03-02-21 Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
ELECTRONIC MEETING
Due to the COVID19 pandemic, for the next few weeks it is anticipated that some or all members of the
Planning Commission will participate in meetings by telephone and/or web conference pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 13D.021, rather than in person at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting
place in the Chanhassen City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota.
The Public Hearings portion of the Planning Commission agenda allows for the public to provide comments
on those agenda items. To help ensure an open public process, we have made accommodations for the
public to continue to view and participate in public hearings by selecting one of two options:
EMAIL your comments to the Planning Commission at pccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.All
comments received by 6:00 p.m.on the day of the meeting will be included as a part of the Planning
Commission meeting. This is the Planning Commission’s preferred method of
public participation.
WATCH the meeting live online at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/agendas or on Mediacom Cable
Channel 107.2. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm. PHONE in your comments at 9522271630 when
the Chairman opens the desired public hearing for comment. The Chairman will take each call in the
order received.
For all options, you must provide your name and address for the record.
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Approve Proposed Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 18 Concerning Tree
Surveys and Chapter 20 Concerning Landscaping Standards
2.Approve Amending City Code Concerning Reconciling Intent Statements and Uses
for Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM), Mixed Medium Density (R8) and
High Density Residential (R12) Zoning Districts
3.Approve Amending City Code Concerning Increasing the Final Plat and Metes and
Bounds Subdivision Recording Timeline to 120 Days
C.NEW BUSINESS
1.Adopt a Resolution Affirming that the TIF District for the Lakes at Chanhassen
Development is Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONTUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021, 7:00 PMCITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDELECTRONIC MEETINGDue to the COVID19 pandemic, for the next few weeks it is anticipated that some or all members of thePlanning Commission will participate in meetings by telephone and/or web conference pursuant toMinnesota Statutes, Section 13D.021, rather than in person at the Planning Commission’s regular meetingplace in the Chanhassen City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota.The Public Hearings portion of the Planning Commission agenda allows for the public to provide commentson those agenda items. To help ensure an open public process, we have made accommodations for thepublic to continue to view and participate in public hearings by selecting one of two options:EMAIL your comments to the Planning Commission at pccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.Allcomments received by 6:00 p.m.on the day of the meeting will be included as a part of the PlanningCommission meeting. This is the Planning Commission’s preferred method ofpublic participation.WATCH the meeting live online at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/agendas or on Mediacom CableChannel 107.2. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm. PHONE in your comments at 9522271630 whenthe Chairman opens the desired public hearing for comment. The Chairman will take each call in theorder received.For all options, you must provide your name and address for the record.A.CALL TO ORDERB.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Approve Proposed Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 18 Concerning TreeSurveys and Chapter 20 Concerning Landscaping Standards2.Approve Amending City Code Concerning Reconciling Intent Statements and Usesfor Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM), Mixed Medium Density (R8) andHigh Density Residential (R12) Zoning Districts3.Approve Amending City Code Concerning Increasing the Final Plat and Metes andBounds Subdivision Recording Timeline to 120 DaysC.NEW BUSINESS1.Adopt a Resolution Affirming that the TIF District for the Lakes at ChanhassenDevelopment is Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 2, 2021
E.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.Review of Legal Opinions
2.City Council Action Update
F.ADJOURNMENT
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, March 2, 2021
Subject Approve Proposed Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 18 Concerning Tree Surveys and
Chapter 20 Concerning Landscaping Standards
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending
City Code Chapter 18 concerning tree surveys and Chapter 20 concerning landscaping standards.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Goal six of the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Natural Resources Section is to “maintain a healthy and diverse
urban forest.” One of the four policies enumerated to support this goal is “Continue to maintain a diversity of species in
all public tree planting projects. At a minimum, use the 302010 rule to select trees for projects.” The 302010 rule is
the principle that no more than 30 percent of trees should come from any one family, no more than 20 percent of trees
should come from any one genus, and no more than 10 percent of trees should come from any one species. This
minimum level of diversity helps to limit the amount of damage that a single disease, pest, or event can do to the city’s
urban forest. While the City’s subdivision ordinance was amended to incorporate this standard in 2019, the City’s
general landscaping standards were not amended to include a tree diversity requirement. Staff proposes amending the
City Code to extend this standard to the general landscaping requirements in order to ensure that site plans and other
projects align with 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies.
The City’s subdivision ordinance requires that applicants submit a tree survey in order to allow staff to evaluate the
development’s impact on the natural environment and ensure compliance with the City’s tree preservation and canopy
coverage requirements; however, unlike other environmental studies required by the City, there is no requirement that
the tree survey be current. In some cases tree studies done many years prior to the subdivision application are
submitted to meet this requirement. Since natural features like trees and forests change over time, this can lead to
situations where the conditions represented by the submitted survey no longer reflect the conditions on the site. In order
to ensure that the City has accurate information from which to determine a project’s compliance with the City’s tree
preservation requirements, staff recommends amending the City Code to require that the submitted tree survey be no
more than two years old.
A full discussion of the proposed amendment can be found in the attached issue paper.
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, March 2, 2021SubjectApprove Proposed Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 18 Concerning Tree Surveys andChapter 20 Concerning Landscaping StandardsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendingCity Code Chapter 18 concerning tree surveys and Chapter 20 concerning landscaping standards.SUMMARY OF REQUESTGoal six of the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Natural Resources Section is to “maintain a healthy and diverseurban forest.” One of the four policies enumerated to support this goal is “Continue to maintain a diversity of species inall public tree planting projects. At a minimum, use the 302010 rule to select trees for projects.” The 302010 rule isthe principle that no more than 30 percent of trees should come from any one family, no more than 20 percent of treesshould come from any one genus, and no more than 10 percent of trees should come from any one species. Thisminimum level of diversity helps to limit the amount of damage that a single disease, pest, or event can do to the city’surban forest. While the City’s subdivision ordinance was amended to incorporate this standard in 2019, the City’sgeneral landscaping standards were not amended to include a tree diversity requirement. Staff proposes amending theCity Code to extend this standard to the general landscaping requirements in order to ensure that site plans and otherprojects align with 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies.The City’s subdivision ordinance requires that applicants submit a tree survey in order to allow staff to evaluate thedevelopment’s impact on the natural environment and ensure compliance with the City’s tree preservation and canopycoverage requirements; however, unlike other environmental studies required by the City, there is no requirement thatthe tree survey be current. In some cases tree studies done many years prior to the subdivision application aresubmitted to meet this requirement. Since natural features like trees and forests change over time, this can lead tosituations where the conditions represented by the submitted survey no longer reflect the conditions on the site. In orderto ensure that the City has accurate information from which to determine a project’s compliance with the City’s treepreservation requirements, staff recommends amending the City Code to require that the submitted tree survey be nomore than two years old.A full discussion of the proposed amendment can be found in the attached issue paper.
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Sec. 1861 – This section outlines the subdivision ordinance’s landscaping and tree preservation requirements, including
the 302010 rule and tree survey requirement.
Sec. 201183 – This section lists the landscaping requirements that are applied to site plan reviews.
BACKGROUND
Staff presented this item to the City Council during their August 24, 2020 work session and was instructed to bring it
before the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Code be amended to include the tree diversity standards within the landscaping
requirements and to require tree surveys to be no older than two years old.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
CNYMCHAI'IHASSXI'I
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
March2,202l
S[IBJ: Tree Diversity Standards and Inventory Expiration
ISSUES
While the subdivision ordinance was amended in 2019 to reflect the 2040 Comprehensive Plan's
tree diversity standards, the portion of the ordinance that governs general landscaping standards
was not amended to incorporate these standards.
The city's subdivision ordinance requires that a tree survey be submitted as part of the
subdivision process, but does not require that the survey be current.
Goal six ofthe city's 2040 Comprehensive Plan's Natural Resources Section is to "maintarn a
healthy and diverse urban forest". One ofthe four policies enumerated to support this goal is
"Continue to maintain a diversity of species in all public tree planting projects. At a minimum,
use the 30-20-10 rule to select trees for projects." The 30-20-10 rule is the principle that no more
than 30 percent oftrees should come from any one family, no more than 20 percent of trees
should come from any one genus, and no more than 10 percent oftrees should come from any
one species. This minimum level of diversity helps to limit the amount of damage that a single
disease, pest, or event can do to the city's urban forest. While the city's subdivision ordinance
was amended to incorporate this standard in 2019, the city's general landscaping standards were
not amended to include a tree diversity requirement. Staff proposes amending the City Code to
extend this standard to the general landscaping requirements in order to ensure that site plans and
other projects align with 2040 Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies.
The city's subdivision ordinance requires that applicants submit a tree survey in order to allow
staff to evaluate the development's impact on the natural environment and ensure compliance
pH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227.111 0
TfOO I4ARKEI BOULEVARD .PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .IYINNESOTA 55317
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
TO:
DATE:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending City Code Chapter l8 conceming tree surveys and Chapter 20
conceming landscaping standards."
SUMMARY
Tree Diversity Standards and Inventory Expiration
March2,202l
Page 2
with the city's tree preservation and canopy coverage requirements; however, unlike other
environmental studies required by the city, there is no requirement that the tree survey be
current. [n some cases tree studies done many years prior to the subdivision application are
submitted to meet this requirement. Since natural features like trees and forests change over time,
this can lead to situations where the conditions represented by the submitted survey no longer
reflect the conditions on the site. In order to ensue that the city has accurate information from
which to determine a project's compliance with the city's tree preservation requirements, staff
recommends amending the City Code to require that the submitted tree survey be no more than
two years old.
RELE VANT CITY CODE
Sec. l8-61 - This section outlines the subdivision ordinance's landscaping and tree preservation
requirements, including the 30-20-10 rule and tree survey requirement'
Sec. 20-l 183 - This section lists the landscaping requirements that are applied to site plan
reviews.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Landscape Standards
The city recently adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which contains a new policy related to
the city's goal of maintaining a healthy and diverse urban forest. As part ofthe comprehensive
planning process, the city is required to update its code ofordinances to align with the policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. The city updated the subdivision ordinance to reflect these policies in
May of20l9; however, the city's landscaping requirements do not currently contain any tree
diversity requirement. These landscaping requirements come into play during site plan reviews,
and adding a diversity requirement will help ensure that a development's landscaping plans have
the mix oftrees needed to create a resilient urban forest.
The importance ofa diverse urban forest has been highlighted by the devastating effects of
Dutch elm disease and emerald ash borer. In these cases, a single disease or insect killed millions
of trees in cities, the effects worsened due to a lack of tree diversity. Diversity is key to a healthy
urban forest. To put it simply, different trees are susceptible to different pests, different kinds of
weather and different kinds of damage so by consciously choosing a variety oftrees, an urban
forest becomes less vulnerable to outbreaks, climate change and severe weather. When there is a
loss in a ciry's tree cover, it represents notjust the loss of money entailed in removing and
replacing the stricken trees, but also the loss of shade, water management, aesthetics, and air
quality improvements associated with community c,rnopy cover.
Having a high density ofa single type oftree makes it easier for pests and diseases to spread and
harder to manage an outbreak. It also means that a single pest or disease can have devastating
effects on neighborhoods with an overabundance of a single species. When a developer or a city
relies too heavily on a single species, genus or family, it creates a vulnerability within that
Tree Diversity Standards and Inventory Expiration
March2,2021
Page 3
neighborhood. Significant tree loss in any neighborhood is heavily felt, emotionally, socially
and financially by the neighborhood and city. Having a diversity oftree types provides
resiliency and cost savings to everyone in the community.
There will always be threats to the health and sustainability ofour city's canopy, but one of the
best ways to protect the city's urban forest is to ensure a measured diversity of trees. A wider
variety oftrees decreases the susceptibility ofour urban forest, reduces the speed at which an
outbreak can spread, and increases the feasibility ofeffectively and efficiently responding to
serious events, whether they be biological or weather-related.
In order to ensure that adequate tree diversity is present throughout the city, staff is proposing
adding a standard to the city's landscaping requirements stating that no more than ten percent of
the trees may be from any one tree species, no more than 20 percent ofthe trees may be from any
one genus, and no more than 30 percent oftrees from any one family.
Issue 2: Tree Sumey
The city's subdivision ordinance requires that developers submit various documents depicting
the properties'. Examples of these documents include wetland delineations, topographic surveys,
and tree surveys. The information provided by these items allows staff to assess the proposed
development's impact on the natural environment and compliance with City Code' While
topographic fearures tend to remain relatively static over time, both wetland delineations and tree
surveys describe living systems that can change significantly in a handful ofyears.
In recognition ofthis, the city requires wetland delineations be no older than three years;
however, tree surveys do not have a similar requirement. This has led to situations where the city
is asked to evaluate a subdivision's compliance with the city's tree preservation and canopy
coverage requirements based on tree surveys that no longer accurately reflect the conditions on
the property. Often times this happens when an initial tree survey is submitted as part ofa
subdivision that does not go forward, then many years later the proposal is resubmitted with the
applicant presenting the original tree survey.
Of particular concem is that fact that the city requires tree surveys to note damaged and diseased
trees as well as trees over a specified size. This information is used by city staff to help
determine which trees it is most important to preserve as well as which trees need to be removed.
In cases where many years have passed between the initial tree survey and the submitted
application trees that were previously damaged or diseased may have died, previously healthy
trees may have become damaged or diseased, and existing trees may have gown to a size where
the City Code would require their inclusion in a tree survey. All ofthese factors can potentially
change how the city's landscaping and tree preservation requirements apply to the site'
In order to address this concem and ensure that the city has accurate and up-to-date information,
staff is proposing amending the City Code to require that tree survey's be no older than two
years old. Within this time period, there will be changes to trees on a property as they grow
larger, but barring any catastrophic impact by weather or biologicals, the overall change will be
less significant. Beyond that time period, tree growth and health changes become more
noticeable. It would always be in the best interest ofthe developer and city to have the most
current inventory possible, but the two-year period allows for somewhat recent inventory work to
still be applicable.
2) Amend the City Code to adopt the 30-20-10 rule and establish a statute of limitations tbr
tree surveys.
MMENDATI
Staff recommends Altemative 2 which will bring the landscaping section of the City Code in line
with the tree diversity policy stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and ensure that accurate
tree surveys are submitted as part of the subdivision process.
The proposed amendments would read as follows:
Sec. I 8-61. - Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
( 1) It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen 10 protect the integrity of the natural
environment through the preservation, protection, and planting oftrees. The city finds
that fiees provide many benefits including: stabilization ofthe soil by the prevention of
erosion and sedimentation, reduction of stormwater runoff and the costs associated
therewith, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban
heat island effect, protection and increase of property values, protection ofprivacy,
energy conservation through natural insulation, control of drainage and restoration of
denuded soil subsequent to constuction and grading, protection from severe weather,
providing habitat for birds and other wildlife, conservation and enhancement of city's
physical and aesthetic environment, reforestation of open lands, and general protection
and enhancement ofthe quality of life and general welfare ofthe city. It is therefore the
purpose ofthis section to provide regulations related to the cutting, removal, or killing
of trees on construction and development sites and to ensure the protection and
preservation of the natural environment and beauty ofthe City of Chanhassen.
