PC Minutes 01-05-21Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
2
Weick: OK great. Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: Present.
Weick: Hello, good evening. Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: Here.
Weick: Gotcha. And Commissioner Von Oven?
Von Oven: Here.
Weick: All right. I’ll try Commissioner Reeder?
Reeder: [No answer]
Weick: If he is able to join later, we will certainly welcome him in. We do have a quorum this
evening with six of the Planning Commission members. We do have a busy agenda this evening.
We have five public hearings on tonight’s agenda. We will present them as we normally do
although this is a Zoom meeting again I would implore my fellow Commissioners please don’t
test each other or hold private chats on the side through the Zoom application. Everything we
talk about needs to be public for the record. Thanks for that. Again we have five items on the
agenda tonight. Staff will present the item and Commission members will have an opportunity to
ask questions. At that time the applicant may make a presentation if they would like and also is
available for questions from the Commission members. After that we will open the public
hearing. Because we are electronic, electronically meeting, we will summarize any email we’ve
received on the item; we will take in person comment as appropriate here is the Chambers, and
we have a telephone number for phone calls if you would like to call in and get your opinion on
the record. Once we’ve appropriately heard from everybody, through the different medium, we
will close the public hearing it will be open for Planning Commission comments, open for a
motion and we will take a roll call vote at that time. As I did mention, we do have several items
on the agenda tonight. I hope we don’t have to, I hope we can move real quickly but we do have
a 10:30 p.m. curfew. I would imagine will not have to enforce that this evening but keep that in
minds as we discuss and move to vote on some of these items. We do want to keep the process
moving this evening. With that I will introduce the first item on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR A 110-
UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING FOR SENIOR LIVING LOCATED AT 1361 LAKE
DRIVE WEST (POWERS RIDGE APARTMENTS)
Generous: Thank you Chairman. Commissioners, I’ll go through the powerpoint. Planning Case
2021-04 is Lake Place at Powers Ridge. Tonight is a public hearing. This item goes forward to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
3
City Council on January 25, 2021. The applicant is TPS Holding LLC. As stated they are
requesting a site plan approval with variance for the building height for 110-unit, three-story
independent living senior residential development. The property is located at 1361 Lake Drive
West; it’s part of the Powers Ridge development. It’s zoned Planned Unit Development
Residential. The Lake Susan Hills Planned Unit Development was approved in 1987. As part of
the development, it was a mixed housing project; it included 411 single-family homes,
approximately 100 townhouse units and up to 375 multi-family units within this multi-family
area. It’s approximately 21 acres total in the multi-family portion of the development. The Lake
Susan Hills multi-family development came in in two parts. Phase 1 was Building A and it
consisted of 100 units. Phases 2-4 had a total of 244 units that were approved. The first building
was completed in 2000. The second building, the B Building, was completed in 2003. The D
Building was constructed in 2016 and 2017 and was completed and now finally, the fourth
Building C is coming in. Originally it had been approved as part of the site plan for 88 units.
The applicant has revised that plan and that’s why we have a new site plan review and they’re
coming in with 110 units. It’s still a three-story building with underground parking, however,
it’s an independent senior living building so there are some different standards required for
parking that will need to reduce the total amount of site coverage. Ah, the site plan, the currently
building again is a three-story apartment with underground parking. 110 parking stalls are
provided underneath. It has additional surface parking that provides the one for, the one stall per
four units for visitor parking and it provides parking on the east end for, there’s a community
building that’s part of the entire association and development. Architecturally, the building has
significant architectural variation. It has multiple plains and multiple building materials. It
includes masonry, and either they haven’t finalized the number for either block or a brick finish
or a cultured stone. If we could go to the overhead picture the materials sample board is on, it
also has horizontal lap siding fiber cement which is very consistent throughout, there we are,
developments within Chanhassen. It also has vertical board and batten in a white artic white
color that provides some lightness. It has gray asphalt shingles on the roof. It has a standing
seamed metal canopy over the entranceway and it has either and they’re waiting for final pricing
on either a bronze or a white window finish, framing so they provided us both those architectural
drawings so that we can see what each looks like. Again the final pricing will determine what the
final elevation is. Again, you see the articulation on the north side, north and west side of the
buildings. Most but not all of the units have either decks or patio areas of them. The building
itself has an outdoor patio on the west end as well as one on the northeast corner of the property.
