properties, prior to building permits being issued.
10. Plans shall be resubmitted to achieve one wet tap location for a dual combined domestic
and fire water service line, for review and approval by the city, prior to issuance of
building permits.
11. Any redundant gate valves past the wet tap location will be owned and maintained by the
property owner, and shall be located wholly on the private property.
12. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received
from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers,
DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA,
etc.).
13. The applicant will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the city for the
proposed inside drop within MCES’ manhole prior to issuance of building permits.
14. All proposed sanitary sewer lines will be privately owned and maintained, thus no
manholes shall be located within public right-of-way. Plans shall be updated and
resubmitted for review and approval by the city prior to issuance of building permits.
Environmental Resources
1. The applicant shall remove the existing trees within the grading limits along the west
property line.
Fire Marshal
1. Show any lower level exit doors and egress paths outdoors away from the building. This
type of development cannot omit lower level exit doors.
Planning C omission Summary – February 4, 2020
4
Planning
1. All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views.
2. The applicant must prepare a lighting plan and include photometrics. Light levels for site
lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line.
This does not apply to street lighting. The applicant has not submitted a light fixture
design. This fixture must be downcast and the light cut off at a 90-degree angle. The city
code requires all fixtures be shielded.
3. Approval of the site plan applications is contingent upon approval of the rezoning and
variances.
4. The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than five feet.
The sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line. A sign permit is required before
construction of the sign.
5. Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance.
6. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the
same enclosure as the trash.
7. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon consolidation of the two parcels into a single
zoning lot.
All voted in favor except for Weick and Skistad who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 21, 2020 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson provided an update on action taken
by the City Council and discussed upcoming agenda items and meetings.
Skistad moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 4, 2020
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, and
Laura Skistad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and Doug Reeder
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff,
Senior Planner; and George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Joy Gorra 1680 West 78th Street
Jeff Schuler 7900 Excelsior Boulevard
Patrick Sarver 4931 West 35th Street, St. Louis Park
Elizabeth Wright 7900 Excelsior Boulevard
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONG PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST
78TH STREET AND WEST OF LAKE ANN PARK FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (RR) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-16), LOT
CONSOLIDATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 UNIT CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FACILITY.
Weick: And with that I will turn it over to Sharmeen.
Al-Jaff: Thank you.
Weick: Great thank you.
Al-Jaff: Chairman Weick, members of the Planning Commission, good evening. The
application before you today is to rezone a property from rural residential to high density
residential. There is a site plan with a variance and the purpose for this is for the construction of
a 48 unit continuing care facility. The site is located north of West 78th Street, west of Lake Ann
Park. It is again for the construction of a continuing care retirement facility. The land use for
this site designates it as high density residential. This designation is established to accommodate
high density developments and apartment buildings. A continuing care retirement facility is a
permitted use in this designation. As mentioned there is a rezoning request looking at rezoning
the property from rural residential to high density residential. The property north and west of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
2
subject site contains a single family home and is guided residential high density which is the
same guiding as the subject site. To the east of the subject site is Lake Ann Park and that is
guided as open space. South of the subject site is West 78th Street. The 2040 Comprehensive
Plan addresses senior housing. One of the categories that it looks at is seniors in our community
and what they need. There is a demand for 1,206 senior housing units and that would include
owner occupied, rental as well as service enriched. Of the 1,206 we need 316 service enriched
units. Since 2014 the City has built or seen development of 111 continuing care or service
enriched dwelling units and those include Riley Crossing and Beehive which is also known of
Trivai today. If this development was approved we will reach 159 units which is in keeping with
the City’s vision for the seniors to meet their needs. Briefly about this site. There are existing
conditions that need to be pointed out specifically the fact that there are wetlands along the
northern portion of the site as well as Riley Creek that abuts the entire northern segment. One of
the other things that we need to point out is the fact that the site is comprised of two parcels.
Tract A and Tract B. One of the conditions of approval for this application is to consolidate
those two sites into one. The site plan is to construct 6,500 square foot continuing care facility.
Hard surface coverage on this site is 34.5 percent. The city code requires a maximum of 35
percent because this site is located within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Ann. Part of
trying to figure out how to best develop this site we had multiple applications and meetings with
the watershed district, with the applicant trying to find how can we meet the intent of the
ordinance rather than the literal interpretation of the ordinance and still accommodate
development on this site. One of the requests that the applicant has made was trying to meet the
buffer requirements but request a zero setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. That is a
variance that the City was in working with the watershed agreed to recommend approval of.
However we said a minimum of 5 foot setback would be required and the watershed district
requirements would have to be met. That is a condition of approval of that variance. The other
variance dealt with parking setback. The city code requires a 25 foot setback and that is intended
for screening purposes. Again meeting the intent of the ordinance which is the screening we
were able to accomplish that through intensified landscaping and we worked with the City
Forester who basically was very agreeable to what the applicant was proposing. The architecture
of the building is reflecting a pronounced entrance into the building. There are terraced
landscaping areas. They can be seen along the front of the building. The building is very
tastefully designed. The architectural style is unique to the building. It will fit in with the
surrounding area. This is a shot of the rear of the building. All the facades viewed by the public
have received equal attention. There is over 50 percent transparency through the use of glass
windows, door. The roof line is staggered. It adds articulation to the design of the building.
There are multiple pitched elements on the building and there’s a condition of approval that all
roof top equipment be screened and we believe that with the pitched elements along all sides of
the building that can easily be accomplished. Materials on the building are of high quality
limestone. Stucco and everything is durable. Again all elevations have received equal treatment
and attention. There is one monument sign proposed on the site and it is intended to be located
along the southwest corner of the site. The sign cannot exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet
in height. The applicant will need to apply for a sign permit. The parking is located along the
south portion of the site. Per code the applicant is required to provide 44 spaces. Or 41 spaces,
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
3
I’m sorry and the applicant is providing 44 spaces. Of those 27 will be surface parking. 17 will
be underground parking spaces. Landscaping is in compliance with ordinance and as mentioned
it is used heavily along the southern portion of the site to screen the parking lot. There’s also
some equipment to serve this building located along the southeast corner of the site and heavy
landscaping is utilized to provide adequate screening. At this moment I would like to turn it over
to engineering staff George Bender to address access issues.
Bender: Good evening commissioners. To continue with Sharmeen’s presentation, the site will
be accessed off of West 78th. There’s one proposed access location. It is located far enough
away from the median. This is a collector roadway West 78th. They may have to adjust some of
the striping that is part of the design of the median. The parking has, had turning movements
preliminary run on it. I believe that the applicant received the new ladder truck to use as a design
vehicle. They were you know advised to run it if they have another larger vehicle that would be
used at the site to use that as part of their turning movements. They will need to show an
updated turning movement and analysis because there have been changes made. This is a little
bit bigger picture blow up of it to help because the last one was a little bit small. Utilities are a
bit of a challenge for this site. Watermain is fine. There’s watermain out in West 78th for them
to tie into. There was a condition where they proposed two taps to the watermain. One for
domestic service and one for fire service and a condition of approval is to switch that to one tap
so that we have less public infrastructure to maintain. The purple line here is the MCES
interceptor that is on private property. MCES has an easement over it but for the purposes of this
applicant there is a distance to access it. It is also really deep. I believe in the neighborhood of
40 plus feet and to connect to it instead of you securing an easement from the property owner
they are proposing to run it through the right-of-way. Across our right-of-way and connect to
one of MCES’s manholes here. They will have to build it and construct and drop into that
structure. They will have to file for an MCES permit for this and build it to their standards. The
City will have to get involved from the perspective of MCES will not grant a private applicant to
be in there so there will have to be a maintenance agreement between the City and MCES and
the applicant will have to then be responsible to the City for it.
McGonagill: So the City will have ownership of this…?
