Loading...
12.02.2025 PC item- minutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead, and Dave Grover. MEMBERS ABSENT: Katie Trevena. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; and Jamie Marsh, Environmental Resources Specialist. PUBLIC PRESENT: Erik Hallstrom 9150 Springfield Drive Jess Moeding Clint Bitting 1531 Camden Ridge Drive Dan Blake 16831 Cedarcrest EP PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER A HARDCOVER VARIANCE FOR 1531 CAMDEN RIDGE (PLANNING CASE #25-18) Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, reviewed the subject property and noted that the current zoning designation is planned unit development residential. She stated that the 2040 land use plan is residential medium density, and the lot size is 0.34 acres. She reviewed the Camden Ridge PUD and stated that the hard surface coverage required 35 percent, but lots within the shoreland district may not exceed 25 percent site coverage. She commented that the variance request was for 27.4 percent, and the maximum was 25 percent due to it being in the shoreland management district. She stated the variance request was for a garage addition and home expansion. She stated that the property has proximity to a tributary stream. She said that the staff reviewed the variance findings and that it lacked practical difficulties for conforming with the code, was not in line with the intent of the chapter and the comprehensive plan, and there was no circumstance unique to the property that required the variance. She invited the P lanning Commission to discuss the planning case. Commissioner Olmstead clarified that it was a part of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Mrs. Arsenault responded that it was a part of the Bluff Creek Overlay District in the northwest corner of the property. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 2 Commissioner Olmstead asked if that brought in more requirements. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the overlay was aligned with the flora and fauna, and topography for the preservation of natural resources, and there is an associated setback from the boundary. Commissioner Soller asked about the water resources report, and although the staff did not recommend approval, if there was a version where a variance for lot cover was approved, the contingencies would have to be put in that would deal with the vegetative buffer along the creek. He asked if the only point of view was that an increase in lot cover would have a net negative environmental impact, or if there were tradeoffs to enhance the property so that the net impact to the environment was positive. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, responded that conditions were offered by the water resources engineer in the event of a variance approval but that those conditions were provided as a means to only mitigate the adverse impacts of additional impervious surface coverage within the shoreland overlay district. Commissioner Soller asked about the point of view of the Department of Natural Resources, and he asked about what level of jurisdiction or advising capacity for the lot cover variances. Mr. Maass responded that the DNR was only a commenting jurisdiction, and it does not have the authority to approve or deny a variance request. The city’s shoreland management ordinance was required to be reviewed and approved by the DNR. Any amendments to the shoreland ordinance itself must gain DNR approval. Commissioner Soller clarified that the Department of Natural Resources did not have oversight on the variance, but that the packet information was general guidance. Mr. Maass clarified that they were providing general guidance in this situation. Commissioner Olmstead asked about the proposed conditions that would have to be met. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed this information. Chairman Noyes invited the property owner up. Clint Bitting, 1531 Camden Ridge Drive, thanked them for their time and consideration. He stated that they had hard decisions. He stated that he and his family have lived in Chanhassen for ten years. He said that his family loves his neighbors and neighborhood, and they want to stay in the area. He thought that the variance was a small ask and that they needed a little more space to make things comfortable. He said other houses in the neighborhood were over the 25 percent variance, so they were hoping for flexibility. He stated that they were happy to add a buffer or to be as flexible as possible. He commented that some things are different on a survey and what happens on their property is different than what the water resource engineer considers. The side of the house is a hill, and the water rushes down the hill. He said that they were looking for flexibility so they could have more space on their property. Chairman Noyes asked about the contingency plan if they are not granted the variance. Mr. Bitting responded that the biggest reason for the variance is the need for a second home office since his wife works from home. They also wanted a garage that fit their vehicle. He said if they did not get the variance, they would punt on the project and figure out a different solution. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 3 Commissioner Olmstead said the water ponds are in their backyard. Mr. Bitting responded that some of the water goes into the creek, but other water settles in certain areas. Commissioner Olmstead asked whether a buffer would be beneficial to the property. Mr. Bitting answered that it would help and offset the hardcover increase. He stated that there is a big buffer near the creek already. Chairman Noyes thanked the property owner for the time. He asked Mrs. Arsenault about a rundown of other properties in the area with the two-tiered hardscape percentage. Mrs. Arsenault reviewed nearby properties and responded that the shoreland overland code was approved January 1, 1976, and this property was platted in 2013. Anything platted before 1976 was allowed to go up to 30 percent. Chairman Noyes asked if all the properties complied. Mrs. Arsenault responded that there were no recent property permits, but she said that there are some properties that aren’t in compliance, and some properties are in compliance. Chairman Noyes asked about the staff error in 2016. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the reported hardcover on the surveys was over 25 percent. Chairman Noyes questioned whether other properties had variance requests. Commissioner Soller clarified that the entire PUD was platted in 2013. Commissioner Olmstead said that it did not show a setback to the 1541 building, and whether the addition would impact this. Mrs. Arsenault said that the side setback was currently met, but verification would be made during the permitting. She said that there was an additional 15-foot separation code. Commissioner Grover asked what would happen if someone had hard cover and did not get a permit. Mrs. Arsenault answered that code enforcement had to be reported, and the code enforcement issue would be addressed. Mr. Maass said that the code enforcement was completed based on a complaint basis. Commissioner Soller said that people would not have to dismantle the construction. Mr. Maass responded that the property owner would have to either get a permit and conform to City Code or modify to adhere to City Code, including potentially dismantling the hard cover component. Commissioner Rosengren asked how many homes were in the district. Mrs. Arsenault said that there were around fifteen of the forty-five homes in this area. Commissioner Roesngren asked if the examples were immediate neighbors. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed this information. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 4 Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Erik Hallstrom, 13727 Louisville Road, Shakopee, Minnesota, said he was the acting contractor. He thanked them for their time and noted that the property was not as black and white. He voiced appreciation for displaying the hard surfaces of the neighbors, and that nine of the nineteen parcels were over the variance requirements. He said that they would be over by a small am ount, and it is difficult to cut a few feet out of certain areas. He stated that the property owner received a letter of approval from the homeowners' association. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chairman Noyes said it was difficult because there were several properties over the 25 percent mark. He asked if a number of the properties over 25 percent was due to the date of the platting. Mrs. Arsenault answered that all of the homes were built in 2016 after platting in 2013. She did not look beyond the seven nearest to the property. Chairman Noyes said he was not concerned about the opinion of the Homeowners’ Association, but he was concerned about the opinions of the Department of Natural Resources and the Water Resource Engineer. He understood that the homeowner did not want to build an addition that won’t meet the needs. He stated they would not be setting a precedent with additional non- compliance. Commissioner Soller asked if variances are evaluated independently and did not set a precedent. Mr. Maass confirmed this information and reviewed the variance findings of fact. He reviewed the definition of the practical difficulties and that the plight of the landowner was not due to the unique circumstances of the property to justify a variance. Commissioner Soller asked about the process for the variance findings of fact, and that they need to check all of the boxes. Mr. Maass confirmed this information, and they were identified by the standards set forth by the Minnesota State Statute. Commissioner Soller said that they normally look at misshapen lots that make things difficult for the property owner. He stated that if they deny a variance request, and if they were assenting to everything in the findings of fact, or if they could change the language of the motion before voting on it. Mr. Maass said that a motion to approve the findings of fact as presented would be a motion to deny. He said if there was an element of the findings of fact as drafted by the staff, the commissioner should make a notation in the motion or before the motion. Commissioner Soller said he agreed with subpoint d, but had a difficult time with subpoint e because it seemed subjective, so it was difficult to be factual. He stated that there were several non-conforming lots in the Planned Unit Development, so he found it difficult not to check the box. Commissioner Rosengren said he found difficulties because there are other properties that exceeded 25 percent, so they were saying to future applicants that the Planned Unit Development requirements would not matter. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 5 Commissioner Olmstead said he liked that they were not widening the access off Camden Ridge. He asked how much of the driveway was a part of the increase that put them over the 25 percent. Mrs. Arsenault responded that she was not aware. Mr. Maass said it was approximately 275 square feet, which put it about the 25 percent threshold. He stated that the staff tried to look at ways to reduce the threshold. For example, the proposed sunroom was a certain amount of square footage, and the driveway would be lengthened. They were trying to look for ways not to go through a variance, and they were not able to do that in this case, but there are opportunities to reduce the percentage. Commissioner Olmstead said that most driveways drain towards the curve. He wished water resources were present to discuss where the driveway would drain. Mr. Maass responded that any stormwater from the front line of the home catches the curbed line and hits a storm basin, and would be routed by gravity to a stormwater basin. He said that the percentage was based on the overall lot and not on which direction the water flowed. Commissioner Soller noted that there was inequality with non-conforming lots, especially when it is potentially nine of nineteen lots. He said if they confirm this information, it would not set a legal precedent, but there would be less preventing the properties at the Shoreland Overlay District from going to the 35 percent. He stated it was difficult to solve the problem with a variance. Chairman Noyes stated that they did not know if there were variances on the other properties. Mrs. Arsenault responded that they did not see any variances in recent years. Chairman Noyes said that the non-conforming lots happened around the original platting and building. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed this information. Commissioner Soller commented that 25 percent was not unique to the planned unit development, but all shoreland overlay property. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed that it was in the shoreland overlay requirements in the City Code. Commissioner Soller said that the variance was not the answer, but changing the terms of the Planned Unit Development to adjust the requirement. Mr. Maass responded that a city could modify a Planned Unit Development ordinance if it chooses to do so. Commissioner Soller asked if they were exposing themselves to risk. He asked if the 25 percent requirement existed in other Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Maass confirmed that it was a requirement throughout the city for any and all properties in the Shoreland Overlay District. Chairman Noyes asked where they would draw the line if they were to change it. Commissioner Soller said that he sees inequality in this neighborhood, specifically. He stated that the City Code compelled him to say no, but it was challenging. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 6 Commissioner Jobe stated that number four was his holding point. They were left with one box unchecked. If they were to think about rewriting the processes, he was not the expert. Commissioner Rosengren commented that it was hard to do the right thing or the fair thing. He referred to number eleven on the staff recommendations, and if they approve the variance, the staff recommended establishing a native buffer. He stated that if they approved the variance and required extra conditions, they would be addressing the unfairness that had been built up , but still requiring options to address the impacts. Chairman Noyes said he did not have proof of the other properties being over the 25 percent, other than the three that Mrs. Arsenault presented. He said that those three properties fell through the cracks. Commissioner Olmstead asked if the additional room qualified for an attached dwelling. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed that it did not because it was incorporated into the rest of the house. Commissioner Olmstead said it was an opportunity to keep good residents in the city and to allow them to take care of aging families. He said he liked the conditions that the water resources had put out. Commissioner Jobe asked about the net gain for the conditions of the secondary features. Mr. Maass responded that it was not sized or scaled; it would have to come after. He said that they were included just in case, not as a recommendation. Commissioner Grover said it was a situation where someone wanted a house rather than what was allowed by ordinance. He said he did not think the project met the criteria to receive a variance. He stated the project did not meet the criteria to get the variance. Chairman Noyes asked if someone had put forward a motion to deny the variance, and it was seconded, but it did not pass; it was equivalent to having the variance approved. Mr. Maass answered that it would just be a motion that failed to garner support, so the motion would fail. Chairman Noyes clarified that the only way to approve the variance was through a specific variance. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Commissioner Soller asked if the Planning Commission was the last step or if it would move on to the City Council. Mr. Maass answered that any person aggrieved by a decision by the Planning Commission could appeal the decision to the City Council. Commissioner Rosengren said it was difficult to make the decision, so he wanted the elected officials of the Chanhassen City Council to make the decision and weigh whether they wanted to balance the fairness or the ordinance. Mr. Bitting stated that some of the lots were misshapen, which would lend itself to a setback variance. Other lots are way over the limit. Mr. Rosengren answered that they needed to apply the ordinances in the city fairly to everyone. He stated it was not about the specific situation, but Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 7 the rules that all residents must abide. He said he did not want to be tasked with the weight of deciding because it seems above the Planning Commission's responsibilities. Commissioner Soller said that they were bound by a procedural decision-making process. He stated that other lots could be non-conforming, but the variance procedure would not allow them to say yes because there is no uniqueness with the property. He asked about the city staff’s findings of fact for number four about what circumstances unique to the property would include, such as the property and slope. He asked if these characteristics were subjective or if they were found in State statute or City Code, or well-known best practice. Mr. Maass answered that the features were unique to the property and not man-made or prior to the existing zoning ordinance. Commissioner Soller stated that the unique circumstance was not that they were in the Shoreland District. Mr. Maass confirmed this information, because otherwise, any zoning district could be considered a practical difficulty. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the fairness happening around the property qualified as a unique circumstance. Commissioner Soller said he could not go outside of the purview of what the Planning Commission was allowed to do, although he had difficulties with the hard cover restrictions. Mr. Hallstrom said that the precedent was already set when none of the other properties had to submit a variance. Mr. Maass clarified that a vote nay to the motion, the motion to deny would fail. He said a motion to deny would need four votes in the affirmative. He stated that any person could file a motion of appeal with the City Council. Commissioner Soller offered a friendly amendment for the City Council to look at the findings of fact and the criteria that are not met. He said they should not accept the finding of fact for number five, so he would vote in favor of voting aye if they said the inverse on point number five. Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the requested hardcover variance in the shoreland management district and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision, with the inverse on point number five. The motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Commissioner Olmstead voted nay. Chairman Noyes stated that this item could be appealed to the City Council. 2. ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDING CHAPTERS 1, 18, AND 20, DEFINING AND REGULATING HERITAGE TREES Mr. Maass reviewed the ordinance timeline. He stated that they were here to hold the Planning Commission Public Hearing, with an anticipation of going to the City Council in January 2026.