Floor plans again. 110 parking units are in the underground parking area. Each floor has a mix
of one, two, one, one with a den, two and two with a den units on them. The entrance area is a
canopy or is a common area. There’s also an outdoor deck which leads down to a lower patio
area that includes a pickle ball court for residents of the development. The second and third
floors again repeat the layout of the individual units, a concourse and an elevator system. The
third floor has additionally has common area, a community area. They are providing an
alternative where a portion of this common area would be a recessed roof-type deck area where
people could go out and get some fresh air. Again, they’re waiting on final pricing to determine
whether that’ll go forward. Erik will review the utilities and grand and stormwater operations.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
4
Henricksen: Thanks, Bob. Just checking here. Everybody hear me ok? [Sounds in background
acknowledging]. So I will be going over some of the stormwater, grading and drainage on this
slide and then continue on to the utilities and access to the site. The applicant for stormwater is
proposing the use of two stormwater BMPs. One on the northwest portion of the site is an at-
grade filtration basin and the one on the southeast side is an underground filtration basin to treat
the stormwater. The information provided in their stormwater management report does indicate
that the approach is feasible and they are going to be meeting total suspended solids and total
phosphorus reductions along with volume and rate controls. However, these storm systems as
you can see through the red arrows do discharge into the public systems. There’s a public
stormwater system to the north that they’re proposing to tie into off of Lake Drive West which
connects to a stormwater pond that the city owns and maintains and to the south they’ll also be
discharging their stormwater into a public system, another pond to the south. As such, we are
requesting that the applicant through the condition analyze and ensure, confirm essentially that
the volumes can be handled and accounted for within the public storm system. There’s not too
much concern about that from staff however, you know, we do want to see that taken into
account in their modeling to ensure that those systems are sized appropriately. Additionally on
some of the grading plans and the stormwater plans we would and we will be requiring on the
updated final construction plan submittal some drainage arrows and emergency overflow routes.
There is a low point at the southeast area of the site that’s adjacent to the current clubhouse. With
low points, yep right there, there’s going to be emergency overflow routes and we just want to
ensure that the stormwater won’t be directed towards that clubhouse so plans will have to be
updated accordingly and will be reviewed on the final construction plans. Utilities, there’s
nothing too exciting about utilities on this site. It is adequately served by public sanitary and
water main. The applicant is looking to tap into these mains although there are existing stubs and
apparently it doesn’t fit into their site plan so they will be abandoning those per city standards
and then tapping the two new mains, or the two new laterals, excuse me. The water is begin
proposed as an eight inch. It’s going to be a dual domestic and a fire main to the apartment
complex. Sanitary sewer is going to be eight inches as well. There just going to core drill into an
existing manhole which is actually already located on the property. The only extraordinary kind
of condition, even if extraordinary, is that the monument sign that they’re proposing, the
location, is actually right on top of one of our sanitary mains so we will require that to be located
outside of the drainage and utility easement, a D&U a size for appropriate spacing for
maintenance and possible reconstruction of the line if that’s ever to occur. That’s really the only
condition. They will have to get an encroachment agreement if they do kind of go into the….
Access to the site, this site as Bob had kind of mentioned has been built out over several phases
of the PUD. During 2000, the site access one through four were built out to access the site based
on previous site plans. The applicant has elected to eliminate access one but still utilize two,
three and four. Access two and four are utilized to get to the above-ground parking and also the
main entrance to the apartment complex while access three is going to be for the underground
parking. Staff did review and we did receive public comment that when, if you imagine using
access three to go in and out of the parking, when you’re exiting the parking ramp is going to
require users to kind of look over their shoulder and to the left down that serpentine street to
ensure there’s no cars oncoming. So, one of the thoughts was if it was relocated to the east side,
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
5
or the west side rather than the east side, maybe that would help but essentially the layout of the
access or this private drive would the same affect where vehicular users would still have to look
over their left shoulder so staff recommended in the report to have the developer just reassess
kind of their site circulation; take a look at possible alternatives to locations of maybe
underground parking. While not required at this time, it’s something that they should take into
account just to try to make the site….. It was already built out as such so their kind of just using
what’s there but it can hurt to take another look at that. Lastly, pedestrian access on the site. So
as you can see there are throughout the phases and the buildout of this PUD, there have been
concrete sidewalks being installed which Bob was kind of showing there; the existing ones are
kind of gray. There are some gaps that will be created so the applicant will be required to kind of
fill those pedestrian access routes for circulation within the site. Additionally, there an existing
trail to the west of the development that was extended from Phase, I believe, 1 and the applicant
will be required or the developer to extend the public trail system just to continue that route,
eventually getting all the way over to Sunrise Park, I believe is the name, just east. And with that,
Bob, I can turn it back over to you.
