10-07-2025 PC Agenda and Packet
A.6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
B.1 Consider a variance for a decreased front yard setback for a proposed attached deck at 6580
Pleasant View Way (Planning Case #25-14)
B.2 Ordinance XXX: Amending Chapter 20 to Modify Standards Associated with Accessory
Structures
C.GENERAL BUSINESS
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 16, 2025
E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
F.1 Heritage Tree Ordinance Discussion
G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
H.OPEN DISCUSSION
I.ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2025
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 9:00 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.
1
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
October 7, 2025
Item Consider a variance for a decreased front yard setback for a proposed attached
deck at 6580 Pleasant View Way (Planning Case #25-14)
File No.Planning Case #25-14 Item No: B.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner
Applicant Property Owner, Joseph Pavelko
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage 0.45 Acres
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article 20-XII “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Chapter 20, Section 20-908, Yard Regulations
Article 20-VII, Shoreland Management District
SUGGESTED ACTION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested decreased front yard
setback, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and
Decision.”
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance for a decreased front yard setback for a proposed attached deck
on the subject property. The encroachment into the front yard setback is 13 feet to accommodate the
proposed 10 x 14-foot deck, allowing for a 17-foot setback.
3
BACKGROUND
This property was platted in 1978 as a part of Larson’s Subdivision. The home was built in 1981, with
the front of the home facing Pleasant View Way, the private access easement entrance to the property.
Pleasant View Road runs along the west side of the property.
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
ATTACHMENTS
Development Application
Applicant Narrative
Survey
Deck Plan
Variance Staff Report
Findings of Fact
Affidavit of Mailing 25-14
Affidavit of Publication 25-14
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Project: Variance Request (Planning Case 2025-14)
Planning Commission Review Date: October 7, 2025
60 Day Action Deadline: November 4, 2025
Drafted By: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner
Staff Report Date: October 1, 2025
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance for a decreased front yard setback for a proposed attached deck
on the subject property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
LOCATION: 6580 Pleasant View Way,
Chanhassen, 55317 (Subject
Property)
APPLICANT/OWNER: Joseph Pavelko
CURRENT ZONING: Residential Single-Family (RSF)
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 0.45 Acres
PROPOSED MOTIONS:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested decreased front
yard setback, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts
and Decision.”
13
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether the proposed project meets
the standards in the zoning ordinance for a variance. The city has a moderate 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.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article 20-XII “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Chapter 20, Section 20-908, Yard Regulations
Article 20-VII, Shoreland Management District
BACKGROUND
This property was platted in 1978 as a part of Larson’s Subdivision. The home was built in 1981, with the
front of the home facing Pleasant View Way, the private access easement entrance to the property.
Pleasant View Road runs along the west side of the property.
ZONING OVERVIEW
14
The survey above identifies the front lot line, front yard, rear lot line, and rear yard, as defined by city
code.
To assist with navigating the proposed variance request, the “rear” of the home faces the front yard as
defined by code. Conversely, the “front,” with the home’s main entrance, faces the rear yard.
The proposed deck is on the “rear” of the home, which must follow the front yard setback. The “front”
of the home, where the home is addressed, must follow the rear yard setbacks.
The “rear” of the home is positioned 26.1 feet from Pleasant View Road; this does not meet the current
code standard of 30 feet. City code requires unenclosed decks to be a minimum of 25 feet from the front
lot line based on the Single-Family Residential code and allowed encroachments into setbacks. The
applicant is proposing a 17-foot setback to the front lot line to construct a 10 x 14-foot deck on the
“rear” of the home.
The “front” of the home is 105 feet from the rear lot line at its closest point. A deck could be built on this
side of the home; however, the home’s floor plan is not suitable for a deck on that side. The proposed
deck on the “rear” of the home is a reasonable and common use in Chanhassen.
PROPOSED DECK
15
ANALYSIS
1. “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.”
The requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and the intent of the chapter
and is found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2. “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.”
The house's positioning on the lot and interior layout create practical difficulties for complying
with the zoning code for the installation of an attached deck on the back of the home, a
reasonable and typical use on a property.
3. “That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.”
The purposes of the variations are not based on economic considerations.
4. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the
landowner.”
The subject property has frontage on Pleasant View Road, which is considered a collector
roadway by the city. Access points onto a collector roadway are limited by the city. As a result, a
private shared drive was established at the time this property was developed. The home was
constructed so that the front of the home faced the side of the property that has vehicle access,
as is typical. This resulted in the rear of the home facing Pleasant View Road, which creates a
unique situation not created by the landowner.
5. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The requested variance is within the keeping of neighboring properties, where attached decks are
a common addition to a home.
6. “Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in M.S. § 216C.06, subd.
14, when in harmony with this chapter.”
The proposed deck is not an earth-sheltered construction and therefore not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the adoption of the
attached findings of fact and action.
16
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested front yard setback variance
for the proposed deck at 6580 Pleasant View Way, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed structure meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may
be required after plan review
2. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) may have an impact on the code
requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to: allowable size, protected
openings, and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete
building and site plans are submitted.
3. 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.
4. A building permit must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site and before
beginning any construction on the site.
5. 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.
6. The location and configuration of the attached deck must substantially conform to what is shown
on the proposed survey by Premier Land Surveying submitted on September 5, 2025, to the city
as a part of Planning Case No. 2025-14.
17
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE:
Application of property owner Joseph Pavelko for a front setback variance on a property zoned
Single Family Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2025-14.
On October 7, 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.
3. The property legal description as described in Exhibit A.
4. 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: The requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and the intent
of the chapter and is found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
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.
Finding: The house's positioning on the lot and interior layout create practical difficulties
for complying with the zoning code for the installation of an attached deck on the back of
the home, a reasonable and typical use on a property.
18
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purposes of the variations are not based on economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The subject property has frontage on Pleasant View Road, which is considered
a collector roadway by the city. Access points onto a collector roadway are limited by the
city. As a result, a private shared drive was established at the time this property was
developed. The home was constructed so that the front of the home faced the side of the
property that has vehicle access, as is typical. This resulted in the rear of the home facing
Pleasant View Road, which creates a unique situation not created by the landowner.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The requested variance is within the keeping of neighboring properties, where
attached decks are a common addition to a home.
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: The proposed deck is not an earth-sheltered construction and therefore not
applicable.
5. The planning report #2025-14 dated October 1, 2025, prepared by Rachel Arsenault is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Planning Commission approves the requested variance for a front yard setback, subject to
the conditions of the staff report.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 7th day of October 2025.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
19
Exhibit A
Lot 2, Block 1, Larson’s Subdivision, Carver County, Minnesota.
20
CITY OF CHANIIASSEN
AFI.IDA\'IT OF N,IAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COT]NTY OF CARVER )
I, Jenny Potter, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
September 25,2025, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City ofChanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date sl.re caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice Consider the
request for a setback variance to construct a deck located on propert],at 6580 Pleasant
View Wa1,. Orvner/Applicant: Joseph Pavelko to the persons named on attached Exhibil "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 orvners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Caner County, Minnesota. and by other appropriate records.
Jcnny er, City Clerk
a)'tw1
/
Notarl Public
AMY K. WEIDM AN
bllc-Minnssota
Erpk.J.n31.20,
Nolary Pu
Subscribed and swom to before me
this
'1G dav,rf !r' ,.,V u',b<t .2o25.