Bender: No. This would remain private. So we also plan to require them to straighten it and not
add a manhole into our roadway so that was another condition so they would create a different
alignment for that pipe. From a stormwater perspective they are proposing to collect runoff from
the roof and the parking lot and discharge it to the, a filtration pond which they are planning to
construct on the east side of the site as shown in blue here. That will also require a maintenance
agreement. According to the modeling that has been sent in the stormwater management report,
it will need TSS and so total suspended solids and total phosphorus reductions. They are not
currently meeting abstraction from the site. They’re able to show that they can abstract just .19
inch. The city code requires a one inch and Riley-Bluff-Purgatory Creek watershed district
requires 1.1 inches. They are, they have submitted for a restriction due to the clay soils. The
watershed district has sent them a review back of the entire stormwater for it but as part of it they
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
4
are requiring that in order to obtain a restriction they are going to have to prove that they cannot
meet the 1.1 and the watershed district has a number of findings that the applicant will have to
prove and go through pretty much a very rigorous production in order to justify it in order to get
a restriction down to .55. So that is a bit of an unknown right now. The submittal to the
watershed district was deemed incomplete and there is, they sent them a list of conditions as part
of their review and there are a number of them. As part of Sharmeen also mentioned this, they
are proposing to do buffer averaging from the wetland. The watershed district has a 20 foot
minimum requirement to be adhered to. The applicant is proposing a zero foot setback as
Sharmeen had shown along here. Engineering feels that a minimum of 5 foot setback needs to
be adhered to so that they can do maintenance on and get through that area on the back side of
the building and that is a bare minimum and currently they’re showing 20 feet total from, setback
from the wetland and so that, to have 5 foot would mean that they would have to get a variance
from the watershed district to reduce that minimum setback to 15 feet. One point that I wanted
to make is, you know along this wetland buffer that’s going to have to be planted with native
species so when you looked at the rendering it looked all nice and green like it was lawn. Well
that isn’t going to be able to appear that way. It’s going to have to have a more native
appearance to it. So in two areas it’s close. In this area you know is of prime concern right now
so that will still have to be worked out from a setback perspective.
Skistad: How long is that space? Like long is that?
Weick: Yeah let’s hold our questions.
Bender: To be honest I did not measure it but it’s about two rooms width I would assume
according to this drawing that a room is somewhere between maybe an average of 5 foot wide.
The applicant can probably answer that question for us. There are a few grading concerns. The
applicant is showing grading that’s outside of the limits of the property so that will need to be
addressed. The watershed district also picked up on this requirement and they will have to
provide either change their plans to match within their property limits or provide proof and
documentation of being allowed to work outside of their property. You know their landscaping
plan still needs to be updated to show what they are going to be doing within the buffer area
itself and they will need to file for an NPDES construction permit due to the disturbance being
greater than one acre. I’ll turn it over to Sharmeen again.
Al-Jaff: Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the staff
report and at this point we would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Some of the
issues that were raised by the Planning Commission, some of the questions will be addressed by
the applicant specifically dealing with setbacks and the buffer area.
Weick: Okay. And I know we do have, I’m sensing we have a lot of questions so as we ask for
questions or clarifications we’ll try and, instead of going Commissioner by Commissioner let’s
try as best we can, I know it’s tough but try and go topic by topic. So feel free to jump in
someone’s mentioning grading and we can keep it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
5
Aanenson: Chairman if I may.
Weick: Yeah.
Aanenson: I think it might be helpful to let the applicant make their presentation because I thin
that might help clarify some of the questions and then maybe, or just maybe fine tune some of
your questions if that’s alright.
Weick: Okay. If that’s okay with the commission. Is that alright? Good enough. Okay then I
would invite the applicant to make a presentation. Maybe answer some of the anticipated
questions, that would be great. Welcome.
Patrick Sarver: Excellent, thank you so much. My name is Patrick Sarver. I’m with Civil Site
Group, landscape architect by professional and project manager for this site. I also have with me
this evening Jeff Schuler who’s the architect on the project and Elizabeth Wright who’s the
owner/operator of the, what will be the Moments of Chanhassen and she’s the current owner/
operator of the Moments of Lakeville where they have a similar facility. A phase 1 that’s in
operation and a phase 2 that is starting construction momentarily in Lakeville. Yes to address
some of the comments here, regarding the setback. First of all I wanted to thank. It has been, we
have been working on this project for a great length of time and staff and engineering have been
absolutely fantastic and the watershed. They have been a treat to work with and this is a, I hope
you can appreciate how complicated a site this is in that there’s a significant amount of grade.
There’s very poor soils and there is a, because of the wetland location at the narrow point of the
site it makes it very complicated to get just about anything in here at all so we’ve been able to
work with the architect. Work with the program for the site and work with the natural features
and spend extra time making sure that we get it right and one of those efforts to get it a little
more right is that we are, we’ve been able to just in the past couple days modify the architecture
of the building so that we’re able to get to the 5 foot setbacks all along, as requested all along
through this area by essentially modifying the building to take this section and move it farther
away and then also move the building again further farther away just to make sure that we’re,
we’ve got as much space there as possible. One of the, regarding the landscaping, it probably we
could have did a better job explaining about how we wanted to restore that natural feature back
there. The idea is what’s unique about this population is they don’t go outside so there is, I mean
they’ll go outside on patio spaces but because of just the containment issues what you want to do
is you want to create environment as exciting and as lively for them to live inside yet feel
connected with the outside. You’ll notice if you go back to the elevations we can do this a little
bit later but there is a clear story that goes around the upper portion of the building and that is an
attempt to try to create a streetscape environment within the inside of the building as much as
possible. I think if you had a chance to go visit the site in Lakeville they do an amazing job with
the inside of the space so when you walk into this that every unit has a unique personality like
you would be walking down a streetscape and you see, oh here’s a brick façade or here’s a little
lap siding so that each one of the residents has a feeling like this is my home. This is my unique
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
6
space. This is my and they do a remarkable job and have been recognized for it nationally for
the efforts that they do to great lengths to number one introduce light into the facility and to
make it be as pleasant as possible. Along those same lines we think this is a fantastic site and the
effort that we’ve done with staff by positioning the building essentially in a natural oasis where it
gives them an opportunity to have views out those lower windows directly into natural
environment where there’s birds, butterflies, wildlife. The idea that that is all completely natural
through there is our intention. The down side with the rendering software is it renders nice. It
renders the building nice but there’s not really a good way to reflect that green space but it is
proposed to be a natural and native features as much as possible. Other pieces that I wanted to
address. Well we’ve addressed the setback. We continue to work with the watershed to address
and make sure that we’re going to meet all their requirements. Again the soils are clay and it’s a
requirement of the watershed and the City to infiltrate and these are the worst level of soils to
infiltrate and they’re the most complicated to try to do that but we’re doing everything we can do
to try to demonstrate as greatest infiltration as possible but we’re working through that
demonstration process with the watershed. Turning movements. I can go to the next one. We
have since updated this graphic. This shows a current turning movement as with the proposed
and we have submitted this to the City as well. This, we will also be providing additional as we
revise drawings for the watershed we’ll be including those hopefully with a full complete set by
next, the end of next week so that when we turn it into the City we’ll have as many of the
conditions as we can stricken from the approval process and the comment letter from staff to the
City Council so we’re in agreement with the spirit of the comments on the letter and we’re going
to do everything we can do to resolve all of them as it moves forward. I believe that’s it and we
can stand for any questions. Again the owner and the architect is here and is available and I’ll be
available as well. I’ll take any questions you have right now otherwise I’ll take a seat.
Weick: I think stay and we’ll go ahead and open it up for questions or clarification. You can
certainly direct it at the applicant or the City depending on what your question is but I would
certainly open that up.
Tietz: Chairman?
Weick: Yep.
Tietz: I appreciate you taking that jog and pulling it back but have you created a pinch point at
the entry where you have a building mass of one story and it looks like the building is within a
couple feel of your sidewalk. Kind of traded one problem for another.
Patrick Sarver: Yeah, but I don’t think so though.