(2) Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be prepared by
a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other professional approved by the
ciry. The tree survey shall reflect conditions on site at the time of submittal, or
shall have been reviewed and updated no more then two years prior to the
submittal date. This survey shall include the species, DBH size, condition, location of
all trees over ten inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased trees on site. All
significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified by number
Tree Diversity Standards and Inventory Expiration
March2,2021
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
1) No action.
Tree Diversity Standards and Inventory Expiration
March2,202l
Page 5
on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage area(s) which outlines all
aleas covered by ree canopy shall be included as part of the survey. Additionally, all
damaged and diseased trees shall be cataloged with the nanue and extent ofany damage
or disease specified.
a, Based on this survey and either site observation and measurement or a current
aerial photograph (taken within one year ofthe date ofplan submittal)
interpretation, the following shall be calculated:
l. Base line canopy coverage.
2. Minimum canopy coverage requirements.
b. The following table shall be used to determine the minimum amount of canopy
coverage that must be maintained or provided on-sire as part ofthe development. It
shall represent the minimum canopy coverage, consisting of existing tree canopy
and/or additional trees required for the site. Existing wetland areas, bluff areas, and
dedicated park land located on site shall be excluded from the calculation of site
area in the determination of site coverage. If a forested area is to be dedicated to the
city for park land, then this area shall not be included in the base line canopy
coverage area calculation nor shall it count towards the minimum canopy coverage
for the site.
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
Medium Density
Residential
Low Density Residential
Base line canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the development
application is filed with the city. Minimum canopy coverage is determined by using the
matrix.
Priority shall be given to retaining stands of trees and undisturbed wooded lands
over individual specimen trees that will be incorporated into the development. No
C
4o-59o/o 20-39%197o or less60-79%80-100%
14%10o/o25%20o/oCommercial/lndustrial/lnstitutional
25%20%15%30o/oHigh Density Residential 35%
25o/o 20%40%3s%30%
46%35%30%25%55%
25%s6%43%Large Lot Residential 68%
Base Line Canopy Coverage Per Acre
28%
35%
Tree Diversity Standards and Inventory Expiration
March2,2021
Page 6
more than ten percent of the canopy retention requirement may be met by an
individual tree that is not included within a designated woodland area.
d. For developments that do not meet the minimum canopy coverage, the developer
shall be required to develop a forestation plan to bring the total canopy coverage up
to the minimum requirement. Where existing woodlands are removed or there is a
loss of trees that would otherwise be used to meet the canopy coverage retention
requirement, the developer shall develop a woodland replacement plan. The
replacement plan must designate an area at least one and two-tenths (l '2) times the
removed canopy coverage area that shall be planted with replacement trees for
those removed. These plans shall locate additional trees either as a continuation of
existing stands of trees that are to be preserved or create new stands oftrees in
desirable locations such as along roadway corridors, on the north and west
perimeters ofthe development, in common open areas, or adjacent to park
facilities.
e. The following criteria shall be followed in establishing minimum canopy coverage:
l. When planting trees, one tree shall be deemed to provide 1,089 square feet of
required canopy coverage;
2. Trees must be from the approved list ofdesirable species (preference given for
trees designated as native);
3. No more than ten percent ofthe trees may be from any one tree species, no
more than 20 percent ofthe trees may be from any one genus, and no more
than 30 percent oftrees from any one family;
4. Over-story trees shall be at least 2%-inch caliper and understory trees shall be a
minimum of I %-inch caliper;
5. Conifer trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height;
6. Plant materials used for the reforestation shall be of a similar species as
vegetation found on-site;
7. Trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on site;
8. Trees shall be from certified nursery stock as defined and controlled by M.S' $$
I 8.,14 through I 8.61 , the Plant Pest Act; and
Sec. 20-1183. - Landscaping materials.
(a) The landscaping materials shall consist ofthe following:
(l) Ilalls and fences. Walls shall be constructed of natual stone, brick or other appropriate
materials. Fences shall be constructed of wood. Chain link fencing will be permitted
only ifcovered with plant material or otherwise screened.
(2) Earth Derzs. Earth berms shall be physical barriers which block or screen the view
similar to a hedge, fence or wall. Mounds shall be constnrcted with proper and adequate
plant material to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation between areas requiring
Tree Diversity Standards and Inventory Expiration
March2,202l
Page 7
screening does not constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not be considered as
fulfilling any screening requirement.
(3) Plants. All plant materials shall be living plants; artificial plants are prohibited. Plant
materials shall meet the following requirements:
a. Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an average crown spread of greater than
l5 feet and having trunk(s) which can be maintained with over five feet of clear
wood in areas which have visibility requirements, except at vehicular use area
intersections where an eight-foot clear wood requirement will control. Trees having
an average mature spread of crown less than 15 feet may be substituted by
grouping ofthe same so as to create the equivalent ofa lS-foot crown spread- A
minimum of ten feet overall height or minimum caliper (trunk diameter, measwed
six inches above ground for fiees up to four inches caliper) ofat least two and one-
half inches immediately after planting shall be required. Trees of species whose
roots are known to cause damage to public roadways or other public works shall
not be placed closer than l5 feet to such public works, unless the tree root system is
completely contained within a barrier for which the minimum interior conuining
dimensions shall be five feet square and five feet deep and for which the
construction requirements shall be four inches thick, reinforced concrete'
b. Evergteen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six feet high with a
minimum caliper ofone and one-half inches when planted when counted as an
understory tree. Over-story evergreens shall be a minimum of eight feet high'
c. Tree Divenir!. No more than ten percent of the trees may be from rny one tree
species, no more than 20 percent of the trees may be from any one genus, and
no more than 30 percent of trees from any one family.
d. Shrubs and hedges. Deciduous shrubs shall be at least two feet in average height
when planted, and shall conform to the opacity and other requirements within four
years after planting. Evergreen shrubs shall be at least two feet in average height
and two feet in diameter.
e. Vines. Vines shall be at least 12 inches high at planting, and are generally used in
conjunction with walls or fences.
f. Grass or ground cover. Grass shall be planted in species normally grown as
pennanent lawns, and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or seeded; except in
swales or other areas subject to erosion, where solid sod, erosion reducing net, or
suitable mulch shall be used, nurse-grass seed shall be sown for immediate
protection until complete coverage otherwise is achieved. Grass sod shall be clean
and free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases. Ground cover such as organic
material shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and
75 percent of complete coverage after two complete growing seasons, with a
maximum of 15 inches on center. In certain cases, gtound cover also may consist of
rocks, pebbles, sand and similar materials if approved by the city.
glplan\city codeuo2l \2021-O I t ee irryentory and diversiry shndards\issue paper_Eee inventory 8nd develsity srandards-docx
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Subject Approve Amending City Code Concerning Reconciling Intent Statements and Uses for
Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM), Mixed Medium Density (R8) and High Density
Residential (R12) Zoning Districts
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending
Chapter 20 concerning the RLM, R8, and R12 districts.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Every zoning district is prefaced by an intent statement that outlines the purpose of the district. In residential districts, this
statement typically lists permitted types of housing and intended density. The subsequent list of uses and lot requirements
should be consistent with the initial intent statement. In both the R8 and R12 districts, the intent statements do not match
the list of permitted uses. In the R8 district, the intent statement lists detached singlefamily homes but this style of housing
is not listed as a permitted residential use. In the R12 district, twin homes are listed as a permitted use but are not
mentioned in the intent statement.
Staff examined the typical lot sizes associated with singlefamily homes and twin homes and determined that neither type of
housing would facilitate the minimum density required for the respective zoning district. For this reason staff is proposing
reconciling the discrepancy by removing singlefamily housing from the R8 intent statement and removing twin homes and
their associated lot standards from the R12 district’s list of permitted uses.
Regarding the RLM district, its intent statement’s clause that the district’s maximum density is eight units per acre can create
confusion when developers attempt to apply the district to land guided low density residential, which the Comprehensive
Plan limits to a maximum density of four units per acre. Amending the intent statement to only reference the applicable land
use categories would clarify that the district’s densities are expected to fall within those proscribed by the city’s land use
plan.
A full analysis can be found in the attached staff report.
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 12, Rules of construction and definitions: defines singlefamily dwelling as a detached building
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, March 2, 2021SubjectApprove Amending City Code Concerning Reconciling Intent Statements and Uses forResidential Low and Medium Density (RLM), Mixed Medium Density (R8) and High DensityResidential (R12) Zoning DistrictsSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendingChapter 20 concerning the RLM, R8, and R12 districts.SUMMARY OF REQUESTEvery zoning district is prefaced by an intent statement that outlines the purpose of the district. In residential districts, thisstatement typically lists permitted types of housing and intended density. The subsequent list of uses and lot requirementsshould be consistent with the initial intent statement. In both the R8 and R12 districts, the intent statements do not matchthe list of permitted uses. In the R8 district, the intent statement lists detached singlefamily homes but this style of housingis not listed as a permitted residential use. In the R12 district, twin homes are listed as a permitted use but are notmentioned in the intent statement.Staff examined the typical lot sizes associated with singlefamily homes and twin homes and determined that neither type ofhousing would facilitate the minimum density required for the respective zoning district. For this reason staff is proposingreconciling the discrepancy by removing singlefamily housing from the R8 intent statement and removing twin homes andtheir associated lot standards from the R12 district’s list of permitted uses.Regarding the RLM district, its intent statement’s clause that the district’s maximum density is eight units per acre can createconfusion when developers attempt to apply the district to land guided low density residential, which the ComprehensivePlan limits to a maximum density of four units per acre. Amending the intent statement to only reference the applicable landuse categories would clarify that the district’s densities are expected to fall within those proscribed by the city’s land useplan.A full analysis can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 12, Rules of construction and definitions: defines singlefamily dwelling as a detached building
containing one dwelling unit, twofamily dwelling as a detached building containing two dwelling units and notes that it is
low density, town house dwellings as a row of at least three singlefamily attached dwellings where no unit is located
over another unit, and multifamily dwelling as a detached building containing three or more dwelling units.
Chapter 20, Article XIV, Division 1. “RLM” Residential Low and Medium Density District: lists the intended uses,
permitted uses, and standards for the RLM district.
Chapter 20, Article XIV, Division 2. “R8” Mixed Medium Density Residential District: lists the intended uses,
permitted uses, and standards for the R8 district.
Chapter 20, Article XV, Division 1. “R12” High Density Residential District: lists the intended uses, permitted uses,
and standards for the R12 district.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Code be amended to remove the mention of detached singlefamily residential
developments from the R8 district’s intent statement, remove twin homes and their associated standards from the R12
district’s list of permitted uses, and clarify the RLM district’s intent statement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
TO
CITY OT CIIAI'IHASSXN
Planning Commission
FROM: MacKenzieYoung-Walters,AssociatePlanner
DATE: March2,2021
SUBJ:Reconcile Residential Low and Medium Density District (RLM), Mixed Medium
Density District (R-8) and High Density Residential District (R-12) Intent and Uses
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 conceming the RLM, R-8, and R-12 districts."
ISSUES
The intent statement for the city's R-8 district lists providing single-family detached housing as a
function of the district, but single-family detached housing is not listed as a permitted use. Similarly,
the city's R-12 district lists two-family dwellings as a permitted use, but its intent statement only
lists townhomes and multifamily residential structures. These discrepancies should be reconciled.
Additionally, the intent statement for the city's RLM district states the maximum density is eight
units per acre; however, the district is intended to be used on land guided for either low or medium
density, and the stated density would only be permitted on land guided medium density.
Every zoning district is prefaced by an intent statement that outlines the purpose of the district. ln
residential districts, this statement typically lists permitted types of housing and intended density. The
subsequent list ofuses and lot requirements should be consistent with the initial intent statement. In
both the R-8 and R-l2 districts, the intent statements do not match the list of permitted uses. In the R-8
district, the intent statement lists detached single-family homes but this style of housing is not listed as a
permitted residential use. In the R-l2 district, twin homes are listed as a permitted use but are not
mentioned in the intent statement.
Stafl examined the typical lot sizes associated with single-family homes and twin homes and
determined that neither t1,pe of housing would facilitate the minimum density required for the respective
zoning district. For this reason stalf is proposing reconciling the discrepancy by removing single-family
housing from the R-8 intent statement and removing twin homes and their associated lot standards from
the R-12 district's list of permitted uses.
PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
I/OO I1ARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX ]4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow
MEMORANDUM
SUMMARY
RIM, R-8 and R-12 Intent and Uses
March2,2021
Page2
Regarding the RLM distric! its intent statement's clause that the district's maximum density is eight
units per acre can create confusion whan developers attempt to apply the district to land guided low
density residential, which the Comprehensive Plan limits to a maximum density of four units per acre.
Amending the intent statement to only reference the applicable land use categories would clarifu that
the disrict's densities are expected to fall within those proscribed by the city's land use plan.
RELEVANT C
Chapter l, Section l-2, Rules ofconstruction and definitions: defines single-family dwelling as a
detached building containing one dwelling unit, two-farnily dwelling as a detached building
containing two dwelling units and notes that it is low density, town house dwellings as a row ofat
least three single-family attached dwellings where no unit is located over another unit, and multi-
family dwelling as a detached building containing three or more dwelling units.
Chapter 20, Article XIV, Division l. "RLM" Residential Low and Medium Density District: lists the
intended uses, permitted uses, and standards for the RLM district.
Chapter 20, Article XIV, Division 2. "R-8" Mixed Medium Density Residential District: lists the
intended uses, permitted uses, and standards for the R-8 district.
Chapter 20, Article XV, Division l. "R-12" High Density Residential District: lists the intended
uses, permitted uses, and standards for the R- 1 2 district.
AI\IALYSIS
When determining what zoning is appropriate for a site, the city looks to the Comprehensive Plan's
land use plan. This land use plan guides various parcels for different broad categories ofuses like
industrial or residential. Within the residential category parcels are guided for large lot, low density,
medium density, and high density uses. Each ofthese uses has a required density range, for example
areas guided low density must develop with a density of between 1.2 and four units per acre. The
city's Comprehensive Plan liss what zoning districts are permissible for what land use designations
and this designation is reinforced by the each districts' opening intent statement which outlines what
types of housing it is intended to accommodate.
In the case ofthe city's R-8 and R-I2 districts,
they are respectively guided for MediurilHigh and
High density development. Areas guided medium
density must develop at densities of between four
and eight units per acre and areas guided high
density must develop at densities of between eight
and 1 6 units per acre, though the R- 12 district is
intended to have a maximum density of 12 units
per acre. In order to achieve the required densities,
Average Lot Size for Unit Per Acre
Low
Density
1.2 units per acre 36,300 sq. ft
4 units per acre 10,890 sq. ft.