21
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city,
county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic
Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does
not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other
purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the
depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought
by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or
use of data provided.
«Tax_name»
«Tax_add_l1»
«Tax_add_l2»
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city,
county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic
Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does
not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other
purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the
depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought
by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or
use of data provided.
«Next Record»«Tax_name»
«Tax_add_l1»
«Tax_add_l2»
Subject
Parcel
Subject
Parcel
22
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Date & Time:
Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
This hearing may not start until later in the evening,
depending on the order of the agenda.
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal: Consider the request for a setback variance to
construct a deck.
Applicant: Joseph Pavelko
Property
Location:
6580 Pleasant View Way
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
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 for the project.
3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal.
4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from
the public, up to 5 minutes per person.
5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning
Commission continues discussion on the project
prior to voting on the project.
Questions &
Comments:
To view project information
before the meeting, please
visit the city’s proposed
development webpage:
www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments
Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go
to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe
Date & Time:
Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
This hearing may not start until later in the evening,
depending on the order of the agenda.
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal: Consider the request for a setback variance to
construct a deck.
Applicant: Joseph Pavelko
Property
Location:
6580 Pleasant View Way
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
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 for the project.
3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal.
4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from
the public, up to 5 minutes per person.
5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning
Commission continues discussion on the project
prior to voting on the project.
Questions &
Comments:
To view project information
before the meeting, please
visit the city’s proposed
development webpage:
www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments
Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go
to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe
23
Tax name Tax add l1 Tax add l2
BRACE D HELGESON 6575 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRANDON ROTH 6697 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRETT THOMPSON 6696 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CATHERINE VILLANUEVA 6614 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN CITY PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHARLES CAMPBELL HURD TRUST 6695 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID MOFFAT WHITMAN 429 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAWN MARIE PRYMAS 310 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HEIDI GROVEN 420 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HERBERT REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 50 CLAY CLIFFE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JAKOB I BALLER 335 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES M VOGELSBERG 395 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JENNIFER J HOMMERDING 370 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN O HOLLAND 6603 BLAZE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN R TRETTEL 330 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOSEPH PAVELKO 6580 PLEASANT VIEW WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK E ARDEN 6602 BLAZE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARY C BABEL 320 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
NICHOLAS J P PERKINS 339 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PATRICK DOOLING 6605 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD R & KATHLEEN E PECK 6690 HORSESHOE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RONALD E HARVIEUX LIVING TRUST 4023 GOLDEN LYNX RD GREEN VALLEY AZ 85614
SHIRLEY M SHELDON TRUST AGREEMENT 350 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY M WEST 6601 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TODD JEREMY JOHNSON 6601 BLAZE TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317
YANTA KALLEY T & TRUSTEE OF TRUST 365 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317
24
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN
COUNTIES
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
PI-ANNING CASE NO. 2025-14
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that
the Chanhassen Planning Commis-
sion will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 7, 2025, at 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market
Blvd. The purpose of this hearing
is lo consider a r€quest for a set-
back variance to build a deck on
the property located at 6580 Pleas-
ant View Way. Zoned RSF. ProP-
erty Owner & Applicant: Joseph
Pavelko.
Prciect
request are available lor Public
review on the city's website
at www.chanhassenmn.gov/
oroposeddevelooments or at City
Hall during regular business hours.
All interested pe/sons are invited
to attend this public hearing and
expEss their opinions with respect
to this proposal. Meeting date is
subiect to change.
Rachel Arsenault
Associate Planner
Email: rarsenault@chanhassenmn.gov
Phone: 952-227-1132
Published in the
Sun Sailor
September 25, 2025
1 492558
ss
I do solemly swear that the notice, as per the
proof, was published in the edition of the
SS Mtka-Excelsior-Eden Prairie
with the known oflice of issue being located
in the county of:
HENNEPIN
with additional circulation in the counties ol
HENNEPIN
and has full knowledge of the facts stated
below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of
the requirements constituting qualifica-
tion as a qualified newspaper as provided
by Minn. Stat. $331A.02.
(B) This Public Notice was printed and pub-
lished in said newspaper(s) once each
week, lor I successive week(s); the hrst
insertion being on 0912512025 and the last
insertion being on 0912512025.
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES
Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. $580.033
relating to the publication of mortgage
foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies
with the conditions described in $580.033,
subd. l, clause (l) or (2). If the newspaper's
known office of issue is located in a county
adjoining the county where the mortgaged
premises or some part of the mortgaged
premises described in the notice are located,
a substantial portion of the newspaper's
circulation is in the latter county.
By:
Designated Agent
Subscribed and sworn to or allirmed before
me on 0912512025
Notary Public
Rate Information:
(l) Lowest classihed rate paid by commercial users
for comparable space:
5999.99 per column inch
documents for this
Ad ID 1492558
25
Planning Commission Item
October 7, 2025
Item Ordinance XXX: Amending Chapter 20 to Modify Standards Associated with
Accessory Structures
File No.Item No: B.2
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By Eric Maass, Community Development Director
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance amending
accessory structure size allowances as presented."
OR
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the alternate draft ordinance
amending accessory structure size allowances as presented."
SUMMARY
The city received a request to review the accessory structure ordinance related to the size of accessory
structures currently permitted on properties. The current ordinance limits the total square feet of
26
accessory structure space on residential properties to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. For reference, a
four-stall garage is generally consistent with a 1,000 square foot structure. In addition to modifying size
allowances, the staff has offered a series of formatting and sequencing adjustments to the ordinance to
improve clarity in how the ordinance reads.
The City Council reviewed the consideration at a recent work session and directed staff to prepare an
ordinance that would modify the accessory structure size allowance in a way that responds to increasing
lot sizes.
A building permit is required for any structure 200 square feet or larger. This threshold served as the
staff's basis for the proposed ordinance amendment.
As drafted, properties zoned as RSF, RLM, and R4 districts would still be limited to 1,000 square feet
in total square footage of accessory structure space. Staff proposed to maintain this limit based on the
general character of RSF, RLM, and R4 neighborhoods and the impact of an accessory structure in
excess of 1,000 square feet.
Properties zoned as Rural Residential (RR), which typically have a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres,
would be permitted a 10% increase to the maximum accessory structure size for a total of 1,100 square
feet or 1/2 of an additional "building" as noted above, which staff established as 200 square feet or
greater.
Properties zoned as Agricultural Estate (A2), which typically have a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres but
maintain a maximum lot density of 1 home per 10 acres, would be permitted a 20% increase to the
maximum accessory structure size for a total of 1,200 square feet or 1 additional "building" worth of
space as noted above.
Additionally, properties zoned A2, which have at least 10 acres, which are used for Agricultural (i.e.
active farming) and which propose construction of an "Agricultural Building" as defined by state
statute, would be exempt from the maximum square footage requirement but would still be subject to
standards, including but not limited to building height, setbacks and lot cover maximums.
An alternate ordinance has been drafted that would maintain the 1,000 square foot maximum for RSF,
RLM, and R4 properties but would increase the maximum for the RR district to 1,200 square feet and
the maximum for the A2 district to 1,400 square feet.
