Loading...
09.16.2025 PC Item MinutesCHANHASSEN 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 Rosengren 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. 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. 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: 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