Loading...
26-04 PC staff report updated 3-17 PH (952) 227-1100 • ChanhassenMN.gov 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA • 55317 Application: Site Plan Approval (Planning Case #2026-04) Staff Report Date: March 11, 2026 Drafted By: Rachel Jeske, Planner Eric Maass, Community Development Director Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer Jamie Marsh, Environmental Resource Specialist Planning Commission Review Date: March 17, 2026 City Council Review Date: April 13, 2026 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting site plan approval for building additions and site alterations to Minnetonka Middle School West. LOCATION: 6421 Hazeltine Blvd PID: 25.0033000 APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Minnetonka Independent School District 276 PRESENT ZONING: Office & Institutional (OI) 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Public/Semi Public ACREAGE: 30.54 DENSITY: N/A PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested site plan for building additions and site alterations to Minnetonka Middle School West subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with zoning ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the city must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT A public open house was held at the Minnetonka Middle School West on March 3, 2026, for residents to ask questions about the project and provide feedback. Notice of the public hearing at the Planning Commission was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article XXI, “OI” Office and Institutional District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office- Institutional Developments SITE PLAN REVIEW Proposal The Applicant is requesting approval for the construction of building additions and site alterations for Minnetonka Middle School West. The additions will include the addition of four new science labs on the northwest corner of the building and a new gymna sium on the east side of the building. Additional site improvements include the construction and reorientation of the outdoor track and athletic field and the rerouting of the drop -off and pick-up queue. A site plan review is required for building expansio ns that increase the gross building floor area by 10% or more. Compliance Table Ordinance Requirements Subject Site Lot Area 15,000 square feet 1,338,842 square feet Lot Coverage 65% 45.7% Building Height Principal 2 stories/35 feet 2 stories/~33 feet Building Setbacks – Classroom Addition Front yard 35 feet 35.75 feet Building Setbacks – Gymnasium Addition Rear yard 30 feet ~615 feet Side yard (South) 15 feet ~211 feet Accessory Structure Setback (Track) Rear yard 30 feet ~45 feet Side yard (South) 15 feet 40 feet Parking Setback Rear Yard 50 feet ~566 feet Side yard (South) 50 feet 29 feet* * Parking layout must be modified so that parking spaces maintain their existing setback. The existing parking setback is approximately 48 feet. Parking City Code Section 20-1124(b)(21) requires that junior high schools provide “four parking spaces for each classroom or office room plus one space for each 150 square feet of seating area including aisles, in any auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium.” The site currently has 203 daily parking spaces and 131 additional event parking spaces: a total of 340 existing parking spaces. With the proposed addition, the site will have 80 classrooms/offices and 6,334 square feet of auditorium seating area. Based on the relevant parking requirements, the number of classrooms/offices requires 320 parking spaces, and the proposed auditorium seating area requires 42 parking spaces – for a total of 362 parking spaces. The applicant is currently proposing to add two additional parking spaces: a total of 342 parking spaces. Based on this, staff find that the site plan must be adjusted to add total of 20 additional parking spaces, or a proof of parking plan must be provided, and a proof of parking agreement must be approved by the City Council. The proposed development also reroutes the drop-off and pick-up queueing area and adds 33 linear feet of new queueing space. Loading, Mechanical, and Refuse Areas City Code Section 20-1071, within the Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial, and Office- Institutional Development, requires that mechanical equipment, refuse areas, loading docks, and other site elements that tend to be unsightly must be screened fro m public view. Screening shall be accomplished through the use of walls, fencing, dense plantings or any combination which is equally effective in the winter as in the summer. The proposed plans do not show the required screening for mechanical equipment. Screening of all proposed rooftop mechanical equipment must be shown on plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. Lighting A photometric plan and light fixture specification sheets were provided with the plan set for the proposed detached light fixtures. All light fixtures show a cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees and do not exceed 30 feet in height. The photometric plan shows that the light levels do not exceed one-half-foot candle at the property lines. An updated photometric plan and specification sheets must be provided for any light fixtures proposed to be attached to the exterior of the building additions. Signage Signage for the property shall comply with the signage regulations in City Code Section 20-1302 and all other applicable regulations to the site. Sign permits will be required to be applied for and reviewed at the time of building permit review. LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION The applicant for the Minnetonka Middle School West addition has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. The submitted plans show that the proposed tree canopy exceeds the minimum requirements in city code. Total upland area (excl wetlands, bluff): 30.54 acres Baseline Canopy Coverage: 4.38 acres Minimum Canopy Coverage Required: 3.05 acres or 10% Proposed Tree Preservation: 4.01 acres or 13% Canopy Coverage and Tree Replacements: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan showing a total of 12 new trees and 66 new shrubs to be planted. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to spade transplant 21 existing trees to new locations on the site. All plantings must meet city diversity requirements. No more than 30% of the trees can be from one family, no more than 20% from the same genus, and no more than 10% of the same species. As shown above, the site meets minimum canopy coverage requirements. The Heritage Tree Ordinance amendment was adopted on February 9, 2026, which may potentially impact the number of replacements required for the site plan. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan showing a total of 12 trees (29.25” dbh) to be planted on site which may or may not be sufficient. Additional tree replacements may be required if it’s found that Heritage Trees are being removed as part of this project. Vehicular Use Area Requirements City code section 20-1181 provides regulations for vehicular use area landscaping requirements. Publicly owned and operated parking lots used for long duration parking may be exempt from these requirements when there is a demonstrated concern regarding security or safety. The school parking lot is proposed to be modified, but not fully reconstructed. As a result, additional vehicular use landscaping requirements are not required to be implemented. Buffer Yard Requirements Buffer yard planting requirements as defined in City Code Chapter 20 -1176, are required between the site, adjacent developments, and HWY 41. The North and West buffer yards must be included in the site plan. Buffer yard calculations are listed below. Required plantings/landscape area Proposed Plantings Buffer yard A – North Prop. Line – 601’ Buffer Yard Depth: 30’ 5 Overstory trees 10 Understory trees 14 Shrubs Buffer yard B – East Prop. Line – 1,144.5‘ Buffer Yard Depth: 30‘ 9 Overstory Trees 18 Understory trees 27 Shrubs Existing vegetation meets requirements on South buffer yard. Buffer yard B – South Prop. Line – 783’ Buffer Yard Depth: 25’ 9 Overstory Trees 19 Understory trees 28 Shrubs Buffer yard B – West Prop. Line - 905’ Buffer Yard Depth: 30’+ 7 Overstory Trees 14 Understory trees 21 Shrubs If, through construction, existing buffer plantings are killed, additional plantings will be required in order to maintain compliance with city code. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Required architectural standards The proposal must comply with the architectural standards established in City Code Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office- Institutional Developments. Architectural Style The City Code states that architectural style shall not be restricted and that the evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and in relationship to its surroundings, guided by the provisions of City Code. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing and rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setbacks, and orientation. Designs that are incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are not acceptable. Monotony of design, both within projects and between any project and its surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and siting shall provide visual interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and plant mat erials, sizes, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building components and details, height, roofline, and setback. Accent material may occupy up to 15 percent of the building's facade. These may include metal, glass block, spandrel glass or similar materials approved by the city. The use of any plain concrete panels, sheet metal panels, or EFIS shall only be used when specifically permitted by the city in areas with limited public view or as accent materials. Massing and Placement The City Code states that all buildings shall be located as close as possible to the principal building setback line and the majority of parking shall be to the rear or side of the building or screened area. The developable area of the subject site is highly constrained by the location of the existing building, parking lots, and fields as well as the required building setbacks. The proposed classroom addition to the northwest side of the school meets the intent of city code, as it would bring more of the building up to the front building setback line. The gymnasium is proposed to be added to the east of the cafeteria as it causes minimal modifications to the existing conditions of the site, and it is logical to the internal layout of the school. The impacts of the eastern addition on the site requires the applicant to optimize the parking and queueing areas as well as the outdoor recreation space. These modifications increase the sense of order within the site and will lead to more efficient circu lation. Elevations – Classroom Addition North Elevation South Elevation West Elevation Elevations – Gymnasium Addition South Elevation East Elevation North Elevation West Elevation Rendering Materials and Color Science Lab Addition – This addition features majority red and white face brick with metal accent panels. Gymnasium Addition – This addition features majority precast concrete panels with brick and sandblasted finishes. Metal panels and tan and white face brick are all used as accent materials. The proposed materials and colors are harmonious with the existing building. The proposed materials