Chaska commission backs preliminary plan and zoning tweak for Inn on Yellow Brick Road

The Chaska Planning Commission on April 8 recommended that city council approve the preliminary site-and-building plan, a zoning ordinance amendment to PRD57 allowing modest extra building height when paired with enhanced screening, and the vacation of a drainage and utility easement for the Community Asset Foundation’s proposed four‑unit project on Yellow Brick Road.

City planning staff told commissioners the project would combine two existing Brickyard Villas lots into one parcel to make way for a two‑story, four‑unit residential building with about 3,800 square feet of gross floor area and a footprint just over 1,900 square feet. Staff said the formal requests before the commission were: (1) preliminary site and building plan; (2) a PRD57 zoning ordinance amendment to allow the use and establish standards; and (3) vacating an unused drainage and utility easement to enable the lot combination.

Why it matters: The principal issue for the commission was building height and how the city measures gabled roofs. The PRD57 district currently caps principal-structure height on the villa lots at 20 feet. Staff pointed to draft ordinance language that would allow an increase to up to 23 feet if the site is “appropriately screened,” creating a trade-off the commission spent most of the hearing debating. The applicant also sought a narrower parking setback (10 feet proposed vs. 25 feet in the code) and acknowledged outstanding details on grading, utility connections and the required 4,000 square feet of common open space for four units.

During the public hearing, applicant representative Dave Partardi of the Community Asset Foundation said the design intent is a two‑story building consistent in scale with nearby houses and townhomes and argued a 22½‑foot standard, as the design team measures it, would accommodate the building’s gables while fitting the neighborhood. “If it’s 22 and a half, this building meets your requirements,” Partardi said, adding the applicant is willing to work with staff on landscaping and to refine the porch and other architectural details before final review.

City staff outlined specific concerns about screening the reduced parking setback and the slow growth rate of the proposed arborvitae plantings, which staff said would take years to meet the code’s 75% year‑round opacity requirement. Staff also urged the applicant to provide clearer information on grading impacts to the adjacent property to the east and to secure written authorization from that property owner for any necessary grading work.

Commission discussion focused on two trade-offs: whether to hold the district to a strict 20‑foot limit, or to recommend the ordinance language that permits up to 23 feet when paired with enhanced landscaping. Several commissioners noted that neighboring buildings as measured under city code already vary between about 20 and 22 feet and that the visual difference of two to three feet would be modest at street level. Commissioners also pushed for practical solutions on landscaping—larger initial stock sizes, placement strategies and a short maintenance window for replacements—so the screening performs sooner rather than decades from planting.

Votes and next steps: The commission voted to recommend the preliminary plan to city council subject to staff’s stated conditions, recommended the draft zoning-ordinance amendment (which, as drafted, allows up to 23 feet with enhanced screening), and approved the drainage and utility easement vacation. Each motion carried by voice vote; no roll-call tallies were recorded in the transcript. Staff reminded the commission and applicant that final design changes (porch depth, lighting details, grading mitigation, and a final landscape plan) are expected before the project proceeds to permitting and that the easement vacation becomes effective only after the lot combination is recorded at the county.

The city council will consider the planning commission’s recommendations at a future meeting; if the council approves the ordinance amendment and the developer proceeds, the project will return to the commission for final review before permitting.