09-20-2022 Agenda and Packet
A.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
B.1 581 Fox Hill Drive: Reconsider a Request for Approval for Subdivision of 2.47 Acres into
Four Lots and One Outlot with Variances
B.2 3609 Red Cedar Point Road: Consider a Request for a Shoreland Setback and other Variances
C.GENERAL BUSINESS
C.1 Short Term Rental Code Amendment
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 6, 2022
E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
H.ADJOURNMENT
I.OPEN DISCUSSION
I.1 Training - Traffic Safety Committee
I.2 Training - Development Review Procedures
I.3 City Council Action Update
I.4 Invitation to Environmental Trivia Night at Chanhassen Brewing
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. 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.
2
Planning Commission Item
September 20, 2022
Item 581 Fox Hill Drive: Reconsider a Request for Approval for Subdivision of 2.47
Acres into Four Lots and One Outlot with Variances
File No.Planning Case No. 2022-10 Item No: B.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
Applicant
Chad Mayes
Denali Custom Homes
18352 Minnetonka Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage 2.47
Density 1.6 units per acre
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 18, Subdivisions
Sec. 18-22. - Variances
Sec. 18-57. - Streets (a)
Sec. 18-60. - Lots(f)
Chapter 20, Article XII, RSF District
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide
2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way (ROW)
as shown in plans Received September 1, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the
Findings of Fact and Recommendation.”
SUMMARY
3
The applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot for single-family
detached housing. The property is located at the southeast intersection of Carver Beach Road and Fox
Hill Drive and west of Lotus Lake. Access to the site is proposed via Fox Hill Drive.
The applicant is dedicating the right-of-way (ROW) for Lotus Woods Drive to facilitate the connection
to Big Woods Boulevard. The City Code requires a 60-foot ROW width. All connecting streets in the
immediate vicinity range between 40 and 50 feet in width. Staff directed the applicant to dedicate a 50-
foot-wide ROW. This will require a variance and is addressed in more detail later in the report.
BACKGROUND
On July 19, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this application. The
applicant was directed to evaluate options to reduce the tree removal.
Revised plans show an increase of tree preservation from 35% to 38%.
The installation of storm sewer to wetland 1 has been removed to increase tree preservation.
Redesign of underground stormwater retention to meet stormwater requirements while reducing
tree removal.
DISCUSSION
See attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.47
acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public Right-of-Way (ROW) as
shown in plans, Received September 1, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the
Findings of Fact and Recommendation.”
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report
Findings of Fact
Development Review Application
Fox Hill Drive Preliminary Plat dated September 1, 2022
Affidavit of Mailing
Public Hearing Notice to Villager
Email Comment - Johansson
Letter from Maria and Andy Awes dated September 1, 2022
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments(1)
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments (2)
Planning Commission Minutes Fox Hill Drive dated July 19, 2022
Letter from Cervilla & Lang
4
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE:July 19, 2022
September 20, 2022
CC DATE:August 8, 2022
REVIEW DEADLINE: October 10, 2022
CASE #: 2022-10
BY: SJ, ET, EH, JR, JS, JS
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 2.47 acres into four lots and a variance to allow a
50-foot ROW. This application was tabled at the July 19, 2022 Planning Commission meeting.
This staff report reflects the revised plans.
LOCATION:South of Fox Hill Drive, west of Lotus Lake and east of Carver Beach Road
APPLICANT: Denali Custom Homes OWNER: Fox Hill Properties, LLC
Chad Mayes Andy Awes
18352 Minnetonka Boulevard 14530 Martin Drive, Suite 120
Wayzata, MN 55391 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
chad@denalicustomhomes.com andy@committeefilms.com
612-282-0918 612-396-6478
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District (RSF)
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential
Low Density (1.2 – 4.0 units/net acre)
ACREAGE:2.47 acres
DENSITY: 1.6 units per acre
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN
DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or
denying a preliminary plat is limited
to whether or not the proposed plat
meets the standards outlined in the
Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must
approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinances for variances. The City has
a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to
subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-
way (ROW) as shown in plans, Received September 1, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval
and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.”
5
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 2 of 16
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 18, Subdivisions
Sec. 18-22. - Variances
Sec. 18-57. - Streets (a)
Sec. 18-60. - Lots(f)
Chapter 20, Article XII, RSF District
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot for single-family
detached housing. The property is located at the southeast intersection of Carver Beach Road and
Fox Hill Drive and west of Lotus Lake. Access to the site is proposed via Fox Hill Drive.
The applicant is dedicating the ROW for Lotus Woods Drive to facilitate the connection to Big
Woods Boulevard. The City Code requires a 60-foot ROW width. All connecting streets in the
immediate vicinity range between 40 and 50 feet in width. Staff directed the applicant to
dedicate a 50-foot-wide ROW. This will require a variance and is addressed in more detail later
in the report.
Sewer and water are available to the site. The property is zoned Single Family Residential
(RSF).
6
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 3 of 16
SUBDIVISION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot. The lots are
proposed to be served via Fox Hill Drive.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate the ROW for the future extension of the Lotus Woods
Drive which will connect Fox Hill Drive with Big Woods Boulevard.
There is a variance attached to the application that deals with the width of the ROW. This variance
will be discussed in detail later in the report.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
The preliminary plat provided illustrates mostly typical public drainage and utility easements
(DUE) along the proposed subdivision’s lot lines with five-foot DUE along the side and rear lot
lines and a 10-foot DUE along the front lot lines. Additional DUE is being proposed along Block
1 Lot 1 along the shoreline of Lotus Lake and Block 2 Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 which encompass a
wetland along with private stormwater BMPs. Private stormwater BMPs to serve the needs of
the development must be wholly located outside of all public easements upon submittal of the
final plat. This can be accomplished by either relocating the BMPs or adjusting the public DUE.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way to provide for a 50-foot right-of-
way width along Fox Hill Drive, 30 feet of right-of-of way to provide for a 50-foot width along
Carver Beach Road, as well as a 50-foot right-of-way bisecting Block 1 Lot 1 and Block 2 Lot 1
to provide connectivity to the south for when the area further subdivides. The newly dedicated
50-foot right-of-way intersecting with Fox Hill Drive will eventually provide a needed secondary
access to the area and will connect Fox Hill Drive to Big Woods Drive; the Lotus Woods
subdivision to the south, recorded in 2020, provided the right-of-way connection off Big Woods
Drive. While these widths are not the City’s current standard for right-of-way widths (60 feet),
the dedications are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
The applicant provided an existing condition survey dated July 16, 2021. The existing condition
survey describes an easement granted to the Northern States Power Company from July 22,
1941. Based on the location of the overhead power from the survey it would appear the
easement may be located within right-of-way to be dedicated with the final plat. Any underlying
easements within public easements, including public right-of-way, must be vacated or released
prior to recording of the final plat.
7
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 4 of 16
WETLANDS
The proposed plans show one wetland onsite that was delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental
Services on November 23, 2020. The report included a MNRAM assessment. The wetland was
classified as a high value wetland (manage type 1) with a minimum buffer width requirement of
20 feet and an average width of 40 feet as outlined by Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed
District (RPBCWD) rules. City Ordinance requires a 25-foot buffer and 30 feet principal
structure setback from wetland buffers. The construction plans dated September 1, 2022 show
wetland buffers and setbacks that are consistent with Article VI, Chapter 20 of City Ordinance -
Wetland Protection and appears to meet watershed buffer requirements.
GRADING
The site’s existing and proposed grades generally slope down both east and west from a high
point located near the center of the property. The developer is proposing to mass grade a
majority of the site in order to construct the public street, house pads and stormwater
management areas. The preliminary grading plans dated September 1, 2022 submitted for the
preliminary plat review appear to be in compliance with Section 7-19 and 18-40 of City
Ordinance; requirements of these sections include separation from low floor elevations of the
proposed homes to the highest known groundwater elevations, ensuring lowest building openings
have enough freeboard from any emergency overflows adjacent to the homes, ensuring driveway
grades are within limits set by Ordinance (0.5%-10%), ensuring drainage will be routed away
from building pads, illustrating adequate erosion control measures are planned for, etc.
DRAINAGE
In the existing condition there is a large drainage break along a hill located near the center of the
project area which directs water either east or west. Stormwater runoff flows to one of three
discharge points, east to Lotus Lake, northwest to Carver Beach Road or to the onsite wetland on
the west side of the site. Offsite drainage from the private parcel south of the development also
drains to the wetland onsite and was included in the hydraulic analysis. The wetland onsite does
not have a structural outlet in the existing condition but overtops a natural spillway outlet and
8
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 5 of 16
drains northwest to Carver Beach Road when inundated. Drainage to Carver Beach Road is
picked up by catch basins in the northwest corner of the intersection of Carver Beach Road and
Fox Hill Drive and drains to existing stormwater pond Lotus Lake 1-2-1.
The proposed condition largely maintains the existing drainage patterns, continuing to drain to
the same three discharge points. The proposed design uses surface grading to convey runoff to
one of four privately owned best management practices (BMPs) which treat the stormwater
before it discharges to one of the three discharge points. The proposed BMPs include four
underground infiltration systems on the four separate lots. Drainage from the proposed future
road which separates Blocks 1 and 2 is proposed to be routed to the underground infiltration
system on Block 1 Lot 1 for treatment. An outlet for the wetland is proposed to be directed to the
underground infiltration system on Block 2 Lot 1, with a natural spillway acting as the
emergency overflow and continuing to drain northwest to Carver Beach Road. The proposed
design shows the private system outlet directly behind the back of curb on public drainage and
utility easement located at the southeast corner of Block 2, Lot 3. Stormwater from this outlet
would discharge across the roadway where it would be eventually picked up by public
infrastructure located on the west side of Carver Beach Road. This configuration creates safety
and City maintenance concerns, and as such shall be redesigned. The applicant shall extend the
public storm sewer system across Carver Beach Road to connect the private system. Piped
outlets for the proposed BMPs are directed to one of the three discharge points. The final design
will likely require connections to public stormwater infrastructure along Carver Beach Road. The
proposed design appears to mix private and future public stormwater associated with the future
public road. The mixing of public and private stormwater systems creates difficulties with
operation and maintenance. As such the system shall be reconfigured to separate the public and
private stormwater BMPs. The public BMP must be sized to treat all stormwater form the future
roadway. As such, the applicant shall provide updated drainage computations and figures as
required. Furthermore, because the drainage system on the east side of the development takes on
public stormwater the downstream conveyance system must be made public to allow the City to
maintain its stormwater infrastructure. The final design shall be updated to show the public
portions of the stormwater system is located within drainage and utility easement.
9
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 6 of 16
The bounce in the onsite wetland is unchanged or slightly decreases for the 2-, 10- and 100-year
storm events from existing to proposed conditions. Because this wetland extends onto adjacent
properties the 100-year HWL must be maintained which has been confirmed by the modeling.
EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject
to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction
Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES
Construction Permit). The applicant has prepared and submitted a Surface Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City for review. The SWPPP is a required submittal element
for preliminary plat review along with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in accordance with
Section 19-145 of City Ordinance. No earth disturbing activities may occur until an approved
SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES
Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements the permit. The SWPPP will need to
be updated as the plans are finalized, when the contractor and their sub-contractors are identified
and as other conditions change. All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to
initiation of site grading activities.
There is an area on the northeast portion of Block 1 Lot 1 that is being proposed for an outfall
pipe to Lotus Lake which will requiring trenching. The ESCP and tree preservation plans must
address this excavation and it’s impacts upon submittal of final plans for review and approval.
Enhanced erosion control measures are required when excavating near bodies of waters and must
be in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit.
STREETS
The proposed subdivision abuts Fox Hill Drive to the north and Carver Beach Road to the west.
Access to Block 1 Lot 1 and Block 2 Lots 1-3 of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be had
from Fox Hill Drive. As discussed previously under “Drainage and Utility Easements and
Public Right-of-Way”of this report, right-of-way is being dedicated to facilitate the connection
of a secondary access for the neighborhood which will extend from Fox Hill Drive to Big Woods
Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct the street to the maximum extent practicable
within the newly dedicated right-of-way. Construction of a future street at this time is preferred
when feasible rather than accepting an escrow for its future construction due to the difficulty and
variability in projecting the appropriate amount to escrow as it is typically unknown when future
street connections will be constructed.
In order to ensure that the alignment and grades of the proposed street will be conducive to the
future connection to Big Woods Drive the applicant shall provide exhibits illustrating the
alignment, profile, and grades upon submittal of final construction plans and must approved prior
to recording of final plat.
SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN
The newly proposed subdivision will have access to adequate public sanitary sewer and water
facilities within Fox Hill Drive right-of-way. The plans illustrate tapping two new service lines
for both sanitary and water and connecting to two existing services for both sanitary and water
10
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 7 of 16
that were installed in 1975. Any existing services proposed to be connected to shall be verified
prior to connection of their serviceability such as televising the sanitary stubs to the public main;
any existing services not used shall be removed and abandoned accordingly.
The applicant is proposing an approximately 120-foot extension of a municipal water main along
the alignment of the future street which will eventually connect Fox Hill Drive and Big Woods
Drive. This extension is necessary to create a water main loop to the area which will provide
better serviceability, water quality, and available flows during firefighting operations. The
proposed alignment of the extended municipal main is in general conformance with City
Standards and Specifications. All newly installed public utilities will be required to adhere to the
City of Chanhassen’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, which will be the governing
specifications for said improvements. Upon acceptance by City Council the water mains will
become publicly owned and maintained. A municipal sanitary sewer extension is not required.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required storm water management
development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be
reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site
plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include water quality
treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total
phosphorous (TP), and runoff rate control for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. The
proposed development is located within the RPBCWD and is therefore subject to the watershed’s
rules and regulations. A Stormwater Management Report dated August 15, 2021 (but assumed to
be for August 15, 2022 based on date submitted) was submitted by the applicant to the City and
provided to the watershed district concurrently as part of the preliminary plat review. Approval
from the RPBCWD has not been received for the site.
As outlined in the City’s Surface Water Management Plan adopted in December 2018, the City
requests regional ponding areas as opposed to individual on-site BMPs. Regional systems are
more efficient and are easier to maintain. Due to the large hill onsite it does not seem feasible to
direct drainage from the entire site to one regional BMP. However, it does seem feasible to
combine requirements and reduce the number of onsite BMPs to one BMP east of the hill (near
Lotus Lake) and one west of the hill (near the onsite wetland). The City explored whether the
existing Lotus Lake 1-2-1 stormwater pond could be used to provide water quality treatment for
the portion of the site which drains northwest to Carver Beach Road. The site is within
RPBCWD and is required to meet all applicable watershed rules which includes volume
abstraction of 1.1 inches of runoff from all new or disturbed impervious for redevelopment
where over 50% of the project area is being disturbed. RPBCWD does allow for the use of
existing regional stormwater management BMPs to meet its rules however Lotus Lake 1-2-1
does not provide the RPBCWD required volume abstraction and couldn’t be used alone to meet
RPBCWD’s rules. The applicant shall investigate the potential of a more regional BMP design
and submit justification for the final design configuration as part of the final plat submittal.
With the currently proposed infiltration BMPs the water quality rules appear to be met since the
volume abstraction requirement is met. A draft geotechnical report was included in the most
recent submittal however soil boring logs were only included for three out of the four soil
borings taken. The soil boring log for SB-4 should be submitted for review, and the final version
11
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 8 of 16
of the geotechnical report should be submitted when completed. Based on the three soil borings
provided the onsite soils are mostly clay with a sand/silt layer 5-10 feet below the surface across
the site. The applicant is proposing to excavate to the sand/silt layer and backfill with free
draining media under the proposed underground infiltration BMPs in order to get better
infiltration. The applicant shall include justification (geotechnical recommendation, infiltration
test results, etc.) for using design infiltration rates which differ from the MCPA’s standard design
infiltration rates based on the soil types shown in the soil boring logs. Once infiltration rates are
confirmed, water quality modeling will need to be updated to match the determined infiltration
rates, and water quality requirements should be confirmed to still be met. The applicant shall
resubmit updated models in their native form prior to recording the final plat to confirm the
City’s water quality rule is met.
The Stormwater Management Report and supporting Hydrologic and Hydraulic HydroCAD
models were reviewed. Modeling updates are required so the models can be used for rate control
and water quality analysis. The proposed design shows areas where stormwater from the
development is routed to BMPs, however in several instances the surface routing in unclear.
Further work is needed to update the grading plan and/or model so they better match the
proposed conditions. Furthermore, the design appears to modify the upstream drainage patterns
of the existing lot just south of Block 1, Lot 1. Additional analysis is required to show the
proposed design will not adversely change drainage of adjacent properties. The modeling
demonstrates that rate control can be met to all three discharge events for all storm event
modeled. HydroCAD modeling will need to be updated to better match the proposed conditions,
and all required updates from City and watershed comments. If the infiltration rates for the
different BMPs are modified to confirm rate control requirements are still being met prior to
recording the final plat.
As noted previously, RPBCWD rules require 1.1 inches of stormwater abstraction for all
impervious area (new and existing) for the entire project area when over 50% of the project area
is being disturbed. The proposed condition has an impervious area of 0.50 acres requiring
approximately 2,200 CF of abstraction. The proposed BMPs have a combined volume provided
of 2,331 CF exceeding the RPBCWD required volume. As noted previously, soil borings for SB-
1 through SB-3 (SB-4 not submitted) showed the onsite soils are mostly clay with a sand/silt
layer 5-10 feet below the surface across the site. To confirm the BMP design an updated
geotechnical report is required to show SB-4 and provide justification for infiltration rates at the
new location of the infiltration BMP located on Block 2, Lot 2. The applicant is proposing to
excavate to the sand/silt layer and backfill with free draining media under the proposed
underground infiltration BMPs in order to get better infiltration, however justification for the
design infiltration rates is required prior to confirm RPBCWD volume control requirements are
being met. As such the applicant shall receive conditional approval from the watershed district
prior to final plat submittal to the City.
As outlined in the City’s Surface Water Management Plan adopted in December 2018, the City
requires at least 3 feet of freeboard between a building elevation and adjacent ponding features.
The high-water levels of all proposed BMPs should be noted on the plans, however based on the
HydroCAD modeling results it appears all proposed buildings are meeting freeboard
requirements with respect to the proposed BMPs. Freeboard requirements were confirmed to be
met with respect to the onsite wetland for all existing and proposed adjacent buildings.
12
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 9 of 16
All work proposed appears to be outside of the FEMA floodplain and above the Ordinary High
Water Level of Lotus Lake, so additional permitting with FEMA and/or the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources is not anticipated to be required.
The infiltration BMPs located on each of four lots are to be privately owned and therefore will
require an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement and associated plan. The plan
identifies the maintenance schedule, responsible party, and should include information on how
the system will be cleaned out including the underground infiltration chambers proposed in the
construction plans. The applicant must provide a signed O&M Agreement prior to the initiation
of construction activities onsite. It is recommended that an HOA is created to streamline the
operation and maintenance of the separate BMP systems to reduce risk and responsibility for
future homeowners.
STORM WATER UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGES
City Ordinance sets out the fees associated with surface water management. A water quality and
water quantity fee are collected with a subdivision. These fees are based on land use type and
are intended to reflect the fact that the more intense the development type, the greater the
degradation of surface water.
This fee will be applied to the new lots of record being created. It is assessed at the rate in effect
at that time; the 2022 rate for low-density residential is $8,830.00 per acre of developable land.
ASSESSMENTS
Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hookup fees will be
assessed at the rate in effect at that time; 2022 rates for partial hookup fees are $691.00 per unit
for sanitary sewer and $2,562.00 per unit for water. The remaining partial hookups fees are due
with the building permit.
FEES
Based on the proposal the following fees would be collected with the development contract:
a) Administration Fee: if the improvement costs are less than $500,000, 3% of the
improvement costs.
b) Surface water management fee: $8,830.00/acre of developable land.
c) A portion of the water hook-up charge @ $2,562.00/unit.
d) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge @ $691.00/unit.
e) Park dedication fee @ $5,800.00/unit.
f) GIS fees @ $100 for the plat plus $30 per parcel: $160.00
g) Final plat process (review and recording of Plat and DC): $450.00
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION
The parcel is a fully wooded site. The existing trees are a mix of native species collectively
known as the Big Woods. A variety of trees including sugar maple, red oak, and butternut cover
the entire site with many significant trees throughout the parcel. The parcel has been wooded for
13
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 10 of 16
many decades as evidenced by the number of large, mature trees and historic aerial photos going
back to 1937. Retaining as many trees as possible is important to maintaining the character of the
neighborhood with the proposed development. The proposed subdivision is low-density
residential and allowed by city code to remove 45% of the trees without penalty. The applicant
is proposing to remove 60%57% of the trees on the site to build four homes. Tree
preservation on lots 1-3, Block 2 has been maximized and the robust tree preservation
around the wetland on lots 2 and 3 and will contribute to a continued wooded feel to the
neighborhood. This area is proposed for a Conservation Easement and preserves a
significant amount of wooded area. Average tree removal on three lots in Block 2 is
around 10,000 sq. ft. and shows grading limits at the tightest extent necessary to construct
the homes and stormwater management systems.Some additional tree removal is being
proposed for a rain garden on lot 3. Three of the lots are employing underground runoff storage
tanks, but on lot 2 a section of trees is proposed to be cleared to create an infiltration basin near
the wetland. Trees provide a reduction in stormwater runoff and should not be cleared for a rain
garden. Additionally, the area cleared for the infiltration basin further fragments the wooded
area which increases environmental stresses on surrounding trees and reduces the wildlife
benefits of the wooded buffer area. To preserve the trees and the remaining character of the site,
staff recommends that an underground stormwater feature or infiltration basin be proposed in the
side or rear yard of lot 2 at the edge of the wooded area and the wooded wetland buffer area be
preserved mostly intact and covered with a Conservation Easement. Previous developments in
the area have dedicated portions of the existing Big Woods forest type under Conservation
Easements. The neighboring Big Woods and Eidsness developments to the south have
Conservation Easements on all of the lots. This development would be consistent with
dedicating a Conservation Easement over the wooded areas on lots 1 and 2 2 and 3,Block 2.
Canopy coverage and preservation calculations have been submitted for the Fox Hill Drive
development. The applicant has calculated the following coverages:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands)101,998 SF
Total canopy area (excluding wetlands)96,530 SF
Baseline canopy coverage 95%
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 55% or 56,098 SF
Proposed tree preservation 35% or 35,699 SF 38% or 38,517 SF
The developer does not meet the minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference
between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required
replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage 20,429 17,582 SF
Multiplier 1.2
Total replacement 24,514 21,098 SF
Total number of trees to be planted 22 19 trees
The total number of trees required for the development is 22 19. The applicant has proposed a
total of 17 19 overstory trees and 9 8 ornamental trees. The applicant meets diversity
requirements, however staff recommends that the Autumn Blaze maple be changed to a
sugar maple variety. No bufferyard plantings are required on the site.
There is additional tree removal on the site that is not reflected in the tree removal plans or
calculations. The installation of the discharge pipe into Lotus Lake and the connection of the
14
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 11 of 16
infiltration basin on lot 2 to the wetland and the home site will require tree removal. This is not
shown on the tree removal plans. The applicant shall revise the tree removal plans and
calculations to reflect the actual tree removal needed on site.
Existing trees on site include butternut trees which are included on the Minnesota State
Endangered Species List. The applicant will need to provide an approved permit from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources before tree removal may occur.
COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN
The City’s Comprehensive Park Plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one-half
mile of every residence in the city. The proposed Fox Hill Drive subdivision is located within
the Carver Beach Park neighborhood park service area. The two Carver Beach parks feature the
following amenities: swimming beach, playground, fishing pier, trails, basketball court, ball
field, picnic shelter, canoe rack and parking area.
15
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 12 of 16
COMPLIANCE TABLE
RSF Setbacks: Front: 30 feet, Side: 10 feet
* Riparian lots must have a minimum area of 20,000 square feet
VARIANCE
City Code requires a 60-foot ROW. The surrounding area and the ROW within the Carver
Beach area is between 40 and 50 feet wide. Approval of the variance will allow the street to
blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. This street will provide future access to the
property located south of the subject site.
SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS
1.The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance.
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single-
Family District and the zoning ordinance.
2.The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
subdivision ordinance.
3.The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and
stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development.
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified
in this report.
4.The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
Lot
Width
Lot
Depth
Code (RSF)15,000/20,000 90 125
Lot 1, Block 1 28,801*114.78 244.29
Lot 1, Block 2 15,037 114 131
Lot 2, Block 2 22,622 238.91 137.37
Lot 3, Block 2 17,729 115.77 183
Outlot A 6,157
Right-of-Way 15,876
Total 107,379
16
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 13 of 16
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage
subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas
to accommodate a house pad.
6.The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather
will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7.The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a.Lack of adequate stormwater drainage.
b.Lack of adequate roads.
c.Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d.Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets.
VARIANCE - FINDINGS
As part of this request, a variance to allow a 50-foot-wide ROW is requested. The City Council
may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a
subdivision approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
1.The hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
2.The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land.
3.The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property.
4.The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is
in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: Staff recommends the variances be approved as shown in plans received
September 1, 2022, for the 50-foot-wide right-of-way to allow the street to blend in with
the surrounding neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to
subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-
way as shown in plans Received September 1, 2022, subject to the following conditions and
adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
17
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 14 of 16
SUBDIVISION
ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.Any underlying easements within public easements, including public right-of-way, must
be vacated or released prior to recording of the final plat.
2.The applicant shall provide exhibits illustrating the alignment, profile, and grades of the
proposed street design from Fox Hill Drive to the future connection at Big Woods Drive
upon submittal of final plat.
3.The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction
plans, dated September 1, 2022 prepared by Seth Loken, PE with Alliant Engineering to
fully satisfy construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be
subject to review and approval by staff prior to commencement of any construction
activities.
4.The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract and pay all applicable fees and
securities prior to recording of final plat.
WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.Private stormwater BMPs to serve the needs of the development must be wholly located
outside of all public easements upon submittal of the final plat.
2.Public stormwater infrastructure must be located wholly within drainage and utility
easements or public right of way upon submittal of the final plat.
3.The applicant shall provide a copy of conditional approval from the RPBCWD as part of
the final plat submittal.
4.The applicant shall provide an updated copy of the geotechnical report and infiltration
test results as part of the final plat submittal.
5.The applicant must update the Hydrologic and Hydraulic models per City and watershed
district comments and submit updated computations and models in their native forms
with the final plat and final construction plans.
6.The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will be in compliance with the
3-foot freeboard requirement to ponding features as part of the final plat submittal.
7.The applicant must confirm the stormwater routing of the site and include, underground
infiltration details, and connections to public infrastructure as part of the final plat
submittal.
8.The applicant must work with staff to improve the BMP configuration and stormwater
design to the maximum extent given the restrictions of the site and RPBCWD rules.
9.The applicant shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any
proposed privately owned stormwater facilities which shall be recorded concurrently with
the final plat.
18
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 15 of 16
Parks:
1.Full Park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be
collected as a condition of approval for the four lots. The Park fees will be collected in full
at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single-
family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total Park fees for the three new additional
homes would be $17,400.
Environmental Resources:
1.Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activities and remain
in place until construction is complete.
2.Any trees removed that are shown on plans dated as preserved shall be replaced at a rate
of 2:1 diameter inches.
3.A Conservation Easement shall be dedicated over the wooded side yards on Lots 2 and 3
1 and 2, Block 2.
4.The applicant will relocate the infiltration basin to the edge of the wooded area on Lot 2
and eliminate the fragmentation of the wooded wetland buffer.
5.The applicant shall revise the tree removal plans and calculations to show tree removal
for all stormwater infrastructure and utilities needed on site.
6.The applicant must provide a copy of an approved Permit to Take an Endangered
Species for a Development Project from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources before any tree removal may occur.
7.No grading is allowed within any areas shown as tree preservation on pg 13 Tree
Canopy Coverage and Restoration Plan, dated 9-1-22.
Building:
1.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
2.Building permits must be obtained before beginning any construction.
3.Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed buildings meet
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review
4.Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction, retaining walls
under four feet in height require a zoning permit.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation
2. Development Review Application
3. Preliminary Plat Received September 1, 2022
4. Affidavit of Mailing
5. Public Hearing Notice to Villager
6. E-mail from Bruce Johansson received July 11, 2022
7. Letter from Maria and Andy Awes dated September 12, 2022
19
581 Fox Hill Drive
September 20, 2022
Page 16 of 16
8. Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments (1)
9. Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments (2)
10. Minutes from July 19, 2022 PC Meeting
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-10 581 fox hill dr pp and fp\staff report.doc
20
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:Application of Denali Custom Homes for a Four Lot Subdivision with a Right-of-Way
Width Variance, Planning Case 22-10
On July 19, 2022 and September 20, 2022, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its
regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application to subdivide 2.47 acres into four single-
family lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was
preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The property is currently zoned RSF, Single-Family Residential.
2.The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential – Low Density (1.2 –
4.0 units per net acre).
3.The legal description of the property is attached as Exhibit A.
4.The Subdivision Ordinance directs the City Council to consider seven possible adverse
effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) effects and our findings regarding
them are:
a)The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
b)The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan;
c)The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography,
soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding,
and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
d)The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements
required by this chapter;
e)The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
f)The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and
21
g)The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
1.Lack of adequate stormwater drainage.
2.Lack of adequate roads.
3.Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
4.Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
5.Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this
chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following
conditions exist:
a)The hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
b)The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or
typographical conditions of the land.
c)The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property.
d)The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public
welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
The planning report Planning Case 2022-10, dated September 20, 2022, prepared by
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed development
including a Subdivision of 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot
public right-of-way.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20th day of September 2022.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:___________________________________
Mark von Oven, Chairman
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-10 581 fox hill dr pp and fp\revised plans 9.1.22\findings of fact.doc
22
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description:
The Land is described as follows:
That part of Government Lot 8 in Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the center line of Lakeview Drive, distant 121.029 feet Southeasterly
from the point of intersection of the center line of said Lakeview Drive with the center line of
Fern Road; thence Southeasterly along the center line of said Lakeview Drive 25 feet; thence
North 75 degrees 07 minutes East to the high water mark of Long Lake (also known as Lotus
Lake); thence Northerly along the high water mark of said lake 25 feet, more or less, to its
intersection with a line bearing North 75 degrees 07 minutes East from the point of beginning;
thence South 75 degrees 07 minutes West 866.5 feet, more or less, to point of beginning. Above
mentioned Lakeview Drive and Fern Road being shown on the plat of CARVER-BEACH,
according to the recorded plat thereof. Subject to an easement granted to the Northern States
Power Company July 22nd, 1941.
and
Beginning at a point in the center line of Lakeview Drive, distant 20.172 feet on a bearing of
South 22 degrees 21 minutes 40 seconds East from the point formed by the intersection of said
Lakeview Drive and Fern Road as shown on the map entitled CARVER-BEACH, according to
the recorded plat thereof; and running from thence along the Southerly line of Fern Road on a
bearing of North 75 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 880 plus or minus feet to
the high water mark of Long Lake; thence in a Southerly direction along the high water mark of
said Long Lake 100 plus or minus feet to a point 100 feet at right angles to the first course, when
said course is projected; thence on a course of South 75 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds West a
distance of 873 feet plus or minus, to a point in the center line of Lakeview Drive, distant
121.029 feet in a Northwesterly direction from the intersection of Lakeview Drive and Fern
Road; thence along the center line of Lakeview Drive on a course of North 22 degrees 21
minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 100.857 feet to the point of beginning.
Torrens Property - Certificate of Title No. 34797.0
Address:581 Fox Hill Dr., Chanhassen, MN
PID & Acreage:250010200, 2.47 Acres
23
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CHAMIASSENPlanningDivision—7700 Market BoulevardCITY OFMailingAddress—P.O. Box 147,Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone:(952)227-1100/Fax: (952)227-1110
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Submittal Date:l( 17 ' PC Date:7l i 9 1 a-CC Date: ( ) i j p Liu-Day Review Date: f i I D.-4,
Section 1: Application Type(check all that apply)
Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 600 ® Subdivision (SUB)
Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300
0 Create over 3 lots 600+ $15 per lot
Conditional Use Permit(CUP) 4 lots)
Single-Family Residence 325 Metes&Bounds(2 lots)300
All Others 425 Consolidate Lots 150
0 Interim Use Permit(IUP)
Lot Line Adjustment 150
In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325
Final Plat 700
All Others 425 Includes$450 escrow for attorney costs)*
Additional escrow may be required for other applications
through the development contract.
Rezoning(REZ)
O Planned Unit Development (PUD) 750 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way(VAC)........$300
0 Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Additional recording fees may apply)
O All Others 500
Variance(VAR) 200
El Sign Plan Review 150
Wetland Alteration Permit(WAP)
Site Plan Review(SPR) Single-Family Residence 150
Administrative 100 All Others 275
Commercial/Industrial Districts*500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: Zoning Appeal 100
thousand square feet)
Include number of existing employees: Zoning Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) 500
Include number of new employees:
Residential Districts 500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
Plus $5 per dwelling unit(units)
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
O Notification Sign (City to install and remove) 200
Property Owners' List within 500'(City to generate after pre-application meeting) 3 per address
44 addresses)
Escrow for Recording Documents(check all that apply) 50 per document
Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Site Plan Agreement
Vacation Variance Wetland Alteration Permit
Metes& Bounds Subdivision (3 dots.) Easements ( easements) Deeds
TOTAL FEE:1492
Section 2: Required Information
Description of Proposal: Proposed lot split that would subdivide an existing residentail parcel into 4 compliant RSF lots.
Proposed plat name: Fox Hill Drive
Property Address or Location: 581 Fox Hill Drive
Parcel#: 250010200 g Legal Description:See Narrative
Total Acreage:2.47 Wetlands Present? ®Yes No
Present Zoning:Single-Family Residential District(RSF) Requested Zoning: Single-Family Residential District(RSF)
Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential lot
CITY OF CHANIIA EN
Check box if separate narrative is attached. RECEIVED
JUN 1 7 Z01"
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
24
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I,as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application.
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees,feasibility studies,etc.with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted`
trares
true and correct.
Name: UEA/A1,I CUST:vvA 4Op SS Contact: Ctna.c\ t " A..(e5
Address: 18167 MidAl d 4 $CV tJ, Phone: G!2- 2$2- oil/
City/State/Zip:W qY ZATA , M/J 5539 t Cell: Co(el- Z$Z 09'/ft
Email: ('mac Fax:Nfilr
Signature: Cam.- V ' ., / Date: Co I Co' ZZ—
PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees,feasibility studies,etc.with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name: Fox Hill Properties, LLC Contact: Andy Awes
Address: 14530 Martin Dr. Suite 120 Phone:
City/State/Zip: Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Cell: 612-396-6478
Email: andy@committeefilms.com Fax:
Signature: Date:6/15/22
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER(if applicable)
Name: Alliant Engineering Inc. Contact: Seth Loken
Address: 733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700, Minneapolis Phone: 612)767-9356
City/State/Zip: Minneapolis/MN/55402 Cell:
Email: sloken@alliant-inc.com Fax:
Section 4: Notification Information
Who should receive copies of staff reports? Other Contact Information:
E Property Owner Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Name:
Applicant Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Address:
Engineer Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip:
Other* Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields,then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. i and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
Copy t0 the city for processing. SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM 1
25
LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILPROJECT LOCATIONFOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
COVER SHEET 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
1SHEET INDEX NO.1VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEFOX HILL DRIVECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTASUITE 700ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC.733 MARQUETTE AVENUEMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402PH: 612-758-3080CONSULTANTFX: 612-758-3099SURVEYORENGINEERDAN EKREMLICENSE NO. 57366SETH LOKENLICENSE NO. 58862LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTEM: sloken@alliant-inc.comEM: dekrem@alliant-inc.comMARK KRONBECKLICENSE NO. 26222EM: mkronbeck@alliant-inc.comBUILDERCOVER SHEET2EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY5PRELIMINARY PLAT6SITE PLAN7GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN3-4DETAILS8EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN9UTILITY PLAN AND PROFILES10-11TREE CANOPY COVERAGE AND RESTORATION PLAN13-14WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLANSTORM SEWER PLAN AND PROFILES15DENALI CUSTOM HOMES18352 MINNETONKA BOULEVARDWAYZATA, MN 55391CONTACT: DAVID BIEKERPH: 612-718-1671EM: david@denalicustomhomes.comOWNERANDY AWESEM: andy@committeefilms.comLANDSCAPE PLAN1612STORM INFILTRATION SYSTEM DETAILS26
FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROADS20°28'26"E 125.32N22°37'50"W 125.86N74°50'50"E 825.86N74°50'50"E 821.10(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)32+/-41+/-LOTUSTRAILLOTUS LAKECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA581 FOX HILL DRIVELOTUS LAKE PROPERTY733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700Minneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080 612.758.3099www.alliant-inc.comMAINFAX7/16/2021DEMDTDDJOB NO.FIELD DATE ISSUEDCHECKED BYSCALEDRAWN BY1"=30'21-0122SignatureDate License NumberPrint NameDANIEL EKREMI hereby certify that this survey, plan, or reportwas prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the state ofMinnesota.LEGAL DESCRIPTIONThe Land is described as follows:That part of Government Lot 8 in Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point in thecenter line of Lakeview Drive, distant 121.029 feet Southeasterly from the point of intersection of the center line of saidLakeview Drive with the center line of Fern Road; thence Southeasterly along the center line of said Lakeview Drive 25feet; thence North 75 degrees 07 minutes East to the high water mark of Long Lake (also known as Lotus Lake);thence Northerly along the high water mark of said lake 25 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line bearingNorth 75 degrees 07 minutes East from the point of beginning; thence South 75 degrees 07 minutes West 866.5 feet,more or less, to point of beginning. Above mentioned Lakeview Drive and Fern Road being shown on the plat ofCARVER-BEACH, according to the recorded plat thereof. Subject to an easement granted to the Northern StatesPower Company July 22nd, 1941.andBeginning at a point in the center line of Lakeview Drive, distant 20.172 feet on a bearing of South 22 degrees 21minutes 40 seconds East from the point formed by the intersection of said Lakeview Drive and Fern Road as shownon the map entitled CARVER-BEACH, according to the recorded plat thereof; and running from thence along theSoutherly line of Fern Road on a bearing of North 75 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 880 plus orminus feet to the high water mark of Long Lake; thence in a Southerly direction along the high water mark of saidLong Lake 100 plus or minus feet to a point 100 feet at right angles to the first course, when said course is projected;thence on a course of South 75 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 873 feet plus or minus, to a pointin the center line of Lakeview Drive, distant 121.029 feet in a Northwesterly direction from the intersection of LakeviewDrive and Fern Road; thence along the center line of Lakeview Drive on a course of North 22 degrees 21 minutes 40seconds West a distance of 100.857 feet to the point of beginning.Torrens Property - Certificate of Title No. 34797.0LEGEND1. This survey and the property description shown herein are based upon information found in the owner's policy oftitle insurance prepared by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, File no. 21-2881, dated June 9, 2021.2. The locations of underground public utilities are depicted based on information from Gopher State One Call systemfor a “Boundary Survey locate”. The information was provided by a combination of available maps, proposed plans orcity records and field locations which may not be exact. Verify all utilities critical to construction or design.3. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the Carver County Coordinate System NAD83 (86 adj.).4. All distances are in feet.5. The area of the above described property is:Gross: 107,291 +/- square feet or 2.463 +/- acresNet(Less ROW): 104,774 +/- square feet or 2.405 +/- acres6. Bench Mark 1: Top nut of hydrant located on the southwest corner of Fox Hill Drive and Lotus Trail has an elevationof 929.52 feet NAVD88.7. Bench Mark 2: Top nut of hydrant located at the southeast quadrant of Fox Hill Drive and Carver Beach Road hasan elevation of 940.92 feet NAVD88.8. Elevations at curb line are at top of curb.9. The document for the Northern States Power Company easement references in the legal description was notprovided.10. The Ordinary High Water Level for Lotus Lake is 896.3 feet, NGVD29, or 896.35 feet, NAVD 88, and shown hereonfor reference.NOTESBOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYJULY 16, 20215736627
FOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
DETAILS 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
328
FOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
DETAILS 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
429
LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROADS20°28'26"E 125.32N22°37'50"W 125.86N74°50'50"E 825.86N74°50'50"E 821.10(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)32+/-41+/-LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKEN15°53'53"W 11.44'N15°13'15"W 32.96'N15°29'42"W 33.77'N19°32'37"W 30.45'N15°14'45"W 16.26'PARCEL AREA TABLEPARCELB1-L1B2-L1B2-L2B2-L3OUTLOT AROWTOTALAREA SF28,80115,03722,62217,7296,15717,033107,379AREA AC0.6610.3450.5190.4070.1410.3912.465FOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PRELIMINARY PLAT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND:DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines and 10 feet inwidth and adjoining right of way lines, unless otherwiseindicated on the plat.NOT TO SCALE530
FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SITE PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 7006FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLEGEND: SITE PLAN DATA TYPICAL LOT DETAIL31
FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ASOGWSWOSWOEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 7007FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONGRADING NOTES: GRADING LEGEND: RETAINING WALL NOTES: 32
FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ASOGWSWOSWOEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 7008FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONVICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEINSPECTOR:EROSION CONTROL PARTIESLEGEND: DNDDESIGNER:INSTALLER:RESPONSIBLE PARTYNOTE TO CONTRACTOR:CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:DURING CONSTRUCTION:IMPAIRED WATER REQUIREMENTEROSION CONTROL NOTES: ACTIVE SWPPP LEGENDSWPPP BMP QUANTITIES(PER PLAN):RPBCWD RULE C STANDARD NOTES: 33
FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ARoad AFOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
UTILITY PLAN AND PROFILES 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 7009FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLEGEND: UTILITY NOTES: WATERMAIN EXTENSION34
FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ARoad A PROFILECB 402-CBMH 400 PROFILEFOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
STORM SEWER PLAN AND PROFILES 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70010FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: UTILITY NOTES: FUTURE ROADWAYCB 402-CBMH 400OCS 505-FES 50035
FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFES 201 - MH 200 PROFILEOCS 300 PROFILEOCS 100 PROFILEFOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
STORM SEWER PLAN AND PROFILES 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70011FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: FES 201 - MH 200OCS 301 - FES 301OCS 100OCS 100NOT TO SCALEOCS 301NOT TO SCALE36
FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ASOGWSWOSWOEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
STORM INFILTRATION SYSTEM DETAILS 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70012FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLEGEND: OCS 505NOT TO SCALEOCS 502NOT TO SCALE37
FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKEEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
TREE CANOPY COVERAGE AND RESTORATION PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70013FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TREE PRESERVATION NOTES: LEGEND: CANOPY CALCULATION CANOPY CALCULATION INCLUDE WETLAND38
FOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
TREE INVENTORY 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70014FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TREE INVENTORY39
LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROADS20°28'26"E 125.32N22°37'50"W 125.86N74°50'50"E 825.86N74°50'50"E 821.10(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)32+/-41+/-LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKEFOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70015FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WETLAND SUMMARYWETLAND BUFFER CALCULATIONLEGEND: BUFFER SIGN DETAIL40
LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT
LANDSCAPE AND TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70016FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTSPLANTING NOTESLANDSCAPE SCHEDULELEGEND41
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTYOFCARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
Jlly 7,2022, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that
on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice ofConsider a request for
subdivision of 2.465 acres into four lots and one outlot with variences. Zoned Single'Family
Residential @SF), Planning case No. 2022-10. Appticant: chad Mayes' Denali custom
Homes, LLC / Property owner: Andy Awes, Fox Hill Properties, LLC to the persons named
on attached Exhibit "A', by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such
owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with
postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing
as such by the records ofthe county Treasurer, cawer county, Minnesota, and by other
appropriate records.
KimT.rty Clerk
Subscri bed and swom to before me
this? lr day of c.(-,2022.
JEAII M STECKLIilG
lroEy Rt5{fino.oblr*t r+t hll,z(,3a
E
J
Or<\
Notary Public
42
Subject
Parcel
OlrcLlmar
ThB mao 6 nedher a legally Ecoftled map nor a gurvey and rs nol rnteided to be u3ed
as one. ihls map is a cornFilaton ol recods. nfoamation and data loaat€d In varioG city'
countv state and lederaldfices and other sources regEading the area shown, and is to
be u& ,or reference purposas only. The Cty do€! not wafiant that the GeogEphrc
lnfornEtion Syslem (GB) Oatr us€d to p,epare this map ale ero. free, and ttE Cily does
not reoreseni that tlre GIS Oata can be u3€d for naugetonal, trackrno or any othe'
outDo6e requinnE €xactng meaSuemeol of distanco oa dleaton or paeqglon in the
ifedrtion ot geogoptrc lgat',re!. The p.ecadino dildeimer b p'ovialed putsuanl lo
Minnerota StaMes 546e 03. SuM 21 (2000), and the user of this map irctnorEogEs
trat Ure Cig sran na be fiable tor any damagcs, and expreiBly wair/€a all daims, and
aorees lo d;fend, indemnifY. and hold haml€s the Ciy from any and alldaims btought
b; User, its employees oI aoents. o. $id partie6 trtlidl anse out d the users access or
use of data provided.
<TAX-NAMEtr
<TAX-ADD-Ll tr
cTAX-ADD-L2r
(N6xt RecordxTAX-l'lAMEr
ITAX-ADD-LI r
rTAX-ADD-L2tr
Subj6ct
Parcel
lr{rclatr|orna mao ie neifE a leoallv lecoded map noa a suNey and is not lntended to be u8€d
,. i* rrris mao is a cornoilation of leco.ds, intormatjon and data locateo n vanoul ctly'
irliir. iiii"i"i r*"'al ;tu€6 and ourer lources egatdrng the arca 3iown' and is b
;-;;ar-il;6il purpose. onlv. The cnY does not ranant that the Geoofttphic
lnL-n id SV"r". tOr6t fiaa ,seo to p.epate t'is maP ale ero' free'.atrd tE-Crty
'loesi"i r"o.*"ni urar tire Gts oata can be urcd ior na\doatonal t'-ackrng or any o$er
;;;;;';;;;"il measr,e.ent or distance or dreclioo or prcosion rn trle
&ffi" ;;d;ph;Gtuel rne p.ecedng d€daim€r.is .provrded
puouanl to
iil;;;irh;;'5466 03. subd. 21 (2ooo). and the use' of thi3 map ac*no{€oget
[iji 6iic,tv irtirr n& ue liable lo. anv damag€6, and expr*slv waives all daims' and
ii,iJiJiirinir. ,o".n v. and hold hamtejs tre citv trom anv aftl alldaims broulm
;; u;;;riry.* * 6gem. o, t,tt pa'tes *'ttrch anse oul of the use/s accest or
use of data plovided.
xl5q
E {
t
\.-
c I
n
ll
L
43
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing
ChanhasBon Planning Commisaion Meeting
startnotTishhemaymanng0222atJu1puTsdeavvtheaofordertheonndrdlaterlhneuntOate & Time:
C vdBIarket00M77bersmitnchaIaCouIHLocation:nto Ifou462acresvtsofronfousbdnoderstaCrequest
amSiedle-Fs.ance Zonvari ilyoutlotngoneandlots
Residential RSF Planni Case No. 2022-10PropoBal
Fox Hill PA rties LLCProOwnet:
Chad SometomHsaDenCutiSicant:
ls on tho revorao 3lds ol this notlce.A location map
581 Fox Hill DriveProperty
Location
steos:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed pro,ect'
2. The applicant will present plans on the project'
3. Commints are received from the public'
4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission
thautbostonformicnhearisbthofThespuurposep
thnfromonbtaiauestndput,Saican reqpp
ethmeetiDuflnthen9isect.th sborhoodhenproig
th ro thehtcublwillleadughCap
discusses the ro
What HapPons
at the Meeting:
cen
P na n nthtoecoideES swillpStafftheetimprovofng
la bleavamitewilbefothsstaffThenreportomISSICom
web thee&M utesnndsaCes pagatlinethnAgoity
nSSIeetnmomComhenPlantofloruhrsdT
Questions &
Commenta:
notification endaswhenSmeetintextd/or agganmailuntorecelveNEWtpsistooGtoloadeduareScitydeonutesndpampackets
sl Unto
C,ly
500
Tuesday, July 19,2022 at 7:00 p.m. This hesring may not start
ndi on the order ot theuntil laler in the evenDate & Time:
7700 Market BlvdHall Council ChamCLocation
Consider a request for subdivision of 2.465 acres into four
lots and one outlot with variances. Zoned Single-Family
Residential Case No. 2022-10RSFPlannin
Propo6al:
LLCFox Hill PAndAweProperty Owner:
Denali Custom HomesApplicant:
581 Fox Hill Drive
A locatlon map ls on tho lrve]lo llde o, thls notlco
Proporty
Location:
The purpose of this public hearing is to i
applicant's request and to obtain input from the
neighborhood about this pro,ect. During the meeting, the
Chair will lead the public hearing through the follot ,ing
steps:1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the proiect.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission
nform you about the
discusses the ect
What Happon6
at the meeting:
To view proiect documents, please visit:
www,ChanhassenMN.oov/ProposedDoYeloDments. lf
you wish to talk to someone about this project, please
contact Sharmeen AlJaff aI952-227 -1134 ot
Sal-Jatf@ci.chanhassen.mn, us. lf you choose to submit
written comments, please send one copy to staff in advance
of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Planning
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online at the City's Agendas & Minutes webpage the
Thursda rior to the Plannin Commission
dotificationwhNSmeetientextureceiveagenngtoEWtNSignp
ht cte S website Go toaeosUreloadedtotnmautesvidndty'ppackets,
unto
Clty
U
500
A n.lohborrbod !pok6ipc..o.rr.pr6$ .lrE 13 on.ourlg.d lo
nl.€r -w h lh. n.'gtborhood EgErd,lg lhor Fopold stan13.l
stafi
C'lyCrly
c
60951!r9
cC'lY
s)
c C'lY
Ic
7:009,
with
you
to
about
followingthehearing
visit:documents,
website.the
Chad Mayes,
Question6 &
Comments:
and/oremail
44
TAX-NAM E
JON ALAN LANG
FOX HILL PROPERTIES LIC
MRP 4O1K PLAN & TRUST
ARTCRAFT HOMES INC
RANDAL C RUTLEDGE
MATTHEWT & LISAA KOEPPEN
ANDREW J LEMKUIL
RICHARD ARTHUR SHEA
MICHAEL VOI-Z
IAN P O'CONNEtt
MICHAEL N SWEET
KATHLEEN HANSEN
JEOFF T WILL
ARTICTE 4 TRST UNDER TYLER REEDER FMLY T
SAMUELR&NANCYLCOTE
ANITA R TEWIS TRUST
RICKI IEE HALE
RICHARD HINTZ TRUST
FRANCIS CHRISTY
CHRISTOPHER M TANDON
JENNY A NIETFETD
JUSTIN BIKERS
KEITH & BARBARA THOMAS
JENNIFER URICK
CONSTANCE M CERVILLA
JAMESV&MARYLFRERICH
JEFFREY L KLEINER REV TRUST
GEOFFREY J SCHROF
JAMES HENDERSON
ELIEZER MUNOZ
JOHN D JR & IISA I-ENSEGRAV
IEFFREY B & MARYV KING
STARITA HARDWOOD FLOORS LLC
MARKW&VALERIENELSON
TAX-ADD-11
130 CYPRESS VIEW DR
2044 SCHOOLMASTER DR
3385 HARDSCRABBLE RD N
3581 WILDS RDG NW
4511 FAIRVIEW AVE
515 BIG WOODS BLVD
517 BIG WOODS BLVD
533 BIG WOODS BIVD
548 BIG WOODS BLVD
549 BIG WOODS BLVD
565 BIG WOODS BIVD
580 FAX HILI DR
581 BIG WOODS BLVD
590 BROKEN ARROW RD
597 BIG WOODS BIVD
599 BROKEN ARROW RD
600 FOX HILL DR
606 CARVER BEACH RD
620 CARVER BEACH RD
620 FOX HILL DR
621 BROKEN ARROW DR
621 CARVER BEACH RD
530 CARVER BEACH RD
631 BROKEN ARROW RD
650 CARVER BEACH RD
651 BROKEN ARROW DR
555 CARVER BEACH RD
671 BROKEN ARROW DR
678 BROKEN ARROW DR
585 CARVER BEACH RD
6880 TOTUS TRL
6886 LOTUS TRL
6890 LOTUS TRt
6890 NAVAJO DR
TAX-ADD-12
NAPLES, Ft 34113
CHASKA, MN 55318
MOUND, MN 55354
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
MINNETONKA, MN 55343
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.4504
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.4504
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4504
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.4504
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9538
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4504
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9512
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9512
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-2101
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-2101
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9569
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.2101
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9559
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9569
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9559
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9559
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 553I7-9571
SITEADD
640 CARVER BEACH RD
581 FOX HILL DR
599 CARVER BEACH RD
695 CARVER BEACH RD
680 CARVER BEACH RD
516 BIG WOODS BLVD
517 BIG WOODS BLVD
533 BIG WOODS BI-VD
548 BtG WOODS B|_VD
549 BIG WOODS BIVD
565 BIG WOODS BIVD
580 FOX HILL DR
581 BIG WOODS BLVD
590 BROKEN ARROW RD
597 BIG WOODS BLVD
599 BROKEN ARROW DR
600 Fox Httt DR
606 CARVER BEACH RD
520 CARVER BEACH RD
620 FOX HILI DR
621 BROKEN ARROW DR
621 CARVER BEACH RD
630 CARVER BEACH RD
631 BROKEN ARROW DR
650 CARVER BEACH RD
651 BROKEN ARROW DR
655 CARVER BEACH RD
671 BROKEN ARROW DR
678 BROKEN ARROW DR
685 CARVER BEACH RD
5880 TOTUS TRL
6886 LOTUS TRL
6890 LOTUS TRT
6890 NAVNO DR
PIN
250010100
250010200
257602L20
251602160
25t602230
251090090
251090060
2510900s0
254390020
251090040
251090030
251602420
2s1090020
2s1601052
251090010
25t60237L
251602410
250125600
254390010
2s1502400
251602340
2s1502130
250125900
251602330
250010300
251602390
251602180
251602310
251602240
251500430
251602270
251602300
251501051
251602210
45
MICHAEL KLISANICH
LANA tEE MATSON
MARIA HELENA MORENO REV TRUST
PATRICK T MCRAITH
BRITTANY WEISSENBU RGER
ROBERT WRIGHT
SUSAN P DOWDS
DANIEL L OKSNEVAD
CURTIS C &JUDITH N QUINER
KENNETH W & COLLEEN J VERMEER
6891 NAVAJO DR
6893 NAVAJO DR
5896 NAVAJO DR
6900 TOTUS TRL
691 CARVER BEACH RD
6911 YUMA DR
5940 LOTUS TRt
720 PREAKNESS [N
725 PONDEROSA DR
730 PREAKNESS tN
CHANHASSEN,
CHANHASSEN,
CHANHASSEN,
CHANHASSEN,
CHANHASSEN,
CHANHASSEN,
CHANHASSEN,
CHANHASSEN,
CHANHASSEN,
CHANHASSEN,
55317
55317-9572
55317
55317-9559
55317
55317-9560
55317
55317-9238
55317 -9479
55317-9238
6891 NAVAJO DR
6893 NAVAJO DR
6896 NAVAJO DR
6900 LOTUS TRL
691 CARVER BEACH RD
6911YUMA DR
6940 LOTUS TRL
720 PREAKNESS LN
725 PONDEROSA DR
730 PREAKNESS LN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
251602260
25t602290
251602250
257602410
251500431
251602072
25t602440
258590110
251602090
258590100
46
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 2022-10
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for
subdivision of 2.465 acres into four lots and one outlot with variances on property located at 581
Fox Hill Drive. Zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF). Property Owner: Andy Awes, Fox Hill
Properties, LLC / Applicant: Chad Mayes, Denali Custom Homes.
Project documents for this request are available for public review on the City’s website
at www.ChanhassenMN.gov/ProposedDevelopments or at City Hall during regular business
hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions
with respect to this proposal.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff
Senior Planner
Email: Sal-Jaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1134
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on July 7 , 2022)
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-10 581 fox hill dr pp and fp\ph notice to villager - fox hill dr.docx
47
Al-Jaff. Sharmeen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bruce Johansson <sandmanjohansson@yahoo.com >
Monday, July '11, 2022 7:O1 PM
Al-Jaff, Sharmeen
581 Fox Dr. Proposed Development
Hello Sharmeen,
My input with regards to the Fox Hill proposed development by Denali Customs Homes.
I am opposed to it as unnecessary and harmful posing continued degradation to the Carver Beach neighborhood.
I am speaking on behalf of that lot as the last remaining stand of Big Woods.
Considering what was done to adjoining development called (was) Big Woods. There will be little or nothing left of the
beauty peace and sanctuary it provides.
Trees will be cut, earth moved, animals ( big and small) displaced , large foundations built with oversized 35' high
trussed up houses on top. Asphalt driveways, sodded lawns with pesticides. More water runoff and higher taxes for
everyone.
Each house will have at least two vehicles and road impact and damage will continue. That little charm will be destroyed.
I would propose another use for the property. lncorporating it as part of Carver Beach Park as a Sanctuary Preserve.
The benefits would be many and forever.
A much better outcome than l2 3 or 4
Oversized boxes that further destabilize the character and economic mix of Carver Beach.
lf the above is dismissed for bureaucratic reasons then please consider a more modest approval of construction. 2
house max with greater blending with environment ala the Stinson development on Frontier trail.
l've been invested for 30 years now in Carver Beach, owning 2 homes and built one (699 Carver Beach Rd.).
l've lived my beliefs to maintain the charm this neighborhood has.
Chopping up every parcel for short term profit and tax revenue is not a good way to define progress.
lf more time could be set aside to explore other options, other buyers, another way to approach the landowners desire
to cash out.
Thank You
Bruce Johansson
6711 Mohawk Dr
I
48
September 12, 2022
To:
The Chairman and Members of the Chanhassen City Planning Commission and Fox Hill Neighbors,
My name is Maria Awes and my husband, Andy, and I are eager to come before the Commission in just a
few weeks to discuss plans for our lot at 581 Fox Hill Drive. We have been hard at work over the past
several months with Denali Custom Homes and Alliant Engineering to develop and then revise a plan to
subdivide the land into three additional lots while also maintaining a lake lot of our own on which we
hope to build a home.
581 Fox Hill is a beautiful piece of property and it is our heartfelt desire to keep it as such while also giving
more families the opportunity to live in such a wonderful community. My husband and I have lived in
Chaska for the past 17 years and raised our two kids in the Eastern Carver County School District. We
couldn’t have had a better experience and are eager to stay in the same community while moving into
our next chapter of life.
We weren’t able to be at the last meeting, but have watched the meeting online and have worked
diligently to address concerns that were brought up at that time, primarily having to do with the
percentage of tree canopy being maintained. I wish we could have been in attendance, as there is a lot I
would have said.
The key issue that we were asked to take a second look at was whether or not more tree canopy could be
maintained. To address this, we did the following:
Met with the city arborist, Jill Sinclair, to discuss the project in general terms and
followed her recommendations to re-examine the storm water drainage systems for
each lot in order to save more trees
o The result is an additional 3 % of tree canopy.
Developed a plan with the MN DNR to reforest Butternut trees
o The result is this tree species will now be able to thrive in a more hospitable
environment far into the future.
Developed a proposal for the City of Chanhassen to consider a smaller private access
road rather than thecurrently requiredfull-size roadin order to save more tree canopy.
While we were just told on 9/9/22 that the City’s public works department and the fire
department would not support this option, which is very disappointing, we think it’s
important to point out what the positive impact on the tree canopy could have been,
because we spent time and money exploring this, as the Commission asked us to do, in
an effort to save more trees. And, this option would have had a very significant, positive
impact on the woods.
o If approved, the private access road we proposed would still have been of an
appropriate size to allow emergency vehicles necessary future access and would
have saved an additional 4% of the tree canopy.
o Worthy of discussion is the fact that If the City and its departments could
acquiesce to overwhelming neighborhood demand for the elimination of the
road requirement entirely, 8% of the tree canopywould be saved – for a total of
46% across the entire subdivision.
49
As we are told, neither of the two neighbors on the lake side have any
intention of selling their homes in the near future. It is frustrating as the
homeowner that we are required to build – and to pay – for the
development of a ‘road to nowhere’at the expense of the trees; essentially
a public works improvement that the City doesn’t have to pay for. Unlike
larger subdivided plots with massive neighborhoods being built where
such costs are more easily absorbed, the City is asking for a road that only
runs between two homes and will cost tens of thousands of dollars and
may never connect to any other roads.
All homes that are part of our subdivision proposal will be thoroughly
accessible on Fox Hill or Carver Beach Road. We believe that should the
other lakefront homes south of us sell in the future, there are other
options for accessibility that could be explored, including improvements to
the existing private road. Also, to even trigger road improvements on
those properties, not only would someone have to purchase those lots,
they would also have to go through subdivision - and the shape of those
lots could make that challenging, meaning this road may very well never
connect to the stub on Big Woods Blvd.
If we must build the road, can the City share in this cost? Respectfully, it
seems that we’re being unfairly penalized for this road, twice: monetarily
and in public opinion. It is expensive, and we are prevented from being
able to save more tree canopy (8%) which would please us and the
neighbors. Holding money is escrow indefinitely for a future build is also
not an attractive option for us, a couple putting two kids through college.
Increased the overall amount of tree canopy being saved –all of the above being said,
we did what the Commission asked and we are excited that we have been able to come
up with a new plan that means the total tree canopy being saved will now be at least 38
percent – which is 3 percent more than the previous proposal presented in July of 2022.
64 additional caliper inches of trees will now be saved.
It is one thing to talk about tree canopy and tree preservation in theory –it is another to see how
many trees are being saved with your own eyes. We are inviting you to do just that. Please
venture out to 581 Fox Hill and take a look.
There is a huge swath of land where trees will go untouched which has now been marked off,
and additional trees will be saved in other areas. The building pads for the three additional lots
have been marked with fluorescent green ribbon. The pink ribbon along the back side of the lots
indicates the boundary of our development work. In addition to the extensive amount of trees
that would remain untouched on the lake lot, all trees not encircled with green ribbons would be
saved. This is an area roughly 215’ by 135’.
Some other things we would like to point out that can’t be understated.
50
o This property has been earmarked for subdivision previously as part of the City of
Chanhassen’s comprehensive plan for the area, and there are actually stubs for utilities
in place already for these homes. The City previously stubbed 4 sanitary and water
services in anticipation of the development of this property.
o The number of homes being built on this existing property is less than the number of lots
on the shorterside of Fox Hill opposite of us –and far fewer than were built on Big Woods
Boulevard in the same length of space.
o Tree canopy is not the same as total number of trees – we are actually saving almost HALF of all
the trees on the property - roughly 46.8 percent of them, to be specific - which is a lot when
considering how much clearing can take place during subdivisions.
o The City of Chanhassen has parameters in place that allow for a lesser percentage of tree
canopy to be maintained during the subdivision process than the goal of 55%. We are
abiding by all such rules and we are the property owners of this parcel, and should be able
to proceed in accordance with the law and its provisions.
o Despite what was said in the last meeting, not everyone in this neighborhood opposes
this project. In fact, we have spoken with many people directly adjacent or on
neighboring blocks who support this project wholeheartedly.
We look forward to seeing you in person and thank you for the opportunity to revisit our plan
and come up with the best possible path forward for all involved.
Thanks,
Maria and Andy Awes
51
www.alliant-inc.com 733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 700
612.758.3080 MAIN | 612.758.3099 FAX Minneapolis, MN 55402
Fox Hill Drive
Memorandum
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
To: Scott Sobiech PE, Barr Engineering and Terry Jeffrey RPBCWD District Administrator
From: Seth Loken PE
CC: Denali Homes, Andy and Maria Awes
Date: August 15th, 2022
Subject: Response to Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Comments
This memo provides a response to watershed district comments. Since the last submittal, a
geotechnical of draft borings has been provided. Due to the heavily wooded nature of the site and
city application for subdivision, removal of significant trees is prohibited at this time which would
be necessary to conduct infiltration tests. Additional updates include responses to Rule B and G
comments
IC1. Because the project involves land-disturbance below the 100-year floodplain of Wetland
1 (949.25 ft) and Lotus Lake (897.46 ft), the project must conform to all the criteria in
RPBCWD Rule B. Some of the needed information includes computations documenting
the proposed project will provide full compensatory storage all fill below the 100-year
flood level, in accordance with RPBCWD Rule B.3.2 and the project must demonstrate no
adverse impact (Rule B, Subsection 3.3). The installation of storm sewer to wetland 1 has
been removed at the request of the city to preserve as much existing canopy as possible.
The installation of storm sewer and rip rap to Lake Lotus has been updated to discharge
at water’s edge. This will involve cut only. Typical detail for rip rap installation includes
overcutting of diameter of rip rap and installation with fabric and rock.
IC2. Because the project proposes a new outfall to a public water (Lotus Lake), the project
must conform to all applicable criteria in RPBCWD Rule G-Waterbody Crossings and
52
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 2
www.alliant-inc.com
Structures, including but not limited to subsection 3.1, 3.3, and 3.7. Noted. See further
responses below.
IC3. Please provide detailed plan view and scaled profile of the proposed outfall to Lotus
Lake and Wetland 1, including riprap, slope grading, etc. Detailed view of storm sewer to
Lotus Lake provided.
IC4. There does not appear to be soil borings or infiltrometer tests provided in the submittal.
Please provide site specific soil borings and infiltration testing at the proposed stormwater
management facilities. The soil borings and in-situ infiltration testing must be completed
by a state licensed soil scientist, engineer, or geologist in accordance with RPBCWD
Rule J.5.4. Soil borings have been added.
IC5. Please provide a detailed design of the proposed surface and underground infiltration
facilities, including the outlet structure, cross sections with elevations and materials listed,
and pretreatment (per Rule J, Subsection 5.4.d) Engineer design of systems included.
Full system design to be completed by others when contractor is chosen. Final details will
be provided to the city.
Because the project appears to involve work below the 100-year flood elevation of two waterbodies
(Wetland 1 and Lotus Lake), the project must conform to the requirements in the RPBCWD Floodplain
Management and Drainage Alterations rule (Rule B, Subsection 2.1). To conform to the RPBCWD Rule B the
following revisions are needed:
B1. The project proposes to install storm sewer discharging into wetland 1. Because the plans to not
appear to include the profile for the FES300 to FES302, additional information is needed to
demonstrate either no fill will occur, or that full compensatory storage is provided for this work in
accordance with RPBCWD Rule B.3.2. Please provide documentation that sufficient storage will be
provided adjacent to the same waterbody to compensate for the loss of floodplain storage from
this wetland. Alternatively, please demonstrate that no fill will be provided for the placement of the
storm sewer and riprap. No longer discharges below 100 year HWL of wetland per city request.
B2. Project proposes a new outfall into Lotus Lake (FES 500). While this work is above the 100-year
elevation of Lotus Lake (897.46 ft), the grading for the installation of riprap (shown on the plan view)
has the potential to result in fill within the 100-year floodplain of Lotus Lake. Additional information
is needed to demonstrate either no fill will occur, or that full compensatory storage is provided for
this work in accordance with RPBCWD Rule B.3.2. Please provide documentation that sufficient
storage will be provided adjacent to the Lotus Lake to compensate for the loss of floodplain
storage. Alternatively, please demonstrate that no fill will be provided for the placement of the
storm sewer and riprap. See standard city detail required for rip rap installation. Requires a low
point creation as part of the rip rap design and subcut for installation of fabric and granular
material.
B3. Please provide documentation and modeling to verify the grading conducted below the 100-year
floodplain of the wetland 1 and Lotus Lake will not have adverse offsite impacts and will not
adversely affect flood risk, water quality, and channel stability in accordance with RPBCWD Rule
B.3.3. Existing and proposed modeling of the project meets the required rate control requirements
53
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 3
www.alliant-inc.com
per district. 100 year increase in volume is shown from existing to proposed as part of modeling
however the project proposes to treat a portion of Fox Hill Drive (2400 SF impervious) and ROW that
was previously routed untreated to Lotus Lake. See included plans for flared end update from city.
B4. Add a note to the drawings requiring construction be conducted so as to minimize the
potential transfer of aquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil,
etc.) to the maximum extent possible. Noted.
Because the project will involve the alteration of 50 cubic yards or more of earth and involves more than
5,000 square feet of land-disturbing activity, the project must conform to the requirements set forth by the
RPBCWD Rule C - Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control. To conform to the RPBCWD Rule C, the
following revisions are needed before the application will be considered complete:
C1. FES500 appears to discharge runoff above the normal water level of Lotus Lake. While riprap is
proposed at the FES, there appears to be the potential for erosion to occur on the Lotus Lake
shoreline. Please provide detailed, scaled profile of the proposed outfall to Lotus Lake, including
riprap, slope grading, etc. and computations to confirming that any surface flow on the bank will
not lead to erosion. Per this comment the flared end section was extended to Lotus Lake and
outlets at the surveyed water level. Rip rap will extend below the water level.
C2. Name, address and phone number of the individual who will remain liable to the District for
performance under this rule and maintenance of erosion and sediment-control measures from the
time the permitted activities commence until vegetative cover is established (per Rule C,
Subsection 4.3a). This information does not need to be provided prior to making a
recommendation to the RPBCWD Board but will be needed before the permit is released. Will
provide when NPDES permit is applied for.
Because runoff from the site is tributary to Wetland 1, the project must conform to the requirements set
forth by the RPBCWD Rule D – Wetland and Creek Buffers. To conform to RPBCWD Rule D, the
following revisions are needed before the application will be considered complete:
D1. RPBCWD’s review of the MNRAM provided results in the wetland being considered medium value,
thus requiring a 40-foot average, 20-foot minimum buffer. Computations have been updated based
on this information.
D2. There appears to be a retaining wall proposed within the Wetland 1 buffer. Rule D, subsection 3.3d
does not allow structures within the buffer area. Please revise the buffer plan or design to remove
the retaining wall from the buffer. Retaining wall has been removed.