Generous: Staff review of the landscaping plans show that there was some deficiencies in their
plan. There are deficits in the boulevard plantings that are required as part of any development
and that’s one of the conditions of approval. There’s a deficit in the parking lot landscaping.
They need to add additional trees and they want to change their species diversity as part of the
tree inventory so that they meet city standards so we don’t have too many of one genial. Finally,
we also recommend that additional landscaping be provided along this easterly access to provide
some screening for the lower, first level units on that side of the building so they can revise that
as part of their building permit process. As part of the application, the applicant is requesting a
variance for the building height. Our ordinance defines building height as the height from grade
to the midpoint of the roof and as they showed on their architectural plan, they are about 42 feet
in height. The R12 zoning district limits height to 35 feet so they are requesting a variance. The
primary reasons we believe that they meet all the criteria in the variance operations and
specifically they are looking at their…they will be in harmony….consistent with the comp plan,
they’re providing a multi-family development on a multi-family guided site and zoned
appropriately. The practical difficulties are they’re trying to build to current design standards,
building standards. They’re going with 10- and nine-foot ceiling heights and they’re using a
foot-and-a half mechanical joists between floors so they can run all of the mechanical equipment
within that. Additionally, because of the steepness of the slope, they’ve made the roof height
taller to that it sheds the snow in the winter. Staff is recommending approval the variance. As
part of this project, the city is looking at requiring that they provide affording senior housing for
the community. Kate will address that briefly.
Aanenson: I just wanted to let you know that you will see this project back if it goes forward, is
approved by you and for the City Council and that would be via a tax increment financing
district. The City Council started discussing this with the applicant last summer, in July and
through August and September, just to talk about the potential for a senior affordable project. As
you know, in the comprehensive plan, we did identify that affordable senior housing is in need in
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
6
the city of Chanhassen. The other project on this site was built for seniors but there’s not an
affordability component. So in order to make that happen, the Council is contemplating doing a
tax increment district so this will come back to you as part of the process but I just wanted to
briefly inform you kind of, of the process. It’s kind of truncated in a couple different
components. Our financial consultants…once this goes through the City Council, they will have
to set a public hearing, there’s a 30-day comment period the school district, everybody gets to
weigh in on this but it will come back to you because you will have to say that the zoning of this
this property is consistent with the comprehensive plan. You don’t get to weight in to the
financial component but you will see this again. So I just wanted to let the Planning Commission
be aware of that. Again, as Bob stated, there is a requirement that the Council set a TIF district of
50% of the units have to be affordable at the 60% median income. So that was a proposal that
was presented but they’ll go through that whole process, the Council will, and then again you’ll
have another opportunity to weigh in on the consistence to the comprehensive plan. So just
wanted to share that with you.
Generous: Finally, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with the variance. We are
also requesting to add planning condition no. 6 that the developer shall record cross parking and
cross access agreements with the parcels in the Powers Ridge development. Originally, this
development had been under one owner and platted together and so the city attorney at the time
said that we could record these cross access and cross parking agreements as part of each site
plan and so that was one of the items missed as part of my review and so I’m bringing that
forward that that be added before we go forward to City Council. With that, I’d be happy to
answer any questions.
Weick: Wonderful. Thank you. Any Commission members with questions of either Kate or Bob?
Someone is speaking but cannot understand]
Weick: Is that Commissioner Von Oven? I can’t quite tell what you’re…pretty muffled.
Von Oven: Nope, not me.
McGonagill: Commissioner McGonagill. Can you hear me now?
Weick: No.
McGonagill: Can you hear me now?
Weick: Better.
McGonagill: OK, very good. We’ll try it this way.
Weick: Go for it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
7
McGonagill: Bob this is a question for the Engineering staff. When I look at the original plan
on Page 3, they did show parking going out of…to the building. And when they go to Page 5,
and they actually have a site plan, they only have one way in. That fact that is almost an S shape
inside of that I am concerned about traffic in the parking area and again not having the….. from
the garage on the west end as well. I understand that when you leave on the west end, you have
to look over your left shoulder but you’re not crossing traffic, you’re turning into traffic where as
if you go out of the east end and go to the left, you’re actually having to cross over traffic. And I
and I’ve got to go. The original design made a lot more sense to me that this one when there’s
only one way out of that long parking garage. There’s my question. Why is that OK?
Weick: I’m just going to repeat the question as I understood it. The question is, I think, why not
have exits out of, why not have three and four as entrances and exits?
Generous: I believe the applicant’s architect and engineer would be better to answer that one,
however, as part of the city review, there is no concern expressed by either the fire marshal or the
building official with the design itself.
Weick: So having only one exit point isn’t an issue?
Generous: Right. That’s a vehicle exit. There’s multiple pedestrian exits out of there but the
applicant’s engineer or architect would be a resource in answering that.
Weick: OK
McGonagill: Bob, I appreciate that. My point on that is where they have the exit point, you’re
asking senior….to go out the cross traffic at that point and I believe that’s more unsafe that going
out the….you follow me?
Generous: I believe we haven’t thrown out the prospects of having that 2nd access point into it,
as a matter of fact, as part of my initial comments to the architect, I was asking if they were
going to access point also. Yes, it would be a better resource.
McGonagill: OK
Weick: Are there any other questions from the planning commissioners at this point?
Skistad: I have a question.
Weick: Sure
Skistad: If you look on Page 13, under the Grading, the groundwater. It looks like the
groundwater is only 10 feet from the bottom of the parking garage. That seems like that’s a
concern. And also, sounds like it could change the height of the building if they hit groundwater
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
8
earlier than expect to hit it? Because all of our water in Chanhassen is basically well water so
we’ve got to protect that groundwater, so that’s a concern for me. I mean, are we endangering the
city wells by building so close, a large apartment building with all the parking down there, even
though it says we’re supposed to catch it before it goes down there. You know cars are going to
be bringing down material when they park in the garage.
Aanenson: Erik Henricksen, do you want to answer that question?
Henricksen: Ya, 10 feet for our review would be adequate separate from groundwater to bottom
floor elevation of a foundation. City Code as it currently stands is three feet separation. Anything
less than three feet would require grade adjustment. Based on our review of the borings, there
was one location that had it within two feet. Again, based on those borings and the groundwater
sampling, there really wasn’t any concern of those elevations. There are certain subdivisions that
go in, for instance, where you have house pads that are within four feet but it’s still allowable by
city ordinance. As that is adequate separation from the bottom of the foundation to the
groundwater tables. It was addressed in our review and it is conditioned I believe that, if
groundwater is, they have to have a geotechnical engineer on site at all times during grading
operations and if groundwater is encountered, the grading plan would have to adjusted but it does
have to come under review by city staff prior to that being adjusted.
Weick: Commissioner Skistad, does that answer your question or do you have a follow up on
that?
Skistad: Well, I understand what he’s saying but it’s still a concern and I think also if you look at
it, what was allowed here via the 2040 plan was only 59 apartments, 59 units and so now we’re
going to basically double the units which is part of the reason why I’m assuming the parking
garage needs to be the way it is, is for that reason so we’re trying to, I think we’re building too
much building too much building for the land as per our 2040 plan and I understand that it’s
possible for us to increase but I’m not sure that the land here actually supports that in this
instance, despite the fact that we would like to have more senior living.
Generous: Commissioner, as part of the site plan that was approved for this, the original approval
was for an 88-unit apartment building which is Building C which had more underground parking
requirements because it was not a senior building so it had one and a half parking spaces per unit
had to be underground so the footprint’s almost exactly the same what was originally approved.
They were able to reduce it because they’re going to a senior building and have less parking
requirements.
Skistad: Well, just because it’s approved doesn’t mean it was a good idea. The other concerns
that I have are the, you look at all of the very end, there’s like 40 recommendation points when
you go through this one. I think we need to go back and nail some of this down a little bit more
specifically.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
9
Weick: And your primary concern is around size relative to groundwater…
Skistad: I think it’s the 40 points, you’ve got, you’re doubling the housing for the 2040
maximum density plan, you’ve got 51 additional subsidized housing for taxpayers, you’ve got an
additional traffic light, potentially, and if we’re doing a TIF, aren’t we really pay for that traffic
light anyway. There’s additional city services needed for the additional building units and
there’s no, I don’t see any tax offsetting that and the project won’t pay for itself which is why
they want a TIF also would be my expectation. The driveway is an issue and with the letter that
we received, there’s the underground lot which potential is too close to the groundwater. There
are grading changes that are required. I don’t know, I just feel like there are too many variances
for the project when you need three pages if we’re going to do this, we recommended if this. I
think that’s too many.
Weick: OK. Thank you for sharing those. I think those are all good points.
Von Oven: So question for staff. Are we still on that portion of the…
Weick: Please.
Von Oven: Thanks. Should be an easy one. Is the only variance that we are looking at here the
difference between 35 and 42 feet? Is that the entire reason that this issue is in front of us?
Generous: That’s the only variance as part of the plan. It’s site plan approval because they’re
increasing the number of units on this one site from what was previously approved.
Von Oven: Right. The increase of the units which leads to a decrease of the parking spaces
because it’s a senior unit. Right?
Generous: Correct.
Von Oven: Then just out of pure curiosity, I think there’s a potential picture of the front of it on
Page 8. I’m that point at the top of the gable is the 42 feet. Can I assume that the rest of the
building is lower than 35 feet at the highest point of the roof, to the right?
Generous: It’s actually the midpoint of that gable, approximately here that we measure the
building height to. So the top will be higher than that. I looked at one number, I think it was 39
feet.
Weick: I don’t know if you have report in front of you Commissioner Von Oven, I had the same
thought and I was able to kind of expand the picture on Page 6. I’ll just finish my thought. If you
kind of look at the visually, you can see that the roofline of the entire building is actually in line
with the top of that…you know what I mean?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
10
Von Oven: Let see. Did you blow up that picture that’s on the right-hand side?
Weick: I did.
Von Oven: OK got it.
Weick: When you do that it actual brings, the whole building actually peaks pretty darn close to
the top of that peak. It’s a visual, when you look at it just from the front, it’s a funny visual.
Von Oven: Yep. Thank you.
Weick: Other questions? Hearing none, I would invite the applicant to talk about the project and
do keep in mind we did have one specific regarding the parking 3 and 4 if you are able to answer
that question, that would be wonderful.
Simning: Yes, I am. Todd Simning, 2166 Paisley Path. Long-time local resident of Chanhassen.
Thank you Bob, Erik and Kate for a good introduction on the overall project. First, just want to
say that I’m excited to bring this project to the city. I’ve done a lot developments in the city, a lot
of market rate, higher end homes. This really is the first time that we’re able to bring a project to
Chanhassen that brings an affordable complex to the city. It’s something that I’ve been talking to
Kate, the Mayor Elise Ryan, and other staff about for quite some time about what does the city
need and how can we actually bring it to the city. This is actually something personal to me. I’ve
been building a lot of really nice houses for a long time. This is the first time that we’re actually
looking to do something long term to actually help the city. One of the most important things that
we want to do for any municipal, any city, and particularly the one you live in, is to try to make
certain that you can keep aging residents back into the community so that their not forced to go
out west or to areas that their families are at and they’ve been here a long time and it’s one of the
reasons why we are bring this project to the city of Chanhassen. One of the Planning
Commission members was stating that there are 40 recommendations and this isn’t paying for
itself and granted, it’s not. If it was 100% market rate again, yes, it would probably pay for itself
but when you’re looking at trying to bring an affordable complex to any development, it’s very
difficult to make the numbers work. As Kate knows, and City Councilmembers, we had two or
three planning sessions along with working with the city financial consultant, Ahlers, and really
analyzed what it was going to cost to do this. Is the city going to recoup their costs? Is it going to
cost the city anything, and I think, Kate, you can back me up on that, that it actually wasn’t going
to cost the city anything. It was more of what can we do to bring the affordable housing into the
city of Chanhassen but almost more importantly, if you look at our structure, you look at the
units, you look at the amenities that we have. In most municipalities, people are a little reluctant
to have “affordable” come into their neighborhoods because it means that they’re going to have a
nice building. It’s going to be downgraded. Well, in this case, when you look at the pickle ball,
gardens on the west-hand side, again, somebody has brought up why aren’t you using both of the
entrances/exits for the garage. One of the biggest reasons why we’re not using the west entrance,
is that we actually wanted to create a garden over there. We want to create an area where the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
11
elderly can actually have a garden, can actually have a nice area to sit down and enjoy. There
will probably be a dog run over in that area. It really sets itself up to be an optimal spot for
sunshine, relaxation for those that are in our community. With that, with you look at the east side
driveway, number 1, it was already predesigned, so we’re not creating anything new. I actually
went out to the site and I would encourage all of you to go to the site and review that. I actually
backed up onto our property and set myself up exactly where our driveway where our driveway
was going to exit and you’ll notice that, in the staff report, it said you’re going to be looking
back to your left and in reality, you’re not going to be looking back to your left. We’re actually
sitting at the high point where the road from Lake Drive W. come up, it actually plateaus well
before our entrance into our garage, which is straight across from the other one, and you just
naturally look to your left and you have a very, very good visible and then secondarily, on your
right-hand side, it’s actually coming down and you have another really good visible area. So our
intent, and I want to go on the record and I want to Council to also know this, our intent really is
not to utilize both exits, particularly the on the west-hand wide because, again, we’re trying to
create something that is different in the city of Chanhassen where we’re actually creating garden
space for people that actually live there and then, secondly, the area on the east side, again, I’ll
encourage you to go there, you are sitting so high up and you’re really at a plateau that you really
have good visibility at that area. So, I just really want to make sure that hit that. For me
personally, I have a vested interest in this project. I do very high quality projects. I’ve numerous
developments in Chanhassen. I think probably at least a dozen or so over the last 34 years. In this
case with this senior project, I’m not only going to be the developer but I’m going to be one of
four owners. There are five of us that are going to own it long term. We have a vested interest in
producing a high quality project similarly to what I have actually created in the city of
Chanhassen from my single-family development. I’ve never done a multi-family here. This will
be the first one but super excited to actually bring the affordable component into the city of
Chanhassen. One thing I wanted to know, and I know Kate had noted that she had thought she
thought that 50% of the units were going to be affordable and I’m pretty sure, Kate, according to
Ahler’s report it was going to be 45% of the building which would be 50 units. So not 50% but I
think it was 50 units and can make certain that we go through that but I just wanted to make
certain that I hit that. So, number 1, the relocation of the garage. We are planning on using the
east entrance. Secondly, with the trail system, I was going to make a comment that I didn’t think
the trail behind our building, along Lake Drive W. was going to be important because our
sidewalks are going to interconnect and there are two pedestrian crossings on the east and west
side that actually go across the road and connect with the trail system along Lake Drive W. but I
heard Erik state that they are planning on actually trying to get this connection all the way down
to the local park which is just to the west of us and if that’s the case, then it does make sense that
we do construct that trail all the way along the back side and eventually it’s connect with the
park system. I don’t know if that’s a city project that’s going to do that or local because it looks
like it’s city property from the west there. What else did I have? I think that was pretty much it
on my side as a developer. I look at 40 recommendations and I spoke with both of my architects
this morning about the architecture and I also spoke with Matt from Civil Site Group today
about, “hey is there anything that’s giving you any hesitation that we can’t accomplish what Erik
and Bob and staff has kind of recommended that we change” and neither one of them gave me
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
12
any indication that there was anything out of the ordinary, so of the 40 points on there, it might
seem onerous that there’s 40 items, but from our standpoint, it didn’t seem like it was, they were
all very small very small items for the 40. So, with that I will open it up to any questions. If
there’s something technical, I will open it up to either, Even, my architect or, Matt, my civil
engineer. Thank you.
Weick: Thank you and I appreciate your openness and candor about the project. I think that
perspective is helpful. I would open it to my fellow commissioners if you have any follow up
questions, directly. You may do so now. Any questions for the applicant? Yes. Well, thank you
and thank you for providing that level of detail about the project. At least for myself, that was
helpful. So thanks for doing that. At this time I will open the public hearing. The number, 952-
227-1630, if you’d like to be heard. We are watching the phones. Where there any emails sent in
on this one?
Generous: The one letter that we included as part of the packet with the concern about the
entrance to the parking lot. I had several people call.
Young-Walters: We have a call…
Weick: Let’s do it.
Kathleen Jorfee: 1341 Powers Ridge. I just have a question because 110 units and you have 110
parking places, I feel there are…will rent and maybe have two cars. I know the building at 1351,
they have very little parking for visitors and if you have a couple with two cars, they’re going to
take up the parking lot and you know with snow removal piled up, that takes up space. I don’t
know, is this a concern?
Weick: Thank you for the question. I think we would have city…[someone speaking in
background]…was that your only question?
Young-Walters: I believe we have another call and then I believe staff will respond to the
question. If you could please state your name for the record.
Sherm Bile: Hi my name is Sherm Bile and I live at 1321 Lake Drive W. which is Powers Ridge.
We’ll be a neighbor to the new building coming up. A good neighbor I hope and we’re looking
forward to it but I wanted to ask or remind the Commission that they have a letter of mine in
their packet, or at least they should and it’s regarding the exit to the building on the east side.