Staff is not entirely opposed to the alternative ordinance. However, the increased size raises concerns
for staff regarding the future use of accessory structures of that size and the potential for straying from
the intent of these structures to be "accessory" to, rather than in competition with, the principal structure
for prominence on the property. For reference, detached ADUs were capped at a maximum size of 960
square feet.
City code explicitly prohibits accessory structures from being used for home occupations; however, as
accessory structures increase in size, the potential for such uses to be attempted is increased.
BACKGROUND
Staff has included the following maps for reference:
Properties zoned Rural Residential
Properties zoned Agricultural Estate
27
Properties zoned Agricultural Estate which are at least 10 acres in size
DISCUSSION
While some comparison properties utilize a size threshold associated with a lot area calculation, staff
are not supportive of that approach, as property size is subject to change over time through lot line
adjustments and the added complexity introduced for the owner, contractor, and staff in administering
the ordinance. Utilizing a zoning district designation to indicate the maximum allowable accessory
building size is more easily understood and administered.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the draft ordinance as presented.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Ordinance - Accessory Structure Size Allowances
Alternate Draft Ordinance - Accessory Structure Size Allowances
Community Comparisons
Map of properties zoned "Rural Residential"
Map of properties zoned "Agricultural Estate"
Map of properties zoned "Agricultural Estate" greater than 10 acres
Affidavit of Publication
28
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20-904 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec 20-904 Accessory Structures
a) A detached accessory structure shall be located in the buildable lot area or required rear
yard. No accessory use or structure in any residential district shall be located in any
required front, side or rear setback with the following exceptions:
1. In the RSF, RLM and R4 districts these structures may encroach into the rear
setback as follows:
a. Less than 140 square feet, minimum rear setback is five feet.
b. One hundred forty-one to 399 square feet, minimum rear setback is ten
feet.
c. Four hundred square feet and above, minimum rear setback is 30 feet,
except in the RLM district where the minimum rear setback is 25 feet.
2. Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum
side and rear yard setback of ten feet, but must comply with applicable ordinary
high water mark setbacks.
b) In the Single Family Residential (RSF), Residential Low Medium (RLM), and Mixed
Low Density (R4) Districts, the total square footage of all accessory structures shall be
limited to 1,000 square feet.
c) In the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district, the total square footage of all accessory
structures shall be limited to 1,100 square feet.
d) In the Agriculture Estate (A2) zoning district, the total square footage of all accessory
structures shall be limited to 1,200 square feet except as follows.
1. Agricultural buildings, as defined by Minnesota State Statute, shall be exempt
from a square foot maximum but shall adhere to all other applicable standards,
29
including but not limited to impervious lot cover and minimum building setbacks.
This exemption shall only apply to properties with a minimum of 10.00 acres in
total land area and zoned Agriculture Estate (A2).
e) On riparian lots, detached garages and storage buildings may be located in the front or
rear yard but must comply with front, side and applicable ordinary high water mark
setbacks but may not occupy more than 30 percent of the yard in which it is built.
f) A detached accessory structure may occupy not more than 30 percent of the area of any
rear yard.
g) No detached accessory structure may be used for a home occupation as outlined by City
Code Section 20-977.
h) For parcels with less than three acres in any residential or agricultural district, no
accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed or commenced prior to the
erection, construction or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use, but
may be erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is
subsequently removed, destroyed or discontinued, the accessory structure or use must be
removed or discontinued within 12 months.
i) Shall comply with the Freedom to Breathe Provision of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air
Act contained in M.S. §§ 1144.411 to 1144.417.
j) Docks, which shall comply with section 20-920.
k) Pursuant to authority granted by M.S. § 462.3593 subdiv. 9, the City ofChanhassen opts-
out of the requirements of M.S. § 462.3593.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _______, 2025, by the City Council of the City
of Chanhassen, Minnesota
_____________________________ ________________________________
Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor
(Published in the ______________________________ on
______________________________)
30
31
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20-904 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec 20-904 Accessory Structures
a) A detached accessory structure shall be located in the buildable lot area or required rear
yard. No accessory use or structure in any residential district shall be located in any
required front, side or rear setback with the following exceptions:
1. In the RSF, RLM and R4 districts these structures may encroach into the rear
setback as follows:
a. Less than 140 square feet, minimum rear setback is five feet.
b. One hundred forty-one to 399 square feet, minimum rear setback is ten
feet.
c. Four hundred square feet and above, minimum rear setback is 30 feet,
except in the RLM district where the minimum rear setback is 25 feet.
2. Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum
side and rear yard setback of ten feet, but must comply with applicable ordinary
high water mark setbacks.
b) In the Single Family Residential (RSF), Residential Low Medium (RLM), and Mixed
Low Density (R4) Districts, the total square footage of all accessory structures shall be
limited to 1,000 square feet.
c) In the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district, the total square footage of all accessory
structures shall be limited to 1,200 square feet.
d) In the Agriculture Estate (A2) zoning district, the total square footage of all accessory
structures shall be limited to 1,400 square feet except as follows.
1. Agricultural buildings, as defined by Minnesota State Statute, shall be exempt
from a square foot maximum but shall adhere to all other applicable standards,
32
including but not limited to impervious lot cover and minimum building setbacks.
This exemption shall only apply to properties with a minimum of 10.00 acres in
total land area and zoned Agriculture Estate (A2).
e) On riparian lots, detached garages and storage buildings may be located in the front or
rear yard but must comply with front, side and applicable ordinary high water mark
setbacks but may not occupy more than 30 percent of the yard in which it is built.
f) A detached accessory structure may occupy not more than 30 percent of the area of any
rear yard.
g) No detached accessory structure may be used for a home occupation as outlined by City
Code Section 20-977.
h) For parcels with less than three acres in any residential or agricultural district, no
accessory structure or use shall be erected, constructed or commenced prior to the
erection, construction or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use, but
may be erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is
subsequently removed, destroyed or discontinued, the accessory structure or use must be
removed or discontinued within 12 months.
i) Shall comply with the Freedom to Breathe Provision of the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air
Act contained in M.S. §§ 1144.411 to 1144.417.
j) Docks, which shall comply with section 20-920.
k) Pursuant to authority granted by M.S. § 462.3593 subdiv. 9, the City ofChanhassen opts-
out of the requirements of M.S. § 462.3593.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _______, 2025, by the City Council of the City
of Chanhassen, Minnesota
_____________________________ ________________________________
Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor
(Published in the ______________________________ on
______________________________)
33
34
City Accessory Structure SF Permitted
Chanhassen • 1,000 square feet for all accessory structures
Eden Prairie • Total ratio of the total square footage of all garages (attached
and detached), and all accessory structures, may not
exceed 0.075
Minnetonka • R-1: Aggregate of 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,
anything exceeding this size is a conditional use permit
• R-2: aggregate of 600 square feet of gross floor area.
• R-3: Garages excluded; all other accessory structures
limited to 120 square feet.
Shakopee • No accessory building shall exceed 10% of the lot area or
exceed 75% of the square footage of the footprint of the
principal dwelling, whichever is less.
• The maximum total footprint of accessory structures for lots
less than 20 acres in area in the Rural Residential Zone,
Sewered Rural Residential Zone and Agricultural
Preservation Zone is 2,400 square-feet
Wayzata • The total floor area of either an attached garage or a
detached garage for a single family detached dwelling shall
not exceed 750 square feet of floor area and not exceed the
ground coverage of the dwelling.
• No accessory building, structure, and/or detached garage or
combination thereof for a single-family dwelling shall occupy
more than 25 percent of the area of the rear yard.
• The total of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 50
percent of the gross floor area of the principal buildings.
• Except in the R-1A and R-1 Zoning Districts, no building
permit shall be issued for more than one detached or
attached private garage for each single-family dwelling.
• With the exception of the R-1A and R-1 Zoning Districts, no
building permit shall be issued for the construction of more
than one accessory building and/or structure.
Waconia • Lots 10,500 square feet and smaller = 1,000 square feet
combined of accessory structures allowed.
• Lots 10,501 to 21,780 square feet (half acre) = 1,200 square
feet.
• Lots 21,781 square feet to 43,560 square feet (Half acre to
one acre) = 1,400 square feet.
35
• Lots 43,561 square feet and larger = 1,600 square feet.
• Total maximum hardcover surface of the lot shall not exceed
35 percent.
Victoria • Agricultural property allows structures accessory to ag use.
• R-1: One private detached garage per separately owned
parcel, not to exceed 900 square feet. Accessory storage
shed for domestic supplies, not to exceed 900 square feet.
Greenhouses not to exceed 900 square feet and not involving
retail or wholesale sales.
• R-2: One private detached garage per separately owned
parcel not to exceed 600 square feet. Accessory storage
shed for domestic supplies not to exceed 600 square feet.
Greenhouses not to exceed 600 square feet and not involving
retail or wholesale sales.
Carver • Agricultural: Horticultural uses including structures
designed for the storage of products and machinery
pertaining and necessary to horticultural operations.
Accessory uses customarily incidental to an agricultural
permitted use. No size maximum stipulated.
• 2.5 Acre + Lots: 800 square feet. Maximum of 2 accessory
structures.
• R-1: 800 square feet. Maximum of 2 accessory structures.
• R-2 800 square feet. Maximum of 2 accessory structures.
• R-3: No maximum square footage, but limited to 2
structures.
Chaska • Rural Residential: One accessory storage structure in
addition to a detached garage on properties whose principal
use is single family residential, subject to the following:
Maximum size shall be 150 square feet per contiguous acre
owned.
• Single-family Residential Districts:
o No more than two accessory buildings.
o One accessory building shall not exceed 768 square feet
in floor area on lots of 7,200 square feet in size or greater,
or 624 square feet on lots of less than 7,200 square feet
in size and shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
o A second accessory building shall not exceed 256 square
feet in floor area, nor shall exceed 12 feet in height.
o No attached garage shall exceed 1000 square feet or 75%
of the square footage of the footprint of the principal
dwelling, whichever is less.
36
o Attached garages, for the purpose of this section, shall
not be counted toward the allowable accessory
structures.
Excelsior • R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, CC, and MU:
o Number. No lot shall contain an attached garage
together with a detached garage and a storage shed.
A lot may contain two of the three but not all three.
o The aggregate footprint or coverage of all garages and
accessory buildings shall not exceed 800 square feet.
o No detached garage shall exceed 768 square feet in
floor area on lots of 12,000 or greater, or 624 square
feet on lots of less than 12,000 square feet in size.
o No attached garage shall exceed 800 square feet or
75 percent of the square footage of the footprint of
the principal dwelling, whichever is less.
o Maximum floor area for storage sheds shall be 120
square feet.
Plymouth • Except in the case of single- and two-family dwellings, the
total amount of detached accessory building space shall not
exceed 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal
building(s), except by conditional use permit.
• In the FRD and RSF Zoning Districts and for single-family
detached dwellings in the RMF Zoning Districts, no detached
accessory building shall equal more than 30 percent of the
area of the rear yard or contain over 700 square feet in gross
floor area, whichever is less. The exception is that in the FRD
district, a detached accessory building may exceed 700
square feet in gross floor area upon issuance of a conditional
use permit.
• In the case of single- and two-family dwellings, the gross
floor area of an accessory building shall not exceed the gross
floor area of the principal building.
• A maximum of two detached accessory buildings shall be
allowed per single- or two-family lot, of which not more than
one may contain over 200 square feet in gross floor area.
Savage • Total square footage of all accessory structure(s) combined
can’t exceed 1,000 sq. ft. Attached garage area is included in
the total square footage of accessory structure area.
• Total accessory structure area cannot exceed the ground
floor (or main floor) area of the residence.
• Lots less than ½ acre (21,780 sq. ft. or smaller) in size are
allowed one accessory structure in addition
37
• to one attached or detached garage but only one detached
accessory structure may exceed 120 sq. ft.
• Lots ½ acre and larger (more than 21,780 sq. ft.) in size are
allowed two accessory structures in addition to an attached
or detached garage. Only one detached structure may
exceed 120 sq. ft.
Shorewood • For single-family and two-family homes, no accessory
building, including attached garages, or combination of
accessory buildings but excluding docks shall exceed three
in number, nor 1,200 square feet in area in the R 1A, R 1B, R
1C, R 2A, R 2B and R 3A Districts, nor 1,000 square feet in
area in the R 1D, R 2C, R 3B and R-C Districts, except by
conditional use permit as provided for in § 1201.04 of this
chapter.
• The total area of accessory buildings shall not exceed the
floor area of all stories above grade of the principal structure.
The City Council may grant an exception for greenhouse with
conditions stipulated in code.
Prior Lake • The total ground floor area of all detached accessory
structures located on a single residential property in the R-1
and R-2 zoning districts shall not exceed 1,000 square feet or
30 percent of the rear yard.
• The total ground floor area of all detached accessory
structures in the R-3 zoning district shall not exceed 750
square feet or 30 percent of the rear yard.
38
Lake
Virginia
Christmas
Lake
Lotus Lake
Brendan Pond
Lake Harrison
Lake Susan Rice Marsh
Lake
Lake Riley
Rice Lake
Lake St. Joe
Lake
Minnewashta
Lake Ann
Lake Lucy
ST18
ST61
ST14
ST15
ST17
Minnewashta
Regional Park
North Lotus
Lake Park
Meadow
Green
Park
Lake Ann Park
Chanhassen
Pond Park
Chanhassen
Nature
Preserve
Chanhassen
Recreation
Center
Lake Susan
Park Rice Marsh
Lake Preserve
Power
Hill Park
Bandimere
Community
Park
Bluff Creek
Golf Course
Hesse Farm
Park
Preserve
Lake Susan
Preserve
Raguet Wildlife
Management Are
MN Valley
National
Wildlife Re
MN Landscape
Arboretum
Seminary Fen
Scientific
& Nat*
Bluff Creek
Preserve
Independent
School
District 11
Independent
School
District 112
Independent
School
District 276
Riley
Ridge Park
Fox Woods
Preserve
Lake Ann Park
Preserve
SA5
SA7
SA5
SA101
SA5
SA41
)212
Powers BlvdLyman Blvd
Audubon RdChanhassen RdArboretum Blvd
Pion e e rT rlGalpinBlvdHazeltineBlvdMarketBl
v
dPower
sBlvdGreat
P
l
ainsBlvdArboretumBlvd
Flying Cl
o
u
d
D
r
ST101
ST101
Document Path: K:\Departments\Planning\Zoning Maps\Zoning Maps\Zoning Maps.aprxDate Created: 9/29/2025
Created By: City of Chanhassen - Engineering Department µ0 3,000
Feet
0 0.5
Mile
Rural Residential Parcels
City of Chanhassen
RR - Rural Residential
39
Lake
Virginia
Christmas
Lake
Lotus Lake
Brendan Pond
Lake Harrison
Lake Susan Rice Marsh
Lake
Lake Riley
Rice Lake
Lake St. Joe
Lake
Minnewashta
Lake Ann
Lake Lucy
ST18
ST61
ST14
ST15
ST17
Minnewashta
Regional Park
North Lotus
Lake Park
Meadow
Green
Park
Lake Ann Park
Chanhassen
Pond Park
Chanhassen
Nature
Preserve
Chanhassen
Recreation
Center
Lake Susan
Park Rice Marsh
Lake Preserve
Power
Hill Park
Bandimere
Community
Park
Bluff Creek
Golf Course
Hesse Farm
Park
Preserve
Lake Susan
Preserve
Raguet Wildlife
Management Are
MN Valley
National
Wildlife Re
MN Landscape
Arboretum
Seminary Fen
Scientific
& Nat*
Bluff Creek
Preserve
Independent
School
District 11
Independent
School
District 112
Independent
School
District 276
Riley
Ridge Park
Fox Woods
Preserve
Lake Ann Park
Preserve
SA5
SA7
SA5
SA101
SA5
SA41
)212
Powers BlvdLyman Blvd
Audubon RdChanhassen RdArboretum Blvd
Pion e e rT rlGalpinBlvdHazeltineBlvdMarketBl
v
dPower
sBlvdGreat
P
l
ainsBlvdArboretumBlvd
Flying Cl
o
u
d
D
r
ST101
ST101
Document Path: K:\Departments\Planning\Zoning Maps\Zoning Maps\Zoning Maps.aprxDate Created: 9/29/2025
Created By: City of Chanhassen - Engineering Department µ0 3,000
Feet
0 0.5
Mile
Agricultural Estate District Parcels
City of Chanhassen
A2 - Agricultural Estate District
40
Lake
Virginia
Christmas
Lake
Lotus Lake
Brendan Pond
Lake Harrison
Lake Susan Rice Marsh
Lake
Lake Riley
Rice Lake
Lake St. Joe
Lake
Minnewashta
Lake Ann
Lake Lucy
ST18
ST61
ST14
ST15
ST17
Minnewashta
Regional Park
North Lotus
Lake Park
Meadow
Green
Park
Lake Ann Park
Chanhassen
Pond Park
Chanhassen
Nature
Preserve
Chanhassen
Recreation
Center
Lake Susan
Park Rice Marsh
Lake Preserve
Power
Hill Park
Bandimere
Community
Park
Bluff Creek
Golf Course
Hesse Farm
Park
Preserve
Lake Susan
Preserve
Raguet Wildlife
Management Are
MN Valley
National
Wildlife Re
MN Landscape
Arboretum
Seminary Fen
Scientific
& Nat*
Bluff Creek
Preserve
Independent
School
District 11
Independent
School
District 112
Independent
School
District 276
Riley
Ridge Park
Fox Woods
Preserve
Lake Ann Park
Preserve
SA5
SA7
SA5
SA101
SA5
SA41
)212
Powers BlvdLyman Blvd
Audubon RdChanhassen RdArboretum Blvd
Pion e e rT rlGalpinBlvdHazeltineBlvdMarketBl
v
dPower
sBlvdGreat
P
l
ainsBlvdArboretumBlvd
Flying Cl
o
u
d
D
r
ST101
ST101
Document Path: K:\Departments\Planning\Zoning Maps\Zoning Maps\Zoning Maps.aprxDate Created: 9/29/2025
Created By: City of Chanhassen - Engineering Department µ0 3,000
Feet
0 0.5
Mile
Agricultural Estate District Parcels over 10 acres
City of Chanhassen
A2 - Agricultural Estate District
41
\
._ "t
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
I do solemly swear that the noticg as per the
proof. was published in the edition of the
SS Mtka-Excelsior_Eden Prairie
with the known olTice of issue being located
in the county ol
HENNEPIN
with additional circulation in the counties of:
HENNEPIN
and has full knowledge of the facts stated
below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all ot
the requirements constituting qualifica-
tion as a qualified newspaper as provided
by Minn. Stat. $331A.02.
(B) This Public Notice was printed and pub-
lished in said newspaper(s) once each
week, for I successive week(s); the first
insertion being on 0912512025 and the last
insertion being on 0912512025.
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES
Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. $580.033
relating to the publication of mortgage
foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies
wilh the conditions described in $580.033,
subd. l, clause (l) or (2). If the newspapcr's
known offrce ol issue is located in a county
adjoining the county where the mortgaged
premises or some part of the mortgaged
premises described in the notice are locatcd.
a substantial portion of the newspaper's
circulation is in the latter countv.
Designated Agent
Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before
me on 0912512025
Notary Public
Rate Information:
(l) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users
for comparable space:
5999.99 per column inch
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN
COUNTIES
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that
the Chanhassen Planning Commis-
sion will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 7, 2025, at 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market
Blvd. The purpose of this hearing
is to consider amending Chapter
20 of the Chanhassen City Code to
modify standards associated with
accessory struclures.
The proposed changes are
available for public review at
City Hall during regular business
hours or on the City's website
at www.ChanhassenMN.oov/
Proposedordinances. All
interested persons are invited to
attend this public hearing and
expless their opinions with respect
to this proposal. Meeting date
subject to change.
Rachel Arsenault
Associate Planner
Email: rarsenault@chanhassenmn.
gov
Phone: 952-227-1132
Publish6d in the
Sun Sailor
September 25, 2025
1 492ss3
ss
Ad ID 1492553
42
Planning Commission Item
October 7, 2025
Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 16, 2025
File No.Item No: D.1
Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its September 16, 2025 meeting minutes."
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
43
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its September 16, 2025 meeting minutes."
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated September 16, 2025
44
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead,
Dave Grover, and Katie Trevena.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chair Steve Jobe
STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community
Development Director; Joe Seidl, Waters Resource Engineer; and Mackenze Grunig, Project
Engineer.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
John Dragseth 6480 Oriole
Rena Dragseth 2600 Forest
Gary Bridge 2449 W 64th Street
Josh McKinney Measure Group
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. MINNEWASHTA APARTMENTS REZONING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
(PLANNING CASE 25-11)
Eric Maass, Community Development Director, reviewed the communications to date for the site
plan. He said the public hearing was sent and published in the newspaper as required. Mr. Maass
reviewed the land use designation and the zoning districts allowed within that designation;
permitted zoning includes a variety of zoning adjacent to the site. He stated that the city had
some level of discretion when considering the rezoning request. He said that the present zoning
is single-family residential. He stated that any development of the property would require that it
be rezoned so that the zoning designation was consistent with the future land use designation
within the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He commented that the requested zoning was R-8,
which is an eligible district.
There are a number of different land uses in the vicinity, and R-8 is compatible with adjacent
land uses. He stated that the project, as proposed, is compatible with the R-8 land ordinance. He
said that the proposed project is residential in nature; there are 44 units proposed for this project.
The adjacent intersection is planned for a roundabout project to be constructed in 2028. He
commented that the city has planned for the density of the utilities. He stated that the staff was
supportive of the rezoning request.
