04-05-2022 Work Session - Summary1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WORK SESSION SUMMARY MINUTES - 6:00 P.M.
APRIL 5, 2022
CHANHASSEN SENIOR CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kelsey Alto, Erik Johnson, Eric
Noyes, Mark von Oven, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller and Edward Goff.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner, Jill
Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist, George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Erik
Henricksen, Project Engineer, and Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer.
PUBLIC PRESENT: 1441 Lake Lucy Road (Gayle Morin) neighborhood group: Heidi
Ahmann, Dough Ahmann, Chris Mozina, and Don Giacchetti.
WORK SESSION:
1. Planning Commission Oaths of Office
At 6:00 p.m., Kate Aanenson administered and the three new incoming Commissioners, Edward
Goff, Ryan Soller, and Perry Schwartz, read their oaths and signed the document before a notary
public.
As an introduction, all those present gave a brief background about themselves.
Kate Aanenson noted that the reports for the projects were a collaborative effort of City staff and
stated the Commissioners could ask their questions of the various aspects of the report from the
appropriate staff member. She further stated that the Commissioners, due to legal requirements,
should avoid ex parti communications and should direct questions through her to be routed to the
appropriate staff member and disseminated to the entire group.
2. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Kelsey Alto nominated Mark von Oven as chair. Eric Noyes seconded the nomination. There
were no other nominations. The Commission voted 7–0 to appoint Mark von Oven as Chair.
Mark von Oven nominated Eric Noyes as Vice-Chair. Kelsey Alto seconded the motion. There
were no other nominations. The Commission voted 7–0 to appoint Eric Noyes as Vice-Chair.
3. Adoption of Bylaws
Mark von Oven moved to approve the Planning Commission Bylaws as written. Perry Schwartz
seconded the motion. The motion was approved by unanimous consensus.
2
DISCUSSION & EDUCATION
1. Development Review Process Discussion
Kate Aanenson reviewed the development review handout with the Commission. The Decision
Pyramid showing the levels of City discretion from highest for Comprehensive Plans and lowest
for building permits. Legislative type reviews, such as Comprehensive Plan amendments, Code
amendments and rezonings create policy and have the highest levels of discretion. She pointed
out that some items were quasi-judicial in review, which requires that the Planning Commission
review a project in relation to the regulations in City Code.
Kate Aanenson said that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
Kate Aanenson discussed Zoning Ordinance amendments, or changes to City Code, and
rezonings as items that the Planning Commission holds public hearings on. Such amendments
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She pointed out that it was critical that the
Planning Commission be cognizant of the timeframe for review of such items, which must be
completed within 60 days unless the City takes a 60-day time extension or the applicant grants an
extension to the review timeframe.
Kate Aanenson discussed the subdivision process. There are two types of subdivisions:
Preliminary and Final Plat, and Metes and Bounds. Preliminary plats have a 120-day timeframe
for review. Preliminary plats grant standing for the development of a property. Metes and
Bounds subdivisions go to City Council for a public hearing. Final plats are heard by City
Council that reviews whether the conditions of the preliminary plat have been met.
Kate Aanenson reviewed the Wetland Alteration process.
Kate Aanenson reviewed the Variance process whereby the Planning Commission sits as the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments, where individuals are requesting a deviation from City
Code.
MacKenzie Young-Walters pointed out the importance of the Findings of Fact. He also stated
that when we meet with people we try to come up with an alternative that meets Code or a way
to minimize the variance request. Kate Aanenson noted that the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation/Decision are a critical component of City review because it provides the legal
basis for the City’s decision on a project. The Findings of Fact are used if the City’s decisions
are ever challenged.
Kate Aanenson discussed the Site Plan Review process. Site plans are required prior to
construction of new buildings. Site Plan Reviews check to verify that a proposed development
meets City Code. She also noted that the City may review a sign plan for a development which
would deal with future signage on the building. City staff may review administratively proposed
building expansions of up to 10 percent of the building area.
Conditional Use Permits and Interim Use Permits were discussed by Kate Aanenson. Conditional
uses must meet certain criteria or conditions as outlined in the City Code. Conditions of approval
3
may be added provided they are reasonable and specific to the use. Conditions must be
enforceable. Interim Use Permits are reviewed in the same fashion but have a sunset date to the
use. Conditional Use Permits run with the property and are for the use, not the person.
Kate Aanenson discussed the jurisdictional review document (Agency Review Request) that is
sent out for every development review application.
Commissioner Schwartz asked whether the City would be involved in county road projects.
George Bender responded that the City does participate.
Kate Aanenson reiterated that if the Commission can contact staff ahead of time, we can get the
Planning Commission the answers and that they can direct questions through her.
2. Shoreland Regulations
MacKenzie Young-Walters discussed Shoreland Regulations and that shoreland is defined as
public waters of the State of Minnesota. The Shoreland Protection District is 1,000 feet from
lakes and 300 feet from streams and rivers. A fun fact, 42 percent of the residential property
within the City is within the Shoreland district. He explained that the Shore Impact Zone is 50
percent of the required structure setback and pointed out what the bluff impact zone is. The
City’s ordinance is based on State Statute. Maximum site coverage is 25 percent impervious
surface.
What stormwater management attempts to do is minimize stormwater runoff and maintain
vegetation. Why it is important is that runoff reduces water quality. Why we require mitigation
is to absorb runoff and nutrients. Increased lot coverage, reduced structure setbacks leads to
greater impacts on the lakes. The City needs to look at the cumulative effects of all the increased
lot coverage.
Joe Seidl pointed out that staff is trying to prevent pollution and erosion which impact water
quality instantly, but remediation is difficult and long term.
Commissioner Schwartz asked whether ponds were covered by the Ordinance and was told that
the regulations were for lakes, streams and wetlands.
3. City Tree Cover
Jill Sinclair gave a presentation on landscaping and tree preservation. She pointed out the
benefits of trees include cooling, increased property values and stormwater management and
deduced runoff. Trees also provide health benefits by reducing pollution, producing oxygen,
reducing erosion and they also provide beauty and calming benefits. Trees are under stress due to
three causes: development threats, insects and disease, and climate changes.
The City’s focus is on preserving the urban forest and where preservation cannot be done, then
planting to replace. Chapters 18 and 20 of the City Code address tree preservation and provide
buffer yard, foundation and parking lot landscaping requirements. As part of tree preservation,
the City takes existing canopy coverage, then provides a minimum amount of preservation that
must be maintained without triggering tree replacement requirements. Preserving stands or
4
groupings of trees is better than preserving individual trees. The City’s Ordinance tries to
provide a disincentive for the removal of more trees. Also, the Ordinance promotes species
diversity.
The Commission asked whether a developer could remove all the trees. Jill responded that it
would be possible, but that they would be penalized for it by the tree replacement requirement.
It was also noted that individuals could not clear cut a property, but could only provide view
sheds or tree maintenance. Tree removal is, generally, only approved through a development
review application.
The Commission was encourage to expect more and push for tree preservation. It was pointed
out that staff should try to not fragment mature stands of trees. Connectivity of treed areas was
important for habitat.
Jill explained the Growing Shade app from the Metropolitan Council and how it could get down
to the lot level. MacKenzie noted that it could also recommend different types of trees for your
property.
Jill discussed the Emerald Ash Borers invasion of the community and the need for property
owners to either treat or remove infected Ash trees.
Finally, Jill discussed the parking lot landscaping requirements.
4. General Plan Review Guidance
Erik Henricksen provided a presentation on plan review. He explained the difference between
surveys, which include plats, existing conditions, site improvements, natural resources,
easements, etc. and civil construction plans which provide details on grading, drainage, erosion
controls, Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), utilities and streets, landscaping,
tree preservation, detail plates and as-built plans.
Plats are governed by Minnesota Statutes Section 505.021.
Construction plans provide idealized design for development. The detail plans will give the
specific construction requirements.
Joe Seidl discussed the grading and drainage sheets which show elevation changes, grading
improvements, direction of drainage flows and best management practices (BMPs) for
stormwater management and control. The plans show how the development will manage
stormwater and where the water will go. Plans also address erosion control and BMPs.
Erik discussed how utility and street plans will show plan views, an overhead look at the plan,
and profile views, which show the vertical view of materials, spacing, slopes, reducing
configuration, controls, and notes.
Landscaping plans note types, sizes, locations of proposed vegetation.
Detail sheets provided the specifications for the installation of infrastructure.
5
Erik pointed out that preliminary plats show the system feasibility within a development. The
final plat will contain the construction plans for the development.
6. Ongoing Development
Kate Aanenson pointed out that staff has a list of ongoing developments and projects within the
city.
Commissioner von Oven asked about concept plans that the Commission had been reviewing.
Kate stated that it was a way for a developer to determine what would be required to proceed
with a development without expanding a great amount of money on the detailed development
plans.
Kate noted that the next Planning Commission meeting was April 19, 2022 and that there are
five items on the agenda. Commissioner Alto will not be present at that meeting.
The work session ended at 7:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Bob Generous, Senior Planner and Jean Steckling, Sen. Admin. Support Specialist