Loading...
CC 2018 08 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, and Andrea McDowell Poehler PUBLIC PRESENT: Conrad Fiskness 2385 Bridle Creek Circle Mike and Andi McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive Suzanne Hunt 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive Baro Egh Thiede 2091 Hennepin Avenue, Glencoe Dale Hayne 7510 Cahill Road, Edina Dennis Scheppmann 6740 Lakeway Drive Shelley Berken 6820 Diamond Court David & Jeff Allen 6870 Lake Harrison Circle Jessica Hansgen 7555 Walnut Curve Meghan Davy Chan Villager Cristin Maschka 2086 Majestic Way Ladd Conrad 6625 Horseshoe Curve Donna & Brian Strauss 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane Sue Bogan 7757 Butter? Court Janet Taylor 2051 Blue? Lane Paul Engebretson 7050 Tecumseh Lane Erika LaBarge 7050 Tecumseh Lane Mack Titess 2747 Century Trail Mauricio Goes 6930 Ruby Lane Mark Phillips 1760 Lucy Ridge Court Brian & Donna Strauss 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane Michelle & Matthew Myers 7421 Windmill Dive Greg Andrews 6895 Ruby Lane Steve Barnes 7100 Utica Lane Peter Polingo 1981 Topaz Drive Jay & Ann Marie Gerczak 1941 Topaz Drive Tom K. Lannom 6920 Ruby Lane Bark Klick 7116 Utica Lane Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Dale & Gloria Carlson Steve Wallace Kris Lenk Joanne & Bill Lambrecht Michael Bierden Linda Zabrosky Eric Hamborg Mark Gilk Matt & Deb Chambers Lora & Tony Hicks M.J. & Allan Olson Cheree Theisen Serena O'Brien Deirdre & Dake Chatfield Adam & Steph Tollefson Jeff Ische Wittas Jim Fredrickson & Michelle Treptar Jeff & Stacey Morken 6900 Utica Lane 6900 Lucy Ridge Lane 6895 Lucy Ridge Lane 6990 Utica Lane 2300 Lukewood Drive 2940 Highwood Drive 18612 Topaz Drive 6890 Ruby Lane 2169 Red Fox Circle 6910 Ruby Lane 7461 Windmill Drive 2072 Majestic Way 6879 Ruby Lane 2200 Majestic Way 4000 Stratford Ridge 25365 Smithtown Road, Shorewood 24625 Yellowstone Trail, Shorewood 6935 Ruby Lane 6945 Ruby Lane Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you and I want to welcome all of you to this meeting this evening. For those of you that are present in the chamber as well as those of you that are watching via Mediacom cable channel at home or anywhere on the world wide web through our Chanhassen website. And just for a note, for those of you that are not present I think we probably have, I'm going to guess about 100 people here in council chambers and there's probably some more that are over next door in the senior center. We're pleased to have so many people with us tonight. Also for the record please note that all council members are present this evening along with City Manager Todd Gerhardt and our legal counsel Andrea. Not Knutson. Andrea, nice to have you with us tonight. First action for tonight is our agenda. Council members are there any modifications to the agenda this evening? Mr. Gerhardt we have one modification do we not, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: The item listed as item G-2, the Control Concepts, that has been removed from the agenda is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: That item has been tabled to our next meeting Mayor. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Any other changes to the agenda? May I have a motion to approve the modified agenda. Councilman McDonald: So moved, 2 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Is there a second? Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Campion. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to approve the agenda as modified to table item G-2, Control Concepts. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: 1. Approval of City Council Minutes dated July 9, 2018 2. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 26, 2018 3. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated July 17, 2018 4. Approve Temporary On -Sale Liquor License Request: St. Hubert's Catholic Community; Harvest Festival on September 15, 2018 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Laufenburger: At this time anyone wishing to address the council on a matter that is not on the agenda this evening you may address the council by stepping to the podium. Stating your name and your address for the record. Don Amorosi: My name is Don Amorosi. Mayor Laufenburger: Say your name again? Don Amorosi: Donald E. Amorosi. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, and your address. Don Amorosi: My address is 2368 Grays Landing Road in Wayzata. I also am here on behalf on my ex-wife who's address is 6451 Oriole Avenue, Chanhassen, Minnesota. 3 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: And what's your presentation Mr. Amorosi? Don Amorosi: It's regarding a request of this committee to develop or set up a committee associated with investigating beyond the scope of the BCA's investigation in my son's shooting by two Carver County sheriff's. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, is there anything you want to say about that? Don Amorosi: Is this where I do it now or is that some other? Mayor Laufenburger: This is visitor presentation Mr. Amorosi and we welcome any comments to the council. Don Amorosi: Okay Mr. Mayor, I know you've seen my email and my concerns, as have all of you councilmen and councilwomen. I did not hear back from any of you so I think that this will be pertinent to share again and to some of the people that are here with me. First I do want to thank you for giving me and anyone who wants to have time to speak on behalf of what happened in our community about something that is of great interest and concern to all of us I believe, at least many, many, many in our community on both the north and south side of Highway 7. I don't know how this process works in this forum however I have a lot to say and I need to be heard. I'll be as brief as I can and hope for feedback when I'm finished. One month ago today my son Archer Amorosi was shot and killed mercilessly by two Carver County sheriff's in the front yard of his mother's home before both me and his mother. It was a horrific and unnecessary tragedy by my account. Before I go further I would remiss not to stress the importance to all of us that our city officials, you among then, recognize this as a tragedy. That it happened in our community and express some measure of condolence to my family and to the broader community. I have yet to see anything of the sort. In addition I think we would all benefit to hear what actions have been taken so far by the City regarding this matter and what we can anticipate from the City in the near future. We're aware that this tragedy is part of an open investigation by the State's Bureau of Criminal Activity and that a decision about prosecuting the case will be made by the Carver County Attorney in the future. What I would like to talk about and propose tonight has nothing to do with that investigation. I want to be clear it has nothing to do with that investigation. Instead I seek a resolution, a motion, a sponsorship of some kind to adopt my, our request or simply to set aside time at a future meeting to present and discuss this further. The request is as follows. To form and fund if necessary an independent committee that reports to this council and is comprised of a representative from social services, the area crisis center, law enforcement, and a council member and potentially others who this council may recommend. In addition this council should be comprised of a mental health professional, a parent, a student, an educator and even a member of the press. None of whom being employees of the city or have any affiliation with the City or the County. To me the committee's charge should be to evaluate the circumstances around this tragedy. Identify breakdown's and opportunities for improvement and make recommendations to better systems, procedures, protocol and training which may reduce if not eliminate something like this from happening ever 11 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 again. You see I was there before, during and after this ugly mess and I am now living with the horrific aftermath. So are many in our community. And as I am learning I see that neither the judiciary nor the BCA's scope are broad enough to drive change, nor are either of those entities advocates for your constituency, us. You are. I believe that you have an obligation, excuse me. I do not want this to happen to one our precious youth again and I assume you don't either. It is also my strong and firm belief that law enforcement cannot self govern or go unchecked by the public. As our elected public servants I believe you have an obligation to fill this void. I ask if not you, who? If not now, when? What is it going to take? I'll close with my bottom line. Our kids cannot be killed by those who are here to protect and serve. We cannot second guess as parents or anyone whether it is safe to call upon law enforcement under any circumstance. Thank you and I look forward to your comments. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Amorosi. Appreciate your presentation. Is there any other, anybody else who would like to make a presentation at this time? Mr. Gerhardt is there anything that you would, you or our legal counsel would advise on the council's behalf at this time? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council, I did send a letter to Mr. Amorosi talking about the difficulty of the situation that occurred and that as sad as it may be there is an ongoing investigation. With the Mayor and council not attending the event or seeing the event there's really a missing piece of the puzzle and that is getting that full investigative report back from the BCA before any further action is taken so that was what I said in my letter to Mr. Amorosi. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. Gerhardt. I would also make this comment Mr. Amorosi. Did you want to say anything else? Don Amorosi: Yeah I will add that I am aware of the investigation. I stated that in my remarks and I am asking that something much more broad be put in place from our community. To me it's a cop out to say there's an ongoing investigation. We have a community here not knowing anything that happened in the investigation there's an opportunity and by your reaction asking council whether you can offer condolences or whether you can even tell us that you've done anything in the past or have any intention to do anything in the future to represent this community in this matter is, forgive me but pathetic. Those are my comments. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright thank you Mr. Amorosi. I would just like to make this comment. Please don't misinterpret our silence as not caring. Mr. Amorosi I was at your son's funeral and I shared the tragic nature of his departure. I saw a church service filled with probably 600 kids all of whom cared deeply for him. It really is a tragedy and you're right, nobody on this council wants to see any other member of our community, young or old die in that manner. Is there anybody else who would like to speak at this time on visitor presentations? Just a reminder that visitor presentations are a part of every regularly scheduled council meeting and we invite any member of the community to come forward and speak on any topic that is not on the agenda and 5 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 this is a perfect opportunity for you to address the council. There being no other presentations at this time I will close visitor presentations. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE VACATION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MINGER ADDITION (2300 LUKEWOOD DRIVE). Mayor Laufenburger: Is this your's Mr. Oehme? Or this is Jill's, okay. Alright. Ms. Sinclair, nice to have you here. Jill Sinclair: Thank you Mayor and council members. This item is a request to vacate a portion of a conservation easement at 2300 Lukewood Drive. Sorry, technical difficulties. Thank you Vanna. Okay. The property is in the Minger Addition located east of Galpin Boulevard. The northerly 50 feet of the property is within a conservation easement that was established with the development. Prior to this development the area along the north property line contained a driveway to the existing home. The easement was established to protect the large oaks along the driveway. Mayor Laufenburger: Just a moment Jill. Could I have somebody close that door please? Thank you. Just a reminder we do have extra seating in the adjacent senior center so sorry Jill. Jill Sinclair: That's alright. Thank you. So the easement was put in place to protect the large oaks that were existing along the driveway along the north property line to the home, as well as to establish and encourage tree planting in the open area that was left after their driveway was removed. Next. When the building permit survey was submitted for 2300 Lukewood the builder asked to locate the home in the middle of the property to maximize tree preservation on the lot. As you can see very few existing trees were removed for the home and the driveway. The City supported and approved the location of the home and drive in the easement. At the time the staff was under the assumption that modifications to the easement could be done administratively and giving approval for construction within the easement was acceptable in order to save the trees on the lot. Next. The current property owners are requesting an amendment to the conservation easement removing a portion of the property from the easement. Existing trees and vegetation would still be covered by the easement while the open yard of the area, or the open area of the yard, the driveway and a portion of the home would be released from the easement restrictions. The area in pink is to be vacated and the area in green is what would be remaining in the easement. Staff supports the vacation of a portion of the easement. There were no trees in this area of the easement when the home was built and the area has not been reforested. All of the existing vegetation in the easement would still remain under protection in the conservation easement. These are pictures of the existing conditions on site. Next. Staff recommends adopting the resolution in support of the vacation of a portion of the conservation easement. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Ms. Sinclair. Any questions of staff from council? Councilmember Ryan yes. 31 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Councilwoman Ryan: Ms. Sinclair do you, does the easement go along other properties? Are other properties impacted and does it make sense to you know adopt the resolution for the whole neighborhood or just this single property? Jill Sinclair: This one is different from, there's no other property that has a home and a driveway constructed in the easement. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Jill Sinclair: So this is different from any of the other ones. The easement does run 50 feet or along the entire northern property line. Two other homes in the area have had amendments to the easement to construct pools. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Jill Sinclair: Which is a different circumstance than this. This is, when the house was built this should have been taken care of when the house was built. Councilwoman Ryan: And I know we talked about that. I called you earlier and asked you about specifically to this property and that's my question is, you know we're doing it for this property and if there's amendments to other properties does it make sense to re-evaluate this easement as a whole? Jill Sinclair: And so the other two properties, I think it's just this northerly one because the, many lots in this development have a conservation easement in their back yard and their back yards are totally wooded. The properties to the north had that driveway running through it so when the driveway was removed, there were scattered trees but there was also large open areas in a conservation easement. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Jill Sinclair: So other neighbors had taken advantage of that to construct a pool where there were no trees or you know in this case a house. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. So continue to take it on a case by case situation. Jill Sinclair: Yeah, that would be best. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor? 7 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: We, the council has within their authority to grant across the board vacation of an easement in the back yard but I think your last comment is to take it on a case by case basis because each individual will have maybe a different situation or a different desire of how they may want to develop the rear yard of their property. It might not need the entire easement vacated so as Jill stated and as Councilmember Ryan stated I think we should really honestly take a look from a case to case basis. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, any other questions from council for staff? Then I'd welcome further discussion or a motion. Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan. Councilwoman Ryan: I'd like to propose the motion that the City Council adopts the resolution approving the vacation of a portion of conservation easement legally described as the northerly 50 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Minger Addition according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilmember Ryan. We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: I'll second it. Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may. This was noticed as a public hearing so I don't know if we want to take some public comment. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you very much. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: So I'm going to hold that motion. I'm going to take your second but at this time I would like to open the public hearing. Anybody that would like to speak on the matter of the vacation of this, a portion of this conservation easement please step forward to the podium at this time. There being no one coming forward to speak to that I would close the public hearing. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on this motion? Resolution #2018-40: Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council adopts the resolution approving the vacation of a portion of conservation easement legally described as the northerly 50 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Minger Addition Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Sinclair. We have removed item number G-1. Excuse me G-2 from the agenda so we'll move to item G-1. GALPIN PROPERTY: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPM,ENT CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW. Mayor Laufenburger: And before we take on this item let me just take a few minutes to describe to all of you the sequence of steps that we're going to follow over the next few minutes. I'd like to clarify the steps that we're about to take related to this item. The review of the Galpin Property development. The council is not scheduled to take a formal vote tonight on this subject. There likely will be no specific decision on what will happen with the Galpin Property tonight. Here's the sequence that we will follow. First of all the council will hear a presentation from staff on the options that are available regarding the possible development of the parcels of land known as the Galpin Property. This will include the discussion of a conceptual planned unit development and also what could be developed without the planned unit development. Second council will hear from the proposed developer who as I understand it has an option to buy the land from the estate. The Prince's estate as authorized by the presiding Judge Kevin Eide. Now of course during these the councilmembers may make a comment or ask questions as they choose but please remember this. That the members of the council have all had the opportunity to hear from many of you, the public via emails. Via phone conversations. By personal visits. By walking the land. Visiting surrounding neighborhoods. The council has also had the opportunity to view the entire packet which was delivered to us on this particular item, including the verbatim Minutes and the video of the Planning Commission meeting on July 17th at which about 22 citizens from the surrounding neighborhoods provided comments, views and concerns. Next. Though the Planning Commission is used for public comment I understand the angst associated with many of you not receiving notice of the Planning Commission meeting. Though we did provide notice I think we erred by not including some of the neighbors that would be affected by this development and on behalf of the city staff and the council I'm sorry about that. I believe city staff did send out notices to a much broader geography for tonight's meeting and could I just get a nodding of heads if you received a notice about tonight's meeting. Okay thank you. Now because of that error and without objection from the council I will allow time for public comment to the council. I will ask however that those of you that were present, or those of you present right now that made your concerns known at the Planning Commission please allow others who have not yet spoken in public to be given the opportunity to speak. Now I'll talk more about that when we arrive at that point of the review of this item. I fully expect that many of you are here tonight to see what the final action will be but as I said earlier that is not likely to happen tonight. In fact there are things procedural wise that our counsel would suggest that we can't do because we didn't give public notice on some other things but as I said earlier tonight the members of the council will have the opportunity, just like all of you have, to provide comments to city staff and to the proposed developer on their individual thoughts and review of I Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 the potential development of the Galpin Property. Following these comments by the council members the developer will determine if and how they will proceed in their planning process. Now ultimately this item will likely return to the council at some date in the future for final action such as approving a PUD ordinance or approving a preliminary and a final plat of that parcel. But before we begin with the staff report let me ask all of you to respectfully listen to everything that is said and is asked this evening. This may seem like a cumbersome and an arduous process and the truth is it is and this is how we do things here to ensure that all available information and comments are shared and eventually acted on by this council. And lastly let me add this comment. We are not your adversaries. We as a council think about the same things that you do regarding this development and any development in the city. Now we may not always agree with the public 100 percent of the time and we certainly don't always agree as a council but your comments and our comments are to be considered and listened to so I ask that you be respectful of the council and I also ask that the council be respectful of all of you this evening. Throughout the evening so with that thank you and Ms. Aanenson is this your's? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright Ms. Aanenson. This is the item, planned unit development concept review. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. Again U.S. Home Corporation doing business as Lennar has made an application for concept PUD. I put in the staff report the process for a PUD concept. It's certainly advised but it's not required to do a concept review. It's optional. Under the concept review we believe that it's a good way, as we've noted at the Planning Commission and here again at the City Council for the City Council and the residents to provide feedback to the developer on the direction of the development of this property so again while this isn't legally binding. It's an opportunity for the developer to hear from the City Council as well as the residents and the staff as incorporating some of their concerns or comments also in your staff report. So again your motion is just to give, it won't be a motion. Your goal then at the end is to give direction as well as what's received in the public comments. So again the property, five different properties for 188 acres is included and the property under proposed development again a Lennar pursuing under the purchase agreement to propose a development. This property is currently zoned rural residential and it's been that way for 25-30 years since we put in the Lake Ann interceptor. There's a sewer line that runs through the property that the Met Council put in so sewer has been available for a number of years. It's just been ownership that hasn't desired to, up until this point to take advantage of that. So what does that mean when it's rural residential? Well there's a land use guiding. It's guided low density which means 1.2 to 4 units an acre can be developed on this site. So within the zoning there's different zoning applications that can be applied. Residential single family is one of the city's more predominant zoning districts. Is a 15,000 square foot lot minimum. R-4 allows for 15,000 square foot minimum and 10,000 for twin homes so you could do a project applying for R-4 and do a combination of the two. The RLM district allows for 9,000 square foot for single family dwelling. Two family dwelling could be 7,260 and then townhouses of multiple units 10 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 could be 5,404. The difference with the RLM from the R-4 and the RSF, in order to get the RLM it's anticipated that you're going to dedicate some property in preserve so we've used that predominantly along the Bluff Creek corridor where we're identified a corridor that we'd like to preserve. So the PUD cluster development, there is no minimum lot size. However it cannot exceed the density guidelines so the density guidelines in here would be 4 would be the maximum. So the developer in reviewing this put together a plan showing a traditional single family, what they could come in with under just straight zoning RSF would be 1.56 units and acre and we'll show that in a little bit more detail in a minutes. The PUD also comes under the 4 units an acre at 2.26. The zoning has to be consistent with the land use so the two have to align. That's required so those are the different zoning options. This developer has chosen the PUD and we also recommended, as did they, want to go through the concept to get feedback as they move forward. Again the concept is if we were to bring in a straight subdivision or a PUD the risk they would run if there was a lot of changes. There's a lot of investment made already so this is to get a read from all groups and the like. I also want to note that we did send it out for jurisdictional comments so we did get feedback from other agencies that would have feedback on this and that also helps the developer to move forward in making some of their decisions for the property. Mayor Laufenburger: Ms. Aanenson can you just identify some of those agencies that you included in the jurisdictional review? Kate Aanenson: Sure it'd be all the utilities. The watershed district. The DNR. The County because they have jurisdiction on Galpin Boulevard would be the main ones. School District. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay thank you. Kate Aanenson: I'll let the Park Director take a minute just to talk about the park master plan and how it forms the project. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Hoffman. Todd Hoffman: Thanks Kate, Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. It's my pleasure this evening to talk about a couple different things regarding the Park Master Plan. The Park System Master Plan which was just approved and then also the Comprehensive Plan which the City has held for oh close to 40 years or at least over 30 years on this particular property. So Lake Ann Park is located to the south and east of the property that is being developed or proposed for development and then Lake Ann is inbetween those two properties. Lake Ann Park is about 100 acres in size. The proposal at least as designed by the Comprehensive Plan is to expand that size by nearly double and so the land that you see in this diagram by the dashed line is about another 94 acres. It includes about 40 some acres of wetland and then about 50 of upland in the middle of the two lakes. Subdivisions are an opportunity for the City and an applicant or a developer to negotiate some kind of a land use arrangement which may or may not include park so many developments in our community have not included park space. Some do. 11 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 In this particular case it's a unique situation that it includes such a large parcel that was dedicated or at least identified as potential future park space. For this to occur a subdivision, it's not a designation. It doesn't mean that the City's going to get that property. It just designates to anybody who is interested in the property, Prince himself probably knew that this was designated as future park space and so did Lennar and so, but how do you get there? So park dedication is, can be included or a cash equivalent of any particular subdivision and so park dedication is about 10 percent or in this case it's about 9 acres and so it's based off of 1 acre for every 75 people that are going to be brought to an area and so in this particular case that's 9 acres. So when you have 50 acres of upland that you're talking about potentially preserving, 9 acres only gets you part of the way so how are you going to gain access to that other 41 acres? You simply can't take it from a landowner or an applicant and so that's where the density transfer scenario would come into play and so you would say okay, you have 40 some acres left to acquire as park space. How many houses could be developed in that 40 acres? Instead of putting them there let's move them over to another area of the plat and so that's what a density transfer would do and that's, in this particular scenario at least the concept about how that would be developed. Back on June 26th the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed that. They reviewed both the concept plans. The one including the full lot layout of the 199 lots and the density transfer and that motion that night from the Park and Recreation Commission was that they recommended that the City Council acknowledge Lennar Concept Plan 7 dated June 1, 2018 depicting 199 lots clustered to the west central and north central quadrants of the property and thus preserving 50 plus acres, plus or minus acres of public park area utilizing a density transfer and park dedication in the eastern quadrant of the property as a preferred starting point for the design of the preliminary plat for the proposed development and so that's what the Park and Recreation Commission recommended. This is a diagram from the Park System Master Plan which just identified, as we went through that if you'll recall we had overwhelming citizen input in the Park System Master Plan and this was the top commented item and so a priority expansion area preserving additional land between Lake Lucy and Lake Ann in the area of this property so the notes there are develop a Park System Master Plan. Define the limits of the park expansion to the north and west. Preserve natural areas. Complete a trail loop around Lake Ann. Now any activity in this particular plat wouldn't complete the loop. There's still one more property. The Gorra property at the southwest corner but it would complete a good portion of the trail. And then potentially identify any new facilities or user amenities that would go in that area. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay let me just pause for a second. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Council feel comfortable, if there's a pause in the discussion you're welcomed to ask any questions pertinent to what we just heard so feel comfortable in raising your hand in that okay. Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes thank you. So again I'm just talking about the issues that kind of framed up the proposal as we're moving forward so in looking at this, the applicant, actually the 12 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 representative or Comerica Bank the trustee looked at doing the wetland delineation. It's always good to know kind of what's out there. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay just a second. Let's just clarify. The developer that's talking to us is U.S. Home doing business as Lennar. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: You just talked about Comerica. Who's Comerica? Kate Aanenson: Comerica is the trustee for the estate. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So they were the seller. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So in looking at this it's always good to know what's, you know what are the, again the framework issues out there so they did a wetland delineation and have submitted that to the City to review. We made some comments on that. The City's Water Resources Coordinator has walked the site as well as the City Forester to identify, making sure that it was complete, as did the person doing the delineation. So that's one piece of information as we move forward on this document. Framing up. Councilwoman Ryan: Can I ask you a question? Kate Aanenson: Yeah absolutely. Councilwoman Ryan: So here we see the wetland locations but when the developer laid out the concept plan it doesn't, it doesn't allow for whether or not the wetlands are going to be mitigated or how they're going to be handled. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's a good question yep. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So that's part of the process moving forward that they would have to work through so whether it gives legitimacy to all that but I don't want to jump too far ahead but that's one thing the watershed district they felt strongly about preserving the ones that are closer to the lake and working through those but yes they do have to go through a process. That's one of the conditions. 13 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Councilwoman Ryan: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Yep. In addition Jill who was just here put together the, this is a little harder to read, the inventory of the significant trees in the area. There are some significant trees scattered on the western side of the property that certainly as we're working with the developer, as they do have to do a tree inventory. It's a requirement of any subdivision. Some of those unique trees that we can try to save but what we are doing is we're saving the majority of the trees along this side. Again that's preferred. So they wouldn't have to do the tree count here. Only on the property that they're developing but again that would be part of the information as we move to the next step so these are all again the framework issues as we move forward. So taking that information, what the park commission or the park Comprehensive Plan stated, looking at some of the other data the Lennar team put together our standard residential subdivision. Again this is illustrative. Nobody's put an exact review of this. Of each individual lot but in working with Lennar they have shown what they could get on with a traditional subdivision. Just over 200 lots so that's kind of the point of beginning as we talked about moving the density transfer. So to say we wanted to try to meet preserving everything on the lake, on the Lake Ann side. Transferring those lots out. That's how we ended up with the other proposal so again this is an aerial view of that same piece of property showing how it would connect. Again this is a traditional RSF which is permitted in that zoning district which they could pursue. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Campion go ahead. Councilman Campion: Ms. Aanenson so based on discussions with the watershed so far is there any indication whether this is generally possible or? Kate Aanenson: To do this one? Councilman Campion: Yes. Kate Aanenson: Yes it's possible but it's not as desirable because I think in doing this you're, greater impacts to the wetlands and the like so it would be preferred, it does meet ordinance requirements. They could go through and demonstrate all that. So but their preference would be to do the density transfer and that's stated in a letter that we received from the DNR and those were included in your packet. There was another one that just came back too so. Let me go back to this slide. Mayor Laufenburger: But just for follow up to Mr. Campion. They could follow the ordinances of the city and the zoning and the guidance and they could build this. Kate Aanenson: Correct and that's why we asked them to show that because you don't want to just say we can put 200 units over there if you couldn't get them. Now to be clear everything in this district right here, this is the shoreland district so everything in this has to be 15,000. 14 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Now east of that solid line. Kate Aanenson: Correct, that all has to be 15,000 square feet and that's what they're representing. So we asked them in good faith to show what they could put on the property and so yes, there's still the same hurdles to go through for the wetland permitting, the same hurdles you would do with any other subdivision but yes that's, so all those lots are 15,000 which is required in the shoreland district. And all of these lots would also be 15,000 so they're representing again in good faith, they're showing what they could do with the parcel if it was a straight subdivision. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, Mr. Campion is your question answered? Councilman Campion: I believe so but what I was trying to get at is just based on experience with the watershed if there is any chance that this plan would actually be approved or if likely, if they went this route if it would be you know probably 20 percent less homes that would actually get approved. Kate Aanenson: Well if, they'd have to go through the permitting process. Just like any other project. Just like Avienda you knew so. Councilman Campion: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: But Ms. Aanenson to Mr. Campion's question the watershed really doesn't determine the density, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. As long as they meet all the rules for managing stormwater. Mayor Laufenburger: Right. Kate Aanenson: And going through the wetland. Mayor Laufenburger: Wetland mitigation and things like that. Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: That Councilwoman Ryan spoke of. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. So this, what you're showing here is, if this land was a little simpler and didn't have all of the complications of wetland and trees and stuff they could build this. If this was for example Bluff Creek Golf Course. 200 acres. They could build. They 15 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 could design. Put the land together and they could put in RSF 15,000 square foot lots and they could build houses to their hearts content. Kate Aanenson: Sure. I want to be clear that I don't know if every lot's going to work just like on the other plan where we know every lot's going to work. Mayor Laufenburger: It'd have to be buildable. Kate Aanenson: It would have to be buildable correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Kate Aanenson: But it has potential correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Campion? Councilman Campion: It's an answer yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Ryan: May I add to that? Mayor Laufenburger: Go ahead sure. Councilwoman Ryan: Because I think this is where I'm a little challenged with the proposal A and B and when we talk about conceptually that we are, we're saying or the developer is saying yes, we could come back and put 40 lots on this parcel and since we would prefer because of the comp plan and the park and rec commission and the feeling at large is that we want to do a density transfer and save that land and then move it over and so then you take those 40 lots and now you have smaller lots on this other parcel. The confusion is that we don't know that, as you stated that they're going to be able to get all of those because as you saw in the previous slide there's a lot of wetlands so we have the wetland buffer rules and setbacks from the lake and wetland on the other side and so I think that the challenge that I see when we're presented with Option A or B is that we're being told that these 40 lots could go there if you know, if we don't approve the Plan B and not to speak for Mr. Campion but that's the concern of, this is just merely concept if you were taking a piece of paper and drawing boxes on a piece of paper and saying here's the acreage. Here's a 15,000 square foot lot. This is what can go in this but there's no guarantee that any of that could happen. Kate Aanenson: Correct but I'll go back to what Mr. Hoffman and the Park and Rec Director said and that is, there's value to that land. Councilwoman Ryan: Absolutely. 16 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Kate Aanenson: Yep so it's trying to find out could they go through that process to try to figure that out. Councilwoman Ryan: Right I'm not arguing the value. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Councilwoman Ryan: More concerned of that we're being told that it's either A or B. Kate Aanenson: Well somewhere, yeah. I mean that's, that's every project just like with Avienda we approved the wetland waiting to see what the watershed district was going to say so. And that was accomplished using some dedication so that's the one, so that's our starting point. So we give them all the wetland information. We look at the tree preservation that we talked about. You have to count the trees on the site and obviously that comes into how they develop the subdivision. So meeting our goals, the City's goals of the park showed the other plan. Again all these lots within the shoreland district have to meet the 90 foot of frontage, 15,000 square foot minimum and the rest of the lots then pick up that so it's less lots. Again the same question that you asked before would apply here. Do all the lots work? They're not all the street grades aren't engineered. We haven't seen that. They may have more information than we have as far as what they believe they can do and that's why they're gathering all this information but all those lots would have to be demonstrated that they work and the wetland replacement and the like would have to be accomplished. Those are all part of the next steps. So with that again here it is illustratively in an aerial where you can see the 90. So these would be at the 15,000 and then the 65 foot lots and then the 58 foot lots. The smaller lots on the southern part. Certainly we recognize, if you go back to the tree one there's significant trees on the southern end. We've talked to them about that. There's significant trees on the northern end and we always try to preserve those buffers and those transitions so that's some of the details that we'd be looking at no matter what project was to go forward that we would work and try to preserve those and make those transitions work so again next steps. So if you look at the preservation as a whole, again Mr. Hoffman talked about the acreage and the breakdown but this would be the building area. The preservation area whether it's the wetland or the wooded area would be in here. So some of the questions that came up, I just highlighted a few that people thought just to your point Councilwoman Ryan is the mix right. Too many houses get put in too small of a space. Transition between the existing neighborhoods and small lots maybe adjacent to traditional lots on the south and how we to blend that. Street connections to the existing neighborhoods. That's predominantly to the north. There's no other connections except potentially to the north. Traffic we included in the staff report that went to the Planning Commission. That Galpin Boulevard is a potential for an upgrade in the future if this project was to go forward we'd want the upgrade of Galpin to occur after that. Tree loss. Again the significant portion on the eastern side and we work, they have to do a tree survey and look at selecting some significant trees that we'd like to save. A question was asked about school capacity. As part of the Comprehensive Plan we did meet with both superintendents of the school district and I did speak to someone at the school 17 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 district to verify after a question was raised and there is adequate capacity in the school district. Another question that came up was regarding water quality at Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Again there's a letter to support both the DNR and the watershed support the cluster development. They think that's a better way of saving those significant trees for the extraction of the shoreland and the City Engineer has some additional comments regarding the reports on Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, thank you Ms. Aanenson. So the Water Resources Coordinator couldn't be here tonight so I'm just kind of filling in for her with some comments regarding the water quality at Lake Lucy and Lake Ann so, the City does partner with Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District on water quality initiatives and studies and those type of things so annually the watershed district does take water samples. Clarity readings for each of those lakes and I just wanted to highlight the report and I think it was 2017. I think this report's on their website on the watershed district website that the water quality of Lake Lucy has increased between 2016 and 2017 that meets two of the clear water standards set by Metropolitan Pollution Control Agencies so at a city level I mean we value that Lake Lucy and Lake Ann, those are some of our best water quality lakes and we definitely want to preserve those assets for our community and like Kate said clustering does support and does go a long ways to help lake quality and preserve these lakes. This is a map from again from the watershed district just showing Lake Ann up here in the upper left hand corner does meet all the standards again for chlorophyll phosphorus and water clarity and does Lake Lucy does have a little bit of an issue with the algae and chlorophyll but looking over the, I think the watershed district and others have taken studies all the way back from 1972 to the date and basically there really hasn't been an increase in any of these standards or decrease in the water quality over those years. They have been pretty much average or standard over those years so just wanted to point that out. Councilman Campion: Either Kate or Paul, so you said those are updated each year. Paul Oehme: Right. Councilman Campion: Looking online I saw on our city website we have the UAAU for Lake Lucy and it looked like that was, I think that was last updated in 2013. That's a more comprehensive report. Paul Oehme: Okay. Councilman Campion: Is that updated, do either of you know if it's updated on a certain frequency or? Paul Oehme: I don't think that one's updated. There's the testing and the report that watershed district completes. I don't think that's on our website. That's done outside of our, it is basically In Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 just done by the watershed district and updated annually just so we have a record of what the water quality are, is in these lakes. And just basically as a baseline moving forward. Kate Aanenson: So the data he presented was from 2017, 2016. Paul Oehme: Right this is from 2017. Councilman Campion: And that's, but that's not from a UAAU. That's a different... Paul Oehme: There might be a different study or different document. I'm just referencing what the watershed district data has shown. Councilman Campion: Okay. Councilwoman Ryan: And Paul do you know if this data for the 2017 report was done, I know you said it was 16-17. Was it done after the development on Lake Lucy and Yosemite? Paul Oehme: I'm not aware of when that data was taken. Typically it's done during the summer months. June through August but I'm not exactly sure what the timing of that was. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Alright well I'll follow up with them. That would be a concern of mine because of the development that was done there and the grading and the impact to Lake Lucy and Lake Ann from there. Paul Oehme: Sure, okay. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay thanks. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Vanessa Strong, our Water Resources Coordinator did give her analysis of the development to the north of Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger: Anthem? Todd Gerhardt: Anthem. And there was significant amount of silt that did come from the Anthem development and, but it was retained into the wetlands on the south side of Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger: No. North side. Todd Gerhardt: South side. 19 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Well just please. Todd Gerhardt: Anthem development's on the north side but it drains. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh on the south side of Lake Lucy Road. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh excuse me, okay. My apologies. So you said there's stormwater ponds there? Todd Gerhardt: There is wetlands and the silt went into a series of, is it 2 or 3 wetlands that go through there before it ultimately goes into Lake Lucy. Paul Oehme: Right, correct. So Mayor from the Anthem development there's a infiltration basin on the north side that was required with that development. Any overflow goes through a culvert underneath Lake Lucy and then discharges. Mayor Laufenburger: Road. Paul Oehme: And there's a 3 wetland cells that eventually work it's way down to Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger: So they follow the grade. Paul Oehme: They follow the grade yep. Mayor Laufenburger: And eventually when each of those wetlands fill or overflow or fill and overflow, then eventually they would get down to. Paul Oehme: Yeah it potentially could get down to Lake Lucy. I'm just, the amount of volume that would have to actually go through those wetlands to make it to Lake Lucy is, would be significant. Very significant. If you look on the topography on GIS on Carver County's website the contours there, those wetlands would have to bounce about 4 to 5 feet to make it all the way down to Lake Lucy so what happens in that area is the water congregates in those wetlands and infiltrates or evaporates. Mayor Laufenburger: And the sediment... Paul Oehme: And the sediment yep, discharges and the particulates would settle in those wetlands as well. 20 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilmember Ryan, do you want to make your comments now or? Councilwoman Ryan: And just to follow up on that. Correct me if I'm wrong in terms of the property but I, didn't the property owner, one of the property owners south of Lake Lucy once the development happened some of the grading how he did clear the culvert and she was having some flooding because of the excess runoff? Paul Oehme: During the construction there was some overflow and some sediment did release from that development site. However my understanding and I was out there shortly after that, there was no sediment really left her property. It more or less settled in, on her property and we couldn't find any evidence of it migrating farther to the south to Lake Lucy. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Is one of these three wetlands on her property? Paul Oehme: It is correct. Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. I just remember that there was some issues around that so I didn't know if it then continued down to Lake Ann or Lake Lucy. Paul Oehme: Staff has been out there several times on her property reviewing that and trying to figure out you know, because over the last say 2 years there's been significant rainfall events that has contributed to the expansion I think of that wetland area that's concerning her and some of her tree loss that she's seeing. Councilwoman Ryan: Right. Mayor Laufenburger: Anything else? Councilwoman Ryan: No go ahead. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. You use the term algae bloom. I think I heard you say that. On Lake Lucy. What causes an algae bloom? Paul Oehme: I'm not expert on that unfortunately but it, you know it could be a variety of reasons. You know I know carp can stir up the bottom of lakes and stir up some of the sediment and phosphorus and cause some of that. You know developments, additional runoff from new developments in the area could potentially impact water quality but in this case we really haven't seen any major development on Lake Lucy since I think 2002 maybe with the Ashling Meadows development so. 21 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Right. And just related to the water quality, I recall sometime within the last 2 years we've closed Lake Ann beach. Mr. Hoffman this might be for you. We closed Lake Ann swimming beach. What's your recollection or maybe you know exactly why we closed that beach. There was something. What was that? Todd Hoffman: Just would have been an indicator of potential ...pollen form but not likely because of geese. Goose droppings. Mayor Laufenburger: Build a dome over that lake. Alright. Todd Gerhardt: Or get a couple of Gordon Setters. Mayor Laufenburger: A couple of Gordon Setters. Allow hunting. No, no, no. We're not going to do that okay. Todd Gerhardt: No they just chase them. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Let's get back on track here Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. So just want to outline what the project steps would be if this project was to advance or if a different project would come in. So once you give some feedback or the developer hears feedback on the PUD cluster zoning they would proceed through a preliminary plat. So that would require the watershed and additional jurisdictional approvals so that could take a few months to get all that. Again the typical process for that would be, they would submit 30 days ahead of time and that would give us time to notice. And give the neighbors an opportunity to provide their input so that would be a public hearing at the Planning Commission and then back up to the City Council for their review. After that it comes in for final plat and construction plans. But again as I indicated the preliminary plat requires a lot of civil work so that would be designing all the roads. All the lots. Showing that they meet all the standards. Again the watershed approvals and the like so it's a lot of engineering work on that part of it. And again another public hearing is required and we would hope that between the submittal of that application that the developer would work with the property owners to the north and south and work through some of their specific concerns so again that's the process. Again it'll be a few months at a minimum before this would come back. So again you're not giving a formal recommendation. You're just providing feedback on the concept for the planned unit development request so with that I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay before we go to presentation from the developer, any questions to staff? Mr. McDonald go ahead. Councilman McDonald: Ms. Aanenson I heard you say that basically what this is, is a concept development that they take a piece of paper. We've delineated where the wetlands are at and then at that point you just draw out what you think are the lot lines. I know you can't say with 22 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 any kind of certainty that all of those lots would translate into houses but the probability is the vast majority would, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Potentially. Again what it doesn't take into consideration is the individual quality of each wetland. How the watershed districts or we're going to review that but that should be the intent that most of them do meet. Councilman McDonald: Okay and then the next step, once they've got these lots identified is the detailed engineering has to go into each lot which would again look at what you're talking about as far as it's buildability because the next step is to determine okay we've got lots but what's buildable. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman McDonald: So that would be the next step in the process and at a concept review the only purpose of that really is to show a probability of what could happen. The other thing you haven't talked much about, I don't know if I should wait for the developer or not but it's the connection between the development to the north and also to Prince. Can you talk a little bit about that because I understand there's some challenges there. Kate Aanenson: Right so there's existing stub streets and some significant grading to make those work and maybe I'll let the City Engineer talk a little bit about that. Paul Oehme: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Can you speak to that Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: Yep so there is again significant grade from the north to the south. I can't recall off the top of my head how much elevation change is, is currently out there but to build that road will take some significant effort to make that connection and it's, we haven't, we don't have any engineering drawings to really review their proposal at this point so we really can't comment on if it really meets our standards right now or you know if it's even feasible to build it. Councilman McDonald: Right at this point it's just a road on a flat surface which could go anywhere. When you say significant would you envision anything like retaining walls needing to be put out there? Paul Oehme: Absolutely. I think there would have to be a retaining wall on the north side of those lots on the road and then potentially on the south end. South side on back of the lots as well just to kind of bridge or, bridge that area. Councilman McDonald: Well and that point wouldn't that take away from the lots that they have there in order to put retaining walls in. 23 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Paul Oehme: Yeah again I can't really comment until I really see some engineering. Councilman McDonald: Well I'm not asking. I'm not going to hold your feet to the bre or anything but I mean just in general with your background and you know knowledge of any engineering what does it take to put up a retaining wall? How much space and those kind of things? Paul Oehme: Yeah it's not, you can't just build a wall. You have to go back at least a 1 to 1 slope to build the wall plus all the potential, if it's high enough you're going to have to put in some geogrid as well to reinforce the wall so there is significant impacts that would take place to build that wall you know with the layout they have here I don't, it's going to be challenging I think at the very least to build those walls and with the current alignment that they're showing right now. Councilman McDonald: So is it safe to say that those would be a structurally engineered wall? Paul Oehme: Absolutely. I mean knowing the topography that's out there, the grade challenges that they're going to run into it's definitely have to be engineered with either big block retaining walls and geogrid or some other mechanism or some other material that make sure those walls stay in place. Kate Aanenson: If I may Commissioner McDonald, it'd probably be similar to Lennar did a project out in Camden Ridge so if you go back behind where we've got the Bluff Creek overlay down behind the, Mr. Degler's property and then you've got a pretty tall structure wall there. They also have a wall on the back side as you overlook the property down towards 212. There's also another wall there so. They have done it before. Mayor Laufenburger: So you're referring to the wall at Camden Ridge or the Jeurissen property. You're referring to the retaining wall that was built on the north side of that. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Separating Camden Ridge from what will eventually be... Kate Aanenson: More on the south side there's another wall too on that southern end too. Mayor Laufenburger: There's also a sound barrier right on 212. Kate Aanenson: Correct on 212. Correct. Councilman McDonald: And then just to follow up on the south part of the property are you aware of any engineering challenges that would be down there? 24 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Paul Oehme: Wetland mitigation, I know that's going to be a challenge with the stubbing in the street at Galpin in it's current location that's shown there. I know there's, based upon some of the comments we've received from the property owners I know there's some high water, ground water table issues there that we'll have to take a look at and try to address under this development as well so those two things and wetland setbacks. Buffer areas along some of the properties on the south, I think it's going to be challenging as well to meet those, our ordinance. Councilman McDonald: Okay so as this thing moves forward and we get more detailed engineering information it could turn out that a lot of these lots are just not buildable. Paul Oehme: Again I mean if, until we see some drawings we can't really comment too much on that. Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Tjornhom, yep. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I just want to say welcome to everybody tonight. I am, I appreciate the staff reports and I will appreciate listening to the Lennar, Mr. Lennar or the Lennar company and what they have proposed but what I really am looking forward to is hearing what you are proposing. I think that this is a time for all of us to walk through this development together. I've enjoyed talking to several residents and just hearing your thoughts and your concerns and suggestions about how to make this development something that's going to be impactful in a positive way for everybody. You know we talk about what the impact's going to be on the environment and we talk about what the impact's going to be on traffic. We talk about the impact of all sorts of different things that are happening with this but I think that you know tonight's the time that we talk about what's the livable and lifestyle impacts of all of you and your neighborhoods and so I really am looking forward to hearing your suggestions. I know that in the PUD when it talks about it and it explains what it is Kate, one of the statements that kind of jumps out at me all the time is the fact that the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly high quality and sensitive proposal and that really means a lot I think to all of us because that's what we're all looking for and what we're trying to create so what, can you give me some boundaries Kate as to what that means. Kate Aanenson: I would say in this circumstance the fact that you're getting the almost 95 acres to the west. A significant opportunity to make Lake Ann wooded all the way around is a big factor in that. Councilwoman Tjornhom: High quality, yes. 25 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Kate Aanenson: High quality yep. I mean it's a unique piece of property where people can walk. I think if you look at what we did with the RLM zoning district up on Fox Woods, those people have that nice trail to walk through and that was also compressed some of those smaller lots and provided an opportunity to preserve some woods and create a nice trail to go into the City's property. The woods that we have up there so again I think it's the same opportunity here when you connect the trails. We have an opportunity for all people on the other side of Galpin also to come through and enjoy the property. Walk around the lake. Walk downtown. We think that's a very unique opportunity. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I know there's some questions also with blending of neighborhoods when it comes to lot size. When it comes to square footage of the homes. The neighbors concerned about how that's going to look. What kind of, what can we do to kind of help that process also or make them blend? Do we have any way we can help them blend? Kate Aanenson: Yep so that's a great question. Again one of the things that we talked about with Lennar early on was the transition of the buffers. Trying to create those buffers. There's some significant trees on the south and on the north. Retaining wall aside that we'd want to preserve those to make those work. We have places all over the city where we have different lot sizes. Sometimes those homes are on smaller lots but they're higher value so there's a lot of different ways to look at that. How that blends together. Again don't know if all those lots are going to fit. We haven't seen that detail yet but understand the issue. Certainly again we've asked the developer if this project was to move forward or if that's what they chose to do that they would work with those neighbors. I'd also like to add that when those subdivisions went in, both Ashling Meadows and Royal Oaks, the wetland standards were a lot different. I know we heard anecdotally that people have sump pumps. They're next to the wetland there and the way we treat wetlands today is drastically different of how much they have to manage the stormwater is such a higher capacity than when those subdivisions went in so that will certainly be addressed too. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I think that I, you know one of my goals when I see this, it's our opportunity to create just a really, you know we talk about Lake Ann, the park being a real gem and taking this development and turning it into a gem and so it's something that the community's proud of and it's desirable for people to live in and to you know give us something once again to brag about so I'm hoping that we can work with the developer to kind of make sure he sees that vision. That it is something unique and something that is worthy of having the address of Chanhassen. Mayor Laufenburger: Any other questions or comments at this time? Councilmember Ryan I think you had your hand up. Councilwoman Ryan: I did but I'll wait to hear from the developer and then follow up with questions then. 26 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay you're certainly welcome to do that. Mr. Campion did you have a question? Councilman Campion: Yeah one more question. Kate I think this is for you. I'd seen some commentary where, and it kind of goes off of Councilman McDonald was talking about with the street connections up on the north side. They complained about a lack of signage there you know where those streets were stubs exist. Is that something that, that should have been there and wasn't or? Kate Aanenson: I think we started doing that a number of years after those subdivisions went in. If it's a stub street I would assume that it would go through in the future, yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: What signage? Are you referring to a sign that says this street will go through in the future? Is that what you're saying? Councilman Campion: Essentially yeah, or there's, yes. It's potential, a potential connection in the future. Mayor Laufenburger: Yep. Any other questions at this time? Councilman Campion: Not at the time no. Mayor Laufenburger: Kate just I want to clarify a couple things before we ask the developer to come forward. You said that, or Mr. Oehme said that the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District has weighed in on this concept PUD. Is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And what they, what have they said about? Kate Aanenson: They liked the preservation area. The density transfer was. Mayor Laufenburger: So they're speaking in general about... Kate Aanenson: Correct. They're not weighing in on... Mayor Laufenburger: Preserve the area around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. How about the DNR? Have they done that as well? Kate Aanenson: Yes, the DNR also weighed in on that. 27 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. But the DNR, they also, they weighed in and said we favor this but they would be part of the jurisdictional review once we get a more detailed preliminary plat is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. I did talk to the regional person from the DNR over this area and just reviewed our PUD ordinance and how it works and they thought this was a very good, favorable approach to preserve all the woods. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Oehme you haven't spoken about this but certainly one of the things that I've heard from neighbors is relative to a concern about the volume of traffic that this development would generate. Have you done a traffic analysis including potentially upwards of 200 residences in this area? Have you done this traffic analysis on Galpin? And if so how, make us feel comfortable that you and your work has been done properly. Paul Oehme: So thank you Mayor, City Council members. So in conjunction with the Galpin Boulevard study that was recently completed this year. Mayor Laufenburger: By the way what was the purpose of that study for people that may not be familiar with it? Paul Oehme: Sure. The City and Carver County jointly completed a Galpin Boulevard study which looked at potentially transferring the jurisdiction of Galpin Boulevard from Carver County over to the City of Chanhassen in the future. We wanted to look at the feasibility of that. The costs. What needed to be done, completed with Galpin Boulevard to bring it up to our standards because right now it's a rural section road. Poor shoulders. Intersections that really need to be improved so we looked at all those. All that information. We also looked at potential development that could take place along Galpin in the area as well that would impact traffic or add to traffic along Galpin so that was part of that Galpin Boulevard study and it took I think the City about 6 months to complete that. We just recently finished that up. Mayor Laufenburger: Do you recall what's the average daily traffic on Galpin today? Do you recall? Paul Oehme: I do have that here. So it varies. So as you would think there's a lot more traffic to the south of Galpin Boulevard. Right today south of 78th Street. That little section between 78th Street and Highway 5. It's about 10,000 trips per day but as you go north from there it drops off significantly. Say up by Wynsong there's about, actually that was in 2040 so yeah, so south of 78th Street it's 8,700 today. Up by Wynsong it's about 2,700. Mayor Laufenburger: Today? Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Paul Oehme: Today, yeah. Trips per day so which for a two lane rural section of road, that's not too significant. As we've moved forward though we looked at 2040 data. Again assuming that everything in the area would be developed and looking at potentially infill developments as well too. We assumed for this particular development or piece the 188 acres we assumed 250 trips, or 250 units which is well above what the developer. Mayor Laufenburger: But that takes into consideration the word infill. If there's other infill farther north on Galpin. Paul Oehme: Correct, yeah I mean potentially some of those large lots were to subdivide or divide you know there'd be. Mayor Laufenburger: So what do you estimate the daily, average daily traffic to be after that? Paul Oehme: So right again our traffic data that Kimley-Horn completed again right at Wynsong the traffic goes up by a little. About 1,000 trips per day so, and we're assuming that in 2040 or you know when most of this development would potentially be completed that the Galpin Boulevard project would come in shortly thereafter because we do have some concerns with some topography that's out there. Some of the intersections. We want to make some intersection improvements. We wouldn't expand the road to you know anything more than two lanes but we want to add to maybe some left turn lanes at some of these intersections and other intersection improvements such as roundabouts as well. Mayor Laufenburger: But your analysis with Kimley-Horn for the purpose of anticipating the turnback of the road from the County to the City incorporates things like curb and gutter for stormwater management. Change of stop signs to potentially roundabouts. Mini roundabouts as well as full roundabouts. Paul Oehme: Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: And also the addition of access points into the Galpin property to the east is that correct? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Paul Oehme: It also looked at stormwater as well. We looked at if we're urbanizing a roadway how are we going to treat that water so we wanted to look at where that water would also be treated. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay just to clarify Mr. Hoffman, you said the Park and Rec Commission did weigh in on this and recommended something like the concept PUD where that land would 29 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 be, the density would be transferred to the west to preserve that 50 acres of tree stand and the acreage around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy right. Todd Hoffman: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: So where's the 94 acres come if it's only going to be preserving 50? Is there 40 acres in that wetland? Todd Hoffman: There is. It's a very large wetland. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So Ms. Aanenson just to clarify that, if the developer chooses to go forward with the concept PUD he buys, he or she. He. It's the corporate he okay. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: He buys this land from the estate and then do they just deed it to us? Do they just give it to us for a dollar or is it free? Kate Aanenson: No. That's part of the process. So under the park dedication, as Mr. Hoffman stated that they could probably get 9 acres. I think his preference would probably be to take the shoreline. Mayor Laufenburger: But 9 acres under the subdivision. Kate Aanenson: Correct or under. Mayor Laufenburger: Under the PUD as well? Kate Aanenson: Well under the PUD, that's where you would negotiate to say we'd like to, in order for you to negotiate what you want to preserve. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So let's say we take the position of we want 50 acres of the shoreline and the woodlands and you're not going to build on the wetlands so you might as well give that to us too so we end up with 94 acres. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Of City property. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And how much does that cost us? Dollars. 30 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Kate Aanenson: Well at this point it's. Mayor Laufenburger: That's subject to negotiation. Kate Aanenson: Yeah subject to negotiation. The intent is to recoup that on the other side. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Kate Aanenson: The value. Mayor Laufenburger: So we get that land by giving some potential concessions on the other side. Kate Aanenson: That's right. Okay. Alright. Any other questions for staff? At this time I'd like to hear from the developer. Would you identify yourself please. Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Joe Jablonski representing Lennar Corporation this evening. Mayor Laufenburger: In what capacity do you represent them Mr. Jablonski? Joe Jablonski: As the Director of Land Development and Entitlement. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: I want to start by thanking staff. I think the thoroughness of their presentations will help limit my presentation to a relatively short conversation but there are a few things I just wanted to highlight or point out to kind of supplement what has already been discussed. One of the things kind of going back to the beginning of how this starts, the property, the current property owners went through the decision to list the property for sale. Lennar Corporation was lucky to be selected as the purchaser of that property which is why it kind of comes to this point of where we are today. What we're doing now for our standpoint is going through our proper due diligence to figure out what we can, what the expectations for the property are. Some of the other things that we have been doing in addition to the wetland delineation. We have been doing some soil investigation work on the property. Part of that is how we start to formulate or figure out what some of the requirements for stormwater are and how we go about meeting those. It's kind of this building process of working our way up to a preliminary plat and making business decisions to get there to figure out you know what the feasibility of moving the project forward for us is. And a big part of that, that I'm hoping that we can discuss and get some direction from you folks on, recognizing that it's not a vote but what we're really interested in is getting good feedback from you folks on which type of plan or which scenario you're the most comfortable with. I think staff did a great job of pointing out the differences between the two plans. I think one of the things in our PUD application recognizes the fact that it is a special property and I 31 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 think that we've recognized that with the opportunity to preserve or look at the preservation of as much open space as we have. The exchange for that is a little bit higher density in some of the upland and doing that with some smaller lots or some cluster style lots. The, one of the advantages or one of the things that comes with that is also the opportunity to meet some of your housing goals for diversity. The City does have the opportunity here to, each one of the different lot sizes would bring a different product type including on the south end more of an empty nester type of single level villa which is a very under served type of product in the market today. Not just in Chanhassen but also in the Twin Cities in general. So as we've continued to think about this and continue to talk about this, you know I think some of the comments on the north end are very valid. It's certainly challenging but again at this point we're at a pretty high level of conceptual thinking and we're really trying to dial in, is the City willing to support the density transfer approach or is it really the desire, the direction of the City to go more in the direction of traditional lot sizes throughout knowing that based on some of the various comment letters and things that it appears from an environmental standpoint that the density transfer option certainly has a lot less environmental impact. But you know I certainly will be here and certainly will be available to answer any questions and would be happy to do so but you know I think it's important to recognize that while we are looking for an option for smaller lots, the maximum density on this property could be significantly higher following the RSF guidelines of up to 4 units an acre. Even averaging just on the property we're using we're at about 2.26 I think is what I remember calculating that out so, and that I think that was across about 89 acres which is shown on the plan in front of you right now. So I think we've done a lot of things to try to meet different goals of the City and try to really start the conversations of how does the City want to go about developing this in a way or helping give us direction on what you want to see and what we want to do knowing that the next step for us will be a big one in making the decision of taking your feedback from tonight and starting to prepare hopefully to start getting us to the next level where we start getting into the preliminary plat type of drawings and that level of detail. So with that I guess I would be happy to answer any questions. I didn't talk much specifically about housing types and that. Mayor Laufenburger: We have pretty good pictures of that in the. Joe Jablonski: Yes there's pictures in the packet. Mayor Laufenburger: And the pictures that you, that are in the packet with the description of the floorplans, the sizes, things like that, does that represent the full spectrum of homes that Lennar builds? Joe Jablonski: It does not. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: It represents I would say a supplemental package of what we would envision at least initially starting with here. 32 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: And certainly I can point you in directions of you know if you want to go see any of them we have them built in several locations locally as well but. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Before we open this to public comments are you prepared to answer some questions from council at this time? Joe Jablonski: Absolutely. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilmember Ryan I think you said you had some questions of him is that correct? Councilwoman Ryan: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah please go ahead. Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you Mayor. Thank you for being here again. I'm a little disappointed. I was looking forward to having a Plan C. You presented at the Planning Commission. Heard from you know as the Mayor said about 22 people. I know staff has given you or likely given you feedback along, over the past couple weeks and when we got our packet I was anticipating as Chairman Aller from the Planning Commission said, it might not be Plan A or B but maybe a Plan C and so I know that's not expected of you because it is just a concept review. However it would have been nice to see that some of the considerations that the residents shared with you were taken seriously to present any kind of option C. Specifically you know just going through the property, you know I can share those comments for later. But to come back tonight and just have option A or B presented to us again was, and you talk about doing your due diligence with soil correction. Was there a thought of coming back with a Plan C or not? Joe Jablonski: Well Councilmember Ryan what I would say is we are, or we are working on a revision or potentially a little bit more refined plan but at the same time we really need to get the direction on which way we're going before we spend too much time on that because while we can get more information on the north and it might change how the road connection and layouts are affected, it really doesn't affect the concept of whether we're going to do density transfer or not. And so I. Councilwoman Ryan: And so when you talk about looking for direction you're specifically meaning whether or not you're going to come back with just the straight forward residential plan or it's going to be the density transfer. That's really what the, when you talk about direction that's what you're looking for. 33 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Joe Jablonski: That is item number one that we would like some feedback on for sure. You know if we want to get into other things like where the road connections are. How the street stub and all that stuff, that's a little bit more level of detail than actually we're looking for at this point. We really want to dial in you know what is staff, or what is the City comfortable with or what direction are we really looking at here and. Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan, I think that if I may just for a second. Clearly I heard you say Mr. Jablonski that you have a decision to make about whether or not you move forward. Is that correct? Joe Jablonski: Or how we move forward. Mayor Laufenburger: Or how you move forward. Joe Jablonski: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: And that decision is based on, you talk about feedback from the City Council. To me I interpret that not only now but in the dialogue that I've had with even with you is, you want to hear what these members of the council. These 5 members of the council who are likely in a position to vote approval or disapproval of some preliminary in the future, you want to hear what we have to say about what you've shown us. Is that correct? Joe Jablonski: Correct. Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: So you've shown us 2 pieces of artwork and you're saying which of these pieces of artwork do you like best. Not to say that this road is going to be exactly this place or this lot is going to be that size but you're looking for general views from these council members as to what do you like about the plan. Either plan or what do you not like about either plan. Joe Jablonski: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: This is an information gathering process for us. As Ms. Aanenson pointed out the concept plan isn't required but it's an opportunity for us to get, start gathering as much information as we can to start making the business decisions on how to move forward. Mayor Laufenburger: So you've heard from the public. You've heard from the public at the Planning Commission. I don't know if you've seen any of the comments in the packet so you know some of the general sentiment that's coming from the public. Now you want to hear from this 5 member group who ultimately probably is most significant in your decision making process. Would you say that's true? 34 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Joe Jablonski: That's correct, yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so I just wanted to clarify that Councilmember Ryan. It's certainly your perspective that you wanted a Plan C but I think a Plan C is out there and that Plan C will be governed by, to some extent by what we have to say tonight. That's my view so Councilmember Ryan your turn. Councilwoman Ryan: And I, I believe that what you initially said that you want either Plan A or Plan B is the truth and because with your continued commentary you also said that you're being, you know generous or flexible in terms of the lot sizes and that hasn't been the feedback from the residents that, I don't know how my fellow councilmembers will say but that isn't my feedback. That I think that this plan option B is a viable option based on the questions that Mr. McDonald, Councilman McDonald asked our city engineer about the viability of the 90 foot lots up there. How can we say yes, I think that Plan B is a viable option when we don't know with based on the slope and the retaining walls if those, you know those lots are going to be something, you know something that's going to be buildable. I'm concerned about the lots. You know the road extension because of traffic safety so you, you know Mr. Mayor when you, I know that there's an Option C out there but my concern is that tonight we're being presented with making a decision on whether it's Option A or Option B and I don't think, I don't think that's really the choice that we should be asked to make because I don't think either one of them are concepts that I could comfortably move forward with. Mayor Laufenburger: Please. Please. Let this dialogue occur. Councilmember Ryan, there is no decision. Unless a motion is made, and I don't think it will be made, there's no decision of A or B tonight. The only thing that the council members are asked to do tonight is to make comments to the developer and city staff. What do you like? What do you don't like? What would you like to see? What would you not like to see? That's our responsibility. Our responsibility is not to choose A or B tonight. I'm not choosing A or B tonight because I don't think it's A or B is the option. I think there's something else out there that U.S. Home Corporation, after listening to all of us they'll come back with something else. That's my belief. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah I guess I want to just weigh in on this a little bit. I've been involved in this a lot longer than Councilmember Ryan has. This whole idea goes back to Walmart and one of the things that the City learned out of that was that we needed an idea better from the developer as to what they were looking for and what their questions were. That's why we came up with this concept review. It was never meant to be a final plat or a final plan. It was only meant to give you a generalized concept and the reason for that is, is as I went through earlier there are a lot of detailed engineering information that has got to be gathered and that costs money and it doesn't do the developer any good to try to get information based upon the RSF plan when that information is probably not going to totally transfer over to doing something with the PUD so that's why we put it together was to let them pose the questions. Give us a concept. I do not expect a detailed drawing of what this development looks like. I just need a 35 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 general idea to decide whether or not I want to say well I'm not in favor of a density transfer but you can do the RSF. Go ahead and develop all the land to the fullest extent you can and good luck. That's not the purpose of being here tonight. It's to try to understand what our options would be so I think it's a little disingenuous to berate the developer because there is no Plan C. The City by it's own standards does not require a Plan C. That is council's responsibility to give the go ahead to move forward and say okay, we've got a general idea. Go out and spend some money now and let's get some details so that we can make some decisions as to whether these lots are buildable or whether or not we want the road to go through. What's it going to take to get the road through because if it gets too onerous and too expensive as far as the city, because again at some point we're going to have to maintain these roads. We have to maintain any kind of a retaining wall or those kind of things. We need to make a decision if that's something we want to take on or if that really is just not something that is feasible that the City should be doing and we need to look at other alternatives. As the Mayor has said, this whole thing as to whether a road goes through on the north, that's a long way from being decided and there's a lot more information we need. It's nice to see this concept and it's a great thing but as I pointed out it's lines on a flat piece of paper and as Mr. Oehme, our engineer said the reality is when you get out there and you start looking at the topography and you try to put a road into something as challenging as this, it just may not be feasible so I think that's where we're at. It's not to come here and berate the developer for saying where's your plan C. Where's the detail? That's not what we invited the developer here for and that was never the purpose of doing this. Again after Walmart what we learned was, City Council needed a lot more information before we could decide whether or not it's even a good idea to go forward or not. That's what we're here for tonight is to make that decision as to how do we go forward. What's our marching orders to City staff based upon the information that we've received. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, Councilmember Ryan do you have other questions or clarifications you want to make? Go ahead. Councilwoman Ryan: Just there's a couple. One I know I was not on council but I didn't have my head in the sand either so I'm aware of what's going on. Second of all me sharing my disappointment in not having a Plan C is not to berate or embarrass or discredit the work that you've done or Lennar as a developer. It is simply my request as a council member representing the people in this room. The people at home that the Chairman Aller who said that he would like, based on the feedback from the commission a Plan C so all I'm doing is expressing that I would have liked to see a Plan C. That's it. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Do you have other questions or comments at this time for the developer? Councilwoman Ryan: Not at this time, thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Anybody else questions for the developer? Mr. Campion. 36 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Councilman Campion: I have one more question for Mr. Jablonski. So from speaking to some of the residents they were asking or expressed interest in possibly purchasing a 10 acre lot on the north side and the question is, I know you can't answer that. You know whether that would be done or not but if, and so it would be a 10 acre lot that is on the north side that is relatively abutting the Lake Lucy shore there. If neighbors had interest with that and you happened to go forward with the PUD concept is that something that Lennar would entertain? The potential of selling off 10 acres to neighbors for their own preservation. Joe Jablonski: It's something that we would look at. I was contacted by one of the homeowners. We haven't had a chance to connect. I understand he's out of town but we plan to do so when he returns so. Councilman Campion: Okay. Joe Jablonski: Need more details on that and, but it's something that we would consider sure. Councilman Campion: Alright. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Campion anything else? Councilman Campion: Not at this time. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Laufenburger: Sure Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Let me ask my question now. We've talked a little bit about some of these challenges. Are you up for working with city staff if you know part of our direction is we would like to see things change a little bit? I mean is that part of the negotiations going forward in your own mind? Joe Jablonski: Yeah I think so. Again I think you described it pretty well that this is a, at this point a fairly unrefined two dimensional drawing that we will continue working on. Getting, continuing to build on direction and continuing to build on feedback on what the, not only on what some of the desires of the neighborhood and feedback from council and staff is but you know as we continue to gather more information and field studies and things like that on what we can and can't do out there as well. Councilman McDonald: Okay thank you. 37 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Jablonski part of the packet that the council members received was I think about a 13 page document that represents comments from city departments like the planning department. Engineering comments. Water resources comments. Landscaping. All of those things. Are you familiar with that document? Joe Jablonski: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Is there anything, are you prepared to work with city staff to resolve these? Joe Jablonski: Absolutely. We've done so on many other projects. Mayor Laufenburger: Where have you done what you called empty nester homes? That would be like the villa homes. Have you done any of those near Chanhassen? Joe Jablonski: We have. We currently have an active community in Minnetonka. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: That's fairly close by. It's on the site of the old Minnetonka Golf Club so right off of. Mayor Laufenburger: Is that Smithtown Bay Road? Joe Jablonski: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: In what's Yellowstone is on the south side of that I think, yeah. Joe Jablonski: Yes and we've also done them in, we have an active community in Cottage Grove right now with that type of product. We have an active community in Rogers on the north side of town. One in Otsego. It's a very well received type of product with the growing empty nester demographic for sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Regarding your purchase option from the estate or from Comerica's representatives, are you at liberty to talk at all about the contents of that? Joe Jablonski: I guess it depends on what the question is. You know I don't want to get in. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay well let me ask, let me ask my question and then you can decide whether or not you want to share. Joe Jablonski: Okay. to Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Is there anything in that contract that talks about desires that the estate or the heirs have about this property? Joe Jablonski: Well I guess I would say first and foremost the estate desires to sell it. Mayor Laufenburger: Hence their invitation to all of the bidders. Joe Jablonski: Correct. Mayor Laufenburger: Right okay. Joe Jablonski: And there is some acknowledgement that the heirs would like the opportunity to work with staff and/or the City to come up with any opportunity for theming throughout the neighborhood but that is not the direction that we will be taking as Lennar. Mayor Laufenburger: When you say theming what do you mean? Joe Jablonski: Any kind of opportunity to recognize the prior property owner. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. So they have asked for that but you have not made. Joe Jablonski: That is not. Mayor Laufenburger: That's not a direction you're. Joe Jablonski: That's not our requirement. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Joe Jablonski: That is something that they will perhaps approach the City on. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Okay. Well with that Mr. Jablonski get ready to listen okay. Joe Jablonski: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: Alrighty, thanks. Alright. Oh sure, just a moment Mr. Jablonski. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, no, you can. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay go ahead. Councilmember Tjornhom yeah. 39 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Before we start public comment, because we are here tonight to give our opinion whether think this property should be an RSF or a PUD, if it would be okay with you Mr. Mayor if when people do come to the podium and speak, I'd like to hear their opinion on what they think it should be. Should it be an RSF or a PUD? Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Let me also say this. I mentioned this briefly. I would simply ask that you be concise. Remember that you're speaking to the council. You're not speaking to the audience or to anybody who may be watching at home. You're speaking to the council. Address your comments here. Be respectful but also understand that the council has seen emails and have had phone conversations. Talked personally with many of you so we have a little bit of the flavor already. However I think it's important that those of you that have not had an opportunity to address either the Planning Commission or the City Council be given an opportunity to do so, so with that and I don't know how long we'll go on this but I'm going to do my very best to manage this in a respectful and an efficient way so is there somebody would like to break the seal. Alright, I just would ask, state your name and address and if you don't mind stating somewhere in your comments a preference for the concept PUD or the RSF as Councilmember Tjornhom so your name and address please. Matthew Myers: Matthew Myers, 7421 Windmill Drive on the south side of the property. I'll give you a Plan C. The 41 acres that the park board wants, could the City buy that from the estate. Not transfer the 40 homes and then let Lennar buy the rest of the property and build what would be 150. So not do the transfer of the density. Let them do regular density and 150 homes generates a lot of property tax and over the years we just, as a City buy the 41 acres for the park and not do the transfer. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright. Matthew Myers: So there's a Plan C. Mayor Laufenburger: So do you have any preference. Matthew Myers: Yes less density. Well I don't know which one is the less density. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Matthew Myers: Which is a PUD the less density? RSF? Yeah, bottom line less density is what we'd like. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Myers. Anybody else would like to speak? Brian Strauss: Hello my name is Brian Strauss and I reside at 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane. I would just like to add to my comments. My wife and I had written a letter to the council. A fairly long letter and I'd just like to raise a few additional points. I'm appreciative of the recognition that .N Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 the notice may not have been precise. I think it's important that we have proper governance and transparency. I will note that my current notice got here on Wednesday so still within 10 days but I appreciate that. It's unclear to me Mr. Mayor, I know you've been asking about whether the land can be developed as is and it's currently zoned rural residential is it not? So not a single variance is needed to do that option. Is that right? Kate Aanenson: That's inconsistent with the guiding of the Comprehensive Plan. You have to go back and look at, how the property was being appraised. The property's being appraised by the County Assessor based on the ultimate capacity of the land so right now if you look up the appraisal value I believe it's about $20 million dollars approximately. And that's based on the fact that they can subdivide that property. So if you were to say now you can only develop at one acre lots, you've done a taking. And I'll ask the city attorney on that question but I would assume that the property owner would probably object to that. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Strauss I appreciate your comments. Brian Strauss: Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: I just would ask that you make them in the form of your preference or your presentation to us okay. Brian Strauss: Okay. My preference is neither A or B. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Brian Strauss: From my research the land is currently zoned rural residential and there's a statement in there, at least based on my research, that the minimum lot sizes for that are 2.5 acres per home. I'm not a land developer but that's based on my research. I'm not in favor of either A or B. I'd point to some of the issues that I wrote about in my letter. The connections to the northern neighborhood as well as the size of the buffers in the north and the south. I'd recommend an Option C be developed where there's lower density. More environmentally friendly and connections only out to Galpin so okay. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you for being concise, thank you Brian. And thank you for your letter. All 35 pages by the way. Brian Strauss: I would encourage everyone to read it. Mayor Laufenburger: Anybody else wishing to address the council that hasn't had an opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission. We're not going to bite you so just state your name and address please. 41 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Greg Andrews: Hi I'm Greg Andrews. I live at 6895 Ruby Lane. Lived there a little over 5 years. Mayor Laufenburger: Nice to meet you face to face Greg. Greg Andrews: Good to talk to you on the phone Denny. So first point is all about protecting Lake Ann. So I just question the water study on north Lake Lucy that it may, you may want to wait and do it in 2018 because I know my neighbors in Lake Lucy Ridge they built a dock last year and now it's sunk in green muck and weeds and they can't even use it for boats and it got that way after that development got put in up to the north so. I guess I'm concerned about the same thing happening to Lake Ann because this much development, and I know a lot of protections are, everyone's going to try to make but things happen, is I'd hate to see that happen over there on a lake that my son and his cub scout pack 409 use and a lot of people use. It truly is the gem of Chanhassen so I know people will try to protect it but there's a lot of things that happen in a wetland and overflows, et cetera. Excessive rains. Excessive snows. I watch the footage of the people living to the south that, when there's a lot of snow and a lot of runoff they're running their sump pumps and they can't even keep up so that stuff can also go into Lake Ann too. A lot of phosphorus. A lot of problems that can happen. So we live kind of on a natural ridge that kind of connects up areas below us to Lake Lucy Ridge and then to Lake Ann. Where deer kind of go through in a natural trail. If you follow that back. I'm jealous of the one guy who said he trespassed on Prince's property. I've never done that and to follow that trail is, you know it just makes me think what's going to happen to all the wildlife because the plan, and even in the PUD plan is, it's just going to put up houses and a wall right there and all those deer that we've enjoyed for all those years and I don't know about all the other animals that are back there too. I don't know, nobody really talks about that in the plan but I know those deer are going to have to go find someplace else to live when this happens because their natural trail is going to be gone. Alright. So my second point, and last point is about the stub streets. Is, wasn't aware that they were intended to connect through. When I first moved here, corporate relo, lived on a busy street. I went out to the store and bought a big yellow cone that said Caution, Children at Play. Every afternoon I'd come home from work. I'd throw that in the middle of the street. I haven't had to do that in Ashling Meadows so I feel really safe for my kids there. If they obey the rules but I'd be very, very concerned that another 90 homes would connect up with our neighborhood there so you know there's different proposals for different types of houses and not connecting. I grew up in California where hey, there's millions and millions of people in some neighborhoods. Instead of connecting the roads that I don't know the reason for connecting roads. I don't know if it's safety or not or just the design. Mayor Laufenburger: In California or here? Greg Andrews: No here. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh okay. 42 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Greg Andrews: Yeah, I don't know what the desire for connecting them is but I know that where I lived is, there were certain neighborhoods that were built after ones. They weren't roads through but there was a space that emergency vehicles could get through. It was kind of like a, just almost like a park that you could drive through in an emergency but the neighborhoods weren't connected at all. You could drive through them but only emergency vehicles could so just an option where you're not really connecting up the neighborhoods but if it's around safety there's another option. Okay but, sorry. Just want to make sure I'm making all my points here. So I guess I know that Lennar is trying to monetize the property there but to try to shove a bunch of, you know 90 more homes and connect up with our neighborhoods, I'm just concerned that it's going to be a major thoroughfare. Our neighborhood as well as Lake Lucy Ridge so that's my major concern. For people like me who have young kids who want to ride their bikes, run out in the street, et cetera. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Andrews. Greg Andrews: Thank you. Anyone else? Jessica Hansgen: I wasn't going to stand up but I have to. So my name's Jessica Hansgen and I live at 7555 Walnut Curve. On that horseshoe down to the south of the proposed development. Mayor Laufenburger: You said Jessica what? Jessica Hansgen: Hansgen. Mayor Laufenburger: Hansgen? Jessica Hansgen: I don't know should I tell you how to spell my name? Mayor Laufenburger: No I'll do it phonetically. Jessica Hansgen: Hansgen. Yep. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Jessica Hansgen: So I know Councilwoman Tjornhom you had asked earlier how we spend time in the community and you wanted to hear from us. I also have 2 young children who live in that horseshoe area and we already have a hard enough time crossing Galpin to use the parks that we have. Thanks to the boy scouts who put the flags at every 4 way stop. We still have to dodge cars and I've seen the road proposals for the roundabouts on Galpin in preparation, I'm assuming in preparation for this development and it, it breaks my heart that we live that close to a park and we can't use it. We also spend a lot of time going down the hill up towards Longacres counting deer in the field that you just talked about. Our favorite thing to do right now is when there's sirens on Highway 5 count how many coyotes we think are howling back in, I think we're up to 43 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 about, we think maybe 10 right now. Different howls based on what we hear back in the berm and my property doesn't back up to the proposed development but my neighbors in front do and we use that area so I just wanted to speak on how we use the area and use the, sorry I'm nervous. I don't know why. Use the community and the space that we have. And I also spend a lot of money at Chaska Community Center so it'd be great to be able to have some sort of area within Chanhassen that we could also put our own money towards to be a community center similar to that. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Ms. Hansgen. Cheree Theisen: Hello, my name is Cheree Theisen. I live at 2072 Majestic Way. I'm in the Royal Oaks development. I was one of the very first people to go into that development and build my custom home. Prior to building it I had checked out the school district which was a priority and then the small time community that we had because I lived there when I graduated from school. Mayor Laufenburger: How long did you say, how long have you been at Majestic Way? Cheree Theisen: I've been there since 1995. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay so 23 years. Okay. Cheree Theisen: And I bought it for that very same reason. I went down there. It used to be a turkey farm and I was able to pick out the lot that I wanted. I had a beautiful and still have a beautiful back yard of nothing but woods. We treasure the turkeys coming into our neighborhood. The coyotes, like she mentioned, howling and carrying on just on the other side of the fence from where I live. And the deer. All of the animals. And plus we have a very quiet neighborhood. We have small children that get to play in the street and have fun but we are just small. You know I go out to Galpin to turn, you can't get off Majestic Way. You've got people coming from Longacres. You've got, if there's cars stopped at the 4 way stop further south on Galpin, by the time one comes you can't get out because the other one's on it's way and you sit there for quite a long time. I can't imagine what's going to happen to us when we bring in 190 some houses. I mean you guys are trying to put 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag. I have a big yard. I've got a beautiful yard. I looked up every single one of your houses online. You have beautiful back yards with wonderful trees. Wonderful trees. Mine. Mayor Laufenburger: Did you put a camera back there? Cheree Theisen: I have pictures of them all with me. But I will say I get to look at my next 10 years or whatever, maybe just one now, looking at a fricking clear cut. I mean go figure. I put a lot of money. I was a single mom. I still am. I put everything into my business and my home for my children and I love, and I am so disappointed and for all the same reasons. The traffic. The, my house actually the basement caved in on me because of the amount of water that would Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 come off from the hill. It froze in the wintertime and pushed my basement in. I had to have it dug out. Jacked up. Steel beams put in. State of Minnesota came out to do the structural work on it and I know that there's other houses in my neighborhood that have had water problems. I have 2 sump pumps and I have a generator that has the cord ready to go the minute we lose our power because my basement is flooded more than once but I still choose to live there. But not for long if this keeps up. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you for your comments Cheree. Welcome. Barb Klick: Good evening. I'm Barb Klick and I reside at 7116 Utica Lane in Chanhassen for 31 years and I get to use Lake Ann almost every day of my life and I've been blessed. So the first moral of the story here as a 40 year old nurse, 40 years. I wish I was 40 years old. 40 years I've been a nurse. Please if Prince would only have some estate planning in advance, health care directive things would be easier so please everybody do that. I think that. Mayor Laufenburger: Very well said. It's a little late for Prince but it's not too late for all of us. Barb Klick: Everybody else. We live here and we're so proud of this town and what Todd Gerhardt and Todd Hoffman, is he not the best director of parks and recs you've ever had. Right here. This guy. Mayor Laufenburger: He's the best one that I've ever seen. Barb Klick: Right here, this guy. And we're here for the green space and we're here for the lakes and that's why people keep rating us number 2 and number 1, number 5 and yet we don't have $20 million dollars and America's a great country to live in and Lennar can buy this land so maybe there's some guide posts we could come up with around our green space and the things that we value and maybe Lennar would be willing to work with us about saying we know that you have a right to build but we really want to preserve the things that are near and dear and if we had some guide posts to help maybe that would move this along. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Barb. Cheree Theisen: I've got a footnote. I'll come up with a few more here too. Mayor Laufenburger: Recalling the witness. Cheree Theisen: When I decided I wanted to build a house where I'm at I went to the City of Chanhassen and I said okay, I'm right next to Prince's property. He's got a beautiful tree line. If he sells that property what's going to happen to that tree line? The City told me flat out they will not take that out. They'll never remove a natural tree line. Now granted that was 23 years ago and a lot changes but that's still disheartening. E. Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah. Cheree let me ask you a question. Do you have trees that are on your property back there? Cheree Theisen: No. That's why. Most of our neighbors in our neighborhood, we have huge open back yards with maybe one tree back there. I have the forest and so does my neighbors. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. Cheree Theisen: They might have like, well my neighbor has a pool and landscape but for the most part there isn't a lot of trees in our neighborhood. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Cheree. Jon Hebeisen: Good evening. Mayor Laufenburger: Good evening. Jon Hebeisen: Jon Hebeisen, 2150 Majestic Way. Mayor Laufenburger: Jon could I just stop you for a second? Jon Hebeisen: Sure. Mayor Laufenburger: I think you spoke at the Planning Commission didn't you? Jon Hebeisen: I did but I think that's a made up rule. Mayor Laufenburger: Say that again. Jon Hebeisen: I think your rule is a made up rule, am I not right council? Mayor Laufenburger: Well actually it's a practice that I've been following for almost 4 years so I'm not saying you can't speak. I would just like to give, if anybody else who hasn't spoken yet so if you wouldn't mind just taking a seat for a moment and we'll give some time. Jon Hebeisen: I was doing that. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you. Is there anybody else who has not yet spoken at the Planning Commission that would like to speak at this time? Jay Gerczak: Hi I'm Jay Gerczak and I live at 1941 Topaz Drive in Ashling Meadows and I think we've heard enough about the environmental and the safety issues so you guys all get that. .N Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 I'm here a little bit about the process and I know that tonight there was discussions about, that you're not voting on a plan. Mayor Laufenburger: Right. Jay Gerczak: We're really kind of at a artist depiction level. But I'm in software development and we start with an artist depiction of kind of what the future is going to be and then we work down into the engineering and my concern is that if we're saying conceptually that we agree to one of these plans, it's really giving the builder the notion that they're headed in the right direction and I think we've heard a lot of concerns tonight, in letters, at the Planning Commission meeting which I did not receive a notice which you've addressed, and there's concerns and we want to see those concerns addressed in another concept view and I think that was discussed tonight but I didn't really hear maybe your viewpoints on the process of that moving forward. Mayor Laufenburger: Well let me speak to that Jay if I may. I tried to make it clear at the beginning that there's a sequence of steps that we're going to follow which will conclude with comments from the council to city staff and developer and then the developer will be able to hear those comments in conjunction with the comments of the public. Through emails. City staff. You saw me reference 13 pages of comments from city staff. It's really up to the developer then to, with all of that information decide if and how they choose to move forward. As you heard me say before I don't believe we're approving A or B. I understand that the inclination would be well if we say yes to B that means that's the direction they're going to go to or if we say yes to A, that's the direction they're going to go through. But this is a, this is intended to be an iterative process. Ultimately the developer decides or the potential developer decides if they feel like they can work the economies the way they need to but those economies are governed by what they hear from this council and from city staff on what we're looking to see on this development so I stated right up front. This can be a cumbersome process but it's a deliberate process that we try to follow to ensure that all views, all facts, all perspectives are heard so I'm sorry you weren't able to be at the Planning Commission. I hope that tonight turns out to be informative for you. You have the last comment if you'd like. No, just the last work between you and L Anything? Jay Gerczak: Okay. Maybe I misunderstood because I thought that they're really looking for feedback on what concept to go with and so. And then I just would like to hear a little more on so if they do come back you know when does the public get back involved and does it go back to the planning committee. I was thinking of your slide that you had up there and back to the City Council and how many iterations does that go through before something is finalized. Mayor Laufenburger: Good. Those are good questions. I think you'll get your answers tonight. Somebody else? Peter Polingo: I'm Peter Polingo, 1981 Topaz Drive. 47 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Hello Peter. Peter Polingo: Just following up on what Jay has to say Mr. Mayor. To keep it simple we're asking you to listen to the things we're saying about not connecting the subdivisions. About trying to build something that we can be proud of as a quality community and to make sure the safety is fundamental and the congestion. Just keep it simple. That's what we're asking you to do. Then we want you to come back and tell us what you think and then let us get back together again. Okay? Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Peter. Peter Polingo: Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Appreciate your comments. Anybody else? Going once. Going twice. Mr. Hebeisen, would you join us please. Jon Hebeisen: Since you asked so nice. Jon Hebeisen, 2150 Majestic Way. I'm the guy that did the trespassing by the way, with my sons for the last 16 years. Mayor Laufenburger: Your secret's safe with us Jon. Jon Hebeisen: Statute of limitations has run. Two questions both rhetorical. Where is it written that Lennar or whoever buys this property has to build 200 houses? That seems to be the assumption we're making here. 200 houses. Either on the big version we're going to have it near the water or we're going to cram them all in. That's the assumption. They don't. Lennar is an $8 billion dollar company. Not to demonize them but they're an $8 billion dollar company. They build, according to their own publicity they're going to build 35,000 homes this year. It's not a big deal to Lennar. This is not a big deal. Do you think they care about Chanhassen? We are .0057 percent, this development that they want to do of one year's production and of course this would be several years in building. They don't care about Chanhassen and they don't have to care about Chanhassen. That's your job. You guys got to care about Chanhassen. They're here to make money. We don't need to conform to their business plan of allowing the Prince heirs to monetize their property by selling 200 houses. I don't buy the premise. Build 50 less. 50 less out of your 35,000 annual. They can do that. At what cost to them? Nothing. What do we get from that? We maybe preserve these gems. These lakes. Maybe we don't clear cut some of the big woods. Can you believe we're going to clear cut the big woods. So they can build .0057 percent of one year's houses. Do you think that's a smart long term plan for the city of Chanhassen that has the maple leaf? I don't think so. Second rhetorical question. Why do you think we get something for nothing? Why do you think, you said 94 acres. What's the price? Being implied being very little or nothing. Maybe a dollar. Free. It's free. This is great. I can't believe it and you shouldn't believe it either. If you're going to get that land for free it's going to be on the backs of the rest of these people, including myself obviously. I heard the term, the number 15,000 square foot lots bandied about. There's some of those up on the north side and I Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 understand this plan is not etched in stone but it's the only plan we've seen. We don't have a Plan C. The lots along the back side, not coincidentally which border my home. Mayor Laufenburger: Back side, south side? Jon Hebeisen: Correct, south side. Well the city minimum is 9,000. Those lots are 6,000. That's not a variance. As I said previously the Planning Commission that's an evisceration. That's part of the price you're paying. We're paying. The homeowners are going to pay for that land that you're getting for free. And speaking of Lake Ann and free land, we have a gentleman here that knows, he was here back then. We didn't Lake Ann Park for free. We paid for it. Why aren't we paying for this land? Why do we think we're getting it for nothing? I'm saying we're not and any intelligent analysis would tell too, there's a price to pay. We're going to get the free land including the wetlands and we're going to jam in 200 houses because that is written in stone that you have to have 200 houses and you don't. Just do your jobs looking out for Chanhassen. Not for Lennar. Thanks. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Hebeisen. Is there anybody else? Is there anybody else either that did or did not speak at the Planning Commission who would like to address the council at this time? Okay I thank you for your comments. For your respectful presentation of information and now I'm going to bring this back to the council. First of all is there any questions or clarifications that any council member would like to ask for at this time? Okay. Mr. McDonald I'll start with you and we'll just move down the row here and I will reserve my comments until last. I'm looking for your comments on, everybody comments to the developer and to city staff on what you would like to see in this property. Councilman McDonald: Well this is a very difficult decision but you know I do believe that the owners of the property have got a right to sell the property. They've elected they're not going to divide it up and sell it piecemeal so what we need to do as government to do our responsibility is we have certain rules in place as to how property can be developed. So based upon that one of the things I would like to see, I would be in favor of the density transfer because I do want to see us get the land around Lake Ann and develop that into a park. I also would like to see more detailed drawings and one of the things I would like staff to particularly do is any connection between the Prince property and the property to the north I would like that to be looked at and if it has to go to any kind of structural engineering or we have to put up all kinds of retaining walls then I would like to see that connection not be there. The other thing that helps that is that's also the school boundary line between Chanhassen and Minnetonka so it's kind of a natural barrier from a school district. It's also a natural barrier from the topography so I would like staff to look at that. Then what I would like to also see is that again as I've said we do need the detailed engineering plans. At this point all this is is lots drawn on paper. I'm not sure all those lots are even buildable and I would like to get a count as to what actually is buildable. As far as the trees to the north and to the south, yeah I would like to see all of those preserved. I would like staff to work with the developer to find some way to make sure that any cutting of trees is minimized and that to the best that we possibly can to keep those barriers between neighborhoods to kind of Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 have a transition between areas and to keep the trees in place in order to do that. Beyond that I think that again looking at the two choices, because the developer as I said, you have to first start with the premise can they develop the land and the answer to that question is yes. Then the thing you need to look at is okay, what's best for the city. I hear the gentleman that wants Lennar to build fewer homes. Then let's get an idea of what the buildable lots are to address that. The wildlife and those issues, yes that's why I want to see as many trees and habitat left as possible. As far as Lake Ann and the environmental potential damage there. I think that that should be something that's built into the next PUD and I would like staff to come back with assurances as to how we're going to protect Lake Ann. And especially during a construction process and even after the construction process because as everybody has mentioned one of the big problems up on Lake Lucy was phosphorus and those types of chemicals. Well that comes off of people fertilizing their yards so let's look at a way to keep all of that out of Lake Ann. And that's what I would ask and give direction to staff to do. Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. McDonald. Moving on down the line. Councilmember Tjornhom do you have any comments you'd like to make to the staff and to the developer? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I do. I do. I think Councilman McDonald explained how this whole process started. It started back with Walmart and the fact that Walmart brought a bunch of stuff to the table. Spent a bunch of money and we said no thank you. It was not something that was a good fit for our community and now when I look back on it, this community was absolutely right when they made that very loud and clear. Tonight once again we are with a developer that would like to create a project in this town and once again tonight we are having a meeting. Letting the developer know what our expectations are. What our concerns are. What we want to see happen with this project. I'm pretty sure he heard the concerns about traffic. He heard concerns about the tree lines being cut down. He heard concerns about water quality. He heard concerns about density. He heard concerns about your quality and your life being changed because of 200 homes being built in the area that you just feel isn't ready for that type of development. I don't believe that doing an RSF is the right thing to do. I believe that a PUD, and this is me talking to the developer saying that a planned unit development makes way more sense than you having carts blanche just to go in and build the lots you want, where you want and how you want. I don't think that's responsible as a city or a council to go ahead and say yep, you bought the land. Go ahead and do that so I think that we have expressed very well what we're all really concerned about and I think that the Lennar representative has heard those comments and you're not the first developer. This isn't your first meeting where you've heard these things but I think that this is the first meeting everybody and so I think we have to realize that. Once he goes back and he has his conference with his partners tomorrow and he talks about our comments. Our frustrations. Our concerns. Our hesitancy to have this happen they'll discuss the options. What is going to make sense for them? Will it make sense for them to proceed by maybe cutting out 50 homes from this development. You know maybe rearranging where the roads go. Rearranging some of the grading so we're not totally destroying what's already there. And then he'll come back and he'll say you know what, we can do this. Let's 50 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 work together and find a way or he'll say this isn't for us and so to me that's why I'm here tonight to listen to you and to send a message at the request of the developer as to what our expectations are and so my expectation is that if you were to move forward it would be a PUD but it would be with all of these elements everyone has talked about here tonight. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilmember Tjornhom. Councilmember Ryan, your comments. Councilwoman Ryan: Thank you Mayor. I would like to see an Option C so I, and I say that in all seriousness. I say that because I would like to take one additional step in the process so instead of approving or moving forward with either RSF or PUD I'd like to have the developer take these comments and this feedback and I'd like to have another concept review conversation. I don't think that then we have to move immediately forward to Lennar making the, making the investment with the engineering and the planning because I understand you know that situation for Lennar so I think that if we take an extra step along this way we're thinking long term versus kind of the tactically short term how are we going to get this done and what streets are going to be. How the streets are going to connect and what not so I'd like to in all seriousness I would like to have another option or options or thoughts from the developer in how they're going to work around some of the constraints of the site. Some of the thoughts that I would like to hear from Lennar and again not specific engineering detail but I look to get a better understanding of what's the intention when it comes to your grading plan. What is that going to look like? What is it going to look like when you, you know when you lay the plan that you presented over this, what's up on the screen right now, all the development is occurring where the woods are and as I understand Ms. Sinclair's going to evaluate the trees that we'd like to keep. Is that one tree? Is it two trees? I mean what are we. Kate Aanenson: Again we're weighing that against the area in preservation so this, if you look at what percentage I mean I think we don't have that number. What percentage is being impacted so yes, there's specific spot trees that we would try to, she would try to preserve. Councilwoman Ryan: And again I would like to have that feedback as part of this. I know we had sent out some jurisdictional review. My understanding again when they reviewed this is that it was what would you prefer the option, or Plan A or Plan B and I don't doubt that anybody in, with the DNR or the watershed is going to say let's develop on Plan A so I would like to get a better understanding of what their concerns are with the PUD and the environmental impacts so I'd like to hear some of that. Specifically when we talk about each parcel of land and the way that when I was evaluating I was looking at it, I was looking at the northern, the central and the southern portion of it and when I look at the northern piece of this parcel I would like to see a concept where Lake Lucy Ridge and Ashling Meadows either have a cul-de-sac so there is no connection through off to Galpin. It's a cul-de-sac or that land up on the ridge, that 10 acres remains undeveloped because of the potential impact into Lake Lucy. If it is something that Lennar feels that they need to develop and don't want to sell off the property, obviously that's their discretion. I would like to ask them to consider larger lots that mirror or match the existing 51 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 neighborhood up there so I would ask that for that 10 acre parcel. Moving directly south I still find it very hard to believe that the homes that are listed, well really that whole area is all big woods and the thought of cutting all that down and what that's going to do to the drainage and the wetland is concerning to me. I would like to get a better understanding of how that is even a viable option to build out those lots. I think there's a stream running through a portion of it. There's a wetland at the entrance of Galpin. Again I just, I don't see how this is a possibility so is there another configuration that Lennar is willing to consider? And safety is a concern. I know we're going to, the proposal would be to build retaining walls but in the documents that we read, our engineering department said that the bluff stability is part of the, a concern over there. At the center of the property when you look at it that's planned for 102 lots and that just seems in my view excessive the way that you're, that those lots build out. If you look at Lots 10 through 23 which is that cul-de-sac off to the northeast there. That cul-de-sac, again that would require significant tree loss of oak trees abutting the edge of the wetland and I understand this is all part of the density transfer but I think that regardless of the density transfer we still need to be stewards of the environment here. And again understanding your grading plan because when we did the walking that was one of the high points and I'm concerned about what the grading is going to do. On the southern portion we heard people tonight talk about the runoff and the high water flooding their basements. I also believe that at the Planning Commission there were comments that although that the, some of the wetlands were identified maybe we could take another look at that if those are all of the wetlands because there was some thought that the ones that were identified is not a complete picture of what those wetlands are. And maintain a buffer. Keep the trees and protect the houses on the south side of the home and I skipped ahead. And again on the center when I talk about the number of lots, I would prefer to see it mirrored to what is going on in Longacres or west of Galpin. Those lot comparisons are, it's, I just don't like the look of that, the density right across the street from Longacres. Mass grading. And then finally again understanding that's part of when we talk about a density transfer the 35 percent lot coverage. We're so careful and diligent when we look at individual properties and coming in for variances for lot coverage and that's on a single property and we're looking at a 35 percent lot coverage on you know the central and south portions of this development and that to me is unacceptable. So to sum up my specific points and long term is I'd like to take one more look at a Plan C or additional options with a little more work on Lennar's end but I think in the long run it will pay off for Lennar but more importantly for our community. Thank you. Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Councilmember Ryan. Mr. Campion do you have any comments? Councilman Campion: I do. So I'd also like to thank everyone for sharing their opinions tonight and over the past few weeks and month and at the Planning Commission meeting as well. My input is that I also support a Plan C that would be a modification of the PUD. Something we haven't seen yet but something that addresses you know most or as many as possible of the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors. I want to see things like you know sharing of what the buffers or habitat, tree cover. You know what the, what the grading plan is going to look like before we can really respond you know with a strong support of one plan over another. 52 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Obviously the RSF just, you know is not acceptable in general. I would like Lennar to seriously consider offers that might come from the neighbors to purchase that 10 acres to hold that as a buffer. Increased buffer for Lake Lucy to help protect and preserve that. I don't know what the mechanism is to trigger it but I would like the watershed ideally to either update that UAAU or water quality measurements before this comes back to us next. Whether it's another concept review or the preliminary plat but I think it'd be good to see if there has been a shift in the past year since those other, that development went in off Lake Lucy Road. And I acknowledge development will continue to happen as long as there's a willing seller and a willing buyer but even in my short tenure on council here over the last 4 years I've seen developers that do listen to the neighbors and you know they make some concessions to make sure that this development is you know well received by the community and has a positive feeling going forward and I would think that that would show well upon Lennar for when they're potentially looking at trying to make another development in Chanhassen down the line. Right to leave a good picture in people's minds. An example of that I think there was a West Park development that I think is still in progress now off of Great Plains and that was one where I know that there was a lot of feedback on it but it seemed like the issues just got addressed between the developer and neighbors and I'd love to see that happen here. In going forward I would like to see the process run more smoothly next time and from now on. You know make sure that all residents are notified before there's a potential for public input. Make sure signs are posted for potential connections and all that and I trust we'll do better going forward. But again I just want to close that I appreciate the dialogue. Keep sharing your input. Good job. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, anything else Mr. Campion? Okay. Before I make comments Peter Polingo asked the question regarding the time line. Kate could you speak to that? I know you had a triangle that showed the sequence of steps. Can you just give us a, not specifics but can you give us a general timeline of what you think would likely occur here. Kate Aanenson: Sure. I guess a lot of it is predicated on what the developer chooses to do. Mayor Laufenburger: Absolutely. The developer has a choice but let's assume that the developer chooses to move forward with something. Kate Aanenson: So whether he comes back formally before this group with a concept. So some of the things you're asking for is really going into the preliminary plat so now we're into pretty committed on that so I think they're up to. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, so what's his timeline for him to deliver a preliminary plat? Kate Aanenson: Well you'd have to do a lot of engineering so I'm guessing it's going to be at least 2 to 3 months I'm guessing. Yeah. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. 53 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Kate Aanenson: Yeah it's pretty common. I mean it's a lot of engineering. Mayor Laufenburger: Oh yeah. Yeah. Do we have any other developments in town that we could look at as a predictor of how this might happen like? Kate Aanenson: Well you know we did the Woods in Longacres which is equal the number of lots on the other side of the street and. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah a little bit bigger in fact I think isn't it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. Combined so it really depends on that complexity of the issues there so, and the timeliness of getting through the watershed district and all the other approvals from the other jurisdictions so. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. So it sounds like we're looking at 60 to 90 days probably. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Laufenburger: Before something comes back. Kate Aanenson: But I want to be clear on one other question that came up. And so what we've spoken to Lennar about is that, whether they come back here for C or whatever, what path they choose to go down. We've asked them to meet with the property owners on the north side and the south side to work through their issues so they can see the plans as they're working drawings before it comes back. We've asked them to do that in this process because it is hard when you're in a formal setting to look at something. The concept review is not formalized for that specific purpose so we can have this dialogue and they can get that feedback so however the developer chooses to come back with is a more informal concept C here or in working with the neighbors to formalize that before they bring it back under a concept that would extend the process in and of itself before they make a more formal plan. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. I want to be very specific with my comments, as specific as I can. I don't support A or B either which means that in my view there is a C somewhere. Whether it's a D or an E or an F, I don't know but I can't support A or B the way it is present. However I do support the guidance and the policies of previous councils that have established land use guidance and zoning as presented in the Comprehensive Plan and obviously Mr. Jablonski you've reviewed that so you know what the City would like to do. I do support reasonable and multiple access points to the development from Galpin Boulevard. Now I know that that, I know that Mr. Oehme spoke about the study, the traffic study and you took that into consideration. I'm not prescriptive about where they occur but it's logical that they occur at intersections that already exist and it seems to me that some of the, you know multiple access points. They don't exist now so I would support multiple but from Galpin Boulevard. I do agree with the planned unit development which allows the density transfer from the east to the west. And I do that 54 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 because most of primary important is to preserve and protect a majority of the shoreline of both Lake Ann and Lake Lucy and I'm pleased to see that that concept of density transfer was also supported by Riley -Purgatory watershed district and the DNR. Neither of which gave tacit approval for the plan but they said conceptually we support keeping as much development as you can away from Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. I do not support the purchase of these parcels by the City. I think the purchase of Lake Ann back in 1967, that was a different circumstance than we're faced with right here and yes Mr. Hebeisen it's not free land. I understand that. There is a cost associated with it but the financial burden to the citizens of Chanhassen with a concept PUD is significantly less than purchasing 41 acres from the developer, or excuse me from the land owner. I support the concepts of the city staff and a review of the concept PUD and I'm referring to the 13 pages that I made reference to you Mr. Jablonski. There's a lot of detail in there that Lennar may be very familiar with accomplishing satisfactory resolution of these and some of them are minutia but they all represent a picture of what the city staff is willing to comment on and call it a laundry list if you will but that's a laundry list that I trust because the city staff has proven to me over the 11 years that I've been involved with city government that the city staff knows what's right for this community and they do the due diligence to make sure that those of us in elected leadership don't make a mistake. Okay I'm confident that you as a developer in working with city staff can provide a preliminary plan, whether it's C or D that the council could ultimately agree with. However I'm not sure it's a plan that the developers can find, that satisfies your economies. This was a phrase that you used at the Planning Commission. However that's for you to determine based on what the City is allowing you. It's not our job in the city to make you a profit. Our job is to give you the parameters by which we will allow your development of this land. As many of the council members have said here, we want a quality project. Our objective is not for you to make money. I do support the spectrum of home options and I'm not going to give a specific number to this development but I insist that each and every lot must be buildable and in the packet there was the, I like the idea of building the lots, or building the homes on each lot in such a way that the eventual homeowner has the ability to expand their hard surface coverage 5 percent and not exceed the allowable limit. I'm not interested in homeowners having to come to the City Council to ask, seek for a variance to go over 5 percent. Regardless of what we, what you build I know that homeowners want to add value to their home. They want to add a patio. They want to add a fire pit. They want to add a who knows. Whatever it is that they want. I'd like to make sure that they have an opportunity to do that without having to ask for a variance. Regarding lot sizes. Like Councilmember Ryan said, I'd like to see the lots adjacent to the existing neighborhoods be a size closely similar to the lots that they abut. And if you can't do that I would ask for perhaps additional buffer space as a transition to these lots. I'm reminded or I'm remembering that on the south side of Walnut Curve there is very, very dense housing and that housing serves a very valuable purpose for this community. Those are Ms. Aanenson do you have any idea what, what's the general market value of those homes. I think it's under $200,000 isn't it? $200,000 to $250,000? Kate Aanenson: Around there, yeah probably. 55 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: So we know that there can be a coexistence of more dense property in reasonable proximity. I'm not opposed to that. I just, let's recognize that the buffers are important to maintain. Regarding the infrastructure, specifically the northern portion of the property. Topaz, Lucy Ridge Lane and Ruby were all stubbed for eventual connection to future development. I know the realtors know that. The City policy is such that our policy is to connect neighborhoods, and here's why. For public safety. For efficient delivery of services. That's why we connect neighborhoods. But the Comprehensive Plan also speaks to limiting the use of existing streets to handle high volume of pass through traffic. And the Comprehensive Plan also speaks to a limited use of cul-de-sacs unless topography and/or other natural features prevent pass through. So this becomes a judgment call and is often the case with things that aren't clearly stipulated in city code or policy. So here's my view on this Mr. Jablonski. And more importantly city staff. I could support not connecting Ruby Lane south. I understand that there's topography issues there. I could support turning that into a cul-de-sac. Also I could support connecting Topaz to Lucy Ridge Lane, and I think Councilmember Ryan you talked about that as a, what's the word that you used? Like a loop cul-de-sac or something. Loop cul- de-sac. Now what's interesting is that if in fact a road then goes from Galpin, as I talked about an entry point from Galpin to the development, that cul-de-sac would be 1,760 feet long. The city code allows 800 feet of cul-de-sac. We have a cul-de-sac in Chanhassen that's 4,200 feet so does the City allow longer cul-de-sacs? Our preference is 800 feet but we allow longer so that's one consideration. Another consideration for safety purposes, I'm not sure who said it. Who spoke about, who's in California? Was that you Greg? Yeah. I gave some thought to this. Is it possible in that Topaz to Lucy Ridge Lane cul-de-sac, is it possible to extend a cul-de-sac down into the Galpin property a little bit. Make those homes similar, or those lot size similar to the Lucy Ridge Lane and could it possibly be that we create like a, what did you call it Greg? Greg Andrews: Almost like a park. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah like a park road. Greg Andrews: A green space. Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah for public service. I mean I think about this, if there's an emergency services on the end of that 1,760 foot cul-de-sac and there's anything going on on the street before that, that could be a problem for that family so just city staff that's something I'd like you to consider. Lastly, I understand Mr. Jablonski that the sellers have requested that the developer work with the City to include a memorial or a remembrance of Prince's ownership of that land. If given suggestions I would be open to consider that if it's done tastefully. I don't know what that looks like, and by the way for those of you that may have seen. You may have seen the KSTP Channel 5 Tom Houser who lives in your neighborhood, he interviewed me and he said so what are you, what are they going to call these streets and I said they're not going to call them Love Sexy Lane, Purple Rain Parkway or Little Corvette Court. Those are trademark intellectual property. If the heirs can get them to you know name those streets, I don't care but I didn't think that that was a likelihood so for the record I got into some heat from the heirs about saying that 56 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 so I wanted to clarify. I could support something that would memorialize Prince's ownership. And with that Mr. Jablonski, Kate and staff, Mr. Gerhardt and all of you present you now have the sum total of the comments and I'm hoping that you would take those comments, not only from city staff but also from the public and work the magic that Lennar has proven to be able to work, not only in our community but all across the country and give us a development that truly we can be proud of. That honors and respects the desires of your council and the citizens here in Chanhassen. And with that I'm going to. Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one more comment? Mayor Laufenburger: You always do Kate. Kate Aanenson: Because I know all these people are going to want to call, call and ask. If we could put something out once they make a decision kind of what their course is going to be. I don't know when that's going to be that if we can somehow figure out. Mayor Laufenburger: Can we do that? Kate Aanenson: Well we put under development site. What the current action is so they can go to the City's website and check this project and get an update. Mayor Laufenburger: Well when you say put it on the development site. You mean the place where the sign was. Kate Aanenson: No, no, no, no. I'm talking about the City's website. Mayor Laufenburger: Website okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah. So people are going to call and ask what's going on so when we know something we'll put something out. Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Thank you Kate. That concludes this item on our agenda and if you don't mind I think we're going to conclude the rest of the meeting very quickly so would you bear with us folks. CONTROL CONCEPTS: APPROVE SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION. This item was tabled. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. 57 Chanhassen City Council — August 13, 2018 Mayor Laufenburger: Council presentations, do you have any council presentations anybody? Okay I have two. Go ahead. Councilman McDonald: I was going to give you a segue. The Red Birds played this past weekend and I. Mayor Laufenburger: Could I just ask you to remain here for just a second so we don't have to speak over your movement. We'll do this in 4 minutes okay. Thank you. Councilman McDonald: And I think they did the City proud by gaining the number one seed in the upcoming State Tournament so I think that's something the City should be very proud of. The guys fought back on both games. It was nip and tuck but they did prevail and they looked very good doing it. Mayor Laufenburger: Good, alright. Any other council presentations? Two things I want to add. Number one, Wednesday, August 15th is Chanhassen Day at the Arboretum. Free entry at the Arboretum on Chanhassen and activities begin at 8:00 in the morning and they go all through the day so if you, if you happen to have some kids that you want to entertain on Wednesday, take them out to the Arboretum. And secondly next Monday night, August 20th we are having a City Council meeting, and it's not a regularly scheduled meeting but it's a council meeting solely for the purpose of hearing from the public regarding the pavement management program and how we fund it and one of the considerations is a franchise fee so if you'd like to come back and make public comment to the council, that would be next Monday night. We start at, is it 7:00 or, 7:00. Yeah 7:00. Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Gerhardt any administrative presentations? Todd Gerhardt: None this evening Mr. Mayor. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion 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 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim