Loading...
08.12.2025 PC MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 12, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Vice Chair Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead, Dave Grover, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Rachel Jeske, Planner; Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer; Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Grant Griffin 514 Del Rio Drive Martha Noel 7214 Frontier Trail Chanhassen Youth Chanhassen, MN Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Gary Hansen 7920 Kerber Boulevard Ginger Hansen Schafer 5016 Newton Avenue South Rebecca Pederson Laredo Lane John Dragseth 2600 Forest Avenue Jackie McCarthy 513 Del Rio Drive Kim Behrens Minnetonka, MN Josh McKinney Plymouth, MN Ryan Saller Bloomington, MN Bjorn Sternmen Bloomington, MN Susan Sautor Chanhassen MN PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Santa Vera Phase II Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 25-07) Rachel Jeske, Planner, said that the Planning Case was scheduled to go to the City Council on August 25, 2025. She reviewed the process, noting that the staff would give a presentation, the Planning Commission would discuss, the applicant would present, the Planning Commission could have additional discussion, they would have a public hearing, and the Planning Commission could make their decision. Ms. Jeske said that the current zoning designation was a part of the Saratoga 3rd Addition, and it is guided for Residential High Density and Public/Semi-Public. She provided images of the July Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2025 2 2022 Concept, April 2025 Concept, and the current Application Site Plan. She commented that the Site Plan addressed public comments, such as the reduced number of units, lowered building height, added sidewalk along Santa Vera and Saratoga, added fencing around the east side of the stormwater pond adjacent to the sidewalk, and the architecture to be more comparable to adjacent homes. She summarized the communications, including the neighborhood meeting on April 9, an updated mailing on July 28, City Council work sessions on February 10, May 5, and June 9. She stated an email was sent to the proposed developments email group on July 24 and August 7. She shared that postcards were sent to neighbors within 500 feet and an additional expanded area on July 30, and a Public Hearing Notice was posted in the Sun Sailor on July 31. She commented that a Proposed Development Sign was placed on the property on July 23, 2025. Ms. Jeske said that the city had discretion in approving or denying Planned Unit Development Amendments because they are acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity, but it was limited to whether or not the proposed project complied with zoning ordinance requirements. She reviewed the Planned Zoning Amendment for the proposed exterior building materials, which stated that the acceptable exterior materials should be limited to lap siding, face brick, stucco, wood, rock face block, or stone. Buildings may have metal accents, but metal accents may exceed fifteen percent of the building's elevations. She said that the applicant requested that landscaping be an option for mechanical screening materials, especially with the development of ground unit air conditioning units. She summarized the parking setbacks, which had the current minimum feet requirement of fifty. She said the proposal was to require a minimum setback of thirty feet for Laredo Drive, twenty feet for Saratoga Drive, thirty feet for Santa Vera Drive, and twenty feet for the Interior Lot Line. She said that the setback for Saratoga Drive would align the existing building with the Planned Unit Development, because the existing parking lot has just over a twenty-one-foot setback. She said that the staff believed it was a reasonable request. She reviewed the standards to be met for a site plan to be reviewed. She said that the site plan included two new apartment buildings south of the existing 18-unit building, and the planned unit development currently allows for a total of 46 housing units on the property. Ms. Jeske commented that the staff received questions on whether the buildings are apartments. She affirmed that based on the definitions of the City Code, the units would be deemed a multi- family dwelling. She reviewed the architecture plan and said there were exterior doors and garages and that the proposed materials were stone, cedar timber, lap siding, and board and batten siding. She said that the proposed landscaping plan would add 47 trees, 179 shrubs, and 227 perennials, and the landscaper would save 35 trees. She said that the buffer yard requirement appeared to be met. She stated that the air conditioning units were to be screened by landscaping. She said that light posts were limited to twenty feet in height and they should not have a cut-off angle of no greater than 90 degrees. She said that the staff would need a photometric plan to review. She said that if the planned unit development is amended as proposed, it would meet the minimum setbacks and parking standards. She said that the maximum height of the building was 35 feet, and the proposed heights were 26 feet and 1 inch and 28 feet and ten inches. She also noted that due to changes in elevation and retaining walls that the proposed structures would sit in some places up to 6 feet lower than the adjacent park property. She mentioned that the public comment included the desire to see additional sidewalk along Santa Vera and Saratoga Drive, and the staff would work with the applicant to minimize the additional tree loss where possible. Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2025 3 She commented that this project proposed adding a total of 50 parking stalls, 28 of which are enclosed parking stalls and 7 designated guest parking spaces. Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer, said that the applicant completed a traffic study. He said that the traffic study showed Laredo Drive at 1300 ADT, Santa Vera at 700 ADT, and Kerber at 4000 ADT, which was within the capacity thresholds. He said that the traffic split was 60 percent via Laredo and 40 percent via Santa Vera. He said that the staff wants the applicant to complete a sight line review for all access points and update construction plans as needed. He said that the utilities would be connected at Laredo Drive, and the Public water main loop would connect Laredo Drive to Santa Vera Drive. Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer, discussed the existing conditions of the site, which was a mix of woods, gravel, impervious area, and managed turf grass. He said that the stormwater generally flows from west to east, and the site is fairly steep. The majority of surface runoff is collected in a storm sewer system at a low point on Laredo Drive and conveyed via storm sewer and best management practices. He said that there were no existing onsite best management practices, but there was a wetland delineation in 2017 that showed a small depression area that received an incidental wetland decision. He said that the surrounding areas were built out in the 1960s and 1970s, when there was less stormwater treatment being mandated, which was why the existing apartment complex does not have an onsite best management practice to treat stormwater generated, resulting in there being limited opportunities for stormwater treatment and the existing stormwater facilities being undersized. He provided an example of the 2024 Street Rehabilitation Project, which was not the ideal approach. He said that the city attempts to partner with developers to build larger best management practice systems that the city would own and maintain. He said that a regional best management practice would be difficult with the current design based on the location and elevation, and where the need is for stormwater management. He said that the private best management practices owned and operated by the developer and passed on to the owner of the property would be the best fit. He said that the site was designed to treat stormwater from the existing apartment buildings because they had to bring the entire site into compliance with water quality standards, which would alleviate the stress on the downstream stormwater system. He said that the area would be mass graded to facilitate the development and construction of the apartment complex, utilities, parking lots, and stormwater management systems. He said that the proposed design utilized two stormwater wet basins to provide rate control, water quality, and promote natural infiltration of water. He commented that there needs to be design changes to confirm that the freeboard requirements would be met. Ms. Jeske said that the proposed site plan project was consistent with the city’s development guides, including the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and followed the required process and was consistent with the site plan review requirements. She commented that the site plan, as designed, places the proposed building and associated improvements in a way that mitigates impacts to existing natural features of the property, and the proposed project locates the proposed buildings to avoid practical impacts to existing trees and away from adjacent single-family residential properties. She stated that the proposed project locates the proposed improvements in a practical manner that creates a harmonious design between building, parking, drive aisles, and site constraints. She commented that the proposed project is designed to manage drainage, buffering, and reasonable preservation for light and air. She stated that the proposed project is not within Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2025 4 the Highway Corridor Overlay District and was therefore not applicable and was not in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and requirement eight was not applicable. She said that the project was reviewed for additional vehicle trip generation on adjacent roads and intersections, and the city found that an acceptable level of road system service would be maintained. Chairman Noyes asked if vinyl siding was considered lap siding and if it was acceptable in this amendment. Ms. Jeske responded that lap siding referred to standard aluminum siding. Commissioner Jobe asked if all the water runoff was gravitational downstream or if lift stations assisted. Mr. Seidl said that the city used gravity to the maximum extent possible, and it was rare to install lift stations. He had installed two in different cities when it was necessary, but he did not see that to be something needed in Chanhassen. Commissioner Olmstead asked if the trip generation model was relatively low. Mr. Grunig said it was consistent with the design of