Loading...
10.13.2025 CC item MinutesCity Council Minutes – October 13, 2025 5 Councilmember Kimber moved, Councilmember Schubert seconded that the Chanhassen City Council table Resolution #2025-XX until November 10. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. GENERAL BUSINESS. 1. Ordinance 751: Minnewashta Apartments Rezoning and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 25-11) Eric Maass, Community Development Director, reviewed Planning Case 25-11, which proposed rezoning of a 5.6-acre property to construct a 44-unit multi-family apartment building. He reviewed the communications completed about the project prior to this meeting. He reviewed the zoning designations and stated that the current zoning was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He analyzed the rezoning request and noted that it was compatible with the comprehensive, existing and planned land uses, the zoning ordinance, and it does not tend to or depreciate adjacent properties. He stated that the utilities could provide adequate service. He summarized the site plan review, building location setbacks, parking, tree replacement, landscaping, buffering, lighting, road access, private sewer and water, stormwater best management practice, and renderings. He stated that the staff included a condition to verify that the building height measured aligned with the City Code. Charlie Howley, Public Works Director, discussed the existing conditions of traffic on Highway 41. He reviewed the response to the queuing issue on Highway 7 and Highway 41 and noted that MnDOT is reviewing the traffic operations and could potentially adjust the signal timing. He stated that MnDOT is actively scoping a project to reconfigure the highway at Lake Lucy and Longacres Intersections. He discussed the potential to construct the MMSW Roundabout as long as funding is available. He stated that the City Staff is assembling information to develop funding options and a concept layout for the Lake Lucy Roundabout. He said that Carver County indicated that the Corridor would be a focus area for their LOST money. He reviewed the project merits and noted that the Highway 41 traffic problems are not caused by the apartment project. He stated they wanted to consider the intersection functionality and noted that the temporary traffic signal would help the traffic. He commented that this project enhanced the goal for the roundabout at the school, as they got the easement dedication, the Trouvaille Driveway realignment, stormwater management, water main relocation, and $450,000 in project savings. Josh McKinney, Measure Group, stated that they started working on the project a year ago. He said there was collaboration between the project team and the City Staff to help with minimizing impacts on the Corridor and general communication. Councilmember Schubert stated that the community has been experiencing frustration due to the construction of many apartment buildings. She asked how often the Comprehensive Plan did not match the current zoning and if this was the standard protocol to change the zoning as City Council Minutes – October 13, 2025 6 developments come forward. Mr. Maass responded that it depends on how often the zoning did not match the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the city sets a comprehensive plan every ten years and they look at the community and guide development based on population, household, and employment growth projections. They look at land available for development and guide it based on policies set by the City Council and commissions. He said that there are not a lot of land use designations that are inconsistent. He responded that they have a variety of housing projects throughout the community, including apartments, townhomes, and detached single- family residential developments. Councilmember Kimber asked for details about the temporary traffic signals. He asked what would happen with the pedestrian crossing for the school. Mr. Howley answered that it would be wood poles with wires with dangling stop lights, but it would not have the concrete foundations. He said that they would design the temporary traffic signals in December and would likely be constructed before July 1, 2026. He thought it would have a pedestrian function. He commented that the existing RRFB pedestrian crossing would be eliminated in this case. Councilmember Kimber asked if the installation would happen in April through June. He asked when the construction was planned for the apartment complex. Mr. McKinney answered that they would coordinate the activities with the City staff for the implementation of the traffic signal, but they estimated they would start construction in April. Councilmember Kimber clarified that the Highway 5 closure happened on July 1. Mr. Howley answered that there were a few separate phases of closure. The phase in April would close Highway 5 at the intersection of Highway 41. He commented in July that they would construct Highway 41 south of Highway 5. Councilmember Kimber said he was at this intersection often, and the whole location is an issue. He discussed that the queuing was extended and dangerous. He expressed concerns since the data was from pandemic-era traffic. He stated he was uncomfortable with the potentially increased traffic. He expressed concerns about the project impacting traffic on Highway 41. He said that the light would help with improvements, but he would feel more comfortable if they could install the light sooner and do an updated traffic study. Mayor Ryan stated that the official public hearing took place on September 16. She stated that they were familiar with a lot of the feedback. She reviewed how the public could ask questions during the meeting. Mayor Ryan opened the public hearing. Rachel Popken, 2460 West 64th Street, stated that the September meeting was postponed, so many neighbors intended to go, but the date change was difficult. She asked that the City Council not approve the project at the time. She commented that she must go into the intersection and wave her arms for her children to be able to cross safely. She encouraged an City Council Minutes – October 13, 2025 7 actual traffic study in a construction situation to be completed. She commented that an R-8 zoning was dense for that location. She expressed concerns about the acoustics in the area and that the residents would get the apartments’ noise pollution. Erin Olson, 2630 Forest Avenue, expressed concerns about the traffic. She stated that the pieces of the zoning were out of place. She said that the apartment building was closest to the park, which did not seem logical. She commented that approximately seven hundred apartment units had been discussed for approval in Chanhassen. She said that the middle school had not addressed the traffic problem. Katherine Fisher, 6461 Oriole Avenue, said that they had over ten cars