45
Planning Commission Minutes – September 16, 2025
2
Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, said that the city is limited in approving or denying the
proposed site plan request based on whether the proposed site plan meets the standards for the
zoning ordinance. She said it was a quasi-judicial decision, and she reviewed the nine standards
for the site plan. She stated the building location met all the required setbacks. She said that they
proposed 44 required spaces on the surface lots in front of the building, but the proposal includes
88 parking spaces in total. She discussed the temporary trail along Highway 41 until the
roundabout construction was complete. There are existing trees on the west side of the property
to be preserved. She said that they were proposing to plant sixteen trees. Mrs. Arsenault
commented that there might be additional buffering required based on the City Council review.
She stated that they proposed eight light posts on the property. The stormwater facilities are to be
located to the west, and there was a drainage easement that the city could access after the
construction of the roundabout. She discussed access for the project. She commented on the site
plan renderings and the architectural elevations. The staff reviewed the building height and the
building materials.
Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer, discussed the utility tie-in and fire hydrant relocation. He
proceeded to discuss traffic, providing information on the planned roundabout project, the
conditioned temporary traffic signal, and trips during peak hours. He spoke about the drainage
and utility easement the city will receive, as well as the stormwater facilities the developer is
proposing to treat additional city water runoff from the roundabout project. He reviewed the
construction schedule for 2026 to 2027.
Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer, discussed the drainage. He reviewed the existing condition
and said there was minimal impervious surface with no existing stormwater facilities. He said
that the stormwater flows from east to west, and there is one wetland located on the southwestern
portion of the site. He said there was a mix of stormwater in the area of the town, including
Trunk Highway 41, and private stormwater facilities connected to the city’s system. He said that
the development must meet design requirements for both the city and the watershed district.
Mr. Seidl looked more broadly at the area, which was built up in the 1980s and 1990s. He said
there was limited existing stormwater treatment. He said that there is a stormwater need for this
specific development, the roundabout, and future city stormwater needs that are not currently
planned. He said that the proposed pond is oversized for treating stormwater. He said that there
was an opportunity for stormwater management, such as a regional stormwater facility. He
commented that it was an oversized and centralized area to manage stormwater. It was built to
take water from other impervious areas, and it would be a partnership between the city and the
developer. The developer would build the pond, and the city would help maintain the stormwater
pond. He discussed the stormwater prevention plan and stated that the proposed design
maintained the water flow patterns. He said that they were looking to see if the roundabout could
utilize some of the system being built. He commented that the Project Engineer was looking for
ways to enhance the design, such as lowering the elevation where the basin was constructed. He
said that if the facilities were built at a lower elevation, it would allow more flexibility. He
commented that they wanted to work with the applicant regarding the stormwater.
Mrs. Arsenault stated that after reviewing the site plan criteria as designed by the City Code, it
would meet the conditions of approval.
46
Planning Commission Minutes – September 16, 2025
3
Mr. Maass reviewed the summary of the rezoning and site plan requests and stated that the staff
recommends the approval of both requests.
Josh McKinney, Measure Group, said he wanted to highlight a couple of items. He stated that the
site is currently zoned as residential single-family, but rezoning is necessary. He said they were
looking at a specific project type, but they would be challenged with the sanitary sewer for the
location. He said that absent a lift station, the service area was limited. Mr. McKinney said that
they were incorporating a significant interstate construction on Highway 41. He said that they
wanted as seamless an installation as possible of the roundabout.
Mr. McKinney recognized that the product type would adhere to the maximum building height
threshold of 35 feet and would locate the building as far as possible from existing structures. He
stated that the site had a lot of typography, so the location of the building would be critical. He
commented that they were looking at the home-to-home spacing equivalent to a football field.
He said that the building is the 35-foot maximum height, but the actual elevation relative to
Highway 41 was only five feet taller than Trouvaille, since the building is proposed at the bottom
of the hill. He commented that the roundabout function would be improved in the future, so they
were trying to optimize the conditions for 2028. He said they were constructing one full leg of
the roundabout, and this would assist with the roundabout construction costs. They were trying to
provide service for the project and taking on costs that they could bear. They were taking the leg
of the roundabout and the stormwater. He discussed that they reviewed the traffic and the
roundabout size. He stated that it was a three-story building that would offer amenities for the
residents. He commented that they will use high-quality materials for the project.
Chair Noyes asked about the traffic and its effect on existing performance. He said that there was
a perception that the existing performance is not great for the way it was set up now. Mr. Grunig
answered that the current intersection performance was graded at an F. He said that roundabouts
were the safest intersection control.
Chair Noyes asked about what was dictating the roundabout construction. He asked if there was
any way to change the roundabout construction. Mr. Grunig said that Trunk Highway 5 was
scheduled for 2026 and 2027. He stated that Highway 41 (Hazeltine Boulevard) is a detour route
for additional traffic construction, so they could not construct the roundabout until 2028.
Chair Noyes asked if the detour off Trunk Highway 5 changed the analysis. Mr. Grunig
answered that the detour was considered as a part of the analysis. Commissioner Olmstead asked
about the probability of the temporary signal, as it is a MnDOT decision. Mr. Grunig said it is
yet to be final, but the criteria are met to support the installation.
Commissioner Trevena discussed current conditions during peak times on the road, specifically
with Middle School traffic. She also expressed concern for the safety of the residents and
pedestrians.
47
Planning Commission Minutes – September 16, 2025
4
Chair Noyes mentioned that several residents talked about document access. He asked if that had
been resolved. Mr. Maass answered that it has been resolved, and if residents have any trouble
accessing documents, they can directly reach out to staff for copies.
Commissioner Trevena asked about construction in 2028. Staff responded.
Commissioner Olmstead asked about where the stormwater system would go from private to
public. Mr. Seidl responded to determining the location of what was public and private based on
the stormwater. He discussed the stormwater system.
Commissioner Grover asked about traveling through the intersection during the roundabout
construction. Mr. Grunig replied that there are standard techniques to use to move traffic through
roundabout construction.
Commissioner Soller asked about the context of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He said that this
lot seems like an outlier, especially butting up to the adjacent properties. He asked if there was
context for this lot, when the rest of the neighborhood was residential, single-family, and
public/semi-public. He thought it seemed like a strange piece of land, and he asked why it was
guided this way in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Maass answered that the site was likely guided
for medium-density residential due to its proximity to adjacent commercial and institutional
properties, as well as adjacency to another medium-density residential development.
Commissioner Soller said that, as he was looking at the Highway 41 corridor, he said this looked
like the last piece of land where the current zoning was not aligned with the land use guidance in
the Comprehensive Plan. He asked for confirmation. Mr. Maass answered that he believed so
and that he was not aware of any property that was zoned outside of its guidance other than this
property.
Commissioner Soller stated that this would be the last development in forested space in this area.
He said that this was the final stamp of development in this area.
Mr. Maass stated that it was a fair assessment. He said that it was five acres, but much of the
acreage was not proposed to be used.
Commissioner Trevena stated that the proposal seems mindful of neighbors but asked for more
information regarding the additional buffering. Mrs. Arsenault responded that they highlighted
areas in purple where there could be additional buffering, and that the Planning Commission
could condition a recommendation to include specific buffering requirements in those areas. She
said they could have city staff review the specific buffering in the areas.
Chair Noyes opened the public hearing.
John Dragseth, 6480 Oriole, shared his belief that the Planning Commission should recommend
the denial of the application. He said that the 2040 Plan did not say that R-8 was okay, but that
R-8, R-4, and R-2 were okay. He said that the staff decided that R-8 was okay, but the Planning
Commission and City Council must decide what is the correct zoning. He said that the developer
48
Planning Commission Minutes – September 16, 2025
5
doesn’t have the right to R-8. He said that a lot has happened with traffic in the last month, but
there was no resolution. He stated that nobody did a traffic study, and in its previous submission,
the city staff said the proposal warrants a complete traffic study. He commented that they did not
do a traffic study. He said that they heard new things tonight that were not in the proposal. He
discussed the intersection, which was important for cars. He said that Herman Field Park
crossing is north of the intersection, so traffic would back up through the pedestrian crossing. He
discussed concerns about cars passing and not being aware of kids crossing. He said he did not
see the regional pond in the application, but he did see it on pages 10 and 11 of the report. He
stated that the report took the pond from 4 acres and added almost 8 acres. He said the pond
needed to triple in size, but that they could not vote on the finding and fact that the water would
be okay. He stated that the city was trying to please a developer with whom they had worked in
the past, and that it did not match the neighborhood. He recommended denial.
Gary Bridge, 2449 W 64th Street, said he could not find anywhere where a single-family
residential neighborhood is located near an apartment complex of this size. He said that they
were discussing building an apartment building in a single-family residential oasis. He
commented that there is a discrepancy between how it is zoned and what was in the plan. He said
the Avienda apartments have been recommended for approval, so he struggled to see the need for
the apartment because of the unique property on which it sits. He said that the lot for the
apartment sits above the elevation of the neighborhood, so it would be the beacon on the hill for
six months of the year. He commented that there would be a significant impact on the traffic. He
thought it was ridiculous to have apartment buildings next to homes of such value.
Chair Noyes closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Trevena asked for further clarification about the traffic signal and what would
happen with the crosswalk. She said that there was a significant issue since there were many cars
that assumed people were turning onto Chaska Road. She asked if there are any plans near the
crosswalk. Mr. Grunig said that the temporary signal would be timed with the intersection of
Trunk Highway 7. He said that they were trying to keep traffic flowing southbound freely.
Commissioner Rosengren asked what the foot traffic is like, if children are walking along
Highway 41, and where they were going. Commissioner Trevena responded that students met
their parents at businesses off Chaska Road. They would cross to get to the other side, since the
pickup takes about half an hour, so they would meet elsewhere. She said there were students
crossing Highway 41 to avoid the long pick-up time.
Commissioner Rosengren asked about the traffic studies. He said that the community had figured
out a workaround for the traffic situation. He stated that adding a temporary stoplight would not
solve the problem. Mr. Grunig answered that a substantial amount of information had been
communicated to the middle school. He discussed cars turning right to help with the traffic. He
stated that there are a lot of workarounds being used to help with pick-up, including surrounding
neighborhood parking. He said that the city was staying within its scope of influence.
Commissioner Rosengren said that people would skirt the rules put in place, and there is
potential for an accident.
49
Planning Commission Minutes – September 16, 2025
6
Chair Noyes discussed the creation of the roundabout and the requirement for the temporary
traffic signal because of the construction. He asked if there was an order that needed to happen.
Mr. Grunig discussed the restoration of Trunk Highway 5. He stated that they recommended a
traffic signal regardless of the roundabout because of the Trunk Highway 5 project detouring
traffic onto Highway 41.
Chair Noyes said that they would still have traffic issues at the site.
Commissioner Soller asked about the traffic light. Mr. Grunig responded that during the
construction with the improvements, the traffic signal alone would reduce the queue wait time
for cars leaving the middle school.
Commissioner Soller asked about striping at the intersection and how that changed where
pedestrians cross Highway 41. Mr. Grunig answered that striping would occur with engineering
standards for the intersection.
Commissioner Soller asked about opportunities to add a pedestrian-controlled crossing. Mr.
Gruning said that his understanding was that there was an opportunity to have a pedestrian
crossing at the intersection.
Commissioner Soller said that this seemed like an unsafe area, despite what they did with the
project. He asked about the net impact on traffic and safety with the proposed project timeline.
He asked if that was in the purview of the Planning Commission. He said that there were specific
requirements to be met.
Chair Noyes said that the traffic situation was bad, but it was almost two independent things that
were going to happen. He said that the roundabout had nothing to do with the apartment complex
and would not be built until MnDOT said it could be built. He said that their job was to make a
decision based on what was in front of them, not if they thought there was a better use for the
property.
Commissioner Soller said that the approval was contingent on a temporary light. Mr. Maass
confirmed this information.
Commissioner Soller asked if they could make it contingent on a light and if they could also
make it contingent on the roundabout development. Mr. Maass stated that the roundabout was
originally planned for construction this summer, but there was a funding shortfall, and the City
Engineer secured funding extensions for construction in 2028.
Mr. Maass discussed the roundabout construction. He said that the Highway 5 project needs to
be completed first, so the roundabout could not be constructed until 2028.
Commissioner Grover discussed foot traffic on Highway 41. He said that there are no lights
there. Mr. Grunig answered that the roundabout would have four pedestrian crossings and
provided details about the crossings.
50
Planning Commission Minutes – September 16, 2025
7
Commissioner Rosengren asked if there was an ability to add signals for pedestrians on the
roundabout. Mr. Grunig answered that there was a flashing system that could be utilized.
Chair Noyes discussed the additional buffering and pedestrian sight lines.
Commissioner Olmstead discussed the assurances from the developer and stated that he liked the
idea that the stormwater would be improved.
Commissioner Soller discussed the zoning for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Pioneer Trail project.
He asked if it was rezoned to R-4 or R-8. Mr. Maass clarified that he referred to Pioneer Ridge,
which was rezoned to R-8 and another type.
Commissioner Soller said that a decision was made regarding buffering on that project. Mr.
Maass answered that there are detached townhomes only in a certain area of that development in
order to be more similar to the adjacent single-family homes.
Commissioner Soller asked if they had any R-8. Mr. Maass answered that it was the attached
townhomes near Pioneer Trail.
Commissioner Soller asked about the status of the Pioneer Ridge project. Mr. Maass responded
that it had received all entitlements.
Chair Noyes asked about specific language regarding the additional buffering with the
Minnewashta Apartment. Mr. Maass answered that the areas in purple would have additional
buffering requirements for the site.
Commissioner Trevena discussed buffering and supported the addition.
Commissioner Rosengren discussed that it seemed like an unnecessary burden to add all of these
projects at similar times. He stated he did not understand why it needed to happen at the same
time, and if the development needed to happen at the same time.
Commissioner Trevena said she agreed with the staff report and that the staff pulled everything
together well. She said the timing was challenging, and she did not know if they approved of it,
but they could incorporate a signal and a crosswalk before they moved forward.
Commissioner Olmstead asked about Oriole Avenue and if it would ever extend further south.
Mr. Maass answered that it was a platted public right-of-way, but the current development
proposal does not show the utilization of that additional right-of-way.
Commissioner Soller discussed the discretion of the Planning Commission. He said that they
determined that R-8 was appropriate zoning for this property. He commented that in his role, the
approval seemed appropriate, but if he were in a different role, he might have different opinions.
51
Planning Commission Minutes – September 16, 2025
8
Chair Noyes said that the intersection would not improve if they denied the Planning Case. He
stated that there were a lot of moving parts.
Commissioner Trevena asked if there was an opportunity to address the crosswalk. Mr. Grunig
said that any change would have to be approved by MnDOT since it was their right-of-way.
Commissioner Soller asked if they had to put in additional language for the contingencies. Mr.
Maass answered that it was noted by staff, but if they wanted it to be abundantly clear, they
could put it in the motion.
Mr. Maass stated that the agenda item would go to the City Council on October 13.
Commissioner Olmstead moved, Commissioner Grover seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission motions to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning ordinance
and site plan review, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopt the attached Findings
of Fact and Recommendation. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Commissioner
Trevena and Commissioner Rosengren voted nay.
GENERAL BUSINESS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 2,
2025
Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded to approve the
Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated September 2, 2025, as
presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6-0.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDAINED DISCUSSION
Mr. Maass discussed the possible amendments to the ordinance related to accessory structures at
the work session meeting on September 22. A public hearing on a proposed ordinance
amendment could be held on the October 7 Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Noyes asked for the definition of an agricultural property and if there was a minimum or
maximum size. Mr. Maass answered that the minimum size is ten acres, and it must be zoned as
agriculture, and the use is agriculture for an agriculture building exemption.
Commissioner Rosengren asked about how many properties applied. Mr. Maass answered that he
could think of two off the top of his head.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION:
52
Planning Commission Minutes – September 16, 2025
9
Mr. Maass stated that the HVAC is not yet fully operational, so he apologized for the heat in the
building.
Commissioner Soller asked about the acoustics of the room. He stated it felt like there were a lot
of echoes, and it was difficult to hear people. Mr. Maass answered that he knew there was work
left to be done in the room, but he did not know the specifics.
Chair Noyes suggested a sign to encourage speakers to consider the proximity to the
microphone.
OPEN DISCUSSION: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Soller seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning
Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
Submitted by Eric Maass
Community Development Director
53
Planning Commission Item
October 7, 2025
Item Heritage Tree Ordinance Discussion
File No.Item No: F.1
Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Prepared By Eric Maass, Community Development Director
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
No suggested action; general discussion only.
SUMMARY
The City Council discussed the potential for adding to the city's ordinances related to Heritage Trees.
Following a presentation by staff at the September 22 City Council work session meeting, the staff were
directed to draft an ordinance establishing a definition for "heritage tree," as well as requirements
related to the removal and subsequent replacement of heritage trees if removed as part of a subdivision
application.
Staff has prepared a first draft of that ordinance and has attached it to this case for general feedback
from the Planning Commission.
54
BACKGROUND
The proposed ordinance would modify Chapter 18, subdivisions, and as a result, a public hearing is
required to be held by the Planning Commission.
City staff anticipate a formal public hearing at the November 3 Planning Commission meeting
following feedback from the Planning Commission on October 7 and from the Environmental
Commission on October 8.
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
No formal recommendation; general discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Ordinance XXX: Establishing Heritage Tree Definition and Regulations
55
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 18, CHANHASSEN,
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE, DEFINING HERITAGE TREES
AND ADDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS AND PRESERVATION OF OR REPLACEMENT OF
HERITAGE TREES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 1, Section 1-2 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to include the following:
Heritage Tree means any healthy deciduous tree measuring at least 25 inches in
diameter at breast height (DBH) or any living coniferous tree that measures at
least 30 feet in height. (20)
Significant Tree means any healthy tree species measuring five inches or more
DBH; or any healthy coniferous tree measuring 12 feet in height or more. (20)
Section 2. Section 18-61(d)(2) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended as follows:
(2) Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be
prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed foresters, or other
professional approved by the city. The tree survey shall reflect conditions on site
at the time of submittal, or shall have been reviewed and updated no more than
two years prior to the submittal date. This survey shall include the species, DBH
size for deciduous trees and height in feet for coniferous trees, condition
identified as poor, fair, or good, location of all deciduous trees over five inches in
diameter and any healthy coniferous tree measuring 12 feet in height or more, and
any damaged or diseased trees on site. All heritage, significant, special, damaged,
or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified on the survey. A delineation of the
existing canopy coverage area(s), which outline all areas covered by tree canopy,
shall be included as part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased
trees shall be cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease
specified
Section 3. Section 18-61(d)(2)(c) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to include the following:
56
c. Priority shall be given to retaining stands of trees and undisturbed wooded
lands , as well as heritage trees. No more than ten percent of the canopy
retention requirement may be met by an individual tree that is not included
within a designated woodland area.
Section 4. Section 18-61(d)(2)(f) and Section 18-61(d)(2)(h) of the City Code, City of
Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows:
f. In addition to minimum canopy coverage, if a subdivision proposes to
remove heritage trees, the applicant will be subject to additional
replacement requirements. A removal allowance of up to 25% of heritage
tree diameter inches will be given. Heritage trees removed from the site in
excess of the 25% allowance shall be required to be replaced at a rate of 1
inch of replacement for every 1 inch of heritage deciduous tree proposed
to be removed and 1 foot of replacement for every heritage coniferous tree
proposed to be removed. These replacement plantings are in addition to
and do not count towards plantings associated with adherence to canopy
coverage requirements.
h. General Exemptions:
1. The following species are not considered heritage trees but still need to
be listed on a tree survey if over 5 inches in diameter: ash, aspen,
boxelder, elm, mulberry, willow, and fruit trees.
2. Any invasive or noxious species, as defined by the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture, will not be considered a heritage tree.
Section 5. Section 18-61(d)(9) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended as follows:
9. If any protected significant trees or heritage trees are removed or killed or there is a
loss of trees as the result of construction activities, the city requires replacement at the
rate of two diameter inches per each inch of DBH of the removed, killed, or lost
deciduous trees and at the rate of two feet per each foot of coniferous tree removed,
killed or lost. The replacement deciduous trees shall be at least 2½ inches in diameter
and at least 6 feet for coniferous trees replaced. All replacement trees will be species
that conform to the "list of desirable tree species" for Planting in Chanhassen. No
more than ten percent of the trees may be from any one tree species. Other species or
sizes may be used as replacement trees, subject to approval by the cit y. Alternatively,
at the city's discretion, if a developer removes trees within a protected area, the
canopy coverage area shall be calculated for that area, and a replacement area two
times the canopy coverage area that was removed shall be planted. One tree shall be
planted for each 1,089 square feet of required replacement area. Trees shall be from
the list of desirable tree species, no more than ten percent of trees from any one tree
species, with an average 2½-inch diameter, a similar species as vegetation existing
on-site, and appropriate to the soil conditions. For any replacement trees that cannot
be planted on the original site due to space restrictions, the developer shall pay the
57
city the value of the trees, including material and installation, into the community tree
planting fund. For any heritage tree that cannot be replaced on site due to space
restrictions, the developer shall pay the city the value of the tree at twice the rate of
the fee set for significant trees.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2025, by the City Council of the City
of Chanhassen, Minnesota
______________________________ ________________________________
Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor
(Published in the ____________ on ______________________________)
58