meet the intent of the design standards for office and institutional buildings. Architectural Interest – Classroom Addition The classroom addition mimics the surrounding architecture of the existing building. The proposed materials are horizontally divided with a base of tan face brick under a band of white face brick and a metal building cap. This addition includes many window s that provide sufficient façade transparency. Architectural Interest – Gymnasium Addition The gymnasium addition displays a horizontal division of materials between the first and second stories. This division of materials and the strategy of using darker materials closer to the ground helps to minimize the impact of the addition. This addition also includes metal accent panels that provide visual interest and break up the wall massing. ENGINEERING & WATER RESOURCES REVIEW Overview The applicant is requesting a site plan review for facility improvements at the property located at 6421 Hazeltine Boulevard. The proposal includes improvements to the site consisting of building additions, a turf athletic field, pavement construction, and new stormwater management features. Plans dated February 13, 2026, and a stormwater report dated February 27, 2026, both prepared by VAA, were reviewed by staff. Access The project site is located in the north central portion of Chanhassen. The Minnesota Department of Transportation owns and maintains Hazeltine Boulevard (State Highway 41). Work proposed within, adjacent to, or accessing the project site from this public right -of-way will likely require a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The applicant shall coordinate with all applicable agencies to confirm permitting requirements. Proof that all required permits have been obtained shall be submitted prior to the issuance of buil ding permits. Grading & Drainage The site consists of a single parcel that currently contains a building, bituminous pavement, and sports facilities, with the remaining areas maintained as open grass. Under existing conditions, the northern portion of the site drains west toward a storm s ewer located at the northwest corner of the property within Hazeltine Boulevard. This storm sewer flows north along Hazeltine Boulevard and ultimately outlets to a wetland located west of the project site. Most of the southern portion of the site drains to a drainage ditch located at the southwest corner of the property within Hazeltine Boulevard, which conveys runoff to a wetland located just south of the project site. An existing treatment basin is also located at the southwest corner of the site and discharges to this drainage ditch. A small portion of the southeast corner of the property currently drains south offsite. Under proposed conditions, the site will be mass graded to accommodate building expansion, pavement, and a turf athletic field. Overall drainage patterns will remain generally consistent with existing conditions. Three filtration basin Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed to treat runoff from the new impervious surfaces. Stormwater from the western building addition will be collected by roof drains and conveyed to a filtration basin located in the west- central portion of the property. This basin will discharge to the existing drainage ditch along Hazeltine Boulevard. Stormwater from the southern building addition will also be collected by roof drains and conveyed to a second filtration basin located in the south-central portion of the site. This basin will discharge through an existing basin at the southwest corner of the property before ultimately draining to the ditch along Hazeltine Boulevard. Additional runoff from adjacent greenspace will enter this basin via sheet flow. The proposed turf athletic field will function as a third filtration basin. Runoff from the field surface will be collected within the field system and conveyed to the second filtration basin. Collectively, the proposed filtration basins are intended to provide treatment for new impervious surfaces and to meet applicable discharge rate requirements. Erosion Control The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disp osal System (NPDES Construction Permit). All erosion control shall be installed and inspected by city staff prior to initiation of site grading activities. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). No earth disturbing activities may occur until an approved SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements of the permit. The SWPPP will need to be updated as the plans are finalized when the contractor and their sub - contractors are identified and as other conditions change. An approved SWPPP shall be submitted prior to issuing building permits. All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading activities. Environmental Protection Districts • Wetland Protection – No wetlands on site. • Bluff Protection – No natural bluffs on site. • Shoreland Management – Not within a shoreland management district • Floodplain Overlay – Not within a floodplain overlay district. Stormwater Management Article VII, Chapter 19 of the City Code establishes the required stormwater management development standards. Section 19-141 states that these standards must be reflected in plans prepared by developers and project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions, and water management features. The standards require abstraction of runoff and water quality treatment sufficient to achieve removal of 90 percent total suspended solids (TSS) and 60 percent total phosphorus (TP). The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and is therefore subject to its rules and regulations. A small portion of the site in the southeast corner falls within the hydrologic boundary of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District; however, the entire site lies within the political boundary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A permit from the watershed district will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. A Stormwater Management Report has been submitted for review to verify compliance with all applicable stormwater management requirements, including rate control, volume abstraction, and water quality treatment. All review comments from both the City and the watershed district must be addressed prior to project approval. The proposed design includes three filtration basins to meet stormwater management requirements. Two of the basins are surface filtration basins, while the third consists of sand filtration section located beneath the turf athletic field. Surface runoff as sociated with the proposed filtration basins was evaluated as part of this analysis. However, discrepancies were identified between the TP and TSS modeling, hydraulic modeling, and the project plans. Due to these inconsistencies, compliance with removal standards cannot be confirmed at this time. The applicant also submitted calculations and supporting narrative indicating the proposed drainage design will not adversely impact adjacent properties. Despite this, minor discrepancies were found between the Stormwater Management Report, HydroCAD and MIDS models, report appendices, and the project plans. As a result, compliance with rate control requirements cannot be verified. Discrepancies include storage surface area and volumes, impervious area within drainage areas and routed to BMPs, surface soil conditions, discharge rates, and HWLs. Additionally, potential offsite drainage to the east should be analyzed, as no offsite drainage is currently included in the modeling. As part of the final site plan review and agreement, the applicant shall submit final versions of the stormwater modeling (HydroCAD and MIDS) and an updated Stormwater Management Report that addresses all outstanding comments and confirms compliance with rate control, volume abstraction, and water quality standards. Stormwater discharged from the site is routed directly to right-of-way areas owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. As a result, permits will likely be required from this agency to verify that stormwater requirements are met and that the prop osed design will not adversely impact downstream systems. The applicant shall provide proof of all required permits prior to issuance of building permits. All stormwater infrastructure on the site will be privately owned and maintained. The applicant shall prepare an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the private stormwater infrastructure onsite. Maintenance of private stormwater systems is required in perpetuity. The O&M Plan must be approved by the Water Resources Engineer, or their designee, and recorded against the benefiting property. The stormwater O&M agreement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider nine possible adverse effects of the proposed site plan. The nine effects and our findings regarding them are: a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the Comprehensive Plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; Finding: The site plan is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive plans and other relevant development guides. b) Consistency with the site plan review requirements; Finding: The site plan is consistent with the site plan review requirements. c) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; Finding: The proposed design minimizes tree removals and grading to keep with the appearance of surrounding areas. d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; Finding: The proposed design creates a harmonious relationship between the existing building, the proposed additions, the outdoor recreational area, and the natural areas. e) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: i. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; ii. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; iii. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and iv. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Finding: The proposed site plan does create an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site through the balance of landscaping, material applications, and improved circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. f) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The site plan as proposed does protect adjacent and neighboring properties for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air that could have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. g) Within the Highway Corridor (HC) districts, consistency with the purpose, intent and standards of the HC districts. Finding: The proposed site plan is not within the Highway Corridor District. h) Within the Bluff Creek Overlay (BCO) district, consistency with the purpose, intent and standards of the BCO district. Finding: The proposed site plan is not within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. i) Maintain an acceptable road system level of service. Finding: The proposed site plan maintains an acceptable road system level of service. The proposed site additions and alterations will not result in additional school enrollment or staff or increase traffic volumes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the approval of the site plan and the adoption of the findings of fact and recommendation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTS PLANNING: 1. An updated photometric plan and specification sheets must be provided for any light fixtures proposed to be attached to the exterior of the building additions. 