Tietz: It just appears on your new drawing it appears very, very tight at that point.
Patrick Sarver: I do see your concern there. Yeah.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
7
Tietz: Yeah just as a visual pinch point I think when you’re arriving at the front of the building
and I don’t know if you want to trade off the wetland issue for this or fight for the wetland issue.
Patrick Sarver: I think we may have some options to mitigate the intensity of that pinch point by
possibly sliding those 13 stalls that are sitting there. Rotate them maybe 10-12 feet to the west.
Make that island on the west side.
Tietz: We won’t design it for you. I’m just, I noticed that right away because when I was
looking at your drawings and I saw the comments about the tightness to the wetland I thought
about whether you could slide that, make that building component on the west slide down and
obviously you did that but now I’m looking at this and I don’t have the elevation to look at and I
don’t know where that roof line is at that point. It just looks like it’s awkward.
Patrick Sarver: Noted. We’ll do our best to help mitigate it, thank you.
Tietz: Okay.
Weick: I have a question that’s, it’s about the buffers and I think you both kind of addressed
them but what is, if there were no, I’m confused because we were talking about averaging. If
there were no building there what is the buffer? I mean how close can you build, what’s the
code?
Al-Jaff: Including the buffer you have to maintain a 50 foot setback.
Weick: Okay. So it’s.
Tietz: But Steve if you look at the original grading plan and look at the first floor elevation here,
the original grade is a 10 foot drop from the point of the edge of the wetland. The wetland buffer
down to the Type 1/2 wetlands so it’s like going up to the underside of those beams all the way
down to the wetland. You know you begin to wonder sometimes you know what that buffer
does when you have such a significant grade change.
Aanenson: I just bring up herein lies the problem with this property. We’re worked on this
property for 15-20 years. It’s always been a challenge to find someone. We’ve had really a lot
of different uses on there so this one seemed to have the most viability and so Sharmeen and
George have worked really hard with the applicant to try to, to wiggle it in there and I think
Commissioner Tietz brings up a good point. I mean.
Tietz: It’s difficult.
Aanenson: It’s difficult right.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
8
Tietz: Yeah in this situation I don’t know when you look architecturally at that façade and given
that this is a wetland that, if there’s so much water and it gets so high it’s going to go into Riley.
It’s going to take a pretty significant storm I would think on this site to get into Riley and so
encroaching on, you know taking that 5 feet off on the back side I don’t know if that’s, if it’s
worth the front and dealing with the front as opposed to addressing just going for it on the
wetland and taking it right up to the edge in the back. Not trying to create that additional 5 feet.
I mean in an emergency, I don’t know. You know if you’re dealing, if it’s a maintenance issue
and you’re dealing with the exterior of the building in 15 or 20 years I guess you can access that,
that buffer zone. You can drive on that buffer zone. You could do maintenance work if you had
to.
Patrick Sarver: One of the items I wanted to add relative to the wetlands. There are two
different classifications of the wetlands. The lower quality wetland is the one that’s that longer
lengthy piece and that’s actually a wooded wetland so there’s not, it’s not, doesn’t really, it
actually has a slope through there. It just poorly drained slope which means that over time
because it’s poorly drained there’s been more soils that have become hydric and it has created
wetland plant material there and that’s why it’s, initially on our original wetland delineation it
wasn’t part of there because it’s not identified but upon the TEP panel walking the site it was
identified and it was further indicated. So the fact or the concern that it might fill up with water
is actually not because you say there’s just the grade drops so dramatically off to the north that
it’s not going to be, that’s not going to be a concern. Our concern was we wanted to make sure
that we had positive drainage out to the edge where that wetland is and that we’ve still got areas
that contribute water so that they, we don’t compromise the wetland.
Tietz: But it does look like on that northwest corner in that area that we’re talking about, you
drop the grade down to 960 so you’re virtually at the same edge of the wetland with, you’re
going to be grading right up to the wetland. It appears on your grading plan. Is that accurate or
did I misinterpret that?
Patrick Sarver: No that’s accurate.
Tietz: Okay. So I’d be more concern during construction than I would be after construction I
guess.
Patrick Sarver: Yes.
Weick: I’m just not clear because even the, and correct me if I’m wrong but the 20 feet that’s
shown here is an arbitrary buffer.
Bender: It is a minimum buffer is probably how I’d say it. The actual buffer that the watershed
district is looking for is a 40 foot buffer around the wetland.
Weick: Okay.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
9
Bender: But they will allow buffer averaging so it can get wider in other areas and narrower in
areas of need for development to a minimum of 20 feet. Does help answer the question?
Al-Jaff: That is a common practice.
Weick: Okay. Okay.
Aanenson: If you look at that in subdivisions sometimes there’s a pinch point and so instead of
losing the lot you average it and pick it up on a different lot.
Weick: Okay.
Bender: The buffer is not intended to be used for maintenance of the building though. It’s
intended to remain a buffer per the watershed district.
Skistad: The purpose of that being specifically, just when you say take care of the outside of the
building, what do you mean?
Bender: So like taking care, maintaining the landscaping. Just being able to get around it. The
buffer. It’s not intended to drive a forklift through it.
Weick: Go ahead.
McGonagill: George on the, I think I know the answer to this. I just want to be sure. We have a
lot of development going on to the north with the development up there and what is a 100 year
flood look like? Is it all going to drain away towards the lake the way it falls that way or was
there any possibility, how far will it come up towards the building?
Bender: They did not show the 100 year flood elevation for Riley Creek on their plans. I was
talking to our City Engineer about that a little bit yesterday. The other thing that I noticed is you
know that will be another thing that we kind of have to work through. It’s also noted on Riley
Bluff watershed district’s comments so it’s another thing that needs to be included but there is a
FEMA flood zone that kind of goes back here that we can see on our GIS software. And the
reason that was the main reason I was talking to the City Engineer about it is that, you know
where they’re proposing to discharge that pipe appears to be within the FEMA flood zone but at
the same time we don’t, that data was imported from a Carver County and we feel that we need
to do more research on the accuracy of that data because from what we see in that area it doesn’t
seem to make complete sense to us so at this point it’s something that only may have to be
worked through.
McGonagill: Yeah but my concern comes from we’re changing the watershed quite a bit up in
this area.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
10
Bender: Yep.
McGonagill: And a lot of it goes into Riley.
Bender: Right. They will have to show us that.
Patrick Sarver: Just an added comment. Just for your reference. I don’t consider, I don’t think
that the 100 year flood plain is of concern. The grade of that Riley Creek is 943. 942. 943.
And our low edge is 959 so we’re 16 feet above that. I don’t see that we’re close to that 100 year
flood at all.
McGonagill: Okay.
Bender: I can tell you what shows in our GIS does not approach the area of the building. It goes
to about halfway through this little pie shaped piece that they know.
McGonagill: Okay. Along the, Sharmeen along the 78th where the landscaping’s going, that’s
just trees. That’s not berm. Or is it berm?
Al-Jaff: It will be mainly bushes and trees.
McGonagill: Okay because I was just, and where I was going with this was the proximity of that
landscaping to the trail. That’s a pretty active trail. You know how close is it going to be? Are
people going to get into the trees? Are they going to get into the bushes? You follow me?
Al-Jaff: Sure.
McGonagill: And will it impede, will it impede trail access?
Al-Jaff: It will not impede access. The trail is in the public right-of-way. The landscaping will
be on the actual property.
McGonagill: Okay, would it be away from the trail you think?
Patrick Sarver: I would imagine it’s going to be at least 6 feet away from the edge of the trail. I
think our landscaping there maybe shown slightly inaccurate in that we’re planting into the right-
of-way. I don’t think that’s, MnDOT is not going to, it was, as we’re putting this together and
adding as much landscaping as we can we thicken it up but we’re going to make sure that that
landscaping is entirely located within our property and it will just be heavily landscaped
between, in that space that we have behind the curb up to the property line.
