Loading...
09.02.2025 PC MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead, Dave Grover, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Rachel Jeske, Planner; and Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Deena Laugen Pioneer Trail Joy Gora Chanhassen, MN Linda Boerboom 2020 Clover Court Eric Reiners Eden Prairie, MN Logan Stein Plymouth, MN Andrew Altstatt Lakeville, MN C Henson Prior Lake, MN Scot Lacek Chanhassen, MN PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER A VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 3630 HICKORY ROAD (PLANNING CASE #25-13) Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, reviewed Planning Case #2025-13 for rebuilding a garage at 3630 Hickory Road. She stated that the location was in the Red Cedar Point Neighborhood and was zoned residential single-family with a low-density residential land use. She noted specific lot attributes, including that it was 0.24 acres, 40 feet wide, bisected by Hickory Road, and was platted in 1913. She noted that the lot size is smaller than what is required by today’s standards. She explained the layout of the proposed garage, which would take the place of the existing garage. The expansion portion beyond what currently exists results in a variance that needs to be approved in order for the garage to be constructed as proposed. She said that the side setbacks were the same as the current setbacks. She reviewed the variance criteria and stated that the proposed garage met the criteria. Commissioner Jobe asked about the ten-foot drop on the topographical and if there would be any special landscaping built into the plan. Mrs. Arsenault answered that topographical changes Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 2 would be addressed in the building plans, but any structures with the variance would have to meet the setbacks proposed in this variance plan. Chairman Noyes said that the owner is doing what they can reasonably do with the property, so the proposal seems the best way to go about it. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested decreased side yard setbacks, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 2. CONSIDER A SITE PLAN AND VARIANCE FOR A MEMORY CARE FACILITY AT 1620 ARBORETUM BLV (#25-10) Rachel Jeske, Planner, stated that Planning Case #2025-10 would go before the Planning Commission tonight and the City Council on September 22. She stated that the proposed development location is zoned high-density residential now and in the 2040 Land Use Guidance. She stated that the Moments of Chanhassen project was approved in January 2020, and the Eden Springs proposal was applied for in August 2025. She reviewed the proposed communications, including the proposed development sign placed on the property, an email sent on various dates to the proposed development's email group, postcards sent to neighbors within 500 feet, and a public hearing notice posted in the Sun Sailor. Ms. Jeske summarized the level of city discretion in approving or denying a site plan and noted that it was a quasi-judicial decision. She reviewed the definition of a continuing care facility and the standards required by the city. She noted the proposed architecture and the landscaping and stated that the planting plan did not meet the planting diversity requirements and would need to be updated before final construction plan approval. She commented that the proposed lighting plan meets the standards, and the proposed light pole height was less than 35 feet. She commented that the project requested a variance for the front yard parking setback and the wetland setback. She stated that the applicant proposed 30 parking spaces, including two garage stalls. She reviewed the variance standards and provided additional details about the variance requests. She noted that Riley Creek was located along the northern edge of the site, and that a reasonable solution was to average the buffer around the wetlands and reduce the setback in return. The second variance request was the reduced parking setback, and the applicant noted that they would provide adequate screening to accomplish the intent of the ordinance, but the wetland made it difficult to meet the 25-foot setback in the front of the property. She provided an overview of the utilities and stated that sanitary and water main services were located adjacent to the site. She commented that staff would require the water main to be looped within the site Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 3 rather than accessing it in two separate locations. She stated the project would be required to connect to the sewer line in the adjacent city right-of-way if an easement is not acquired. Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer, stated that the site is currently undeveloped and is similar to an open prairie with a wooded area. He stated that a majority of the site runoff went directly into Riley Creek, and some of the runoff on the southern end of the project made its way to West 78th Street. He stated that there was one jurisdictional wetland onsite near the center of the site, which made development difficult. He stated that it was a managed type two and that the wetland and creek buffer was in poor condition because of debris and buckthorn. He stated that the project would maintain the major flow patterns and that there would be 58,000 square feet of new impervious area. He stated that the project would meet stormwater requirements for abstraction, rate control, and water quality by means of the filtration system and the jellyfish filter system. He commented that a wetland delineation was approved in May 2025, which found that there were 0.08 acres of a type 1/2 wetland adjacent and upgradient to Riley Creek. He stated that due to the site constraints, the applicant proposed placing the building within the wetland building setback. He stated that the proposed plans show a minimum buffer associated with a managed two-wetland classification, and the building and sidewalks were well within the 30-foot setback measured from the buffer edge, which requires a variance. He stated that the wetland delineators go out and determine the wetland line, and the Technical Evaluation Panel reviews the information. He said that the Water Resource department recommends an enhanced buffer reestablishment plan, which meets City Code 20-412, and the plan does have notes to the effect within the plan set. Ms. Jeske said that the site plan meets all the requirements for the site plan review. Commissioner Rosengren asked them to indicate where the back edge of the building would be. Mr. Seidl explained that the back end of the building would sit near a specific contour. Commissioner Jobe asked about City Code and water, and if they would use a retention pond for stormwater management, and if they would require or allow any fencing. He specifically referred to an individual with dementia entering the pond. Mr. Seidl said that it was a filtration basin; it should be dry most of the time, but a fence or other landscaping could be allowed by City Code. Commissioner Soller asked if there were additional requirements that the site would have to meet for the watershed district. Mr. Seidl responded that the site received conditional approval from the watershed district. He said that the watershed district had similar buffer requirements but allowed more averaging. He stated that the watershed district did not have any setback requirements, but the city does, which requires a variance. Commissioner Soller asked if averaging was spelled out in City Code to understand what was allowable, or if it was just best practice. Mr. Seidl answered that it was left to staff discretion, but the watershed district had a stricter methodology for the minimum buffer widths. Commissioner Soller asked if, given the trade-off in exchange for the variance, the city would receive a net benefit with the increased quality of the creek and buffer. Mr. Seidl confirmed this information. He said that they manage the impervious area, so they would balance the building Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 4 being close to the wetland and the creek by buffering around the wetland. He said that there were areas outside of the wetland buffer, and they would look to them to establish native vegetation. Chairman Noyes asked about removing the buckthorn and construction debris, if there were any long-term maintenance requirements, and how they would be included. Mr. Seidl said it was discussed and outlined in the City Code. He requires that the applicants follow the MnDOT seeding manual, which provides a maintenance plan of three years for planting, prepping, mowing, and weeding until the establishment is complete. He stated it would be up to the owner of the site to maintain the area to meet the standards of the City Code. He said if the commissioners desired more from the applicant to ensure that it was taken care of, it could be added to the maintenance plan. Commissioner Olmstead asked how access management is regulated by the city. Ms. Jeske answered that the city engineer and the subdivision ordinance provides guidance on access management. Commissioner Olmstead asked who made the final decisions. He voiced concerns about two access points on a 40-mile-per-hour road, but it is coming from a controlled intersection with an all-way stop, and MnDOT did not express concerns about the plan. He said he was excited about access management, but he was not excited about the access point one hundred feet from a controlled intersection. Ms. Jeske said that the City Engineer determines the final plan. Commissioner Trevena said that they discussed the conditions outlined in the staff report that they want to be a part of the variance, and when they would see the conditions. She asked about the enhanced buffer and the developer’s responsibility. Ms. Jeske said that by approving the variance with the staff’s proposed conditions, they would apply to the variance approval. Commissioner Rosengren noted that this was reviewed and accepted by the city, but if they discovered anything, they are doing better this time around with the requirements and site review, even though the proposal was similar. Ms. Jeske responded that the variance proposals and the way the staff reviewed them were similar, but the staff previously recommended a five- foot wetland setback, when zero was originally proposed, which the new applicant included with their request. Deena Laugen, the applicant, stated that Eden Springs had a purpose to create a small home-like community in a luxury boutique setting. She stated that many people were hesitant when taking the first step to assisted living or memory care. She said it would be a place people can spend time together, building relationships and a community, and they can tailor the care to the individual. She stated that they would feel like it is the resident’s home, and they just work there. She reviewed the two current types assisted living homes in the market, like large apartments and retrofitted homes. She said that Eden Springs would be a different option and would fit the needed middle. She stated that loneliness was present in the elderly population, and individuals would not be isolated in their rooms. She commented that they were designed to spend the day interacting with everybody. She said that they would have a more favorable resident and Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 5 caregiver ratio. She expressed excitement in bringing Eden Springs to Chanhassen to allow residents to experience a city for life. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Joy Gora welcomed Deena Laugen to the industry. She wished her the best of luck and noted that there were a lot of rules and requirements. She stated that their industry always had staff shortages. She said that there are 1,900 assisted living homes in Minnesota. She said that people would need to tour multiple places to see the differences. She commented that there are tremendously great individuals in the industry. She said that she would face challenges in Chanhassen. She encouraged that the staff ratio was a quality ratio, so she did not look like a predator in the industry. She thought the location would be a wonderful place to have a dementia unit. She stated that if a dementia client slipped out of the facility, they would likely have a wander guard on the patient. She commented that if they left the facility, they hoped they would receive support from the sheriff’s department to locate the client. Linda Boerboom, 2020 Clover Court, stated that she traveled the frontage road every day. She expressed concerns about dementia with the street out there and if there would be any safeguards put in place to protect the drivers on the road and the residents. She asked if they would need gates or to reduce speed in that area. She expressed concern because they have winters in Minnesota, so there could be ice. She commented that the plot of land was very small. She said she wanted to look at safety. Deena Laugen mentioned on the site plan in the back, there would be gates with locks, along with locks on any exterior door. She stated that there was constant improvement with AI to keep residents safe while maintaining their rights. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Olmstead stated as they saw additional development and traffic demand on the roadways, they had an approach to assess the traffic and roadways. He asked about traffic control, such as four-way stops. Ms. Jeske said that all accesses are considered by the engineering team during a development proposal. She said a resident could submit concerns to the traffic safety committee about specific intersections. She stated that there were city-wide initiatives, such as speed limits. She said it was determined on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Seidl commented that there were engineering standards for sightlines and intersections for safe travel on roadways. He said there was traffic counting to see if a roadway could handle the amount of traffic proposed. He stated that the engineering department is looking at these with each development. He commented that they are looking at these things to make sure they do not impede traffic and that residents stay safe. Commissioner Soller stated that as development happens, roadways will get busier. He commented that certain areas of the city meet engineering standards, but not the expectations of residents who want to live in a safe and quiet neighborhood. He wants to understand the process. Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 6 Commissioner Grover said that there was a large area that was farmland west of the property. He asked about what uses were allowed for the area and if this was compatible with other developments that might occur. Ms. Jeske said that the 2040 comprehensive plan was guided for residential and housing, but it would be dependent on the landowner. She said that the guidance could change in the future. Chairman Noyes commented that they received three emailed public comments about the case. He summarized the first, which thought that the development was too close to Lake Ann Park, another that said the cost of memory care was too high, and the third wanted a golf course. He stated that the Planning Commission had to make sure the site plan and variances met the requirements of the city code. He commented that they were not here to make a judgment on the good or bad of the proposal. Commissioner Soller stated that any project that would have a traffic impact or impact on pedestrians, he asked if they could highlight whether this project would provide a net or neutral benefit to pedestrian access along the road. Ms. Jeske responded that the additions would be two driveways and additional landscaping. She said it was a net neutral benefit to pedestrians. Commissioner Soller clarified that both access points would have a pedestrian crosswalk through the access point. Ms. Jeske confirmed they will likely have crosswalks across them. Commissioner Soller asked if this was a requirement in the City Code. Ms. Jeske answered that it was up to the discretion of the engineering department. Commissioner Rosengren said a similar plan was previously approved. Chairman Noyes asked if they needed to have a written-out condition related to the landscaping maintenance plan. Ms. Jeske answered that the water resources department did a good job with their plans but asked for feedback from Mr. Seidl. Mr. Seidl answered that the watershed district required a buffer management plan, so he thought they would be covered. He did not see an issue with the applicant since they have to work with the watershed district. Commissioner Olmstead moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approve the requested variances and recommended approval of the requested site plan for the 42-bed Eden Springs Assisted Living & Memory Care facility, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0, with Commissioner Jobe abstaining from this item. GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR A CONTRACTOR’S YARD AT 1591 PARK ROAD Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 7 Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, reviewed Planning Case #2024-09, which is requesting an extension to the conditional use permit for a contractor’s yard at 1591 Park Road. She stated that the new owner purchased the property in the winter and was working through the stormwater management plan to move on to the permit to install stormwater management, gutters, and paving. She stated that the lapse condition was nearing for the conditional use permit and that the staff recommends a one-year extension to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council grant the proposed conditional use permit extension for the contracting yard at 1591 Park Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 12, 2025 Commissioner Soller moved, and Commissioner Grover seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated August 12, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, stated that the city remains on schedule to move into the new City Hall building, so the September 16 meeting will likely be held in the new City Hall. Chairman Noyes asked about a picture of the Planning Commission in the new meeting. Mr. Maass asked if all were available, and if not, they would target the first meeting in October for a photograph. Commissioner Jobe asked when the city approves a site plan with tree covers and a mature tree was damaged and was likely to die, what would happen. Mr. Maass responded that they require a grading fence and a tree save fence to protect the root area of the tree from grading activities. He said that if grading activities occur outside of where it was supposed to be or the fencing is not installed and trees that were required to be saved are removed, then the development contract stipulates penalties such as replanting at a two-to-one ratio. Commissioner Soller asked if there was an agenda for the September 16 meeting. Mr. Maass confirmed the information. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. OPEN DISCUSSION: None. Planning Commission Minutes – September 2, 2025 8 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Trevena 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 7:10 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director