I’ve heard a lot of flowery talk about that tonight but I would also ask the Commission to come
out here and park right where the presenter parked and give us your opinion on how you think
that driveway is. It’s a narrow S curved driveway that is quite narrow even now with the snow
coming in from the side. It faces the east then coming up, we’re trying to accommodate seniors
and I’m a senior, I’m 83 years old, nimble as a catfish but I’m telling you, I pay very close
attention when I’m driving out the S curve and that’s literally what it is, it’s an S curve and I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
13
don’t think we need to challenge our seniors like that going in and out of their home. Now the
west end has none of those concerns. It’s very close to Lake Drive W., it’s got a much wider
driveway. I paced it off, it’s at least five or six feet wider, it’s much shorter and you turn right
and that’s very important for you to remember, exiting the east, you turn left and if you’re a
driver, you know what a challenge left turn always are. You’ve got to cross two lanes of traffic,
get in the right lane, make sure there’s nothing coming from both directions. That exit on the east
end exits directly across from the 1321 building which is needless hassle for seniors coming in
and out. So I ask you to just give it your best judgement. Pretend your mom and dad were
driving in and out of that day in and day out and ask yourself, which driveway would you rather
have them driveway out of, the west end or the east end. I think you commission members for
your service. You guys are really good and you deserve to be recognized. Chanhassen has a good
bunch of people in their local government and I support you all the way. The planners, the
commissioners, the Council and Godspeed to you all. Just read my memo, read my email and
assess for yourself. Thank you very much for listening. Bye.
Weick: Thank you so much. Can’t see, do we have other calls?
Young-Walters: We do not have any other calls.
Weick: OK. So we had two calls which is exciting because we haven’t had a call before so I
apologize if I got a little flustered. The first question I would prefer if staff would try and speak
to what the Code is for the number of parking spaces and I guess I’ll just leave it at that.
Generous: The applicant actually exceeds Code requirements. They need to provide 128. That
would be the 110 for the units themselves and then 28 for that additional parking. They need a
total of 128; they’re providing a total of 155 parking spaces on their property and so that again is
part of the reason that we’re doing the cross access and cross parking agreement because, within
the entire development, there is some cross connection that are taking place. Additionally, if you
look at the driveway on the westerly side of this entire development, it’s all on this lot. So there
must be some that must have previously been recorded but we want to make sure that those are
in place for perpetuity.
Weick: OK
Aanenson: I would just add. I think Bob pointed out earlier that there are different parking ratios
depending on number of bedrooms. That’s a factor that’s weighed in too, whether it’s senior
housing or two or three bedrooms all based on that.
Weick: OK. So it exceeds what the Code is. I do understand the caller’s concern with potential
visitors and multi-car families, assuming that the Code takes that into consideration when trying
to weigh how many spots are required vs. the space that they take up. So that’s helpful at least
knowing what the minimum numbers are for that space and certainly the commissioners can
form their own opinions on that. And then the second call, and again, we’ve talked about it, but I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
14
do appreciate the interest of the caller and although we read the emails that come in, it’s always
nice to from people in their own voices in their own passion what their opinion is about an item
so thank you very much for calling in on that. I think we’ve addressed it, it’s certainly out there
for commissioner consideration as we move forward. Are there any other calls that came in while
I was babbling, MacKenzie? No, OK. So I will close the public hearing portion of this item and
open up for Planning Commission comment, motion, votes, all of the above. Thoughts and
considerations regarding this item?
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, can you hear me better now?
Weick: Oh wonderful. That is so much better.
McGonagill: I had to reset my speakers.
Weick: Not a problem.
McGonagill: That was my error. I think it’s a beautiful project. I appreciate the developer and
what he’s doing and I like the things he’s putting in place. I am hung up though, still, on the west
end egress. I think it needs to be there. I think it’s just too long. I think there needs to be two
outlets on a parking garage that long and I agree with the last caller with the comments of going
in and out of crossing traffic. That was a concern I looked just myself. I haven’t been to the site
but I was just looking at the plans. So outside of that issue of the west exit. I do appreciate the
gardens because I do love to garden but I’d rather have safe access to the building than gardens
so outside of the parking deal, I mean the driveway, I’m okay. I just don’t know how we deal
with that because it’s not the variance their asking but it’s the only concern I have with the
application, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Weick: OK and that’s certainly a part of the record that’s passed to City Council really no matter
which we vote on the item so certainly that I think is obvious in the record at this point and
something they would certainly consider regardless of what’s passed to them. Other thoughts? I
know there were some concerns and questions. Any final thoughts on those?