McGonagill: So basically it will be the same grade that’s there today. Just…
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
11
Patrick Sarver: Exactly, yes.
McGonagill: And there’s not a fence or anything, there’s just bushes?
Patrick Sarver: No. Yes just bushes. And from a berm standpoint, from a berming or grade
change standpoint at the midpoint the trail is let’s say right at where that front entry is, that trail
is at a 66 and then the edge of the parking is up at 69 so it does, it does slope up and away and
then, so it kind of sets it up a little bit but as you move to the east that transition changes to
where the trail and then it drops down toward where the parking’s at.
McGonagill: Okay.
Skistad: How big is that bed? That landscaping bed approximately.
Patrick Sarver: It will be landscaped from, it’s basically, it will be fully landscaped from the
property line to the, so it’s 10 feet wide. Property line to the curb line.
McGonagill: Sharmeen in the staff report I just want to be sure I understood. When you talk
about the, this being service enabled. Service enriched units basically what we’re talking about
here are memory care type units.
Al-Jaff: You are correct.
McGonagill: For Alzheimer’s. It’s not, this is basically a full nursing facility to some degree.
Secured. You know people are in there. They’re there. That’s kind of the way it was.
Al-Jaff: You are correct. Memory care.
McGonagill: Yes okay.
Patrick Sarver: No residents are bringing their car.
McGonagill: Yeah that was the next question I was going is the parking lot you know which
with that. I will tell you before I start. I have a lot of questions on this. Not being critical. My
family believes I’ll probably be in one of these real soon what I hear from them. I’m just going
through questions that I would have that I think the public might have too so I just wanted to
paraphrase that.
Al-Jaff: Absolutely.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
12
McGonagill: In the, so with that security, what I was looking at if there’s really, you have
security at the door coming in the front towards the parking lot and then you have some in the
back is the way that will work?
Elizabeth Wright: Little slower moving. So the current existing Moments of Lakeville is fully
secured. All the exits and entryways. We don’t believe in having wings locked off so we try to
give as much freedom as possible to the residents. So there’s plenty of research and the
technology we have implemented has provided us with an ability to protect the residents from
exiting and egress when it’s you know not called for.
McGonagill: Yeah and that’s the reason I ask because being right on 78th like that, you’re right
on a very busy street. I saw the end of the walls and stuff that would go, and okay that’s how
they’re doing it. Every couple doors. I’ve had some experience with facilities like this
personally. It’s kind of like okay I was just imagining myself being with a family member there.
I’m just going through some of these are, I don’t know how you want to go through, something
about category and so.
Weick: Keep going.
McGonagill: So Sharmeen we’re halfway to the goal on service enabled so what others are up?
Do you see other ones coming?
Aanenson: Can I address that?
McGonagill: Sure.
Aanenson: So this is the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan which the City Council will be
officially adopting so those numbers come 2014 when we actually started the plan so this is kind
of a hybrid from the Maxfield Study, then the Carver County did an updated their plan so if you
look at where the City in their vision sees kind of those buckets of housing types. So they’re
broken into ownership, senior and rental and the thing that we don’t want to have to make a well
rounded community we don’t want to have what we call service enriched. It’d be more like you
need it’s kind of dependent. You can’t live independently so, because we’ve had requests for
maybe 500-600 all service enriched and we don’t see that. The feasibility to manage all that.
McGonagill: Well that was my next question.
Aanenson: So that plays into some of that.
McGonagill: There’s a cap for us.
Aanenson: Yep exactly. So when we look at each of these projects, this is tying back into our
plan to say what is the City’s vision. How much of this do we want because we know there’s
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
13
some other senior projects coming in in Avienda. There might be one other one that might be
you know service enriched. There also might be some that are adult owned and those can be in a
coop or a condominium or something like that so again trying to provide what we believe and as
adopted in the Comprehensive Plan a well rounded community with different housing choices
meeting different needs. So we for illustratively just showed you where we’re at from 2014
when this was submitted as part of the Comprehensive Plan and where we are today so we’re
within that range. So it’s also when we’re meeting with people we can kind of say you know
here’s how many are left. Here’s where we think we’re going. What the city’s vision is so that’s
really what that’s about.
McGonagill: And it follows onto that comment where another one of my questions came was
the impact on emergency responders and city services and county services.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
McGonagill: You know you will have like staff members you have on site. You’ve got quite a
few people but when someone falls I mean usually it’s a 911 call isn’t it? I mean what you have
to do and I think about impact on county sheriff. I think about fortunately the ambulance is right
around the corner but what does that look like for you and how is that handled? How is the cost
of that handled?
Elizabeth Wright: Well one of the pluses for us is that our model is set out with having licensed
nursing on staff 24 hours a day.
McGonagill: Okay.
Elizabeth Wright: So those falls that you would normally find at a normal facility where they
may not have that opportunity, allows our licensed nurses to actually assess the situation and
rather than make that immediate call, unless there’s a clear and obviously injury that needs to be
made, it allows us the opportunity to treat that and call the doctor that we have on our staff as
well to make sure that we’re not sending someone out without an appropriate reason for it. So
it’s not every fall that would happen within the Moments would require something to that effect
so we eliminate a lot of those types of calls.
McGonagill: Okay.
Skistad: So you would have your own transport then?
Elizabeth Wright: No, no, no. We still utilize the transport. Obviously we have the same in
Lakeville but like I said most, it comes down to a decision between the nursing and families
quite frankly because with this particular population families may not want it to be an emergency
send out to an ER so if they live locally they have the ability to make that decision to come in
and transport their loved one themselves. It’s something that we provide as an option for them.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
14
McGonagill: Will this facility also transition all the way to end of life care? Like hospice care.
Do you do that as well?
Elizabeth Wright: We do not provide hospice care specifically but we do have, we do provide
the opportunity for outside hospice to come in and provide that care, yes.
McGonagill: Correct, okay.
Elizabeth Wright: Absolutely.
McGonagill: Now look at the side it doesn’t, you know you’re expanding in Lakeville but I
don’t see how you’d expand here. I mean is expansion pretty much none to be had here do you
think?
Elizabeth Wright: Oh you know to be honest with you we would have loved more, to be able to
have more units. I think there’s a need in the area locally to be able to fill that but the piece of
property doesn’t lend itself to that. Until recently I was a resident of Chanhassen so for me this
particular area is something that is near and dear to my heart so I like this area. Would we like to
expand if it’s a possibility someplace either if not in Chanhassen nearby but outside of a certain
radius, for sure.
McGonagill: Well I was just you know on this site there’s not really room.
Elizabeth Wright: No. There’s no.
McGonagill: I didn’t think so. I didn’t think you were going to convert the garages or anything
like that.
Elizabeth Wright: No.
McGonagill: Yeah. I’ve got a couple more but why not just turn on other people can ask some
questions.
Weick: Need a break?
McGonagill: No. I just, you know me I’ll just keep going and going.
Randall: Well with you being recently from Chan I know you said you moved or whatever but I
think of the 4th of July and I think about how much traffic and the fireworks and everything, is
that going to be a concern to you at all with your facility?
Elizabeth Wright: No.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
15
Randall: As far as your residents and the
McGonagill: And the lights.
Elizabeth Wright: No.
Randall: The lights and that type of thing.
Elizabeth Wright: No, it’s not.
Randall: Okay.
Elizabeth Wright: And for me just because they have dementia doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be
able to enjoy everything that we all enjoy.
Randall: Yeah.
Elizabeth Wright: So quite frankly having the 4th of July and being able to see the fireworks
would be wonderful. There’d be an opportunity quite frankly.
Randall: Okay, that’s great. That was the only question I had.
McGonagill: Kind of follow onto that enjoying things. I agree with what you’re saying to do
that. One of the things and this is more just of a personal request and observation both to you
and the staff. When I was thinking about this if I had a family member here and what I would be
doing and what I’ve done in the past is one thing is all the places to put someone in a wheelchair
and take them out are in the front. You know and you know when I’ve had people in facilities
before I’ve looked for places to get out away. To have a sanctuary where we could just have
time. These are wonderful facilities to have for people where they can be safe but it can be
somewhat disconcerting when you’re in them trying to be with your family member or get
outside the room when it’s nice weather and I was looking trying to think of a way, is there a
way that working with city staff and the parks that we could get some sort of trail or access or
park where people in a wheelchair could get them away? You know out back or somewhere
where a family could gather you know outside the facility. I realize with the setbacks and all
that’s in there but it’s more of the ability of a quality of life. I was thinking well where would I
do it? Well in the back you can’t do it. I was thinking well you have a sunroom. Well you have
the drop off there with the garages. You follow where I’m going?
Elizabeth Wright: Absolutely. Just to be clear we love the outdoors and I know that one of the
things that we’re actually doing in Lakeville to that end is we’re, we recently got approval to
build basically an English garden on another part of the property that I own down there and for
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
16
us it’s important to allow certain gathering areas and we would love to work with the City and
parks and everybody else to be able to find that spot on this property to make that work.
McGonagill: Maybe it’s access into the park itself because you’re not far off.
Elizabeth Wright: Yeah.
McGonagill: So I would just ask the staff to work with parks and see what we do here because
people that are here will want it. I mean particularly if there is a family member there and you’re
living here. You’ll spend a lot of time there and you want to get out or maybe you just want to
get out and walk and refresh yourself so you can go back and care for them and I would just
really encourage that to be found.
Elizabeth Wright: We would love that.
Tietz: Mr. Chairman?
Weick: Yep.
Tietz: Seeing that the landscape plan is up, just a question and maybe there’s reasoning behind it
but looks like it’s all foundation and edge planting. Has that been done for a purpose? I mean
the building is rimmed with plant material and your list looks like a great list of plant material
and Jill’s our environmental and forester in the city made some great comments that, a comment
came in about the removal of trees and I think Jill made a good comment and certainly agree
with all the trees but I’m just, it just strikes me as everything is tight to edges.
Patrick Sarver: Well there’s a couple reasons for that. There’s a certain calculations that are
required by the ordinance that we’re trying to satisfy with the perimeter planting and the amount
of shrubs and treatments that we have so in order to meet the required plantings, obviously we
wanted screening around the south side. Or on the west side. Or on the building. It has a
requirement for planting around the foundation. There’s likely that we’re probably going to
plant more trees than we might be showing currently so these folks love planting trees so having
something that compliments the wooded area.
Tietz: I’m just not sure, do our ordinances require foundation planting? I’ve never seen that on
any plans that we’ve ever reviewed. That is just tight to the building and completely around.
You know the numbers of and species you certainly could do some mass plantings and I’m just
wondering too in this naturalization of that buffer area, from the architectural rendering
obviously the architectural is a better rendering than the site rendering but on that back side in
this light green or yellow area you could plant large or a lot of trees that are appropriate for the
environment and do something for visual interest on that north side and replace on the
requirements for trees in that zone. Just a thought.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
17
Patrick Sarver: We will likely take you up on that. Again it’s the, the planting around the
perimeter is where we started from and then trying to keep as many views open into that space as
possible. The light yellow is meant to be a low maintenance native planting.
Tietz: I think you can plant in that buffer zone.
Patrick Sarver: Oh yeah.
Tietz: Yeah. We were dealing with that with The Park too and encouraging Lennar to do
something in those edge areas as opposed to just marching down the streets.
Patrick Sarver: We’ll be happy to work out with the, I’ll reach out to the Forester and see if
there’s opportunities…
Tietz: And Jill had good comments and I think just go from there. Thanks.
Patrick Sarver: Great, thank you.
McGonagill: George is there any, from the County or wherever it would be to ever consider, I
hope they don’t, consider that they’re going to put a roundabout at that intersection of Audubon?
I know there’s a stop sign which I like because with senior drivers which would be going in and
out of there visiting, I like having a stop sign. People can stop and assess what’s happening
instead of somebody whipping around that roundabout. Ripping around a roundabout and
somebody being surprised.
Bender: Not that I’m aware of but I think it’s too close to Trunk Highway 5 there for that.
McGonagill: To happen.
Bender: For that to actually be there. There is a roundabout proposed down at Galpin.
McGonagill: Correct, right. I was just thinking if you’re thinking okay being in facilities like
this, knowing how people drive in and out of then they have a lot on their mind. They’re not
really looking, zap you know somebody comes whipping around there. Just a question.
Weick: Do you have some questions?
Skistad: I’m just wondering, I’m wondering have you guys heard from the neighbor? Any
concerns from that neighbor. Is that the tree email or the email that came?
Aanenson: Jill did address that comment.
Skistad: Is that her? Is that the neighbor?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
18
Aanenson: Yes.
Skistad: From that, okay.
Joy Gorra: I have some questions. I didn’t know if it was my turn.
Weick: We will get to you. I promise.
Joy Gorra: Okay.
Skistad: So technically there’s only supposed to be one house on this lot? I mean what is rural
residential district typically?
Al-Jaff: It’s one unit per 10 acres and as far as densities go it is minimum 2 ½ acres. Does that
answer?
Skistad: So what is the acreage on that, the person lives to the west of it?
Tietz: Well that’s the Gorra property.
Al-Jaff: It’s essentially more than that.
Tietz: It’s 100 acres.
Al-Jaff: Yeah at least.
Skistad: Is that, okay. So that goes all the way.
Al-Jaff: And the owner of the property is here.
Skistad: Okay.
Al-Jaff: And the comment dealing with the removal of the tree, the email that we received is
actually from a townhouse development that is to the west of the Gorra’s property.
Skistad: So is that property that they own to the west is that all the way to those townhouses?
That whole entire and the City has that, it’s zoned rural residential
Aanenson: It’s guided for high density and medium density. Both. So when they come in
they’d have to have a plan that shows that it’s consistent with the guiding in the future. The
reason it’s zone rural residential right now is because there’s no use on the property. If you were
to rezone it they’d be paying higher taxes on the property.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
19
McGonagill: I’m done.
Weick: Do you have further? Take your time.
Skistad: I think I got most of them answered here by other people. I guess the only other
question I had really was how far, and I just can’t tell from the maps. Approximately how far is
to the other house to this location? Do you have any idea what that is?
Al-Jaff: The Gorra house.
Skistad: I mean is it flat there? I should, I didn’t realize this was the one that was coming up. I
didn’t go out there to look at it. Other than seeing it the property along 78th Street.
Al-Jaff: You won’t be able to see the house from this property.
Skistad: You won’t be able to see it from this property because it’s far enough.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Skistad: Okay. And this is a lower elevation. Is this property, it’s kind of the elevation.
Al-Jaff: The elevation of this site sits higher than the Gorra property.
Tietz: Go to the photo.
McGonagill: You’ve got to go to the photo. There you go.
Al-Jaff: So from here to where the house sits you won’t be able to, this entire area is completely
wooded.
Skistad: Okay.
Al-Jaff: So there is no visual, direct visual access to the homes and the building will be at the
highest point of the roof it’s 29 feet so you really won’t be able to.
Skistad: Well it’s a little bit over two stories essentially.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Skistad: That’s all of it. Everyone else answered my questions.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
20
Weick: Okay. One more round of possible questions. Okay hearing none thank you. Thank
you very much for your presentation and for answering all of our questions. At this time I will
open the public hearing for input. Anyone wishing to come forward may do so at this time. Just
I would remind you to please state your name and address so that we can add that to the record.
Thank you and welcome.
Joy Gorra: Well thank you. I’m Joy Gorra. The neighbor to the west. I too am in long term
residential care. The location that they selected is a wonderful spot for what they are proposing.
If you’ve been in an assisted living in Minnesota you have only been in one. Each assisted living
is uniquely different depending on the ownership. That is how they’re going to be running their
facility. I am assuming Elizabeth will be running her Lakeville and her Chanhassen the same. I
understand her facility to be a locked down unit for strictly memory care. The model is changing
a lot where they’re weaving dementia care and, or clients with independent residents. They seem
to flourish very well that way. Each owner can operate it completely different but moving
forward maybe her model changes or maybe that owner changes. But right now what she has
designed is perfect for her residents. For her community. It’s great looking at it from the north
and probably from the west and probably from the east but when you look forward to the south
there is a big problem. I don’t see it so much her problem but I see the problem for Chanhassen.
As we move forward with our direction to expand senior housing with services the City needs to
keep in mind you are serving a vulnerable population and you really want to safeguard that
vulnerable population. Last year roughly about this time there was a vulnerable adult,
independent in his electrical scooter who would be zipping down on the shoulder of a highway.
Nothing busy like Highway 5 but still very busy and it was dark and he would be hit by a car and
a month later would die. So as these facilities come up in Chanhassen we need to be very careful
on how we lay things out with regard to a road. Owners who have these facilities having them
next to a busy street is really quite ideal. Everybody knows where your place is. People living
in that facility they enjoy watching activity and here what Elizabeth is proposing they’ve got the
best of both worlds. They’ve got the quiet serene view or they can be looking out at Highway 5,
Paisley Park watching activity. Assuming maybe her facility changes I believe it’d be very, very
nice if we could have another overpass possibly over Highway 5 also servicing Paisley Park. I
don’t know just an idea but as you plan for Chanhassen in the future and making a home for
vulnerable adults please keep that in mind that if not done properly there could be injury and
again with the, with some of these clients you’ve got dementia that might be out there but even if
they don’t have dementia, again in a motorized scooter they can be hurt so I would welcome
them as my next door neighbor. I do not want water. I do not want a new pond on my property
but I believe they would be a great neighbor. A good asset to Lake Ann but again you need to
make sure you’ve looked at the whole picture. Thank you.
Weick: Thanks for coming tonight.
Ahmet: I’d like to comment tonight.
Weick: Yes please.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
21
Ahmet: My name is Ahmet. I’m working with my wife. I’m the consultant to my wife
construction company. I have no ownership in the Moments or in the construction company.
However I’m helping to lead her construction. So when Elizabeth went to put the memory care
in a very difficult spot in Lakeville, right on 46th and 35W, the same question were arose by the
Planning Commission and other people. It’s close to the highway. How do you bring greenery
to these lots and how do you build something that is extraordinary so I’d like to tell you
something it’s amazing story. So when Elizabeth start, put her business together a gentleman by
the name of Don Hussey. Don Hussey is the managing director of the Ziegler Group. It’s the
largest senior lender in America. When he saw Elizabeth’s operation and the building after she
created it and her company build it he told, quote unquote, you have one of the top 5 memory
care in the country. In the country and that was her first memory care. Unanimously the City of
Lakeville approved her second expansion that is 60 memory care and 80,000 square feet they’re
going to create a campus. Elizabeth spent in Lakeville a million dollar to create an English
garden that she took and she’s copying the Lord Jacob’s and if you look at, Google it and see
English garden, it is amazing. We plant 70 trees that are 10 foot tall. We’re planning to plant
over 200 trees here. Your idea of having a trail and having it excellence this is exactly
Elizabeth’s vision and we’re going to work with the city planning and everybody in Chanhassen
to be able to deliver the dreams and the needs of the city in this community. And we understand
the importance that the City on the environment, on greenery, on trees, that’s exactly what we
would like to do there and that’s exactly what we’re going to do here.
Weick: Thank you.
Ahmet: Thank you.
Weick: Thank you that’s a great perspective. Can you come back Ms. Gorra? We just had a
question and I know that’s unconventional.
McGonagill: It was just unclear to me and thank you for coming up. Is there anything when you
were talking through this that you would suggest that we need to do other than what you see to
have it safe? I agree with you. I had a friend of the family hit in a scooter. Get what you’re
saying. Is there anything else that you can see that we need to consider other than it has security.
It is memory care. Keep it that way.
Joy Gorra: Well some of the good things that Chanhassen has here is, you have that walking and
bike trail and then you have West 78th Street and then you have a ditch and then you have
Highway 5 but you know facilities, their staff are trained. You can’t, if you’ve got independent
staff that can, I mean residents that can come and go you can’t really restrain them.
McGonagill: No.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
22
Joy Gorra: You know maybe a certain crosswalk but with Highway 5 the only thing I can see is
going over.
McGonagill: But this isn’t going to be independent residents. These are.
Joy Gorra: Right, right.
McGonagill: What I would say confined and I think you intend to keep them that way. Keep
that kind of structure right? Business model.
Elizabeth Wright: Memory care.
McGonagill: Excuse me?
Elizabeth Wright: Memory care only.
McGonagill: Memory care only, okay. Alright thank you.
Joy Gorra: Yep.
Weick: Thank you. And with that I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and
open the item for commission member comments and/or appropriate motions.
Tietz: No, looks good.
McGonagill: Looks good, looks fine.
Tietz: Go for it.
Weick: Yeah I would only moderately echo that. I, as I read this on my own and I’m really
familiar with this site, it’s, I come back to a common refrain of mine that sometimes, sometimes
things aren’t buildable. I saw that a lot especially with some of the infill that we do with homes.
You know I wish the use of this was like a super center or something that would make me feel
better about saying you know no. But it’s not. I mean it’s an awesome business case and it’s a
beautiful property and it’s the right thing for the city. I’m struggling myself with you know it’s
built right up to the parking lot. It’s built over the wetland really. And when you think about
protecting the wetlands, those are a couple things I have trouble putting behind. I love the use
but those are two things that stand out to me. As food for thought.
McGonagill: Well I understand what you’re saying. I love the use. I love the setting. What I
was thinking because I go up and down that trail a lot and it is tight. I agree with you. But at the
same time as I think about it, having a quality place for memory care for people that you can go
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
23
there and particularly if they can work with the parks and have access for someone to take a
loved one and be around them, it’s huge for that benefit.
Weick: Yeah I’m with you.
McGonagill: And for, yes it’s a compromise. What we’re talking about to some degree but I
think it’s compromising in the right direction for a quality of life of future Chanhassen residents
whether they realize they’re here or not.
Weick: Yeah.
McGonagill: But for their families particularly I think it can be done right it can be a very
comforting place for people to know the family is taken care of. For a lot of different reasons but
there’s hotels close by. People can come stay if they’re out of town. You come visit the family
member or there’s if you want to go out and get them something to help the room there’s shops
here in Chan. It’s really, I just, I like it and maybe for that, yeah there’s hair on it. I agree with
you but we’re protecting Lake Riley. It’s a good addition to the side of the park. It’s like I,
that’s why I’m in favor of it. And I’m a hard sell.
Weick: I know you are. I know you are, yes.
Skistad: Well I like the design of the building. I think that’s very well done. That’s probably
the best design that I think we’ve seen especially the first design. I guess it’s the maintenance
question that George brought up that’s concerning.
Aanenson: Just to be clear that is a condition of approval so those things have to be met so the
only way they could advance is if they met those conditions so that’s what you would be
approving that they had to meet those.
Weick: In regards to maintenance and things like that.
Aanenson: Well the 5 foot. The 5 foot rear, those are conditions of approval so they would have
to meet that, yep.
Al-Jaff: They would also need to meet the watershed district requirements as far as the buffer.
So a lot of these things that you’re raising as issues have been discussed by staff. We agree with
you and by averaging the buffer you are maintaining and meeting the intent of the ordinance and
one of the things I mentioned at the beginning, intent versus literal interpretation of the
ordinance.
Aanenson: I just wanted to add. So what we heard, that’s why I asked the developer to give
their talk first is what they’ve already worked to try to modify those conditions. They’re still
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
24
about watershed, amount of retaining the amount of water which they need to go through a
process so they’ll have to do all that to get it approved so just to be clear on that.
Weick: Yep. But even the 5 feet is a compromise right? I mean that’s not, that’s not code. I
mean that’s a variance.
McGonagill: It’s a variance.
Weick: It’s a variance right?
Al-Jaff: That was a variance.
Weick: Okay.
Bender: It’s a variance from 30 feet.
Randall: It’s like, you know looking at the property I think it’s a, the environmental impact.
This is a good use for any kind of impact it’s going to have. I looked at the floorplans of the
building. It would be very hard to convert that into like apartments down the road or that type of
thing where you’d have more traffic going in and out where the impact on the environment
would be higher so I mean it’s built to stay and it’s probably going to stay it’s use that it has right
now even 20-30-40 years down the road and I think it’s a good thing to have in Chan and it’s a
great spot to have that too so I’ll be voting in favor of a rezoning.
Weick: I know for fear of sounding heartless, you know I mean I’ve sat through these though
where we’ve told homeowners you know who want to build big houses on small property that
hey just you know cut out a bedroom or make it a two car garage or you know don’t put this or
that in there so we’re pretty strict in those cases and I understand that this is a, again it’s a
wonderful use and I would not be disappointed to see this built but thinking you know sort of
procedurally as we’ve talked through cases that just, I’m explaining ultimately where my vote
would lie which is against it because of those reasons. I do see an importance in being consistent
with putting things that are just generally too large on properties that are generally too small.
McGonagill: I understand. That’s your conviction so that’s fine.
Weick: Okay.
Skistad: In looking at the whole, the property next to it and knowing what we just did at the
Park, you know I’m just envisioning what would that property be at some point. You know how
much density do we plan to put there.
Weick: We certainly will increase it right. I mean that’s our plan is to increase it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
25
Aanenson: Oh yeah. Yep.
Weick: I mean that’s.
Skistad: So if we continue to overrun sections of property I think we’re going to, you know
we’re also potentially endangering Lake Ann at some point.
McGonagill: It’s a good point but you’re voting on a variance for this particular piece of
property and not for what could be.
Skistad: I realize that.
McGonagill: So that’s hard to balance that out which I appreciate the Commissioner your
thoughts but as I’ve been coached by others before we have to, you know what’s in front of you
is what you vote on and I go okay, I get it.
Weick: And I appreciate that.
Tietz: I’ll make a motion.
Weick: Please do.
Tietz: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the
property from Rural Residential District to High Density Residential District (R-16). Lot
consolidation and the site plan review with variances for the construction of a 48 unit continuing
care retirement facility, The Moments of Chanhassen as shown on plans dated January 6, 2020,
subject to the conditions and approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision, and yeah,
Decision Recommendation. Decision is, why is that Decision Recommendation?
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Tietz. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
McGonagill: I will second.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner McGonagill. Any final comment before we
vote? Seeing none.
Tietz moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends approval of Planning Case #2020-02 to rezone 3.5 acres of property from RR,
Rural Residential District to R-16, High Density Residential District and adoption of the
Findings of Fact. All voted in favor except for Wieck and Skistad who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
26
Tietz moved, McGonagill seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the site plan consisting of a 65,000 square-foot continuing care facility
with wetland and front yard setback variances, Planning Case #2020-2 for The Moments of
Chanhassen as shown in plans dated January 6, 2020, and including the attached Findings
of Fact and Recommendation, and subject to the following conditions:
Engineering
1. A turning movement analysis utilizing the largest anticipated design vehicle shall be
provided to ensure there is adequate spacing and no conflicts within the required
turnaround, the driveway entrance/exit, and with the traffic control devices located on
West 78th Street (raised median, pavement striping, etc.) prior to the issuance of building
permits.
2. An updated existing condition survey shall be submitted with revised plans that includes
the full extents of the construction limits for review and approval by the city prior to
recording of the Site Plan Agreement.
3. Plans shall be updated to provide a planting and revegetation plan specific for grading
within the wetland buffer prior to the commencement of grading operations.
4. Plans shall illustrate the location of the required wetland buffer monumentation prior to
issuance of building permits.
5. A minimum 5-foot setback shall be adhered to at all times along the wetland buffer and
plans shall be resubmitted for review and approval by the city prior to recording of the
Site Plan Agreement.
6. Bottom wall elevations and top of wall elevations for the entire wall section of all five (5)
retaining walls shall be provided prior to the commencement of grading activities.
7. Revisions and updates to the erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be submitted to meet
the requirements of the NPDES Construction Permit and Sec. 19-145 of City Code prior
to the commencement of grading activities. This will include, but is not limited to:
updated language in the SWPPP to be site specific and not general language pulled
directly from the permit; BMPs to protect planned infiltration/filtration areas; provide
redundant (double) perimeter sediment controls when a surface water is located within 50
feet of the project’s earth disturbances; location of stock pile for grading and for topsoil,
haul routes, etc.
8. The applicant shall submit updated plans and modeling to provide for the required
abstraction and obtain a RPBCWD permit prior to the issuance of building permits.
9. The applicant shall provide an operation and maintenance plan (O&M) for the private
stormwater BMPs. The O&M of private stormwater BMPs is required in perpetuity and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
27
must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator, or their designee, to be recorded
against the benefiting properties, prior to building permits being issued.
10. Plans shall be resubmitted to achieve one wet tap location for a dual combined domestic
and fire water service line, for review and approval by the city, prior to issuance of
building permits.
11. Any redundant gate valves past the wet tap location will be owned and maintained by the
property owner, and shall be located wholly on the private property.
12. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received
from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers,
DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA,
etc.).
13. The applicant will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the city for the
proposed inside drop within MCES’ manhole prior to issuance of building permits.
14. All proposed sanitary sewer lines will be privately owned and maintained, thus no
manholes shall be located within public right-of-way. Plans shall be updated and
resubmitted for review and approval by the city prior to issuance of building permits.
Environmental Resources
1. The applicant shall remove the existing trees within the grading limits along the west
property line.
Fire Marshal
1. Show any lower level exit doors and egress paths outdoors away from the building. This
type of development cannot omit lower level exit doors.
Planning
1. All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views.
2. The applicant must prepare a lighting plan and include photometrics. Light levels for site
lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line.
This does not apply to street lighting. The applicant has not submitted a light fixture
design. This fixture must be downcast and the light cut off at a 90-degree angle. The city
code requires all fixtures be shielded.
3. Approval of the site plan applications is contingent upon approval of the rezoning and
variances.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
28
4. The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than five feet.
The sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line. A sign permit is required before
construction of the sign.
5. Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance.
6. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the
same enclosure as the trash.
7. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon consolidation of the two parcels into a single
zoning lot.
All voted in favor except for Weick and Skistad who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 2.
Weick: Two nays so this item passes 3 to 2 and will be moved forward to the City Council on
February 24th. Thank you to everyone who presented. The developer. The City. The Planning
Commission. City Engineer. Great conversation. Difficult sometimes to get our hands around
what some of this means for our city but it’s a very important addition to our city.
McGonagill: Nice package Sharmeen by the way.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 21, 2020 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: Thank you, city council update. Just a couple. The second phase for The Park was
approved by the City Council. They’re working through some of their issues still on that.
They’re also, we’ve been discussing with the City Council a PUD amendment for Paisley Park.
How we’ve been working through their permitting for activities. They want to consider doing
more outdoor events so we’re working on that. And then also they extended, there’s a non-
conforming use extension for a garage and that’s Steve Hansen’s building which is right behind
the license center there so that’s an older building. Kind of an industrial building. When we
look at the downtown plan those buildings could ultimately change over. There’s kind of quasi
industrial back there if you go back behind the license center so we extended that one. There
hasn’t been any activity there right now but, so that’s kind of the City Council update. We did
have a meeting with Avienda. They’re interested in getting the grading going so I have them
back on the agenda. They’ll be back for a work session with the City Council and then they will
be working on the grading plan. They’re working with engineering on that now. Kind of
presenting when they’re done with their plans and then they’ll come back and do a PUD
amendment and we’ll notice that. Again the housing is pretty solid what they’ve got there. As I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
29
mentioned earlier there will be some senior coops. Some senior housing and some straight up
apartments in there too. Maybe about 500 units and then, so I think what they’re looking at what
that interior mix is and you have the retail in there and then the office and some restaurants but I
think they’re looking at some other things but they haven’t tipped their card on that yet. I think
they’ll save that for the City Council meeting. But once they decide that then we’ll come back
through. Won’t really affect the AUAR. I don’t think the overall trips are going to change. The
directional traffic but it will require public input on some of those changes so you’ll have a
chance to look at that. And then I just wanted to share one other thing. So there will be a
meeting next, 2 weeks from tonight and then at that meeting we just have a site plan approval or
a sign plan for Chapel Hill. A sign variance. Other than that we’ll be interviewing commission
candidates so we’ll move into the Fountain Conference Room for that.
Weick: Planning Commission candidates?
Aanenson: Planning Commission candidates.
Weick: For us?
Aanenson: Yeah. Yep. So you make a recommendation to City Council. We do it every year
so.
Randall: Who’s term is that on?
Aanenson: I don’t know, John didn’t, if he’s going to apply or not. Are you reapplying? Didn’t
look like it. I know right? I think someone needs to work on that. So yes I think there’s 3, 3
potentially 3 or 4 you’ll be interviewing so plan on that. So it will be an abbreviated meeting and
then we’ll go into that and then again on March 3rd we do not have a meeting because that is the
Presidential Primary night so there will not be a meeting so everybody gets that week off. And
Doug will be gone next meeting too so those of you that are here for the interviews that would be
great. So we’ll give you.
Randall: Will there be…
Aanenson: Pardon me?
Randall: Is dinner provided?
Aanenson: No, we will at the work session though. Now that one in April when we have the
first meeting and everybody will have dinner at that meeting. And actually we’ve got a few
things. We’ll have the council will be approving the Comp Plan so we’re going to spend some
time going back through it again. Just like tonight we talked a little bit about the housing
section. We’ll talk about that. Some of the land uses. Some other changes or, not changes but
some of the demographics and stuff like that that we’re looking at so kind of embedded in that as
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
30
projects come through. And then one of the things you requested, some of the other
commissions goals and policies so we’ll have those compiled too so you can look through what
the other commissions are doing too so that one will be April 7th and that one we’ll have dinner
and we’ll start at 6:00 but I’ll give you notice again on that so. We do have a subdivision
potentially in March and then the Paisley Park PUD amendment so you’ll get more details on
that. And then there’s another existing large lot subdivision that’s going to subdivide. There’s
two homes and they’re going to try to make it into three so. So some things floating out there
but that’s what’s landed so far so that’s all I have.
Skistad: When is the Avienda work session? For the council. I might want to sit on that.
Aanenson: Yeah I’ll shoot you an email on that. I put it under council calendar but I don’t have
that right in front of me.
Skistad: And I actually am going to be gone next meeting.
Aanenson: That’s good to know.
Skistad: I wasn’t positive if I was going to be gone.
Aanenson: That’s the 18th.
Skistad: Yeah.
Aanenson: Perfect okay. I’ll make sure we have a quorum if anybody else is going to be gone.
Weick: It’d be the 4 of us remaining though right?
Aanenson: The 18th.
Weick: That’s all we have right?
Aanenson: Yeah we have to have 4 yeah. Yeah because Doug will be gone. So there’s 2 gone.
Weick: And Mark will be gone right?
Aanenson: Yep, yep so it takes the 4 of you. Yep. You’ll be here on the 18th? February.
Randall: Yeah.
Aanenson: Okay perfect.
Randall: I am going to be gone April 21st. That’s not the work session is it?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 4, 2020
31
Aanenson: No. April 7th correct. Yep.
Randall: Maybe we should try to do food from some of the various restaurants in town.
Aanenson: It’d be great huh?
McGonagill: I think we should.
Aanenson: Alright that’s all I had. I’m going to step out in the hall for a second.
Weick: Is this the Lyman Boulevard thing?
Bender: Yep. So I’m planning on presenting to you a quick update on.
Weick: One time out though. I think we’re going to adjourn and do this off the record. I think
that, at least that’s what the, it’s what the agenda says and that’s sort of the signal I’m getting as
well so I will, so we’ll have it as an open discussion after adjournment. So I accept a motion to
adjourn.
Skistad moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Subject City Council Action Update
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: D.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Action Update
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020
Discuss Paisley Park PUD Amendment – Tentatively scheduled to go to the Planning
Commission on March 17, 2020.
Yard Waste Collection Update – Council considering additional days.
Approve a Request for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) and Wetland Alteration Permit for
the Purpose of Repairing Landslides Along A Portion of the Minnesota Bluffs LRT
Regional Trail – Approved
Recommend Adoption of 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Approved
Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links.
g:\plan\forms\development forms\city council action update.docx
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Subject Interview New Commissioners
Section OPEN DISCUSSION Item No: F.1.
Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community
Development Director
File No:
BACKGROUND
An ad was placed in the Chanhassen Villager on January 9, 16, and 23, an article appeared in the Chanhassen
Connection which was mailed to all residents on January 24 and 25, and information was posted on the city’s website
and Facebook page. The application deadline was Friday,
January 31. The following applications have been received:
Planning Commission
Vacancies Two 3year positions
Terms Expiring on
March 31, 2020
John Tietz
Mark Undestad
New Applicants &
Addresses
1. Eric Noyes, 8622 Valley View Court
2. Mark von Oven, 6655 Horseshoe Curve
3. Brandon Carmack, 8361 W. Lake Drive
First Meeting in April April 7, 2020
Attached is the application and questionnaire for the 3 new applicants listed 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
applications, will be forwarded to the City Council for their interviews on March 2, 2020. Appointments will be made
on March 9, 2019.
ATTACHMENTS:
Commission Interview Scoring Sheet
Eric Noyes Interview Questionnaire
Mark von Oven Interview Questionnaire
Brandon Carmack Interview Questionnaire
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
Eric Noyes
Mark von Oven
Brandon Carmack
COMMISSIONER INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: Eric Noyes Commission Desired: Planning Alternate: None
1. What special qualities do you bring to the
Commission?
2. What are your reasons for applying to the
Commission?
3. What are the biggest problems you foresee
facing Chanhassen in the future?
4. What do you believe are the community’s
greatest assets?
5. What planning issues are you particularly
concerned about?
6. What do you believe are the biggest
concerns of your neighbors?
7. What do you believe the Commission does?
8. Are you involved with any other
community organizations?
9. Do you understand the time commitments it
takes to be a member of the Commission,
and are you comfortable with that?
COMMISSIONER INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: Mark von Oven Commission Desired: Planning Alternate: Park & Recreation
1. What special qualities do you bring to the
Commission?
2. What are your reasons for applying to the
Commission?
3. What are the biggest problems you foresee
facing Chanhassen in the future?
4. What do you believe are the community’s
greatest assets?
5. What planning issues are you particularly
concerned about?
6. What do you believe are the biggest
concerns of your neighbors?
7. What do you believe the Commission does?
8. Are you involved with any other
community organizations?
9. Do you understand the time commitments it
takes to be a member of the Commission,
and are you comfortable with that?
COMMISSIONER INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Name: Brandon Carmack Commission Desired: Planning Alternate: None
1. What special qualities do you bring to the
Commission?
2. What are your reasons for applying to the
Commission?
3. What are the biggest problems you foresee
facing Chanhassen in the future?
4. What do you believe are the community’s
greatest assets?
5. What planning issues are you particularly
concerned about?
6. What do you believe are the biggest
concerns of your neighbors?
7. What do you believe the Commission does?
8. Are you involved with any other
community organizations?
9. Do you understand the time commitments it
takes to be a member of the Commission,
and are you comfortable with that?