2. Existing parking counts must be verified and updated in the plan set. 3. Plans must be updated to show 20 additional parking spaces, or a proof of parking plan must be provided and a proof of parking agreement must be approved by the City Council prior to building permit issuance. 4. Parking layout must be modified so that parking spaces do not encroach farther into the southern side yard parking setback than the existing parking area. 5. Screening of rooftop mechanical equipment must be shown on plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. FORESTRY: 1. Final landscaping plans must be approved by the city’s environmental resource specialist. 2. All plantings must meet city diversity requirements. No more than 30% of the trees can be from one family, no more than 20% from the same genus, and no more than 10% of the same species. 3. City code section 18-61(d)(2) states that a tree survey shall include the species, DHB size, condition identified as poor, fair, or good, and location of all trees over five inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased tree. As submitted, the tree invent ory only provides species and DBH inches but omits the current tree condition. City staff will not require the current condition of all trees noted in the inventory, but requests that the existing tree condition be provided for any existing trees that will not be removed, but which are adjacent to planned tree removals or other construction activity. 4. Applicant must include location of the tree preservation fencing on the plan set. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. 5. All trees must be planted on private property outside of the city’s right -of-way. 6. If, through construction, existing buffer plantings are killed, additional plantings will be required in order to maintain compliance with City Code Section 20-1176. 7. The existing tree survey shall be updated to show which trees are marked for preservation and which trees are marked for removal. 8. There is a note on the plans dated February 13, 2026 that evergreens were not included in canopy coverage calculations, please update the canopy coverage calculations to include evergreens. 9. Current buffer yard calculations do not include the buffer yard multiplier which decreases the required number of trees and shrubs if there is a wider buffer. Applicant should reach out to city staff for feedback specific to each buffer yard. 10. The Heritage Shade Tree Ordinance was passed on February 9, 2026 which includes tree replacement requirements for healthy mature trees of certain species over 25” dbh. Tree replacement requirements will be determined once tree survey is updated noting the tree removals. 11. If trees marked for removal fall under the city’s definition of a Heritage Tree, there will be additional replacement requirements. 12. City staff recommends the following amendments be made to the site landscape plan general notes listed on pages: L2.0, L2.1, L2.2, L2.3: a. It is recommended that mulch depth does not exceed 4” b. It is not recommended to only use soil amendments in planting holes as this creates a “pot” for the roots and they typically struggle to spread into the surrounding native soil. Backfilling with native soil is recommended. c. It is recommended that the mulch be pulled away about 3” from the base of the tree as to not be in contact with the tree. ENGINEERING & WATER RESOURCES: 1. The applicant and their design Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the plans, dated February 13, 2026, prepared by VAA, to fully satisfy plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff. 2. The applicant shall confirm filtration treatment volume provided onsite and verify that all stormwater design aspects match as modeled in HydroCAD and MIDS, presented in the stormwater management report body and appendices, and shown on the plans. Items found with discrepancies included storage surface area and volumes, impervious within drainage area, surface soil conditions, and resulting discharge rates. The applicant shall also analyze and confirm offsite drainage boundaries that lead to the site. The applicant shall submit verification that rate control requirements are met prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The applicant shall provide explanation of treatment methods utilized in MIDS modeling or revise the model parameters to align with site conditions and verify compliance with water quality requirements prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Soil testing shall be required during construction to confirm underlying soil conditions are present at the basin locations, since initial soil borings are not located within basin footprints. 5. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other applicable agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, MCWD Watershed District, Board of Water and Soil Resources, MDH, MPCA, etc.). The applicant shall submit verification that all applicable permits have been secured prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall provide final versions of hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) and water quality modelling with the building permit submittal. 7. The applicant shall develop a maintenance plan for the onsite stormwater system. A n operations and maintenance agreement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. The applicant shall provide storm sewer drainage maps and storm sewer sizing calculations to satisfy final plan comments and concerns. BUILDING: 1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota and plans must be submitted to the State of Minnesota for plan review, state approved plans must be submitted with building permit application. 3. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.