Medium
Density
4 units per acre 10,890 sq. ft.
8 units per acre 5,445 sq. ft.
High
Density
8 units per acre 5,445 sq. ft.
12 units per acre 3,630 sq. ft.
16 units per acre 2,722.3 sq. ft.
the average lot size within a development needs to fall within a certain range as shown in the table to
the right. To make sure this happens, the city's zoning districts speci! minimum lot sizes that fall
within these ranges. Oftentimes, different styles of housing permitted within a district have different
RLM, R-8 and R-12 Intent and Uses
March2,2027
Page 3
minimum lot sizes that correspond to the lower or upper limit of the density range. For example, the
R4 district is intended to be used in areas guided low and/or medium density. To support this, it has
a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size for single-family homes which corresponds to 2.9 units per
acre (i.e. low density), and a 10,000 square foot minimum per unit lot size for two-family homes
which corresponds to 4.35 units per acre (i.e. medium density).
In the example above, the R-4 district's intent statement lists single-family detached and attached
residential development, it's permitted uses list single-family and two-family dwellings, and its
minimum lot sizes facilitate the proscribed densities. However, both the R-8 and R-12 districts have
discrepancies between their intent statements, permitted uses, and minimum lot sizes. For the R-8
district, facilitating single-family detached residential development is listed as an intent of the
district, but is not listed as a permitted use. This discrepancy could be resolved either by adding
single-family dwelling to the list of permitted uses and adopting appropriate standards or by
removing it Aom the intent statement. In order to evaluate which approach makes the most sense,
staff put together a table listing housing types permitted in the R-4, RLM, R-8, and R-12 districts
along with the relevant lot standards.
Density Low/Med Low LoVMed Med High
Single-Family Lot Area
R-4
15,000
PUD.R
t Requiren
11,000
RLM
ents
9,000
R-g*
NA
R-12*ffi
NA
Lot Frontage 80 NA NA
Lot Depth t25 100 110 NA NA
Lot Cover 30%30%35%NA
Two-Family Lot Area 10,000 NA 7 ,260 7 ,500 7,500
Lot Frontage 50 NA 50 50
Lot Depth t25 NA 100 150 155
Lot Cover NA 4O/o 3S%;35%
Townhouses NA NA 5,445 5,500 3,600
Lot Frontage NA 30 50*{'150*+
Lot Depth NA NA 100 150 155
Lot Cover NA NA so%35%
Multi-Family Lot Area NA 5,445 5,500 3,500
Lot Frontage NA NA 30 50 150
Lot Depth NA 150 155
Lot Cover NA NA 50%35Yo 35%
*Note: R-8's intent statement says single-family detached, but does not list it and
R-12's intent statement says townhouse and multifamily, but lists two-family dwellings
t+Note: With the three unit requirement, R-8 and R-12 have equivalent frontage
requirements.
Zoning
90 50
NA
50
30%
Lot Area
NA
35%
NA
NA 100
RLM, R-8 and R-12 Intent and Uses
March2,202l
Page 4
To make the minimum density requirement of four units per acre, single-family homes within the R-
8 district would need to have a minimum lot size of 10,890 square feet. Staff is concemed that this
lot size would undermine the intent of the RLM district, which allows smaller single-family lot sizes
within areas guided lodmedium density in exchange for the dedication of permanent open spaces. It
is difficult to see why a developer would pursue RLM zoning if R-8 was amended to allow
comparably sized lots without the dedication requirement. Similarly, it would allow R-8 districts to
have single-family lot sizes smaller than what is permitted in the PUD-R district for detached single-
family homes, without the expectation of a higher quality development which is required of
developers requesting PUD-R zoning.
Ultimately, the R-8 zone is intended to be a true medium density zone characterized by attached
housing, rather than a hybrid loilmedium density zone like the RLM district where either small lot
single-family or attached housing is appropriate. In order to maintain the existing distinctions within
the City Code and encourage developers looking for higher density single-family options to dedicate
land or meet PUD-R standards, staff recommends that the R-8 discrepancy be resolved by removing
detached single-family residential developments from the intent statement. This change would also
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's description ofland guided for medium density as being
characterized by duplexes, townhouses, and lower density apartrnents or condominiums.
The R-12 district has the opposite problem of the R-8 district. In the R-l2 district, the uses listed in
the intent statement correspond to the district's intended function as a high density residential
district. The 3,600 square foot minimum lot size for both townhouses and multifamily developments
corresponds to a maximum density of 12.1 units per acre, which aligns closely the district's intended
12 unit per acre maximum density; however, the district lists two-family dwellings as a permitted
use. Since the district establishes a 7,500 per dwelling unit minimum lot size for twin-homes, this
use would equate to a development with a maximum density of 5.8 units per acre, significantly
below the eight unit per acre minimum required for land guided as high density residential.
Staff believes the best way to clarifr the permitted density within the RLM district is to remove the
language referencing the eight unit per acre maximum and have the opening sentence simply note
that it is intended to be provided for single-family attached and detached residential development on
Given that the Comprehensive Plan states that land guided high density should provide for
aparfinents and condominiums, staff believes the discrepancy within the R-12 district should be
resolved by removing two-family dwellings and their associated standards from the list of permitted
uses. This change would be consistent with the city's intent for areas guided high density residential
to provide for multifamily housing.
In the RLM district, the listed housing types, permitted uses, and lot sizes all align, but the intent
statement references a maximum density of eight units per acre. While that is the correct maximum
density when the RLM district is applied to a property guided for medium density residential, the
RLM district can also be applied to property guided for low density residential which has a
maximum density of four units per acre. Since the RLM's intent statement only references the eight
unit per acre maximum, it creates the impression that the RLM zoning always permits development
at up to that density, regardless of land use guidance.
RLM, R-8 and R-12 Intent and Uses
March2,202l
Page 5
land guided residentialJow or medium density in the city's Comprehensive Plan. In all cases, the
density limits specified by the Comprehensive Plan take precedence and this change would be a
clarification of rather than a change to the city's existing policy.
l) Amend the City Code to remove the mention of detached single-family residential
developments from the R-8 district's intent statement, remove twin homes and their
associated standards from the R-l2 district's list of permitted uses, and clariff the RLM
district's intent statement.
2) Amend the City Code to add single-family home and their associated standards to the R-8
district and add twin homes to the R-l2 district's intent statement and clarifi the RLM
district's intent statement.
Staff recommends Altemative I which will establish uses for the zoning districts that align with their
minimum required densities and clarifi the language within the intent statements.
The proposed amendments would read as follows:
DIVISION I. - -RLM'RESIDENTI-AL LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT
Sec.20-641. - Intent.
The intent of the "RLM" District is to provide for single-family attached or detached residential
development on land guided residentialJow or medium density in the city's comprehensive plan wfth
. The "RLM" District is intended to be used where
large areas of upland will be preserved or created as permanent open space to balance the higher lot
coverage permitted on individual lots.
DMSION 2. - "R-8'MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-651. -
Intent.
The intent of the "R-8" District is to provide for single-family Cetaehe4er attached and
multifamily residential development at a maximum net density of eight dwelling units per acre.
DTVISION l. - "R-12. DISTRICT Sec.20-671. - Intent.
The intent ofthe "R-12" District is to provide for townhouses and multifamily residential
structures at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 8(5-8-1), l2-15-86) Sec.20-672. - Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in an "R-12" District:
(1) Townhouseq-sre-familydrrellingB and multifamily dwellings.
ALTERNATIYES
RECOMMENDATION
RLM, R-8 and R-I2 Intent and Uses
March2,2021
Page 6
(2) Public and private parks and open space.
(3) Utility services.
(4) Antennas as regulated by article X)O( of this chapter.
(5) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966.
(6) Continuing care retirement facility, subject to the requirements of section 20-965.
Sec. 20-675. - Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "R-12" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(l) The minimum lot area is as follows:
it.
a. For a townhouse or multifamily dwelling, 3,600 square feet per dwelling unit.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is as follows:
in€'
a. If a townhouse or multiple-family project is located on the lot, 150 feet.
(3) The minimum lot depth is 155 feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is 35 percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows;
a. For front yards,25 feet.
b. For rear yards, 25 feet.
c. For side yards, ten feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three storieV35 feet.
b. For accessory structures, one story/I5 feet.
sr\plra\.ity c.d.Uo2l U02 | -02 i cnt $rtcmcnls - d[| r-8 ad r-l2\is.srlc paF - rtm rt rl2 intctn.do.x
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Subject Approve Amending City Code Concerning Increasing the Final Plat and Metes and Bounds
Subdivision Recording Timeline to 120 Days
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.3.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending
Chapter 18 concerning plat recording.”
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The current language in the Subdivision Ordinance mandates that final plats and metes and bounds subdivisions be
recorded with the County Recorder Office within 30 days after receiving City Council approval. Failure of the applicant to
comply with this timeline is listed as cause for revoking the City's approval. Often, multiple issues arise that are beyond
the control of the applicant, property owner or City, and these issues make meeting the 30day deadline impossible. In
practice, the City does not act to revoke the approval when these issues arrive, due to the understanding that
extenuating circumstances happen. That being said, a timeline is required in order to prevent developers from
deliberately delaying recording an approved subdivision to artificially maintain a lower property tax valuation.
Staff proposes to balance these considerations by extending the timeline to record a plat from 30 days to 120 days,
which would make it consistent with the recording timelines established for other recorded documents under the City
Code. Failure to meet that deadline would void the approval unless a request for time extension is submitted in writing
and approved by the City Council.
A full discussion of the proposed amendment can be found in the attached issue paper.
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Sec. 1837(c) – This section establishes a 30day timeline for recording metes and bounds subdivisions.
Sec. 1841(e) – This section establishes a 30day timeline for recording final plats.
Sec. 2030 – This section establishes a 120day timeline for recording variances, conditional use permits, interim use
permits, site plans, wetland alteration permits, and mining permits. It also allows the City Council to approve extensions
to the 120day timeline.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, March 2, 2021SubjectApprove Amending City Code Concerning Increasing the Final Plat and Metes and BoundsSubdivision Recording Timeline to 120 DaysSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.3.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendingChapter 18 concerning plat recording.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe current language in the Subdivision Ordinance mandates that final plats and metes and bounds subdivisions berecorded with the County Recorder Office within 30 days after receiving City Council approval. Failure of the applicant tocomply with this timeline is listed as cause for revoking the City's approval. Often, multiple issues arise that are beyondthe control of the applicant, property owner or City, and these issues make meeting the 30day deadline impossible. Inpractice, the City does not act to revoke the approval when these issues arrive, due to the understanding thatextenuating circumstances happen. That being said, a timeline is required in order to prevent developers fromdeliberately delaying recording an approved subdivision to artificially maintain a lower property tax valuation.Staff proposes to balance these considerations by extending the timeline to record a plat from 30 days to 120 days,which would make it consistent with the recording timelines established for other recorded documents under the CityCode. Failure to meet that deadline would void the approval unless a request for time extension is submitted in writingand approved by the City Council. A full discussion of the proposed amendment can be found in the attached issue paper.APPLICATION REGULATIONSSec. 1837(c) – This section establishes a 30day timeline for recording metes and bounds subdivisions.Sec. 1841(e) – This section establishes a 30day timeline for recording final plats.Sec. 2030 – This section establishes a 120day timeline for recording variances, conditional use permits, interim use
permits, site plans, wetland alteration permits, and mining permits. It also allows the City Council to approve extensions
to the 120day timeline.
BACKGROUND
Staff presented this item to the City Council during their August 24, 2020 work session and was instructed to bring it
before the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Code be amended to change the final plat and metes and bounds subdivision recording
timeline from 30 to 120 days, and to clarify that extensions must be approved by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
CITY OT CIIANHASSXN
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow
MEMORANDUM
TO Planning Commission
MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
March2,202l
Plat Recording Timeline
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapters 18 conceming plat recording."
ISSUE
The city's subdivision ordinance requires that final plats and metes and bounds subdivisions be
recorded within 30 days ofapproval; however, due to circumstances beyond the applicant's
control this is not always possible.
The current language in the Subdivision Ordinance mandates that final plats and metes and bounds
subdivisions be recorded with the Comty Recorder Office within 30 days after receiving City
Council approval. Failure of the applicant to comply with this timeline is listed as cause for
revoking the city's approval. Often, multiple issues arise that are beyond the control of the
applicant, property owner or city, and these issues make meeting the 30{ay deadline impossible.
In practice, the city does not act to revoke the approval when these issues arrive, due to the
understanding that extenuating circumstances happen. That being said, a timeline is required in
order to prevent developers from deliberately delaying recording an approved suMivision to
artificially maintain a lower property tax valuation.
Staff proposes to balance these considerations by extending the timeline to record a plat from 30
days to 120 days, which would make it consistent with the recording timelines established for
other recorded documents under the City Code. Failure to meet that deadline would void the
approval unless a request for time extension is submitted in writing and approved by the City
Council.
I/OO MARKET EOULEVARO . PO BOX ]4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317
SUMMARY
PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110
Plat Recording Timeline
March2,2021
Page 2
Sec. 18-37(c) - This section establishes a 30-day timeline for recording metes and bounds
suMivisions.
Sec. l84l(e) - This section establishes a 30-day timeline for recording final plats.
Sec. 20-30 - This section establishes a 120-day timeline for recording variances, conditional use
permits, interim use permits, site plans, wetland alteration permits, and mining permits. It also
allows the City Council to approve extensions to the 120day timeline.
ANALYSI
Many items approved by the City Council and Planning Commission need to be recorded with
the county. Examples of these documents are variances, conditional and interim use permits, site
plans, wetland alteration permits, mining permits, and plats. All of these items alter how a piece
of property can be used or, in the case ofplats, create new parcels. In order to ensure that
projects move forward in a timely manner and that time sensitive conditions of approval can be
met, the city requires that most of these items be recorded within 120 days ofbeing approved;
however, suMivision approvals, i.e. final plats and metes and bounds, are subject to a 30-day
timeline.
The rationale behind a shorter timeline for suMivision approvals is that dividing one parcel into
multiple parcels can have sigrrificant property tax implications. Typically the total values of the
divided lots is higher than the value of the original undivided lot. ffis can create an incentive for
develop€rs to delay recording until the last possible moment in order to minimize their property
taxes. Since it is in the city's interest to ensure that property is taxed at its actual value and that
subdivisions with their associated infrastructure and public improvements move forward in a
timely manner, a 30day timeline was established.
While the rationale behind wanting to require prompt filing makes sense, experience has shown
that there are often circumstances that arise beyond anyone's control that render the 30-day
timeline untenable. Many different entities are involved in the recording process including the
city, the city's attomey, the applicant's attomey, county recorder, banks, and, in some instances,
neighbhoring property owners. Any ofthese organizations can discover issues that delay the
recording ofa plat. For example, a bank or title company may express concem over issues with
documentation from a previous mortgage recorded against the property. In some cases,
individuals have passed during the subdivision process and delays associated with probates
oftice have created difficulties. Any ofthese or other unforeseen complications can cause
significant delays and prevent the applicant from meeting the 30-day requirement.
In practice, the city does not typically choose to revoke approval after the 30-day period passes;
however, the City Code does not establish a process for extending the deadline. Given the
frequency with which applicant's exceed the 30-day period, staff believes it would make sense to
extend the deadline to 120 days and allow for the applicant to request an extension from the City
RELEVANT CITY CODE
Plat Recording Timeline
March2,2021
Page 3
Council in cases where the 120-day period is untenable. This timeline and extension policy
would be consistent with how other approvals are treated, and would still accomplish the city's
goal of ensuring the prompt recording of approved suMivisions.
ALTERNATIVES
I ) No action. The city can choose not to revoke the approval in cases where there is good
reason for the delay, and the 30-day rule encourages a prompt filing.
2) Amend the City Code to allow applicants 120 days to record and allow for applicants to
request an extension in extenuating circumstances.
Staff recommends Alternative 2 which will establish the same timeline and extension procedures
for all recorded documents.
The proposed amendments would read as follows:
Sec. 18-37. - Exemption.
(c) Upon approval ofan administrative or metes and bounds subdivision, the city shall notifr
the applicant of the approval and within 30 120 days thereafter the applicant or the city
attomey shall file the documents with the county recorder and fumish the city evidence of
such recording. Failure to comply shall be cause for revoking the city's approval, unless a
request for an extension is submitted in writing and approved by the City Council,
Sec. 18-41. - Final plat-Generally.
(e) Upon approval of the final plat by the city council, the city shall notiff the applicant of the
approval and within 30 120 days thereafter, the applicant or the city attomey shall file the final
plat with the county recorder and fumish the city evidence of such recording. Failure of the
applicant to comply shall be cause for revoking the city's approval, unless a request for an
extension is submitted in writing and approved by the City Council
g:Vlan\ciry c.deUo2l U02l {3 6nal plat recording timeline\issue paperlrlat rccording.docx
RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Subject Adopt a Resolution Affirming that the TIF District for the Lakes at Chanhassen Development is
Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: C.1.
Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community
Development Director
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission Adopts a Resolution affirming that the TIF District for the Lakes at
Chanhassen Development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Adopt the attached resolution confirming the General Plans for the Development and Redevelopment at 1361 Lake Drive
West being developed by Lakes at Chanhassen, LLC for a threestory, 110unit, mixedincome apartment facility for
senior living.
While the TIF district modification is attached, the Planning Commission is not being asked to approve whether the
housing merits public assistance, but instead is confirming for the City Council that the TIF project is not somehow
circumventing land use regulations. If approved, the Planning Commission’s resolution will be used by the City Council as
one of its statutory findings that the proposed housing development being assisted with TIF “conforms with the general
plans for development of the City.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan Report
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: March 2, 2021 RESOLUTION NO: 2021-01
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
RESOLUTION FINDING THAT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
NO. 12 CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, property at 1361 Lake Drive West identified as parcel number 25.6360020 within
the City of Chanhassen (the “City”) is proposed to be developed by Lakes at Chanhassen, LLC, a
Minnesota Limited Liability Company, into a three-story, 110-unit, mixed-income apartment facility for
senior living (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, upon recommendation from the Chanhassen Planning Commission (the
“Commission”) the City Council approved the Site Plan and Variance for the Project on January 25,
2021; and
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) and the City
anticipate tax increment financing as necessary to bridge a financial gap that otherwise renders the Project
infeasible; and
WHEREAS, the EDA and the City have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area (the "Redevelopment Plan
Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 (the
"TIF Plan") therefore (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively
herein as the "Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.175, Subd. 3; and
WHEREAS, the Project described as the subject of the Plans is the same as that approved by the
City Council on January 25, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the
general plans and guided land use as described in the Comprehensive Plan for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of March, 2021.
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Steven Weick, Chairman Mark Randall, Vice-Chairman
YES NO ABSENT
g:\novusagenda \pc\2021\03-02-2021\res_tif 12 planning commission review revsed developer name.docx
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN
Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area
- AND -
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 12
(a housing district)
City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota
Public Hearing: March 22, 2021
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 2
Table of Contents
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project
Area .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 3
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 ................................. 4
Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 4
Statutory Authority .................................................................................................................... 4
Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................................ 4
Redevelopment Plan Overview ................................................................................................. 4
Description of Property in the District and Property to be Acquired .......................................... 5
Classification of the District ....................................................................................................... 5
Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........................................................... 6
Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment
and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ....................................................................... 6
Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued .................................................................................. 7
Uses of Funds ........................................................................................................................... 8
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ....................................................................... 8
Supporting Documentation ..................................................................................................... 10
Administration of the District ................................................................................................... 11
Appendix A: Map of Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area and the TIF
District ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix B: Estimated Cash Flow for the District .................................................................. 13
Appendix C: Findings Including But/For Qualifications .......................................................... 14
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 3
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project
Area
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown
Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the
goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Chanhassen
Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Chanhassen
Redevelopment Project Area is recommended. It is available on file at the office of the Assistant
City Manager at the City of Chanhassen. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax
Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Downtown
Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area.
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 4
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 12
Foreword
The City of Chanhassen (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information
to expedite the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 (the "District"), a housing
tax increment financing district, located in the Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project
Area (the “Project Area”).
Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development
or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City has certain statutory powers pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.124 - 469.133, inclusive, as amended, and M.S.,
Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF
Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other
relevant information is contained in the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area, as modified.
Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of one (1) parcel of land and adjacent roads and internal rights-of-
way. The District is being created to provide financial assistance to facilitate the development of
a new 110-unit, three story mixed-income apartment facility for senior living to be known as Lake
Place in the City. The City is preparing to enter into an agreement with TPS Holding LLC as the
developer. Development is anticipated to begin in 2021. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve
many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do
not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These
activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Project Area and the District.
Redevelopment Plan Overview
Pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and authorizing state statutes, the City is authorized to
undertake the following activities in the District:
1. Property to be Acquired – If deemed necessary, selected property located within
the District may be acquired by the City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available
pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 5
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the
necessary legal requirements, the City may sell to a developer selected properties
that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work
within the District.
Description of Property in the District and Property to be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways
identified by the parcels listed below.
Parcel number Address Owner
25.636.0020 1361 Lake Drive W. Island Mgmt LLC
Please also see the map in Appendix A for further information on the location of the District.
The City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed
public streets, utilities and facilities; or carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance
and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The City may
acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order
to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there
is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
Classification of the District
The City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, finds that the District, to be
established, is a housing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 11 and M.S., Section
469.1761.
$ The District consists of one (1) parcel
$ The development will consist of 110 units of multi-family rental housing
$ At least 40% of the units will be occupied by persons with incomes less than 60% of median
income, and
$ No more that 20 percent of the square footage of the building that is receiving assistance from
tax increment consists of commercial, retail or other non-residential uses.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a
parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or
Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request
for certification of the District.
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 6
Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first
year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the maximum duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of
the first increment by the City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The City elects to receive the
first tax increment in 2023, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the
District.
Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent
phases or other changes, would terminate after 2048, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The City
reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax
Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned
Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net
Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the
property by the assessor in 2020 for taxes payable 2021.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year
(beginning in the payment year 2023) the amount by which the original value has increased or
decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the District;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the
ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the
estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Downtown Chanhassen
Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually
approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City requests 100 percent
of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures,
beginning in the tax year payable 2023. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of
values when the projects within the District are completed.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2021, assuming
the request for certification is made before June 30, 2021. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax
Rate for the District appear in the table below.
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 7
Estimated Project Tax Capacity (PTC) upon completion 233,750
Estimated Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) 9,195
Fiscal Disparities 0
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)224,555
Original Local Tax Rate 95.1546%Pay 2021
Estimated Annual Tax Increment $213,674
Percent Retained by the City 100%
Project Tax Capacity
Note: The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax
capacity of the District based on partial project completion in year one is estimated to be $58,438.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City shall, after a due and diligent search,
accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District
enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the
District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen
(18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the
District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued.
The City is reviewing the area to be included in the District to determine if any building permits
have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the
City.
Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES
Tax Increment 5,369,315$
Interest 268,466
TOTAL 5,637,781$
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of
tax increments. If necessary, The City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as
a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by
one or more pay-as-you-go notes. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost
without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the City to incur debt.
The City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the
best interest of the City.
The City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax
increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $5,013,288. Such bonds may be
in the form of pay-as-you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund
loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under
this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 8
Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate financial assistance for the
development of a new 110-unit mixed-income senior housing apartment facility in the city. The
City has determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain
District costs, as described.
The City has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around
the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this
TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible
expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined
in the following table.
USES
Land/Building Acquisition -$
Site Improvements/Preparation -
Affordable Housing 4,476,356
Utilities -
Other Qualifying Improvements -
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)536,932
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL 5,013,288$
Interest 624,493
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL 5,637,781$
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed
the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in the Sources of Revenue section.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a
modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing
will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory
requirements. The City may expend funds for qualified housing activities outside of the District
boundaries pursuant to the TIF Act.
Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City may elect one of two methods to calculate
fiscal disparities.
The City will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b (inside).
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions below assumes that the redevelopment
contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the City
has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment
financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated
fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met:
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 9
Entity
Final 2020/Pay
2021 Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated
Captured Tax
Capacity (CTC)
upon
completion
Percent of
CTC to
Entity Total
Carver County 159,157,722 224,555 0.1411%
Chanhassen 50,969,757 224,555 0.4406%
ISD No. 112 (Eastern Carver
County Schools)93,580,837 224,555 0.2400%
Impact on Tax Base
Entity Pay 2021
Extension Rate
Percent of
Total CTC Potential
Taxes
Carver County 34.6337% 36.40% 224,555 $ 77,772
Chanhassen 22.1140% 23.24% 224,555 49,658
ISD No. 112 (Eastern Carver
County Schools)32.3272% 33.97% 224,555 72,592
Other 6.0797% 6.39% 224,555 13,652
95.1546% 100.00% $ 213,674
Impact on Tax Rates
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed.
The tax rate used for calculations is the Pay 2021 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed
above are based on Pay 2021 figures. The District is expected to be certified under the Pay 2021
rates.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment
that will be generated over the life of the District is $5,369,315;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. A
marginal impact of the District on police protection is expected. With any addition of
new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased and the City
estimates an increase of 50 calls per year. New developments also add an increase
in traffic and additional overall demands to the call load. However, the City does not
anticipate any material financial impact and does not expect that the proposed
development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or
facilities.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant.
Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction.
The City estimates residents within the development may generate 25 calls per year.
Similar to police, the City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 10
itself, will create a material financial impact or necessitate new capital investment in
vehicles or facilities.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. No public
roads are necessitated by the development, and it the development is not expected to
significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. All on-site infrastructure capital
costs will be paid by the development including the installation of a trail and pedestrian
access. The City’s current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will
be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development.
Based on the development plans, there are no additional public costs associated with
street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in
the District is expected to contribute an estimated $1,094,280 in sanitary sewer (SAC)
and water (WAC) connection fees.
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the
ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not
anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this
project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on
the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated
that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable
to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate
for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $1,824,136;
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county
levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $1,954,286;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware
of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax
increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school
district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b)
within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the
proposed development for the District have been received.
Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification
and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section
469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the
District.
In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon (1) written representation made by
the developer to such effects, (2) review of the developer’s proforma; and (3) City staff awareness
of the feasibility of developing the project site within the District, which is further outlined in the
City Council resolution approving the establishment of the TIF District and Appendix C.
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 11
Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Assistant City Manager.
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 12
Appendix A: Map of Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project
Area and the TIF District
an Bl
v
d
(CSAH 18)
Lyman Blv d (CSAH 18)Powers Blvd (C.R. 17)01Grea
t Plai
ns BlvdSta
t
e
H
w
y
5
State
H
w
y
5Galpin Blvd. (C.R. 117)Chanhassen Rd. Hwy. 101Audubon RoadGalpin Blvd (C.R. 15)Z[212Powers Blvd (C.R. 17)Project Area
Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area
City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
s
7D[,QFUHPHQW)LQDQFLQJ'LVWULFW1R
'RZQWRZQ5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW$UHD
TIF District
No. 12
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 13
Appendix B: Estimated Cash Flow for the District
2/16/2021Lake Place Senior Apartments - No InflationCity of Chanhassen, MN 110-unit Senior Multifamily DevelopmentASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:HousingDistrict Name/Number: TIF District 12County District #: TBDExempt Class Rate (Exempt) 0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value 2021Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst $150,000 1.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:0.00%Over $150,000 2.00%Interest Rate:1.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I) 2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-22Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental) 1.25%First Period Ending 1-Feb-23Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2021First $174,000 0.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2023 Over $174,000 0.25%Years of Tax Increment 26 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2048 First $500,000 1.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,000 1.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residential Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio 36.5748% Pay 2020 First $500,000 1.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate 139.5040% Pay 2021 est. Over $500,000 1.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 95.155% Pay 2021 est.Agricultural Non-Homestead 1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.)95.155%Pay 2021 est.State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 36.0000% Pay 2021 est.Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) 0.17888% Pay 2021 est.Building Total Percentage Tax Year Property Current Class AfterLand Market Market Of Value Used Original Original Tax Original After ConversionMap ID PID Owner Address Market ValueValueValue for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap.25.636.0020Island Mgmt LLC1361 Lake Drive W.735,600 0 735,600 100% 735,600 Pay 2021 Rental 9,195 Rental 9,195 1735,600 0 735,600 735,600 9,195 9,195Note:1. Base values are for pay 2021 based upon review of County website on 2/2/2021.2. Located in SD # 112 and WS #064. TAG 2506.Area/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers
2/16/2021Lake Place Senior Apartments - No InflationCity of Chanhassen, MN 110-unit Senior Multifamily DevelopmentEstimated Taxable Total Taxable Property Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/PhaseNew UsePer Sq. Ft./UnitPer Sq. Ft./UnitSq. Ft./UnitsValueClassTax CapacityCapacity/Unit2021202220232024Payable1Apartments 170,000 170,000 110 18,700,000 Rental 233,750 2,125 25%100% 100% 100% 2024TOTAL18,700,000 233,750 Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates provided by the Carver County Assessor's office on 2/12/2021.TotalFiscal LocalLocalFiscal State-wideMarketTax Disparities Tax Property Disparities PropertyValue Total Taxes PerNew Use Capacity Tax Capacity Capacity Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Sq. Ft./UnitApartments 233,750 0 233,750 222,424 0 0 33,451 255,875 2,326.14TOTAL233,7500233,750222,4240033,451255,875Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary significantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes 255,875less State-wide Taxes 0less Fiscal Disp. Adj. 0less Market Value Taxes (33,451)less Base Value Taxes (8,749)Annual Gross TIF 213,674 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?TAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers
2/16/2021Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Lake Place Senior Apartments - No InflationCity of Chanhassen, MN 110-unit Senior Multifamily DevelopmentTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal Captured Local Annual Semi-Annual State % Retained Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of Tax Tax Disparities Tax Tax Gross Tax Gross Tax Auditor Fee For Admin. Net Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental Capacity Rate Increment Increment 0.36% 10% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date- - - - 02/01/23100% 58,438 (9,195) - 49,243 95.155% 46,856 23,428 (84) (2,334) 21,010 20,801 0.52023 08/01/23100% 58,438 (9,195) - 49,243 95.155% 46,856 23,428 (84) (2,334) 21,010 41,498 12023 02/01/24100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 135,413 1.52024 08/01/24100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 228,861 22024 02/01/25100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 321,844 2.52025 08/01/25100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 414,364 32025 02/01/26100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 506,424 3.52026 08/01/26100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 598,025 42026 02/01/27100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 689,171 4.52027 08/01/27100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 779,864 52027 02/01/28100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 870,105 5.52028 08/01/28100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 959,898 62028 02/01/29100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,049,244 6.52029 08/01/29100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,138,145 72029 02/01/30100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,226,604 7.52030 08/01/30100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,314,623 82030 02/01/31100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,402,203 8.52031 08/01/31100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,489,349 92031 02/01/32100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,576,060 9.52032 08/01/32100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,662,341 102032 02/01/33100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,748,192 10.52033 08/01/33100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,833,615 112033 02/01/34100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 1,918,614 11.52034 08/01/34100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,003,190 122034 02/01/35100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,087,345 12.52035 08/01/35100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,171,082 132035 02/01/36100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,254,402 13.52036 08/01/36100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,337,307 142036 02/01/37100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,419,800 14.52037 08/01/37100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,501,883 152037 02/01/38100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,583,557 15.52038 08/01/38100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,664,825 162038 02/01/39100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,745,688 16.52039 08/01/39100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,826,149 172039 02/01/40100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,906,210 17.52040 08/01/40100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 2,985,873 182040 02/01/41100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,065,139 18.52041 08/01/41100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,144,011 192041 02/01/42100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,222,490 19.52042 08/01/42100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,300,579 202042 02/01/43100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,378,280 20.52043 08/01/43100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,455,594 212043 02/01/44100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,532,523 21.52044 08/01/44100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,609,070 222044 02/01/45100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,685,236 22.52045 08/01/45100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,761,022 232045 02/01/46100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,836,432 23.52046 08/01/46100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,911,467 242046 02/01/47100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 3,986,128 24.52047 08/01/47100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 4,060,418 252047 02/01/48100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 4,134,338 25.52048 08/01/48100% 233,750 (9,195) - 224,555 95.155% 213,674 106,837 (385) (10,645) 95,807 4,207,891 262048 02/01/49 Total5,388,715 (19,399) (536,932) 4,832,384 Present Value From 08/01/2022 Present Value Rate 1.00% 4,692,326 (16,892) (467,543) 4,207,891 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\Chanhassen\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\TIF 12\Cash Flows\Chanhassen_TIF 12 Cashflow Model.xls
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 14
Appendix C: Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 12, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 is a housing district as defined in
M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 11.
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 consists of one (1) parcel and its internal and
adjacent rights-of-way. The development will consist of a new 110-unit mixed-income
senior housing apartment facility in the city, all or a portion of which will receive tax
increment assistance and will meet income restrictions described in M.S. 469.1761. At
least 40 percent of the units receiving assistance will have incomes at or below 60 percent
of area median income.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future.
This finding is supported by the fact that the development proposed in this plan is a
housing district that meets the City's objectives for development and redevelopment and
is intended for occupancy, in part, by low and moderate-income persons. At least 40% of
the assisted housing units are intended to be income restricted. Due to decreased rental
income from affordable units, there is insufficient cash flow to provide a sufficient rate of
return, pay operating expenses, and service the debt necessary to develop the housing.
This leaves a gap in the funding for the project and makes this housing development
feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The necessity of
public assistance is true for most affordable housing development in Minnesota.
The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma outlining project source
and uses as well as projected rent, vacancy and financing assumptions. City staff and the
City’s advisors reviewed the information and have determined the project is not feasible
without the proposed assistance due anticipated rent levels and market returns not
supporting the development costs for the site. Based on the review, the City does not
expect that a development of this type would occur in the reasonably foreseeable future
but-for the use of tax increment assistance.
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 conforms to the
general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission is expected to review the TIF Plan on March 2, 2021 to make
a recommendation to the City Council whether the TIF Plan conforms to the general
development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 will afford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development
or redevelopment of the Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area by private
enterprise.
City of Chanhassen
Tax Increment Financing District No. 12 15
Through the implementation of the TIF Plan, the City will provide an impetus for residential
development, which is desirable and necessary for providing for an increased population
and increased need for life-cycle housing within the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 2, 2021
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: D.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from its February 2, 2021 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 2, 2021
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 2, 2021
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder,
Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark von Oven
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner and MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate
Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Ed Myslivecek 10151 Great Plains Boulevard, Chaska, MN
Chairman Weick reviewed guidelines for conducting the virtual Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES, INCLUDING EXCEEDING THE 1,000
SQUARE-FOOT, DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE LIMIT, TO
CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AND ADD A BATHROOM TO AN EXISTING
DETACHED STRUCTURE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10151 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD
Associate Planner MacKenzie Young-Walters presented the staff report on this item, noting that,
if the commission does not pass it with a ¾ majority vote, the item will go to city council on
February 22, 2021.
Commissioner Skistad arrived.
The applicant is requesting a variance on 4.37 acres for an addition as well as a garage that
would exceed the current 1,000 square-foot limit on accessory structures as outline in City Code.
The present zoning is A2 – Agricultural Estate District. There are bluffs present but they would
not impact the proposed project, so no variance is being requested from any setback. This district
does require a minimum of a 2½ acre lot size, 50 foot and rear setbacks, 10-foot side yard
setback, 30-foot bluff setback, 20-foot bluff impact zone setback, all structures are limited to a
35-foot maximum height, and the property is limited to a maximum lot cover of 20 percent.
There is a detached garage present on the property with a 728 square-foot footprint, a summer
kitchen of 456 square-feet, and a garden shed of 200 square-feet which leads to a non-
Planning Commission Minutes – February 2, 2021
2
conforming accessory structure total of 1,384 square-feet. The house and summer kitchen are
older historic structures dating to the late nineteenth century.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,382 square-foot detached garage with approximately
864 square-feet of upper-level storage. They are also proposing a 76 square-foot addition to the
summer cottage. The summer kitchen and shed are already over the 1,000 square-foot limit. The
existing garage does not provide enough space to store the applicant’s vehicles as well as
equipment needed to maintain the site. The addition to the summer kitchen would facilitate a
basement area which would prevent bathroom pipes from freezing in the winter. The detached
garage would be more in keeping with the historic nature of the site. Neighboring structures have
larger detached structures. The applicant does not intend to use either structure in a manner either
for home occupation or as a dwelling unit.
In 2007, an accessory structure site ordinance was passed to prevent the construction of large,
detached buildings that lend themselves to future use as part of home occupations in A2 and RR
districts. The intent of the nonconforming use ordinance is to prevent the expansion of and
encourage the elimination of nonconforming structures. The applicant does have the ability to
add additional garage space via an alternate configuration so they could do an attached garage
without the requested variance. Staff does not believe the applicant has demonstrated that it’s not
feasible to add the bathroom within the existing summer kitchen without expanding the footprint.
In general, outbuildings on single family residential properties do not typically have bathrooms,
therefore, staff can’t find that the inability to add a bathroom would be of practical difficulty.
Additionally, when looking at single family residential properties throughout the city and this
neighborhood typically there are not properties with multiple detached garages. There is a long-
term potential to use these structures either as home occupation or a second dwelling unit. A
variance would open up the potential for enforcement issues down the road. Staff is
recommending that the requested variance be denied.
Chairman Weick asked if space could be added to the existing detached garage to allow for
additional storage.
Mr. Young-Walters explained that, if the applicant chose to take down the garden shed, they
could add a smaller addition to the garage to keep under the 1,000 square-foot limit. But another
150 square-feet on the detached garage would likely not accomplish the applicant’s goal.
Chairman Weick clarified that adding to the house would be an option because it was not
affecting the accessory structure limit.
Commissioner Randall asked if historic significance played into what the applicant is allowed to
do or not.
Mr. Young-Walters responded that the city does not have historic preservation restrictions which
affect their ability to utilize the property.
Planning Commission Minutes – February 2, 2021
3
Commissioner McGonagill asked about the pictures included in the packet.
Mr. Young-Walters explained that the lettered pictures in the packet were provided by the
applicant to show other accessory structures in his neighborhood as well as properties with
clutter due to insufficient storage.
Commissioner McGonagill confirmed that the plan sheets in the packet were the most recent
submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Young-Walters stated that the plans were drafted in December. Staff had requested elevation
and floor plans of structures so they could see how to configure and utilize the space.
Commissioner Reeder asked if staff would have the same concerns about the potential for a
home industry being run in the detached garage if, instead, the property owner added a 5,000
square-foot addition to the house.
Mr. Young-Walters stated there is potential for an addition of that size. Historically, he has seen
people are more likely to use a detached garage for a business so that employees are not showing
up to a site attached to the main home. A garage this size would raise concern and there would
need to be a comment added that it could not be used for a business.
Commissioner Reeder clarified that the goal of staff was to lessen the opportunity to deal with
future home businesses in that location.
Chairman Weick invited the applicant to join via Zoom.
Ed Myslivecek, the applicant, stated he has lost two driveways out to Highway 101 for safety
reasons which have extended his driveway by more than 300 feet. This necessitated a larger
tractor to plow snow and a place to store the tractor as well as two classic cars. He also wished to
add a bathroom to the outbuilding, referred to as a cottage or summer kitchen, for use with large
groups such as a local youth group which meet there. He spoke about the history of the site
which was built in the 1860s and has had farm use outbuildings torn down or replaced over the
years. The proposed garage would not be for contractor use and he feels he is not adding more
space than others in his neighborhood. He has been planning to build a structure for a couple
years and worked closely with the Planning Department on plans. He feels that the planned
structure appearance is close to what is already on the property and would not be an eyesore.
Chairman Weick opened the discussion to Commissioner questions.
Commissioner Noyes asked about input from the neighbors. Some had responded to his survey
but others had not. Did they not have an opinion or are they against it? He felt that the inquiry
seemed like it was asking for approval, not concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes – February 2, 2021
4
Mr. Myslivecek stated that he sent out fourteen surveys and did not receive response from two of
his neighbors. He attempted to word the notice in a way to not persuade them but to give them
information on what he was planning. He does not know why the two other neighbors did not
respond.
Commissioner McGonagill asked how many classic cars are kept in the garage.
Mr. Myslivecek responded that there were two, a truck and a car.
Commissioner McGonagill spoke about the nearby AutoMotorPlex Chanhassen garage
condominium and asked if that might be an option to store the vehicles.
Mr. Myslivecek stated he could find a way to store the vehicles in local barns and garages, which
would be cheaper than putting another building on the property. He loves the site and feels that
an additional structure would represent the look of the farm 160 years ago and would add to the
quality of the property.
Commissioner McGonagill confirmed that the applicant has explored the use of car condos and
has chosen not to do that.
Mr. Myslivecek stated that he does not repair the cars but buys them finished to enjoy.
Commissioner McGonagill understands that the applicant is trying to protect his vehicles and
feels the car condos are a great option. He asked about the reference to a cottage on the plans. He
felt that the term “cottage” implied a living unit.
Mr. Myslivecek clarified that the structure is sometimes referred to as a summer kitchen, which
was its original use. It’s currently used as a gathering spot for a book club and youth group and it
is an inconvenience that there is no bathroom. There is no kitchen in the structure.
Commissioner McGonagill felt that the term cottage implied that it could be used as a living unit.
Mr. Myslivecek agreed that the building could be converted into sleeping quarters if they
wanted, but that was not their intent.
Commissioner von Oven spoke about his training as a Planning Commissioner. The city has a
plan in place and the Planning Commission is in a position to approve variances to the city plan.
If the Commission is granting variances all the time, a better option would be to change the city
plan so that there isn’t a line of residents wanting variances to their property. He asked Mr.
Myslivecek what he would tell people about his project which made it deserve the special
consideration of a variance.
Planning Commission Minutes – February 2, 2021
5
Mr. Myslivecek stated, if he were in the position of the Planning Commission, he might fear that
other people would want to create a variance on their property. However, they would likely not
have the same reasoning to do so.
Commissioner Reeder asked if the applicant would consider adding a garage to the house if the
Commission denies the request.
Mr. Myslivecek explained that option is a last resort that would require additional consideration.
He doesn’t feel it goes with the historic vision of the property.
Chairman Weick asked if the single door shown on the plans was sufficient to get everything in
and out of the proposed garage.
Mr. Myslivecek explained that the design is on the south side to allow for snow and use of the
sun. Most of the contents of the building are not moved in and out often. The van and tractor
would have plenty of room and items could be removed one at a time out of the single door.
Chairman Weick thanked the applicant for answering Commissioners questions as they
considered all of the details surrounding the project.
Chairman Weick opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment received prior to or during the meeting.
Chairman Weick closed the public hearing.
Chairman Weick asked for Commissioner comment, discussion, and a motion.
Commissioner Reeder commented that the property is unique, surrounded by two golf courses
and a nursery. Recently a four-lane highway has been built in front of it. He thinks that what the
applicant is requesting is reasonable since it is not in the middle of a residential area.
Commissioner McGonagill asked what kind of requirements the applicant would be under if he
were to rebuild the new garage in the footprint of the former barn.
Mr. Young-Walters explained that they would still need to go through the variance process.
Commissioner McGonagill clarified that the proposed detached garage does not resemble the old
barn.
Mr. Young-Walters confirmed that it does not.
Planning Commission Minutes – February 2, 2021
6
Commissioner McGonagill stated that he was opposed to the proposal. There are already nearly
1,400 square-feet of accessory structures on the property and the plan would increase it to more
than double the square-footage allowed on site. It is one of the largest variances he has seen
during his time on the Planning Commission. He feels that the car condos are an available option
for the storage of classic cars. He agrees that adding a garage to the house wouldn’t look great
aesthetically. He is a firm believer in property rights but his training as a Planning Commissioner
taught him what to look at in a variance and felt he has to stick to the city plan.