Skistad: Well I think I don’t have any problem with the building, I think the building is beautiful
and the use is beautiful but I still stand on my other comments and concerns I have overall and I
will not be supporting this.
Weick: OK. Thank you. I certainly would entertain a motion. I’m not trying to cut anyone’s
thoughts off though so if you do have comment, please do so. I think the motion is up on, at least
I can, is up on the screen. I guess I would ask if there aren’t comments and there isn’t a motion at
this point, can you guys hear me?
Voice: Yes
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
15
Weick: I would just say that if there are things that are preventing you to make a motion, we
would certainly discuss that and you’re certainly able to make any motion you’d like. You are
not limited to what is on the screen in front of you. If there was a different opinion that you
wanted the Commission to vote on, you can certainly do that as well.
Von Oven: I was sitting, enjoying the uncomfortable silence because I did have a ton to add.
Weick: I wasn’t.
Von Oven: Yes I know. I’m watching you squirm. I will say a couple of things. One, I
thoroughly appreciate the thoroughness of my fell Planning Commissioners. This is one of those
where I went in and read through this whole thing and I didn’t see any huge issues with it. I think
there’s one reason for that when I read through the 30 points and everything that was here and
that is that if there were major safety concerns or major sort of bad stuff in here, I don’t think it
would make it through our city staff. I don’t think city staff would be recommending to approve
this. That made me feel better about the long list and Mr. Generous addressed it. The second one
is, I have not sat and looked out of my window the way Mr. Bile did so I have not had that
experience and I appreciate the caller coming in. I also believe if there were truly a safety
concern, city staff would be calling it out and I’m strengthened by the fact that Mr. Simning is an
investor in this property himself so if there truly is a danger there, he is putting himself at risk.
So with that I am happy to make the motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends approval of the site plan for a 110-unit, three-story apartment building with a
variance for the building height to allow 42 feet to the midpoint of the roof subject to the
Conditions of Approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. The
developer shall record cross parking and cross access agreements with the other parcels in the
Powers Ridge development.
Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Von Oven. Do we have a second?
Noyes: Chairman, Commissioner Noyes. I’ll second.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Noyes. With that, before we vote, any final comment? I will
conduct a roll call vote. Commissioner Von Oven?
Von Oven: Aye
Weick: In favor. Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: In favor.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: No
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
16
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Aye
Weick: Thank you. I will call Commission Reeder. I’m not sure he joined though. I don’t think
so. No? OK. And Commissioner Randall?
Randall: Aye.
Weick: In favor. I also vote in favor. The motion passes, five in favor, one opposed and will go
to City Council with all comment attached. Thank you again everybody. Bob, thanks for your
presentation. Thank you to the applicant for being available and thank you to the commissioners
as always, important and educated input.
Von Oven moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the site plan for a 110-unit, three-story apartment building
with a variance for the building height to allow 42 feet to the midpoint of the roof subject to
the Conditions of Approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
The developer shall record cross parking and cross access agreements with the other
parcels in the Powers Ridge development. The motion passes with a vote of five in favor
and one opposed and will go to City Council with all comment attached.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3616 RED CEDAR POINT
Young-Walters: Thank you. This is Planning Case 2021-01. It is a variance to expand an existing
nonconforming deck at 3616 Red Cedar Point Road. As a reminder, if the Planning Commission
does not pass this or denies this by at ¾ majority vote, it will go to the City Council on
January 25, 2021. Additional, anyone aggrieved by decision of the Planning Commission, may
appear the decision and they will have four days to register an appeal with staff in writing which
would also then move it to the City Council. With that being said, I’ll jump into it. The location
is Red Cedar Point. We have had quite a few variances over the years in this area. This is 3616
Red Cedar Point here. It’s zoned Residential Single-Family. This is technically a corner lot due
to the presence of right-of-way (ROW) here. The zoning district requires a 20,000-square foot
minimum lot area, 30-foot setbacks from any street frontage so that would be 30 feet from the
east as well as the southern lot line and then 10-foot setbacks for the side yard and a 75-foot
shoreland setback. Properties in this area are limited to 25% lot cover, are permitted one water-
oriented accessory structure with a 10-foot setback from the lake and that structure would be
limited to 250 square feet in size. The existing conditions on this site. The lot is 7,206 square
feet. It has only 77½ feet of the required 90 feet of lot frontage along the south and only 45 of the
required 90 feet of lot frontage along the lake. The house has a nonconforming 72.8-foot
shoreland setback and the deck has a nonconforming 62-foot shoreland setback. It has a