D3. While the buffer area is clearly shown on sheet 13, the buffer monument locations appear to be
missing on the plan view. Please update the plan to show the monument locations. Location(s) for
markers, at a minimum along each lot line, with additional markers at an interval of no more than
200 feet and, for subdivisions, on each lot of record to be created (Rule D, Subsection 3.4) Buffer
monuments have been added.
54
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 4
www.alliant-inc.com
D4. Please update the plans to require that all disturbed areas within the buffer be restored with native
vegetation (Rule D, Subsection 3.3). Note added to wetland plan.
D5. Before any work subject to District permit requirements commences, buffer areas and maintenance
requirements must be documented in a declaration recorded after review and approval by RPBCWD
in accordance with Rule D, Subsection 3.4.This can be provided after the RPBCWD Board considers
the permit application and will be included as a recommended condition for Board consideration.
Noted.
Because the applicant proposes to place a new outfall Lotus Lake, a public waterbody, the project must
conform to RPBCWD’s Waterbody Crossings and Structures Rule (Rule G). To conform to the RPBCWD Rule
G, the following revisions are needed before being considered complete:
G1. Have you confirmed with the city that there is not an existing storm sewer and outfall to Lotus Lake
that the project could connect to rather than proposing a new outfall to Lotus Lake. See plansheet
from city. Flared end referenced is 300’ away and would require significant disturbance in order to
connect into.
G2. Please provide information demonstrating that the proposed outfall provides a public benefit (Rule
G, subsection 3.1). Currently there is no secondary emergency access to Big Woods Blvd resulting
in a 1200 LF dead end street which exceeds city standards. In order to treat the proposed stub road
and the fact that any existing outfall to Lotus Lake is not in close enough proximity to connect to a
new outfall is being proposed. The outfall is being proposed in a manner to minimize disturbance to
Lotus Lake and existing shoreline. As part of the work for the development the property owner will
be restoring the shoreline which has been neglected further providing a benefit to Lotus Lake.
G3. The following information and analysis must be provided to demonstrate the construction of the
proposed outfall:
a. FES500 appears to discharge above the normal water level of Lotus Lake. This
has the potential to result in significant bank erosion and does not appear
consistent with Rule G, subsection 3.3a which requires minimization of
disturbance and erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting from peak flows;
See previous comment response.
b. when feasible, utilize discharge to stormwater treatment ponds, artificial stilling or
sedimentation basins, or other devices for entrapment of floating trash and litter,
sand, silt, debris, and organic matter prior to discharge to public waters; and
c. use natural or artificial ponding areas to provide water retention and storage for
the reduction of peak flows into waterbodies to the greatest extent possible.
There is a natural berm near the Lake according to topography taken via survey.
The flared end discharges at this point to allow water retention and storage to
maximum extent possible.
G4. Please provide detailed plan view and scaled profile of the proposed outfall to Lotus
Lake, including riprap, slope grading, etc. Provided.
55
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 5
www.alliant-inc.com
G5. The plan set needs to include notes to address criteria 3.7a, 3.7b, 3.7c. Added.
G6. Subsection 3.7 requires compliance with the applicable criteria in Rule F subsection 3.3.
Please provide information demonstrating that the criteria in Rule F subsection 3.3 are
achieved. City detail is specified on plans which conforms to these rules.
G7. Permit applicant must provide a maintenance and inspection declaration for the outfall. A
maintenance declaration template is available on the permits page of the RPBCWD
website (http://www.rpbcwd.org/permits/). A draft declaration must be provided for
District review prior to recording. This information does not need to be provided prior to
making a recommendation to the RPBCWD Board Noted.
Because the project will involve more than 5,000 square feet of land-disturbing activity, the project must
conform to RPBCWD’s stormwater management rule as described in Rule J, Subsection 3. Because the
proposed activity will increase the site imperviousness by more than 50%, the criteria of Section 3 will apply
to the entire project site, subsection 2.3. Under paragraph 2.5 of Rule J, Common Scheme of Development,
activities subject to Rule J on a parcel or adjacent parcels under common or related ownership will be
considered in the aggregate, and the requirements applicable to the activity under this rule will be
determined with respect to all development that has occurred on the site or on adjacent sites under
common or related ownership since the date this rule took effect (January 1, 2015). Because a permit is
being considered at the July 13, 2022 meeting for the shoreline restoration work (permit 2022-043), the
current activities proposed must be considered in aggregate with the activities proposed under this
application, Permit 2022-053.To conform to the RPBCWD Rule J, the following revisions are needed before
being considered complete:
J1. The proposed conditions drainage map suggests that the driveway work within the ROW will
not be routed to a BMP for abstraction, water quality, or rate control. Please update all of
the stormwater computations to account for all the existing and proposed impervious
surfaces on the site. This must include the imperviousness associated with the work in the
right of way and associated with permit being considered at the July 13 meeting for the
shoreline restoration work (i.e. permit 2022-043). Imperviousness has been updated. 2400
SF of previously untreated existing impervious is now treated as part of this project.
J2. Please provide additional information to clarify how the driveways for Lots 1 & 2 of Block 2
are captured and routed to the underground stormwater facility on Lot 1. The grading
appears to suggest that runoff from the driveways and potentially a portion of the roofs
would flow directly north to Fox hill drive. Please update the drawing/design to ensure the
contractor understand these areas must be routed to the BMP. If the design is relying on
gutter flow along the south side of Fox Hill Drive to turn the corner and be captured in the
proposed CB, please demonstrate that flows up through the 100-year event will take the
corner rather than overflowing to the east. The existing “curb” on fox hill drive is a bit roll
curb. Upon installation of curb cut for the road stub the water will be directed towards the
low point in the stub road.
56
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 6
www.alliant-inc.com
J3. The drainage arrow for Lot 1 Block 1 also indicates runoff from the driveway will flow north to
Fox Hill drive. Please clarify on the drawings to ensure this runoff is routed to the stormwater
facility. Driveway graded to create low point in driveway where flow will cross driveway to be
routed to the stormwater treatment facility.
J4. The drainage arrow for Lot 3 Block 2 also indicates runoff from the driveway will flow north to
Fox Hill drive. Please clarify on the drawings to ensure this runoff is routed to the stormwater
facility. As much drainage as possible is routed to stormwater facilities as physically possible
without further tree removal.
J5. The plans will need to ensure erosion prevention between the FES500 outfall and Lotus
Lake. The current outfall design as the potential to cause soil erosion downstream of the
proposed riprap and at the shoreline. Please provide computations documenting that
erosion will not occur or consider alternatives to convey the runoff to Lotus Lake without
exacerbating erosion potential. Please revise design to account for erosion prevention
modifications. Stilling basin and silt fence are included as part of storm installation.
J6. Comments related to HydroCAD modeling:
a) The rainfall depths used in the 24-hour rainfall simulations (2-year, 10-year, and 100-
year) must be revised to 2.87”, 4.27” and 7.41”, which are the point estimates for the
RPBCWD centroid. Adjusted.
b) The current snowmelt modeling appears to only be generating 6.95 inches of runoff.
Please update the snowmelt modeling to produce 7.2 inches of runoff. Adjusted.
J7. Comments related to MIDS modeling:
a) The MIDS modeling only include 2.303 acres of the 2.465 acres site boundary. Please
confirm the only area exclude is the Wetland 1 buffer areas? Correct. Only areas
excluded will be wetland buffer or areas the city would require as conservation area.
b) MIDS modeling results for abstraction and water quality are dependent on the soil
conditions below the proposed BMPs. Without soil boring information it is not possible
to confirm the abstraction and water quality criteria are achieved. Please complete soil
borings at each BMP location.Noted.
J8. There does not appear to be soil borings or infiltrometer tests provided in the submittal.
Please provide site specific soil borings and infiltration testing at the proposed stormwater
management facilities. The soil borings and in-situ infiltration testing must be completed by a
state licensed soil scientist, engineer, or geologist in accordance with RPBCWD Rule J.5.4.
Noted and included.
J9. Please provide a detailed design of the proposed surface and underground infiltration
facilities, including the outlet structure details, cross sections with elevations and materials
listed, and pretreatment identified (per Rule J, Subsection 5.4.d) Noted and included. One
note, these are engineer designed but not designed yet by manufacturer. Final manufacturer
designed plans will be included in as built to city and watershed.
57
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 7
www.alliant-inc.com
J10. In accordance with RPBCWD Rule J.3.6, no structure may be constructed or
reconstructed such that its lowest floor elevation is less than 2 feet above the 100-year
event flood elevation in accordance with RPBCWD Rule J.3.6. Please provide a summary
showing that all proposed low floor elevations for proposed and existing lots adjacent to
wetland 1, proposed surface and underground stormwater facilities, meet the rules.
J11. Provide computations demonstrating the drawdown of the required abstraction volume
will be drawn down within the required 48 hours.
J12. Permit applicant must provide a maintenance and inspection declaration. A maintenance
declaration template is available on the permits page of the RPBCWD website
(http://www.rpbcwd.org/permits/). A draft declaration must be provided for District review
prior to recording. This information does not need to be provided prior to making a
recommendation to the RPBCWD Board.
58
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 8
www.alliant-inc.com
59
www.alliant-inc.com 733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 700
612.758.3080 MAIN | 612.758.3099 FAX Minneapolis, MN 55402
Fox Hill Drive
Memorandum
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
To: Erik Henricksen, PE, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Joe Seidl, PE, City of Chanhassen
From: Seth Loken PE
CC: Denali Homes, Andy and Maria Awes
Date: August 8th, 2022
Subject: Response to City Planning Commission Comments
This memo provides a response to city planning commission comments. On July 19 th the project
was tabled by City of Chanhassen planning commission for a request to explore saving more trees
throughout the property. Two exhibits have been added to demonstrate what we believe to be max
savings: Removal of the stub road requirement completely, conversion of full public ROW to
private roadway contained within outlot, but it is our understanding that the stub road is a
requirement per city comprehensive planning. We will continue to work with city staff to increase
the canopy coverage to the maximum extent possible but believe based on the requirements of
both city and watershed district, this will be the maximum canopy coverage for the additional 3
lots. Since the planning commission, a geotechnical investigation has occurred, and this plan is
updated to reflect the initial findings. Responses to city comments are shown below in red.
SUBDIVISION
Engineering:
1. Any underlying easements within public easements, including public right-of-way, must be
vacated or released prior to recording of the final plat. Noted
2. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along Carver Beach Road prior to
recording of final plat providing a 50-foot-wide right-of-way in total. 10’ of additional ROW
shown.
60
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 2
www.alliant-inc.com
3. The ESCP and tree preservation plans must address the excavation of the proposed
stormwater conveyance system on Lot 1, Block 1 and it’s impacts upon submittal of final
plans for review and approval. Erosion control has been updated.
4. The street within the newly dedicated 50-foot right-of-way extending from Fox Hill Drive
shall be constructed to the maximum extent feasible. Road has been extended to the
maximum extent possible.
5. The applicant shall provide exhibits illustrating the alignment, profile, and grades of the
proposed street design from Fox Hill Drive to the future connection at Big Woods Drive
upon submittal of final plat. Noted. Will provide with final ppat.
6. The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction
plans, dated June 17, 2022 prepared by Seth Loken, PE with Alliant Engineering to fully
satisfy construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be
subject to review and approval by staff prior to commencement of any construction
activities. Noted.
7. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract and pay all applicable fees and
securities prior to recording of final plat. Noted.
Water Resources Recommendations:
1. Private stormwater BMPs to serve the needs of the development must be wholly located
outside of all public easements upon submittal of the final plat. Noted.
2. The applicant shall provide a copy of conditional approval from the RPBCWD as part of the
final plat submittal. Noted.
3. The applicant shall provide a copy of the geotechnical report and infiltration test results as
part of the final plat submittal. Geotechnical report provided. Shows seams of sandy/silty
soil with clay soils. Infiltration tests were not conducted initially as to not remove any
trees. Based on preliminary findings, infiltration tests will occur.
4. The applicant must update the Hydrologic and Hydraulic models per City and Watershed
District comments and submit updated computations and models in their native forms
with the final plat and final construction plans. Noted.
5. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will not raise the 100-year high
water level of the onsite wetland as part of the final plat submittal. Noted.
6. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will be in compliance with the
3-foot freeboard requirement to ponding features as part of the final plat submittal.
Freeboard in general is well over 3’. See grading plan/stormwater.
7. The applicant must confirm the stormwater routing of the onsite BMPs and include pipe
profiles, details of outlet control structures, underground infiltration details, and
connections to public infrastructure as part of the final plat submittal. Noted.
8. The applicant must work with staff to improve the BMP configuration to the maximum
extent given the restrictions of the site and RPBCWD rules. The applicant and engineer
61
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 3
www.alliant-inc.com
understand the city’s desire to consolidate BMP’s. Watershed rules stipulate that
abstraction volume must be provided prior to discharging to a wetland, in order to provide
this to meet the watershed’s rules the site needs a BMP prior to discharging to the wetland.
The alternative to providing the BMP would be to pipe all disturbed area and impervious
surface that drains to the west, this would result in significant tree removals and change in
hydrology to the wetland. The alternative BMP configuration for drainage that is routed
directly to Lotus Lake would be to pipe all disturbed area and impervious surface to a BMP
downstream of lot 1 block 1. In order to do this would result in a significantly larger
footprint meaning further tree removal and disturbance to existing lakeshore and slopes.
Additionally, the BMP for lot 1 block 1 is confined due to existing utilities near the
lakeshore.
9. The applicant shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any proposed
privately owned stormwater facilities which shall be recorded concurrently with the final
plat. Noted.
Parks:
1. Full Park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be
collected as a condition of approval for the four lots. The Park fees will be collected in full at
the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single-
family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total Park fees for the three new additional
homes would be $17,400. Noted.
Environmental Resources Coordinator:
1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activities and remain in
place until construction is complete. Noted.
2. Any trees removed that are shown on plans dated as preserved shall be replaced at a rate
of 2:1 diameter inches. This is noted based on a final approved plan.
3. A Conservation Easement shall be dedicated over the wooded side yards on Lots 1 and 2.
To be provided at final plat.
4. The applicant will relocate the infiltration basin to the edge of the wooded area on Lot 2
and eliminate the fragmentation of the wooded wetland buffer. Infiltration basin moved
towards the home to eliminate fragmentation of wooded wetland buffer.
5. The applicant shall revise the tree removal plans and calculations to show tree removal for
all stormwater infrastructure and utilities needed on site. Tree removal plans have been
provided.
62
Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 4
www.alliant-inc.com
Building:
1. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued. Noted.
2. Building permits must be obtained before beginning any construction. Noted.
3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed buildings meet
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review Noted.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction, retaining walls
under four feet in height require a zoning permit. Noted.
63
Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022
13
will be done by the construction equipment and he thinks it is a reasonable question in asking
who will be responsible for maintain and repairing the damage that will be done.
Chair von Oven noted there is a reason they are called private streets, everyone knows who is
responsible for it: the people who live on it. He noted this is a tough answer to give but when one
buys property on a golf course, golf balls will come at your house; when you buy property on a
private street, you know what you are getting into. For Chair von Oven, the private street comes
up at the Planning Commission every single time but he holds the same position on the private
street every time. Will there be extra traffic on that street? Possibly. For a homeowner who has a
right to do what he or she wants to do with their property, the concern of the private street which
everyone knew was their responsibility, it is a concern for him because it is the public’s concern.
However, it is not on his list of concerns because people know what they are getting into with a
private street. He noted this is the single most comprehensive, well though-out, strategic
presentation he has ever seen from the public and he is in each one of their shoes on the topics
brought forward. In some of their 72 questions, it comes down to education and part of the
process is that there are not final numbers right now. Chair von Oven see two things that need to
be decided which are whether the property can be rezoned and subdivided into two lots. There is
a final Watershed check that will get the real numbers and then this project will or will not go
forward. He spoke about drainage, the reducing of Wetland A, and noted the landowner had two
developments grow up around him is now asking for one house, not even a development.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning of property from Rural
Residential District (RR) to Single Family Residential District (RSF), preliminary plat to
subdivide 4.75 acres into two lots as shown in plans received June 16, 2022, subject to the
conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
581 FOX HILL DRIVE: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION OF
2.47 ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT WITH VARIANCES
Senior Planner Al-Jaff gave a presentation on the item stating it is a riparian lot with a single
family home on the parcel with a subdivision all parcels will meet the required lot area, width,
depth, and access to each parcel is from Fox Hill Drive.
Project Engineer Henricksen spoke about access and right-of-way, noting the applicant is
proposing to dedicate some additional right-of-way to meet the 50 feet typical to the
neighborhood. It is substandard to current standards of 60 feet but matches the neighborhood and
would be consistent with the needs for the road network. He spoke about the Lotus Woods
subdivision from 2020 and a connection to Fox Hill Drive which he showed on screen. Sanitary
sewer and water is adequate to meet the needs and there is a need for an additional fire hydrant to
be installed to meet fire code.
Water Resources Engineer Seidl spoke about drainage and grading noting a high point at the
center of the property with storm water flowing to Lotus Lake, the wetland, or stormwater
infrastructure along Carver Beach Road. Mass grading is proposed to prepare the site for home
64
Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022
14
construction, install storm water BMPs, and infrastructure before discharging water offsite. The
proposed position conveys the water to four individual storm water BMPs which increases the
wetland stormwater volumes and increases the 100-year high water level which is seen as an
adverse impact and is something that will need to be addressed during final design submittal. He
noted the project is within the Riley Purgatory Watershed District and is subject to the City and
Watershed’s rules and regulations. A geotechnical analysis and related infiltration testing will be
needed so the BMPs can be property designed.
Ms. Al-Jaff spoke about parks and trails, trees on the site, and a conservation easement. Staff
recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide and a variance for the 50-foot right-of-
way.
Commissioner Schwartz asked staff to comment on Mr. Johanson’s email about concerns with
tree removal, animal displacement, stormwater runoff, and pesticide contamination.
Ms. Al-Jaff replied that Mr. Johanson is not opposed to development but noted his concern was
the size of the potential homes in the future. If these parcels meet ordinance requirements and
guidelines for subdivision, staff will typically recommend approval. This development has met
all of those requirements and Mr. Johansen requested the size and height of the homes be
limited; the City must abide by the single-family residential district and as long as they meet
setbacks, hard surface coverage, and height limitations, they are permitted to build homes that
would be in compliance with the ordinance.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if Jill Sinclair has weighed in on any environmental issues.
Ms. Al-Jaff had conversations with Ms. Sinclair about the woods. As has been done with Big
Wood Boulevard, the City exercised similar practices by reducing the right-of-way and required
the applicant to push the homes closer to the right-of-way with a preservation easement at the
rear of the property. She noted the applicant will be 22 trees short of the maximum removal and
will be replacing those trees on site. She believes as they finalize and define the location of the
storm pond they can save additional trees.
Commissioner Johnson noted with infiltration basins it raises a flag and asked if there are options
to change those.
Mr. Seidl replied the Watershed does not waive their abstraction volume requirement which is
why they will need a test to prove those rates. There is a workaround which is a void space
created from a rock layer under the infiltration practice to capture that volume which allows a
longer time for the water to infiltrate the soil. Underground infiltration BMPs are typically a
more cost-effective option.
David Bieker, Denali Custom Homes, said the owner of the property will be constructing a new
home on the lake side of the property. The applicants are lovely people who have lived in
Chanhassen for years and are looking forward to living in the home; they are very into the
environment and the outdoors. Their full intention is to plant many trees in strategic spots. He
spoke about the potential road extension as well as the stormwater drainage system.
65
Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022
15
Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing.
Ella Hale, 600 Fox Hill Drive, thanked the Commissioners and noted she has lived in her house
for almost 30 years and she loves the neighborhood. Everyone calls the area a hidden gem; they
love the woods, wildlife, and if this were to change that wildlife would have nowhere to go. This
area is the last big plot of woods and is very special. She cannot imagine it not being there
anymore, it affects her everyday life and she would be lying if she said she has not cried every
single day since this property was sold last summer because she did not have a million dollars to
buy it and she has never been more mad at herself. She wants to keep it the way it is and this is
such a thin stretch of land and noted no one wants the road. It is such a quiet area, and in putting
four homes there it would double the entire neighborhood. In taking most of the trees… how can
someone say they love nature if they are only going to leave 35%, that is ridiculous to her, so
many trees will be gone that she has watched grow since she was a kid and she played in those
woods. The previous owner left it the way it was because they loved it that way. Ms. Hale
understands that people want to build a home and spoke about the cottage that is currently there.
It is crazy for someone to see this and want to build as many homes as possible. She asked the
Commissioners to please come out to the neighborhood if they haven’t already to look at how
special it is. She wishes the project could be scaled back as it will change everyday life and it
will lose the magic. She spoke about growing up and the big woods seemed to go on forever and
she does not believe that the trees would be replanted. She stated nobody in the neighborhood
wants this and it will affect everyone else, animals, water, and so many things. She asked the
Commissioners to scale it back to two homes or three but not to devastate the entire forest for
one person to have all their friends live in the same strip.
Francesca Landon, 620 Fox Hill Drive, noted her house looks directly into the current wetland
area and years ago during the Lotus Woods development she had concerns that all the trees
would be gone. She spoke about deer and fawns, barn owls, red-tail hawks, and noted she is
having a difficult time visualizing the four houses as the three acres does not seem like it will fit
the houses. She is not opposed to change but her concern is taking 65% of the trees down and she
does not think that qualifies as loving nature. Ms. Landon noted that 65% proposed does not
include what was taken down at the lakefront last summer and she does not think it includes the
trees taken down by the road the last couple of weeks. She noted this is truly a gem and it is not
so much about their view as it is about drainage. She spoke about Page 4 of the staff report where
the developer proposes to mass grade a majority of the site and asked how that will be done
without removal of trees. Right now water goes to the corner of Outlot A and pools/overflows
the corner and goes into the street; there is a neighbor down there who has lost some of his lot to
the wetland due to the amount of drainage that goes there. She noted the road is very small and
she does not know how construction trucks will go on the road and thinks the road will be
demolished. There are a lot of issues, she thinks it is an excessive building plan and it would be
better if it were two or three houses total.
Chairman von Oven noted the City Code of Chanhassen requires that Planning meetings end at
10:30pm by law. He is not allowed to continue and noted this is the first time he has had to do
this.
66
Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022
16
Ms. Aanenson noted they can continue this item but cannot start another item.
John Stutzman, 6901 Yuma Drive, is on the other side of the pond from Big Woods and has lived
in the City for 14 years. He has utmost respect for staff and elected officials and said the
common theme from neighbors tonight is to scale the project back. They understand
development and it is an owner’s right to develop land within City Code and other governing
bodies. As Ms. Landon said, the excessive nature of this seems to be a common theme and a
tough area to develop. It is a very passionate issue for the neighborhood and he requested if there
are ways to increase the conservation easement to save more trees and reduce the lot numbers,
and he noted the bottom lot will be interesting to develop. He said if there is a way to avoid the
road he would also propose that. He encouraged the Planning Commission, staff, and the
developer to think about scaling this project back and be respectful of what the neighbors are
asking.
Deeann Hale, 600 Fox Hill Drive, grew up in Chanhassen and she has seen a lot of growth, some
good change and some bad change. She was very happy many years ago when Mayor Mancito
believed in conserving more trees. Ms. Hale was home one day when surveying and tree tagging
was happening and one of the young men she was talking to noted there were a lot of old trees
there and some were very rare and are not seen anymore. Ms. Hale said it is sad because
someone will move in and not appreciate it but knock it down. Ms. Hale kept her fingers crossed
that the property would stay as much the same as possible and said building four houses with the
rare trees and wildlife that depend upon them is a shame. She is beginning to wonder if they
appreciate what they have. As someone said “they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” She
asked if that is what is going to happen. If they remove two-thirds of the trees, where will the
deer and wildlife go. Ms. Hale noted they cannot save this for the deer but they were there first,
and said let’s not destroy what they enjoy and what the neighborhood enjoys. She asked the
Commissioners to consider it and questioned why people buy lots only to knock it all down, she
does not understand it. The way it will be developed she will have two driveways across from
her driveway and will be interesting to get out at the same time. She does not know if the
Commissioners have been out to see it but invited them to take a look. She spoke about Big
Woods and all the trees taken out there noting it is a funny name as there are no woods.
Mr. Bieker noted people keep mentioning they should scale it back and noted there are eight
houses between the street and the lake at Big Woods and the applicant is only proposing four in
the same amount of distance. He thinks that is a lot more reasonable than what has been done in
the past; there will be a lot more greenspace, there is hardly any greenspace in Big Woods, and it
will not be like that. He thinks they are being mindful on the number of houses and he thinks it
might be possible to do more but that is not what is happening. In another area of Chanhassen, he
built 12 homes and now there are more trees that tower above the houses. He noted the trees will
be replenished and the character of the neighborhood will come back. Mr. Bieker stated they will
work with the City to save every tree that they can and he appreciates what the neighbors are
saying.
Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz wonders if the current owner would consider selling the property to the
City, County, or a preservation organization such as a Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy,
67
Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022
17
assuming they would get fair-market value of the land. He would ask that of the owner before
proceeding. As proposed, he thinks this project is a travesty which is his personal opinion. When
he drove into that neighborhood he was blown away and had no idea there was that degree of
huge trees on the property and once it is gone it will never come back. He thinks it needs to be
rethought.
Commissioner Also stated given that her current house and childhood home are within .5 miles
of this lot she will be recusing herself from the vote and that they would still have a quorum.
Chairman von Oven lives across the lake on Lotus. He has driven through the neighborhood, and
Commissioner Schwartz is right, these trees are different. He admitted he struggles a bit and as
stated earlier he believes in the rights of a land owner to do what they want with their property
within the boundaries of the law. The Lotus Woods subdivision in 2020 had a tree preservation
of 29% and in looking at the google map now he thinks it does not look so bad, although they are
not the same trees but were placed as a penalty for removing trees. He noted they are big,
beautiful trees on Big Woods Boulevard and he does not know where he stands but would like to
discuss if there is a right number. He is hopeful that there are ways of moving around of the
puzzle pieces such as the infiltration system and downstream effects, which might affect the
proposed tree preservation. He spoke about the number from the City plan that says it must be
55% or higher and then paying a tree penalty if it is below that has always been a thorn in a
Commission predecessor’s side and has become a thorn in this case and in this neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnson agrees, he has walked the street a number of times and noted the area is
pretty special. He understands the tree debate but also understands an owner’s right to do what
they want with their property. He hopes they can come up with a solution or compromise,
whether reducing the lots, changing stormwater, or whatever they can do to save trees.
Commissioner Soller feels the same and almost bought a house in the neighborhood; he has been
through the area and likes it a lot. This is a tough one and he noted it may be in the purview of
the City Council and City regarding conservation but perhaps it needs to be looked at such as
increasing the penalty for taking out so many trees. He thinks the City has some leverage but
finds it difficult to tell a property owner that they cannot work on this. Commissioner Soller likes
the idea of compromise.
It does not feel right to Chair von Oven to restrict the number of lots. He believes the number the
Planning Commission can affect that does not put him at odds with his beliefs about landowner
rights is the tree preservation number. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan requires 55% but has an
out clause for certain situations and the proposal right now is 35%. He does not know what it
would do to the project for that minimum canopy coverage to remain at 55% and be completely
in compliance with the Code.
Seth Loken, Alliant Engineering, said the Watershed has stormwater rules and in order to meet
those they must treat discharge to the wetland prior to it getting to the wetland and to do that they
must clear trees for that infrastructure.
68
Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022
18
Ms. Al-Jaff clarified staff noticed this application with variances. One thing they did with Big
Woods and why many cannot tell which trees they saved, the homes were pushed 10 feet closer
to the right-of-way to save the trees behind, and they increased the rear yard to 40 feet for the
conservation easement. If that is something the Commissioners wish to consider, staff will look
at it.
Commissioner Schwartz wants to make it clear that he also respects property rights of
homeowners and property owners. He asked if it is possible at this stage to think out of the box
and asked Ms. Aanenson whether the City could consider purchasing the property and keeping it
the way it is.
Ms. Aanenson replied at this stage she is not sure it would be appropriate to try although it is
something that could have been considered. She clarified the tree preservation ordinance, noting
the City has a very rigid tree preservation easement and it is not a one-size-fits-all. She noted
they have a lot of deer in town travelling through the whole community and that is something the
City wants to keep. Ms. Aanenson said the applicant has indicated if the City wants additional
right-of-way, which is taking away some of the trees, the applicant is getting penalized for that.
She thinks the best way is to Ms. Al-Jaff’s point and to look at ways to cluster the houses, shift
them, figure out those significant trees and try to work around those. She is not sure they would
have a willing seller but the City could offer that up although she is not sure the City has those
funds right now. She noted it is a bit harder on a smaller scale but there are different zoning
techniques that have been employed such as RLM or PUD to save a natural resource.
Chair von Oven is not in a position to reject or approve the proposal and asked Ms. Aanenson
about the best course of action to send it back.
Ms. Aanenson replied they can ask for additional time and make a recommendation to table.
Staff could then go back and revisit some issues to see what they can do (i.e.variances, what they
can save, etc.) They have 120-days to review and would take the extra 60 days.
Chairman von Oven moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded to table this item and allow
staff and the developer to work towards achieving a greater percentage of tree canopy
preservation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0
(Commissioner Alto recused herself from the vote).
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING IMPROVEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS IN
PUBLIC EASEMENTS
Ms. Aanenson noted this is a Code Amendment recommendation. Currently, staff must make
everyone that wants to put a fence in an easement area must apply for an encroachment
agreement which is a legal document constructed by the attorney. The city attorney is saying
these need to go to the City Council for their approval and signature. Staff is creating a website
with all easement agreements and development contracts. The purpose of this would be to amend
the City Code to say if there is not an active easement, one can put up a fence and sign a
document saying if the City would have to activate that easement, the fence owner could take
care of that. This would affect 90% of people who must wait 3-4 weeks to get a fence permit.
69
September 16, 2022
To:
The Chairman and Members of the Chanhassen City Planning Commission and Carver Beach / Fox Hill
Neighbors
We are the Lang and Cervilla families and live on the two properties south of the proposed 581 Fox Hill
development. We’ve lived here a combined 70 years, 33 of those years as neighbors. Our properties
include the woods we have all come to appreciate that used to be 4 acres across 4 properties until the
sale of an acre of woods bordering Big Woods and the sale of 581 Fox Hill. We predate the development
that is transforming our neighborhood. We got here when highway 5 was a two lane road and the
journey from Eden Prairie to Chan was interrupted daily by a passing train; when visiting friends were
told to get here by hanging a right at the grain elevator, when there was a big woods at the end of
Carver Beach Road before Big Woods; when I could row on Lotus Lake without getting swamped by a
wake boat, before mill foil, multiple stop lights in town, innumerable sandwich shops, multiple grocery
stores, the inevitable big box liquor store and other “conveniences”. This was a quiet neighborhood
with a lovely lake. We understood that such a tranquil setting wouldn’t last forever, especially with the
growth in the western suburbs. And we understand that progress is forward focused but we wish that
progress would be more respectful of the past, of the underlying nature of this part of Chanhassen that
created its appeal.
We have two considerations about this plan and two objections to the 581 Fox HIll Development:
• No amount of wiggling plans around will erase the fact that two acres will now hold 4 houses
instead of a thousand square foot cabin built in 1930. It’s not likely that the new houses will be
nestled comfortably on wooded lots but rather more big houses will be built on more small lots.
We wish the Planning Commission would consider what is being replaced when drawing up the
rules for what will be replacing it. Do we need tiny lots replacing big woods that many of us,
beyond the property owners, enjoy? How about some thinking that values the historic nature of
the old neighborhood – maybe replace an acre of trees with something larger than 1/3rd acre
lots. Consideration: Value our heritage not just the tax base.
• The wetlands, mostly on the 581 property, is big in the spring, filled by the rain and snow melt.
The water runs toward the lake and even with the current wetlands and woods enough water
runs around our properties to cause a very soggy springtime and a usual rite of the season that
involves getting a stuck vehicle out of the muddy lawn. Most recently this process involved a
tow truck having to pull a Fed Ex truck stuck up to its bumper in mud out of what was previously
a springtime lawn. We know capable engineers have taken a close look at where water will go
without the forest and with lots of rooftop and driveways resulting from this development.
Consideration: Please be doubly sure the Fox Hill Development plan accounts for runoff given the
size of the planned remaining wetlands, absence of multiple drains and the one big drain at the
base of Fox Hill Drive. Messing with Mother Nature usually results in failure of some magnitude.
• In 2006 the 4 neighbors went through a long and arduous process with the Planning Commission
to get approval of a plan to develop the woods, eventually ending up with multiple lots.
Interestingly, that approved plan had one buildable site in addition to the existing house at 581
Fox Hill because, at that time, the Commission said that the wetlands could not be moved,
70
changed or ignored. When that development was approved there were still unsold lots in Big
Woods and we decided not to continue with that development. That plan, like the current 581
project, called for a road to go across the properties from Big Woods Blvd. to Fox Hill Drive but it
cut across the properties in such a way that left our houses on about one acre lots. This new 581
Fox Hill development plan cuts across our properties about 100 feet closer to the lake. That
means that if or when our properties are subdivided the lake shore lots are considerably smaller
than the 2006 plan. Land in our neighborhood on Lotus Lake is appraised for tax purposes at 2
and a half times the value of land not on the lake. That means that the new road placement
creates a loss of roughly 24,000 square feet of our lake shore land, devaluing our properties
significantly. Objection: It is not Minnesota nice, neighborly, or reasonable to predetermine
what happens to our properties in the future to suit one developer’s plans for one property today
when there was a previous agreement in place for 16 years on where a possible future road
would go. It is especially thoughtless to make that change without informing us.
• The plan for a possible future road is more than a plan. A stub is in place off of Big Woods Blvd.
and a stub is currently planned for the Fox Hill end of the road. That pretty much means that a
future road would connect the two stubs. The road, planned to be 50 feet wide, 30% wider than
most roads in the neighborhood, would not impact any of the proposed homes wedged into the
land through the 581 project. All of those homes front Fox Hill or Carver Beach. This road has
no purpose now and would serve, if our current properties were to be developed, only 4-5
homes. The 50-foot road takes another 13,000 square feet out of our properties. It would be
one of the shortest roads in the neighborhood, serving the fewest number of homes in the
neighborhood with one of the widest roads in the neighborhood. Objection: This is just plain
silly. We, the City of Chanhassen, are smarter than that. Think of a better solution.
Progress needs to be thoughtful and considerate of the impact it will have on the foundation upon
which that progress rests. We have a little piece of old Chan here in this neighborhood and
although it is quickly transforming, preserving some bits of that would be worth considering. To
quote the often-quoted Joni Mitchell and to state an obvious stance to be avoided, “They took all
the trees and put them in a tree museum and they charged the people a dollar and a half just to see
‘em. Don’t it always seem to go you don’t know what you got till its gone. They paved paradise, put
up a parking lot.”
Katy and Jon Lang
Connie and Colleen Cervilla
71
Planning Commission Item
September 20, 2022
Item 3609 Red Cedar Point Road: Consider a Request for a Shoreland Setback and
other Variances
File No.Planning Case No. 2022-13 Item No: B.2
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Applicant: Brad Kerber, Kerber Family Homes
10685 County Road 43
Chaska, MN 55318
Owner: Peter & Jada Sanders
2989 Canyon Road
Chaska, MN 55318
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage .4
Density NA
72
Applicable
Regulations
Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether
or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a
variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance
because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is
a quasi-judicial decision.
Relevant City Code:
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Parking and Loading
Section 20-1122, Access and Driveways
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 22.3 foot shoreland
setback variance, and approves a 10 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a home and deck,
subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a 22.3 foot shoreland setback variance to accommodate the construction of a
new home and deck which would be respectively setback 64.5 and 52.7 feet from the ordinary high
water level (OHWL). The property’s existing home has a nonconforming 65 foot shoreland setback and
expanding and increasing the nonconformity would be require a variance from the 75 foot shoreland
setback.
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the house was built in 1917.
Several permits for maintenance are on file with the city.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a 22.3-foot shoreland setback from the south lot line to build a new house
and deck replacing an existing home with a nonconforming 10-foot encroachment into the property’s
75-foot shoreland setback. The applicant has stated that the existing home is uninhabitable and that a
new home is needed to allow reasonable use of the property. The applicant has noted that the property is
73
bordered by Lake Minnewashsta on the north and south and also bisected by a private drive. They feel
these factors, combined with the location of the neighboring houses create a practical difficulty which
necessitates the requested variance. They observe that they have brought the property’s side yard
setbacks into compliance with the zoning code are not proposing to exceed the zoning district’s 25
percent lot cover limit. Finally, they believe that the size of the home they are proposing and shoreland
setback variance that they are requesting is comparable to what has been granted to other properties in
the area.
It has been the City’s general practice to require properties with existing nonconforming shoreland
setbacks to maintain those setbacks and not encroach further into the required shoreland setback. In this
case, the existing home has a nonconforming 65-foot shoreland setback and the applicant’s proposed
house would have a 64.5-foot shoreland setback with the deck having a proposed 52.7-foot shoreland
setback. While the presence of two shoreland setbacks has the potential to create a practical difficultly,
the property’s 217-foot length and 79-foot width provides for a viable 67-foot by 59-foot building pad
without the issuance of variances.
The applicant’s desire to maintain separation from the private drive is understandable; however, the
nearness of the north portion of the home to the public drive is the result of the applicant’s decision to
propose 21-foot by 24-foot porch and entryway for the property that is 17 feet from the private drive at
its closest point. A design choice cannot justify increasing the encroachment into the shoreland setback,
and staff notes the other homes on the peninsula have been constructed with northern decks much closer
to the private drive. The applicant’s house could be shifted further to the north to minimize the
encroachment into the south shoreland setback and the applicant could either reduce the size of the front
entryway or accept a reduced distance from the private drive.
Examining the location and configuration of the surrounding houses and taking into consideration the
minimum driveway length required by City Code, staff recommends that the applicant be required to
shift the proposed house forward and redesign the home and deck to maintain the existing
nonconforming setback. Staff believes this recommendation takes into account the practical difficulties
created by the unique characteristic of the lot, the prevailing conditions of the neighborhood, and the
City’s interest in not allowing homes to further encroach into the shoreland setback.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested 22.3 foot shoreland setback
variance, and approve a 10 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a home and deck, subject to
the following conditions:
1. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer with permanent buffer signs must be installed along
both the north and south shorelines using species native to the ecotype. Buffer strip averaging may be
used to achieve the total buffer area required. The buffer may be configured around the path and stairs.
The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline
restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources Engineer.
2. The installation of any improvements on the Site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements,
including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements.
3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements may be
74
required after plan review.
4. A building permit must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site and before
beginning any construction on the site.
5. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the footing to the
top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained
prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet in height require a zoning permit.
6. If any soil corrections are done on the property a final grading plan and soil report must be submitted
to the Inspections Division before permits will be issued.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report
Variance Document
Findings of Fact and Decision 3609 Red Cedar Point Drive
Application for Development Review
Proposed Plans
Survey (Existing)
House Plans
Water Resources Report 3609 Red Cedar Point Road
Affidavit of Mailing
75
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: September 20, 2022
CC DATE: October 10, 2022
REVIEW DEADLINE: October 18, 2022
CASE #: PC 2022-13
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a 22.3-foot shoreland setback variance to accommodate the
construction of a new home and deck which would be respectively setback 64.5 and 52.7 feet
from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The property’s existing home has a nonconforming
65-foot shoreland setback and expanding and increasing the nonconformity would be require a
variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback.
LOCATION:3609 Red Cedar Point Road
APPLICANT:Kerber Family Homes, LLC
Brad Kerber
10685 Co Rd 43
Chaska, MN 55318
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” –Single-Family
Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE:.4 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a 22.3-foot shoreland setback from the south lot line to build a new
house and deck replacing an existing home with a nonconforming 10-foot encroachment into the
property’s 75-foot shoreland setback. The applicant has stated that the existing home is
uninhabitable and that a new home is needed to allow reasonable use of the property.The
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 22.3 foot shoreland
setback variance, and approves a 10 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a home and
deck, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and
Decision.”
76
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 2
applicant has noted that the property is bordered by Lake Minnewashsta on the north and south
and is also bisected by a private drive. They feel these factors, combined with the location of the
neighboring houses, create a practical difficulty which necessitates the requested variance. They
observe that they have brought the property’s side yard setbacks into compliance with the zoning
code are not proposing to exceed the zoning district’s 25 percent lot cover limit. Finally, they
believe that the size of the home they are proposing and shoreland setback variance that they are
requesting is comparable to what has been granted to other properties in the area.
It has been the City’s general practice to require properties with existing nonconforming
shoreland setbacks to maintain those setbacks and not encroach further into the required
shoreland setback. In this case, the existing home has a nonconforming 65-foot shoreland
setback and the applicant’s proposed house would have a 64.5-foot shoreland setback with the
deck having a proposed 52.7-foot shoreland setback. While the presence of two shoreland
setbacks has the potential to create a practical difficultly, the property’s 217-foot length and 79-
foot width provides for a viable 67-foot by 59-foot building pad without the issuance of
variances.
The applicant’s desire to maintain separation from the private drive is understandable; however,
the nearness of the north portion of the home to the public drive is the result of the applicant’s
decision to propose 21-foot by 24-foot porch and entryway for the property that is 17 feet from
the private drive at its closest point. A design choice cannot justify increasing the encroachment
into the shoreland setback, and staff notes the other homes on the peninsula have been
constructed with northern decks much closer to the private drive. The applicant’s house could be
shifted further to the north to minimize the encroachment into the south shoreland setback and
the applicant could either reduce the size of the front entryway or accept a reduced setback from
the private drive.
Examining the location and configuration of the surrounding houses and taking into
consideration the minimum driveway length required by City Code, staff recommends that the
applicant be required to shift the proposed house forward and redesign the home and deck to
maintain the existing nonconforming setback. Staff believes this recommendation takes into
account the practical difficulties created by the unique characteristic of the lot, the prevailing
conditions of the neighborhood, and the City’s interest in not allowing homes to further encroach
into the shoreland setback.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Parking and Loading
77
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 3
Section 20-1122, Access and Driveways
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the house was built in 1917.
Several permits for maintenance are on file with the city.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
The property is lot zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the Shoreland
Management District with lake frontage along the north and south lot lines. This zoning
classification requires riparian lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front yard
setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, a shoreland setback of 75 feet, and limits
parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Riparian lots are required to have 90 feet of lake
frontage and as the lot is accessed by a private street it is required to have a width of 100 feet at
the building setback line. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height, and properties are
allowed one water oriented accessory structure up to 250 square feet in size within the 75-foot
shoreland setback.
The lot is 16,501 square feet with an estimated 2,207 square feet (13.4 percent) lot cover. The
northern and southern lot lines have only approximately 77 of the required 90 feet of lot
frontage. The lot’s width at building setback is 79 feet. The existing home has nonconforming
65-foot south shoreland and 4.6-foot west side yard setbacks. The property has access to a public
street via a private street that bisects the property. The other features of the property appear to
meet the other requirements of the City Code.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are no bluffs on the property.
Floodplain Overlay
Portions of the northern and southern edges of the property are within the AE
Flood Zone (1 percent annual flood chance); however, no portion of the
proposed project will take place within those areas.
Shoreland Management
78
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 4
The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District and has lake frontage along the
northern and southern lot lines. This district requires a 75-foot structure setback from the lake’s
ordinary high-water level and limits the property to a maximum impervious surface coverage of
25 percent. It also requires 90 feet of lot width and a minimum 20,000 square feet of lot area.
Wetland Protection
There is not a wetland located in the development site.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Red Cedar Point
The plat for this area was recorded in August of
1913. Over the subsequent century, the City of
Chanhassen was formed, a zoning code was
passed, the zoning code was amended numerous
times, and buildings were built, demolished, and
rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the
existing ordinances. Additionally, the
neighborhood’s roads were not always constructed
within their designated right of way. In some
areas, this has led to portions of buildings being
located in the right of way and portions of these
roads being located within residents’ property
lines. Very few properties in the area meet the
requirements of the city’s zoning code, and most
properties either are nonconforming uses or are
operating under a variance.
Variances within 500 feet:
3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2015-14): 20.2’ front setback, 17’ lake setback (two-storyattached
garage) - Approved
3605 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1988-11): 4’ E side setback, 2’ W side setback, 26’ lake setback
(garage, addition intensifying non-conforming) - Approved
3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1981-08): 7.5’/13.5’ lake setback (deck/stairs) – Approved
(PC 1992-01): 1.5’ side setback, 14.5’ lake setback (addition
expanding non-conforming) - Approved
3613 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1976-11):10’ lot frontage (house) - Approved
(PC 1979-02): 20’ and 13’ front setback, sub 20,000 sq. ft. lot area
(house) - Approved
79
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 5
(PC 1983-09): 12’ front setback, 2’ side setback, 7’ lake setback
(house) – Approved
3616 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2021-01): 18’ east front setback, 13’ lake setback (deck) - Approved
3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2018-01): 11.5’ front setback, 22.1’ lake setback, 11% LC
(home) – Approved*
(PC 2019-03): 8.5’ front setback, 25.1’ lake setback, 10.4% LC (home) -
Approved
3618 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1993-06): 8’ side setback, 15’ lake setback (deck and porch) -
Approved
3622 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2017-09): Intensify non-conforming by raising garage in side yard
setback (garage) - Approved
3624 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1985-20): 1.2’ front setback, 4.8’ side setback (detached garage)
- Approved
3625 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2009-15): 15.5’ front setback, 6.5’ E side setback, 9’ driveway
setback, 18.5’ lake setback, 12.3% LC, allowone car garage (house) -
Approved
3627 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2016-11): 13.6’ lake setback, 4.8% LC (home) - Approved
3628 Hickory Rd. (PC 2002-05: 13’ front setback (Hickory), 2’ front setback (Red Cedar Point),
5’ side setback (detached garage) - Approved
3629 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1980-08): 12’ front setback, 3’ foot side setback, +1.5’ side
setback for (chimney), 20’ lot width, 40’ lot frontage, 13,000
square feet lot area (house) - Approved
(PC 1987-13): 12’ front setback, 3’ side (house) - Approved
3633 South Cedar Drive (PC 2006-04): 22.5’ front setback, 15.8’ front setback, 2.39% LC
(garage) - Approved
3637 South Cedar Drive (PC 1978-07): 19’ front setback (garage) - Approved
(PC 2004-07): 19.25’ front setback, 4’ lake setback, 15% LC (addition) -
Approved
(PC 2008-04): 20.2’ front setback, 8’ side setback (house) - Approved
3701 South Cedar Drive (PC 1980-04): 14’ front setback, 25’ lake setback, and sub 20,000 sq. ft.
lot (house) - Approved
(PC 1985-27): 5’ front setback, 35’ lake setback (house) – Approved
(PC 2015-07): increase existing non-conformity (enclose deck 15’ in
80
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 6
lake setback) - Approved
*Note: Variance 18-01 lapsed due to one year passing without construction occurring.
ANALYSIS
Shoreland Setback
The City’s shoreland ordinance establishes a 75-foot structure
setback in order to prevent the installation of lot cover near
ecologically sensitive areas, creates separation between structures
and the lakeshore, and provides for a consistent visual aesthetic for
riparian properties. Due to the important role that this setback plays
in protecting the quality of the City’s lakes and the potential for these
variances to impact both the neighboring properties and all users of
the city’s lakes, the city has historically been very hesitant to grant
shoreland setback variances. When these properties with existing
nonconforming shoreland setbacks apply for variances to expand,
staff has always recommended that the expansion be required to
maintain the existing lake setback.
In this case, the existing home has a nonconforming 65-foot
shoreland setback from the south property line. The applicant is
proposing to construct a new home with a significantly larger
footprint which will feature a deck with a 52.7-foot shoreland
setback. The applicant has stated that this reduced shoreland setback
is needed due to the presence of two shoreland setbacks, the location
of the private drive, and the placement of the neighboring homes.
One of the findings necessary for granting a variance is that, “The
plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.” This property has two unique elements, the presence of dual shoreland setbacks and
the private drive bisecting the lot. With regards to the shoreland setbacks, the property is
approximately 217 feet long at its shortest and 79 feet wide at its narrowest point. This leaves a
67-foot long (217-foot lot length minus 150-foot shoreland setbacks) by 59-foot wide (79-foot
lot width minus 20-foot side yard setbacks) building pad available for construction without the
need for any variance. As a point of comparison, the City’s subdivision ordinance requires that
developers show a viable 60 by 60-foot building pad clear of all required setbacks when
proposing lots with the expectation that this area is sufficient to provide for reasonable use of the
lot (i.e. single-family home, garage, deck/patio area, etc.). Other provisions of the City Code like
the RSF district’s 125-foot minimum lot length which combines with the required 30-foot front
and rear setbacks to provide a 65-foot long building pad or the Residential Low and Medium
Density district’s 110-foot minimum lot length which combines with the required 25-foot front
81
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 7
and rear setbacks to provide a 60-foot deep building pad, all
reinforce the assumption that an approximately 60-foot long
building pad provides for reasonable use of a parcel.
Based on the above, that the difficulty that the applicant is
encountering in building on the parcel is not that the two
shoreland setbacks do not provide a reasonable building pad, but
rather that the applicant’s proposed house, decks, and porches
have a combined length of 80 feet. Numerous aspects of the
applicant’s design choices such as a 12-foot-deep deck section to
accommodate a hot tub or combined 21-foot deep covered porch
and foyer on the front of the house could be modified to reduce
the proposed encroachment into the southern setback. For these
reasons, the difficulties related the two shoreland setbacks should
be understood to be primarily the result of the applicant’s
proposed design rather than the unique circumstances created by
the parcel’s location on a peninsula.
The second unique element of the property, the private drive, does
serve to constrain the applicant’s placement of the proposed house
on the property. While there is no formal setback required from a
private drive, staff acknowledges that the house should be setback
a sufficient distance to allow for guests to park in the driveway
without obstructing the private drive. The applicant is proposing
placing the home in a location where the closest portion of the
front porch would be setback 17 feet from the edge of the private
drive and the shortest portion of the driveway would be 22 feet
long. A driveway of this length could accommodate the parking of one row of vehicles across the
width of the garage for a total of three off street parking spaces; however, the applicant could
provide a similar amount of off street parking if the home was shifted forward by four feet to
better align with the area of the lot located outside of the shoreland setbacks. This would reduce
the driveway length to 18 feet at its shortest point which is the minimum driveway length
required by the City Code and corresponds to the required length of parking stalls. In this
scenario the longest portion of the driveway still be approximately 24 feet long which would
provide an area capable of accommodating longer vehicles.
While shifting the home forward by four feet would also reduce the setback of the closest portion
of the front porch to from the private drive from 17 feet to 13 feet, the private drive only serves
four other properties and is not heavily traveled. Additionally, the other properties served by the
private drive all have either decks or structures significantly closer to the private drive. Finally,
as was noted above, the front porch and foyer have a combined length of 21 feet which could be
reduced if the applicant desired additional separation. Staff agrees with the applicant that the
private drive is a unique characteristic of the property but based on the demonstrated viability of
shifting the home forward, does not agree that it necessitates the requested shoreland setback
variance.
82
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 8
The applicant has stated that the placement of the neighboring
homes near the side lot line and their respective setbacks from the
lake crowds their lot and blocks lake views. They have stated that
they have proposed a plan which meets the required 10-foot side
yard setbacks and moves the home towards the lake to create a
contiguous row of homes providing equal lake views. Staff
appreciates the fact that the applicant is eliminating the property’s
nonconforming side yard setbacks, but cannot agree that that
requested shoreland setback variance is justified by the location of
the neighboring homes. If a line is drawn connecting the closest
corners of the neighboring principle, as shown in the exhibit to the
right, the applicant’s proposed principal structure can be seen to
extend four feet closer to the lake than the line denoting the average
setback would support. As was noted above, the home could be
shifted forward by four feet while still providing an adequate
driveway length.
In general, due to the requirement that a variance be granted due to
unique characteristics of a property, nonconforming elements of
surrounding properties should not be used to justify a variance.
Doing so would lead to an area’s smallest setback or highest
amount of lot cover becoming the standard, regardless of if a given
property required that extreme of a variance to provide for
reasonable use. Instead, staff has always used the standard that the property’s existing
nonconformity should establish the maximum extent of the variance, under the rational that
properties can be rebuilt in the same footprint of a nonconforming structure and that
intensification within that boundary is generally reasonable. In this case the applicant is
requesting a 22.3-foot shoreland setback variance for a property with a 10-foot nonconforming
encroachment into the shoreland setback.
Given all of the above, staff does not believe that the requested shoreland setback variance
should be granted. The house can be shifted forward and elements of the home and deck, could
be redesigned to reduce the required shoreland setback variance to 10 feet. A shoreland variance
of 10 feet would be consistent with past policy and provide relief from the practical difficulties
created by the shared driveway. As the City’s Water Resources Engineer notes, the City is
required to encourage nonconforming properties to move towards compliance when considering
variances within the shoreland overlay district and to require measures to provide for stormwater
runoff management and vegetative buffers when granting variances. To meet this requirement,
staff is proposing that a 20-foot vegetative buffer be required to offset the reduced shoreland
setback.
83
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 9
Impact on Neighborhood
Red Cedar Point is one of the
oldest neighborhoods in the city.
Many of its properties are
nonconforming uses, and 16 of the
21 properties within 500 feet of
3609 Red Cedar Point Rd have
been granted at least one variance.
Many of the five properties which
do not have a variances also have
nonconforming shoreland
setbacks. The applicant has noted that they believe their request is consistent with the
neighborhood and the variances that have previously been issued in the area. Of the 16 properties
in the area that have received variances, 11 were permitted a reduced shoreland setback; however,
only three of those properties were granted a shoreland setback variance of over 20 feet. To staff’s
knowledge only 2 properties have been granted a variance to increase the extent of an existing
encroachment into the shoreland setback. In the first case, PC 1985-27, appears to have allowed an
old cabin to reconstruct with a new deck encroaching10 feet closer the OHWL than the
nonconforming primary structure setback; however, surveys show the home was actually
constructed with the deck 10 feet further from the OHWL than the nonconforming setback stated in
the variance. Due to the age of the case, staff is unable to determine exactly what happened and why
the house was built further back from the shore than the 1985 variance would appear to have
permitted. In the second case, PC 2019-03, the City Council approved reducing a nonconforming
52.9-foot shoreland setback to a 49.9-foot shoreland setback in order to accommodate a driveway
capable of providing off-street parking.
The applicant’s request to reduce the existing shoreland setback from approximately 65 feet to 52.7
feet is a significantly larger reduction to an existing nonconforming setback than has previously
been granted in this neighborhood. The majority of the requested reduction is to accommodate a
deck along the south of the house. In a previous case, PC 2021-01, the City required the homeowner
to relocate a proposed deck’s stairs that would have reduced a nonconforming shoreland setback by
5 feet (from 57 to 52 feet) to maintain the pre-existing setback. Staff’s reasoning was that granting
a requested variance reducing an existing non-conforming shoreland setback for even a minor
item, such as deck stairs, would contribute to establishing the precedent that homeowners can
increase their nonconforming shoreland setbacks, which has the potential to lead to other more
impactful variance requests.
In the current case, the applicant has stated that one of their reasons for wishing to move the
home closer to the lake is that neighboring homes infringe on their lake view. If a variance is
granted under this rational, subsequent variance requests in the area can be expected to propose
reducing their respective shoreland setback to bring their property in line with the shorter
setbacks of their neighbors. Since 10 of the 21 properties within 500 feet of the applicant’s were
built prior to 1980, staff anticipates that this neighborhood will have multiple future variance
84
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 10
requests as homes are rebuilt or remodeled and that the precedent set by this variance with
regards to shoreland setbacks will be taken into consideration in these requests.
The result of switching from a policy of maintaining the existing nonconforming setback, save in
extreme circumstances, to a policy of permitting new construction to match shorter surrounding
setbacks would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood by decreasing shoreland
setbacks and allowing the construction of larger footprint homes. Decreased shoreland setback
have the potential to negatively impact the quality of the lake as runoff from impervious surfaces
has less associated greenspace to slow down and absorb the run off.
Regarding the proposed size of the home, staff consulted real estate listings and county records
to determine if the proposal is consistent with what is present in the neighborhood. With an
estimated living area of nearly 5,000 square feet the proposed home would be the second largest
house in a 500-foot radius; however, once lot size was taken into account the resulting floor area
ratio (FAR) is the fourth highest of the 21 nearby properties. Additionally, the proposed FAR of
.29 is larger than the average FAR of .26 for the seven homes built in the area after 2000. In
short, the proposed home larger than, although not dramatically so, than much of the area’s
recent construction.
While it is true that the home is not atypically large, the extent of the shoreland setback being
requested by the applicant is largely the result of where they have chosen to place the house on
the lot, their proposed home configuration, and desired amenities. For these reasons, staff
believes the applicant should be required to take steps to minimize the proposed shoreland
setback variance. Ideally, through a combination of moving the home forward on the site and
redesigning the deck and home.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested 22.3-foot shoreland setback
variance, and approve a 10-foot shoreland setback for the construction of a home and deck,
subject to the following conditions:
1. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer with permanent buffer signs must be
installed along both the north and south shorelines using species native to the ecotype.
Buffer strip averaging may be used to achieve the total buffer area required. The buffer
may be configured around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed
by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be
approved by the Water Resources Engineer.
2.The installation of any improvements on the Site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall
be obtained prior to any site improvements.
3.Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review
85
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
September 20, 2022
Page 11
4. A building permit must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site and
before beginning any construction on the site.
5. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building
permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet
in height require a zoning permit.
6. If any soil corrections are done on the property a final grading plan and soil report must
be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits will be issued.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
2.Variance Document (Approval)
3.Development Review Application
4.Narrative
5.Plans (Proposed)
6.Survey (Existing)
7.House Plans
8.WRE Memo
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-13 3609 red cedar point\staff report_3609 red cedar point_var.docx
86
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2022-13
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 22.3-foot
shoreland setback variance, and approves a 10-foot shoreland setback for the construction
of a home and deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 5, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta, Carver
County, MN.
3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer with permanent buffer signs must be
installed along both the north and south shorelines using species native to the ecotype.
Buffer strip averaging may be used to achieve the total buffer area required. The buffer
may be configured around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed
by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be
approved by the Water Resources Engineer.
2.The installation of any improvements on the Site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall
be obtained prior to any site improvements.
3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
87
2
4. A building permit must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site and
before beginning any construction on the site.
5. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building
permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet
in height require a zoning permit.
6. If any soil corrections are done on the property a final grading plan and soil report must
be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits will be issued.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not
been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: September 20, 2022 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Elise Ryan, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2022 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by
its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-13 3609 red cedar point\variance document 22-13.docx
88
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(PARTIAL APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Brad Kerber on behalf of Peter and Jada Sanders for a shoreland setback variance to
facilitate the construction of a home and deck on a property zoned Single Family residential District
(RSF) – Planning Case 2022-13.
On September 20, 2022, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed
notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
The legal description of the property is:
Lot 5, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta
3. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding:Accommodating the reasonable use of substandard and nonconforming parcels is in
harmony with the intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan; however, section 20-
490 request that in evaluating variances the city require property owners to address, when
appropriate, items such as vegetative buffers and increasing setbacks. The applicant’s request
to decrease the shoreland setback beyond the existing home’s nonconforming setback would
not be in keeping with the intent of that provision. An appropriate balance between allowing
for reasonable development and protecting the City’s water resources is granting a variance
to allow the new home to maintain but not increase the existing nonconforming setback.
b.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
89
2
Finding:The applicant has the ability construct a reasonably sized house with typical
amenities with a smaller shoreland setback variance than is being requested. Granting a
variance allowing the new home to maintain the existing nonconforming setback of the
existing home provides the applicant with reasonable use.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
Finding:The property’s length creates an adequate building pad despite the unique
circumstance of having two shoreland setback. The majority of the extent of the applicant’s
variance request is a result of their proposed house design and location. Relatively modest
alterations to the proposal would greatly reduce the extent of the required setback variance;
however, the location of the private drive bisecting the parcel does constrain their ability to
fully utilize the available building pad due to the need to provide off street parking and does
necessitate a more limited shoreland setback variance than is being requested.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The applicant is requesting to reduce the existing nonconforming shoreland setback.
The applicant has stated that one of their reasons for wishing to move the home closer to the
lake is that neighboring homes infringe on their lake view. If a variance is granted under this
rational, every subsequent variance request in the area can be expected to propose reducing
their respective shoreland setback to bring their property in line with shorter setbacks of their
neighbors. Since 10 of the 21 properties within 500 feet of the applicant’s were built prior to
1980, the City anticipates that this neighborhood will have multiple future variance requests
as homes are rebuilt or remodeled and that the precedent set by this variance with regards to
shoreland setbacks will be taken into consideration in shaping those requests.
The result of switching from a policy of maintaining the existing nonconforming setback to a
policy of permitting new construction to match the shorter surrounding setbacks would
significantly alter the character of the neighborhood by decreasing shoreland setbacks and
allowing the construction of larger footprint homes. Decreased shoreland setback has the
potential to negatively impact the quality of the lake as runoff from impervious surfaces has
less associated greenspace to slow down and absorb the runoff.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes
Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
4.The planning report #2022-13, dated September 20, 2022, prepared by MacKenzie
Young-Walters is incorporated herein.
90
3
DECISION
The Planning Commission denies the requested 22.3-foot shoreland setback variance, and approves a
10-foot shoreland setback for the construction of a home and deck, subject to the following
conditions:
1. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer with permanent buffer signs must be installed
along both the north and south shorelines using species native to the ecotype. Buffer strip
averaging may be used to achieve the total buffer area required. The buffer may be
configured around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an
experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by
the Water Resources Engineer.
2. The installation of any improvements on the Site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained
prior to any site improvements.
3.Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements
may be required after plan review
4. A building permit must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site and before
beginning any construction on the site.
5. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building
permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet in
height require a zoning permit.
6. If any soil corrections are done on the property a final grading plan and soil report must be
submitted to the Inspections Division before permits will be issued.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20th day of September, 2022.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Its:
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-13 3609 red cedar point\findings of fact and decision 3609 red cedar point drive.docx
91
7- t3
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
Submittd me LL PC Date
tr
tr
E ett otners............
El Rezoning (RE4
E Site Ptan Review (SPR)
trn Admin'rstrative.........
6GDay Review Oate:
E consolidate LotsE Lot Line Adjuslment...............................$150
E Final Plat.$700
(lncludes $450 escrow for atomey costs)*
'Additional €scrow may be reqdrEd for other aPPlitlatbns
through the &\,EloFnert conaraci-
! Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAc)........ $300
(AdditbrEl r@.di E re6 may apdy)
......... $500 S v"ri"n"" (VAR) ....$200
'" $150 E wetland Atteration Permit (wAP)
(Rsfet to tl1€ a'ptgpiate ApCi.f,/.io,t Chd<lisl fot.eq)iod subnittal inlomdkm tM muC ac,cqnqny Ais adrc,l,o,t)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600 tr Subdivision (SUB)
E Minor MUSA line forfailing on-site sewers.....$1oo E create 3 lots or less ........................................ $300
n Create over 3 lots .......................$500 + $15 per lot
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (_ lots)
! Single-Family Resilence ................................ $325 E Metes & Bounds (2 lots) .................................. $300
"""""""""""" $150
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E h conjunclion with Singl+.Family Residence.. $325
........... $425
fl Planned Unit Derrelopment (PUD) ...............
fl Minor Amendment to existing PUD
$750
$100
E Atl others......
E Sign Plan Review
Commerciaylndustrial Districts'..
Plus $10 per 1 ,0oo square fea oi Uri'fi( thousand square feet)
D Single-Family Residence...
...........$1oo n rut ottrers......
iil ;foo ! Zonins Appeal" "" "" " " "" '
.......... $150
.......... $275
.......... $100
E Residential Districls..$500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
p ltotmcation S(;n lcity to irxr* and remot?) .....
S eroperty Orners' List within 500' (city to gerErate ater pre-application me€ting) ..
'lnclude number of q4siDg employEes:E zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA).. $500
!qIE: when rrul0ple applications al€ PEcessed concuredly,
the approprlde lee shdl be cfiaEed ,or et fi aPpllcatbr.
$200
$3 per address( addresses)
$50 per documentE Escrow for Recording Documents (check all lhat app
E conditional Use Permit U
Ei vacation EE Maes & Bounds SuMivision (3 docs.) tr
lv)......................
lnterim Use Permit
Variance
Easements C- easements)
E Site Plan Agreement
E \ /€tland Alteration Permit
El oeeos
TOTAL FEE:
COIIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1100 I Fax: (952) 227-1110
CITYOTCIINIIASSII{
APPL]CATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of Proposal: Ww fXBi tY ,fN[+vft,, C,qtltqc+ Pow hswe -
Property Address or Location:i|7e (cd (.t,dfi4'z V ofit Tkad. *utrtrx- VnJ gslst
parcer#: 25b boo 700 Legal Description fa1 S arut l.-
0,,t
Select One
Present Land Use Designation . Select One
lo ttA
wetlands Present? E Ves E tto Y0*"M
Requested Zoning:Select One \4r'{
Select OneRequested Land Use Designation:
11 Urinh,nf,l-abta.-Existing Use of Prop€rty:l,qY-<5Wcrc qr [ro,rse
KCf,""f box if separate nanative is attached.
llwltu CC Date:
Total Acreage:; n 1 g Yvas hl4, Catwr Lo,illq t
Present Zoning:
92
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLI ER THAN PROPERW OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to ha\€ obtained
auth
to objecl at the hearings on the applicetion or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. lwill keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material andthe progress of this application. I
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any auth
Name:
orization to proceed with the study. lcertifythatthe information and exhibits submitted are&.t true and corecl.
erb+r L( contact:\1n 6-,
Address:o A Phone: 1f"' q4r' 21 Llo
pttJ 3t8
Email:o-,f
Signature:
PROPERW OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have tull legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing ofthis application. I understand lhat conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to objec{ at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this applicetion. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consutting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certifo that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conect.
Neme:k
^L0,"Ja conred: Ja-{-ol
Address: L?n9 CA n Roc,A os R d. Q)an 1",i,7 ffins. b Sl ' 1z+ -ao 39' ? cG-
City/State/Zip:chNy^Mrt 55119 qu[t6r /vtA 55 )cerr: bsl- 20b- ot+l-TLLA
i.L, c u'r.,Email s +ar--
Signature D^e:8'11->
PROJECT ENG a bable)
Name Contact:
Phone:
cell:
Fax:
Who should receive copies of stafi reports?'other contact lnfomation:
Name:
Address
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fieEs, then select SAVE FoRM to sa\rE a copy to your
device- PRINT FORM and deli'ver to city along with required documents and payrnent. SUBlvllT FORM to send a d(lital
copy to the city for processing.
SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM
This applicetion must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance pmvisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Applicetion Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requiremerfs and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
Section 4: Notification lnformation
E Property O,Yner Ma: EEmail
E[ Applicant Via: EJ Email
El Engineer Ma: E EmailE orrer via: E Emait
E uaiteo Paper copy
E uaileo Paper copy! lvtaiteo Paper copy
E uaiteo Paper copy
City/State/Zip
Email:
from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of appro\ral, subject only to
cet: Qlz -5|v.q- Trst
Fax: qrL''1'(j"llol
noto'-
Add-o..
City/State/Zip:
E-oil.
93
cqv,UF
rr*orr
oo, ,_..,,
city or chanhassen varianceApplication - Parts (s) o*%'ril'U'
Pere & Jada sanders -houo
3609 Red Cedar Point Road, Excelsior MN 55331
(6s1) 206-0141 - Jada; (651) 734-3639 - Pete
iadareneesand€rs @ gmail.com ; petersanders@ gmail.com
(5) Written description of variance request:
We would like to remove the existing house and replace it with a new one; the variance request
is specific to the distance the new house would be from the southem{acing lakeshore (comers
ol the new house to be approximately 66.2 and 64.5).
We would like the new house to more closely match the neighbors' setbacks along this
shoreline. The closest neighboring houses are set back approximately 6 t .7 and 74.8 at their
corners, al an angle toward the property corneryoHwl (see survey).
The direct neighbors are significantly closer to our shared side lot lines than legally permitted;
the house to lhe west of ours is 7.2 from our shared lot line, and the house to the east of ours is
2.8 from our shared lot line. This leads to crowding our lot and blocking our lake views.
We are hoping to construct a new home that is more in line with the neighboring homes and
promotes a nice-looking contiguous row so that we can all enioy the same amazing lake views
and use the space in the best possible way. The point is a special place and the new house will
allow us to carry on the history oI using the property for the gathering ol family, neighbors,
teams, fellow boaters and friends.
The current house on the property is uninhabitable; two appraisers deemed the structure un'
appraisable and said the lot should be considered vacant land. Having owned the property ,or
three years, we are excited lo now proceed with improving lhe property by removing the old
structure, and we have taken very careful consideration in coming up with a new house design
that will maximize the property and allow for the best possible placement oI a new house on this
uniquely situaled lot.
The proposed structure is well within the allowable impervious surface percenlage and side lot
lines.
(6) Written iustitication of how request complies with the lindings for granting a variance:
a. This request is consistent with the neighborhood and all of the neighbors' requests.
b. The private drive on the point (shared by us and 5 of our closest neighbors, running east'
west across our property) provides a "practical difficulty" in that we are limited in the location
on our lot that we can construct a new home and driveway. The side lot line encroachmenl
by both direct neighbors provides another "practical difficulty" in lhat our lake views are
currently obstructed by their houses.
c. The purpose oflhe variation is not based on economic considerations.
d. Our plight is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by us; these include
the neighbors'side lot encroachments and the ,ixed shared private drive.
:i,,
94
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The locality will
be greatly enhanced.
'. N/A
95
Property Card
Taxpayer lnformation
Taxpayer Name
PETER SANDERS
JADA SANDERS
Property Address
Address
3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD
ISE
T
;IT
I I!
aa \;
-l II
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
E
Parcel lnformation
REO CEDAR POINT LK MINNEWASHTA
Lot
Legal Description & LOT 6 & PT OF VACATED RD
Building lnformation
Above rade
Finished Sq Ft
Garage
Miscellaneous lnformation
Ag Preserve
N
HomesteadWatershed Disfict
WS 062 MINNEHAHA CREEK
Assessor lnformation
Last Sale2021 Values
(Payable 2022)
7115t2019
Sale Value $775.000.00Building
Total
Parce! lD Number 2s66oo3oo
Mailing Address
2989 CANYON RD
CHASKA, MN 55318-
I
a
!
r.-:-J
;l
LEIr
-T
.lJ
aI
T
City
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
Uses Res 1 unit Acres 0.4
Plat
005
Block 004
Building Style 1 Story Frame 1120 Total Bedrooms 2
Year Built 1917
School District
0276
Green Acres
N
Estimated Market Value 2022 Yalues
(Payable 2023)
Land s710,000.00 $745,500.00 Date of Sale
$82.700.00 $94,100.00
$792,700.00 $839,600.00
i o.mtin Fovidd lb. my Flrp.,... Ihis 6sct9tf, a p.ovircd F sut'l to Mi t66ot0 Saii.6 6466.03 6nd dreussottE &ta
si|ll flc dara a coPy of |tE dischimr.
Thursday, August 18, 2022 CaNer County, MN96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Memorandum
To:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From:Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
Date:9/8/2022
Re:Variance Review at 3609 Red Cedar Point Rd – Planning Case
#2022-13
Water Resources has reviewed the variance submittal for 3609 Red Cedar Point Rd. These
comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions.
General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning for
this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis
for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Water Resources recommends be
formally imposed on the application in the final order. Note that references to the “City
Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
General Comments/Findings
1. Any and all plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose
of determining the feasibility of the project and that the proposal is in accordance with City
Codes and Standards. A recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final
approval of plans and/or details. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction
drawings for the project, as applicable.
2.The applicant is requesting a variance to facilitate the construction of a single-family
residential home at 3709 South Cedar Drive (Site). The setback variance is for the shoreland
setback of 75 feet.
3. The proposed home extends into the shoreland setback area by approximately 6 feet on the
west side of the property, 10 feet near the center, and 8 feet on the east side of the
property. The proposed deck extends an additional 8 to 12 feet into the shoreland setback.
The existing home has a footprint of approximately 1,500 square feet and has a covered
112
patio that extends into the shoreland setback by 10 feet. The proposed home has a
footprint of approximately 3,200 square feet resulting in an increase in impervious area of
approximately 1,700 square feet. There are no existing stormwater best management
practices (BMPs) onsite or downstream of the site. As a result, stormwater leaving the
property is not treated before it discharges directly into Lake Minnewashta. The proposed
increase in impervious area could result in additional pollutants (including phosphorous and
suspended solids) entering into Lake Minnewashta which could negatively impact water
quality along with adding additional stormwater runoff volume.
The City of Chanhassen’s Local Surface Water Management Plan Policy 2.14 reads:
“Protect shorelands and water resources. All properties are required to have native
vegetated buffer adjacent to wetlands, storm ponds, and water resources. Non-
conforming properties, and lots of record shall be brought into compliance when
applying for permits or variances to improve the property. Non-conforming buffers
should attempt to meet regulatory requirements whenever possible. The minimum non-
conforming buffer width shall be 10’.”
City Ordinance - Shoreland Management District Section 20-490 of states:
In evaluating all variances, zoning and building permit applications, or conditional use
requests, the zoning authority shall require the property owner to address, when
appropriate, stormwater runoff management, reducing impervious surfaces, increasing
setback, restoration of wetlands, vegetative buffers, sewage treatment and water
supply capabilities, and other conservation-designed actions.
Because there are no planned BMP stormwater improvements proposed by the applicant a
native shoreland buffer area is recommended to be established to treat stormwater and assist
to mitigate impacts from the construction and increase in impervious area.
4. Existing wetlands around Lake Minnewashta range from Manage Type 2 with a 20-foot
permanent buffer requirement to Preserve Type with a 40-foot permanent buffer
requirement. The property is non-conforming with regards to native buffers adjacent to
water resources. The purpose of policy 2.14 and City Code is to bring properties into
compliance when applying for permits and variances which is the case with the proposed
project. Therefore, a permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer (associated with Manage
Type 2 wetland) must be installed along the property’s shoreline. The native vegetated
113
buffer will provide additional water quality benefits to Lake Minnewashta by filtering
pollutants, nutrients, and sediments while helping to improve ecosystem health and
function. See proposed condition 1.
5. The applicant is proposing a shoreland setback variance. The proposed variance request
would create a structure setback of approximately 53 feet from the ordinary high-water
level of Lake Minnewashta. The required setback per Ordinance from the ordinary high-
water level in the Shoreland Management District is 75 feet. The applicant justifies that
adjacent homes have similar setbacks, and that the setback variance is needed to build the
home because of the constrained site and the need for unobstructed lake views. Staff
disagrees that the lot is a constrained site. There appears to be sufficient area to build a
new home which could be reconfigured to meet City Code. As such, staff does not support
the variance request. At a minimum, the shoreland setback should be maintained at the
existing 65’ setback in the proposed plan. If the variance is ultimately approved by the
planning commission, policy 2.14 of the Local Surface Water Management Plan and City
Code should be applied to create native buffers to protect downstream water resources and
mitigate impacts of the proposed home construction. See condition 1. Lastly, while Water
Resources is not in support of the proposed variance, any and all improvements on the Site
must meet applicable jurisdictional requirements. See proposed condition 2.
Proposed Conditions
1. A permanent 20 - foot native vegetated buffer with permanent buffer signs must be
installed along both the north and south shorelines using species native to the ecotype.
Buffer strip averaging may be used to achieve the total buffer area required. The buffer
may be configured around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and
installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans
must be approved by the Water Resources Engineer.
2. The installation of any improvements on the Site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall
be obtained prior to any site improvements.
114
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
srATE OF MTNNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTYOFCARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
September 8,2022, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice to Consider a
requested shoreland setback and other variances for the construction ofa new home
located at 3609 Red Cedar Point Road. Zoned Single.Family Residential @SF). Applicant:
Brad Kerber, Kerber Family Homes. Property Owner: Peter & Jada Sanders.
to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope
addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the
United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such
owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County,
Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Kim T.sen,Clty C k
\
Subscribed and swom to,before me
rhis b dayor l5€Ficfibenzozz.
Notarv Public
115
116
Chanhassen Plannin Commission Meetin
Tuesday, September 20, 20?2 al7:OO p.m. This hearing may not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.Date & Time:
Location:City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:
Consider a requested shoreland setback and other
variances for the construction of a new home. Zoned Single-
Family Residential (RSF)
Applicant:Brad Kerber, Kerber Family Homes
Property Owner:Peter & Jada Sanders
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
A location map la on the roverse aldo ot thl6 notlcg.
Property
Location:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the
neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the
Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
'1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commisston
discusses the project.
To view project documents before the meeting, please visit
the City's proposed development webpage at:
tf
you wish to talk to someone about this pro,ect, please
contact MacKenzie Young-Walters by email at
mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn. us or by phone a|952-227-
1 132. lf you choose to submit written comments, please
send one copy to staff in advance ofthe meeting. Staff will
provide copies to the Planning Commission. The staff report
for this item will be available online at the City's Agendas &
Minutes webpage the Thursday prior to the Planning
Commission meeting.
Questions &
Comments:
NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen. mn.us/notifyme to sign up!
Clty R.vl.w Procldur.:. Subdivision!, Plann.d Unll D.v.lopm€nls, Sil6 Plan R6vl.w., Condlllon.l.nd ldeim U!€3, Wbtland Alt€r8lion3, R.zoninga,
Comprch€nlivo Plen Am.ndmon6, Varianca!, App€al., lnd Co.l€ Am$dm.nE r.quiB E Frblic h..ing b.loro lhs Planning
CommiEion Clty ddin.nc.. l.quil6 all prop.rly wilhin 5O0 16.l ot lh. lubj.ot lilo lo b6 mlfi6d ol lh. .pplic€tion in *tiling any
inrercdsd paiy i! lwirod ro in6nd tho m66ling
. $snpr6p.ors ropod on [|. &b,€cl applicttbn th.l incl!(b..11 Flh€rn ll,omation ald 3 l.c.inm.nd.ltn lho!€ ropo.t3ars
.v.ihbl€ by ,!ql,.d. Al th. Pbmnc Comniatth m€.ln\g. .lin rU oivo . v€rb8l ffii oI lh. r.Potl .tE I rocomm.ndslion
Th. ir yil b6 ooa.d tor tho lubli: b .p.sr .bod 0l. Fqo.d .! ! Ptl ol lto haernC Foc.t. Th. Cdnmi$bo |v'll clot lh.
public h.ldng .nd di@r. lh6 t m .nd msks s r.coom.ndaurn to lh. ciy co(,Eil Th. crly cqrldl mty ltv.r.., atlitm o. modry
wholt or prrly lh. Plrnning Commi$i,l's r..omm!.xblad R.2orrngt, lsnd !6€ rtd cod. rm.n.ln.d. Ll(.. .imPl. majorily voL
ol lha City Coundl dc.pl llzoninC. end land uao amondmmlt lrDm r€rid€nlt lo .{inmdclal/indudri.l
. Minnolota srab st tuL 5l9 99 rcqui€B sll rpplicslion! lo tr p.oc.rEd wilhin 60 day! unb.! lh. lPPliot{ v.i63 lhb dtndard.
Sdn6 applic.lion. du6 lo lhoir comploxrty msy l.lc ..EEl nontu !o comPl.it Any P.rcn wl.hlng to lollow .n it.m throrgh th€
procoss lhould ch.ok wilh lh. Pl.nning D.panm.nl rcg..ding il! tLtu. tnd lch.duling tor th. Clty Council m..ling.
. A nBiohbo ood tpok.lp.non/l6pr6loniativo b €ncourug.d !o Provid. , cont.ct ior th. city Ofi.n d.v!loP.r. .rc oftouEgod to
m.al wirh th6 n6ighbo ood ..g!dino lh6f propo!.i Slafi l. !l.o !v!ll!bl. to r.vi€w iho prciccl wllh .ny lnt rc{.d P.Eon(3).. B@ui6 rho Pl.nnlng Comml.lim holds lh6 public h66rlng lh. Cty Counoll do.B not. Mln'rlst aru l.l(.n lnd any cona.Pondonca
rs0arding th. appricstlon wrlr b. includsd in lhs r.pon lo |h€ Cly Councll ll you wbh !o h3v. lom.lhinglo bo in i'rdod in th€ roPon
des cor{acl lh. Pl.nnim St8tl p. m iam6d on lh. mtilillion
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhas6en Plannin Commission Meetin
Tuesday, September 20, 2022 al7,O0 p.m. This hearing may not
starl until later in the eveninq, deoending on the order of the aqenda.Date & Time:
Location:City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd
Consider a requested shoreland setback and other
variances for the construction of a new home. Zoned Single-
Family Residential (RSF).
Proposal:
Brad Kerber, Kerber Family HomesApplicant:
Peter & Jada SandersProperty Owner:
Property
Location:
3609 Red Cedar Point Road
A locatlon map la on ths revor3i 8ld€ of thla notlco.
What Happens
at the iieeting:
Quostions &
Comments:
To view project documents before the meeting, please visit
the City's proposed development webpage at:
you wish to talk to someone about this pro.iect, please
contact MacKenzie Young-Walters by email at
mwalters@ci.chanhassen. mn.us or
1 132. lf you choose to submit written comments, please
send one copy to statf in advance ofthe meeting. Staff will
provide copies to the Planning Commission. The staff report
for this item will be available online at the City's Agendas &
Minutes webpage the Thursday prior to the Planning
Commission meeting.
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.
by phone a1952-227 -
DroDoseddeveloDments. lf
NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up!
. Subdlvllion!, Pl.nn.d Un( D.wlopm€nl!, Sno Pbn Roviaw., Condltional 8nd lnl.rim U36s, U/6tland AI.rctiofl. R.zoninc8.
Comprch.n.iva Pl.n Amcndm.nl., V€isnc€s, App€.|!, .nd Cod. Am.ndm€nL r.quie. Frblic h.ring b6to€ lho Planning
Commbsion. City ordin$c.r r.qulrc all proporty wilhin 500 lo.t ol th. !l]b,6d 3il6 lo bo riollti.d ol lt'o aPPll€lion in witing. Any
int r.ri.d p€rly ir invil€d lo rltond lh. m6.ting
. St!fr pr6pd.! s r€0..1on h..rDi.cl lpplielbn thsr .nclu<163 allportfl'nl i{orm.lim ed. @mmondrtim Tho!. t pons aro
.vsibbL try l!qE.t. Al lh6 PLmhg Commi!.bn m.€lrt!, .1,.{l willgiv.. v€lb.l ov€rvin ol lh. l.Pod.nd. rccdlrln6nd€lion.
Th. it m wilr b. op...d id th. Frblic io !p.al( sboli lho p.opo.al s. a p.n ol tho h.arhg Foca... Th. Conmi.iron sil cbl€ lho
pubtic h€srrtg snd dilors! th€ h.rn .nd mako E rocomm€nd.lion lo lh. cily Comcil ThG city cdrndl msy l!v.f! . .frm q modit
wholly or partly lh. Pl.,ning Cortrmitiixr'! rocommon&lion. R€roninot, l.nd u!6 rhd co& amsndm.nl! tlk a dmPb maidity
vot€ ol th6 CiV Councilorc.pt r.:mings snd rand u$ mondncnl.lrdn rc.id.ntiallo comm.tciEuindu.tri.l.
. Minnesot. Si.b Stddo 519 99 rcquiti all +plicalim.lo b. prcc..i€d within 60 days unb!! lh. spplic.nl w.lv.. thit slandad.
Som. applicalions du. to lhor compLxily may tak. sovol.l monlh. lo @mPl.l. Arly p€r.on wilhing to ,ollow .n ilsn lhrdsh lha
prccoa! Mould chsck wllh tho Pllnning D.ptrtm6ni rcg6rding itt .tolut 3nd .ch.duling tor lho Cily Co'hcllmcoting
. A n€ighborhood spoko.p.Eon/ru'pr.lontalivo is 6'1@896d lo provld. a contlct ror lho cily Olt n dovolop€ll .r. .ncouraFd lo
m€sr wth rhe mrghbofi@d rogedlng th.[ Propo3al slafl it .le avail.ble lo r.viow lhe Prcjoct wilh .ny i6t E.t6d por!on(.)
. Bocau!€ th€ Pranning Comml.lion hold! rh€ public h€aring, rh€ Cily Council do.8 nol Minul6! 3rc lal(€n ed my corr*pond€nc.
rcg8dhg th6 applic.rion will b. inorud.d in rh6 roport io rh€ ciry council I yo! wBh lo hrv6 r.m.lhing lo b. includ€d in th6 rcPdl.
pl€r!..onlt l lh6 PLnning Slan p.r.on nam.d on lh€ nolilEalioh
Notice of Public Hearing
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the
neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the
Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview ofthe proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission
discusses the project.
117
Subject
Parcel
Dbchlmot
This map is neither a leoalt recorded map nor a guNey and is not iniended to be l,3ed
as o.E- ThiS map is a comlilation of l€coads, infonnation and data lo@ted in vafous cjty.
county, state and Her-al officea and o&ef source6 regadirE tE area sho.rn, and B to
be used br l9br6nce purpo66 onv. The City does not warrant lhat h€ Geographic
hfomation system (Gls) Data used to prepae thb flap aae enor free. and the city doe3
not repaeaent that the Gls Data can be u8ed foa navigalional, backjng q any other
purpGe requiring exacting riealurem€nt of distance or diGdio.l or plrdsion in the
def*ron ot geographic batrres. The preaeding digdaimer is provided puBuant to
Minne.ota StaMes 5480.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user ot this maP actnofllodges
that the City shall not be liable tor any darnag6, and expEssly waives all daim3, and
agre€s to deEM. indemnify, and hold harmle$ the City from any arld all daims bought
bry User, its emdoye€6 oa agents, oa lhird padreg which aise out of the use/3 aca€a or
u8€ ot data provided.
Dbcl.lmct
ThB map i! n6ith€r a leoalv ecord€d map nor a Survsy and is ao( intended lo be used
as one. Th6 ma9 ir a @rnpihton of llcods, info.matio.l and dab locat€d in vari()Us crty,
county. state and Gde6l ofica3 an(l other 3ources ree6ding the ar€a 3ho /n. and i3 to
be us€d br leGrerlce purpG€s onv. Tho City does not r€nar[ that the Geo06phic
lnbrmation System (GlS) Oata used to prepare this map are eroa tree. and the City does
not represent thai the Gls oatra can be uaed tor navilalional, facking or any oth€r
purpoGe requidng exactne mea3lllBmerlt of dBtance o. diection or prec8ion in the
dedciion of g€ographic Eatules. The precading disdaimea is paovided pulsuanl to
MinnBota StaMes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of thi6 map ackno ledg€6
flat Ule City shall not be liaue for any damagps, aM expl€ssly waiveB all daims, and
agre6 to debnd, indemnity, and hold haml€ss the City rrom any and alldaims broughl
by User, ts employees or a!6nt9. or thard pani6 r,hiah afue CM of the use/3 acce53 or
u36 ot data p.ovided.
(TAX_NAME,)
<TAX_ADD_L1r
<TAX ADD L2r
(Next Record D(TAX_NAMET
ITAX_ADD_LIr
rTAX ADD L2r
Subject
Parcel
''l t
=
t
I
i
..."1
I
t
E
te
l
'{.
T
I
I
I
r
t
I
l
I
118
TAX-NAME
PETER SANDERS
DANIEL P FAGAN
PAMETA I REIMER
BETSY S ANDING
LAURIE ANN HANSON TRUST AGREEMENT
STEVEN KEUSEMAN AND MARSHA KEUSEMAN REVO
DIANE LEESON ANDING
CHRISTINE L JOYCE REVOCABTE TRUST AGREEM
KELLIE J GEIGER
MARIA P KNIGHT
GARY A RENNEKE
DAVID MELIN
CATHERINE J BLACK REVOCABLE TRUST
PETERJ & KARRIJ PLUCINAK
THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON
KEITHH&FRANCESMPAAP
HOWARD D ANDERSON
KRISTEN B CHRISTIANSON
THE TRUST AGREEMENT OF SCOT A LACEK
GUNTHER LIVING TRUST
MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER REVOCABLE TRUST
TAX-ADD-11
CANYON RD
SOUTH CEDAR DR
RED CEDAR POINT RD
RED CEDAR POINT RD
CARTER LN
RED CEDAR POINT RD
RED CEDAR POINT RD
STONE CREEK DR
RED CEDAR POINT RD
RED CEDAR POINT RD
RED CEDAR POINT RD
RED CEDAR POINT RD
RED CEDAR POINT RD
SOUTH CEDAR DR
SOUTH CEDAR DR
RED CEDAR POINT RD
RED CEDAR POINT RD
HALIFAX AVE S
HICKORY LN
HICKORY RD
S CEDAR DR
TAX-ADD-12
CHASKA, MN 55318-
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-9688
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-7721
MINNETONKA, MN 55343-8966
2989
370t
3617
3625
5901
3622
3618
832s
3603
3605
3607
3627
3 629
3631
3637
3601
3 613
s220
3630
3 628
l
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331.
lexce LstoR, MN 55331-7720
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.
.EXCELStOR, MN 55331-7721
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-7721
EXCET-S|OR, MN 55331-
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-7721
lrxcrr-sroR, MN 5s331-
. EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-9686
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-9686
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-7721
EXCELSTOR, MN 55331-7721
utnne npolrs, MN 55424-1401
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331.
EXCETStOR, MN 55331-9766
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-3533
119
Planning Commission Item
September 20, 2022
Item Short Term Rental Code Amendment
File No.Item No: C.1
Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 13 Nuisances, prohibits noisy gatherings, establishes quiet hours,
prohibits accumulations of trash/junk, etc.
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Chapter 1,
General Provisions, and Chapter 20, Zoning, concerning short term rentals and establish licensing
and regulations for operating short term rentals."
SUMMARY
Short-term rentals are not currently addressed by the City Code, due to their potential to become
nuisance properties the City is considering adopting licensing and performance standards to mitigate
their potential impacts on surrounding properties.
BACKGROUND
February 12, 2018, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session,
120
and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it key financial
strategy for 2018.
January 28, 2019, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session,
and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it key financial
strategy for 2019.
July 25, 2022, due to an increased volume of complaints the City Council asked staff to prepare a
briefing on short-term rentals. The City Council reviewed this briefing and directed staff to investigate
possible approaches to regulating short-term rentals.
August 8, 2022, staff presented information from Host Compliance, a service that helps municipalities
monitor short-term rentals, and proposed several possible regulatory approaches. The City Council
directed staff to draft an issue paper and ordinance amendment to establish a licensing system for short-
term rentals.
September 6, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this item. After hearing from
various members of the public, the Planning Commission tabled the item and directed staff to revised
the proposed ordinance to incorporate feedback form both the Planning Commission and public.
DISCUSSION
Based on the input staff received from the Planning Commission and public during the September 6th
Public Hearing staff has made the following changes to the proposed Short Term Rental Ordinance:
1. Clarified that accompanying children do not count towards the proposed occupancy limit.
2. Allow the City to approve higher occupancy limits based on home size, number of beds, and
distance from neighboring properties.
3. Allow the City to approve higher parking limits based on presence of off street parking pads,
driveway length and width, and availability of street parking.
4. Require fencing for short term rentals permitting dogs.
5. Clarify that City staff only is requesting permission to access exterior areas of the property when
responding to complaints.
6. Remove limit on the number of daytime visitors.
7. Clarify hours for which overnight parking rules apply.
8. Require pets to be leashed when not in fenced in portion of yard.
9. State that licensee can appeal staff's determination on occupancy/parking limits to City Council.
In order to provide time for staff to conduct education campaigns, develop appropriate forms, and enter
into an agreement with an external organization to help administer and enforce the proposed ordinance,
the proposed ordinance would not go into effect until January 1, 2023.
The original staff report is provided for reference.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City define short-term rentals and adopt regulations requiring them to
register with the city and abide by performance standards.
The proposed ordinance is included as an attachment.
121
ATTACHMENTS
Short Term Rental Issue Paper
Short Term Rental Ordinance - Round 2
Good Neighbor Flyer
Email From Resident
Email From Resident (2)
Email from Resident (3)
Email and Pictures From Neighbor Regarding Daytime Parking
122
MEMORANDUM
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
DATE:September 6, 2022
SUBJ:Short-term Rentals
Issue:
Short-term rentals are not currently addressed by the City Code, due to their potential to become
nuisance properties the City is considering adopting licensing and performance standards to
mitigate their potential impacts on surrounding properties.
Summary:
Short-term rentals provide property owners with an opportunity to use their home to generate
supplemental income and can help make the City a desirable destination for tourists by
supplementing the traditional hospitality industry; however, these properties can also become
nuisances when they are used to host noisy gatherings and parties in residential neighborhoods.
Recently the City has experienced an increase in complaints associated with short-term rentals
and the City Council has directed staff to look into possible options for addressing residents’
concerns with these properties.
There are three regulatory approaches that the City could adopt: 1) ban short-term rentals; 2)
adopt additional general standards to regulate aspects of the short-term rentals not currently
addressed by the nuisance ordinance; or, 3) require short-term rentals to be licensed. In the third
approach, performance standards would be attached to the license and violations of these
standards would result in the revocation of the short-term rental’s license. Staff believes that the
first approach would unduly penalize responsible short-term rental owners and that the second
approach would not be any more successful at addressing problematic short-term rentals than the
current approach of using the nuisance ordinance to respond to reported violations. Staff is
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 20, concerning short-term rentals.”
123
Short Term Rentals
September 6, 2022
Page 2 of 9
recommending the third approach because it will allow responsible short-term rentals to continue
to operate in the city while providing additional tools to address problematic properties.
Under the proposed license system, short term rentals would be defined as the rental of all or part
of a residential property for a period of less than 30 days. Any short-term rental would be
required to apply for and receive a license. Each short-term rental would be approved for a
maximum number of overnight guests and overnight parking. Additional standards would
reiterate the City’s most applicable nuisance provisions (i.e. noise and trash) and regulate
parking and daytime visitors. Finally, owners would be required to display The Good Neighbor
Brochure (attached) and to grant the City the right to enter the property in response to a
complaint to determine if an ordinance violation had occurred. If a short-term rental accrued
three violations in a year, the license would be revoked, and any individual violation would
constitute a misdemeanor.
Staff is proposing that the City contract with an outside organization to help identify short-term
rental properties and operate a 24/7 reporting system. Staff believes that the proposed license
system combined with additional monitoring and enforcement tools will help ensure that for the
short-term rentals in the City operate with a minimal impact on surrounding properties
Relevant City Code:
Chapter 13 Nuisances, prohibits noisy gatherings, establishes quiet hours, prohibits
accumulations of trash/junk, etc.
Background:
Timeline:
February 12, 2018, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work
session, and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it
key financial strategy for 2018.
January 28, 2019, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work
session, and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it
key financial strategy for 2019.
July 25, 2022, due to an increased volume of complaints the City Council asked staff to prepare a
briefing on short-term rentals. The City Council reviewed this briefing and directed staff to
investigate possible approaches to regulating short-term rentals.
August 8, 2022, staff presented information from Host Compliance, a service that helps
municipalities monitor short-term rentals, and proposed several possible regulatory approaches.
The City Council directed staff to draft an issue paper and ordinance amendment to establish a
licensing system for short-term rentals.
124
Short Term Rentals
September 6, 2022
Page 3 of 9
Survey of Comparable Cities:
As part of staff’s research on this issue a survey of comparable cities was conducted. The results
of this survey are described below:
Not
Regulated
Regulate Same as Long Term
Rentals
Specific Short-term Rental
Regulations
Prohibit Short-term
Rental
5 5 1 3
The one city that had specific short-term rental regulations caped the number of days they could
be rented at a maximum of 60 days per year, but had no other short-term rental specific standard.
Cities that defined the term short-term rental did so based on the duration of the rental, using
either 15, 30, or 60 days as the criteria. Cities with rental regulations or prohibitions indicated
they used complaint based enforcement to ensure compliance with their short-term rental
ordinances. Five cities charged license fees for rental properties, with fees ranging from 60
dollars to 205 dollars.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Overview
Over the last decade, there has been a rapid growth in the short-term rental industry. Property
owners can use websites like Airbnb to list either a room or entire property as available for rent.
Some individuals use these sites to rent out a room once or twice a year, while others own
numerous properties and make their living renting out these properties. Neighbors, especially
125
Short Term Rentals
September 6, 2022
Page 4 of 9
those living next to non-owner occupied rental properties, often feel that renters are less
respectful of nuisance ordinances and neighborhood norms than fulltime residents are; however,
property owners using their property for short-term rentals feel that these concerns are
overstated, that they have a right to rent out their property, that short-term rentals make the
community more desirable for tourists, and note that property owners sometimes rely on the
supplemental income to help them maintain their homes.
Based on data provided by Host Compliance, a service that helps cities identify and regulate
short-term rentals, there are approximately 37 short-term rentals operating in Chanhassen. Staff
believes that this number may include a number of properties that were listed once, but are not
actively being rented. The available date shows that 85 percent of these rentals are single-family
homes and in 95 percent of cases the entire home is being offered for rent. The average price is
$468.00 per night.
While not necessarily indicative of the number of short-term rentals in the City, there has been a
recent increase in calls asking about the possibility of using for homes for short-term rentals. So
far in 2022 staff has received 4 inquires, this compared to 3 inquiries between 2021 and August
2016 (no records are readily available prior to August 2016). Two of the inquiries received this
year were from individuals looking to buy for sale homes for use as short-term rentals. As staff
was not tracking this issue as closely in previous years, the available notes are not sufficiently
detailed to determine if the inquiries made between 2021 and 2016 where from current or
prospective property owners.
Due to the fact the complaints are received by different departments (i.e. Community
Development, Code Enforcement Specialist, and Carver County Sheriff’s Department) and that
complaints may not specify if the property is a short-term rental or not, it is not possible to
provide concrete numbers on the number of complaints involving short-term rentals that the City
receives. Anecdotally, staff believes that while the overall number of complaints is still low in
absolute terms, the number and severity of complaints has increased in the last couple years.
Given the increased interest in short-terms rentals and the presence of several problematic
properties in the City, staff is recommending that the City adopt a regulatory scheme to address
these types of uses.
Issue 2: Regulatory Approaches
Ban
The City could pass an ordinance banning short-term rentals. In this scenario staff would work to
identify all short-term rentals in the City and require them to cease operating. Staff would likely
need to utilize the court system to enforce the ban in cases where owners chose to continue
operations despite the ban, and past experience with home occupations leads staff to believe that
in these cases enforcement would be a resource intensive process.
Since most short-term rentals have not generated any complaints, staff believes that a ban would
address the issue of a small number of problematic properties by preventing everyone, including
126
Short Term Rentals
September 6, 2022
Page 5 of 9
responsible operators, from using their property in a manner that had previously been permitted.
Given that there is a market for this service, that most short-term rentals are not causing issues,
and considering the benefits that residents can accrue from using their properties as a short-term
rental, staff is not recommending that the City ban short-term rentals.
General Standards
The second regulatory approach that the City could adopt would be passing an ordinance
establishing performance standards for short-term rentals. Under this approach the City would
adopt various rules governing noise, parking, and other elements of the short-term rental
businesses and then enforce these rules when a complaint is received. This approach would be
consistent with how the City addresses most other nuisances and how issues with short-term
rentals are currently addressed.
The difficulty with this approach is that the City’s general enforcement practices are designed to
address violations that can be tied to a specific occupant or present owner. For example, if a
resident violated the noise ordinance by hosting a noisy gathering, they could be given a citation.
Since the person controlling the property is the person penalized, they have an incentive not to
repeat the violation. In the case of a short-term rental, the citation given in response to the noise
violation would be to the renters, and the operator of the short-term rental would not be
penalized and would not have an incentive to prevent future violations.
The other issue with this approach is that it is reactive. While staff can engage in educational
activities, past experience shows that some residents will not be aware of the new rules until they
receive a letter stating they have violated the rules. Often times by the time a neighbor reports a
violation, they are already very frustrated by multiple infractions and want a quick resolution to
the issue. When dealing with a short-term rental property where the operator may not reside in
the community it can take staff a significant amount of time to get in touch with the owner and in
some cases, such as the noise example above, the owner may have little incentive to
substantively address the issue.
For these reasons, staff does not believe that adopting general standards will effectively address
the issues the City is facing with short-term rental properties. Especially considering that several
of the most common complaints (noise and trash) are already addressed by the City’s existing
ordinances.
Licensure
The final regulatory approach would be requiring a license for the operation of short-term rentals
in the City. Under this system properties seeking to operate as short-term rentals would need to
provide the City with the operator’s contact information as well as information to determine the
property’s parking and occupancy limits. Staff is proposing an occupancy limit of two adults
plus two adults per bedroom and a parking limit of two cars plus one car per garage stall.
The City would establish rules for short-term rentals and a process for revoking the license of
any short-term rental that violated the rules three times in a given year. Violation of the rules
governing short-term rentals would also be a misdemeanor which would make it easier for the
127
Short Term Rentals
September 6, 2022
Page 6 of 9
City to take enforcement action against the property owner, rather than just the temporary
occupant. A condition of the license would be that property owners grant the City permission to
enter the yard/property when responding to a reported violation of the license in order to
ascertain if the property is in fact in violation. The City would bar properties that had previously
had a short-term rental license revoked from receiving a new license for stipulated period of
time.
Under this approach, the City would contract with an outside organization to identify short-term
rentals operating in the City and would send these properties letters notifying them of the license
requirement and associated standards. A license fee would be established defray the cost of this
service and the staff time associated with processing and monitoring the licenses. Staff would
use the provided contact information to notify owners of any violations and work with them to
prevent future violations. When necessary, licenses could be revoked.
While there is still the potential for enforcement issues for problematic properties that attempt to
operate without a license, this approach provides the City with a more robust tool set for
ensuring that short-term rentals do not negatively impact surrounding properties. It will also
allow for responsible short-term rentals to continue to function with minimal changes to their
operation. For these reasons staff is recommending that a license requirement be adopted.
Issue 3: Performance Standards
The most common complaints the City receives regarding short-term rentals are related to noise,
trash, and parking. To address these issues the City will require that short-term rentals
prominently display the City’s Good Neighbor Brochure which will make sure occupants are
aware of the City’s nuisance ordinances. The license standards will prohibit noisy gatherings and
require that occupants adhere to the City’s quiet hours. They will also restrict the number of
daytime guests that the renters can have at the property between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to four
adults. Overnight parking will be limited to the maximum parking stipulated by the property’s
license, and in no case will vehicles be allowed to obstruct emergency vehicle access or access to
neighboring properties. Staff believes these provisions will help deter short-term rental operators
from letting their properties be used as party houses. Staff is also proposing additional standards
requiring the provision and proper storage of an adequate number of trash receptacles to help
address complaints about excessive trash generated by some of these properties.
Issue 4: Enforcement
Staff is proposing to contract with an outside organization to identify short-term rentals operating
in the community. Using this information staff would contact those properties and inform them
of the licensing requirements and standards. If necessary, the City would utilize the court system
to require properties refusing to get a license to cease operations.
Staff is also proposing to contract with an outside organization for a 24/7 reporting system which
will permit neighbors to report suspected violations. This hotline has the ability to reach out to
property owners through their 24/7 telephone number to inform them of the violation and
128
Short Term Rentals
September 6, 2022
Page 7 of 9
encourage prompt resolution of the issues. As part of the service the reporting system allows the
uploading of photos/videos which will help staff determine the extent of the violation. In the
case of egregious violations or situations where the property owner failed to resolve the situation,
the proposed ordinance makes the violation of its standards a misdemeanor. The City can use this
language to pursue a variety of remedies.
A final enforcement tool under the proposed ordinance is the ability to revoke a short-term
rental’s license. If a property had three violations within a calendar year the ordinance would
permit the City to revoke a short-term rental’s license. If a license is revoked the property would
be ineligible to receive a license for a seven year period.
Staff feels the use of a 24/7 reporting system, misdemeanors, and ability to revoke licenses will
provide superior enforcement tools compared to what is currently available under the nuisance
ordinance of the City Code.
Alternatives:
1) Do nothing. The City would continue to respond to complaints against specific properties
through its nuisance ordinance, but no specific provisions would address short-term
rentals.
2) Define and ban short-term rentals.
3) Define short-term rentals, require them to register with the City, and adopt regulations
governing them.
4) Define short-term rentals and adopt regulations governing them.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City define short-term rentals and adopt regulations requiring them to
register with the city and abide by performance standards. The proposed ordinance would read as
follows:
Section 1-2 Rules of Construction and Definition
Short-term Rental means the renting or offer to make available for compensation or
consideration, of residential property, a dwelling unit, or a portion thereof, for a period of 30
days or less.
Section 20-961 Short-term Rentals
(a)Intent. The City recognizes that short-term rentals provide an opportunity for residents to
use their property to generate supplemental income; and, when properly managed, short-
term rentals have a minimal impact on surrounding properties. When not properly
managed, short-term rentals have the capacity to generate noise, traffic, and trash beyond
what is typically present in a residential neighborhood creating a nuisance. These issues
can be especially acute when the owner of the property does not reside in the home. In
order to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the
129
Short Term Rentals
September 6, 2022
Page 8 of 9
community, the City facilitates and regulates the use of residential properties for short-
term rentals by:
a. Requiring the licensure of short-term rentals.
b. Establishing standards pertaining to noise, maximum occupancy, parking, and
waste generation for short-term rentals.
c. Establish procedures for revoking the licenses of short-term rentals violating the
provisions of this section.
(b)License Required.No property shall be used as a short-term rental without a license
issued by the City. The procedure for receiving a license shall be as follows:
a. Application for a license shall be made to the City upon a form furnished by the
City. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established by the ordinance adopting
fees shall be paid to the City when the application is filed.
b. In order to be issued a license the applicant must:
i. Provide the name and contact information, including a 24-hour telephone
number, for the party responsible for managing the property.
ii. State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental. The maximum
occupancy shall be two adults plus an additional two adults per bedroom.
iii. State the maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on
the property. The maximum number of vehicles that may be parked
overnight on the property shall be two vehicles plus one for each garage
stall.
iv. Agree that City Staff has permission to access their yard/private property
when responding to a reported violation of the standards in this section in
order to ascertain if a violation has occurred.
v. Not have any unresolved Code Enforcement or Property Maintenance
cases.
vi. Not have had a short-term rental license revoked by the City of
Chanhassen within the last seven years.
vii. If the owner of a short-term rental fails to apply for a license within thirty
days of being notified of the need for a license by the City, they shall be
ineligible for a license for a period of one year from the date of the notice.
(c)Standards.The following standards apply to all short-term rentals:
a. Guests shall not be permitted to participate in any party or other gathering of
people giving rise to noise, unreasonably disturbing the peace, quiet, or repose of
another person. The operation of any such set, instrument, machine, or other
device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be
plainly audible at the property line is prohibited.
b. An appropriate number of waste containers must be present to accommodate the
amount of trash generated by the short-term rental. Waste may not be stored
outside of approved containers. All waste containers must be stored outside of
public view, except on day of collection.
130
Short Term Rentals
September 6, 2022
Page 9 of 9
c. Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. no more than the maximum number of
overnight guests stipulated in the license may be present on the property. At no
time may more than four adults in addition to the number of overnight guests
stipulated in the license be present on the property.
d. Overnight parking is limited to the property’s garage stalls and a maximum of two
vehicles parked in the driveway. At no time may vehicles be parked on grass or so
as to obstruct access to neighboring residences, the public right-of-way, or
emergency vehicle access.
e. The Good Neighbor Brochure must be posted on the inside of the front door and
the primary door to the backyard, or in a conspicuous location near each such
door.
(d)Violation constitutes a misdemeanor. Any person who violates a provision of this section,
or any person who permits the violation of any of the provisions of this section upon any
property they own or occupy, and any person who shall fail to comply with any order
made under a provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(e)Revocation.
a. If a short-term rental or its occupants violates any of the above standards or any
other provision of the City’s Code the owner of the short-term rental shall receive
a written notice of violation form the City, regardless of if a misdemeanor or
citation is issued.
b. If a property with a short-term rental receives three notices of violation within a
365 day period, its short-term rental license shall be revoked.
c. A property owner may appeal the revocation of a short-term rental license using
the process outlined in Section 20-29 of the City Code.
Attachments:
1) Proposed Ordinance
2) Good Neighbor Brochure
131
Section 1-2 Rules of Construction and Definition
Enterprise means any corporation, association, firm, partnership, limited liability partnership, or other
legal entity.
Managing Agency or Rental Agent means a person, enterprise, or agency representing the owner of the
short term home rental unit.
Remuneration means compensation, money, or other consideration given in return for occupancy,
possession, or use of real property.
Rent means the consideration or remuneration charged whether or not received,for the occupancy of
space in a short term vacation unit, valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor, or
otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits, property, or services of any kind. Rent may include
consideration or remuneration received pursuant to an option to purchase whereby a person is given
the right to possess the property for a term of less than thirty (30) days.
Rental means an arrangement between a transient and a home owner whereby rent is received in
exchange for the right to possess a residential structure.
Short-term Rental t means any residential property, a dwelling unit, or a portion thereof that is rented to
a transient for less than thirty (30) consecutive days.
Transient means any person who, at their own expense or at the expense of another, exercises
occupancy or possession, or is entitled to occupancy or possession, by reason of any rental agreement,
concession, permit, right of access, option to purchase, license, time sharing arrangement, or any other
type of agreement for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days.
Section 20-961 Short-term Rentals
(a)Intent. The City recognizes that short-term rentals provide an opportunity for residents to use
their property to generate supplemental income; and, when properly managed, short-term
rentals have a minimal impact on surrounding properties. When not properly managed, short-
term rentals have the capacity to generate noise, traffic, and trash beyond what is typically
present in a residential neighborhood creating a nuisance. These issues can be especially acute
when the owner of the property does not reside in the home. In order to promote the health,
safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community, the City facilitates and
regulates the use of residential properties for short-term rentals by:
1. Requiring the licensure of short-term rentals.
2. Establishing standards pertaining to noise, maximum occupancy, parking, and waste
generation for short-term rentals.
3. Establish procedures for revoking the licenses of short-term rentals violating the
provisions of this section.
132
(b)License Required.No property shall be used as a short-term rental without a license issued by
the City. The license once issued shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance
and must be renewed annually. The procedure for receiving a license shall be as follows:
1. Application for a license shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the City. A
nonrefundable fee in the amount established by the ordinance adopting fees shall be
paid to the City when the application is filed.
2. In order to be issued a license the applicant must:
i. Provide the name and contact information, including a 24-hour telephone
number, for the party responsible for managing the property.
ii. State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental.
1. The maximum occupancy shall be two adults per bedroom plus an
additional two adults.
2. Accompanying children shall not count towards the occupancy limit.
3. A property own my request a higher occupancy limit in writing at the
time of the application. The City may approve or deny a higher
occupancy limit after considering factors such as home size, number of
beds, and distance from neighboring properties.
iii. State the maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the
property. The maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on
the property shall be two vehicles plus one for each available garage stall.
1. A property owner may request a higher overnight parking limit in
writing at the time of the application. The Citymay approve or deny a
higher parking limit after considering factors such as the presence of off
street parking pads, driveway length and width, and availability of street
parking.
iv. If the short term rental permits guests to bring dogs, a portion of the yard must
be enclosed by a suitable fencing.
v. Agree that the City has permission to access exterior areas of the property when
responding to a reported violation of the standards in this section in order to
ascertain if a violation has occurred.
vi. Not have any unresolved Code Enforcement or Property Maintenance cases.
vii. Not have had a short-term rental license revoked by the City of Chanhassen
within the last seven years.
viii. If the owner of a short-term rental fails to apply for a license within thirty days
of being notified of the need for a license by the City, they shall be ineligible for
a license for a period of one year from the date of the notice.
(c)Standards.The following standards apply to all short-term rentals:
1. Listings advertising the property’s availability for rent must state the license number,
maximum occupancy permitted by the license, and the maximum number of vehicles that
may be parked overnight on the property.
2. Guests shall not be permitted to participate in any party or other gathering of people
giving rise to noise, unreasonably disturbing the peace, quiet, or repose of another person.
The operation of any such set, instrument, machine, or other device between the hours of
133
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the property line is
prohibited.
3. An appropriate number of waste containers must be present to accommodate the
amount of trash generated by the short-term rental. Waste may not be stored outside of
approved containers. All waste containers must be stored outside of public view, except on
day of collection.
4. Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. no more than the maximum number of overnight
guests stipulated in the license may be present on the property.
5. Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. parking is limited to the maximum number of vehicles
stipulated in the license. At no time may vehicles be parked on grass or so as to obstruct
access to neighboring residences, the public right-of-way, or emergency vehicle access.
6. Pets must be kept within the fenced in portion of the yard when not on a leash.
7. The Good Neighbor Brochure provided by the City must be posted on the inside of the
front door and the primary door to the backyard, or in a conspicuous location near each
such door.
8. Property must have working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in each bedroom or
sleeping area and the owner must provide any transient renting the property with
information regarding emergency egress.
9. Property must be in compliance with all state and local laws and regulations.
(d)Violations
1. Unlawful Acts: It shall be unlawful for a person, firm or corporation to be in conflict with or
in violation of any of the provisions of this Section or other provisions of this code.
2. Notice of Violation: The code official shall serve a notice of violation on the licensee.
3. Prosecution Of Violation: If the notice of violation is not complied with, the code official
shall institute the appropriate proceeding at law or in equality to restrain, correct or abate
such violation, or to require the termination of the unlawful occupancy of the structure in
violation of the provisions of this chapter or of the order or direction made pursuant
thereto.
4. Violation Penalties: Any person who shall violate a provision of this section, or fail to comply
therewith, or with any of the requirements thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day
that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate
offense. Licenses may be revoked or suspended for violations of this section.
5. Abatement of Violation: The imposition of the penalties herein prescribed shall not
preclude the city attorney from instituting appropriate action to restrain, correct or abate a
violation, or to prevent illegal occupancy of a building in violation of this section, structure
or premises, or to stop an illegal act, conduct, business or utilization of the building,
structure or premises.
6. Fees and Charges: The property owner of record shall be responsible for any city costs in
enforcing the provisions of this chapter including inspection fees, or other fees, charges or
penalties that are imposed as permitted by law.
134
(e)Suspension and Revocation.
1. In the event of any potential health or safety violations, the City Manager may suspend
the license until the violation is corrected.
2. If a property with a short-term rental receives three notices of violation within a 365 day
period, its short-term rental license shall be revoked. The license may be revoked after
a single violation if the violation is not immediately corrected pursuant to a notice of
violation.
(f)Appeal. The licensee may appeal the occupancy limit, parking limit, denial, suspension, or
revocation to the city council. The licensee must file with the city clerk a notice of appeal within
ten days of a issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation. The council shall consider the appeal at
a regularly or specially scheduled council meeting on or after 15 days from service of the notice
of appeal upon the city clerk by the licensee. Hearing on the appeal shall be open to the public
and the licensee shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer
evidence in behalf of licensure. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon thereafter as
practicable, the council may order:
1. The denial, suspension, or revocationof the license.
2. The denial, suspension, or revocation by the city manager be lifted and the license be
returned to the licensee.
3. Additional terms, conditions and stipulations to be imposed on the licensee to mitigate
problems.
4. A higher occupancy or parking limit than approved by The City.
135
CITY OF CHANHASSEN | QUESTIONS 952.227.1100 | WWW.CI.CHANHASSEN.MN.US | VIOLATIONS 952.227.1607
City Codes
In order to keep Chanhassen neat and clean and a community
in which we can all be proud of, we wish to make you aware of
popular property violations. If you have questions, please feel
free to call 952.227.1607
Animal Control
Future animal control violations could result in being issued.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please call a
Community Service Officer at 952.227.1607
Storage of
Recreation Vehicles Animal at Large
Grass & Weeds Barking Dog
Nuisance Animal
Garbage & Refuse
Waste Cleanup
Snow Removal
No more than 1 (one) recreational vehicle may be
parked or stored in the side or rear yard behind the
required setback on a surfaced or unsurfaced area.
Additional recreational vehicles may be kept within an
enclosed structure. Recreational vehicles must be maintained in a clean,
well-kept, operable condition. Unmounted slide-in pickup campers must
be stored not higher then 20 inches about ground and must be securely
supported at least at 4 (four) corners by support mechanisms. Recreation
vehicles may not be occupied or used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping
purposes for more than 7 (seven) consecutive days.
No dog or cat shall be allowed by its owner to run
at large. The police or animal control officers of the
city shall take up and impound any dog or cat found
at large in violation of this section. A dog or cat is con-
sidered to be at large when it is off the premises of the
owner and not under restraint.
Any grass or weeds over the height of
12 inches on any occupied or unoccupied
property is prohibited and must be cut.No person owning, operating, having charge of, or
occupying any building or premise shall keep or allow to
be kept one or more animals that unreasonably disturbs the
comfort or repose of any person by its frequent or continued
noise. (Commonly, any animal that noise can be heard from a location
outside the building or property where the animal or animals being kept.)
Chanhassen City Code prohibits accumulations of
manure, rubbish, garbage, junk, debris, or other waste
which are kept so as to result in offensive odors, or
unsightly conditions to the discomfort or the annoyance
of adjacent property owners or the public. The following
items are examples of rubbish: cans, paper, cardboard bottles,
wood (not firewood), appliances, furniture, tires, bricks, cement etc. or
any household refuse or materials
The owner or a person having control of a dog shall
immediately remove any feces left by the dog not on
property of the dog owner or the person in control
of the dog. A person walking a dog off the owner’s
property must have in their possession equipment for
picking up and removing the feces. It is our pleasure to
welcome you and hope you have a great time experiencing Chanhassen.
Many visitors to our area choose to rent a home to fully enjoy their stay.
Renting a home offers that “at home” feeling while giving you space to
bring family and friends.
It is the responsibility of the
homeowners to remove all
snow and ice from public
sidewalks within 12 hours
after the time of snow fall.
It is our pleasure to welcome you and hope you have a great time experiencing Chanhassen. Many visitors to our area choose to
rent a home to fully enjoy their stay. Renting a home offers that “at home” feeling while giving you space to bring family and friends.
An added benefit for vacation home renters is the peace that permanent residents enjoy year-round. It is an extraordinary feeling to
view the beauty of nature in a quiet and safe surroundings. We hope that you too will embrace this special sense of being close to
nature and respect the quiet neighborhood with courtesy.
Good Neighbor Policy
FOR VACATION RENTALS IN CHANHASSEN
Keep In Mind...
Your permanent neighbors have a right to peace and repose
and this must be respected at all times of the day but especially
into the evening hours. For information regarding Chanhassen
ordinance codes please go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/codes
136
From: Jessica Bliss <oehr0007@umn.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:26 AM
To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>
Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals
Hi MacKenzie,
I am hoping that me or my husband Mark can attend the meeting on Tuesday. If not, I thought
that I should send an email with my thoughts on the proposed ordinance. I agree that short term
rental properties should be required to be licensed, and if they have a certain amount of
violations that their license be revoked. Given that we have had multiple issues over the last 8
months of living next door to a short term rental, and Airbnb still allowing the property owner to
rent out their property (even after multiple complaints and parties - which violates Airbnb's own
terms), we are hoping that this ordinance will ensure that our neighboring rental property will be
more compliant in the future.
I read over the ordinance, and I agree with the parking limitations - I do get concerned about the
amount of cars during the daytime not having a numerical limitation, because in our experience,
renters and party-goers seem to have their own interpretation as to what is occluding our
driveway and not, they have even attempted to park in our private driveway on our property. But
I think 2 in the driveway and 1 per garage stall is fair.
I also didn't see anything listed in the ordinance about renters that are bringing pets - we have
had dogs running loose on our property from their neighboring rental, and the dogs are relieving
themselves in our yard, unattended and we get to clean it up. This is also a safety concern from
the point of us having small children and having our own dog, I can't say I'm thrilled to have
unfamiliar dogs running loose on our property. The Airbnb site for our listing next door does
have rules for pets - but it doesn't seem to be helping the issue, so I'm hoping that this could be
addressed in the ordinance.
I also was hoping to see more about property maintenance - since we did 100% of the snow
removal this past winter (the Airbnb property was purchased Jan 2022) on our shared driveway
an the owner never offered to help, hire a service, or even a "thanks" for regularly clearing the
long driveway for his renters. However, I realize most people living next to an Aribnb are not
sharing a driveway. In our situation, the owner of the neighboring property is allowing the yard
to turn completely to weeds, and trash cans are overflowing in public view - clearly it's not
something they are concerned about, since the owner doesn't live at the property. Trash day
seems to be getting missed by the renters and owner, and the overfilled trash cans are attracting
various wildlife. The fact that nobody is continuously living in this property or monitoring it is
affecting our neighbors - we are the ones that are having to call in reports when trash is blowing
onto our property and into the road.
I am very happy that the issue of parties is being addressed - since we have had party buses
pulling into our driveway, and it is frustrating when they are arriving past midnight with large
numbers of inebriated people, waking up our children and our dog. Airbnb seems to be doing
nothing about this, even after our photos, videos, etc. we've submitted, because the rental
property continues to allow this to happen.
137
Lastly, I want to thank you for your hard work addressing this issue - this has been extremely
frustrating for our family and neighbors. especially since Airbnb continues to allow this property
to list on their website and the issues keep recurring. We hope that this ordinance helps improve
our neighborhood as well as other Chanhassen residents that are experiencing the same issues we
are.
Jessica Bliss
138
From: Dave Bloomquist <d.bloomquist@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 11:22 AM
To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Section 20-961 Short Term Rentals
I thank you all for the opportunity to appear before you this evening regarding
the proposed rules on short term rentals. I live in Chanhassen and I also have a
short term rental house in Chanhassen on VRBO. My main issue is the one size
fits all proposal for short term rental properties.
When you do a search on VRBO for a Chanhassen location, we are number one on
the search engine. We have over 100 five star reviews and have not had a single
issue. We have many customers that immediately rebook for the next year upon
their departure.
I wanted to address several of the points of the section 20-961
proposal. Referencing section (b), license required.
(b) License required
b. In order to be issued a license
i. Provide name and phone number, all my neighbors have my phone number,
if they have issues they would contact me.
iv. Agree that City Staff has permission to access the yard/private property
at any time
This is a clear violation of my 4th amendment rights.
(c) Standards
a. Noise related to disturbing the peace
As I was talking with Dan Campion previously, I was looking out at my back yard
and looking at the distances of the houses, and the ambient noises, and I could
see if a homeowner was not selective in whom he rented to, had sensitive
neighbors and disrespectful renters, noise could be a problem. We’ve lived in
Chanhassen for 31 years on a typical Chanhassen lot and never had a noise issue
with any of our neighbors.
However, a cookie cutter statute is not appropriate. Noisy groups would be a real
issue for apartments and condos.
139
My rental property is four acres, which is 14 times the size of a normal
Chanhassen lot, which is less than 1/3 acre lot. The nearest distances of
neighbors:
To the north, 232 feet. My nearest neighbor behind which is up the hill and
through the woods, is 314 feet, the nearest neighbor to the south is 444 feet, the
nearest neighbor to the east is 1,637 feet.
My neighbor to the south was mowing his lawn earlier this week and he has an
old, inexpensive, noisy riding lawn mower. So I walked down there and did some
decible readings and at 50 feet he was producing more than 80 db. So when I
went back to my house 275 feet away, the decibel was down to 65, which is
equivalent to the cars on Powers Boulevard.
If a loud outdoor party was producing 70 db, by the time it reached any of the
neighbors it would be 1/16th as loud or equivalent to a whisper or rustling leaves.
Here are some comparibles
Loud restaurant 70 db
The TV with a soundbar turned all the way up, can get to 65 db
Normal group conversation 60 db, which, comparing it to the loud restaurant, is
half as loud.
A refrigerator is 50 db A whisper or soft music is 30 db
What I found was an online calculator to input a know decibel reading and a
known distance, but not taking into consideration the forest or other
obstructions. And, the neighbor to the south, if the sound from my house or
anywhere around it was 65 db, by the time it got to him would be 27 db, which is
equivalent to the sound of a whisper or rustling leaves. Keep in mind that the
road noise from Powers Blvd. continuously exceeds those numbers.
I even did the same calculations at 70 db, which is a “loud bar” and 3x louder than
a jet, and 3x louder than Powers Blvd, at 240 feet it still was only 38 db.
Renters have held family events at the base of our hill, and the neighbor on the
south told me that he couldn’t even hear them.
140
b. waste containers
I have three trash cans and two recycle bins and they are checked bi-weekly or
before any wind event. I have too large an area to clean up after, and I don’t
want the mess. My driveway, at that point, is 330 feet from the road, so the cans
cannot be seen.
c. At no time may more than 4 adults in addition to the number of overnight
guests stipulated in the license be present on the property. I have four acres,
200,000 square feet, 14 times the normal city lot. My wife has 28 people in her
family, with grandparents, brothers and sister, grandkids and great grandkids, on
holidays we would have to do three shifts to meet this rule. The majority of our
clients are coming back to visit family and friends, wedding parties, family
gatherings for holidays, etc. Our overnight guest limit is 10 people and we pre
screen our guests for gatherings and set an appropriate limit based on the size of
the house, the maturity or age of the renters, and the season.
This lot is 14 times the size of a normal city lot. Based on the proposed density,
That would mean that the entire property could have only 1 person per city
lot. Only 14 people for a four acre lot.
d. overnight parking
To give you an idea, my driveway is 295 feet long. The parking area up on top is
48 x 45’ plus an additional 22 x 14. To give you perspective, I can take my full size
SUV with a long trailer, go all the way up the driveway, do an 180 degree turn
without backing up and go all the way back down the driveway without touching
a blade of grass. I can easily park 12 cars there. And now I’m going to be limited
to 2 plus the garage stalls.
Also part of 2. d. at no time vehicles parking on the grass
Due to the size of my driveway, no one has any need to park anywhere on any
other property or public right of way.
I was thinking about how to rectify this licensing issue by how to deal with the
problem homeowners. Doing research, it was surprisingly difficult to find
information on short term rentals but I came up with something that was
interesting from St. Louis Park. Apparently in those tiny houses with the tiny
141
yards in St. Louis Park, they want to put a tiny house in the back yard, so they
have regulations, but its based on how the property is zoned.
Restrictions apply to properties R1, R2, R3 and R4. My property is zoned Ag 2. If
you look to see what the zoning commonalities are with the problem properties,
then apply the rules to those zones. For example, it is reasonable not to allow 14
people in an apartment. It’s reasonable to limit parking when they are not parked
on the hard surface on the property.
There needs to be different requirements for properties in different zoning, that
recognize the different needs for condos, city lot home rentals and large acreage
lot rentals (Ag 2 zoned).
Thank you for your time.
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
1
Young-Walters, MacKenzie
From:Brad Bladine <bbladine@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:40 PM
To:Young-Walters, MacKenzie
Subject:Short term rental policy feedback
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Hello MacKenzie,
I would recommend that the applicable term for the proposed short-term rental policy be 27 days or less. The
argument for this would be that in MN if an annual lease is not renewed it may revert to a month-to-month
lease. This means that any long term rental that reverts to the month-to-month would need to apply for a short-
term license for just the month of February, each year.
Regards,
Brad Bladine
612-655-7125
149
From: Jessica Bliss <oehr0007@umn.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 1:34 PM
To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>
Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals
Hi MacKenzie,
I'm guessing you will be at the meeting this Tuesday, and my husband should be there. I just
want you to consider limiting cars during the daytime (not just nighttime), since we continue to
have bachelorette parties next door, and this weekend it affected our ability to get in/out of the
driveway again. Once again, we contacted Airbnb, let them know they were having a party
(which is banned by Airbnb!) and the number of cars in their driveway exceeded the 6 allowed
per their Airbnb policy. This happens over and over again, and Airbnb is not halting their ability
to rent the property out. Here are some photos from the weekend, proving that bachelorette
parties are happening and a large amount of cars are being parked. Thank you for your time and
help.
Jess
150
151
152
Planning Commission Item
September 20, 2022
Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 6, 2022
File No.Item No: D.1
Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its June 21, 2022 meeting minutes"
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
153
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Minutes dated September 6, 2022
154
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Chair von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Commissioner Noyes, Mark Chair von Oven, Erik
Commissioner Johnson, Perry Commissioner Schwartz, and Kelsey Commissioner Alto.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ryan Soller and Edward Goff.
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young-
Walters, Associate Planner.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
George Bizek 8750 Powers Boulevard
Mark Bliss 7333 Hazeltine Boulevard
Dave Bloomquist 8800 Powers Boulevard
Brad Bladine 6791 Briarwood Court
Bruce Geske 7325 Hazeltine Boulevard
Don Giacchetti 6679 Lakeway Drive
Chris Mozina 6670 Pointe Lake Lucy Drive
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. SHORT TERM RENTAL CODE AMENDMENT
Associate Planner Young-Walters gave a presentation on the item and shared background
information noting over the past year the City has seen an uptick in complaints about short-term
rental properties. City Council directed staff to look into the issue with intent towards acting and
coming up with a system. The most common concern is the properties being used as party houses
and causing parking and noise issues for surrounding neighborhoods. The existing Ordinance is
not well-suited to dealing with these issues. Staff proposes defining short-term rentals as rental
of a property for a period of less than thirty days, requiring the properties have a license which
establishes maximum occupancy, parking, and to provide the City with a 24/7 contact number to
reach out in the event of complaints or problems, placing standards on the license reflecting the
nuisance Ordinance, occupancy, and parking limits, and establishing an enforcement procedure
for violations of the annual license.
Commissioner Alto asked how they will know if it is a short-term rental, other than the
Applicant coming forward to apply for the license.
Mr. Young-Walters shared staff met with an external vendor who has a proprietary AI that surfs
40-50 sites for short-term rentals. The AI determines which are located within the community
155
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
2
and found a list of 37 short-term rentals that are currently active in the City of Chanhassen. They
would run regular checks, notify the City, and then staff would notify people regarding the rental
regulations and requirements.
Commissioner Schwartz noted in the memorandum it said that short-term rentals have the
potential to become nuisance properties and adopting these standards will mitigate the potential
impacts and operate with a minimal impact on surrounding properties. He asked if it is
reasonable to ask surrounding owners to accept minimal impact.
Mr. Young-Walters noted minimal is a subjective standard and they must balance the property
owner’s right to use their property with the impact on neighbors. He shared about potential
impacts and responses including parking on a public street versus consistently parking in front of
someone’s driveway, having loud parties, or having trash all over. A property that had a few
extra cars a few times a year would be a slight impact and would be the minimal threshold which
they believe is a fair balance. He spoke about one instance within the City which is a shared
private drive and is challenging for municipal enforcement as the City does not own that right-
of-way which is governed by private agreements between neighbors. While the Ordinance would
allow the City to address many behaviors of a short-term rental there may be issues outside the
purview of municipal jurisdiction.
Chair von Oven asked when an owner resides in the short-term rental residence, are they subject
to the maximum occupancy rules.
Mr. Young-Walters replied in the negative. The company they have contracted with on the
enforcement has a 24-hour complaint line; for example, on Thanksgiving Day it would go to the
24/7 contact (presumably the homeowner) and they could reply that it is the large extended
family present and is not being used as a rental. The City would log it and note it is not a
violation and no action would be taken by the City.
Chair von Oven asked if violations “double up” on misdemeanors so if there truly is an infraction
the short-term renter and the owner could face a misdemeanor.
Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative. In theory the renter could be prosecuted for
violating the City’s noise Ordinance and the City could go after the property owner for allowing
that violation to happen. The idea was to create a mechanism to put pressure on some of the less
responsible owners to take more ownership of their properties.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the renter is from out of state and how that would affect the
violation process and prosecution.
Mr. Young-Walters replied the renter would either get a citation the day-of from the Carver
County Sheriff (in an extreme situation) or they will be out of town. The problem is less with
one-off renters than with properties that have a series of one-off renters that violate community
norms. That is why the City wanted to shift enforcement toward the property owner rather than
the renters.
156
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
3
Commissioner Noyes noted one licensing requirement is to grant the City ability to enter the
property which is a vague term to him. He asked if that is to access the lot, enter the home,
facilities, or building. He stated it seems the City would need that fully defined.
Mr. Young-Walters spoke about the exact language stating yard/private property and the
intention was external rather than internal on the property. The provision exists in the City’s
stable Ordinance and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards. The City Attorney reviewed the
draft Ordinance and did not raise a flag on that issue. If the Commission would feel more
comfortable having that defined as exterior only, they can certainly recommend that. He stated
the standards say that a “good neighbor brochure” must be present which outlines City
Ordinances and they could make it clear that if one generates a noise complaint staff has the right
to inspect the property in response to that complaint.
Commissioner Noyes thinks the mention of adults-only in the definition of occupancy rates is a
little too strict. He does not want someone to say the City is not allowing them to rent to families.
He asked whether they need to change the language “adults” to “person” or “people.”
Commissioner Noyes spoke about size of property or type of property and that some may apply
to this and others may not.
Chair von Oven asked whether the City has ever issued licensing and a process for exemption.
Community Development Director Aanenson replied the City has very few licensing
requirements. The City is trying to capture something that is equitable.
Mr. Young-Walters stated if one is running an operation that is not bothering neighbors or
creating an issue, he does not feel these standards would be super onerous as one would be asked
to apply for a license annually. If there was something that absolutely could not work for the way
one has historically run their operation, they could go through the variance process. He would
prefer that than trying to hard-bake an exemption clause.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if trash and noise is part of the complaint, why would the City
need access to the property as they could stand on the street and hear the noise.
Mr. Young-Walters replied in the case of a loud and energetic pool party behind a six-foot
privacy fence, and perhaps they had more than 25 people, if the City has access to the property
they would know whether one knowingly broke the licensing restriction of 10 people.
Commissioner Alto asked if the Sheriff is considered City Staff.
Mr. Young-Walters replied in this context, yes.
Chairman Chair von Oven opened the public hearing.
George Bizek 8750 Powers Boulevard, lives next to Mr. Bloomquist’s short-term rental and
noted he has never had any issues. Being on such a large lot, Mr. Bloomquist keeps the property
157
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
4
spotless and must be very good at screening renters as Mr. Bizek has never had an issue and does
not have trouble with the rentals next door.
Mark Bliss, 7333 Hazeltine Boulevard, noted he and his wife Jessica have two daughters aged 4
and 6 and a German shepherd. They moved to Chanhassen for the small community feel, great
schools, quiet neighborhoods, and access to parks and trails. Their home shares a driveway with
7331 Hazeltine Boulevard which is four 1-acre lots. In January of this year the neighbor sold and
the property became an AirBNB rental. Mr. Bliss stated living next to an AirBnB can be
interesting and unfortunately in his case has been more negative than positive; the property
owner lives in Florida, the property manager is in California, and he has observed a steady list of
renters nearly every night for the last two months including wedding families, bachelorette
parties, German businessmen, tourists, college meet-up groups, and some nice, quiet families.
Mr. Bliss stated he has seen intoxicated fights break out in the backyard, trash blowing against
his fence, burning of Styrofoam in the fire pit, and nine cars in his driveway. He noted they share
the driveway and these cars blocked their exit. He shared about party buses pulling into the
driveway at 2:00 a.m., renters parked in the driveway, cleaning crews waiting in the driveway,
trash left on the street for days on end, and cans overflowing because the property manager
depends on its renters to take out the trash and many forget. Mr. Bliss agrees a proposed
Ordinance is needed and he is happy about that, however the current proposal addresses most
concerns except three. First daytime parking, as currently written the neighbors can have two
cars in the garage and two cars in the driveway at night. During the day there are not defined
limits of additional cars and the Bliss family would like it limited to four cars. He said at one
time there were nine cars and his wife who is a nurse could not get to work. The family called
the Sheriff, however the Sheriff does not have jurisdiction to enter the shared driveway because
it is private. Mr. Bliss noted there is also nothing in the Ordinance about off-leash animals and
pets or defecation standards and he thinks all pets should be on-leash or within a fenced-in area.
He noted he has a very friendly German shepherd but dogs have wandered into his backyard. Mr.
Bliss spoke about general property upkeep such as snow removal noting the neighbor did not
plow from January to March and he spoke about lawn standards which often goes two weeks
without mowing. In his experience, the rental owners are trying to make a quick buck and do
everything possible to limit their expenses. Right now the yard is dead and Mr. Bliss asked for
some lawn standard rules or text. He also spoke about general property maintenance including
asphalt, dead trees, and branches. Mr. Bliss asked whether the Sheriff will have jurisdiction to
enter the property and/or will a Community Service Officer (CSO) have that jurisdiction.
Chair von Oven asked if Mr. Bliss has any legal documentation that helps govern the shared
driveway.
Mr. Bliss replied when they built the house it was three lots that were subdivided which was
approved by the City Council with one common driveway and four split-offs. He noted there is
nothing written as to what it is although there is a survey. There is no agreement as it was kind of
handshake and now it is a free-for-all. He spoke about instances with nine cars parked on the side
and his family cannot get out. What if something was wrong, his wife could not get to work and
what if she is on-call? If things go wrong and they call the Sheriff, they cannot fix it and he
asked what they do when a party bus comes on the property? He said at 2:00 a.m. when the dog
and kids are awakened it is a pain.
158
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
5
Chair von Oven thinks if this were to pass the answer to the question would be yes, the Sheriff
and CSO would be able to enter the property.
Mr. Bliss noted they live on the walking path with hundreds of people walking by. Many people
coming in to the rental property cruise in very fast and he noted there could be an accident with
someone getting hurt. There is nothing posted about slowing down or a stop sign at his address.
The previous weekend there was a head-on collision and he stated people drive very fast.
Mr. Young-Walters recommended bringing that up to the Traffic Safety Committee who will
then investigate and take appropriate action.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if the noise and nuisance Ordinance would apply to Mr. Bliss’
concern regarding dogs.
Mr. Young-Walters replied, the property maintenance and general nuisance Ordinance apply to
all properties in the City. For efficiencies sake he chose not to fully reiterate every provision of
the nuisance Ordinance within the short-term rental. However, if a dog was running loose that
generated a complaint that would be a violation of the standard of license and would be grounds
for the City taking action against the short-term rental as it is currently written. The pet waste
issue may be nebulous because it is on private property, but he would have to read through it to
be sure.
Dave Bloomquist, 8800 Powers Boulevard, noted when one searches on VRBO in Chanhassen
his property is the top search and he has over one hundred 5-star reviews and not a single issue.
Many customers immediately rebook as soon as they leave. He spoke about the proposal
regarding providing a name and number to all neighbors and noted his closest neighbor and the
only one within 300 feet is George Bizek. Regarding City staff having access, he sees the house
being private property and is a fourth amendment issue. Related to noise and disturbing the
peace, Mr. Bloomquist was speaking with Dan Campion earlier in his backyard with kids playing
on a trampoline and he could see on a normal City lot (under 1/3 acre), if someone is sensitive or
it is late at night they may be annoyed. Mr. Bloomquist thinks the cookie-cutter Statute is not
appropriate and noted his neighbors are hundreds of feet away with the house in the middle of
the property. He spoke about decibel ratings and shared about family events at the base of the hill
even closer to the neighbor to the south who shared they never heard anything. He spoke about
trash cans and recycle bins noting he checks it bi-weekly or whenever they drive by it. He spoke
about the stipulation limiting guests and noted he has 4 acres, 200,000 square feet (14 times the
size of a City lot) and if his wife’s family gathered for a holiday that is 28 people and they would
have to take three shifts. Many families want to get together like that on the property at
Christmas or New Year which are always booked. He noted it does not seem appropriate as he
could subdivide the property into eight lots. Regarding overnight parking, his driveway is 295
feet long with a parking area of 45x48 and it will easily hold 12 cars but he would be limited to
two plus two. In finding ways to rectify the licensing issue and deal with problem home owners,
in St. Louis Park they had a resolution based on how a property is zoned. Mr. Bloomquist noted
his property is zoned agriculture and he thinks the City should be looking at zoning
commonalities with offenders and go after them that way. It is not reasonable to limit the parking
159
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
6
on his property because they are 300 feet off the road and he thinks there need to be different
requirements based on zoning to recognize the differences.
Commissioner Noyes asked if the proposed Ordinance was passed and Mr. Bloomquist had the
ability to come before the City and ask for a variance such as parking, amount of guests, etcetera,
would that meet the need?
Mr. Bloomquist replied that puts him in another meeting before the Commission in hopes of
convincing them that he is not a problem. He shared they pre-screen their renters and his wife
goes with chocolate chip cookies to meet everyone, shares how the house works, and gives them
the rules and where the book is which covers all the rules (a welcome packet). Regarding a
variance it is a risk; if it was based on how it is zoned, then it becomes clear who the
troublemakers are.
Commissioner Schwartz commended Mr. Bloomquist for being a model short-term rental owner.
He noted it seems that is unusual if not unique, given what staff has said about a wide range of
properties in the City including the Bliss family at the opposite spectrum. It would appear to be
very difficult to write an Ordinance that covers each and every instance which is why the
Commission thinks a variance may be the answer and he cannot imagine why there would be any
issue with Mr. Bloomquist receiving said variance.
Mr. Bloomquist replied a long time ago they put a third stall on their existing home and had
dealings with Sharmeen whose reply was that it is 100 feet to the next door neighbor and they
should have bought a different house. He is obviously hesitant on that route, but noted he
received the third stall because he worked with the City Engineer who saw that it would not be a
problem and shared ideas on how to fix it. Mr. Bloomquist noted one individual kind of soured
the batch. He noted the starting age for renting the property is age 30+ and the Bloomquists find
out the reason they are coming to the property.
Bruce Geske, 7325 Hazeltine, is a neighbor of Mark Bliss and has lived at the residence since
1984 and was part of the planning on the trail system that went through. His concern is not as
much with the house although he has heard the noise and complaints but his concern is that
someone is going to get killed, the City will be held liable, and he fears he will also be held liable
as he allowed the City to have an easement to put the trail across his property. This weekend he
witnessed a renter come in too fast who then got out of the car and swore at the family that was
walking. Mr. Geske warned the City that if they do not do anything and do not take heed to this
matter someone will get hit and killed and there will be multiple lawsuits.
Mr. Young-Walters noted staff will relay these concerns to the Traffic Safety Committee who
will be looking into the situation.
Brad Bladine, 6791 Briarwood Court, shared that most of his concerns have been talked through
already. One of his concerns is around the day occupancy limit noting his extended family does
not fit Chanhassen’s small family ratio so when they get together for holidays, funerals, or
weddings they have a very large gathering. He noted his seven siblings and their families could
not ever be at the same rental property.
160
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
7
Chair von Oven clarified if he owns the home, Mr. Bladine could have as many people as he
wanted there. However, if he decided to rent it to his family that would be a problem.
Mr. Bladine understands and noted it limits the use. The way his family operates, they like to
spend time together and have been in other short-term rental properties for those experiences.
They can get loud but not rambunctious; they just like to spend time together. His concern is
about the day occupancy rate noting they will not all be living together in a rental and suggested
taking into consideration the number of bedrooms and square footage of the rental.
Chair von Oven asked what the clause is in the proposed Ordinance regarding daytime
occupancy.
Mr. Young-Walters stated it is written that a nighttime occupancy (# of bedrooms x 2 + 2) and
the daytime occupancy states no more than 4 additional adult guests can be on the property.
Mr. Bladine suggests a different kind of limit or way to manage that such as number of cars but
not the number of heads.
Chairman Chair von Oven closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if something should be added relative to the square footage of the
home and how many people it can adequately and safely contain.
Mr. Young-Walters replied the main issue is the larger the group the higher the chance of the
property being used as a party house. He also thinks the formula could get overcomplicated as an
unfinished basement does not provide the same amenities as a fully finished house. He
suggested the Commissioners talk about whether a daytime occupancy limit is necessary to
protect the parking and noise issues. If they feel the 10:00 p.m. quiet hours plus the maximum
overnight vehicles present is sufficient to ensure no late-night parties, then perhaps the daytime
occupancy limit is moot. He noted excessive noise can always go under the noise Ordinance.
Commissioner Alto asked if there is a City Code about occupancy.
Mr. Young-Walters believes at some point the Fire Code is involved but he is not certain on the
thresholds.
Ms. Aanenson noted it is pretty open as long as it is a family unit without separate kitchens,
etcetera which may be a large family living together or four college students.
Commissioner Schwartz is intrigued by the variance concept and would like to discuss adding it
to the Ordinance is special circumstances such as Mr. Bloomquist’s.
Chair von Oven stated they never want to create an Ordinance knowing that it already will not
work for some people. At the same time he does not see a path where they can make it work. He
asked about the zoning of agricultural and how much that was explored.
161
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
8
Mr. Young-Walters replied it was not extensively explored. It is possible Mr. Bloomquist is the
only agricultural or there may be more. If the Commission wants to build in relief he suggests
directing staff to put in a clause that allows staff to approve higher occupancy and parking limits
based on specific characteristics of the property. At that point anyone could appeal a staff
decision to the City Council. He thinks this may be a stronger route than forcing someone to go
through the variance process where they would have to prove Practical Difficulties, etcetera,
which are not well-suited to these situations. This would also prevent the situation where
someone with a large A-2 property decides to rent it out to ATV Clubs or other situations the
City would want to avoid.
Chair von Oven is in favor of building that relief in for these properties rather than forcing
people to go through a variance.
Commissioner Alto noted Mr. Bloomquist has five acres but it is a four bedroom three bathroom
house and she wonders where the City draws the line. Although they have more acreage, that
does not mean they can pack 10 more people at night into a house that size.
Commissioner Noyes thinks they can put a stipulation explaining the permit process,
requirements, and say if one is both zoned agricultural and the property is five acres or more the
parking limit and daytime occupancy limit do not apply.
Chair von Oven noted they are trying to put a maximum number of people because lots of people
make noise, however the City has a noise Ordinance. He said if it is his house and he is living in
it he can have 20 people sleep there if he chose to. If 20 quiet people are sleeping on the floor the
neighbors probably do not care. He is not in favor of eliminating the maximum number of people
but if they are unable to choose the right amount of people maybe they do eliminate the
maximum and allow the noise Ordinances, pet Ordinances, and other nuisance-type things. He
does not know if that is the right solution.
Commissioner Noyes noted they could say the same thing about parking and thinks some things
need to be defined and the number of people spending the night is critical to him although the
daytime occupancy is less so. If they start to get loud there is already a mechanism in place to
take care of that.
Commissioner Alto noted a popular situation after Covid is to rent a large home and have a
wedding there with the entire wedding party staying there. They should discuss whether they
should allow large parties as an agricultural five acre could advertise to host weddings because
they have a large yard. She again asked where they draw the line for short-term rentals to also be
a short-term venue.
Chair von Oven asked Commissioner Alto if she would be opposed to Mr. Bloomquist renting to
someone for a wedding.
Commissioner Alto replied if it was every weekend, because then it is a wedding venue without
meeting the proper permitting, business license, or alcohol license.
162
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
9
Commissioner Noyes noted the emails the City received show two very different extremes with a
large property, very well managed, and zero issues. Then they have another one that is a
complete crap show with owners there to make a profit, who are not managing it, and there are
problems. Commissioner Noyes thinks today the Commissioners are trying to address that side
of it and he does not want to address the situation and cause problems on the good side of it
which is what they need to think through.
Commissioner Schwartz agrees they need to find a way to make exceptions while providing
relief for properties like the Bliss family. He thinks they need to focus on how to solve the
problem while still making it possible for Mr. Bloomquist to run his business in the manner he
would like to given he is such a good property owner.
Mr. Young-Walters reiterated his earlier suggestion to put in standards that based on unique
characteristics of the property staff can approve a higher overnight occupancy and parking limit.
If an individual was not happy with what staff settled on, it would be appealable to the City
Council who could look at it and overrule.
Commissioner Noyes asked if Mr. Young-Walters is putting himself in a difficult position by
granting variances for one property over another.
Mr. Young-Walters would likely draft some more concrete standards as guidelines for staff.
However, because the owner can appeal to the City Council he is confident in staff’s ability to
provide a written reply as to why they were or were not granted an exception. Ultimately if staff
is wrong, the City Council will tell them.
Chair von Oven stated if the Commission decides to table this, then Mark Bliss will still be
waiting. If they table, Chair von Oven would like to find a way to get this back by the next
meeting.
Commissioner Alto noted nothing would change until January so they would still have time.
Commissioner Johnson suggested tabling and getting it back in front of the Commission as soon
as possible while giving Mr. Young-Walters time to work on some of the items.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded to table until the next Planning
Commission in two weeks. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 5 to 0.
2. APPEAL REGARDING ALLEGED ERROR IN AN: ORDER, REQUIREMENT,
DECISION, OR DETERMINATION, MADE BY A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER ON THE GAYLE MORIN ADDITION - 1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD
Ms. Aanenson noted she received an email from the party requesting the appeal which she has
not had a chance to look at. The City Attorney has advised regarding the new information that it
arrived too late to be addressed. Before the Commissioners tonight are the allegations that were
made which is what staff presented their findings on. She wants to be clear on the record that if
163
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
10
there are new allegations staff would need to know and would not be able to make a
recommendation tonight due to those new allegations. If there is new information this Planning
Commission will not be able to make a recommendation as staff would need to go back and
address those concerns.
The appealing party, Chris Mozina, stated there is plenty of new information in there.
Ms. Aanenson clarified to Mr. Mozina that staff can only address the allegations presented as
part of his application which is what is being presented tonight and said it will not reflect what
came in his email at 6:38 p.m. this evening.
Chris Mozina, 6670 Point Lake Lucy Road, said it is interesting what happened in the session
before. He stated this is the first time in 30 years that there has been any appeal brought before
this committee. There is absolutely no Ordinance specifying the protocols, rules, procedures,
forms, which is part of the reason why he as the Appellant (he wants to distinguish that they are
not an “Applicant” as they are not applying for anything) and the current process of the Planning
Commission as the Board of Appeals is a separate body. This is not a Planning Commission
meeting so they must take their Planning Commission hat off and put the Board of Appeals hat
on. If they want to hear the whole truth and the entire appeal, he asked them to table, set up the
rules just like they did for the Ordinance and shared that he has an appeal and is happy to present
it. His opening statement was going to be this.
Chair von Oven said if they are going to step by the rules, let’s step by the rules. When it’s time
for Mr. Mozina’s opening statement Chair von Oven will invite Mr. Mozina to the microphone.
There is an order in which they conduct these meetings whether they are the Planning
Commission or the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Mozina stated that is incorrect, sir. This is a Board of Appeals meeting and there are no rules
specified for such meetings.
Chair von Oven said to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any
order, requirement, or determination made by a City Administrative officer in the enforcement of
this Chapter. Chair von Oven stated he will follow Robert’s Rules of Order in this setting as he
always has and will invite Mr. Mozina to the microphone when it is time, sir.
Mr. Mozina replied that is fair enough and thanked Chair von Oven.
Ms. Aanenson continued noting the Planning Commission is acting as the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals. These appeals are under the Administrative Officer under Chapter 20. Anything to
do with a subdivision, as she stated at the last meeting, those appeals would go to the State Court
if they have not been exhausted by the City Council. Any alleged error has not been weighed-on
yet by the City Council; this subdivision has not been before the City Council and is in holding.
The City Attorney reviewed the recommendations in the packet and if they are going to add
additional information not in the application they would review that before making findings. Ms.
Aanenson clarified the findings are based on the allegations that were made. She read the
allegations:
164
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
11
1. City presented a unified indivisible proposal that included both a Zoning approval and a
Preliminary Platt approval. By virtue of the unified proposal, any defects/allegations exposed in
the Zoning proposal by definition pollutes the Preliminary Platt proposal and any
defects/allegations exposed in the Preliminary Platt by definition pollute the Zoning proposal.
Ms. Aanenson noted staff’s finding is that there are no Ordinance restrictions prohibiting
rezoning in subdivisions from being processed concurrently. Cities are required to process and
decide such applications in the time provided by State law from the date the applications are
received, and processing concurrently is generally necessary to meet the required deadlines. It is
routinely done by the City.
b. City Staff by not addressing the numerous, specific and legitimate questions raised in a Letter
and 3 Addendums from the "Task Force"(all represented in the list of Interested Parties)"(Letter
and 3 Addendums)
Ms. Aanenson stated for the record in the attachments on the agenda with this application the
following items were attached including the staff report, Findings of Fact, application,
application narrative, the property tax information for 1441 Lake Lucy Road, the property tax of
all interested parties, the affidavit of mailing, and the staff response to the task force questions.
Ms. Aanenson stated again the allegation was a failure to “secure equity among individuals in the
use of their property.” The staff report addressed pertinent questions relating to the subdivision,
there were numerous questions going back and forth over a series of weeks, the questions were
answered, and are included a part of the record.
c. Will not cause depreciation - The interest parties allege that this finding of fact is in fact not a
fact and has no expert factual basis to support it such as a Comparative Market Analysis of
adjacent properties.
Ms. Aanenson stated the finding is irrelevant to this application which is Chapter 18 not Chapter
20 zoning and is not a required finding for approval of the zoning or subdivision application for
the Property under the City Code.
d) Allegations from Preliminary Plat Requirements not met and not formally waived by the City
Planners
Ms. Aanenson shared the findings that the Preliminary Plat Requirements are stipulated by
Chapter 18 and are not subject to appeal under 20-28, which applies only to appeals of orders,
requirements and decisions made by a city administrative officer under Chapter 20. In any event,
the language “officially waived” does not appear in the City Code. Section 18-40 reads “Unless
waived by city…” the Code does not state a mechanism for waiving the requirements and staff’s
decision to accept an application as complete without a given item, is understood to constitute
waiving the requirement. Ms. Aanenson noted staff typically walks through with someone and
ticks the boxes they think are necessary for the application.
165
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
12
e) Pre-emptive allegation of intended granting of variances without due process to assess the
buildability of the property - perching water, soil samples inaccurate: Civil Site essentially
described how it is possible to overcome any building obstacle, i.e. through variances
Ms. Aanenson stated no variances were requested in the applications related to the property,
therefore it is not applicable.
f) Zoning Erroneous Findings of Fact, The proposed zoning will not tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed."
Ms. Aanenson noted the finding is irrelevant to this application. It is not a required finding for
approval of the zoning or subdivision application for the Property under the City Code.
g) Traffic generation by the proposed use within the zoning district is within capabilities of
streets serving the property."
Ms. Aanenson stated the private street serving the proposed single-family home on the property
was previously approved in 1993 to provide access to 5 homes. That street was previously
planned and approved to point access to that property.
h) According to Sec 20-43 Public Hearing should have occurred prior to the July 19th Planning
Commission Meeting
Ms. Aanenson shared the finding that Public Hearings for zoning amendments are held at the
Planning Commission. No public hearing is required prior to the public hearing scheduled with
the Planning Commission on the July 29, 2022.
i) "(b) If a development is proposed adjacent to a lake or will affect the usage of the lake, the
community development director may require an expanded mailing list for sites fronting on
lakeshore where the development would be visible over a large area. The Applicant is
responsible for meeting with affected homeowners."
Ms. Aanenson noted the findings are Section 20-43(b) states “If a development is proposed
adjacent to a lake or will affect the usage of the lake, the Community Development Director may
require an expanded mailing list for sites fronting on lakeshore where the development would be
visible over a larger area. The Applicant is responsible for meeting with affected homeowners.”
The use of the word “may” establishes that this is a discretionary requirement, and the
subsequent language provides guidance on when the expanded mailing can be required. The
existing lot (Morin property) could have had a dock or water oriented accessory structure, put
fence on the property, or the like. Adding the additional lot extinguishes any lakeshore rights of
the existing home, so the new home would not increase any lake usage. The proposed
subdivision would sever lakeshore rights of the existing home. The proposed subdivision lot
would be permitted lake shore rights, thus not changing the intensity of the lakeshore use. The
City mailed notification to properties within 500 feet of the subject site which exceeds the 350-
foot notification standard required by the State of Minnesota. A Proposed Development
notification sign has been placed on Lake Lucy Road for those that lived beyond the 500 feet.
166
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
13
j) Preliminary Plat Failed Requirements from Section 18-40: Section 18-40 Preface: "Unless
waived by the city because of the limited size and nature of the proposal, the following shall be
furnished with a preliminary plat:" Further the City in the proposal to the Planning Commission
on page 6 of 16 made the following determination: "The existing conditions survey now appears
to meet all applicable requirements from Section 18-40 of Ordinance." However, that is not the
case, and the City did not demonstrate a waiver of any of the following requirements which were
not met: "An accurate soil report indicating soil conditions, permeability and slope" - The
Watershed concluded that this requirement was not met, and substantial evidence was provided
at the public hearing on July 19th to support that conclusion.
Ms. Aanenson stated they are talking about allegations made under the Subdivision regulations
and allegations can only be made under Chapter 20.
k) "All proposed retaining walls must be shown on the plan. The top and bottom elevations of the
wall must be noted."
Ms. Aanenson noted the findings that in Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations are not appealable.
It is noted that City staff responded to this question that the retaining wall elevation was shown
on page C3.
l) "The style of home (e.g. slab on grade, split entry, lookout, walkout, full basement) must be
noted on the plan."
Ms. Aanenson spoke about Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, which are not applicable under
this appeal and said again this has not gone before the City Council for final preliminary or final
plat. At preliminary plat the lowest floor and garage elevation were shown.
m) "Proposals for street lighting, curb and gutters, sidewalks and boulevard improvements."
Ms. Aanenson said Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable. Access to the
property was previously approved by the City Council as a private street.
n) "Photocomposite images, artistic renderings, or site elevations which depict the visual impact
of the proposed development's design, landscaping, street layout, signage, pedestrian ways,
lighting, buildings, or other details that affect land use within the city shall be submitted. Such
images and renderings shall be from key vantage points and provide an undistorted perspective
of the proposed development from abutting properties, less intensive land uses, and/or from
entryway locations. Appropriate levels of resolution for the visualization shall be used from flat
shading for massing studies and preliminary design to photorealistic imaging for final design."
Ms. Aanenson noted Chapter 18, Subdivision Regulations, are not appealable.
o) Remedies Requested Prior to the hearing of the Appeal: (These requests were articulated at a
meeting held on August 17, 2022 with City Staff and the City Attorney. It is requested that they
again be reviewed and addressed).Immediately halt any further proceedings concerning this
development City Staff to answer all Task Force Questions in writing as per the commitment
167
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
14
from Kate Aanenson in a 22-minute conversation with Christopher Mozina on July 25, 2022 at
12:14 pm. The City Staff at a meeting on 8.17.22 indicated refusal to answer any previously
presented questions or any further questions from the Interested Parties thus again reinforcing
the failure to meet the very purpose of Section 20 '"'(g) Secure equity among individuals in the
use of their property."
Ms. Aanenson noted staff has answered numerous pertinent questions including engineering and
planning. She believes staff has answered all pertinent questions received. Pursuant to state law
and city Code, the City cannot halt proceedings on a zoning or subdivision application which
must be processed and decided within the required timelines.
p) Allow sufficient time for the interested parties to evaluate the answers provided by the City,
and present additional evidence to support the appeal
Ms. Aanenson shared this is not a requirement of the City Code. The City is under specific
timelines required by state law and city Code to process and decide zoning applications from the
date of the application. The required public hearing was provided allowing Applicants to raise
concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. The City Council has not yet weighted in on the
preliminary plat, nor the final plat.
q) City Planning assistance to ensure all required forms and protocols are understood by
Interested Parties so that Appeal is not disqualified on procedural grounds. - At the meeting with
City Staff and the City Attorney it was articulated numerous times by the City Staff that the City
Staff was unclear how such an appeal should be addressed and what procedures to follow in
doing so.
Ms. Aanenson clarified this is the first administrative appeal that the City has received in many
years. The appeal process is established in the City Code and was provided to the Applicant and
only covers items within the zoning ordinance.
r) No guidance was received from the City Attorney other than pointing to the limited
requirements in Section 20-29.
Ms. Aanenson stated the City Attorney represents the City, not the Applicant, and provided the
information concerning the appeal process as identified in the City Code.
s) City Planning assistance in describing how the appeal will be administratively heard (verbally
or in writing, with what submission deadlines). - Per the meeting with the City Attorney and City
Staff on 8.17.22, Other than administrative scheduling elements with Section 20-29, there are no
documented rules or standards of how an appeal will be heard and dispositioned.
Ms. Aanenson said staff provided the relevant provisions in the Code for appeals. The method of
disposition is provided in the Ordinance, which provides that the Planning Commission will hold
a public hearing on the appeal and decide the appeal.
t) Conference to be scheduled with City Staff as per the Zoning Application Checklist.
168
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
15
Ms. Aanenson sated this is a statement and no appeal is identified.
u) City to provide, as soon as possible, Zoning Appeal Application Form. - Per the meeting with
the City Attorney and City Staff on 8.17,22, there is no specific "Zoning Appeal Application
Form", but instead, interested parties were asked to use the "Application for Development
Review Form". The meeting clearly evidenced that this form did not seem to lend itself to the
purpose of an Appeal, and indeed the City staff indicated that in 30 years the form was never
used for an Appeal. Thus indicating there really isn't a well-defined Appeal process although this
is indeed stipulated as a requirement of Minnesota Statutes.”
Ms. Aanenson stated she has been here for 30 years and this is the first appeal she has had. She
reiterated one can only appeal from the Zoning Ordinance, the form was never used for an appeal
and the allegation indicating that there is not a well-defined appeal process although it is
stipulated as a requirement of Minnesota Statutes. While the City did not have a specific Zoning
Appeal Form, in the interest of time and urgency as expressed by the Applicant, City Staff
recommended using the Application for Development Review Form and indicated it would be
acceptable to City staff and Applicant’s use of the form was accepted by City Staff.
Ms. Aanenson stated there are many allegations and the City Council has not weighed in on it.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
deny the appeal, and adopts the Findings of Fact and decision in the staff report.
Commissioner Schwartz read a brief email he sent to staff earlier in the day regarding a question
and he is looking for clarification as to why this item is on tonight’s agenda. At the last meeting
the Commission recommended only that a single lot at 1441 Lake Lucy Road be rezoned from
rural residential district to single-family residential district and subdivision of 4.84 acres into two
lots. He stated that is all they did and the recommendation comes before the City Council on
September 12 and he does not understand why they are subjecting themselves to a litany of
issues that the Council has not weighed in on yet.
Commissioner Alto agreed they have already made the recommendation.
Chair von Oven asked staff if there is a reason this is on the agenda tonight versus after the City
Council meeting.
Ms. Aanenson asked that the Commissioners ask the Appellant that question.
Commissioner Alto stated there is no historical precedence for appealing a recommendation to
City Council.
Ms. Aanenson stated that was her comment when the question came up as she has never in 30
years had someone before it was weighed in on. She stated at the Planning Commission public
hearing, one must exhaust administrative remedies and the City Council can change the Findings
of Fact, add for additional information; however, the Planning Commission made a
169
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
16
recommendation which is where they now sit. Within that there are allegations that staff erred in
the administration of something, and she stated they believe they have followed their practices.
Chair von Oven asked if there is a clear definition of City Administrative Officer.
Ms. Aanenson replied engineering and planning staff.
Chair von Oven asked if Commissioner Alto is a City Administrative Officer.
Ms. Aanenson replied in the negative.
Chair von Oven asked if anyone “up here” is a City Administrative Officer.
Ms. Aanenson replied in the negative.
Chair von Oven turned over the floor to Mr. Mozina.
Mr. Mozina apologized for his ongoing passion. He stated it was an amazing weekend, an
amazing day today, and they live in an awesome country. He noted they have poured a huge
amount of time since March and over the weekend into this appeal and it was a joy for him to
study the history related to the Statutes, rule of law, the Constitution, the Ordinances, checks and
balances, and it is a privilege to stand here in relative peace under the rule of law to argue the
appeal. He asked how many souls chose the harder right than the easier wrong to make our
country the rule of law and this appeal possible. He said it is amazing and they are truly blessed.
He stated everything presented they have evidence to support and presented a narrative of the
appeal as requested by the City Attorney and they are on the docket tonight because the City
Attorney gave the City Planners the go-ahead to put it on the docket and to appeal at this point in
time which is the least expensive path to choose. He turned the floor over to Don Giacchetti and
clarified they will call themselves the Appellant.
Don Giacchetti, 6679 Lakeway Drive, noted he and his wife Nancy have lived there for almost
21 years and gave a presentation showing some charts. He thanked the Planning Commissioners
for the job they do and noted he will focus on location, location, and freeboard. He stated the
information he provides tonight is both true and accurate to the best of his knowledge and ability
and without any doublespeak. He asked the Commissioners not to make any decision tonight but
to take several days to absorb it because this is a serious matter. He spoke about the video on the
City website where Planning Commission meetings are listed along with agenda packets and
videos. Mr. Giacchetti noted there were major errors and omissions in the information presented
to the Planning Commission at the July 19, 2022 public hearing. The 6679 Lakeway Drive home
where he and his wife Nancy live must be considered as an adjacent building which requires at
least 3 feet of freeboard elevation from the bio filtration basin (BMP) with a high-water level
(HWL) or 100-year event of 974.83 feet per City Policy 1.12 on page 343 of the City of
Chanhassen 2040 Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. Mr. Giacchetti took the Minutes, videos,
Findings of Facts, staff report, and read it all multiple times. He gave examples noting page 3 of
the Minutes from July 19, 2022 noting they look at City Ordinance, rules, and regulations and
apply those; if it meets the rules and regulations that is the basis of staff’s Findings of Fact. He
170
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
17
gives this a thumbs-up as it makes sense to him. He clarified the clippings he is showing on
screen are exact screenshots. On page 5 of the City Staff report it says staff notes that the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which Mr. Giacchetti is not familiar with as
a normal citizen. On page 2 Findings of Fact and Recommendation he noted it says the proposed
subdivision is consistent with all applicable City, County, and regional plans including but not
limited to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He shared page 3 of the Minutes where engineer Matt
Sheehan spoke and he noted he could not find a Matt Sheehan but eventually found out his name
was Mike Sheehan who is a certified and licensed professional engineer who joined Civil Site
Group 6 months ago and is a very qualified individual. He noted Matt Pavek stated he feels they
have the puzzle of drainage solved and going into final plans they will be able to refine all those
requirements. Mr. Giacchetti has questions about this. In the staff report it talks about the City’s
Surface Water Management Plan which says the City requires 3 feet of freeboard between a
building elevation and adjacent ponding features. He noted the design only provides 2.31 feet of
freeboard to the existing home on adjacent property 6675 Lakeway Drive. Mr. Giacchetti shared
from the Minutes that Mr. Seidl noted the development appears to meet all the City rules and
asked why he does not make it definitive. It was also mentioned the Commissioners are not
experts and he tries to do a fact check on what he agrees to be true and accurate. After the
aforementioned comment, another comment was made in the Minutes that said there is only one
water expert in the room tonight. Mr. Giacchetti understands that if one is not aware of who else
is in the room but after reviewing he noted there are at least four other experts and feels the
record ought to be corrected for that. The experts include Matt Pavek (Civil Site Group), Kevin
Teppen (Senior Project Manger and certified/licensed Landscape Architect), Mike Sheehan, and
Commissioner Erik Johnson who is a professional engineer who works for EVS as a Senior
Geotechnical Engineer according to his LinkedIn page. Mr. Giacchetti shared that Mr.
Commissioner Johnson had some employment with Haugo Geotechnical Services. He reiterated
there are at least four other experts and noted comments were made that the engineering design is
trying to mimic the natural design, mimic Mother Nature, and he always has questions about
mimicking something. Is it a knock-off? Is it real? Did they get it as good as the original? Mr.
Giacchetti noted when making a decision the things to focus on need to be both true and
accurate. However, it is also critical to be aware of what is absent and what is not stated. He
showed a page on screen showing all the things he did in the Minutes relating to water and
freeboard issues. Mr. Giacchetti searched for a URL that brought him into the Comp Plan noting
the large amount of pages the Commissioners must get their arms around and he compliments
them. On page 2 he found Mayor Elise Ryan, Dan Campion, and Jerry McDonald who are three
of the five members on the City Council who approved/adopted the Comp Plan in 2020. In
Chapter 9 it speaks about the local surface water management and found Elise Ryan, Dan
Campion, and Jerry McDonald were all Councilmembers in 2018 on the report. He noted Policy
1.12 says require building elevations to provide at least 3 feet of freeboard adjacent to ponding
areas and floodplains for all development and redevelopment or when drainage facilities are
constructed for an area. He showed the Staff Report from July 19 on screen which spoke about
6679 Lakeway Drive and stops at ponding features which is a major omission, and the Planning
Commissioners were not give the benefit of what the policy states. They were given an outlined,
truncated version that said not to worry about the property. Mr. Giacchetti showed an elevation
infographic chart on screen and spoke about freeboard calculations, BMP, anchors, and how it
ties into Policy 1.12 and the proposed house. He noted they are now introducing an artificial bio
drain because they want to build a home which has some impervious surfaces introduced into the
171
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
18
natural bio system. This means they must calculate through water CAD software how big it has
to be. All of the natural filtration that used to flow down the hill is now being concentrated in the
artificial bio drain and is supposed to seep down into the ground. By Mr. Giacchetti’s rough
calculation, he comes up with 29,922.22 gallons of water.
Commissioner Noyes asked about the 60x60 foot pad shown on screen, and what is the water
capacity of that area.
Mr. Giacchetti does not know but is sure the water CAD model would calculate that and the
water coming off impervious surface from the driveway.
Commissioner Noyes noted when Mr. Giacchetti is doing those, he is comparing an unknown to
his estimated capacity of the BMP.
Mr. Giacchetti estimated by dimensions as it is 80 feet long, 20-30 feet wide, and 2-3 feet deep.
Commissioner Noyes said that is right but it takes a professional engineer to do that where the
60x60 foot pad is just a piece of land at this point in time. He noted Mr. Giacchetti is focusing
on the BMP and they are not focusing on what is there now and the carry and capacity absorption
of that which is a little misleading
Mr. Giacchetti replied it was stated that they were trying to mimic what is there now and the
existing condition which is what they analyzed. He spoke about the existing Morin home, the
amount of gallons of water, the freeboard infographic chart, and stated they are not safer, he has
a big bathtub in front of his home, and they are 50-60 feet away. Mr. Giacchetti does not think
they calculated for all the water coming outside the western portion of the map on screen and
noted their water CAD models do not do that. He noted water is coming down from Lake Lucy
Road, down Lakeway Drive, gets to his private drive, and comes down. He heard that it is
physically impossible to have 3 feet of standing water coming off that little pond and said they
are building an artificial bio drain that has 30,000 gallons which is more than 3 feet of standing
water right over the banks of wetland A. He showed photos on screen of cars underwater on 494
noting he lived through the 1986 super storm and his business had water up to the first level of
the racking system. He is sure the engineers and designers did the best they could but did not
anticipate the worst case. Mr. Giacchetti has two water experts that will comment on this.
Commissioner Schwartz appreciates the effort of Mr. Giacchetti’s presentation and asked if any
part of the presentation addresses the recommendation that the Planning Commission made to
the City Council.
Mr. Giacchetti replied yes it does.
Commissioner Schwartz asked if Mr. Giacchetti can jump ahead to that.
Mr. Giacchetti stated the Planning Commission recommended to adopt all of the City’s findings
that everything is according to the rules and consistent and we’re moving forward.
172
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
19
Commissioner Schwartz replied no, sir, that is not true. What the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council was that one lot be subdivided into two lots, period. That
recommendation is coming before the City Council at its next meeting. Until the City Council
approves, modifies, or denies the Planning Commission’s recommendation, all of this
information is just information. There is nothing that the Planning Commission can do tonight to
deal with this because the administrative process as not followed through to its logical
conclusion.
Chair von Oven recognizes getting all this information on the record which he is all for. He
agreed there is a certain limit to what the Planning Commissioners are allowed to decide on
tonight. At the beginning of Mr. Giacchetti’s presentation, he asked them not to make a decision
tonight, except an appeal is before the Commissioners and stated he has yet to hear anything that
would make him not decide to deny the appeal. He fully admits what Mr. Giacchetti is speaking
about has merit. On tonight’s agenda, and the powers this committee holds in this particular
session, he would appreciate if they can focus on any of the things they have been asked to come
together on tonight.
Mr. Giacchetti is sympathetic to what Chair von Oven is saying and noted this is what he read
and asked them to tell him if he is wrong, the City Planning Commission at the July 19 meeting
voted 5-0 to adopt as a recommendation to go on to the City Council, all of the Findings of Fact,
all of the City Report, and everything else. In there, Mr. Giacchetti showed the red X’s which are
major error and omission and thinks this body would have the ability to rescind because if they
are not presented with all facts and true and accurate statements, the Commission did not have
the benefit of making an informed decision. He thinks 6679 Lakeway Drive being excluded as
“not an adjacent home” (and he has two experts that will attest) is major and does not comply
with what the Commission approved as the Findings of Fact.
Commissioner Noyes clarified the Commission did not approve Findings of Fact. They approved
a subdivision based on facts and that they spent a lot of time reading, listening, and they did not
vote on Findings of Fact. They voted on one thing: should the subdivision happen or not and it
has not gone any further than that. Mr. Giacchetti keeps going back and saying the Commission
got the wrong facts or omissions and that is Mr. Giacchetti’s opinion. Commissioner Noyes
stated they are in the first inning of this whole process and have not even gotten the subdivision
fully approved. Beyond that, every aspect of that project will go through the City, City
Engineers, any variances will come to the Planning Commission, then it will go to the City
Council. Commissioner Noyes said Mr. Giacchetti is kind of giving them a business pitch and
noted Mr. Giacchetti does not like the project and Commissioner Noyes gets that.
Mr. Giacchetti disagrees, it is not that he does not like the project. The issue is very simple: the
Commission based their decision to move it forward on a subdivision based upon the City’s
Findings of Facts, and the recommendation in the City Staff Report. That is what the Minutes
reflect.
Commissioner Schwartz thinks Mr. Giacchetti is incorrect. There was a significant amount of
discussion and the meeting lasted until 11:30 p.m. where there was conflicting information
between what City Staff and engineering experts were saying and what the task forces experts
173
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
20
were saying. Because of those conflicts the Planning Commission is not in a position to make a
decision on that, so they limited what they recommended to the City Council to only recommend
subdividing the single lot that currently exists into two lots, that’s it.
Mr. Giacchetti stated it was to recommend the subdivision according to the plans that were
specified.
Chair von Oven stated one of the constant battles for everyone in the City is educating on how
things work. He has learned that there is a beautiful system of checks and balances. He is not a
water expert, he is a computer engineer, so when the City tells him they think they have this
puzzle figured out, the reason this body is enabled to move forward with a recommendation is
because they can recommend to divide into the sub lots but at the end of the day a building
permit or some engineer will have to sign off on a plan that meets fully the City’s plan. If the
puzzle is not fully solved today and this body had to wait until every puzzle was fully solved,
nothing would ever get done in the City. Chair von Oven clarified this body recommends to the
City Council what they believe should happen to this property but it cannot happen unless every
rule is met. Therefore, if what Mr. Giacchetti is sharing tonight is true, there will be a barrier at
which this project will stop. He noted under his Robert’s Rules of Order hat, the Commission is
being presented with an appeal with an alphabet of allegations. If any of those allegations tonight
are what Mr. Giacchetti is speaking to, Chair von Oven asked him to please point it out to the
Commissioners so they can make a decision on what is before them tonight. Chair von Oven
thinks all of this information is very pertinent for City Council in making their decision going
forward and he will tell Mr. Giacchetti the City Council also holds the City to the same
standards. These things will still have to fall in order against the regulations. The Planning
Commission’s recommendation is that if all these boxes check when the time comes, they are in
favor of subdividing this lot. He stated that is the difference between what is being litigated
tonight by the Appellants. Chair von Oven asked to focus the rest of the presentation on those
items.
Mr. Giacchetti thinks what was concluded right before the 5-0 vote, the Commission heard from
a water expert who said that it meets everything which was not true and accurate, we will get
there, and we have solved the puzzle. What was not introduced and was absent was that Mr.
Pavek pointed to the chart and said the -4.4is not adjacent, does not really matter, and
Commissioner Schwartz asked if that is a non-issue. Mr. Pavek responded that is a non-issue.
Mr. Giacchetti noted it is a big issue and he is trying to help the Commissioners out tonight, there
is a fly in the ointment called Policy 1.12 which was alluded to and was then ignored. On page 7
of the Riley Purgatory Watershed there is a chart that defines what an adjacent facility is, talks
about the bio drain, and noted it is common sense. It says “to achieve low floor elevation for the
adjacent structure at 6679 Lakeway Drive” so it is being called an adjacent structure. However,
the Commission was not given that information and were told it is not adjacent, there will be
water flowing around it, and he said that is a major elephant in the room. He noted it is an
arbitrary and capricious kind of decision at 5-0 to forward this on to the City Council. He could
not find this document on any City websites, Minutes, referenced in the video, it was an outline
that stopped at 3 feet above ponding levels and did not mention this adjacent facility. They have
a qualified, acknowledged expert and that was shielded from the Commissioners. The whole
point is that if the Watershed defined 6679 Lakeway Drive as an adjacent property and the City
174
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
21
says everything is hunky-dory because we are ignoring that adjacent property, but it is in
violation of Policy 1.12. Full stop. Go get it right, go redesign it, go do something else because
the plans do not comport to that. That is not what Mr. Pavek said, he said it was not an issue and
it is right there on video. He makes the allegation that the City has to have page 7 and 8 from the
Watershed. He asked why does the City Staff not tell the Planning Commission about the
elephant in the room and ignore Policy 1.12. Mr. Giacchetti is here to tell the Commission this is
a major issue and he is trying to spare them some embarrassment. He thinks they have an
opportunity to study what he is saying because this is a major, major issue. He will send the
Commissioners his complete “deck of cards” and they will see.
Chair von Oven asked if 6679 Lakeway Drive is adjacent to this stormwater facility and does not
conform to Policy 1.12 of the stormwater management guide.
Mr. Giacchetti replied yes, that is his allegation.
Chair von Oven asked if that is on the docket tonight and asked which letter of the allegations it
falls under.
Mr. Mozina replied they will see it as a combination of allegation f and c. He approached the
podium and stated he thinks the Commission saw from Ms. Aanenson that in the narrative
describing the appeal, Mr. Mozina asked for clarifications. The City provided none and the City
Attorney provided none other than to point to 20-29 which has no specification for how this
proceeding would be carried out. Mr. Mozina in what he thought was good conscience working
all weekend and up to 5:00 p.m. providing the evidence that supports the appeal. Once the
Commissioners hear that evidence along with Mr. Giacchetti’s evidence, they will be compelled
to reverse their adoption of the Findings of Fact provided by the City Administrators. He
clarified the City Administrators birth the Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission adopts
them, and the City Council approves them. There is more to what they approve than just a zoning
feature because they approved a preliminary plat.
Chair von Oven noted the Planning Commission is the recommending body and do not adopt it.
Ms. Aanenson clarified Chapter 18, the subdivision regulation cannot be appealed because it has
not gone through the process. All the Planning Commission has done is give recommendation.
Mr. Mozina stated that is Ms. Aanenson’s opinion.
Ms. Aanenson replied that is the City Attorney’s opinion and Mr. Mozina will not listen when
the City has talked to him about this. He can only appeal the zoning administration which is
Chapter 20 and that is why they are here.
Mr. Mozina stated they will hear more about that and within the Ordinance itself it talks about
the risk when an Applicant tries to file a preliminary plat and a final plat at the same time
because if one fails the other fails. That is a precedent-setting section within the Ordinance which
says “at your own risk.” If one does a zoning application and a preliminary plat application in the
same unified application, one pollutes the other. He held up a packet and stated “here is what you
175
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
22
approved,” and said there was a lot of discussion during the Planning Commission meeting and
they were all looking at each other “what are we approving tonight?” Mr. Mozina stated they did
not approve accepting the deeding of the right-of-way on Lake Lucy Road. He wants to point out
in the appeal process they are here to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an
error in any order, requirement, and it was read earlier in the meeting. Mr. Mozina asked if there
is any time specified in there and does it limit when he can allege that an error has been made?
Chair von Oven replied not that he knows of.
Mr. Mozina stated then they are okay being here then.
Chair von Oven noted Mr. Mozina is absolutely okay being here. He wants to be clear why he
even asked the question. He asked to say for a moment that his eyes have been opened and the
light has shined upon him, he still cannot do anything about what Mr. Mozina’s appeal is tonight.
This is why they don’t want the Commission to decide tonight, however he must look at what
has been appealed and decide whether or not to make a decision. If Chair von Oven looks at
what Mr. Mozina has appealed at this moment, to this body, on this project, it does not include
what is shown on screen.
Mr. Mozina stated they are talking about accurate soil samples, as well.
Chair von Oven asked Mr. Mozina to please give him the letter that this points to and he will
work to support Mr. Mozina. He asked to point to the allegation before this body tonight that
specifically says this and he can look at it with different eyes. However, until Chair von Oven
sees that he cannot.
Mr. Mozina said now they are back to the beginning. He asked (and Ms. Aanenson showed it on
screen) for clarity as to what he should bring to this appeal. He noted that is in the allegation.
Commissioner Alto asked if Mr. Mozina is talking about the allegation that the City Attorney not
providing more information.
Ms. Aanenson stated, as she understands it, most allegations fall under the zoning and that is not
what they can do.
Mr. Mozina thinks it is allegation labeled “u.”
Ms. Aanenson stated the reason the City disagrees with the Appellant is because the subdivision
has not been exhausted yet.
Mr. Mozina stated allegations labeled “u”(City provide zoning appeal form), “s” (City erred in
not providing assistance with appeal or pre-meeting to address the format). Mr. Mozina clarified
it is alliteration “s”, “u”, and “v” (the accurate soil samples). He noted allegation “v” was not in
the narrative, but that this does not mean it is not valid.
Ms. Aanenson pointed out that is a subdivision requirement, as well.
176
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
23
Chairman Chair von Oven opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mozina tried to stick to the narrative describing the appeal and listing the items in order, but
then he added additional allegations. Again, there was no restriction on him adding additional
allegations, evidence, and documentation to support the appeal.
Commissioner Noyes noted Mr. Mozina did it at 6:38 p.m. today.
Mr. Mozina stated he worked 20 hours this weekend.
Commissioner Noyes understands but Mr. Mozina needs to understand what the Commissioners
are up against and 22 minutes is not enough for them to review it. He noted everyone on this
Commission has read all of the documents, whether it is the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, they
have spent countless hours just like Mr. Mozina has. The expectation to put something forth 22
minutes beforehand and for the Commissioners to digest it and assume it is all accurate and
truthful is not a fair assumption.
Mr. Mozina went back to Commissioner Alto’s comments that they need to take the emotion out
of it.
Commissioner Noyes replied they need to focus on procedure.
Chair von Oven stated there is a procedure, they will follow it, and that is his job. Mr. Mozina is
speaking for the public comment portion and asked him to please bring his comments forward in
a timely fashion.
Mr. Mozina stated the Board of Appeals summary choosing the harder right than the easier
wrong. When looking at the packet he sent today, he put a table of allegations, some of which are
specifically designated to zoning. He expects the Commissioners to be shocked by his first
example because it is directly related to the zoning Ordinance and there is a direct Finding of
Fact provided by City Staff that is actually impossible to state. As discussed, checks and
balances are crucial at each stage of the process and stakeholders are the checkers and the
Commission talked pretty extensively about the check and balance to look for. The answer was
the next step in the process and Mr. Mozina thinks that is the wrong answer and will show the
reason in the presentation. There is a lack of protocol, rules, procedures, and Ordinance clarity in
the Board of Appeal process. He said the Board must consider what is true and accurate, what is
absent or not stated, the whole truth. The appeal finds its justification and direction from several
north stars, chief among them is Section 20-2 “secure equity among individuals in the use of
their property.” Mr. Mozina said Section 20-2 is the section in the zoning Ordinance. When Mr.
Giacchetti talks, he is talking about his equity interest among individuals in the use of their
property and that evidence applies here. The Board of Appeals has obligations as an independent
trier of fact. City Staff gives birth to facts, just like a police officer with laws to enforce they
arrest someone with a set of facts, it goes up to the district attorney who either creates a grand
jury or decides to prosecute. There is a finder of facts, someone that adopts the fact, and then it
goes to the City Council for approval. Within the birthing of facts that is where they have a
177
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
24
problem, to Mr. Giacchetti’s point, the Commission did not see all the facts, and nobody pointed
out specific Statutes and sections of the Ordinance that were missed. He is going to point those
out tonight. Mr. Mozina said the Board must not vote on the recommendation provided by City
Staff as it is inappropriate, incomplete, and premature. Based on the fact that there are no rules
describing when documentation is required or what type of documentation is required.
Allegations are serious and compelling and deal with issues of public safety like Mr. Giacchetti
was going to get to. If that bio filtration basin collapses as showed in the pictures that will all go
into Mr. Giacchetti’s house. It also deals with questions of ethics. The allegations will require
serious, dedicated time to investigate, likewise as a trier of fact the Board’s written responses to
each allegation should be thoughtfully considered and documented for full transparency. It is the
Appellant’s belief that the presented allegations warrant the Board of Appeals reverse and/or
revoke the Planning Commission adoption of the 1441 Lake Lucy Road development proposal
rendered on July 19, 2022. Mr. Mozina stated as mentioned above, the Board, City, and
Appellant have to keep track of over 30 allegations and answers. He stated it feels important to
review several examples of the allegations up front and then examine more closely the
inappropriateness of the City Staff’s Recommendation to this Board and the very nature of
checks and balances as designed into the U.S. Constitution, Minnesota State Statutes, and City
Ordinances. He spoke about Allegation “c”, Allegation “w”, Allegation “g”, and Allegation “o”
in his packet of information and said these examples serve to further illustrate why it is wholly
inappropriate to adopt the City Staff’s recommendations presented prior to this meeting. The
City Staff’s responses to the initial narrative describing the appeal are misplaced, inaccurate,
insufficient, and premature. Mr. Mozina stated the City Staff provided their recommendations
without notifying Mr. Mozina (although they sent an email, fair enough) he clicked on the
agenda and then saw the recommendations. He asked when did that come out? On Thursday. Mr.
Mozina worked all day Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday so he was prepared to not waste
the Commissioners’ time. He spoke about allegation “c” which states “will not cause
depreciation” and said City Staff responded that this is irrelevant to this application. This
response is categorically incorrect and as stated in the City Staff’s birthed Findings of Fact on
page 22 of the July 19, 2022 agenda packet, it is the City’s statement that the zoning Ordinance
directs the Planning Commission. Mr. Mozina showed a slide which he took from the proposal
adopted on July 19 where it says the proposed zoning will not tend to add to or actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed. He stated those are adverse findings that they were
directed to review. Mr. Mozina spoke about letter f which makes it clear that the Planning
Commission must assess whether the proposal meets all traffic and street requirements and said
the Appellant alleges that the private street cannot accommodate emergency fire vehicles and
that the Applicant did not address that in their proposal. Mr. Mozina stated the tone of City
Staff’s response is concerning and the zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to
consider adverse effects, so it is clearly relevant. He stated he believes the City’s own words
show that the allegation is relevant otherwise why would it be included to begin with? Why put
something into the Findings of Fact if it is not relevant?
Ms. Aanenson asked to clarify again, that the findings relate to the things that are applicable in
Chapter 20 versus Chapter 18. What is in the subdivision Ordinance cannot be before the
Planning Commission today because it has not been weighed-in by the City Council. She stated
that is the reason those findings are not aligned with what Mr. Mozina is saying and that is still
178
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
25
the breakdown of communication here. She stated clearly, they will have to bring things back
and clarify that.
Mr. Mozina stated he must have missed that completely because he thought there was a
rezoning.
Chair von Oven clarified there has not yet been anything.
Mr. Mozina understands there was a birthing, an adoption, and they have not yet had an
approval. He gets that.
Chair von Oven noted there was a recommendation from the recommending body and none of
this is relevant until City Council weighs in. He understands what Mr. Mozina is saying but
clarified they are not there yet.
Mr. Mozina stated the Planning Commission is not there yet and that forms the basis of appeal
because they are disagreeing on whether the Commission thinks this appeal is timely right now.
They are not actually disagreeing with what he is saying, they are disagreeing on whether they
think it is timely.
Chair von Oven replied the Commission is not in a position to agree or disagree with what Mr.
Mozina is saying because it is not timely for what they are here to decide on this issue.
Commissioner Schwartz said based on Ms. Aanenson’s repeated statements, he fails to see how
any of this is relevant at this time. He is happy to sit here and listen to the allegations but there is
nothing the Commission can do about it at this time because if and until the City Council makes
a decision on the recommendation to subdivide that lot into two lots, all of this will come back to
the Planning Commission at some point in the future. Why they are spending tonight to hear
these allegations, as interesting and important as they might be, it is not appropriate at this time
to hear them.
Mr. Mozina noted the City Attorney already granted him that right.
Chair von Oven replied that is correct and they are holding a public hearing right now and Mr.
Mozina is free to speak. He noted he will end the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.
Mr. Mozina said every single word written in his presentation has meaning.
Ms. Aanenson clarified Mr. Mozina is talking about the packet he sent earlier in the day.
Mr. Mozina replied in the affirmative. The action the Commission can take is to reverse their
adoption and not send it to the City Council.
Chair von Oven noted in the earlier presentation the Commissioners were asked not to make a
decision and clarified that Mr. Mozina would like the Commission to approve the appeal tonight.
179
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
26
Mr. Mozina would like, as Mr. Giacchetti said, to spend the time studying what is here and then
render a decision. One of those possible decisions is to withdraw what they are sending to the
City Council and instead have the Applicant go back and do what they should have. Mr. Mozina
said crucially, City Staff did not address the actual allegations on the merits. The erroneous
response from the City is further evidence as to why the Board should not and cannot adopt the
appeal recommendation City Staff provided. Instead, the Board will need to thoughtfully
consider all of the allegations throughout this appeal and provide its independent written
response to each allegation on the merits. Mr. Mozina said the finding that the proposed zoning
will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed is simply impossible to
prove at this time, both because the building site has not yet been proven to be viable based on
the need for accurate geotechnical analysis required by the Applicant, and because there is no
actual representation of any kind provided by the Applicant as to the style or image of the home
to be built that in turn would allow for a comparative market analysis. Regarding photo-
composite images, it is not refuted, it was not provided, and a preliminary plat was sent for
adoption and approval. Furthermore, the Appellants request that the Board also consider the
likely results of a conditional probability or decision-tree analysis, specifically to determine the
probability of success. This means the probability that the site is buildable, finding a builder, that
the builder can complete the project profitably without walking away or creating harm, as well as
the probability of what could be built would meet the same level of market values as the
surrounding homes. Those two things would be methods by which they could determine whether
the surrounding area would be depreciated. The above arguments are directly relevant under the
zoning Ordinance by the City’s own admission and mandate the Board to accept the appeal and
reverse the Planning Commission adoption of the July 19, 2022 Applicant proposal. Mr. Mozina
noted an additional allegation not present in the narrative, going forward this will be called item
“w”, it is alleged that Commissioner Erik Johnson, a Planning Commissioner, had a potential
conflict of interest which he did not disclose, in terms of his prior employment with Haugo
Geotechnical Services. By not disclosing that potential conflict of interest the Appellant believes
his vote, and the entire vote of the Commission present should be voided. Haugo’s work was
clearly deficient as indicated by the Watershed and the Task Force. Mr. Mozina asked
Commissioner Johnson if this is humorous.
Commissioner Johnson replied in the negative.
Mr. Mozina noted he would go to one of the sections that talks about misdemeanors in the
enforcement of these odes. Mr. Mozina continued saying according to Mr. Seidl, the
geotechnical work is required to prove the viability of the building site. It is also noted by the
Appellant that the number of companies in the local area that specialize and provide
employment, in the field of geotechnical engineering is limited. The City requires the resumes of
all prospective Planning Commissioners; therefore the City knew or should have known that a
potential conflict of interest existed. Commissioner Johnson should have recused himself but he
did not. It is therefore alleged that the vote is invalid. An excerpt from Commissioner Johnson’s
LinkedIn page was shown.
Chair von Oven asked Mr. Mozina if he will be adding additional comments to the packet sent to
the City or whether he will be reading from the packet the rest of his allowed time. Does Mr.
Mozina have anything to add beyond what has already been submitted in the packet?
180
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
27
Mr. Mozina does not believe that there is. He continued saying traffic generation by the
proposed use within the zoning district is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The
Appellant alleges that there are two streets in question but only one was talked about which was
the private street. The packet received also described a 7-foot right-of-way that the Applicant
was proposing to provide on Lake Lucy Road. The first private street requires and does not
currently meet traffic requirements for emergency vehicles as required in section 18.57.U. There
appears to be a component of the Applicant’s proposal that related to Lake Lucy Road, which
cannot receive collector street designation under Section 20-5 to be designated as a collector
street and in certain situations qualify for federal maintenance assistance. The last remaining
right-of-way of 7 feet is required fronting the Morin property. Mr. Mozina spoke about process
noting overlap between Section 20-5 and Section 18-57: one talks about collector streets, and
one talks about the amount of right-of-way required. He asked them to see how the Section 20
zoning and Section 18 integrate with one another and noted it is important to recognize that and
that the current Section 20-5 is actually incorrect. Because this right-of-way does not exist on the
Morin property stretch of land, City Ordinance as documented right now is incorrect and Lake
Lucy Road is not a collector street. That whole process requires investigation and an answer as to
the exact motivation with respect to the granting and deeding of that 7-foot right-of-way. Mr.
Mozina’s allegation is normally when someone is going to deed something it needs to be
accepted and recorded. It is a decision and was included in the packet. In looking at the Minutes
and in the video when the Commissioners asked what they were voting on that night, they did
not vote on adopting the acceptance of a deed, it was never mentioned, the road was not
discussed, the right-of-way was not discussed in the Minutes nor in the video. He asked if the
Commissioners realized they were accepting that?
Commissioner Schwartz noted it is irrelevant at this point in time.
Mr. Mozina continued saying it is alleged that the summary of the requests for the Planning
Commission to adopt on July 19, 2022 was incomplete, therefore erroneous and requiring
reversal and/or revocation of the adopted 1441 proposal. Specifically, the Appellant alleges that
the Applicant’s deeding of a dedicated 7 foot right-of-way to provide for a consistent right-of-
way width along Lake Lucy Road, requires an approval to record that deed on behalf of the City.
This deeding would directly impact collector streets as reflected in Zoning Ordinance Section
20-5 and it is alleged that the City Ordinance is currently inaccurate because it lists Lake Lucy
Road as a collector street when without the deeded right-of-way, the Appellant alleges it is not.
Mr. Mozina stated in Section 18-57 for right-of-way measurements they will see that 7 feet is
required in order to get the 80 feet required. He spoke about a series of email exchanges between
himself and Ms. Aanenson and he asked if the right-of-way deeded by the Morins to the City
survives if the City Council denies the subdivision zoning application? He stated, no it does not.
Does the City potentially lose out on anything of value now or in the future if the City does not
get the right-of-way from the Morins? The response is if the City has to acquire it in the future,
they would likely have to pay for it. The Appellant’s concern is that there needs to be
consideration, investigation, and a documented response as to why an investor would give
something away unless value was received from that, and whose expense was that value created
by? Mr. Mozina spoke about the allegation on inaccurate soil report indicating soil conditions.
He stated it is simply inappropriate for the City to make this recommendation or suggested
181
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
28
action. He stated the actions and activities of the City Staff are what has given rise to this very
appeal. They are accepting a recommendation to dismiss this from the very group for which the
Appellant believes the birthing of the Findings of Fact created errors. Of course, the City Staff
can defend itself, and Mr. Mozina shared they live in a beautiful City and Ms. Aanenson is
responsible for that in a large degree over thirty years. That does not mean Mr. Mozina cannot
credibly challenge her. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Board to vote on this tonight
much less vote on the recommendation from the staff in question as it would be in direct conflict
of the purpose and intent of Section 20-5 and the appeal process. It would put in jeopardy any
semblance of impartiality of this Board of Appeals which is designed as a check and balance and
to act independently in listening to and evaluating the facts of the allegation of this hearing. The
Appellant respectfully requests that in all fairness to all stakeholders and in keeping with the
intent of Section 20-29 that this Board take a prudent amount of time as allotted to investigate,
compose, and render a truly independent response to this appeal. They have 15 days, and the
response is in turn appealable to the City Council as mentioned by the Chair at the beginning.
The Appellant tonight can appeal to the City Council even before they look at what was adopted
on July 19, 2022. The appeal process objectively says that all of this discussion is relevant
tonight and the Board can make a decision not to go forward in sending to the City Council
something where there was a vote with a potential conflict of interest and where there was a
right-of-way granted without true transparency of any conversation whatsoever. Mr. Mozina
stated the City Staff nor the Board of Appeals has actually heard the full appeal yet and asked
how can they adopt a recommendation based on the narrative of appeal when they have never
heard the appeal? The responsibility of the Board is to hear the whole appeal dispassionately but
with extreme passion as a trier of fact and a check and balance. Previously they may have
mistaken his passion as feelings or emotions. As Mr. Giacchetti stated, this is not about being
resistant to change, this is about understanding how change should happen properly in a country
that is governed by the rule of law and by Ordinances which are all there for a purpose. The
passion comes from the Appellant feeling like they were being ignored. In looking at the
responses from Ms. Aanenson answering all pertinent questions; that was not the question. The
Appellant sent a document with 130 questions and nobody answered them. Mr. Mozina asked
when is the Applicant responsible for holding a public meeting? In the zoning section there are
two parts and Ms. Aanenson showed part b. Under the zoning Code the Applicant is required
under the Zoning Code and Chapter 18 to hold a meeting with the public prior to the public
hearing. He noted they violated that and actually committed a misdemeanor under Section 18 by
not holding a public meeting. What did they do afterwards? On July 26, 2022 they called a
meeting. Mr. Mozina showed a chart on screen noting he feels this one is important as they keep
thinking this check and balance can be something further down the line. He gave an analogy in
keeping with building, noting if one puts a foundation down building Code requires an
inspection of the foundation before they start framing. He asked should they condition the
foundation levelness until the final inspection? Mr. Mozina asked can they condition an accurate
soil sample and put it into the final plat section of the process when it is required in the
preliminary plat? That is like doing the foundation inspection while the framers are framing. The
way the Statues are written, they are risk-averse, they must do things now otherwise they cannot
move forward. For engineering people there are requirements to hit a milestone and if one does
not hit those they must go back to the beginning. Mr. Mozina also wants to highlight the joint
stakeholder analysis noting one person missing is the people that are the checks and balances to
the process. The way City Staff, Planning Commission, Board of Appeals, Applicant, and other
182
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
29
citizens all have to get involved as stakeholders. He noted they are here appealing tonight
because they feel this should not be sent to the City Council because of all the errors they are
pointing out right now. He asked to send it back and not send it forward. Mr. Mozina stated once
it goes to the City Council everything takes on a different dimension of cost for him as a
taxpayer. Appealing to a district court gets expensive quickly and all of a sudden one is out
$10,000 just asking an Attorney to read 3,000 pages of information. Mr. Mozina stated this is the
time for “us as taxpayers,” for their appeal to be heard. Every step the Board sends it forward
costs more money and more time. He is 62 and does not have 30 more Labor Day weekends left.
Chairman Chair von Oven closed the public hearing.
Chair von Oven thanked them for their passion tonight noting they all may have disagreed on
different things and he appreciates people staying patient with the process and staying with it.
He asked if any fellow Commissioners have comments to offer up.
Commissioner Schwartz thanked the Appellants for their presentation and wants to be sure they
do not mistake his position on why they are here tonight as a dismissal of the concerns and
allegations. In his mind they are two very distinctly separate issues and he is not dismissive of
those concerns and has no intention of minimizing them.
Commissioner Schwartz made one correction to a statement that was made noting the
Commission did not approve the 1441 Lake Lucy Road proposal as indicated. The other concern
regarding a potential conflict of interest, he will not judge that one way or the other, but the vote
was unanimous and even if Commissioner Johnson had recused himself it would not have
changed the outcome. In his mind, the question is whether any of these allegations relate to or
impact the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council to subdivide a single lot into two
lots? In Commissioner Schwartz’s view, all these allegations tonight have no bearing on what is
before the City Council and until they act on the recommendation, this appeal is inappropriate
and ahead of its time. Again, he said that does not mean the concerns aren’t valid and should not
be presented. The Commissioners are bound by order and process just as staff and City Council
are but until the City Council makes a decision, the recommendation to subdivide one lot into
two, the information is interesting, but he does not what bearing it has.
Commissioner Alto asked to add in terms of the conflict of interest, they are all volunteers but
also took an Oath of Office and swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and
the United States. They regularly recuse themselves from cases where they know there is a
conflict of interest and that is a practice the Commissioners regularly honor.
Chair von Oven noted there is passion and then there is anger. He recognizes this group is
passionate and stated Chanhassen has a pretty fantastic City Staff and fellow Commissioners. He
stated that was uncalled for and he recognizes that people are angry. There is one debatable
allegation presented tonight that is not part of what we are here to decide tonight. Chair von
Oven appreciates the appeal to include it in there, however the document, when he signs it at the
end of the meetings needs to speak to what he believes about what is on the sheet. This is why he
was so very adamant about the Appellant pointing out if there is some new finding in the large
packet sent earlier in the evening that is part of what they are here to decide tonight. Then he
183
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
30
could stand beside it because he has to put his signature next to it. Chair von Oven has poured
through the allegations to see if some of the debatable things brought up tonight are truly in here
and he stated they are just not. If they were, the Appellant would have his appeal and he would
look at it and say yes, that has something that is either against a finding but he cannot go through
the allegations presented to Chair von Oven in the context of this meeting and say he disagrees
with the findings of City Staff. Will some of what comes through this packet bubble up through
City Council and will there be another appeal very focused on one thing that can then be debated
by this body? Chair von Oven thinks very possibly, maybe; however, it is not in here right now
for him. He loves the analogy of the foundation, but the foundation does not even get poured
until the plan is approved which is one of Chair von Oven’s checks and balances. Until all the
things that the Appellant is worried about are proven that the plan has solved the puzzle, the
foundation does not get poured. The City does not waste all this money, nor does the developer.
The only thing they might waste (although he does not think this is a waste) would be time with
the City Council discussing what was shared with them as the recommendation and what else is
provided to them in the context of this.
Commissioner Noyes stated the first thing he is going to do is stand up for Commissioner
Johnson noting he does not have a conflict of interest, he has relevant experience. It is nothing
less, nothing more. Commissioner Noyes appreciates all the information put together by the
Appellant and appreciates the fact that they took the opportunity to use a public forum to get
their information out. He would do the same thing if he had the passion for a project. However,
as his fellow Commissioners have stated, much of it is not relevant for where they are in this
stage. Commissioner Noyes said the Appellants are kind of ignoring or minimizing what this
process is about. They keep going back to new things and their experts and their opinions trying
to sway the Commissioners to make a change. He stated if they were talking about some of this
stuff down the road, Commissioner Noyes would be asking a lot of really pertinent questions, but
it is not relevant to where they are. Commissioner Noyes noted it was a lot of great discussion
but cannot stop this process because the Appellant brought all their opinions out and he is
supposed to take those as facts. He said they are trying to tell him that what the City has put
together is misrepresentation of facts and Commissioner Noyes does not know that the
Appellant’s isn’t. That is not the agenda for today and he is okay talking about it but thinks they
need to focus on how to move forward. Commissioner Noyes noted the Appellants will get a lot
of opportunity to talk about this repeatedly, if things don’t line up, if there are water issues, if
there is a holding pond issue; that will not be signed off arbitrarily. There will be more
discussion about it and Commissioner Noyes has confidence in this process and has confidence
the Appellants’ concerns will be heard. However for this appeal tonight, most of what was talked
about is outside the scope of what was decided on July 19, 2022.
Commissioner Johnson agrees with Chair von Oven and Commissioner Noyes’ points.
Regarding the conflict of interest, Commissioner Johnson strongly disagrees noting it was a
company he worked for 10 years ago, he has no affiliation, and this is totally false.
Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Planning
Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the appeal and adopts
the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
184
Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022
31
GENERAL BUSINESS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 16, 2022
Commissioner Noyes noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated August 16, 2022 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE:
Ms. Aanenson reminded everyone on September 13 at 5:30 p.m. they will be holding a
discussion with a focus on City Hall which will meet in the Senior Center. She asked everyone to
bring their thinking caps.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Alto moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 10:41 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
185
Planning Commission Item
September 20, 2022
Item Training - Traffic Safety Committee
File No.Item No: I.1
Agenda Section OPEN DISCUSSION
Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
186
Traffic Safety Committee Presentation
187
Planning Commission Presentation
September 20, 2022
188
Overview
•Who are the members of the TSC?
•What is the TSC?
•Why have a TSC?
•A Year in review –cases and their impacts
189
Who are the members of the TSC?
“The TSC’s membership ensures that a broad spectrum of City
offices, in all its diversity, is reasonably represented…”
Departments –Public Works, Planning, Engineering, Carver County Sherriff,
Administration… and now Parks!
•Charles Howley –Public Works Director/City
Engineer
•Charlie Burke –Public Works Operations
Manager
•Bob Generous –Senior Planner
•Lt. Lance Pearce –Carver County
•George Bender –Assistant City Engineer
•Priya Tandon –Recreational Supervisor
•Stacy Osen –Support Specialist
•Erik Henricksen –Project Engineer
Meetings are held monthly between 1:30-3:00 PM, allowing enough time for each
months’ cases to be addressed.
190
What is the TSC?
“The TSC is an administrative committee intended to provide recommendations for the betterment of traffic safety and the proper management of City roads and right-of-ways (pedestrian and bicycle facilities included)…”
•Recommend –can recommend the installation of traffic control devices and other
improvements based on findings from studies and/or adequate justification (e.g. federal or
state safety standards) to promote traffic safety.
•Study and Investigate –the TSC can recommend traffic studies to address concerns
including speeding, signage/traffic controls, traffic calming, crosswalks & pedestrian safety,
parking, and traffic safety hazards.
•Development and Management -can develop recommendations for guidelines, policies
and programs to promote traffic safety and the proper management of City roads and
right-of-ways.
•Education –can prepare and distribute guidelines, policies, and programs regarding traffic,
transportation planning, and best practices to promote safety and the well-being of the
Chanhassen community.
191
Why have a TSC?
“The TSC acts as the body responsible for addressing all traffic and transportation related concerns…”
•Consistency –While each concern and complaint is unique, most address commonly perceived issues such as speeding, traffic control devices, signage, etc. Each case should be evaluated using consistent guidelines, even though the results may differ case-to-case. Communication of city practice and policies is also consistent.
•A Central Location for Data Tracking and Metrics –the “Traffic Concern Tracker” tracks all reported traffic safety concerns to staff. Concerns are brought to staff's attention via telephone calls, e-mails, walk-ins or the “Request Tracker” (website). The tracker’s meta data can be used to help the City evaluate issues city-wide, for example:
•Immediate vs. Consistent Concerns –It provides the community an avenue to voice safety concerns that may not warrant a call to enforcement/911 (immediate), e.g. an intersection with poor site lines making drivers/pedestrians feel unsafe.
The most frequent cases
•Crosswalks & Pedestrians 30% (-7%)
•Signage 29% (-3%)
•Speeding 26% (+15%)
•Other Concerns 15% (-3%)
(±%) is difference from last years frequent cases
192
A Year in Review: Cases & Their Impact
•Policy Development –The TSC has nearly completed the development of the City’s first
crosswalk policy which defines warrants and thresholds for a crosswalk improvement and
what crosswalk treatments to use if improvement is warranted (Asset Management).
•See Click Fix –“Traffic Concerns” has been integrated into SCF with the new website roll-
out making it easier and more convenient for residents to have potential traffic concerns
addressed (Communications & Operational Excellence).
•“Slow Down, Please.” Campaign –An educational campaign was created for when a
speeding concern is determined to be ‘neighborhood’ related. The campaign implements
post cards and temporary signage to remind a neighborhood of safe driving habits
(Communications).
•Signage Assessments –Multiple signage assessments have been conducted based on
received cases including evaluation of “No Parking” signage and associated resolutions,
speed limit sign locations, stop sign and yield sign evaluations (Asset Management).
•Speed Trailer Deployment –The TSC developed a continually rotating schedule, spring
through fall, to deploy the speed trailer along major collectors. (Operational Excellence)
193
194
Planning Commission Item
September 20, 2022
Item Training - Development Review Procedures
File No.Item No: I.2
Agenda Section OPEN DISCUSSION
Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
195
Site Plan Review Process September 20, 2022
196
SITE PLAN REVIEW
PROCESS
Planning Commission
September 20, 2022
197
Meeting with applicant
Submit application –10
days to determine if
complete
Jurisdictional Review-
Notification
Generate Staff Report Site Plan agreement is
prepared
Conditions of approval
documentation are
reviewed to ensure
compliance
City Council Review
Public Hearing at the
Planning Commission
Security $ is required for
some improvements,
landscaping, public
utilities, storm water,
etc.
Submittal of building
permit
Staff / departments
reviews plans to ensure
that they match
conditions of approval
and site plan agreement
After permit is issued
inspection continuation
until the project satisfies
the conditions of
approval
198
Planning Commission Item
September 20, 2022
Item City Council Action Update
File No.Item No: I.3
Agenda Section OPEN DISCUSSION
Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
199
City Council Action Update
200
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
-Ordinance - RSI Marine, 10500 and 10520 Great Plains Boulevard: Consider a Request for Rezoning to
Planned Unit Development with Site Plan, Consolidation of Lots, and Variances – APPROVED
-Ordinance – Avienda Amend the PUD - 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.
201