Commissioner Randall stated that many of the variances the Commission has looked at in the
past have involved lot minimums or non-conforming homes on lakes or older areas. The property
in question is quite large and has historic significance. He also expressed concern about the
home’s proximity to Highway 101. Was the applicant aware of the longer driveway when he
purchased the property? He would hope for some sort of compromise.
Commissioner Noyes stated that he sees the viewpoints presented. His concern is in setting a
precedence by allowing this variance. What is the Planning Commission’s response to other
inquiries on similar size properties if they approve this variance?
Commissioner Reeder responded that not a lot of other properties have this type of historical
significance and the reason for variances is to deal with properties that are significantly different
than most properties in the city.
Commissioner von Oven questioned if it made sense that every property in the city should be
limited to a volume-based metric of 1,000 square-feet or if it should be adjusted to measuring on
a proportional base as done with hard structures. Maybe it shouldn’t be a one-off variance but
should instead be changed in the City Code. Saying this is the exception to the rules because of
non-specific things would put the Planning Commission in a position of setting precedence for
similar properties.
Chairman Weick asked if the entire property was buildable acreage or if there were forestry or
ravines.
Mr. Young-Walters clarified that there was a bluff which was undevelopable.
Chairman Weick felt the reduction in buildable lot size may affect consideration of the plans.
Commissioner Reeder asked, if the applicant came back with a plan where he moved the garage
closer to the house and put a walkway between the structures, could he get away from the
definition of accessory structure and be considered part of the main structure.
Mr. Young-Walters would need to look at plans and consult with building officials but the City
Code reads that it has to have a common wall. In theory, a breezeway may meet code.
Planning Commission Minutes – February 2, 2021
7
Commissioner Reeder clarified that the applicant could build a garage if he moved it closer to the
home and it may not require a variance.
Mr. Young-Walters stated that the applicant would still need a variance for the addition to the
summer kitchen which would exceed the square-footage limitations.
Commissioner Reeder felt the Planning Commission was being “sticky” by saying the applicant
can put the garage in one location but not another because of the definition of accessory
buildings.
Chairman Weick asked how much of the property was buildable.
Mr. Young-Walters stated he was not comfortable with speculating on how much is not
buildable but certainly some is not buildable due to the bluff. He added that staff have prepared
motions for or against the proposal.
Commissioner McGonagill moved, Commissioner Randall seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the requested 1,842-square
foot accessory structure size variance, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision
Recommendations (Denial).
Commissioner McGonagill stated he appreciates that this is the owner’s property; however, the
variance is large. He looks forward to the City Council’s review of the item. He feels that
Commissioner von Oven’s suggestion about adjusting the ratio of structures to lot size has merit.
Commissioner von Oven sees the property and understands the applicant’s reasons for wanting
to make changes. However, the Planning Commission is charged with the preservation of the city
plan. If there are a number of properties out there like this, a change in how to measure accessory
structures would allow Mr. Myslivecek and other property owners to make these types of
changes.
Chairman Weick asked for additional comments and thanked the applicant, commissioners, and
staff. He called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Commissioner Skistad, Commissioner Reeder,
and Commissioner Randall voted nay.
Mr. Young-Walters stated that the item will go to the City Council at the February 22, 2021 City
Council meeting and they will be provided with a copy of Commissioners’ comments.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the verbatim minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated January 19, 2021 as presented.
Planning Commission Minutes – February 2, 2021
8
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
2020 Year-End Review and 2021 Work Program
Senior Planner Bob Generous presented the 2020 Year-End Review and 2021 Work Program.
Remodeling activity on residential homes has been steady as people are making improvements.
The city is still waiting on 2020 Census data. Because of single-family developments, there are
currently more persons per household than historically allocated for the community. If there are
specific projects, research, or ordinance amendments the Planning Commission would like the
Planning Department to review, they can be added to the 2021 Work Plan.
Commissioner McGonagill asked when the Moments of Chanhassen development would start
construction.
Mr. Generous stated there were some issues outside of the city’s control, but construction would
probably begin the summer of 2021.
Chairman Weick felt that 2020 was a busy year for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Young-Walters added that the drop in cases was related to the pandemic. Fewer businesses
were opening resulting in fewer needs for signage.
Commissioner Skistad asked when the report will be presented to the City Council.
Mr. Generous said that the report would go to the City Council in March.
Commissioner McGonagill added that the Planning Commission spent a lot of time reviewing
and upgrading City Code.
City Council Action Update
Mr. Generous presented highlights of action taken by the City Council on planning matters.
Mr. Young-Walters added that the City Council amended one of the conditions for the Golf Zone
property to give the driving range until June 14, 2021 to install nets.
Planning Commission Interview Process
Mr. Generous stated that the City Council is revising their interview process to include one
member of the Planning Commission and one alternate.
Chairman Weick asked for volunteers from the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes – February 2, 2021
9
Commissioner von Oven volunteered with Commissioner Skistad as alternate. Commissioner
Noyes also agreed to be an alternate if needed.
March Attendance
Chairman Weick asked the Planning Commission to contact Community Development Director
Kate Aanenson with March availability due to the need for a quorum at meetings.
Commissioner Randall asked when the new Planning Commission members would begin.
Chairman Weick stated that they would begin at the first meeting in April 2021.
Chairman Weick asked if there were any Commissioner presentations.
Commissioner von Oven asked for clarification on what Commissioner presentations may
include.
Chairman Weick explained that there may be a question about the status of an old case, a
variance that has not been worked on in a while, future direction, or anything the Planning
Commission may want on record.
Mr. Generous added that it may include information learned at a conference that a Commissioner
may want to share with the rest of the members.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Reviewed by Jean Steckling
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Subject Review of Legal Opinions
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: E.1.
Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community
Development Director
File No:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
This item is provided as continuing education for the Planning Commissioners on current issues resulting from Planning
Commission actions in other Minnesota cities. Staff has attached two recent court cases for the Planning Commission to
review. These cases revolve around the interpretation of City Code and the findings of fact necessary to grant a
variance. Questions of this nature can come before the Planning Commission and it is important for both staff and
Planning Commissioners to keep in mind that their comments and decisions can be subject to judicial review.
BACKGROUND
Neighborly Dispute Richard T. Jellinger, et al v. City of Anoka
In this case, a city become involved in a dispute between neighbors. One of the neighbors disputed the city’s interpretation
of its ordinance, alleging that a fence, constructed with a permit, was too high, that the city misapplied its trash container
ordinance, and that a dog crossing sign violated the sign code. The city argued that the court should defer to its
interpretation of its ordinance. The court rejected this argument noting that the language of the ordinance in question was
clear and unambiguous, and that the city was bound by plain language of the ordinance. While the court noted that judicial
deference is given to quasijudicial decision (i.e. granting variances), it does not give the same deference to the
interpretation of City Code. The court also notes that the intent of the ordinance cannot override the plain text of the
ordinance. It is important to realize that in this case, the city’s failure to define several terms used in the ordinance led to it
being bound by the dictionary definition of the Code and its interpretation of its own fence ordinance being overturned. In
the case of the trash cans and sign, the court found that the plain text and definitions supported the city’s interpretation.
Staff included this case as a reminder of: 1) why it is so important to continually review and update the City’s Code;
and, 2) as to why staff requires applicants seeking very minor deviations for the City Code to go through the variance
process. Simply put, staff’s actions are always constrained by the plain text of the City Code. The Planning
Commission and City Council have more flexibility, but, as the next case will show, they too must abided by certain
restrictions when allowing deviations from ordinances.
Overturned Variance Thomas Tulien v. City of Minneapolis
In this case, a city’s resident challenged an issued variance and conditional use permit (CUP) by contending that the city’s
decisions were “unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious”. City decisions can be overturned on these grounds when it is
demonstrated that the reasons given by the Planning Commission and City Council for their action are legally insufficient
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, March 2, 2021SubjectReview of Legal OpinionsSectionADMINISTRATIVEPRESENTATIONS Item No: E.1.Prepared By Kate Aanenson, CommunityDevelopment Director File No: SUMMARY OF REQUESTThis item is provided as continuing education for the Planning Commissioners on current issues resulting from PlanningCommission actions in other Minnesota cities. Staff has attached two recent court cases for the Planning Commission toreview. These cases revolve around the interpretation of City Code and the findings of fact necessary to grant avariance. Questions of this nature can come before the Planning Commission and it is important for both staff andPlanning Commissioners to keep in mind that their comments and decisions can be subject to judicial review.BACKGROUNDNeighborly Dispute Richard T. Jellinger, et al v. City of AnokaIn this case, a city become involved in a dispute between neighbors. One of the neighbors disputed the city’s interpretationof its ordinance, alleging that a fence, constructed with a permit, was too high, that the city misapplied its trash containerordinance, and that a dog crossing sign violated the sign code. The city argued that the court should defer to itsinterpretation of its ordinance. The court rejected this argument noting that the language of the ordinance in question wasclear and unambiguous, and that the city was bound by plain language of the ordinance. While the court noted that judicialdeference is given to quasijudicial decision (i.e. granting variances), it does not give the same deference to theinterpretation of City Code. The court also notes that the intent of the ordinance cannot override the plain text of theordinance. It is important to realize that in this case, the city’s failure to define several terms used in the ordinance led to itbeing bound by the dictionary definition of the Code and its interpretation of its own fence ordinance being overturned. Inthe case of the trash cans and sign, the court found that the plain text and definitions supported the city’s interpretation.Staff included this case as a reminder of: 1) why it is so important to continually review and update the City’s Code;and, 2) as to why staff requires applicants seeking very minor deviations for the City Code to go through the varianceprocess. Simply put, staff’s actions are always constrained by the plain text of the City Code. The PlanningCommission and City Council have more flexibility, but, as the next case will show, they too must abided by certainrestrictions when allowing deviations from ordinances.Overturned Variance Thomas Tulien v. City of MinneapolisIn this case, a city’s resident challenged an issued variance and conditional use permit (CUP) by contending that the city’s
decisions were “unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious”. City decisions can be overturned on these grounds when it is
demonstrated that the reasons given by the Planning Commission and City Council for their action are legally insufficient
or factually unsupported. The court determined that in this case the city failed to consider and address all elements
required for the issuance of a CUP and that the Findings of Fact and comments by Commissioners did not support the
finding that practical difficulties existed. For these reasons, the court overturned both the CUP and issued variance.
Staff included this case as a reminder that: 1) practical difficulties must be the result from the property or its
surroundings, the zoning code itself cannot be the practical difficulty; 2) that the variances granted should not exceed the
demonstrated practical difficulty; 3) that comments made by staff and Planning Commissioners during public hearings
and deliberations are part of the justification for city decisions; and, 4) that cities must demonstrate that they've
considered all required factors before issuing variances or CUPs.
ATTACHMENTS:
Neighborly Dispute
Variance Overturned
1
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0620
Richard T. Jellinger, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
City of Anoka,
Respondent,
Jefferson L. Weaver, et al.,
Respondents.
Filed December 21, 2020
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Reyes, Judge
Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CV-18-5955
Richard T. Jellinger, Coon Rapids, Minnesota (for appellants)
Scott C. Baumgartner, Hawkins & Baumgartner, PA, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent
City of Anoka)
Kurt B. Glaser, Smith & Glaser, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
William K. Goodrich, Randall and Goodrich, PLC, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondents
Weavers)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Gaïtas,
Judge.
2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REYES, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court’s entry of summary judgment for
respondents, arguing that respondents-neighbors’ (1) fence violates a city ordinance
regulating fence height; (2) trash- and recycling-container storage violates a city ordinance
regulating container placement; and (3) dog sign violates a city ordinance regulating the
display of signs. Respondents request attorney fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and
remand.
FACTS
The undisputed facts of this case are as follows: appellants Richard T. and Margaret
K. Jellinger (the Jellingers) and respondents Jefferson L. and Robin A. Weaver (the
Weavers) are neighbors, living on two of three lots between Rice Street and the Mississippi
River in Anoka, Minnesota. The Weavers’ lot lies between the Mississippi River to the
south and the Jellingers’ lot to the north. The Weavers’ lot is a riparian lot. A private drive
crosses the Jellingers’ lot and serves both the Jellingers’ and the Weavers’ lots because
neither lot directly fronts on Rice Street. Figure 1 below is an aerial photograph of the lots.
The Weavers obtained a permit from the City of Anoka (the city) to construct a six-
foot-high, fifty-six-foot-long fence along the lot boundary shared with the Jellingers. The
Jellingers complained about the fence height, arguing that it violated the four-foot height
limit in the city’s fence ordinance for fences in front of houses. The city concluded that
the fence location and construction did not violate the fence ordinance because the fence is
located on the rear lot line.
3
The Jellingers also complained to the city about the Weavers leaving their trash and
recycling containers on the private drive for collection. The city concluded that the city’s
trash ordinance, which requires people who place their containers on the street or curb to Private Drive Jellingers’
Residence
Weavers’ Fence
(approximate length)
Weavers’ Main
Entrance
Figure 1. This aerial photograph is taken from the summary-judgment record.
We added labels, north arrow, and a depiction of the private drive to clarify
the layout.
N
Rice Street
4
return the containers to storage within 12 hours, did not apply to the Weavers because they
“reside on a riparian lot not abutting a public street.”
The Weavers also display a yellow, diamond-shaped plaque stating “Golden
Retriever Crossing” and containing a silhouette of a dog (dog sign) on their fence between
their lot and the Jellingers’ lot. The Jellingers complained about the dog sign to the city.
The city concluded that the dog sign is not a sign for purposes of the city’s sign ordinance
because it is “a decorative plaque not directed at the public.”
The Jellingers sought a declaratory judgment that the Weavers’ fence, trash- and
recycling-container storage, and dog sign violated various city ordinances. The Jellingers
moved for summary judgment on all three issues. In response, the Weavers and the city
(collectively, respondents) each requested that the district court grant summary judgment
in their favor. The district court denied the Jellingers’ motion and granted summary
judgment for respondents. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
I. We review summary judgment interpreting unambiguous city ordinances de
novo.
In reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment, we review de novo
“whether there are any issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its
application of the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn.
2017). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary
judgment was granted. Grondahl v. Bulluck, 318 N.W.2d 240, 242 (Minn. 1982).
5
“[T]he interpretation of an existing ordinance is a question of law for the court.”
Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608 (Minn. 1980).
“Ordinances are construed according to the recognized principles of statutory
construction.” Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d
335, 339, n.3 (Minn. 1984). We first determine whether the ordinance is ambiguous.
Cannon v. Minneapolis Police Dept., 783 N.W.2d 182, 193 (Minn. App. 2010). An
ordinance is ambiguous only when it is subject to multiple reasonable interpretations. Id.
at 193. If the ordinance is unambiguous, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of its
terms. Frank’s Nursery, 295 N.W.2d at 608; State ex rel. Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc., 552
N.W.2d 695, 701 (Minn. 1996).
As an initial matter, respondents argue that we should defer to the city’s
interpretation of its own ordinances. But the interpretation of ordinances is a question of
law, which we review de novo. RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71, 75
(Minn. 2015) (citing Frank’s Nursery, 295 N.W.2d at 608); cf. St. Otto’s Home v. Minn.
Dept. of Human Servs., 437 N.W.2d 35, 40 (Minn. 1989) (“No deference is given to the
agency interpretation if the language of the regulation is clear and capable of
understanding.”).
Respondents cite several cases for the proposition of judicial deference to municipal
decisionmaking. White Bear Docking and Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake, 324
N.W.2d 174, 175 (Minn. 1982); Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 125 N.W.2d
846, 850 n.5 (Minn. 1964); Eagle Lake v. Becker County, 738 N.W.2d 788, 792 (Minn.
App. 2007); Berndt v. County of Crow Wing, Nos. A05-1381, A05-1409, 2006 WL
6
1073196 (Minn. App. April 25, 2016). But those cases involved challenges to quasi-
judicial decisions by local government bodies. It is true that courts defer to the quasi-
judicial decisions, such as whether to grant permits or variances, of such entities . In this
case, the city issued a permit for the Weavers’ fence; however, the Jellingers did not
challenge the permit. Instead, they filed this declaratory judgment action in which
resolution of all issues turns on the interpretation of the city’s ordinances. And because we
review interpretation of ordinances de novo, we owe the city’s interpretation of its
ordinances no deference.
II. Because the plain language of the city ordinance prohibiting fences exceeding
four feet in height “in front of the front line of a residential structure” applies
to the Weavers’ fence, the district court erred by entering summary judgment
in favor of respondents.
The Jellingers argue that the Weavers’ six-foot fence violates the city’s fence
ordinance height restriction. We agree.
The fence ordinance states that “[i]n single- and two-family residential districts, no
fence may exceed four feet in height above the ground level, in front of the front line of the
residential structure, along any street or highway right -of-way, or in the front yard.”
Anoka, Minn., Code of Ordinances (ACO), § 78-562(e) (2020)
https://library.municode.com/mn/anoka/codes/code_of_ordinances (emphasis added).1
Because the fence ordinance is written in the disjunctive, a fence that exceeds four feet in
1 The city revised its city code in August and September of 2020. The revisions do not
change the substance of any applicable sections, except for renumbering. We therefore
cite the most recent version of the city code. See Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Cty. Bd.
of Comm’rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 575 (Minn. 2000) (stating that, generally, “appellate courts
apply the law as it exists at the time they rule on a case”).
7
height in any one of the three locations violates the ordinance. See Amaral v. Saint Cloud
Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 385 (Minn. 1999) (noting that “or” is generally disjunctive).
All parties agree that the only issue is whether the fence is “in front of the front line
of the residential structure.” Because the fence ordinance is unambiguous, we look to the
plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. The city code does not define “front line” or “front
line of the residential structure.” “Front line” is modified by the adjectival prepositional
phrase, “of the residential structure,” signifying the specific “front line” to which the phrase
refers. “Residential structure” in this context plainly refers to the house. “Front,” with
reference to a structure like a house, generally means the side with the main entrance.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 503 (11th ed. 2014) (defining “front” as “a side
of a building, especially the side that contains the principal entrance”); cf. Oxford
Dictionary of English 702 (3d ed. 2010) (defining “front” as “the side or part of an
object that . . . is normally seen or used first”). We conclude that the plain meaning of “the
front line of the residential structure” is a line that runs along the side of the home with the
principal or main entrance. Fences may not exceed four feet in height in front of this line.
ACO, § 78-562(e).
Respondents argue that the Weavers’ lot should be treated differently because it is
a riparian lot. See Girvan v. County of Le Sueur, 232 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. 1975) (noting
the “peculiar circumstances relating to lakeshore property in Minnesota”). They argue that
“the front line of the residential structure” either is, or is on the same side as, the “front lot
line” of a lot, and that because the Weavers’ lot is a riparian lot with the f ront lot line
abutting the river to the south, the front line of the residential structure must also be to the
8
south. Because the fence is on the north lot line, they contend that the fence is not “in front
of the front line of the residential structure.” We are not persuaded. Respondents’
argument confuses the front line of the property with the front line of the residential
structure. We agree that the front lot line of a riparian lot abuts the water and that a riparian
lot’s front yard is therefore on the side of the lot facing the water. (See Fig. 2). We also
agree that the Weavers’ fence is in their rear yard. But none of that changes that the front
line of the house is on the north side of the structure, which contains the main entrance and
is the part of the house a person approaches first. (See Fig. 2).
Here, the Weavers’ fence is “in front of the front line of the residential structure”
because, like the main entrance, the fence is on the north side of the house. Because the
fence exceeds the height limitation for this area, it violates the fence ordinance. We
therefore reverse the district court’s entry of summary judgment for respondents as to the
fence, and remand to the district court for entry of summary judgment for the Jellingers on
this issue.
9
Private Drive Jellingers’
Residence
Weavers’
Front Yard
Weavers’ Fence
(approximate length)
Front line of
Weavers’
residence
N
Figure 2. This is the same aerial photograph as used in Figure 1. We again
added labels, north arrow, and a depiction of the private drive to clarify the
layout and legal conclusions.
Rice Street
10
III. Because the plain language of the city ordinance regulating trash and recycling
collection does not apply to the Weavers, the district court did not err by
granting summary judgment to respondents.
The Jellingers argue that the Weavers violated the city code’s requirement that trash
and recycling containers be returned to their place of storage within 12 hours of collection.
We disagree.
In relevant part, the city’s trash ordinance provides that “[c]ontainers may be placed
next to the street or curb on the days scheduled for collection but shall be returned to the
place of storage within 12 hours after collection.” ACO, § 70-81(c) (2020). The plain
language of the trash ordinance applies specifically to those who place their containers next
to the street or curb for collection. Here, the Weavers place their containers on the private
drive near their home such that the collectors must travel the private drive in order to collect
the Weavers’ trash and recycling. Because the Weavers do not place their containers next
to the street or curb, the portion of the trash ordinance requiring residents to return
containers to storage within 12 hours of collection does not apply to the Weavers.
The Jellingers argue that the intent of the trash ordinance is to provide a “complete
system for collection” and to safeguard health and sanitary conditions for city residents,
and that failing to apply the trash ordinance to the Weavers undermines these goals. But
the intent of the ordinance cannot override the plain language. See Cannon, 783 N.W.2d at
193. Moreover, the Jellingers have not alleged any particular way in which the Weavers’
container storage is unhealthy or unsanitary, or renders the collection system incomplete.
We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for
respondents as to the trash and recycling containers.
11
IV. Because the plain language of the city ordinance defining and regulating signs
does not apply to the Weavers’ dog sign, the district court did not err by
granting summary judgment to respondents.
The Jellingers argue that the Weavers’ dog sign, which they contend resembles an
animal-crossing sign, is a sign regulated under the city’s sign ordinance. We disagree.
The sign ordinance defines a sign as “a name, identification, description, display,
illustration or device which is affixed to or represented directly or indirectly upon a
building, structure or land in view of the general public and which directs attention to a
product, place, activity, person, institution, or business.” ACO, § 78-512 (2020). The
parties dispute whether the dog sign is “in view of the general public.” We again look to
the plain meaning of the terms in the definition. “General public” is not defined in the city
code, but a dictionary definition provides that “public” means “the people as a whole,” a
meaning which “general” simply reinforces. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
520, 1005 (11th ed. 2014) (defining “general” as “involving, relating to, or affecting the
whole”).
Here, the dog sign is not in view of the general public. The dog sign is on a private
drive, 386 feet from the nearest public street. Only those entering the private drive can see
the dog sign. The Jellingers argue that, because delivery drivers, garbage collectors,
visitors, and neighbors will see the dog sign when they enter the private drive, it is in view
of the general public. But these are not the “people as a whole ,” which is what the term
“general public” entails. Further, by statute, a private drive is a privately owned road used
by the owner “and those having express or implied permission from the owner, but not by
other persons.” Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 57 (2018). In contrast, streets are “open to the
12
use of the public.” Id. § 169.011, subd. 81 (2018). Because the dog sign is visible to non-
neighbors only from the private drive, and because only those with express or implied
permission to use the private drive may do so, it is not in view of the general public. As a
result, the dog sign is not a sign for purposes of the sign ordinance.
The Jellingers nevertheless argue that the dog sign is an informational-directional
sign. An informational-directional sign is “any sign giving information to employees,
visitors or delivery vehicles, but containing no advertising; such sign may include name or
business, but must predominantly represent a directional or informational message.” ACO,
§ 78-512. The Jellingers argue that the dog sign is informational in nature and targets
visitors and delivery drivers, fitting within this definition. We are not persuaded. In order
to be an informational-directional sign, a display must first meet the definition of “sign.”
But as stated above, the dog sign is not in view of the general public because it is located
on a private drive 386 feet from the nearest public street, and is therefore not a sign in the
first place. Further, informational-directional signs target a broader subset of the general
public than the few delivery drivers, neighbors, and guests who will use the private drive
and see the dog sign. The dog sign is not an informational-directional sign, and we
therefore conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to
respondents as to the dog sign.
V. We decline to reach the Weavers’ request for attorney fees.
In their appellate brief, the Weavers request attorney fees as compensation for
frivolous and vindictive litigation. We decline to reach this issue.
13
Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 139.05, subd. 1, “a party seeking attorney[] fees on
appeal shall submit such a request by motion under Rule 127.” See Minn. Stat. § 645.44,
subd. 15 (2018) (providing that “shall” is mandatory). Rules 139.03 and 139.05 impose a
14-day limitation for submitting this request to the court of appeals. Minn. R. Civ. App.
P. 139.05, subd. 1 (providing that, “all motions for fees must be submitted no later than
within the time for taxation of costs”); Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 139.03, subd. 1 (providing
that, “[a] prevailing party seeking taxation of costs and disbursements shall file and serve
a notice of taxation of costs and disbursements within 14 days of the filing of the court ’s
order or decision”). If a party has appropriately made a request, we may award attorney
fees on appeal when a statute enables it or a contract authorizes it, see Barr/Nelson, Inc. v.
Tonto’s, Inc., 336 N.W.2d 46, 53 (Minn. 1983), or as a sanction, Minn. R. Civ. App. P.
139.05 1998 comm. cmt. Because the Weavers have not followed the procedure
established by the appellate rules, we decline to reach their request for attorney fees.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0542
Thomas Tulien,
Appellant,
vs.
City of Minneapolis,
Respondent,
Black Tree, LLC, d/b/a Yellow Tree Development,
Respondent.
Filed January 11, 2021
Reversed
Hooten, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-19-15592
Thomas F. DeVincke, Patrick B. Steinhoff, Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant)
James R. Rowader, Jr., City Attorney, Brian S. Carter, Assistant City Attorney,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent City of Minneapolis)
James J. Thomson, Jr., Michelle E. Weinberg, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Black Tree LLC, d/b/a Yellow Tree
Development)
Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Halbrooks, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
HOOTEN , Judge
In this appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for respondents
City of Minneapolis (City) and Black Tree LLC, d/b/a Yellow Tree Development (Yellow
Tree), appellant Thomas Tulien argues that the district court erred by concluding that the
Minnesota municipal planning act (MPA), Minnesota Statutes sections 462.351-.365
(2018), allows the City to provide its planning commission, rather than its board of
adjustments, with the authority to review and grant variances from the local zoning code
when an applicant submits multiple land -use requests. Tulien also argues that the City
granted five variances and a conditional use permit without a reasonable basis. We reverse.
FACTS
This case is an appeal by Tulien from the district court’s grant of summary judgment
for respondents. Tulien lives in a house in the Whittier neighborhood of Minneapolis,
across an alley from the corner of Blaisdell Avenue and 26th Street West, where Yellow
Tree proposed to build a six-story, mixed-use office and residential apartment building (the
project). The project deviated from the height, size, and layout zoning requirements of the
OR2 district where the building was to be constructed.1 Yellow Tree submitted to the
1 OR2 means High Density Office Residence District. Minneapolis Code of O rdinances
§ 547.20 (2018). “The office residence districts are established to provide an environment
of mixed residential, office, institutional, and where appropriate, small scale retail sales
and service uses designed to serve the immediate surroundings. These office residence
districts may serve as small to medium scale mixed use areas within neighborhoods, as
higher density transitions between downtown and residential neighborhoods, or as
freestanding institutions and employment centers throughout the city.” MCO § 547.10
(2018).
3
City’s Planning Commission several applications to deviate from those zoning
requirements, including seven variances and a conditional use permit (CUP) to exceed the
building height limit for the property.2
City planners at the Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and
Economic Development (CPED) first reviewed Yellow Tree’s applications. CPED
reviews every application for a land use permit and then recommends to the City whether
it should grant or deny the application. Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances (MCO)
§§ 415.20(a)(4) (2013), 525.120(b)(1) (2015). After reviewing Yellow Tree’s
applications, CPED recommended that the Planning Commission deny the variance
requests because they appeared to be “driven solely by economic considerations by the
financial viability of the project” and were “out of scale with the standards of the zoning
code and policy guidance of the comprehensive [development] plan.” CPED also
recommended that the Planning Commission deny the CUP because it risked injuring the
use and enjoyment of surrounding property, failed to comply with the comprehensive plan,
would shadow surrounding residential property throughout the year, was out of scale with
surrounding properties, and inconsistent with the character of the surrounding uses.
In addition to CPED’s recommendation, the Planning Commission received input
from Whittier residents and Yellow Tree leading up to and during its meeting to decide the
applications. The Whittier Alliance Neighborhood Association and 11 neighborhood
2 Variances are granted to allow a person to use property in a way that does not conform to
the specific requirements of the zoning ordinance. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2)
(2018); see also Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. City of Bloomington , 125 N.W.2d 846, 851 (1964).
4
residents expressed their support for the project through a combination of written
comments before the meeting and brief speeches during it. Six other residents, including
Tulien, commented in opposition to the project. Yellow Tree and DJR Architecture, which
designed the project, provided explanations for the applications and answered
commissioners’ questions during the meeting. CPED staff also attended the meeting to
answer the commissioners’ questions. After hearing from the residents, project developers,
and city staff, the Planning Commission rejected CPED’s recommendations and approved
all of Yellow Tree’s applications.
Tulien appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council’s Standing
Committee on Zoning and Planning (Zoning Committee). Before the Zoning Committee
heard the appeal, Yellow Tree modified the project to eliminate two variance requests ,
changed another variance request, and reduced the building height in the CUP. Nine
residents commented to the Zoning Committee in support of Tulien’s appeal and in
opposition to the project. The Zoning Committee recommended that the full City Council
deny Tulien’s appeal and approve Yellow Tree’s applications. The City Council followed
those recommendations.
Tulien then appealed to the district court, contending that the Planning Commission
lacked the statutory authority to grant the variances, and the City lacked a rational basis to
grant the variances and CUP. Both sides moved for summary judgment, which the district
court granted for the City and Yellow Tree. Tulien then appealed to this court.
5
DECISION
Tulien appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City and
Yellow Tree, contending that the City’s decision to grant the variances and the CUP was
unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, and that the district court erred in its interpretation
of the MPA, Minnesota Statutes sections 462.354 and .357, subdivision 6 (2018).
I. The City’s decisions to grant the variances were unreasonable, arbitrary, and
capricious.
Tulien contends that the City lacked a rational basis to grant the variances. The City
and Yellow Tree respond that the City gave legally sufficient and factually supported
reasons for granting the variances, so its decision had a reasonable basis. A zoning
authority must have a reasonable basis for all zoning decisions. Honn v. City of Coon
Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 417 (Minn. 1981). We review the zoning authority’s decision
independent of the findings and conclusions of the district court. Mendota Golf, LLP v.
City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, 180 (Minn. 2006). We will reverse the decision
as unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious if the articulated reasons for the decision were
legally insufficient or factually unsupported. RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , 861
N.W.2d 71, 75–76 (Minn. 2015). The party challengi ng the zoning decision bears the
burden of proving it was legally insufficient or factually unsupported. Sagstetter v. City of
St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488, 492 (Minn. App. 1995). After reviewing the record before the
City and the City’s findings, we conclud e that the City acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, and
capriciously when it granted the variances.
The City approved the following five variances for the project:
6
1) Reduce the required number of loading/unloading parking spaces from one to zero.
2) Reduce the distance that balconies on the building must be set back from the rear
yard property line from 15 feet to 10 feet.
3) Increase the percentage of the lot that the building is allowed to cover from 70
percent to 77.7 percent.
4) Reduce the distance that the building must be set back from the front yard property
line along 26th Street West from 19.7 feet to one foot.
5) Reduce the distance that the building must be set back from the front yard property
line along Blaisdell Avenue from 33.5 feet to one foot.
The City was required to articulate findings under three factors to establish a reasonable
basis to grant each variance, the first factor being that
[p]ractical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance
because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique
circumstances were not created by persons presently having an
interest in the property and are not based on economic
considerations alone.
MCO § 525.500(1) (2011); see also Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2) (“‘Practical
difficulties,’ . . . means . . . the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to
the property not created by the landowner.”). Tulien challenges only the City’s findings
for the practical difficulty factor, so we confine our review to those findings.
Our case law instructs that a practical difficulty finding requires multiple
components. The “circumstances unique to the property” must be features or
characteristics of the property or its surroundings, not the operation of the zoning code on
the property; also, the finding must explain how those circumstances make it difficult for
the property owner to conform their proposed use to the zoning requirement from which
they seek to vary. See Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697, 702 (Minn. App.
7
2000), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000) (holding that the city made a legally sufficient
finding of practical difficulties when it explained that the property’s location at the end of
a cul-de-sac, as well as the stand of trees and significant grade change of 44 feet on the
property, limited the owner’s ability to create house pads and lot lines in compliance with
the zoning code); State ex rel. Neighbors for E. Bank Livability v. City of Minneapolis , 915
N.W.2d 505, 517–18 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Aug. 7, 2018) (holding
similarly when the city explained that permanent structures on either side of a proposed
apartment building physically limited the lot size and ability to build horizontally on the
property in compliance with the zoning code); Sagstetter 529 N.W.2d at 492 (holding
similarly when the city found that “soil conditions and a sewer main prohibited excavation
that would allow [the project] to comply with the 30 foot height limitation in the
ordinance”). Relatedly, we have upheld a local government’s denial of a variance when it
finds no unique characteristics or features of the property or surrounding area. See, e.g.,
Cont’l Prop. Grp., LLC v. City of Wayzata , No. A15-1550, 2016 WL 1551693, at *5 (Minn.
App. Apr. 18, 2016) (affirmi ng a city’s finding of no unique circumstances when the
property shared the same physical characteristics as similar properties in the immediate
area). The circumstance need not be limited to the physical characteristics or features of
the property itself, but may include those of the surrounding area so long as they cause the
property owner practical difficulties complying with the zoning code. See Neighbors for
E. Bank Livability, 915 N.W.2d at 517–18. With this law in mind, we now turn to the
City’s findings for each variance.
8
A. The City’s practical difficulty findings for the minimum loading
variance and the minimum rear yard setback variance were lega lly
insufficient.
For the minimum loading variance and the minimum rear yard setback variance, the
City found that “a practical difficulty exists due to the current zoning code, which makes
it difficult to create a contemporary apartment building on this site which would meet all
of those standards.” One of the planning commissioners reinforced this finding during the
hearing, saying,
As it relates to practical difficulty, these [variances] relate to
the intensity of development, location of the building. There
are practical difficulties associated with the current zoning
code. I think whether it’s the R5 or OR2 district, it’s difficult
to fit a contemporary building on a site like this or elsewhere
in the city and meet all of those [zoning] standards.
We read this finding to say that the zoning code is the unique circumstance of the property
that made it difficult for Yellow Tree to build its project on the property or elsewhere in
the city.
The City’s finding is legally insufficient because it does no t point to a circumstance
unique to the property. The fact that “the current zoning code . . . makes it difficult to
create a contemporary apartment building on this site” is not a circumstance unique to the
property. The City found that Yellow Tree had practical difficulties building its project in
compliance with the zoning code because the zoning code made it difficult to build the
project at the site. Under this circular reasoning, all requests for variances from the zoning
code automatically have a practical difficulty because the zoning code prevents the
proposed use. It destroys the requirement that a practical difficulty be due to a
9
circumstance unique to the property. The circumstance unique to the property must be a
feature or characteristic which—by its existence—causes the property owner difficulty
conforming their proposed use to the zoning code. Here, the zoning code applied to the
project site did not cause Yellow Tree’s difficulty conforming the project to the zoning
code. Beyond the illogical nature of this finding, we find no caselaw suggesting that the
zoning code can be a circumstance unique to the property. As explained above, our caselaw
confirms that the circumstance must be some feature or characteristic of the property or
surrounding area, not the generally applicable zoning code.
We are not convinced by the City’s argument that this finding actually describes the
unique circumstance that the building site could not meet all the standards in the zoning
code. The language of the finding clearly describes the zoning code as the circumstance
unique to the property, not the building site’s inability to comply with the code. The City
points to nothing in the record that supports its alternative interpretation of this language.
Even if we accepted the City’s interpretation, the finding would still fail to point to any
feature or characteristic of the property or surrounding area, or explain how it creates a
practical difficulty.
This finding fails to identify any features or characteristics of the property or
surrounding area that caused Yellow Tree practical difficulties in building its project with
one loading space and a 15-foot rear yard setback as required by the zoning code. The
finding is legally insufficient. This was the City’s sole practical difficulty finding for these
variances, so the City’s decisions to grant these variances were unreasonable, arbitrary, and
capricious.
10
B. The City’s practical difficulty finding for the maximum lot coverage
variance was legally insufficient.
The City made two practical difficulty findings for the variance to increase the
maximum lot coverage. The first was the legally insufficient finding discussed above,
which we hold to be insufficient for this variance as well. The second finding was that
practical difficulties exist for Yellow Tree complying with the lot coverage requirement
because “[c]ity policies that call for active ground floor uses and the amount of parking
and circulation space needed to meet the minimum parking requirement . . . result[] in a
building footprint that is larger than what is allowed in the OR2 zoning district.” The
zoning code governs active ground floor uses and the design of parking areas. See, e.g.,
MCO § 535.60 (2009) (Active Ground Floor Functions); MC O ch. 541 (2000–2019) (Off-
Street Parking and Loading). The finding explains that specific requirements of the zoning
code forced Yellow Tree to design a project with a building footprint larger than that
allowed in the OR2 zoning district. We again reject the City’s argument that this finding
actually refers to the building site being unable to meet the zoning requirements. As with
the previous finding, this one focuses entirely on difficulties created by the zoning code
that prevent Yellow Tree from building its project as designed, which are not circumstances
unique to the property. This finding is legally insufficient because it fails to establish a
circumstance unique to the property. The City failed to provide any legally sufficient
reasons to grant this variance, so its decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.
11
C. The City’s practical difficulty findings for the front yard setback
variances were legally insufficient.
The City made the same findings for both variances to reduce the front yard
setbacks. The first was the legally insufficient finding discussed in II.A., which we hold
to be insufficient for these variances as well. The City also found that
practical difficulties exist in complying with the front yard
setback requirement due to the unique circumstance of having
two front yards, one along Blaisdell Avenue and one along
26th Street. The residential structure to the north, which sets
the established front yard requirement along Blaisdell, is
uniquely situated with a setback that greatly exceeds the
district minimum setback. The minimum front yard setback
requirement in the OR2 zoning district is 15 feet. However,
based on the established placement of adjacent buildings, the
site is subject to an increased front yard setback of 19.7 feet
along 26th Street and 33.5 feet along Blaisdell Avenue. . . . The
presence of two front yards, each with established setbacks that
exceed the district minimum, limits the amount of buildable
area on site and creates a practical difficulty.
Though the finding identifies a unique circumstance of two front yards, it still fails because
this circumstance does not create practical difficulties for Yellow Tree to comply with the
front yard setbacks.
The finding says that Yellow Tree’s practical difficulty complying with the front
yard setbacks arises because the front yard setbacks on the property exceed the 15 feet
normally required in the OR2 zoning district, excessive ly limiting the area on which
Yellow Tree is allowed to build. The logical solution would be to grant variances reducing
the setbacks to the 15 feet normally required in an OR2 district, which would eliminate the
excessive setbacks and increase the buildable area. But the variances here reduce both
setbacks to one foot, suggesting that Yellow Tree would still encounter a difficulty even if
12
the property were zoned for the normal 15-foot setbacks. The variances greatly exceeded
the difficulty found by the City, meaning this finding does not legally support those
variances.
In addition to the disconnection between the finding and variances, the City’s
finding is legally insufficient because it points to the zoning code as the source of the
practical difficulty. The two front yards and surrounding buildings mentioned in the
finding may be unique circumstances, but they do not themselves reduce the buildable area.
Instead, the zoning code increases the front yard setbacks because of those circumstances,
which reduces the buildable area. The finding says that the front yard setbacks established
by the zoning code reduce the buildable area, which creates Yellow Tree’s practical
difficulty complying its project with the front yard setbacks established by the zoning code.
It is the zoning setbacks themselves that constrain the buildable area. The zoning code is
not a circumstance unique to the property, and the City cannot point to the operation of the
zoning code as the source of Yellow Tree’s practical difficu lty justifying the variance from
the zoning code. This finding is legally insufficient because it fails to identify a practical
difficulty due to circumstances unique to the property. The City failed to provide any
legally sufficient reason to grant these variances, so its decisions were unreasonable,
arbitrary, and capricious.
II. The City’s decision to grant the CUP was unreasonable, arbitrary, and
capricious.
Tulien contends that the City lacked a reasonable basis for granting the CUP
applications because the record does not provide sufficient factual support. We review the
13
City’s grant of the CUP applications under the same standards as the variances. See
Schwardt v. C nty. of Watonwan, 656 N.W.2d 383, 386 (Minn. 2003). The Planning
Commission must make findings under six factors before granting a CUP. MCO § 525.340
(2019); Neighbors for E. Bank Livability, 915 N.W.2d at 510 n.12. The City need not make
each finding explicit, so long as we can determine that the “order granting a CUP . . .
demonstrate[s] the board’s conclusion that the proposal has satisfied each of the zoning
ordinances conditions for approval.” Schwardt , 656 N.W.2d at 389. We conclude that, of
the six required factors, the City failed to consider possible injuries to the use and
enjoyment of nearby property, so it could not have reached any conclusion on that factor .
MCO § 525.340(2) (“The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the vicinity . . . .”).
We examine the City’s order and the record for any indication that the City
considered the possible injury to the use and enjoyment of nearby property. See Schwardt ,
656 N.W.2d at 389. Despite evidence suggesting that injuries were possible, this record is
devoid of any indication that the City considered and rejected those possible injuries. The
City’s resolution and the minutes from the hearings fail to discuss or even hint at this
finding. If the record contained no evidence that the CUP risked injuring the use and
enjoyment of surrounding property, the City would not need to discuss those nonexistent
injuries, and we could infer that their grant was legally sufficient. But here, the Planni ng
Commission and City Council were aware that the increased building height permitted by
the CUP might impact the use and enjoyment of surrounding property. Two residents
submitted comments that the building’s height would cause it to shadow their proper ty
14
throughout the year, and the height of the building’s party deck would injure their private
use of their backyards by allowing people on the deck to look down into their backyards .
Yellow Tree’s shadow study shows that the project will shadow neighbori ng houses
throughout the year. The CPED highlighted the shadow study in its report to the Planning
Commission. Also, Yellow Tree’s project proposal shows that the party deck on the upper
floors faces the backyards of the neighboring houses, allowing views into those backyards.
In the face of this evidence, the City needed to consider and reject those possible injuries
before it could reach any conclusion on this factor. The record fails to show that the City
gave any consideration to those injuries or the finding generally, so we can only conclude
that the City failed to give the consideration legally required. The City’s failure to consider
this required factor renders its reasons for granting the CUP legally insufficient, and its
decision unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.
III. Statutory Preemption Argument
Tulien also argues that the MPA, Minnesota Statutes sections 462.354 and .357,
subdivision 6, preempts the City’s process for approving variances through the Planning
Commission. The district court held otherwise in its summary judgment. On appeal,
Tulien indicates that he was injured by this variance approval process because he “has a
right to have decisions affecting him made by the correct body as provided by the MPA,”
and the City violated that right with its illegal process. Tulien stops at the step of asking
us to interpret the statute differently than the district court, but he does not explain what
relief he could experience through this different interpretation. To the extent Tulien make s
15
this argument in support of us reversing the variances and CUP, we need not address it
because we reverse on other grounds.
IV. Conclusion
The City failed to find any legally sufficient practical difficulties to support its
decisions to grant the variances and failed to consider whether the CUP would impact the
use and enjoyment of surrounding property as required by the MCO and MPA. We reverse
the variances and CUP as unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.
Reversed.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Subject City Council Action Update
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: E.2.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Action Update
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2021
Resolution to adopt setting a public hearing for March 22, 2021 establishing a TIF District - Approved
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021
Commission Interviews (Work Session)
Consider a Request for Variances, Including Exceeding the 1,000 Square-Foot, Detached Accessary
Structure Size Limit, to Construct a Detached Garage and Add a Bathroom to an Existing Detached
Structure on a Property Located at 10151 Great Plains Boulevard - 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