picking up their kids at the school, and they sped through the neighborhood. She commented that the apartment did not have enough parking for the units, so she expressed concerns about apartment residents parking their cars in her neighborhood. She said that her property would devalue in price and her taxes would likely increase, and she would no longer feel safe in her neighborhood. Craig Popken, 2460 West 64th Street, expressed gratitude for the presentation from the City staff. He said that the traffic was bad at off-peak hours. He asked what the pedestrian plan would be if a roundabout was installed. Don Dueffert, 2451 West 64th Street, said he could not imagine what his relatives would say if they saw Chanhassen today. He commented that Chanhassen was one large sidewalk. He said he moved to the neighborhood because they thought it was a nice area of Chanhassen. He stated that they previously had a farm by Lake Susan, and the location is now apartments and townhomes. Kelly Peterson, 2444 West 64th Street, agreed with the previous comments. She said they have lived at the property since 2003. She said there were traffic concerns on Highway 41 and Highway 7. She stated that a lot of cars come into their neighborhood because of the school pickup. She was worried that there would be additional issues with their street repair. John Gilbert, 1641 Jeurissen Lane, commented that he did not live near the proposed project, but he lives near Avienda, where four hundred apartments were being installed. He complimented the city on its completed traffic study and said that a good traffic study often leads to reliable results. He said that the processes that the city went through did seem to work. He asked if they said no to this project, does that remove opportunities for other developers. Aleksey Kerbel, 2061 Melody Hill Road, stated that a normal traffic light would not accommodate guards walking students across the street. He said that there were no places for those cars dropping students off to park. He said that they were talking about approving something that would have a huge implication a few years away, when they do not have a true study completed. He said once wetlands were impacted, there was no return. He stated that they had no wetland data. He stated that the plan had a lot of studies or pieces in progress, so he encouraged them to slow down. City Council Minutes – October 13, 2025 8 Luke Steck, 6239 Chaska Road, voiced agreement with other comments. He said that Chaska Road had a lot of pass-through traffic, which was a large concern for small children. He said that there was a difference between an apartment building and single-family homes, so he thought the nearby property values would be negatively impacted. Katie Lahl, 6320 Forest Circle, stated that they would put a temporary light further south and remove the current crosswalk. She said that children would have to go out of their way to get to and from school with the change. She asked how the roundabout would make pedestrian crossing safer. Carrie Miller, 2445 West 64th Street, said that this was not a small zoning request, as R-8 is the most intense density allowed, and that it would be inconsistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She commented that the roundabout was not a good solution for pedestrian safety. She said that there would be no traffic signals for cars to stop in a roundabout for pedestrians. She encouraged them to deny the R-8 request. Devin Scheer, 2461 West 64th Street, supported his neighbors’ comments. He stated that his property is right next to the proposed apartment. He asked how this would impact his property value and what residents were asking for all these apartments. He said that their neighborhood had a lot of wildlife, and voiced concerns about running out of room for wild animals to roam free. A resident said that everyone here involved with the city should go up to Highway 41 at 4:00 p.m. and try to use the crosswalk. Annette Dueffert, 2451 West 64th Street, said that they bought a house on the cul-de-sac, which was nice. They had a pleasant view of the trees and enjoyed seeing the children. She stated that the apartment complex would impact their view from their front yard. Mayor Ryan closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Ryan asked Mr. Howley to expand on the roundabout. Mr. Howley said that the roundabout could be constructed in 2028 because of the detours and traffic already planned on the roadways. He said it was a single-lane roundabout, and at every quadrant, there would be a signed and striped pedestrian crossing with RRFPs. He stated that a pedestrian would only be crossing one leg of traffic at any point. He said that the speed of cars going through the roundabout was a safety improvement and that cars would have a better reaction time. He stated that the data proved that crossing at roundabouts was safer. Mayor Ryan said that they have been talking about roundabouts in the city for multiple years. She said that information was for the residents, as the City Council has asked similar questions previously. She asked about the movement of the temporary light and the removal of the City Council Minutes – October 13, 2025 9 crosswalk to the north, and where children would cross safely. Mr. Howley responded that kids could cross at the temporary signal. He said that drivers would generally stop at a red light before they stop at an RRFP, so the temporary light would be an improved crossing and would be further south by a couple of hundred feet. Mayor Ryan stated that one question was about wetlands and drainage, and that they passed through the information quickly. She asked about the difference between a preliminary plat and a final plat in terms of wetlands. Mr. Howley answered that there was a wetland on site in the southwest corner. He said that the developer would have to complete a wetland delineation and then go through the TEP panel to discuss the wetland marking, type, and buffers. He stated that the wetland had been delineated and they are not building anything on the wetland on the property. He said that the developer submitted for watershed approval, and they received routine comments from the watershed district. Mr. Maass said that the project did not include a preliminary plat or a final plat, as it was not a subdivision. He said that the applicant would have to enter into a site plan review with the city. Mayor Ryan discussed why the city is allowing apartments. She said that the city did not go out seeking apartments or developments, and that Chanhassen is a desirable place to live and do business. She stated that they did not set a maximum number of apartment buildings that could be built in Chanhassen. She said that the developer is doing market research to see if people would want to live in the area. She commented that the city addresses zoning and variances. She