the plan layout, and he believed it was 4.6 trips per unit. Commissioner Olmstead clarified that the stormwater facilities would be owned by the landowner, and he asked if that would include the sedimentary ponds. Mr. Seidl confirmed that it would be the entire system from the wet ponds to the irrigation systems. Commissioner Trevena said that the planned unit development amendment called for reducing the setback on certain lot lines. She asked for clarification about the original building, and that it was not originally met, but would now be brought into compliance. Ms. Jeske answered that the existing apartment building was built prior to the planned unit development being created. Commissioner Trevena asked if the setback would impact pedestrian comfort or streetscape quality. Ms. Jeske responded that the individual garage doors with driveways made it similar to a single-family home. She said that there were existing trees on Santa Vera. Commissioner Jobe asked if there were concerns about the sewer or water supply. Mr. Grunig said it was consistent with the current water model in the area, and it is designed to have enough capacity for the growth and existing users. He said that it would have adequate capacity. Chairman Noyes asked if the development would fit into the existing setbacks other than the two previous examples. Ms. Jeske responded that there would be a decrease in interior lot lines from fifty to twenty. Chairman Noyes asked if there was any amendment to the building setbacks to fit in with what they would have. Ms. Jeske answered that they fit the existing setbacks. Commissioner Soller discussed E.2, which said that structures should have a pitched roof. He asked if it was an existing language. Ms. Jeske responded that it was an existing requirement; they were just moving it around in the ordinance. Ryan Sailer, Headwaters Development, talked about Santa Vera Phase Two. He reviewed the background of Headwaters Development and said that most of their work is done in the Twin Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2025 5 Cities. He said that they have built over 6,000 units. He commented that they like to own their properties, so they appreciate fostering relationships. He stated that the Santa Vera location had an 18-unit apartment building from 1968 as part of the PUDR – Saratoga 3rd Addition, and the current request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said they had 46 total units planned across three buildings, which included the existing 18-unit building, a new 16-unit building, and a new 12-unit building. He said that they had met with the city multiple times to create the current site plan, and there would be 50.4% site coverage. He commented that the buildings have one-, two-, or three-bedroom units, and the building would be four-sided architecture with end-loaded garages. He stated that each resident would have direct access to their units for safety and privacy and would have an attached garage. He commented that they were willing to upgrade the existing 18-unit building with a new exterior design, updated interiors, enhanced landscaping, and stormwater and drainage upgrades. He said they wanted to pull the new and existing buildings together with ample green space. The units would have specific amenities, such as a patio and balcony, and an in-unit washer and dryer. He reviewed the variety of unit types and rents and said it was a market-rate housing project and noted that some residents in the existing building have been there between fifteen and twenty years, so they want to provide upgrades while keeping the spaces affordable. He summarized the property and noted that it would provide fresh investment into aging and under-utilized property, and it is within walking distance to downtown Chanhassen. Commissioner Soller asked about how the existing units would be upgraded. Mr. Sailer responded that some units had been upgraded already, but they wanted to upgrade the remaining units to include in-house washer and dryer. He did not know if they would update spaces as residents moved out or if they would provide a hotel-type property for residents to temporarily move into while their unit is updated. Commissioner Jobe asked if they would be updating the air conditioning units. Mr. Sailer responded that they would probably stay in-wall currently, based on the costs. Commissioner Gover asked if their rendering showed what the existing building would look like after its renovation. Mr. Sailer responded that they were still trying to figure out how to tie together the design with the existing building through trim and paint. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. A youth from Chanhassen read a story about a tree. She said that if they ripped out the trees to build apartments, they would leave the animals homeless. She commented that the identity of downtown Chanhassen was the trees, and some had been ripped out. She stated that some of the trees near the library had been ripped out. She encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the trees in their discussion. Grant Griffin, 514 Del Rio Drive, said he recently moved in, and they love the quiet neighborhood. He said Laredo Drive seems busier than 60%. He said he appreciated the wooded area since the deer live there. He would love it if his front yard view did not have an 18-unit apartment, but he requested that they plant large trees to screen the apartments. He stated that he would like them to reduce the traffic level in a small space. Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2025 6 Martha Noel, 7214 Frontier Trail, said that the traffic study was on March 25, but if they look at the traffic during the baseball season, it is very busy. She suggested doing another traffic study to improve safety. She stated that the old building has looked like it for a while, and it would be nice to clean the mold. She said they should be able to maintain the current building to make it look more presentable. She stated that the area would be very crammed and would be backed up to an elementary school. She commented that there would be a lot of people by the ball fields and the elementary school, so they would need to consider safety. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive, said she was interested in the development because she lived on Laredo Drive. She asked the city why the development was not assessed as a full amount for the property, and she was told that there were wetlands on the property. She said that the records from 1998, the wetlands were recommended to be delineated. She commented that she went to the Chanhassen City Engineer’s Department and was told that two wetlands had yet to be delineated. She was surprised to hear that something had happened in 2017, because the City Engineer did not have the information. She reviewed the July 11th, 2022, review of the property that stated that two small wetlands needed to be delineated. She commented that the area had been called the Saratoga Third Addition since 1998. She stated that park dedication fees had been mentioned in prior meetings since May 29, 2012. She said that sand trucks dumped sand into the area in the spring, and there was a roadway cut in. She also thought the city put drainage in to drain the wetlands, and there were big issues with a lot of water when they put in the road last year. She requested a new traffic study. Judy Harder, 541 West 78th Street, read a story about taking her pet on a walk to observe things. She said there were no trees and no gibbons, and she cannot go back. She said that the learning garden has provided her with laughter and smiles as she serves as a volunteer for ten weeks. They see many different birds in the woods, which indicates good habitat. She voiced concerns about the tree removal in the landscape plan, with 90 trees planned to be removed. She stated that 40 of the trees planned to be removed were significant in terms of the girth of the trees, which provide benefits for life. She questioned the necessity to take out the trees to put in a stormwater pond and requested additional thought on how to preserve the trees naturally. She said that the tree replacement calculation required twenty-seven new trees of a 2.5-inch caliber, which was a huge discrepancy from the large trees to be removed. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chair Noyes commented that nobody likes to see the removal of trees, but the Planning Commission role is to judge if the proposal meets the ordinance related to tree removal and reforestation of the area. He said that the way the plan was written, the proposal meets the current requirements according to the ordinance. He stated that change would need to be made in the ordinance, not the project. The project complies with the current ordinances and the comprehensive plan. Chair Noyes asked about the comparison of a traffic study completed in March rather than in the summer. Mr. Grunig responded that they would not accept a traffic study that would be done in the summer in the area because of the proximity to the elementary school. They would want a Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2025 7 traffic study completed during the school year. He said that t-ball and other sports were a small window of activities that were hard to account for. He stated that if the concerns were about the intersections that were high traffic during the events, they would see 24 cars being added to those intersections in an hour, so the apartment would have a small impact. Chair Noyes asked how the general traffic on the road would be considered. He said it was a busy road in the evening when the activities were happening, so he wanted to dive deeper than the intersections. Mr. Grunig responded that Laredo Drive had 1300 ADT, and the trip generation would put another 150 cars onto Laredo Drive. He said that Laredo Drive would still fall under the definition of a local street, which is between 3,000 and 4,000 cars a day. Mr. Grunig said that another 105 cars would travel on Santa Vera, which would meet the requirements on an engineering principle. He welcomed how they could improve pedestrian safety. Commissioner Olmstead asked about the speed limit and if it was 30 miles per hour. He asked if they would consider a city-wide speed reduction. Mr. Grunig responded that the City Council heard information about a city-wide speed reduction in the spring, and they elected not to move forward with a speed reduction. Commissioner Trevena clarified that the sidewalk on the south side of Santa Vera was up to the City Council's jurisdiction. Ms. Jeske answered that the staff recommended the sidewalk, but it was up to the City Council to make the decision. Commissioner Soller asked if it was within the purview to include the sidewalk in the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He asked if it would be included in the staff’s recommendation. Ms. Jeske responded that the sidewalk would be included in the staff’s recommendations, but the Planning Commission could call out the sidewalk specifically. She noted that the City Council receives verbatim minutes from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Soller said the Planning Commission had lengthy discussions about the sidewalks over the last three years, so it would be disappointing if it was not included. He did not know if they needed to include a specific call-out. Chair Noyes asked about the comment related to wetlands being on the site or not. Mr. Seidl responded that any new development where there is any chance of a wetland being on-site there is a wetland delineation that is mandated and completed. He said that the applicant would hire a wetland professional who would assess the site and perform soil testing to figure out if there wetlands exist on the property. He commented that the process was done in 2017, and there were two wetlands that were delineated for the project. He stated that the professional would determine if the wetlands were naturally occurring or a man-made project, such as a depression. He explained the no-loss application that asserted that they were man-made wetlands and that they should be non-jurisdictional. These were approved by the City of Chanhassen, and they were reviewed by the Technical Evaluation Panel. He reiterated that he served on the Technical Evaluation Panel, and he works hard to protect wetlands. He provided an example of a man- made wetland, such as a ditch that had water and fill. He commented that the decision was made before his tenure, but he reviewed the information and agreed with the decision. Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2025 8 Commissioner Jobe asked if they looked at different animal species or endangered species when making the decisions. Ms. Jeske responded that it was not a part of their policy or the Department of Natural Resources policy. Commissioner Soller stated he was thinking about what was in the Planning Commission’s purview. He said that the project has gotten more appealing as they have gone on, and he was surprised they were here with the third iteration. He said that every box had been checked based on the purview of the Planning Commission. Chairman Noyes said that there were additional moments for residents to express their opinions to the City Council. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission motions to recommend approval of the requested site plan and amendment to the Saratoga 3rd Addition Planned Unit Development Zoning Ordinance for the construction of two apartment buildings at 621 Santa Vera Drive, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 2. POSTPONED Minnewashta Apartments Rezoning and Site Plan Review (Planning Case #25-11) Eric Maass, Community Development Director, stated that the Minnewashta Apartments project was postponed until the September 16 meeting. Before the meeting, staff and MnDOT will be gathering data related to intersection control relating to the Highway 5 Reconstruction Project. GENERAL BUSINESS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 3, 2025 Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Grover seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated June 3, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: Mr. Maass, updated the Planning Commission that they had agenda items for both meetings in September. He said they would likely take a picture of the Planning Commission in the new building. He commented that Pleasant View Pointe from a few months ago had been recorded, and the construction started on the site. Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2025 9 Commissioner Rosengren asked if there were any current updates to the recreation center besides what Mayor Ryan sent out in her update. Mr. Maass answered that the city staff had a productive conversation with the project partners, including the architect and general contractor, regarding potential design alternatives that were within the stated budget and would provide the building's program elements. He expected to review the alternatives in future meetings. Chairman Noyes asked if there were any substantial changes to the project, whether it would need to go before the City Council, Planning Commission, or the community. Mr. Maass responded that he could check with the legal counsel. Chairman Noyes asked if there were any developments in the Avienda project. Mr. Maass answered that the Avienda Apartments were working on securing their private funding, but they received their permit from the Riley Creek Watershed District. The project is still tracking. Commissioner Olmstead asked the city water resources staff a question. Mr. Seidl answered that he did not have the figures in front of him, but he could find the information. Commissioner Soller asked about the decision to continue through the Nez Perce Connection. Mr. Maass answered that Nez Perce would move forward with the connection. The plat was approved and recorded with the connection made. Commissioner Soller welcomed Mr. Maass back from parental leave. OPEN DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Olmstead moved, Commissioner Grover seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director