stated that there was a mix of commercial, industrial, multi-family homes, and single-family homes, which helps diversify the tax base. Councilmember Kimber said that a comment claimed this was inconsistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Maass responded that the property was guided for medium-density residential for almost twenty years. Councilmember McDonald stated that this was a quasi-judicial decision by the City Council if certain criteria were met. Mr. Maass answered that they had some level of discretion over which zoning district fit into the property, but the staff assessed whether the zoning district proposed, and the site plan fit. Councilmember McDonald asked if they were entitled to the rezoning. Ms. McDowell-Poehler responded that the rezoning was a legislative decision, so they had discretion to choose specific zoning that meets the Comprehensive Plan guidance. She said that the reason to deny the rezoning would have to be logistical. She said that the City Council could determine that a different zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would be more appropriate. Mayor Ryan asked about the traffic study. She said this project would not solve the Highway 41 Corridor traffic issues. She stated that parking in the neighborhoods near MMW had been an issue previously. She commented that they shared the parking concerns with the superintendent City Council Minutes – October 13, 2025 10 and the middle school. She said that three of the five City Council members had children go to MMF, so they were familiar with the traffic concerns. She asked why there had not been a traffic study that had taken place in an appropriate time frame for the project. Mr. Howley responded that the current traffic patterns are skewed and temporary. He said that if they used today’s traffic volumes from today and a couple of years ago, the net result would be the same. He discussed the level of service and the grades, which addressed the intersection itself and how cars operated. He stated that the temporary signal would help the intersection itself. Mayor Ryan said that the traffic study would help identify problems with the north-south traffic. She asked about the forty-four units having an impact on the functionality of the intersection. Mayor Ryan asked the developer about the designation of R-8 or R-4. She stated that the density and the height of the building was a concern to residents. She asked if they looked at an R-4 designation or less units. Mr. McKinney answered that they originally considered townhomes, but that the further you get away from the intersection at Highway 41, you would need to use a lift station to serve the bulk of the site. He said that the lift station was cost prohibitive. He asked if they could do a different project and connect to Oriel Avenue, but the grades proved to be cost-prohibitive. He said that they were trying to figure out ways to work with the city, but a lower number of units would not make the project financially feasible. Councilmember Kimber said the R-8 did follow the Comprehensive Plan. He asked what else would happen to the land. Ms. McDowell-Poehler said that there were other zoning districts permitted in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Ryan asked about lower-density development on the site. Councilmember Kimber said he heard them say that the Highway 5 project would close northbound Highway 41. He asked if that would allow for the construction of the roundabout. Mr. Howley answered that they could not construct a roundabout when school was in session. He said that Highway 5 staging was set. Councilmember Kimber said that the school removed the left turn lane from the school, which improved the traffic. He thought that the roundabout would fix the traffic. He recognized that a lot of people use Chaska Road as the go-around. He said he would like to look at a current traffic study. He said that the current traffic at the intersection was an F, and he did not feel comfortable with the improvement to an E. He would not be supporting the project because of the traffic patterns. Councilmember von Oven said that he would be upset if he lived in the area, he would be upset that he could not walk across the street to MMW. He said that preventing a legal owner of a piece of land from building something on their property is not right because the road is not fixed. He thought that the project would open the door to the roundabout. He stated he would support the project. City Council Minutes – October 13, 2025 11 Councilmember McDonald believed that the city did not control private property rights. He said that Mr. Kinglehutz’s relatives started the construction of the town when they subdivided their farm. He said that they cannot stop growth, as people have the right to build unless the city has a strong reason to stop the development. Councilmember Schubert said she understood the residents’ concerns deeply. She had multiple empty lots near her home, but it is now built up. She said that the city had learned a lot with development when considering the next Comprehensive Plan, but the property owners had a right to do with their property what they see fit if it fits with the City Code. Mayor Ryan said she lived in the area and had two kids that went to MMW. She said she was on City Council when the former principal of MMW requested a roundabout on Highway 41 in 2019. She said that they had conversations with the school district about the traffic issues, and the school also needed to address the traffic internally. She stated that the school district was supportive of the apartment. She said that they commonly hear from residents that they do not like development and do not want nature displaced, but the City Council has to follow the City Code to determine what they can approve and deny. She said that the development was within their land-use rights. She stated they had to determine the traffic based on the intersection where the apartment was constructed. She said that she had concerns with Highway 41 and Highway 5. She did not feel comfortable denying the application when there was no legal basis. She asked the City staff to work diligently to emphasize traffic safety with MnDOT. She encouraged the developer to address the concerns of the residents to see if they could improve upon the presented plan. Councilmember McDonald moved, Councilmember von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen City Council adopts the attached ordinance rezoning the subject property and approving the site plan for construction of a 44-unit apartment building, subject to the conditions of the approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 1. Councilmember Kimber voted nay. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilmember Schubert moved, Councilmember Kimber seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen