Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2019, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.OLD BUSINESS
1.Public Meeting To Review Changes to the Galpin Property Subdivision
C.PUBLIC HEARINGS
D.NEW BUSINESS
E.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 19, 2019
F.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
G.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.City Council Action Update
H.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
I.ADJOURNMENT
J.OPEN DISCUSSION
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws.
We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not
appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled
from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the
public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it
is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or
not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or
be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part
of the public input process.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Subject Public Meeting To Review Changes to the Galpin Property Subdivision
Section OLD BUSINESS Item No: B.1.
Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community
Development Director, AICP
File No: PC 201901
BACKGROUND
At their February 11, 2019 Work Session, the City Council remanded to the Planning Commission a public comment
meeting to review the most recent changes to the proposed Galpin subdivision.
The meeting will include an overview of the review process and meetings to date and an analysis by the developer of
the changes made to the subdivision since the concept plan was first submitted. The Planning Commission may ask
questions and give individual summary comments on the project after the public comments have been received. The
Planning Commission will not be making a formal recommendation.
Comments from this meeting will be shared with the City Council at their regular meeting on March 11, 2019.
Below is a list of public city meetings that have been held regarding the Galpin site:
Meeting Type Subject Date
City Council, Planning Commission and Park &
Recreation
Tour of the Site June 4, 2018
City Council Work Session June 11, 2018
Park Commission Concept PUD June 26, 2018
Planning Commission Public Hearing Concept PUD July 17, 2018
City Council Concept PUD August 13, 2018
City Council Work Session December 3, 2108
Planning Commission Public Hearing Preliminary Plat January 15, 2019
Park Commission Preliminary Plat January 22, 2019
City Council Work Session January 28, 2019
City Council Work Session February 11, 2019
Planning Commission Public Comment March 5, 2019 (minutes not
yet available)
City Council Preliminary Plat Scheduled for March 11,
2019
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, March 5, 2019SubjectPublic Meeting To Review Changes to the Galpin Property SubdivisionSectionOLD BUSINESS Item No: B.1.Prepared By Kate Aanenson, CommunityDevelopment Director, AICP File No: PC 201901BACKGROUNDAt their February 11, 2019 Work Session, the City Council remanded to the Planning Commission a public commentmeeting to review the most recent changes to the proposed Galpin subdivision.The meeting will include an overview of the review process and meetings to date and an analysis by the developer ofthe changes made to the subdivision since the concept plan was first submitted. The Planning Commission may askquestions and give individual summary comments on the project after the public comments have been received. ThePlanning Commission will not be making a formal recommendation.Comments from this meeting will be shared with the City Council at their regular meeting on March 11, 2019.Below is a list of public city meetings that have been held regarding the Galpin site: Meeting Type Subject DateCity Council, Planning Commission and Park &Recreation Tour of the Site June 4, 2018City Council Work Session June 11, 2018Park Commission Concept PUD June 26, 2018Planning Commission Public Hearing Concept PUD July 17, 2018City Council Concept PUD August 13, 2018City Council Work Session December 3, 2108Planning Commission Public Hearing Preliminary Plat January 15, 2019Park Commission Preliminary Plat January 22, 2019City Council Work Session January 28, 2019City Council Work Session February 11, 2019Planning Commission Public Comment March 5, 2019 (minutes notyet available)City Council Preliminary Plat Scheduled for March 11,2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek WSD Memorandum
City Council Work Session Minutes from 61118
Park Commission Summary Minutes dated 62618
Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated July 17, 2018
City Council Summary Minutes dated 81318
City Council Work Session Minutes from 12318
Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated 11519
Park Commission Summary Minutes 12219
City Council Summary Minutes dated 12819
City Council Summary Minutes dated 21119
Subdivision Plans
Developer's Narrative of Changes Made to Plans
Email Comments Received
o,rr&-
PURGATORY
BLUFF CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT
Memorondum
To:
From:
Subjecl:
Dole:
c:
18681 Lake Drive East
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-607-651,2
w.wrar.rpbcwd.org
Chonhossen Plonning Commission c/o
Kole Aonenson, Community Developmenl Direclor
Terry Jeffery, CWD
Proposed Single-Fomily Residentiol Development Golpin Boulevord
Plonning Cose 2018-12- Public Comment Meeling
Morch 1,2019
Cloire Bleser; Administroior Riley-Purgotory-Bluff Creek Wotershed District
This memorandum should be considered in the context that [,ake Ann has some of the best water quality in
the District and that is, in large part, a result of the limited development around the lake (Appendix A).
Urbanization of a watershed will always result in degradation of water quality. Steps should be taken to
minimize and mitigate these impacts to this unique resource that is so central to Chanhassen's park system
and provides so many recreational and educational opportunities. The preservation ofwoodland and
wetland areas, especially those more proximal to take Ann through better site design practices such as
density transfer are strongly supported.
The Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) published the Better Site Design Handbook in 1998 and
numerous entities, including Chanhassen, have incorporated these strategies into their guidance and
regulatory program. The goal of Better Site Design is to preserve existing hydrologic features and functions
while reducing impervious surfaces through the preservation of existing natural features. This most
commonly occurs through open space design, such as what was proposed in the Lennar plan dated
December 5, zorS (as revised) and what was successfully used in Preserve at Bluff Creek. The Minnesota
Stormwater Manual references Better Site Design as a method of reducing impacts to water quality that
result from urbanization ofpreviously undeveloped land.
At the time the Better Site Design Handbook was published, the CWP found more than 3o peer reviewed
studies showing sharp declines in stream, lake, and wetland qualities when the impervious cover in
upstream watersheds exceed ro percent. Currently, as illustrated on page 3, the immediate watershed is
almost entirely undeveloped. Some of these declines include warmer water temperatures, increased
pollutant loading, increased flooding, increased bacterial levels, decline in the diversity of aquatic insects
and native fish species, lower spawning success, a decline in wetland plant and animal diversity, and many
more impacts.
By providing the buffer that the December 5, zorS Lennar plan showed, many of these impacts can be offset
or mitigated over time. Were the land to develop straight zoning, the losses for Lake Ann, its water quality
and ecosystem, and the people of Chanhassen and the Watershed District would be immeasurable, and
likely irreversible. Thank you for your time and attention to this pressing matter.
E-
APPENDIX A - loke Ann Dolo
The following graphs show that lake Ann has the lowest mean growing season Chlorophyll-a and the
greatest water clarity as measured by the mean secchi disk depth within the RPBCWD. The last figure
ihows the current low level of development within the lake Ann watershed (from: Lake Lucy and Lake Ann
Use Attainability Analysis Update, RPBCWD, zor3).
2018 Growing Season Mean Secchi Disk Depth
- -tE
i i sE x BE sg frEss;
-
Deep Lakes
r Shallow Lakes
r ' Deep Lakes
Standard
-- Shallow Lakes
Standard
0
e 0.s
.cl
B r.s
-r)
th
A 2.5'82
(.) J
c)3 t.s
4
2018 Growing Season Mean Chlorophyll-a
80
70
Q60
b0
e50
6l
*+o
q30otr
920
ato
0
-
Deep Lakes
-
Shallow Lakes
* ' "Shallow Lakes
Standard
- -Deep Lakes
Standard
-(h
J
>\E -v E E >.= <j !{ orJ E t'gEE EE g'E EE5 Eg&9 OE6-rg r*iSd'A
Z
flsru,ttcr.rt *
Edxttj Lrnd lJr!
::.--: ttqJan|
Cmrc*d
I roert
HlrioacrrR.cgdr
H&!"ey
ffi r*oeuonta
ffi r"rm;*r
ttr DsocryRsfffi
tiLr*m DrEiiy Rdt cLd
faat,aUludogan
Ops vf.h{
Sehrt n Lq, DrdY Fr
\'bry fff Osm*Y ReddeitC
I..lhlrd
t-d6hr&tuktudhCtdtu
??w2
usTS!6 rArS Ug€ O0r0)sLqilBUUpObmic*o
I
{n$r@rc
aJ
L- rujL.-
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
JUNE 11, 2018
Mayor Laufenburger called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom,
Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Ryan, and Councilman Campion
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd
Hoffman, Vanessa Strong, and MacKenzie Walters
PUBLIC PRESENT: None.
Mayor Laufenburger thanked Councilman Campion for being present and speaking at the grand
opening of Fox Woods Preserve.
REVIEW PRIORITIES FOR DOWNTOWN VISION STUDY.
Bryan Harjes with Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. reviewed highlights of the Downtown
Chanhassen Vision Plan update. He discussed the existing downtown vision plan, key take
aways from the stakeholder engagement meetings, results of the online questionnaire, market
scan, demographic trends using Met Council projections for population, households, and
employment projections, connectivity, proposed enhancements for intersection crossings, land
use and sub-districts, and implementation. Afterwards he discussed the Survey Monkey
rankings. Kate Aanenson noted that background information is available on the City’s website
and explained how planning has been done in the past and what can be done in the future using
this information. Mayor Laufenburger asked for clarification on how the results of this update
should be used by the City Council. Bryan Harjes explained that this is a planning document to
be used in future planning. Councilwoman Ryan asked about action items associated with items
that ranked high on the survey. Todd Gerhardt explained how action items will be implemented
and acted on. Councilman Campion asked that council members receive updates on how the
plan is progressing. Mayor Laufenburger asked when the plan update can go from being a draft
to an approved working document. Councilwoman Ryan asked for more in depth information on
the study. Mayor Laufenburger expressed concern with some of the principles in the document
such as some of the guiding principles, draw from the environment, and park once, shop twice.
He would prefer changing the wording to say enhance pedestrian safety in the downtown.
Mayor Laufenburger discussed how Highway 5 breaks up the downtown area and asked if a
circulator bus has been used in the past. Todd Gerhardt discussed how the City did use a
circulator bus which was not warmly received. Mayor Laufenburger asked that Bryan Harjes
and staff review the Survey Monkey ranking as he had 1 as highest, not lowest and bring it back
for review at a future work session.
City Council Work Session – June 11, 2018
2
PERVIOUS PAVERS CODE AMENDMENT UPDATE.
MacKenzie Walters provided background information on work done by staff and discussed
concerns raised by the Planning Commission that they would like council members to take into
consideration when approving this item. After comments and discussion about the concerns
voiced by Planning Commission, although council members did appreciate the concerns raised
by the Planning Commission they did not believe they were impediments to implementing the
ordinance. Mayor Laufenburger asked that the amendment changes be done for 3 years and then
reviewed by the City Council at that time.
DISCUSS GALPIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT.
Kate Aanenson introduced Joe Jablonski and Steve Accor with Lennar who reviewed the
different architecture being proposed for a development on Galpin Boulevard. Mayor
Laufenburger asked what discretion is given to home buyers for exterior finishes. Joe Jablonski
continued with discussion of the potential plat layout. Councilwoman Ryan stated she was very
concerned with the proposed lot sizes not fitting in with surrounding neighborhoods. Mayor
Laufenburger stated he was in favor of preserving the property around Lake Ann. Kate
Aanenson explained how this item will move forward through staff, Planning Commission and
City Council. Mayor Laufenburger asked for clarification on lot sizes for previous projects done
by Lennar.
Mayor Laufenburger adjourned the work session at 7:05 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JUNE 26, 2018
Chairman Scharfenberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Scharfenberg, Cole Kelly, Rick Echternacht, Meredith
Petouvis, Karl Tsuchiya, and Joe Scanlon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Boettcher and Grant Schaeferle
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent; Katie Matthews, Recreation Supervisor; Adam Beers, Park Superintendent; Jodi
Sarles, Rec Center Manager; and Susan Bill, Senior Center Coordinator
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved with the addition by Chairman
Scharfenberg asking Todd Hoffman to give a recap of the capital replacement discussion held by
the City Council at their June 25, 2018 meeting.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Todd Hoffman recognized Sue Bill, Senior Center
Coordinator and Jim Theis from the Park Maintenance Department who will be retiring on
Friday.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Echternacht moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the
verbatim and summary Minutes from the April 24, 2018 and May 22, 2018 Park and
Recreation Commission meetings.
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW GALPIN BOULEVARD PROPERTY. Todd Hoffman
presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kelly asked for clarification of scenario 1
and 2 in relation to concept plans 04 and 07. Representing the applicant Lennar, Joe Jablonski
discussed the differences between the two concept options being presented. Commission
members asked for clarification on housing types, access, trails, wetlands, cost estimates, and
funding sources.
Kelly moved, Petouvis seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends
the City Council acknowledge the Lennar Concept Plan 07 dated June 1, 2018 depicting
199 lots clustered to the west, central and north central quadrants of the property and
preserving 50, plus or minus, acres of public park area utilizing a density transfer and park
dedication in the eastern quadrant of the property as the preferred starting point for the
Park and Recreation Commission Summary – June 26, 2018
2
design of the preliminary plat for the proposed development. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CAPITAL REPLACEMENT DISCUSSION BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.
Todd Hoffman discussed highlights of the discussion held by the City Council regarding the park
replacement plan.
REPORTS:
PARK MAINTENANCE QUARTERLY UPDATE. Adam Beers presented the update on
park maintenance projects. Commissioner Petouvis asked who maintains Eagle scout projects
after they’re installed. Commissioner Tsuchiya asked about ball field maintenance after rain
events. Chairman Scharfenberg asked about garbage at Lake Susan Park dugouts.
REC CENTER QUARTERLY UPDATE. Jodi Sarles presented the update on activities and
programs at the Rec Center.
2018 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION PREVIEW. Katie Matthews presented a preview of
activities involved with the upcoming 4th of July celebration.
SENIOR CENTER QUARTERLY UPDATE. Sue Bill presented the update on activities and
programs at the Senior Center.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. None.
Kelly moved, Echternacht seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission
meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
Planning Commission Summary – July 17, 2018
7
Metropolitan Council for their determination of consistency with the Metropolitan System
Plans. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
GALPIN PROPERTY: PUD CONCEPT REVIEW.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Representing the applicant Lennar, Joe
Jablonski discussed trail connections, differences between their two plans, and housing types.
Chairman Aller opened up the meeting for public comments. Jon Hebeisen, 2150 Majestic Way
asked if there were more options than the two proposals being offered by Lennar, questioned the
wetland delineation, the buffer, and that the people who live on the south side of this project
were not notified of the meeting. Dake Chatfield, 2200 Majestic Way stated he echoed the
comments made my Jon Hebeisen regarding the buffer zone and wetlands. Angelo Galioto, 1805
Emerald Lane expressed concern with the overall density of the project and the affect it will have
on Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. He also expressed concern with traffic through his neighborhood
with the addition of houses from this project. Kris Lenk, 6895 Lucy Ridge Lane expressed
concern with making Lucy Ridge Lane a through street. John Butcher, 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane
expressed concern with the environmental impacts that clear cutting will have on Lake Lucy,
safety concerns with Lucy Ridge Lane being a through street, neighborhood continuity, and
requested that the Planning Commission do everything in your power to minimize environmental
impact and if a 10 acre parcel that abuts the property can be used as a buffer. Callie Edwards,
18740 Partridge Circle commented on the need to save the “Big Woods”. Betsy Randall, 1571
Lake Lucy Road agreed with what has been said by everyone before her especially her concern
with runoff, saving the huge trees and her belief that some of the lots are too small. Barry
Dallavalle, 6960 Utica Lane and representing the 14 members of the Lake Lucy Homeowners
Association with homes bordering the east and north side of Lake Lucy, expressed their concern
with runoff impacting water quality of Lake Lucy, they would prefer the density transfer plan,
and had a concern with construction noise. Brian Hugh, 7441 Windmill Drive stated he wanted
to call out flooding in the area from springtime runoff. Greg Steward, 1893 Topaz Drive asked
that the Lennar Corporation deed the property over to the City of Chanhassen for permanent
conservancy in the name of Prince and expressed concern with impacts to the tree canopy,
wildlife, and the fact that there are Native American burial grounds within this property. Joy
Gorra, the widow of Mike Gorra, asked that the City and the developer take their time to develop
taking into account the pristine nature of the area and develop it right. Geri Stewart, 1893 Topaz
Drive discussed the need for a greater buffer between their property and the development and
discussed traffic concerns. Josh Kimber, 2060 Majestic Way expressed concern with lot sizes
being too small, saving trees with a buffer, and current issues with flooding. Deborah Medeiros,
6820 Lucy Ridge Lane asked if a feasibility study has been done for the road layout, impacts to
wetlands and would echo the environmental concerns of everyone in the room. Mehdi Ayouche,
2102 Majestic Way stated he moved to this neighborhood because of the trees and the quietness
of the neighborhood, and expressed concern with the density and impact on schools. Tamara
Sather, 7090 Utica Lane stated her preference for the preservation model because the parks and
trails are what drew her to Chanhassen 27 years ago and asked for a third option that allows for
the preservation but limits the number of homes. Charles Loeffler, 7327 Fawn Hill Road
Planning Commission Summary – July 17, 2018
8
expressed concern with the impacts road connections will have on wetlands. Danly Jones, 7026
Pima Lane, having grown up swimming in Lake Ann, asked if there is anything the City can do
to preserve the land and the quality of the lake. Julie Butcher, 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane asked the
City to be good stewards of this 200 acre parcel of land. Dale Carlson, 6900 Utica Lane asked
who’s going to be held accountable if the wetlands and water quality are destroyed and the
wildlife go away. Angelo Galioto asked if Lennar owns the property. Steve Wallace, 6900 Lucy
Ridge Lane apologize for arriving late before stating he strongly opposed the plan and
commented that land conservation is critical having seen the water quality deteriorate on Lake
Lucy from recent developments. He also stated that if development has to occur there should
only be one entrance off of Galpin Boulevard and more of a buffer zone. Chairman Aller closed
the public input period of the meeting. After comments from commission members Chairman
Aller noted that the item will be forwarded to the City Council with the verbatim Minutes and
emails attached.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on June 19, 2018 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson outlined items on the Planning
Commission meeting on August 7th and discussed the joint tour with the Senior Commission,
Environmental Commission and Park Commission on Wednesday, August 8th.
Commissioner Madsen moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
City Council Summary – August 13, 2018
3
comprised of a representative from social services, the area crisis center, law enforcement, and a
council member as well as a mental health professional, a parent, a student, an educator and a
member of the press. He asked that 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 again.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE VACATION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MINGER ADDITION (2300 LUKEWOOD DRIVE).
Jill Sinclair presented the staff report on this item. Councilwoman Ryan asked if other lots in
this neighborhood are impacted by the conservation easement. Mayor Laufenburger opened the
public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
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
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.
GALPIN PROPERTY: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPM,ENT CONCEPT PLAN
REVIEW.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Todd
Hoffman discussed the City’s Park System Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and how it
affects this development. City Engineer Paul Oehme, filling in for the Water Resources
Coordinator, discussed how development affects the water quality of Lake Lucy and Lake Ann.
Councilman McDonald asked for clarification of the street connection with the neighborhood to
the north of this development. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about blending the new
development with the surrounding neighborhoods. Councilman Campion asked about signage
regarding the stub street going through in the future. Mayor Laufenburger asked about the traffic
study, and how the property being preserved around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy will be conveyed
to the City of Chanhassen. Representing the applicant, Joe Jablonski with Lennar Corporation
addressed issues related to how Lennar was chosen by the estate of Prince Rogers Nelson to
develop the property, and outlined the work that’s been performed on the property to date.
Councilmember Ryan voiced her disappointment in not being presented a Plan C from Lennar.
Councilman Campion asked about the purchase of 10 acres on the north side of the property
abutting Lake Lucy. Mayor Laufenburger asked the developer if he was prepared to work with
city staff to address the 13 pages of issues and where examples of the empty nester villa homes
are located before opening up the meeting for public comments. Matthew Myers, 7421
Windmill Drive asked if the City could buy 41 acres of the property for the park and not do the
density transfer. Brian Strauss, 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane, who had submitted a letter to the
council, raised additional points regarding current zoning as rural residential, road connections to
City Council Summary – August 13, 2018
4
the northern neighborhood, buffers, and that road connections be made to Galpin Boulevard.
Greg Andrews, 6895 Ruby Lane questioned the accuracy of the water quality study done on
Lake Lucy and expressed concerns with Lake Ann, wildlife, and that he was not aware and not in
favor of the stub street connection. He described where he lived in California where space is
provided between developments for emergency access. Jessica Hansgen, 7555 Walnut Curve
expressed concern with the increase in traffic, and discussed how her family uses their property.
Cheree Theisen, 2072 Majestic Way, having built her home in 1995 discussed wildlife in the
area, traffic and water issues. Barb Klick, 7116 Utica Lane, having been a nurse for 40 years
urged everyone to have a health care directive, before discussing her use of Lake Ann and
suggested the use of guide posts to help preserve green space. Cheree Theisen addressed
preservation of the tree line on Prince’s property. Jay Gerczak, 1941 Topaz Drive stated the
council has heard enough about the environmental and safety concerns, but his main issue is with
the process and the fact that he did not receive a notice for the Planning Commission meeting.
Peter Polingo, 1981 Topaz Drive asked that the council listen to their concerns regarding not
connecting the subdivisions, building a quality community, making sure safety is fundamental,
and traffic congestion. Jon Hebeisen asked two rhetorical questions. One, where is it written
that Lennar or whoever buys this property has to build 200 houses? And two, what does the City
get in return for saving the 94 acres of parkland? The public comment period was closed.
Council members provided direction for the developer and city staff on how to proceed.
CONTROL CONCEPTS: APPROVE SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE FOR LOT 2,
BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION.
This item was tabled.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman McDonald provided an update on the
Chanhassen Red Birds going into the State Tournament. Mayor Laufenburger discussed that
Wednesday, August 15th is Chanhassen Day at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and that
Monday, August 20th there will be a special City Council meeting to discuss funding options for
the pavement management program.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None.
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
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
DECEMBER 3, 2018
The City Council met in executive session from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. to discuss the City
Manager’s performance evaluation. Mayor Laufenburger called the work session to order
at 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Laufenburger, Councilwoman Tjornhom,
Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Ryan
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Todd
Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT:
J. Gorra 1680 West 78th Street
J. Bossardt Prior Lake
Doris Butler Prior Lake
Steve Ach
Jon Rausch
GALPIN PROPERTY DISCUSSION.
Joe Jablonski with Lennar reviewed an updated proposal for development of the Galpin
Boulevard property with changes made after hearing feedback at neighborhood meetings. Mayor
Laufenburger asked about lot sizes and marketing the north property to other builders. Todd
Gerhardt asked about discussions of building certain trail segments prior to development. Joe
Jablonski continued with review of development changes made to the southern portion of the
property. He discussed concerns with stormwater and landscape buffering. Councilwoman
Tjornhom asked about access to neighborhood parks. Mayor Laufenburger asked for
clarification of what will be included in the PUD. Councilwoman Ryan asked for clarification of
what will be included in the landscape buffer along the southern property line and grading plans.
Joy Gorra asked about runoff into the wetland on her property. Mayor Laufenburger asked about
conversations with the estate heirs for memorialization throughout the development. Joe
Jablonski continued with review of their schedule moving forward. Jon Rausch asked about
council opinion on memorialization. Councilwoman Ryan stated she would prefer subtle.
Councilman McDonald and Councilwoman Tjornhom stated that would be between the estate
and the developer to come up with a proposal for council to review. Todd Gerhardt suggested
Lennar hold a listening session between Planning Commission and City Council to educate the
City Council Work Session – December 3, 2018
2
public moving forward. Mayor Laufenburger asked about comments made at the August
meeting with residents buying property on the north side of the development.
Mayor Laufenburger adjourned the work session at 6:50 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JANUARY 15, 2019
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, Mark
Randall, and Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Todd Hoffman, Park
and Rec Director; and Erik Henriksen, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Mary & Allan Olson 7461 Windmill Drive
Tim Nordberg 2126 Majestic Way
Neil & Abby Ellis 7284 Bent Bow Trail
Mauricio Goes 6930 Ruby Lane
Matt Chambers 2169 Red Fox Circle
Dake Chatfield 2700 Majestic Way
Mehdi Ayouche 2102 Majestic Way
Ann Nye 1641 West 63rd Street
Bill & Jill Borrell 2300 Longacres Drive
Jim Freebersyser & Michelle Treptau 6935 Ruby Lane
Larry Stueve 7324 Fawn Hill Road
Cherree Theisen 2072 Majestic Way
Scott Wosje 7125 Northwood Court
Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue
Courtney Jennings 7406 Moccasin Trail
Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way
Melissa Murrujo 1973 Topaz Drive
Jay Gerczak 1941 Topaz Drive
Geri Stewart 1893 Topaz Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER REZONING PARCEL (GALPIN SITE) FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
(RR) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (PUD-R),
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND SUBDIVISION OF 191 ACRES
INCLUDING THE PRESERVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES AND THE
CREATION OF 191 LOTS.
Planning Commission Summary – January 15, 2019
2
Kate Aanenson presented planning aspects of the staff report on this item. Todd Hoffman
addressed park dedication and plans to expand Lake Ann Park with the use of density transfer.
Erik Henriksen discussed engineering aspects of the plan regarding easements, right-of-way,
streets, retaining walls, and utilities such as sanitary sewer and watermains. Commissioner Tietz
discussed his fundamental issue with the density transfer and how the plan was tested and
verified. He also asked for architectural variation on the front facades of the homes.
Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification on sizing of catch basins, how runoff will be
handled and turning movements onto Galpin Boulevard from the development. Commissioner
Weick asked about the amount of earth being moved, and the difference between gross and net
acreage numbers. Commissioner Madsen asked how overall density, steep slopes on the north,
through traffic, width of the lots on the south end, buffers and water runoff to the south
neighborhood were addressed. Joe Jablonski, representing Lennar Corporation as the Director of
Entitlements and Forward Planning, addressed issues related to elimination of the street
connection to the north, lot sizes, architectural styles, grading plan, phasing plan for final plats,
and meeting neighborhood park needs. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Geri Stewart,
1893 Topaz Drive expressed concern with the buffer between her property and new houses being
built and requested a conservancy buffer. Dake Chatfield, 2200 Majestic Way, which is on the
south side of the property, expressed concern with the property being clear cut and the amount of
buffer being provided. Scott Wosje, 7125 Northwood Court, speaking as President of the
Longacres Homeowners Board, explained that from the perspective of the people who live in the
Longacres neighborhood this development is not good for them. Josh Kimber, 2060 Majestic
Way explained that after this item was before the Planning Commission and City Council he
expected to see 3 plans as requested, and that the lots abutting the southern border are not of
similar size to existing lots. Cherree Theisen, 2072 Majestic Way discussed having been one of
the first houses on Majestic Way and being told that the stand of trees on Prince’s property
would not be removed when the property sold, expressed concern with runoff from this property
onto her yard. Jim Freebersyser, 6935 Ruby Lane suggested that the City buy this property to
end the nonsense of development and say no to this PUD. Todd Simning, 2145 Wynsong Lane
and speaking as a builder/developer, noted he is pro development but would recommend tabling
or not approving the item until outstanding engineering issues are addressed and understood.
Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. Joe Jablonski addressed issues such as density and
tree removal. After comments and discussion by commission members the following motion
was made.
McGonagill moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the proposed motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends to City
Council to approve the rezoning for 191 acres from Rural Residential District (RR) to
Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) including PUD ordinance for Galpin
Design Standards; and the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the subdivision preliminary plat creating 191 lots, 3 outlots and dedication
of the right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated December 5,
2018 subject to conditions in the staff report; and the Chanhassen Planning Commission
Planning Commission Summary – January 15, 2019
3
recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of
wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; and the Planning Commission
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Commissioners McGonagill,
Tietz and Randall voted in favor of the motion for denial. Commissioners Madsen, Weick
and Aller voted against the motion for denial. The motion is tied with a vote of 3 to 3.
There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.
APPROAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2018 as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Chairman Aller congratulated the new members to the
City Council and commented that the Chanhassen Red Birds were announced as State
Champions.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson discussed the City Council action
update items and future Planning Commission agenda schedule.
Commissioner McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2019
Chairman Scharfenberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Scharfenberg, Cole Kelly, Rick Echternacht, Jim Boettcher,
Meredith Petouvis, Joe Scanlon, and Karl Tsuchiya.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent; Audrey Swantz, Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Newly hired Recreation Supervisor Audrey Swantz was
introduced to the Park and Recreation Commission.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Boettcher moved, Echternacht seconded to approve the verbatim
and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 11,
2018 as presented.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW GALPIN SITE/LENNAR. Todd Hoffman gave a
presentation reviewing the preliminary plat of the Galpin/Lennar site. Following the
presentation, there was a 60-minute discussion with staff and Lennar’s Joe Jablonski.
Kelly moved, Echternacht seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
the City Council apply the following conditions of approval concerning parks and trails for
the proposed 191-lot Galpin site Preliminary Plat and PUD by Lennar dated December 5,
2018:
1. Dedication of 100-plus-or-minus-acres of wooded open spaces and wetlands in the
eastern half of the property to the City of Chanhassen for parkland in exchange for
a housing density transfer and fulfillment of a 9-plus-or-minus-acre parkland
dedication requirement.
2. Acknowledgement that the dedicated land may be developed at the city's discretion
as parkland for public use and may include, but is not limited to, trails, boardwalks,
bridges, structures, and signage.
3. The planning, engineering and construction of a 10-foot wide bituminous east/west
trail connection between Galpin Boulevard and a location east of Street D, and a 10-
Park and Recreation Commission Summary – January 22, 2019
2
foot wide bituminous trail adjacent to Galpin Boulevard between Street E and
Street A.
4. All trails shall meet all city standards for trail construction.
5. The east/west trail shall maintain a minimum 10-foot setback from outside edges of
trail to private property and be designed to minimize encroachment of wetland
buffers.
6. The east/west trail crossing of Street A shall be relocated from a midblock crossing
as shown to the intersection of Street A and Street D
7. The east/west trail be designed and constructed so as not to require retaining walls.
8. The entirety of the east/west trail and associated buffers shall be constructed within
dedicated public outlots.
9. The entirety of the Galpin Boulevard trail between Street E and Street A shall be
constructed in dedicated public right of way.
10. The planning, engineering and construction of 10-foot wide bituminous trails
connecting both Street Z and Lucy Ridge Lane to the planned trail at the western
edge of Lake Lucy including trail easements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: 2019/2020 LAKE ANN PARK
BEACH LIFEGUARD CONTRACT. Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report reviewing the
proposed two-year contract with Minnetonka Public Schools, ISD 276. Dan Berve, Director of
Minnetonka Aquatics, provided additional information for the Park and Recreation Commission
regarding specifics of the 2019/2020 contract.
Echternacht moved, Boettcher seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the City Council approve a two-year contract, (2019/2020) with Minnetonka
Public Schools ISD 276 for Lake Ann Park Beach Lifeguard Services in the amount of
$33,670 per year. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to
0.
OLD BUSINESS. None.
REPORTS:
2019 FEBRUARY FESTIVAL. Jerry Ruegemer presented a PowerPoint presentation for the
February 2, 2019 event.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
JANUARY 28, 2019
Mayor Ryan called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd
Hoffman, Roger Knutson, and Chief Don Johnson
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Jon and Mary Beth Hebeisen 2150 Majestic Way
Steve Ach Lennar
Gerard Snover Comerica B&T
Jon Rausch 5229 Minnetoga Terrace
Tim McCotter 7000 Utica Lane
Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way
Jon Tietz Planning Commission
Cole Kelly Park and Recreation Commission
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MORRISON (VERBAL PRESENTATION).
Mayor Ryan congratulated Kelly Morrison on being newly elected to the State Legislature.
Kelly Morrison provided background information on being a physician, her family and
committees that she serves on. Todd Gerhardt provided information on the population make up,
school districts, roadway system, and development projects in the city of Chanhassen. Mayor
Ryan discussed the City’s legislative priorities.
GALPIN SITE PLAN UPDATE.
Mayor Ryan provided background information on this item being presented before the Planning
Commission on January 15th and asked for council feedback prior to the item appearing before
the City Council on February 11th. Kate Aanenson provided background information that
pertains to this property and how development could proceed taking into account land use,
zoning, the Park Master Plan, and density transfer. Todd Hoffman discussed the action taken by
the Park and Recreation Commission voting 7-0 in approval of the preliminary plat. Steve Ach
introduced Jon Rausch, broker and Gerry Snover with Comerica Bank who were present to
answer any questions before reviewing the planning process Lennar went through in coming up
with concept plans and the preliminary plat that was presented to the Planning Commission. He
discussed Lennar taking into account comments received from council members, commission
City Council Work Session – January 28, 2019
2
members and residents who attended the neighborhood meetings. Councilman Campion asked if
the question raised by Commissioner Tietz at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the
number of lots being transferred is accurate. Steve Ach explained how Lennar looked at the
density transfer relating to the property that could be built along Lake Ann and the benefit to the
City receiving 50 acres of parkland around Lake Ann. Mayor Ryan asked about the challenges
dealing with the grade changes in relation to the density transfer numbers and if the properties
along the lake are actually buildable because of access through the wetlands. Steve Ach
discussed the other option for Lennar could be moving forward with straight zoning rather than
PUD-R in order to do the engineering to determine the accurate number of lots that could be
developed along the lake. Councilman McDonald discussed his experience with developing
properties such as this and the trade off needed to get the 50 acres of parkland. He stated he did
not want to get into a fight over density transfer numbers. Mayor Ryan continued by asking the
developer to be sensitive to transition with adjoining neighborhoods, the use of a conservation
easement along the north property line, concerns voiced by residents along the southern property
line and the fact that there wasn’t a follow up meeting with the neighbors regarding conservation
concerns along the south property line. Steve Ach explained the need to address drainage issues
associated with the plan and that Lennar will revisit the density along the south. Mayor Ryan
asked for clarification regarding the requirements for ponding from Carver County associated
with the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard in the future. Councilwoman Tjornhom explained that her
thoughts are the priority to preserve the parkland around Lake Ann for the entire community and
the need for the City and the developer to work together to make this a premier development.
Councilman Campion appreciated that there have been improvements to the plan, especially on
the north side but did not feel good about giving concessions to the north and squeezing the
south boundary. He also would like engineering to be done to validate the density transfer
numbers. Jerry Snover, Comerica Bank and Trust explained the parameters outlined by the City
and the Comprehensive Plan used by the bank in order to broker and develop this property for
the Estate to it’s highest and best use. Mayor Ryan closed by thanking Comerica and Lennar for
their work and acknowledged the parameters they are working under but asked that they keep in
mind the needs of the residents and citizens of Chanhassen to make this development unique and
special. She challenged the developer to show the council innovative plans regarding design,
transitions and buffers when it comes back before the city council on February 11th.
FINALIZE 2019 KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES.
Todd Gerhardt discussed the results of the rankings for the key financial strategies and how staff
will address priorities ranked 1 and 2. In discussing consideration of implementation a lodging
tax staff stated they would be in contact with Vernelle Clayton. Mayor Ryan stated the storm
and retention pond review can be removed because staff is already doing that. Paul Oehme
explained the practice for addressing citizens request for traffic safety concerns.
The work session was recessed at 7:00 p.m. It was reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
FEBRUARY 11, 2019
Mayor Ryan called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m.
COUCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman. Councilman McDonald arrived during Mr. Jablonski’s
presentation.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman and
Andrea Poehler, City Attorney
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way
Andrew Aller 6661 Horseshoe Curve
Rick Echternacht 8746 Flamingo Drive
Melissa Murrujo 1973 Topaz Drive
Liz Hoffman 6891 Utica Lane
Shelley Berken 6820 Diamond Court
Michelle Treptau 6935 Ruby Lane
Jim Freebersyser 6935 Ruby Lane
Tim & Sharon McCotter 7000 Utica Lane
Steve Scharfenberg 1470 Lake Susan Hills
Jon Rausch 5229 Minnetoga Terrace
MB and Jon Hebeisen 2150 Majestic Way
Don Parks Westwood
Andy McConnell Solomon Brothers
Lyndon Robjet Carver County
GALPIN PROPERTY SITE PLAN UPDATE.
Mayor Ryan explained how the work session operates for the residents in attendance before
giving an update on the Galpin property site plan. Joe Jablonski with Lennar reviewed changes
made to the site plan now consisting of 181 lots after addressing questions and concerns raised
by commission and council members. He addressed transition to the southern properties,
wetlands, lot size, entry gatehouse monument, landscaping, cross section showing views from
existing neighbors, and discussed an opinion letter from wetland specialists regarding access to
the wetland pertaining to density transfer. Mayor Ryan asked if the wetland opinion had been
verified. Joe Jablonski explained the process used and discussed the units per acre density
comparisons with surrounding neighborhoods. Steve Ach with Lennar discussed the work that
was done since the last work session and the different style of homes being offered. Mayor Ryan
City Council Work Session – February 11, 2019
2
asked about the location of the villa style homes. Councilwoman Coleman asked if the fire
department had seen this plan. Todd Gerhardt explained that the fire department had not seen
this plan yet but the roads meet city standards. Councilman Campion asked if additional
engineering work has been done to determine density in the parkland area. Mayor Ryan thanked
Lennar for listening to their concerns before addressing issues related to lot size, transition to the
south, landscaping and tree loss due to mass grading, drainage concerns along the southern
boundary, setting up a conservation easement along the south boundary, removal of the one lot
on the north boundary adjacent to the wetland and tree buffers, and concerns from residents
regarding the street connection with the Ashling Meadows neighborhood. In reviewing the
2040 Comprehensive Plan she highlighted important points for the developer to keep in mind
regarding the use of a PUD to obtain innovative design, preservation of natural environment,
land use and nature conservation, and she voiced her continued concern with the overall density
of the development. Councilwoman Tjornhom thanked Mayor Ryan for bringing up information
from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and asked what happens in a worst case scenario of Lennar
using a straight subdivision and losing the parkland if the council cannot come up with granting
approval of Lennar’s PUD plan. Joe Jablonski reviewed what can occur with Lennar using a
straight subdivision. Councilman McDonald addressed the history of the City wanting to
preserve the parkland around Lake Ann and the trade off’s that will be needed. He expressed his
preference for the use of a PUD. Councilwoman Tjornhom agreed with Councilman McDonald
about the need to get feedback from the community as a whole on dedication of this parkland
and asked for additional time to get that feedback. Steve Ach asked for clarification on Mayor
Ryan’s concerns with the buffer and loss of trees along the south boundary and density. Mayor
Ryan continued with her concern over the premise used for density transfer numbers.
Councilman Campion asked for clarification on what is necessary to do the engineering to
determine density transfer numbers. Councilwoman Tjornhom and Councilman McDonald
reiterated the importance for the need to hear from the entire community on preservation of
parkland versus density transfer. Todd Gerhardt explained the timeline associated with this site
plan. Mayor Ryan asked about the possibility of sending this new plan back to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing. Steve Ach addressed the issue of meeting the 60 day deadline
and their need for a decision by City Council on March 11th. City Attorney Andrea Poehler
clarified the legal process associated with sending this item back to the Planning Commission for
a public hearing. City Council directed staff to send this item back to the Planning Commission
to hold another public hearing at their March 5th meeting.
APPLEBEE’S SITE REDEVELOPMENT.
Kate Aanenson introduced Andy McConnell from Soloman Brothers. Andy McConnell outlined
the options and restrictions for redevelopment of the Applebee’s property and parking issues
associated with the site that a bank would help improve. Don Parks explained the desire to have a
drive thru associated with a bank. Mayor Ryan ask for comments from council members
regarding the possible uses for this property. Councilman Campion explained the feedback he’s
heard from residents is the need for a unique use in town. Mayor Ryan asked if there was
anything the City can do to help entice uses into town other than a bank or something different
Wetland
Lake Lucy
Lake Ann
90’ Lots
65’ Lots
65’ Lots
90’ Lots
Wetland
Wetland
Pond
Pond
Pond
PondGalpin Boulevard
Galpin Boulevard Property
Chanhassen, Minnesota
90’ Lots
65’ Lots
Wetland
PondPond
Galpin Boulevard
90’ Lots
Pond
PondGalpin Boulevard
Wetland
Lake Lucy
Lake Ann
90’ Lots
65’ Lots
65’ Lots
90’ Lots
Wetland
Wetland
Pond
Pond
Pond
PondGalpin Boulevardx-section C
x-section B
x-section A
Detail 4
Detail 3
Detail 1
Detail 2
Detail 5
Galpin Boulevard Property
Chanhassen, Minnesota
c
5OFGALPIN SITE
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
JLT
JLT
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions Date
Designed
Drawn
2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson D1LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
DETAIL 1
SOUTH ENTRANCE
Monument Sign with stone
and wrought iron fencing.
See detail at right.
Monument Sign with stone
and wrought iron fencing.
See detail at right.
Large masses of perennial
flowers including specific
species requests by the
current property owners.
Flowering Crab Trees
Evergreen buffer
Existing vegetation to remain
Flowering Crab Trees
Large masses of perennial
flowers including specific
species requests by the
current property owners.
Flowering Crab Trees
Shrub masses including white
and purple lilac, hydrangea,
viburnum, and dogwood
producing year round
displays of color.
Shrub masses including white
and purple lilac, hydrangea,
viburnum, and dogwood
producing year round
displays of color.
Entrance Feature Notes:
Monument designed and installed by others.
Large planting beds to be planted with masses of colorful perennials, shrubs,
and crab trees in addition to the conifers and overstory trees providing year
round interest and ever-changing colors.
Entrance feature planting bed examplesGalpin Boulevard2-8-19
2-8-19
Landscape Details 1-5 are conceptual only and subject to change. Refer to landscape plans submitted with preliminary and final
plats for an accurate representation of the proposed landscaping.
c
5OFGALPIN SITE
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
JLT
JLT
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions Date
Designed
Drawn
2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson D2LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
DETAIL 2
GUARD HOUSE
Existing vegetation to remain
Garden areas will be cleared out
saving any vegetation worth
salvaging. New low-maintenace
perennials and shrubs will be
planted in this area
Guard House area Notes:
Existing Guard House will be maintained near the trail entrance on Galpin. The
area will have saved existing trees and vegetation on the north and east of
the house and a large existing wetland on the south. The area around the trail
and gatehouse will be planted with perennials and shrubs including species
requested by the heirs.
Perennial Aster Chives Wild PetuniaGalpin BoulevardExisting retaining walls
Existing Wetland
Proposed public trail
2-8-19
2-8-19
Landscape Details 1-5 are conceptual only and subject to change. Refer to landscape plans submitted with preliminary and final
plats for an accurate representation of the proposed landscaping.
c
5OFGALPIN SITE
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
2-8-19
JLT
JLT
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions Date
Designed
Drawn
2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
2-8-19
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson D3LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
DETAIL 3
CENTRAL ENTRANCE
Flowering Crab Trees
Evergreen buffer
Large masses of
perennial flowers.
Shrub masses including white
and purple lilac, hydrangea,
viburnum, and dogwood
producing year round
displays of color.
Entrance Feature Notes:
Large planting beds to be planted with masses of colorful perennials, shrubs,
and crab trees in addition to the conifers and overstory trees providing year
round interest and ever-changing colors. This entrance will be complimentary
to the south entrance.Galpin BoulevardEvergreen buffer
Existing Vegetation
to be saved
Landscape Details 1-5 are conceptual only and subject to change. Refer to landscape plans submitted with preliminary and final
plats for an accurate representation of the proposed landscaping.
c
5OFGALPIN SITE
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
2-8-19
JLT
JLT
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions Date
Designed
Drawn
2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
2-8-19
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson D4LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
DETAIL 4
NORTH ENTRANCE
Flowering Crab Trees
Existing
Home
Large masses of
perennial flowers.
Entrance Feature Notes:
Large planting beds to be planted with
masses of colorful perennials, shrubs,
and crab trees. This entrance will be
complimentary to the other two
entrances.Galpin BoulevardPond
Ga
s
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
May Night Salvia Purple Coneflower Stella D'Oro Daylily
Low Growing Hardy
Shrub Rose
Lanceleaf Coreopsis Russian Sage
Flowering Crab
Landscape Details 1-5 are conceptual only and subject to change. Refer to landscape plans submitted with preliminary and final
plats for an accurate representation of the proposed landscaping.
c
5OFGALPIN SITE
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
2-8-19
JLT
JLT
Name
Reg. No.Date
Revisions Date
Designed
Drawn
2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914
Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS
2-8-19
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect
under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763
Jennifer L. Thompson D5LENNAR
16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446
DETAIL 5
INTERNAL TRAIL CONNECTION
Wetland
Large masses of
perennial flowers.
Internal Trailhead Feature Notes:
Large planting beds to be planted with
masses of colorful perennials including
species requested by the property
owners highlighting the internal trail
connection locations.
Trail
May Night Salvia Purple Coneflower Stella D'Oro Daylily
Low Growing Hardy
Shrub Rose
Lanceleaf Coreopsis Russian Sage
Trail Perennial Aster Chives Wild Petunia
Landscape Details 1-5 are conceptual only and subject to change. Refer to landscape plans submitted with preliminary and final
plats for an accurate representation of the proposed landscaping.
ROAD CENTERLINEROAD CENTERLINEEXISTING HOME
50’ EXISTING TREE LINEPROPERTY LINESECTION C
C
C’
C C’
1
Galpin Property
City of Chanhassen
Plan modifications following 1/28 Council Workshop meeting
Overall
• Lot count has been further reduced to 181, a loss of 17 homesites from the concept plan
review
• Stormwater ponding for Galpin has shifted to minimize visual impact to Long Acres
Neighborhood and allow opportunity to preserve the existing guard house as a symbol of
neighborhood identity. (Condition and ability to preserve guard house to be further
evaluated for safety)
• Perimeter buffering has been further evaluated
• Monumentation and landscape details created
North end
• Buffering has been further enhanced adjacent to Lucy Ridge neighborhood
• Preservation areas to be protected by Conservation easement
• Trail corridors have been identified and added to plan
South end
• 12 lots have been eliminated from the Southern 1/3 of the property to reduce density
• Cul-de-sac adjacent to Galpin has been removed to reduce the number of homes visible
from Long Acres
• Lots along Southern property line have been enlarged from 75’ wide to 90’ wide to meet
R1 standards and maintain compatibility to adjacent neighborhood.
Additional items for consideration:
1. Opinion letter from Wetland specialist determining that obtaining a wetland crossing
permit to access the park area for development is feasible; demonstrating the lot yield
plan for developing in the park area is possible.
Subdivision Zoning Land Use Notes Net Density (Less wetlands
and County ROW )
South–Royal Oaks RSF Low
density
13 acres – 33 lots 2.54DU/Acre
West – Woods of Long Acres PUD Low
density
97 acres – 115 lots 1.19 DU/Acre
North-Ashling Meadows RSF Low
density
40 acres – 51 Lots 1.28 DU/Acre
North – Lake Lucy Ridge RSF Low
density
9 Acres – 17 Lots 1.89
Galpin Property PUD Low
density
139 Acres – 181 Lots 1.30 DU/Acre
AVERAGE 298 acres – 397 Lots 1.33 DU/Acre
2
Original Pre-plat Narrative
Introduction
U.S. Home Corporation, d/b/a Lennar is proposing to develop Galpin Property (actual
name TBD) in a manner that is sensitive to the environment and surrounding area. With
this Preliminary Plat we are submitting a plan that has taken into account input from
public leaders, staff, and neighbors. Our plan has 191 homes demonstrating how the
property can be developed through the use of a PUD that will offer diverse housing
opportunities and price points accompanied by the preservation of open space.
Background/History
In November 2017 the property was listed for sale by Comerica Bank; Trust NA, as
personal representatives of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and Paisley Park
Enterprises. On several occasions the seller’s agents and members of Lennar have met
with City staff to begin reviewing the zoning standards and the best use for the property.
In May of 2018 U.S. Home Corporation entered into an Option Agreement to purchase
the property.
Property Description
The site consists of approximately 188 acres made up of several tax parcels (PID
25.6900010, 25.6900020, 25.6900030, 25.0100100, and 25.0100200) located in the
Notheast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23. All
buildings have been removed and the property has been vacant for some time. The site
suffers from frequent trespassers that use the property for walking trails.
City Standards
• Land Use designation
The property is designated for Low Density residential: RSF 1.2-4 units per acre.
Pre-plat – 1.37 DU/Acre
• Zoning Classification
The site is currently zoned as Rural Residential with underlying zoning of RSF;
low density residential 1.2-4 units per acre. Our plan requires a zoning change to
PUD to allow flexibility and the relaxation of strict application of the zoning
ordinance in exchange for greater environmental sensitivity and preservation of
open space for public use. At 1.37 units per acre our plan also fits into the low
range of the RSF density classification.
3
• Surrounding Land Uses
Residential developments of varying densities surround the site to the North,
South, and West. To the West, across Galpin is Long Acres which was developed
as a PUD to allow flexibility in design standards. Our primary street connections
appropriately line up with Hunter Drive and Long Acres Drive. Boarding the
property to the North and South are existing neighborhoods zoned RSF. The
existing neighborhoods to the North (Ashling Meadows and Lucy Ridge) provide
road stubs to the subject property. There are no road connections to the South.
Lake Lucy, and Lake Ann and their surrounding wetlands are located to the East.
Plan modifications since initial concept review
Overall
• 50+ acres designated for City Park
• Lot count has been reduced to 191 homesites (1.37 DU/Acre)
• Stormwater ponding has been incorporated to accommodate Galpin Rd upgrades
• Perimeter buffering has been evaluated
North end
• Through street from Galpin to Lucy Ridge has been eliminated
• Buffering through preservation has been identified
• 14 Lots have been eliminated to minimize environmental impacts
South end
• Density in Southern 1/3 of the property has decreased
• Lots along Southern property line have been enlarged from 55’ wide to 75’ wide to
accommodate standard homes rather than Villa.
• Storm sewer and Emergency Overflows have been identified to alleviate water issues in
adjacent neighborhood
• Back yard areas along South property line have been expanded allowing for the
preservation of existing trees
• Landscape buffering has been integrated into the plan
Open Space Preservation
The City of Chanhassen’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies significant trail
improvements along the Eastern boundary of the property that would enhance the Lake
Ann Park and trail system by completing important connections between Lake Ann, Lake
Lucy and Galpin Road.
Our plan for the Galpin property focuses housing development closer to Galpin and
preserves approximately 50 acres of land adjacent to Lake Lucy and Lake Ann that could
be used for park dedication to the City. By mixing lot sizes our plan strategically places
4
the 191 homes on 88 acres of land giving the opportunity to preserve significantly more
open space for use by the residents of Chanhassen then would be available if strict RSF
zoning standards were followed. Preserving the open space in this manner not only
minimizes environmental impacts but also significantly reduces the length of public
infrastructure (sewer, water, roads) required for long term maintenance by the City.
Building Plans/Product Information
Extensive research on housing availability and market conditions within the City of
Chanhassen has guided us in putting together a plan that is matched by a product
portfolio that includes architecturally interesting variety of homes, and price points, that
meet multiple buyer niches.
Landmark Series - Designed with efficiency in mind, the Landmark series meets
the demands of today’s challenging housing market by offering a fantastic value
planned specially for 65’& 75’ wide homesites. Lennar has successfully built the
Landmark series in Reflections at Lake Riley, Boulder Cove, and Camden Ridge.
Typical footprints are 50’ wide allowing the ability to maintain setbacks
designated by zoning standards. A variety of houseplans and elevations make up
this series offering square footages ranging from 2,200 sq ft to 3,200 sq ft plus the
ability to finish the basement to add footage to the home. With families in mind,
the homes typically include four bedrooms, a large open living space on the main
level, a master suite, mud room, and three car garage. Sixty-five foot wide lots
allow the ability to preserve open space without compromising the integrity of the
neighborhood. Typical side yard setbacks will be maintained. An interesting
streetscape will be maintained through the incorporation of a variety of elevations,
materials, and color packages. Lots are arranged in a manner that will include an
assortment of walk-outs, look-outs, and flats. The 75’ wide lots will provide
additional spacing and allow the opportunity to expand certain elevations to
include a four-car garage.
Included in this series are Lennar’s NextGen plans. This revolutionary series is a
multi-generational home plan designed specifically to accommodate generations
living under one roof with privacy and convenience. This truly unique home
highlights the ‘NextGen suite’ that provides a separate first floor living space with
its own entrance, living area, kitchenette, attached garage and laundry all under
one roof with access to the rest of the home. The result is a 5-bedroom, 5
bathroom home that creatively satisfies a variety of unique housing needs while
fitting into the architectural styling of the neighborhood.
Luxury Villa – The 34 Luxury Villa are designed for the 55’ wide homesites just
North of the Southern entrance. The Luxury Villa provides minimal maintenance
housing for an underserved market in Chanhassen; and the Twin Cities in general,
the ‘empty nester’. Designed for single level living, the Villa homes offer a
spacious first floor that includes a master suite, fireplace, open living room,
5
gourmet kitchen, and study. A deck or three season porch is included with the
home to allow the opportunity to enjoy the natural features of Galpin Property .
Multiple elevations and color packages will be incorporated to reduce monotony.
Traditional - The 31 Traditional homesites on the North end of the property are
currently being marketed for sale to custom homebuilders. We are requesting a
lot split that would allow that portion of the site to be developed in the future,
perhaps by another entity. It is recognized the lot split will not release the North
portion of the site from the responsibilities of the overall PUD request. Lennar
ultimately reserves the ability to participate in development and construction of
homes in that area but does not have the intention to do so at this time.
Environmental Impacts
• Wetlands - A wetland delineation was completed on the site in September 2017
and was followed by a Wetland classification analysis. Wetland impacts have
been minimized by careful planning and the preservation of open space.
Following RSF standards for the entire property would require more impact to
existing wetlands for the extension of public infrastructure (sewer, water, streets)
to serve the upland adjacent to Lake Ann and Lake Lucy.
• Tree Preservation – Preservation of open space for public use will allow the
opportunity to preserve large wooded areas that may otherwise be disturbed with
development. Tree replacement as required by code has been factored into the
landscape plan. Following the RSF zoning guidelines would have a much greater
impact on the large stands of trees located in the upland areas fronting Lake Ann
and Lake Lucy that are contemplated by Public Park with this plan.
• Water Quality – Water quality will be managed through the incorporation of on-
site ponding and other appropriate erosion control measures. We are evaluating
the potential for water re-use on site to supplement irrigation systems. Lennar is
committed to following stormwater policies enacted by the City of Chanhassen
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Association (MPCA). Plans have been
submitted to the Riley Purgatory Watershed to allow for the simultaneous review
of stormwater management designs.
• Impervious Surface – Lennar recognizes the importance of managing the runoff
of hard surface areas. To help regulate standards we have created the following
table to set average thresholds for each sized homesite.
Note: A more detailed table specific to each homesite has been provided with the other submission materials.
6
To help inform customers of these standards Lennar intends to provide each
customer with a copy of their lot certificate that includes the current impervious
area, the maximum impervious area allowed, and the remaining impervious area
left for future improvements such as patios, 4-season porches, and pools.
Flexibility through the use of PUD
Our plan requires a zoning change to PUD to allow flexibility and the relaxation of strict
application of the zoning ordinance in exchange for greater environmental sensitivity and
preservation of open space for public use. The items we are requesting flexibility include; lot
width and area, cul de sac length, and relaxation of front setbacks along the North and South
boarders. All three items are requested for consideration to allow for the preservation of
open space and trees.
Homeowners Association(s)
A Master Homeowners Association will be established to maintain private common areas
and community monuments. A Sub-Association will be created to take care of the
common elements within the Villa area. The Villa will be ‘full maintenance’ in nature to
include; professional management, mowing, plowing, and exterior upkeep of the homes.
Owners of single family homes will be responsible for their own upkeep and maintenance
subject to City Ordinance and Architectural Controls established within the Master
Association.
Summary
Lennar has a long history of building successful Communities in the City of Chanhassen
under the names Lennar, Ryland, Lundgren Bros. Construction, and Orrin Thompson
Homes. We are very excited for the opportunity that lends itself through the careful
development of this fantastic property and ask for your support.
(US Home/Lennar)
Galpin Property – 191 Gross Acres
Total Homesites – 191
Approximate Developed Area – 89 acres
Open Space – 50 acres
Preserved wetlands – 49 acres
Traditional homesites – 31
Average Lot – 90’ wide
7
Landmark Homesites – 126
Average Lot – 65’ wide -115
75’ wide -11
Villa Homesites – 34
Average Lot – 55’ wide
Project Team
Developer: U.S. Home Corporation, D/B/A Lennar
Builder: Lennar Corporation
Primary Contact: Joe Jablonski
Planner/Engineer/Surveyor: Pioneer Engineering
Geotechnical Engineer: Braun Intertec
Wetland Specialist: Midwest Natural Resources, Inc.
Landscape Architect: Pioneer Engineering
Legal Council: Vantage Law Group
Association Manager: TBD
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Albrecht <salbrecht8791 @gmail.com>
Tuesday, February 26, 2019 12:20 PM
Aanenson, Kate
Prince's land development proposal
We are in favor of the PUD plan with 54 acres set aside for lake Ann park expansion
We live at 6951 Tecumseh Lane in Chanhassen
Thanks
1
Flom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
timleberle@gmail.com
Tuesday, February 26, 2019 12.47 PM
Aanenson, Kate
Prince land development
Please support the PUD plan to give the city as much parkland as possible.
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
:)
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nick Lawson <nicklawson3l 1 @gmail.com>
Tuesday, February 26,2019 2:21 PM
Aanenson, Kate
Prince land/Development oPinion
Hello Kate,
I just wanted to extended my opinion on the proposal of the Prince land by my house.
Of the options that have been brought to my attention I would vote for the "Proposed PUD" option that
maintains as much of the beautiful woods as possible.
My family moved to Chanhassen in 2015 into the Greenwood shores neighborhood and my 3 kids, wife and
myself as well as most of our neighborhood use and enjoy those woods every summer.
It would be a shame to let them be developed if there is a viable option to save them that is on the table'
part of what makes Chanhassen so great is its parks and natural woods. Its something you cant get back once its
given up.
Fl"ur. do all that you can to save that area for future generations to use and enjoy and not just reminisce about
how great it was when we were young..
Thanks for your time.
Ill see you on the 5th.
--*t"U ru*ron - 612.232.3464
7071 Redman Ln, Chanhassen, MN 55317
]
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jim Rosendahl <jimr@systium.com>
Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:48 PM
Aanenson, Kate
City Council
Galpin Boulevard Property
As a resident of Chanhassen and the Greenwood Shores neighborhood for 24 years I am in favor of the Proposed PUD. lt
would be a big plus for Lake Ann Park!
Jim Rosendahl
7090 Tecumseh Lane
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kate,
Stephen Barnes <s.m.barnes@gmail.com>
Tuesday, February 26,2019 3:49 PM
Aanenson, Kate
Prince Property Development
I just wanted to make known my support for the PUD plan (not the original plan). I hope this helps guide the
negotiations and approvals by the council.
Thanks!
-Steve Barnes
7100 Utica Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
612.237.0660
5
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Wednesday, February 27,2019 9:11 AM
Steckling, Jean
Fwd: Prince's Land proposal.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message :
From: Mike Boehm <mikeboehml I1474@y
Date: February 27,2019 at 9:01:50 AM CST
To: "kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us"
<kaanenson@ci.chanhas , "council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us"
<council(Eci.chanhassen. mn.us)
Subject: Prince's Land ProPosal.
Reply-To: "mikeboehml I 1474@yahoo.com" <mikeboehml 1 1474@y
Hello,
Just sending an email in case I can not make it to the March 5th meeting.
I am heavily in favor of the proposed PUD. I can not support the concept plan.
Thank you
Mike Boehm
G
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Wednesday, February 27,2019 2:20 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Lake Ann/Susan Development
From: Chad Johnson <chadmtka@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27 ,2019 11:47 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Lake Ann/Susan Development
Good morning Kate,
I wanted to reach out to you via email since I will not be able to attended the City councils meeting on the Lake Ann/
Susan development project. I have been a resident in the greenwood shores neighborhood for over 17 years. My family
and I have enjoyeO the natural beauty of this area and would like to keep it that way for others. Everything from the paved
path that reaches the length of the east side of Ann up to the park, to the foot paths that split between Susan into dense
woodlands has kept this i one of a kind area available for everyone to enjoy. With the minimal disturbance of the
southside with the exception of a park and additional trails, ln my opinion, the PUD plan would be the best way to
accomplish this.
Sincerely,
The Johnson Family
'7
?
Steckling, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Wednesday, February 27 ,2019 2:22 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: 16 residents support Proposed PUD of Galpin property
From: Barry Da llavalle <barry.dallavalle@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27 ,2019 1:55 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.cha nhassen.mn.us>
Cc: City Council <Council@ci.cha nhassen.mn.us>
Subject: 15 residents support Proposed PUD of Galpin property
To Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council,
The following residents unanimously support the Proposed PUD plan for the Galpin property. We wish to thank
Lennar and our city planners while working with the community to achieve this well-conceived proposal. We
urge its recommendation. Our reasons are stated at the bottom of this letter.
Scott and Tamara Sather 7090 Utica Ln
Mike and Kressin Krause 7050 Utica Ln
Tim and Sharon McCotter 7000 Utica Ln
Bill and Joanne Lambrecht 6990 Utica Ln
Barry and Laura Dallaval-le 6960 Utica Ln
Daryl and Kim Weispfennlg 6930 Utica Ln
Dal-e and Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Ln
Pat Mohr and Maureen Lord Mohr 6890 Utica Terrace
Ron and Mary Knudten 5850 Utica Terrace
Rob Long and Louise Ou-Yang 6830 Utica Terrace
Chris and Nicole Liwienski 612L Point Lake Lucy
Bryan and Bonnie McCoskey 6'720 Point Lake Lucy
Matt and Suzanne Woods 61 45 Lakeway Drive
Betsy RandaII 1571 Lake LucY Rd
John and Anne Wicka 1501 Lake Lucy Rd
Al and Mary Weingart 1685 Steller Ct
Reasons supporting our recommendation:
l. More green space to mitigate runoff damage to Lakes Lucy and Ann and the Riley Creek watershed. Many
of the co-signers here have willingly contributed significant time and money to control the invasive plant
growth in Lake Lucy each year.
2. More green space for the surrounding community to enjoy the natural beauty and numerous wildlife of both
lakes and their environs.
3. Preserve the long-envisioned legacy of Lake Ann Park.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Dallavalle
6960 Utica Ln
952-737-8433
6
{
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pat Harding <PSJCAHarding@msn.com>
Wednesday, Fefiuary 27,2019 8:39 PM
Aanenson, Kate
Support for PUD
Dear Ms. Aanenson,
We would like to voice our support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land surrounding
Lake Ann. We believe that dedicating the land as park space would the best option for the City of Chanhassen
and for Carver County. Than k you for taking into consideration the input of the residents in making this
decision.
Sincerely,
Patrick Harding
1
/o
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anna Harding <hardil 80@umn.edu>
Wednesday, February 27,2019 8:41 PM
Aanenson, Kate
Support for PUD
Dear Ms. Aanenson,
We would like to voice our support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land surrounding
Lake Ann. We believe that dedicating the land as park space would the best option for the City of Chanhassen
and for Carver County. Thank you for taking into consideration the input ofthe residents in making this
decision.
Sincerely,
Anna Harding
Stecklino. Jean
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Aanenson,
Suzanne Harding <psjcaharding@gmail.com>
Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:25 AM
Aanenson, Kate
Support for PUD
We would like to voice our support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land surrounding
Lake Ann. We believe that dedicating the land as park space would the best option for the City of Chanhassen
and for Carver County. Thank you for taking into consideration the input of the residents in making this
decision.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Harding
1
/I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Alyson Duneman <alysond23@gmail.com>
Thursday, February 28,2019 6:31 AM
Aanenson, Kate
Galpin Boulevard PropertY PUD
Dear Planning Commission Director,
I would just like to send a quick word in my support of the PUD plan.
In an effort to preserve the invaluable beauty our lake shore and our highly sought after and well cared for Lake
Ann Park, I am strongly requesting that the city does approve the concept plan.
Kind Regards,
Alyson Duneman
612-272-6297
i3
Stecklinq, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28,2019 9:17 AM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Lake Ann/Susan Development
From: Chad Johnson <chadmtka@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27,2019 11:47 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Lake Ann/Susan Development
Good morning Kate,
I wanted to reach out to you via email since I will not be able to attended the City councils meeting on the Lake Ann/
Susan development project. I have been a resident in the greenwood shores neighborhood for over 17 years. My family
and I have enjoyed the natural beauty of this area and would like to keep it that way for others. Everything from the paved
path that reaches the length of the east side of Ann up to the park, to the foot paths that split between Susan into dense
woodlands has kept this a one of a kind area available for everyone to enjoy. With the minimal disturbance of the
southside with the exception of a park and additional trails, ln my opinion, the PUD plan would be the best way to
accomplish this.
Sincerely,
The Johnson Family
Steckling, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Include in the packet
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28, 2019 10:17 AM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Comments on Prince's Galpin Property
From: Hoffman, Todd <thoffman @ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 10:16 AM
To: Gerhardt, Todd <TGerhardt@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Fwd: Comments on Prince's Galpin Property
Sent fl'om ury Verizon, Samsung Galaxy surartphone
Original message
From: Marcia Mclean <dmclean602@email. >
Date:2128119 1002 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: "Ryan, Elise" <ERyan@ci.chanhass >, aaller@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, "Hoffinan, Todd"
<thoffinan@ci.chanhas >
Cc: Dianne <dmclean602@gmail. >
Subject: Comments on Prince's Galpin Property
Please share my thoughts at all meetings related to Prince's Galpin property. Thank you.
It has been legally accepted that Prince Rogers Nelson left no will. He did, however, leave his thoughts, his
views, and his philosophy. One only has to look at his discography and approach the lyrics on literal and
figurative levels. One only has to consider his many philanthropic endeavors. One only has to see the
devastation he felt upon the loss of his child.
Thus, I petition all parties involved to rethink the "Galpin project" in light of what Prince would have
wanted. I propose that the property be given to the city of Chanhassen to become an extension of Lake Ann
with an Arts Center and a playground for children with disabilities within its boundaries.
Would this be easy to do at this point? No. Consider Prince's famous work ethic and it can be done, however.
He loved Chanhassen and it is time for Chanhassen to show its love for him.
To obtain the property and create this adjunct Paisley Park, inclusive, accepting and a place where people
can play, refresh, and just be, funding would be necessary. Create a 50lc(3)? Endless resources are "out there".
There is no doubt that the "Purple Family" all over the world would respond, as well as the PRN Alumni
Foundation, the People of Paisley Park, the Timberwolves, the Lyn*, Tavis Smiley, Spike Lee, Oprah Winfrey,
Sheila E., his photographers, and COUNTLESS others. They could give monitarily and/or in creative and
imaginative ways. Further, would his heirs donate a record from the Vault to raise money? A "Go Fund Me"
Account could be created?
Prince always went to "The Max". He sang "When I go, I go, I go to the Max". Let's all continue affirming
his legacy by doing exactly that "4 him".
/ Ll
Marcia Mclean
110 Stratton Ct
Columbia SC29210
2
'll
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Friday, March 01,2019 11:46 AM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Addendum to Email Marcia Mclean sent 2-28-19
From: Andrew Aller <aaller@mchsi.com>
Sent: Friday, March L,2OL911:33 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen'mn.us>
Subject: Fwd: Addendum to Email Marcia McLean sent 2-28-19
Addendum to yesterday email
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marcia Mclean <dmclean602@gnail.com>
Date: March 1,2019 at9:40:34 AM CST
To : eryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, thoffrnan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, aaller@mchsi.com
Cc : Dianne <dmclean602@ernail. co
Subject: Addendum to Email Marcia Mclean sent 2-28-19
Please consider these additional thoughts.
Yesterday a friend asked me why I was writing to you. I replied it was because I felt a
connection to Chanhassen. From the first time I came up there, I loved it. Perhaps, it is because I
grew up in and lived in a town with a seemingly similar character and "rhythm of life". In my
opinion, unfortunately, my hometown has not evolved positively. Farmland and woods have
been consumed by developers and the town is filled with so many housing developments and
endless cars. While I realize progress and change is inevitable and typically necessary, the
officials in my city did not appear to be very thoughtful in their decision-making.
Thus, I respectfully encourage you, members of government, in Chanhassen to consider the
environmentai effects of the decisions you make about the Prince Galpin Property. Land is a
limited commodity and environmentally sensitive. There are many places housing can be
constructed. Further, I continue to encourage all involved to think about using it in a manner that
would have been Prince-approved and benefit ALL of the people of Chanhassen and be in
keeping with the uniqueness and specialness of the city.
I do not want what happened to my hometown to happen to Chanhassen.
Sincerely,
Marcia Mclean
/5
From:
Sent:
TO:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28, 2019 1:44 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Planned Unit Development
From: Ray Gaylord <rgaylord@qualitymold-inc.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 li42 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Cc: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subiect: Planned Unit Development
We would like to voice our opinion on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for land surrounding Lake Ann.
believe that dedicating the land as park space isthe best optio n for the City of Cha n hassen and Carver County.
Thank you for your consideration,
Pat and Sue Ha rding
Q Virus-free. www.avast.com
lc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28,2019 3:53 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Galpin Boulevard Property PUD
From: Alyson Duneman <alysond23@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28,2079 6:31 AM
To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.m n. us>
Subject: Galpin Boulevard Property PUD
Dear Planning Commission Director,
I would just like to send a quick word in my support of the PUD plan.
In an effort to preserve the invaluable beauty our lake shore and our highly sought after and well cared for Lake
Ann Park, I am strongly requesting that the city does approve the concept plan.
Kind Regards,
Alyson Duneman
612-272-6297
t?
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28,2019 3:54 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW 7141 Galpin Boulevard Comments & Pictures
DS-City Development - Aug 2018.pptx
From: david senior <davidtsenior@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 8,2OL87:57 PM
To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.m n.us>
Cc: Trish Ann Wisell <trish.wisell@yahoo.com>
Subject: 7141Galpin Boulevard Comments & Pictures
Hi Kate - my wife & I bought the property located at7431 Windmill Drive, Chanhassen just 12 months
ago. We love the neighborhood, neighbors and City. The Prince property development as proposed I have
concerns about how close the Concept plan comes to the back of all neighbors property lines without any
significant tree buffer, and considering the existing wetlands which do not seem to have been correctly
considered.
Our property gives a unique insight into why this area is so wet as we have a city storm drain in our back
yardi I have attached 2 slides that show the back yard & the view of the Prince property from our backyard
showing the wetlands & outlet from the storm drain.
I understand the desire of the City to expand the parkland, but have to agree with the 2 Planning Commission
Council members & many neighbors that had serious reservations on the plan as submitted in the July meeting.
I just want to add our voices to that concern as we were on vacation during the last meeting time.
I recognize you may not have time to come visit, but we do extend that offer given the gravity of what is being
proposed.
Best Regards,
David & Trish Senior
oIIe=az.antx
fiHFE;
7t ;IE
=5EIE=;lr;F=lAfr=
g=firH
r==r;--r-uZt
ntfiHjE=><llJr-=uJuJE
:
aot
IJJJfo
mz
I
o-J
o
FtT'N
t,oll
a
UJ
:)aLz
J
o-
F
o-
IIJozoo
Ft
ITJ(Lto)tOo
E
=oO:<Jo
H#>zoo
z
to
=toFa
ua>o
9eurJ
ilH
:
aot,
IIJJfo
mz
I
o-J
o
!Ft!FN
Eo
lJ.aul
:)aIz
J
o-
F
o-
IJJozoo
?. at!
r9
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28, 20'19 3:54 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Proposed Development on GalPin
--.-Original Message---
From: Chrissy Boberg <cnboberg@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 28,2OL812:15 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
subject: Proposed Development on Galpin
I am writing in in support of the proposed development of the land off of Galpin. My family and I have lived in
Chanhassen for over 10 years and currently live at 1321 Heather Court. We live close to Lake Ann and have enjoyed that
and other parks in the area. After looking at the planes it looks like the developer is offering up to the city around 100 of
the 188 acres. Ofthe 1OO acres given to the city it appears the plan has the Lake Ann Park expanded to the west side of
the lake. We have often visited that park and it would be wonderful to be able to walk almost entirely around the lake
with this expansion. lt seems very generous and responsible of the developer to offer such a large part of the property
to the city to preserve green space for all to use and enjoy. we strongly hope that the city supports this plan at the
upcoming meetings.
Thank you,
Mlke Boberg and Family
1
rq
Steckling, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28,2019 3:54 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: draft for consideration
From: Gord ie Ham pson <gord ie. ha m pson @cushwa ke.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26,2078 2:01 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: FW: draft for consideration
Dear City Council, Planning Commission and Staff:
Attention: Kate Aanenson: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
My family and I have lived in Ghanhassen for 26 yearsi at 7003 Sandy Hook Circle. We understand that the 188
acres on Galpin Road is being considered for development. I have reviewed both plans that the developer has
submitted to the city. We very strongly support the plan which shows the majority of the units on the west side
of the property. Not sure how the developer was pensuaded up to this point, however, it seems pretty amazing
that they are offering to deed approximately 100 acres to the City of Chanhassen. This would really open up the
two lakes which have been non-accessible until now! This seems like a huge win for everyone in the
community! We understand that the developer could legally develop adjacent to the lake as presented in the first
plan.
We hope the city supports the second plan proposed by the developer at the Planning Commission meeting July
17th. On behalf of our family, we would enthusiastically express our support for the second plan of the proposed
project.
Thank you,
Gordie Hampson and Family.
Gordie Hampson
Senior Director
Brokerage Services
Direct: +1952 465 3310
Mobile: +1612 366 6139
gordie. hampson@cushwake. com
3500 American Blvd W, Suite 200
Bloomington, MN 55431 | USA
cushmanwakefield.com
The information contained in this email (including any attachments) is confidential, may be subject to legal or other professional
1
privilege and contain copyright material,
and is intended for use by the named recipient(s) only.
Access to or use of this email or its attachments by anyone else is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. lf you are not the
intended recipient(s), you may not use, disclose,
copy or distribute this email or its attachments (or any part thereof), nor take or omit to take any action in reliance on it. lf you have
received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately by telephone or email and delete it, and all copies thereof, including all attachments, from your system. Any
confidentiality or privilege is not waived
or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake.
Although we have taken reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of transmitting software viruses, we accept no liability for any
loss or damage caused by this email or its
attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unapproved access.
2
)<>
Steckling, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28,2019 3:55 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Proposed Galpin Plan
From: Dewing Scott <dewscott@Email.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23,20L810:24 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaa nenson@ci.chanhassen.m n.us>
Subject: Proposed Galpin Plan
Attention Kate Aanenson;
My famity and I have lived in Chanhassen for 20 yeans, currently at 6735 Mulberry Circle. We understand the 188
acres on Galpin Road is being considered for development. ! have had a chance review both plans the developer
has submitted to the city. We strongly support the plan, which shows the majority of the units on the east side of
the property.
It is a great position to have the Developer to agree to offer approximately 100 acres to the city of
Ghanhassen. Everybody in the community and area will benefit from this layout with the ability to walk it and
enjoy the added space. We spend a lot of time outdoors and look fonrvard to seeing this preserved for all. Please
express my famities' support for the project. We understand the developer could legally develop adiacent to the
lake. We hope the city supports the second plan proposed by the developer at upcoming Planning Commission
meetings.
Thank you,
- Scott Dewing and Family
)l
Steckling, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28,2019 3:55 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW 7 141 Galpin PUD Concept
From: Tim Nordberg <nord0296@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July L9,2O!8 3:11 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.m n.us>
Subject:7141 Galpin PUD Concept
Re: 7l4l Galpin PUD Concept
Hi Kate,
I attended the 7l4l Galpin PUD Concept Review session on Tuesday to learn more about the Galpin Concept and really appreciated
the opportunity to learn more about the process, the city and developer's ideas and public's opinions on the matter. I know the
session's public commentary has passed, but I wanted to take the time to send over some of my own thoughts, many came up in
retrospect of attending the meeting and hearing what was said. Hopefully you can share this with anyone involved in the back-and-
forth with the Concept Development.
One takeaway I had from the meeting I had was few proposed solutions or additional ideas to consider. Nearly all in the public
seemed clearly worried about environmental impact and preservation or trees / nature, while clearly the developer cares most about
economics, i.e. profit. The two notions aren't necessarily polar opposites (developer profit vs environmental impacts), but they
definitely trade offeach other.
I wonder if on the South side of the development the path connection into Lake Ann's park system could be considered along the north
edge of, within, or near the current tree cover. It would help with several of the concerns I heard in the meeting:
o Poorly or under marked wetland area within the Southern trees - it is really wet there, with often standing water for 4 months
of the year. Development would impact the environment due to filling in the space, but also potentially push water back on
other existing properties that back up to the land.
. Buffer between current homes and new development - especially important if realistically considering 55' lots in this area
with high percentage lot coverage. A proper buffer should add value and desire to the lots abutting it new development
making it a positive for current residents and developers alike.
o Preservation of Trees - during the meeting I heard this was a priority within the city overall within long term plans (i.e. 2040
review). It may be true that "replacing" if removed trees is technically allowed, but can you consider planting hundreds of
new, young trees the same as replacing 30-50+ year old woods equivalent and adequate "replacement"?
Hopefully it can be considered, the idea came to mind while I was enjoying a run along the Bluff Creek trail, portions nicely tucked
into and around the trees are one ofthe things I really enjoy since moving to Chanhassen a few years ago. I have come to appreciate
the City's commitment to excellence in Parks, Trails and outdoor activities (Walking, Bicycling, Running). I would love for this
commitment to hold true in new developments rather than see "Trail Connections" run along a sidewalk or within a dense
neighborhood.
Further items I had thought of, and wanted to reiterate with my communication:
l. The Galpin Road project really needs to be closely tied to this planning. The proposed development seems to be roughly the
size of Longacres, but it is effectively forced to put all traffic on Galpin while Longacres has Hwy 41 on the West
Side. Galpin is already difficult to manage (as a pedestrian or in a car) near Majestic due to traffic flow including numerous
cars rolling through or completely missing the stop signs at Sugar Bush Park (Galpin and Brinker). Trafhc from nearly 200
additional homes would have a significant impact here that may be difficult to properly estimate with a simple traffic
study. Galpin to the North (into Shorewood / Hennepin Cty) and Lake Lucy Rd do not seem suitable for significant increases
either.
2. Housing density and lot coverage may be within rules (perhaps pushing the limits), but when I look at similar new
developments I always worry about places for small children to play without ending up on the road. Cul-de-sacs help
(because they somewhat create a safe place _in the road_ to play, but in the concept plan the cul-de-sacs were all targeting the
"Empty Nester" home styles (likely' without small children). Often in these new developments I see the streets lined with
signs and flags (i.e. "Drive like your children live here", "Caution kids at play"), highlighting the safety risks of such layouts,
density and lot coverage.
3. I don't fully understand the need to line up the road connections to Hunter and Longacres, especially the alignment with
Hunter seems to have an immediate challenge with the large holding pond / wetland space adjacent to the road. Relaxing this
need may help offer more favorable layouts within the usable land on the properfy.
On the positive side, I really appreciate the concept that expands Lake Ann's paths and the City's long term plans for further trails and
connections. The more options we have, the better for the enjoyment and health of those in the community. I really believe these
concepts are primary drivers that attract people to moving to the City of Chanhassen in the first place -- it was for my wife and I.
Thinking of large developments like this reminds me of the praise early Minneapolis planners now receive in setting up the
groundwork for their interconnected trail system (Lake and River trails, Parkway system, etc...). This is a key chance to ensure we
develop an exceptional shared natural resources (Lakes and Trails) for everyone in our community to enjoy for many years to come.
Ultimately I agree with the Planning Committee's final points, especially that neither of the concepts proposed thus far seem to respect
the land, but with enough effort an acceptable compromise between the Environment, the City, current residents and the developers
could be made.
Best Regards,
Tim Nordberg
2126 Majestic Way, Chanhassen
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28,2019 3:55 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Galpin Property - PUD
From: Meredith McGuirk <meremcguirk@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 77,2018 5:L5 PM
To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson @ci.cha nhassen.mn'us>
Subject: Fwd: Galpin Property - PUD
July 17,2018
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O.Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Planning Commission Members.
We recently learned of the Planned Unit Development for the Galpin Property, formerly owned by Prince. We write today to formerly register our opposition
to the plan.
We are residents of Chanhassen in the Lucy fudge neighborhood, adjacent to the PUD land. lnterestingly, the concept review offered by Lennar on page 2
states that the "existing neighborhood to the North (Ashling Meadows) provides two existing road stubs to the subject property." This is inaccurate. Ashling
Meadows provides one existing road stub, while our neighborhood, a I 6 unit custom home development contains the other. The current plan proposes direct
access through the Lucy fudge neighborhood.
We oppose the PUD in its cunent form for the following reasons:
o Safety. We are a 16 home development currently attached to a 45 home development, commonly called Ashling Meadows. The one street leaving
our community is already heavily flooded with traffic from Ashling Meadows. With one access road out of neighborhood residents cutting through
often travel well beyond the speed limit and igrrore stop signs, causing significant hazards to the small children living in our neighborhood. The
same road proposed as a pass through to the PUD property contains a bus stop for dozens of elementary children aged k-5. I cannot imagine the
additional safety hazard caused by the increased flow oftraffic from another adjoining neighborhood twice the size. Simply stated, the current plan
is only acceptable ifthe Commission disregards public safety to the children in our neighborhood.
o Environmental. I think it is reasonable that even with the VERY BEST construction and water management techniques, given the proximity of
proposed development to Lakes Lucy and Ann, it is, as a practical matter, impossible to prevent harmful phosphorous runoff(especially at the
outset), and to furthermore expect the preservation ofLake Ann's pristine quality and clarity in concert with the proposed development would be
naive and reckless.
o Please also refer to Donna and Brian Strauss' letter, dated July 4, 2018. We concur with all statements raised in their letter to the Commission and
City Council.
It is my sincere hope that the Planning Commission and City Council will consider altemative road access points. Alternatively I urge the Commission to
consider the development of a smaller community ending in a cul de sac connecting to our community that will be less hazardous and disruptive to current
community members. While I understand the desire to have several access points, I also find it alarming that the Commission would not consider the
disruptive and significant impact this will have on neighborhoods developed almost l5 years ago.
Sincerely,
Meredith and Greg McGuirk
1770Ltcy fudge Court
clJ-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:55 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Galpin Development - Staff Report
From: j bra nda ll@aol.com <jbrandall@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2018 8:49 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Re: Galpin Development - Staff Report
Kate,
After reading the Staff Report I have a few questions:
Page 6 last paragraph:
I assume this paragraph is referring to the North lots which are the only ones listed as 15,000 sf if
so the number of lots may not be correct.
Would you please explain why/how the development plan is not consistent with the Park Comp
Plan
Looking at scenario 2 and reading the small print, it looks as though they will be requesting variances'
for lot area size on both the central and south lots.
Betsy
---Original Message----
From: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
To: jbrandall <jblalde!!(Da.Ql@!0>
Sent: Tue, Jul 10,201810:26 am
Subject: RE: Galpin Development
Betsy,
The developer is requesting the PUD, which preserves the large area adj acent to Lake Ann. The staff report
should be available by the end ofthe day Thursday. You can address any concems to me and I will forward
then to the Planning Commission and the City Council
Kate
Kathryn Aanenson, AICP
Community Development Direclor
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PA. 952.227 .1139
FX. 952.227.11'tO
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
From: iEa!dal!@iq!.es!0 <.i!ra-!.d.a.!l@.q-q]-!o.!0>
sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:19 AM
To:Aanenson, Kate<@>
Subject: Galpin Development
Kate,
When might the staff reporUrecommendations be posted for the development?
Do you know which concept plan the city might be recommending?
Pleases let me know if I should be directing my questions to someone else'
Regards,
Betsy Randall
1571 Lake Lucy Road
Av
Steckling, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:56 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Galpin Blvd Proposed Development
-:-Original Message---
From: Julie Witt <juliewitt20@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July L4,20L811:01 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Re: Galpin Blvd Proposed Development
Thanks Kate. I appreciate the information. l'm not sure I will be able to join future meetings so I will take you up on the
offer to leave my feedback with you. Comments are below.
My vote if I had to choose between the 2 would be for concept #2. This concept builds 199 homes on 88 acres. Why this
plan is better:
1. Less impact to wetlands. One of the things I love about Chanhassen is how much natural land there is. I am concerned
how many trees the first concept will take down and the disruption to nature it will create. I would love to see
Chanhassen utilize the undeveloped acres for trails instead. lt is a beautiful piece of land and I would appreciate the
ability for the public to use part of it.
2. Variety of price ranges. 55' and 90' lots will probably still be above average home prices especially with the
opportunity for families to add upgrades (having priced Lennar homes before).
One question, would the city consider adding trails for biking and/or hiking to the undeveloped land?
Thanks for you consideration as you assess the available plans.
Julie Witt
> On Jun 27 ,2018, at 8:01 AM, Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson @ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote:
> J ulie,
>Therewill be a num ber of opportunities for you to give input into the proposed development. Thereisaconcept
review going to the Planning Commission on July 17th. You can review the staff report online on the city's website and
should be available on July 12th. You can attend that meeting or submit your comments in writing to me and I will share
with the Planning Commission and City Council. The staff report outlines the review process, after the concept review
they will come go through preliminary plat with another public hearing at the Planning Commission. The developer has
expressed they would have a neighborhood meeting.
> Kate
> Kathryn Aanenson, AICP
> Community Development Director
> CITY OF CHANHASSEN
> PH. 952.227 .t139
1
> FX. 952.227 .t7t0
> www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
> ---Original Message---
> From: Julie Witt <juliewitt20@gma il.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26,2018 7:00 PM
> To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn. us>
> Subject: Galpin Blvd Proposed Development will ou
> Hi Kate,
> Will the public be able to give input to the decision for this development?
> Thanks,
> Julie
2
J9
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28,2019 3:56 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: 18-12 Galpin Development
From: Barry Da llavalle <barry.dallavalle@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 9,2O!82:46 PM
To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.cha nhassen.m n. us>
Subject: 18-12 Galpin Development
Hi Ms. Aanenson,
My name is Barry Dallavalle and am current President of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. As you
might expect, our association membership is interested in how this development moves forward. Currently,
there appears to be two alternatives, a "density trade" and a "yield plan".
Has the planning group settled on either? Or would the selection be the subject of the planning commission
meeting on the lTth?
Would you or another on your staff be interested in receiving our comments prior to or at the meeting?
Thank you,
Barry Dallavalle
6960 Utica Ln
952-737-8433
1
.1(
Stecklinq, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:57 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Prince's land off Galpin
---Original Message---
From: Holly Nelson <hollysn9@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20,2018 9:12 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn us>
Subject: Prince's land off Galpin
ljust read through the development plans from Lennar for Prince's land. Those 55'and 55' lots make me sad. I was
hoping this would be an elite development in Chan and instead it's sadly dense. I read their justification that if they
spread it out they'd fit that many lots but are condensing it for the parkland. lt would be so much nicer to have the 90'
lots through the whole development and have the park land too. This is valuable land. Please don't let them waste it.
Holly Nelson
1
3t-1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect:
Aanenson, Kate
r[liiioiv,'rebruary 28, 2o1e 5:oe PM
PffiI[?fiJ"3:rpin Propertv comment
From: Marcia Mclean <dmclean602@gmail'com>
Date: February 28,2019 at12:59:46 PM CST
To: aaller@mchsi.com
Subject: Prince Galpin Property Comment
Please share my thoughts at Galpin Property meetings'
It has been legally accepted that Prince Rogers Nelson left no will' He did,
however, leave his ihorrghtr, his views, and his philosophy' One only has to look
at his discography and approach the lyrics on literal and figurative levels' One
only has to-consiier his many philanthropic endeavors. One only has to see the
devastation he felt upon the loss of his child'
=- ih;;, I petition uil purti.r involved to rethink the "Galpin projectu in light^of
what Prince would have wanted. I propose the property be given to the city of
Chanhassen to become an extension of the Lake Ann Park, with an Arts Center
and a playground for children with disabilities to be developed within its
boundaries.
would this be easy to do at this point? No. consider Prince's famous work
ethic and it can be done. He loved Chanhassen. It is time for Chanhassen to show
its love for him.
To obtain the property and create this adjunct Paisley Park, inclusive,
accepting, and where people can play refresh and just be, funding will be
requiredlCreate a SOf ct:) perhaps? There is no doubt that people from the
,,Purple Family,, around the world, the PRN Alumni Foundation, the People of
PaisleyPark,thefimUerwotves,theLyn*'TravisSmiley'SpikeLee'Oprah
Winfrey, Sheila e., t,i, pt,otographers,-and countless others will respond either
monetarily o, ir.r"uiiri u"aI*^uginative ways to gather resources' Maybe his
heirs will donate a song from the Vaull
prince always *"r,io ,,The Max". He sang "whenJ gg,I go,I go to the Max"'
Let,s ali continue and affirm his legacy by doing exactly that "4 him"'
Thank You.
Marcia Mclean
110 Stratton Ct'
Columbia SC29210
lr
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Friday, March 01,2019 8:06 AM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Development plan
From: Ron Robey <trapshooterl 100@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28,2019 6:38 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Development Pla n
I'm in favor of the proposed pud plan to have more green space and protect the lakes
Thanks Ron Robey
J?
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Friday, March 01,2019 12:27 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Lennar Galpin subdivision
From: Andrew Dunema n <a nd rew@bulkreefsupply.com>
Sent: Friday, March 'J.,2019 12:23 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Lennar Galpin subdivision
Kate - I wanted to drop you a quick note supporting the Proposed PUD version of the Galpin Subdivision project. l'm a
resident of Greenwood Shores (7050 Redman Lane)just on the other side of Lake Ann. My family and I along with our
neighbors love hiking through the woods around Lake Ann year round. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a
space that all residents of Chanhassen and the surrounding area can enjoy for generations to come.
l, along with my neighbors, strongly oppose the Concept Plan which will eliminate this valuable recreational area for
good. I attached a few pictures of our kids hiking here this last August. I look forward to attending the meeting on March
5th to express my support for protecting this priceless area.
Andrew Duneman
lntegrotor
Direct:763.231.9061
Cell:612.242.9838
Andrewt@bulkreefsuoolv.com
BUI.K REEF
SUPPLY
3o
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Friday, March 01 , 2019 12:26 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: l'm in favor of the proposed PUD Plan
From: Mike Harding (mharding) <mharding@cisco.com>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 L1:58 AM
To: City council <council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen mn.us>
Sublect: I'm in favor of the proposed PUD Plan
Kate and Council members - l'm urging you to back the PUD plan.
Please help us maintain some community green space and keep our city an outstanding place to live.
Mike Harding
Mobile: 612-860-5584
mhardinq@cisco.con-l
1
3r
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Friday, March 01,2019 2:12PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: PUD - Lake Ann park space
From: Tim Harding <t.h@visi.com>
Sent: Friday, March L,2OL91:59 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci'chanhassen'mn'us>
Subject: PUD - Lake Ann Park sPace
Dear Ms Aanenson,
I would like to voice my support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land surrounding Lake
Ann.
I believe that dedicating the land as park space would the best option for the residents of the City of
Chanhassen
and Carver County.
Thank you for your careful consideration in making this important decision.
Sincerely,
Tim Harding
{-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Monday, March 04, 2019 8:1 1 AM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Suppo( for PUD plan
From: RICHARD MARIETTA MCLEOD <rmktm@msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 11:04 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson @ci.cha nhassen.mn.us>
Subiect: Support for PUD Plan
Dear Ms. Aanenson,
We are writin8 to voice our support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land
surrounding Lake Ann. We believe that this would be the best long-term option for the City of
chanhassen and carver county. we have friends who live near Lake Ann, and have enjoyed
spending time with them in this natural setting.
Thank you for your consideration,
Marietta and Rick Mcleod
13306 Kipling Ave So
Sava8e MN 55378
952-895-8676
rm ktm @ msn.com
3_3
February 27,2019
Mayor Ryan and Council Members:
Thank you for seeking public comment regarding the Galpin Boulevard property development. I
understand the two proposals and support the change from the Concept Plan to the Proposed PUD with
a density transfer. lunderstand the density transfer results in approximately4l lots to be transferred to
smaller parcels which will allow approximately 45 acres of land to be available for parkland. The density
transfer would benefit the wetlands by creating more green space for water runoff, natural filtration
and a buffer for the Lake Ann and Lake Lucy's water health. ln addition, a community with a strong park
system is a more desirable community, a more interactive community and a healthy community. The
hard work of Council, Planning Commission, City Staff and Lennar to create this option with a life time
benefit is much appreciated.
please approve the density transfer Proposed PUD in order to capture the land for public use and the
benefit of Chanhassen's residents.s
Sincerely,
Solvei and Todd Wilmot
7101 Shawnee Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-470-2360
cc: Chanhassen Planning commission
3t
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Tuesday, March 05, 2019 2:09 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Once in a life time opportunity! 100 acres on Ann & Lucy
From: Jon Rausch/USA <Jon.Rausch@cushwake.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 2:08 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: FW: Once in a life time opportunityl 100 acres on Ann & Lucy
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I understand that as a result of the work session last night l2/l/191, the council has requested that the
Developer re-present its latest plan to the Planning Commission. Additionally, the City is asking the
residents their opinion on the park, for example, residents are being asked " How important is the new
park to the residents"?
As I understand the project, the Developer is proposing to transfer density from the East side to the
West side of the property in order to preserve a laree oark alons the lake. This is INCREDIBLE!
For the sake of the land and our future generations enjoyment of this incredible green space, I would
strongly urge you to consider the density transfer, which would result in a 100 acre oark.
At Camo Tanadoona, we have an internal wetland comDlex that we eniov (ducks. qeese, deer. turkev
CllgL lt's amazing to see such a diverse wildlife on our property.
Outdoor experts believe that contact with nature leads to improved mental health, lower stress levels,
and enhanced cognitive skills!
Please feel free to contact me anytime. Again, to be clear - | support the transfer of density to the
West side of the site and the preservation of the 100 acres on Lake Ann and Lucy, especially given the
alternative of the Developer/Owner pursuing a development plan that would impact the land adjacent
to the lake. Which I understand they could do by code.
Thank you.
All my best,
Marnie
Marnie K, Wells
ch ief Executive Off icer
camp Fire Minnesota
Direct (612) 284-6816
t'lain (612 ) 235 7284
www. ca mpfiremn.oro
Find us on Facebook & Twitter
Light the fire within
The information contained in this email (including any attachments) is confidential, may be subject to legal or other professional
privilege and contain copyright material,
and is intended for use by the named recipient(s) only.
Access to or use of this email or its attachments by anyone else is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. lf you are not the
intended recipient(s), you may not use, disclose,
copy or distribute this email or its attachments (or any part thereof), nor take or omit to take any action in reliance on it. lf you have
received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately by telephone or email and delete it, and all copies thereot including all attachments, from your system. Any
confidentiality or privilege is not waived
or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake.
Although we have taken reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of transmitting software viruses, we accept no liability for any
loss or damage caused by this email or its
attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unapproved access.
Z7
Steckling, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Tuesday, March 05, 2019 3:24 PM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Lennar Galpin Boulevard Property Planned Unit Development
From: Julie Sorensen <Julie@TeamSorensen.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:23 PM
To: Ryan, Elise <ERyan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Sinclair, Jill <jsinclair@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; McDonald, Jerry
<J McDonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Tjornhom, Bethany <BTjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Coleman, Julia
<JColeman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Campion, Dan <DCam pion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate
<kaanenson @ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; AlJaff, Sharmeen <SAlJaff@ci.cha nhassen.mn.us>; Generous, Bob
<bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subiect: Lennar Galpin Boulevard Property Planned Unit Development
Thankful for Lake Ann Park!!l
My husband and I moved to Chanhassen 28 years ago. We actually bought our lot 29 years ago and could not afford to
build Initially. We were attracted by the natural beauty. We are so thankful the founding fathers of Chanhassen put
aside such a wonderful park - Lake Ann. We have picnicked, swam, fished and walked the paths as much as possible
over the past 28 years. lt has been a gift of tra nquility; sun rises, sunsets and quiet moments. So many of Chanhassen's '
current residents were attracted by the beauty and green space of Chanhassen. lt is a great place to enjoy life and raise
a family.
We are grateful for the comprehensive plan to make the north shore of Like Ann a park. We feel the City of Chanhassen
should not lose this opportunity to preserve this beauty of nature with little to no investment by the citizens of
Chanhassen.
What Lennar has proposed to have 41 acres added to the park at no cost to the city in exchange for increased density is
incredibly generous on their part. Money doesn't grow on trees. The concept that the city purchase the acreage instead
of allowing increased density is fiscally irresponsible. That is clearly only for the benefit ofadjacent nelghbors. lf thecity
were to pursue such a financial transaction, are the neighbors willing to pay for this through a special property tax
assessment against their property? lam guessing not. They want to entire city to unnecessarily pay money it doesn't
have. lf the city does have it, it should be used for other purposes or reduced property taxes in the future. When
lookinB at the density they are complaining about, the complaining neighborhoods aren't any different than the PUD's
proposed density. The proposed density is in keeping with the adjoining neighborhoods and property. The parkland
version also leaves more trees in place, especially on the north side where those neighbors are complaining about loss of
natural buffer. This park version is a gift by Lennar on multiple levels. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Even the
city purchase instead of density transfer would be fewer trees excluding the park land when comparing the two
versions. The park plan minimizes cost to the city and maximizes trees retainage. The City's logo is a tree leaf. Kind of
implies that we value maintaining as much green space as possible especially with mature trees. With the natural buffer
at the north side and the 90 foot lots on the south side, the plan completely complements adjacent neighborhoods for
consistency. Even the wetland segment benefits from increased tree borders in the park based plan. Again this
wouldn't be the case if the city purchased the density where the park is planned. The park plan basically is setup to
make lt appear the wetland is a part of the pa rk given the tree separation on the west and north perimeters of the
wetland. Lennar clearly bent over backwards to maximize parkland and natural areas with their new plan. lf
city/cltizens get to greedy and Lennar walks away, the next developer will not likely be as generous. The other financial
downside of the city purchasing the park acreage is reduce property tax basis. So any cost of an estimated 57 to S10
million is a clear misstatement of actual costs to the city. Losing the property tax revenue from those lots in perpetuity
is a staggering amount of revenue to the city. With what looks to be roughly 54 lots being taken offthe property tax
rolls, that is easily at least S2oo,OOO/year and likely much more based on size/quality of homes built on the lots.
Let's not think only of ourselves or our families, but what we can leave behind. Make Chanhassen a place people want to
stay, especially in a fiscally responsible way!
Greg and Julie Sorensen
2
3g
Steckling, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Wednesday, March 06, 2019 8:18 AM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Proposed Galpin PUD
From: Kathy O'Connor <kjoconnorl3@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5,2O!9 11:08 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Galpin PUD
Kate-
First of all, thank you all so much for sitting through the Public comment meeting tonight. It was wonderful to
witness a collaborative environment. Chanhassen residents are the best :)
1. NEED PLAN C!
I will say, I was surprised at the number of comments from residents who thought the proposed plan was an
EITHER/OR situation. Who wouldn't chose the "gift" of park land ?!?!?!
I have sat through all the meetings in person or via streaming and it was clear to me that a plan C had been
requested a few times. The council had challenged Lennar to come back with something creative, unique,
something Chanhassen could be proud of. I truly believe this gem of a property deserves something very
special. They need to get creative!
While Lennar listened to some neighborhood concerns and appeased Lake Lucy Ridge residents with no thru
street and the south side residents by addressing water run off, elevation, etc., they did nothing to addressing a
unique neighborhood - plan C. They also fluffed up the design by including entrance monuments, flowers,
etc......I'm soffy, those are a given. Not a concession!
The last thing we need is another Longacres, Ashling Meadows or Vasserman neighborhood. While I love
living in Longacres, I do NOT want another cookie cutter Lennar development, especially on this arnazing
property.
2. Need to address parking for any park land - I agree with Michael McGonigill that they also need to address
parking for any park land within the neighborhood development. There will be conflict between residents who
are parking on their neighborhood streets and trying to utilize the park. That is a given.
3. PLEASE Don't Settle - Please don't settle for just another Reflections on Lake Riley, Vasserman, Camden
Ridge, Ashling Meadows, Longacres - type neighborhood. This extraordinary piece of land deserves
extraordinary home in an extraordinary neighborhood with an extraordinary feel! An executive neighborhood
that draws people to Chanhassen. Don't allow this builder to come in and nueter this land! Any builder can
come in and do what they have propsed. Make them work for this pizel And if they won't, let's find someone
who will.
I have also sent this email to the City Council.
Kathy O'Connor
Resident Longacres
7124 Northwood Ct, Chanhassen, MN 55317.
612.309.1712
2
Steckling, Jean
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aanenson, Kate
Wednesday, March 06, 2019 8:17 AM
Steckling, Jean
FW: Proposed Galpin PUD Development Proposed by Lennar Homes
From: Jim Aiken <jaiken299@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:25 PM
To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson @ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Re: Proposed Galpin PUD Development Proposed by Lennar Homes
Dear Ms. Aanenson and Esteemed Commissioners:
I am a Chanhassen resident living at 751 Carver Beach Road. I am a professional geologist and have 25 years of
experience in reviewing development plans and performing environmental review on large development projects. I am
in no way connected with the proposer associated with the development.
Based on review of the proposal packet and staff recommendations, I find that the planned unit development (PUD)
proposal that is currently proposed (with the density transfer plan including a large 54 acre woodland buffer area along
the northwest side of Lake Ann) is thoughtful and represents an excellent opportunity for increasing and protecting
public access and water quality in Lake Ann. ltherefore strongly support the proposed development proposed by Lennar
on the former Prince Rogers Nelson estate.
My opinion is based on the following observations:
o The land is guided for residential development. lt will be developed and we will have new neighbors on this
land sooner or later.
o lf this plan is rejected there will be another, perhaps less accommodating plan eventually. The proposal
could be far worse including more homes and removing much of the woodland areas northwest of Lake
Ann. This would be disastrous and should never be supported it in any way.
o The development plan provides for significant buffer between the residential areas and lake shore with
stormwater runoff control and pre-treatment. The county and watershed requirements for runoff control are
substantial and proven to protect water quality.
o The provisions for tree preservation are substantial and In my experience, exceptional benefit of this
proposal
. I routinely bike along Galpin. Contrary to recent public comments, the existing traffic on Galpin is relatively
sparse and has adequate controls for safe and efficient egress and access. This road has been long planned for
expa nsion.
o The development will provide additional recreational and wildlife viewing opportunities for city
residents. Lake Ann is a favorite snowshoeing and fishing lake for our famlly and increased trail connections will
enhance these opportunities.
o Much of the opposition to these developments is fear of the unknown and uncertainty on how the existing
neighbors will adapt to the changes from the development. History shows that new developments in our area
work out fairly well.
. Unless you are descendent of one of the original settlers in the area (a nd I know a few), at one time, we
were ALL a new neighbors in Chanhassen. We are all part of change. The reality is we have no right to seek the
close the door on those who wish to join us in future.
. Recreational connection to lakes greatly enhances the value and quality of life in any city. Connection to
water is paramount. Looking at what the trails and lakes do for the City of Minneapolis, it appears likely that this
project will similarly result in benefits to all residents.
o I live near Lotus Lake and one problem is that when it was developed there were no modern stormwater
controls and no public imperative to improve access to lakefront via trails. The result is that water quality has
struggled and very few hiking and riding opportunities along the shores ofthis otherwise beautiful lake.
This project represents an opportunity. The Commission and the Council have rare chance to create a legacy for future
generations ofChanhassen residents. Please approvethe plan with the additional parkland for Lake Ann.
Thank you !
Jim Aiken, PG
2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 19, 2019
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: E.1.
Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from their February 19, 2019 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated February 19, 2019
Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated February 19, 2019
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, and
Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz and Mark Randall
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters,
Associate Planner; and Erick Henricksen, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
John Kunitz 6441 Bretton Way
Jerry Cone 6320 Minnewashta Woods Drive
Tony Fricano 980 Lake Lucy Road
Lynn Pelto 6581 Foxtail Court
Annette Stock-Lind 8104 Dakota Lane
Rodney Colson 6440 Pipewood
Colleen Johnson 5015 St. Albans Bay
Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED LOT
FRONTAGE AT 3800 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked
about the status of the gravel driveway. The applicant Rod Colson with Colson Custom Homes,
6440 Pipewood Curve discussed storm water drainage on the property. Chairman Aller opened
the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Weick moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two-lot subdivision
and approves a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans
dated December 5, 2018, subject to the conditions of approval, adopts the findings of fact
and recommendation:
Building:
Planning Commission Summary – February 19, 2019
2
1. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures.
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
Engineering:
1. Lot 1 shall have a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along its front lot line
(northernmost lot line) prior to recording of final plat.
2. An accurate soils report indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope, and groundwater
elevations shall be provided upon the submittal of grading permits.
3. The contact information for the responsible person(s) for erosion and sediment control
best management practices shall be updated on the plans prior to issuance of grading
permits.
4. Review and approval of the use of silt fence and bio rolls for perimeter control shall be
conducted by the city prior to the issuance of grading permits.
5. Add city detail 5302B – Erosion Control for Individual Lots, to the detail sheet.
6. If the 1974 sanitary and water services stubbed off Red Cedar Point Road that will
service Lot 2 are inadequate for use, they shall be abandoned in accordance with city
standards and re-installed.
7. The developer of Lot 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees
associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit
application.
Environmental Resources:
1. Any trees removed in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be
required to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple
on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree inventory, but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum
for the inventory. They will be preserved on Lot 1.
2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any
construction activities and remain installed until completion.
Fire Department:
1. The home on Lot 1, Block 1 must be addressed off of Hickory Road.
Parks:
Planning Commission Summary – February 19, 2019
3
1. Park dedication fees shall be paid for one lot at the rate in force at the time of final plat
approval.
Planning:
1. An escrow of 110 percent (110%) of the estimated removal cost for the concrete pad on
the interior lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 must be received, and the concrete pad
removed within four months of the approval of the final plat.
Water Resources:
1. All permits and approvals must be received from other regulatory agencies prior to
issuing permits.
2. The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee for 1.06 acres at the rate in force at the time of
final plat approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERMITTING CHICKENS IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller asked about different
types of chicken coops, enforcement, and notification of neighbors. Commissioner Weick asked
about the overall use for chickens in other cities, and if there has been found to be an increase in
predators around chicken coops. Commissioner McGonagill asked about homeowner
association regulations. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public
hearing was closed.
Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance
amending Chapters 4, 5 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning chickens with the
following modifications. The lot size requirement will start at one acre with 8 chickens
being the maximum. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE REVISITING THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SECTION’S FORMATTING.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked for
clarification of this item. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the
public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Summary – February 19, 2019
4
Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of
the Chanhassen City Code concerning community commercial district formatting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW CONTINUING CARE
RETIREMENT FACILITIES IN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller opened the public
hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen
City Code concerning continuing care retirement facilities. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO UPDATE SIGN DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS REFERNCE (BUILDING CODE).
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller opened the public
hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
McGonagill moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of
the Chanhassen City Code concerning sign design and construction standards. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CLARIFYING TRASH STORAGE
ENCLOSURE EXEMPTION.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller opened the public
hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code concerning trash enclosures. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 15, 2019 as presented.
Planning Commission Summary – February 19, 2019
5
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
Kate Aanenson provided an update on the Galpin property matter which is scheduled to come
back before the Planning Commission at their March 5th meeting for public comment and
redevelopment of the Applebee’s site.
YEAR END REVIEW/2019 WORK PROJECTS ANNUAL REPORT.
Kate Aanenson reviewed planning numbers for 2018 and what staff is projecting to see in 2019.
Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, and
Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz and Mark Randall
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters,
Associate Planner; and Erick Henricksen, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
John Kunitz 6441 Bretton Way
Jerry Cone 6320 Minnewashta Woods Drive
Tony Fricano 980 Lake Lucy Road
Lynn Pelto 6581 Foxtail Court
Annette Stock-Lind 8104 Dakota Lane
Rodney Colson 6440 Pipewood
Colleen Johnson 5015 St. Albans Bay
Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED LOT
FRONTAGE AT 3800 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD.
Taping of the meeting started at this point in the staff report.
Walters: …sewer access currently so from the north up here and the proposed Lot 2 on the south
had utilities stubbed in in 1974 off of Red Cedar Point to the south. Sorry I’m having a little
trouble changing slides for whatever reason. With regards to right-of-way streets and easements,
no right-of-way dedication is being requested. The plan is for Lot 1 to be accessed via the
existing driveway easement up through the vacated Kirkham Road onto Hickory. Lot 2 will
have driveway access to Red Cedar Point and the applicant is going to dedicate a 5 foot side yard
drainage and utility easements and then 10 foot easements along the front yard and they will be
dedicating, asking for the designation of the northern lot line here as the front lot for Lot 1, Block
1. This is really slow. Sorry, bear with me a minute. Regarding the proposed variance request
they are, they gave us a couple options to show the feasibility of doing the subdivision without a
variance. That’s shown as Concept A or Concept B. They’re proposing again having zero feet
actually on a strip public street because the front lot line would be where there is not a street.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
2
The reason for this is the Kirkham Road is not improved. In order to do it without requiring a
variance they could install a private street which would involve several thousand feet of
impervious surface within the area. They could also dedicate land to the city right-of-way and
conduct, construct a public street. They could also use a flag lot configuration which would
involve having a 30 foot neck that would service this rear parcel off of Red Cedar Point. All of
these would result in an increase in impervious surface within the subdivision and given that the
lots exceed the minimum dimensions required and lot area required staff’s preference would be
to minimize the amount of impervious surface installed within the shoreland district. Staff has
been contacted by several individuals in the neighborhood. Comments have fallen into two
categories. One was concern that the subdivision not exceed two lots. Staff’s reassured folks
that what’s being proposed is a two lot subdivision and there is no contemplation or potential for
more than two lots to come from this. There has also been concern expressed over the
subdivision’s potential impact on the area’s stormwater. Mainly staff’s been informed that
Hickory is a low point and there’s concern that increased impervious would cause more runoff to
be diverted into that area. Staff clarified that under the subdivision ordinance two lot properties
are not required to install their own stormwater infrastructure or improvements and that the
development would need to meet city and watershed requirements when they pull a building
permit. So looking over the proposed subdivision it could go forward without a variance through
the use of either a private street or a public street or through a flag lot which would require a
variance from the subdivision ordinance but it would likely meet all of those criteria. All of the
above mechanisms would require additional impervious surface. Staff as I mentioned believes
it’s important to minimize the amount of impervious surface within the shoreland district. Both
of the proposed lots are significantly larger than the residential single family district’s minimum
lot width, depth and lot area requirements. Lot 1 will have access provided to a public road from
the existing driveway easement which is a continuation of the current situation in the
neighborhood and the subdivision meets all the requirements of the city code so for all of these
reasons staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with the variance. I’d be happy
to address any questions you have at this time.
Aller: Any questions of staff at this point? Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: One question I had is mostly my own education on Lot 2 I notice they have a rock
driveway going in.
Walters: That is conceptual for the construction so they, you know they can put the rock
entrance so that they can get the construction vehicles there when building. So they showed that
in the grading plan I believe on the plat.
McGonagill: Right, I was just wondering were they doing that to avoid an impervious surface or
are they thinking about they’ll pave it down the road?
Walters: It would be paved after construction. That would only be for like some of the grading
activities as part of the construction.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
3
McGonagill: Okay, thank you sir.
Walters: Yep.
Aller: Additional questions. Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward and
make a presentation that would be great. If you could state your name and address for the record
sir.
Rod Colson: Sure Rod Colson with Colson Custom Homes, 6440 Pipewood Curve.
Aller: Welcome.
Rod Colson: Thank you.
Aller: Tell us about your project.
Rod Colson: Well it’s a pretty straight forward two lot subdivision. There’s nothing special
about it.
Aller: There had been some concerns stated about the amount of water runoff and whether or
not there’s a storm drainage problem based on the fact that this property would be built or
subdivided. Can you address those issues a little bit?
Rod Colson: Well I don’t think that it’s going to be creating more of a problem or making any
problems that are there worst than already the, Hickory Road is the low point anyway so a lot of
the water comes across and then it comes up from the lake when we have high water.
Aller: Will the property when you build the property it’s going to have it’s own drainage area or
no drainage area? Is it going to have, what’s it going to use to wick water away from your
construction?
Rod Colson: We’ll be well under the hard cover so it will, the soil’s pervious will absorb the
water. There’ll be some runoff but that’s normal. There’s already runoff coming through from
the lot to the west up high so.
Aller: Additional questions? Okay thank you.
Rod Colson: Thank you.
Aller: We’ll open the public hearing portion of this item so this is again an opportunity for an
individual that’s present to come up and speak either for or against the item. Make a comment.
The public hearing is now open. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. And
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
4
entertain comments, concerns, questions, additional questions of staff or a motion.
Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Yeah it looks like a, as presented would be better than the flag lot or some of the other
alternatives in trying to reduce the impervious surface and that would be with the
recommendation that staff is proposing.
Aller: I see a lot of sense. Commissioner Weick.
McGonagill: And this will include the new address right?
Walters: That is one of the conditions of approval.
Weick: I was going to propose a motion.
Aller: Please do.
Weick: I don’t want to rush anybody but the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two lot subdivision and approve a lot
frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition as shown in the plans dated December 5,
2018 subject to the conditions of approval and adopting the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
McGonagill: Second.
Aller: Having a valid motion and a second, any further comments or concerns? I just want to
say that I think under our guides we are looking for what will be least impactful and a reasonable
use of the property and when we look at the situation here we have an opportunity to create a
situation where there’s better stormwater management and reduction of the impervious surface
so I think it’s a good plan as well. Any additional comments?
Weick moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two-lot subdivision
and approves a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans
dated December 5, 2018, subject to the conditions of approval, adopts the findings of fact
and recommendation:
Building:
1. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
5
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
Engineering:
1. Lot 1 shall have a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along its front lot line
(northernmost lot line) prior to recording of final plat.
2. An accurate soils report indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope, and groundwater
elevations shall be provided upon the submittal of grading permits.
3. The contact information for the responsible person(s) for erosion and sediment control
best management practices shall be updated on the plans prior to issuance of grading
permits.
4. Review and approval of the use of silt fence and bio rolls for perimeter control shall be
conducted by the city prior to the issuance of grading permits.
5. Add city detail 5302B – Erosion Control for Individual Lots, to the detail sheet.
6. If the 1974 sanitary and water services stubbed off Red Cedar Point Road that will
service Lot 2 are inadequate for use, they shall be abandoned in accordance with city
standards and re-installed.
7. The developer of Lot 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees
associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit
application.
Environmental Resources:
1. Any trees removed in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be
required to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple
on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree inventory, but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum
for the inventory. They will be preserved on Lot 1.
2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any
construction activities and remain installed until completion.
Fire Department:
1. The home on Lot 1, Block 1 must be addressed off of Hickory Road.
Parks:
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
6
1. Park dedication fees shall be paid for one lot at the rate in force at the time of final plat
approval.
Planning:
1. An escrow of 110 percent (110%) of the estimated removal cost for the concrete pad on
the interior lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 must be received, and the concrete pad
removed within four months of the approval of the final plat.
Water Resources:
1. All permits and approvals must be received from other regulatory agencies prior to
issuing permits.
2. The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee for 1.06 acres at the rate in force at the time of
final plat approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERMITTING CHICKENS IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Aller: Moving onto the amendments to the Chanhassen City Codes which have been put forward.
Do you want to hit these one on one or would you like to take them as a group?
Aanenson: Yeah…
Aller: Okay so we’ll hit item 2 which is an amendment to Chanhassen City Code requesting a
permitting of chickens in residential districts.
Walters: Alright, so the first code before you is, and I do apologize. This is not working, there
we go. Is again the question of allowing chickens. I’ll maybe give it a minute until folks can.
Alright the question is re-examining the City’s policy on back yard chickens. Currently the City
considers chickens to be farm animals. This is kind of reminiscent of if you’ll remember the bee
discussion we had last year. They’re restricted to parcels, agricultural or 10 acres or larger.
We’ve had a lot of people contact us express interest in having chickens on their properties.
Staff looked at, I think we surveyed 62 different cities, 44 of which now allow back yard
chickens. Looked at some literature and staff’s belief is that they can likely be accommodated in
residential districts so long as there are numbers of chickens. Limits on the number of chickens
and then also some performance standards. So some stuff that we looked at, and I apologize, I
put a lot of charts on this one slide but the different type of regulations that cities had. So I
mentioned we looked at 62 cities. 44 of these permitted chickens to be kept in the back yard. Of
those the most common limit was a limit on the number of birds. 40 of the 44 did that. About
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
7
half required that additional setbacks beyond the base zoning codes be applied to like the chicken
coop or the chicken run. About half required licenses. The majority prohibited roosters. We
saw that was pretty common. We looked at the maximum number of chickens. Four was the
kind of the favorite number but there were a lot of different sliding scales and different systems
used. What staff is proposing for the city of Chanhassen would be allowing them on any parcel.
Parcels less than one acre, limiting them to 4 chickens. From the 1 to 2.5 acre range allowing up
to 8 chickens. From 2.5 to 10, up to 16 chickens. If you have over 10 acres you can have a
chicken farm so we didn’t really see a reason to limit it at that point. Beyond that we’d like to go
with a 25 foot setback from any adjacent residence not owned by the owner just to kind of
minimize a chance for noise or odor impact. Standard 10 foot lot lines. Requiring that coops
and runs be enclosed. That’s mostly to prevent predators from eating the chickens and rodent
proof food storage. Weekly waste removal again to deal with potential odor issues. Prohibiting
roosters and crowing hens to prevent noise issues and no discernable odor at lot line were the
performance standards and then probably requiring a permit similar to what was done with bees.
$25 lifetime permit as long as there’s no violation no need to reapply every year. With that I’d
be happy to take any questions. I know I through that quick and I can go into a lot more depth if
you’d like.
Aller: Did we look at the, I know we use articulation in our buildings. Did we look at the type
of coops? Are there differences in an open coop versus a closed coop for purposes of noise, odor
and view?
Walters: Yeah we’d need, we’d require a fully enclosed coops because it allows better
protection from the chickens from both predators and the elements but one of the things that
folks would have to take into account as they designed them would be proper ventilation to
prevent odor issues or you know disease for the chickens and also to make sure it’s comfortable.
But we didn’t go into like super detail you know designing their coops for them. We did put a
minimum of 4 square feet per chicken just to ensure the animals had room to be chickens in.
That seemed to be a pretty common provision from some of the other cities we looked at.
Aller: And a coop would be considered an accessory structure.
Walters: Yes it would.
Aller: So for purposes of the code enforcement and that would limit an individual’s use of their
property is they decide to put in a coop for instance. That would be their accessory structure.
They couldn’t have another one on the other side of the property. Without acreage.
Walters: Yeah I mean they would still be, it would contribute to the 1,000 square foot accessory
structure limit so if somebody already had 1,000 square foot garage they’d have to potentially
choose between how to use it but that’s similar to the choices they have to make for a lot of other
features.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
8
Aller: And we’re talking about specifically keeping chickens outdoors versus indoors?
Walters: We did put a prohibition against having them indoors. The rationale behind that is
there is some evidence that there’s a lot of, there can be increased risk of transmission of
illnesses from chicken to people when chickens and people live in very close confines. So just as
a safety disease control we didn’t necessarily think they’d be good household pets. That being
said you know if someone wanted to convert a portion of their garage or something to a chicken
coop, especially if it’s like a detached garage I don’t personally see an issue with that and we
didn’t address that in the code.
Aller: And then we’re not looking at butchering or anything else on a property correct?
Walters: So the language that staff is proposing would say no outdoor butchering. What we, our
approach was within the city of Chanhassen during a certain time of the year you can see deer
hanging from trees. There’s no prohibition about butchering a deer or any game animal that you
may hunt. We felt the intent of like butchery bans was to avoid potentially offending the
neighbors if in your garage you want to eat one of your chickens, we felt that was a choice
chicken owners could make.
Aller: Alright.
Walters: Again any of these provisions could be obviously amended if the commission has
different feelings on it.
Aller: Did we look at enforcement?
Walters: Enforcement would be similar to how we’re planning on enforcing bees and other
potential nuisances. If we receive a complaint we’ll go out there. If we find that the chickens
are being kept in violation of the permit it’d be grounds for revoking the permit which would
prevent them from being issued a new chicken permit but yeah it’s similar to any other part of
the code. You know we would not be doing annual or surprise inspections. It would all be
complaint response based.
Aller: And we were also looking at notification of neighbors with bees. Is that the same with
chickens?
Walters: Yes it is. We actually adopted the exact same language on that again just to make sure
everyone knows that there’s going to be a change and has some forewarning.
Aller: Any additional questions? Commissioner Weick.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
9
Weick: Did you, when you looked at the 62 other cities was there any information on the people
that have chickens, what they’re doing with them? Do they have them for eggs? Do they have
them for pets? Do they have them because they’re cute?
Walters: It honestly seems to be primarily eggs with a touch of good companion animals and
cute. A lot of people think it’s fun to watch them run around. They do also serve some
ecological benefits. Their waste produces a really good compost so you know gardeners like that
They also eat a lot of garden pests so some people strategically place their coops and runs next to
their garden so they eat insects before they even get to the gardens so a lot of kind of your green
ecologically friendly motivations but I think egg production tends to be like the over riding
factor.
Weick: And then a second question is it just, has there been any evidence of increased predator
activity around chicken coops?
Walters: A lot of stuff eats chickens and if the chicken coops are not well designed and not
properly enclosed your, everything from your neighbor’s dog to an eagle is going to get a meal
and that’s one of the reasons why we adopted the provision that both the coops and the runs
needed to be fully enclosed and well constructed and the hope there is if you don’t have
vulnerable chickens out where predators can get them hopefully they will not be attracting
predators.
Weick: That’s all I have.
Aller: Great. Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Question on the structures. I’m assuming the way this would work that, okay we
would have a code that would approve it but they would still have to get their homeowner’s
association to approve it. Like for example you know patios have to be approved you know or
you’re painting a house sometimes has to be approved by a homeowner’s association so they
would have to submit, I’m assuming they’d have to submit their plan to their local homeowner’s
association board for approval.
Walters: If their homeowner’s association had policies those policies would govern. From the
city’s perspective you know just with the examples you mentioned I do not ever, if someone
applies for a patio and they meet the city code I issue a patio permit.
McGonagill: Right.
Walters: If their homeowner’s association does not allow that that’s for the homeowner’s
association to address and enforce.
McGonagill: Okay.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
10
Walters: And you know most folks obviously are very good about doing their research and one
of the things that the notification is hopefully it would make sure the homeowner’s association
knew chickens were in the plans.
McGonagill: Thank you. Thanks MacKenzie.
Aller: Additional questions or comments? Hearing none I will open up the public hearing
portion of this item. So any individual wishing to come up and speak either for or against the
item can do so. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. Open it for
discussion, comment or action.
Weick: I’m concerned about attracting predators. I don’t know that, although we haven’t heard
from residents or anything I, it’s just a, I mean we have issues now I think with you know putting
bait in people’s back yards potentially. That’s my concern. I mean I don’t have anything against
chickens certainly and I think people will do it responsibly but that’d be my concern.
Aller: Additional comments, questions.
Madsen: I share that concern. I do like the fact that neighbors need to be notified. I do like the
fact that there’s a permit and so if there is an issue there’s a real you know process where people
can talk about it. Maybe find a solution so if there were predators, I mean I don’t know what that
solution would be except to remove the chickens if it was really bad but at least, and I like the
requirement that it be all enclosed to keep the chickens as safe as possible so.
Aller: Well I’m not, I’m kind of on the chicken fence. I mean I’m just, I don’t want to stop
somebody from using their property reasonably. We do allow bees. We do allow for other pets
but I agree with Commissioner Weick that we have to trust our citizens to act responsibly. I do
think that as in the bees when we were looking to do a permit process that that’s absolutely
necessary. That there’s notification to the neighbors. That there’s a permit taken out so the
neighbors have someone to turn to rather than creating a confrontation. You know as much as
we love to have neighbors be able to talk to themselves that doesn’t necessarily always happen
and so this would give an opportunity for people to turn to their neighbors. I guess I have an
additional question of staff. Is there any indication that this has been going on without being
permitted?
Walters: I did receive a complaint about chickens in June of 2018 I believe was the date I listed.
An individual was staying with their mother. Had brought their chickens. Had a kind of sub-
standard fencing. Chickens got out you know. As always we find out about stuff when someone
comes to us. You know if we did a proactive patrol it probably wouldn’t surprise me if we found
a few other properties with chickens but no I don’t think there’s like a huge number in the city.
If that is…
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
11
Aller: Well I mean it cuts both ways. It’s also telling that if we would suspect that it’s out there
and neighbors aren’t complaining then it’s kind of leads to the opinion that the neighbors don’t
have a problem with it so that may be an unwritten will.
Walters: In the one complaint we received the verbatim comment was I didn’t care until they got
in my garden which is understandable.
Aller: Based on those questions any additional comments? Questions. Concerns.
Weick: I’ll probably oppose it, unless we considered maybe increasing the lot size so that it,
because as I understand it there is no lot requirement so I would say if you mandated it on some
lot size smaller than agricultural but you know with bigger than I don’t know.
Aller: So could you put up the slide again with the different, there we go. If that will help your
thought process at all.
Weick: Yeah because I’m just leaning if lot sizes are bigger there’s just more space. There’s
more opportunity to you know create a coop or something that’s, you know you’re not going to
have neighbors necessarily on top of you at that point. You know jut thinking about the nuisance
factor. Potentially smell and other stuff so if it was, I guess I’m most concerned about the you
know chickens on less than an acre. I’m not sure. You know I’m just trying picturing my
neighborhood right and if my neighbors had chickens I don’t know if it’d really like that. I don’t
know.
McGonagill: I’m looking at your page 3 following up on your comment. It says that there’s 7
cities that had minimum lot sizes. Do you remember what those were MacKenzie?
Walters: Not off hand. Most of them that had the minimum lot sizes did it by zoning district and
I didn’t necessarily cross check you know what those thresholds were.
McGonagill: Okay.
Walters: That’s definitely something we could get back to you on if you wished.
Aller: My understanding is Rosemount allows for hens and no roosters and you have to get
written permission from all your neighbors if that helps or perhaps taking the less than one acre
and excising it and going 4 and 8 instead of 8 and 16 so something that’s workable. I mean it’s
not that I’m pushing it at all but if you’ve got an idea that you want to put forward that’s fine.
Weick: Yeah and you know this can certainly pass without me so you know I don’t want to, I
would just throw if several, I’m just trying to be open about it. If several of us are on the fence I
would propose starting at one acre and then stepping it up from there. But if the consensus was
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
12
that you know to vote in favor of it I have no, you know that’s perfectly fine as well. I just
wanted to express my concern there that’s all.
Aller: Your point’s well taken. I mean people are discussing things for a reason because we
have.
Weick: Right, right.
Aller: We don’t want to disrupt our neighbors and our neighborhood and at the same time we
want to make sure that our neighbors have an opportunity to have appropriate pets and to use
their property accordingly so. Any comments or?
Undestad: I’ve got one more on the setbacks. So we’re doing 25 feet on the sides for each
residential. 10 feet from the lot line.
Walters: Yep. So the coop or run would not be able to be located within 25 feet of any of the
neighbor’s housing but could be 10 feet from any lot line and that was to try to guarantee that
like on very close lots or lots where there wasn’t a lot of space you know you couldn’t put a coop
right outside your neighbor’s window.
Undestad: So I guess but you know looking at that too I guess I kind of agree with
Commissioner Weick.
Aller: Go in the back yard.
Undestad: Yeah if you’re just 10 feet, if you’re in those smaller lots on there and you have you
know if you don’t like chickens and you’ve got them 10 feet away from your back yard and
you’ve got only a 30 foot deep back yard, oh there’s your chickens so. Maybe I guess that less
than an acre might be a little tight for many.
Aller: So I’m hearing acreage as being the sticking point so to speak and what about any of the
other conditions are concerning of anyone?
Undestad: Well I just would like on an acre or more you’ve got room to do this stuff with the
coops and the runs and all that so.
Aller: So if that’s the case would someone like to propose a motion regarding that or do you feel
as though it’s not worth it at this time and you want to send it back.
Weick: I’ll propose it that way. I would say I’d still keep it at 8. Starting at 8.
Undestad: On one acre.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
13
Weick: I think you put good research into that. That seems to be a good number. I mean I don’t
think we have to reduce the number of chickens people can have but I mean I can certainly give
it a shot. I’ll propose a motion.
Aanenson: Just so you can read the motion…
Weick: Okay the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt
the proposed ordinance amending Chapters 4, 5 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning
chickens with the following modifications. The lot size requirement will start at one acre with 8
chickens being the maximum and scale up from there. So we would be removing less than one
acre as a possibility.
Walters: Understood.
Aller: So we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a valid second any further discussion?
Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance
amending Chapters 4, 5 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning chickens with the
following modifications. The lot size requirement will start at one acre with 8 chickens
being the maximum. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
5 to 0.
Aller: Moving onto item 3. Item 2 having carried. Will that also be on February 25th?
Walters: No it will not. That would be March 11th.
Aller: So March 11th.
Aanenson: Can I just go back to that one because we didn’t have a quorum last time we agreed
to fast track the previous application because that was on last, 2 weeks ago.
Aller: So if all those that are watching at home and present would like to follow that item for
final action that will be on March 11th before the City Council. Moving onto item 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE REVISITING THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SECTION’S FORMATTING.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
14
Walters: Yep so for reasons unknown to staff the community commercial district is not
formatted within the city code with the same break out of subsections as the other zoning
districts. It just makes it a little challenging to read and find stuff in that. It also would hinder
any future amendment to that section because instead of being able to call out a specific
subsection for amendment you could have to wholesale amend the entire zoning district so staff
you know we’re just going through and we identified some ways we could improve the
readability and usability of our code. This has been one that I wanted to change for a while and I
would, staff’s recommending that we just make it match to format of the others. And just so you
know this is the location of the, oh no. It lost. I apologize. My graphic seems to have lost the
little circle I drew around the commercial district which is unfortunate. But it is this section I
believe.
Aanenson: I don’t know if you recall we added this to the downtown when we did the
Comprehensive Plan. We don’t have anything that’s in there but we proposed it for
redevelopment to kind of continue the, to allow for some larger footprint commercial buildings
in the downtown core. I think the only one that came under this one was the Walmart one which
was denied. It needed variances which were not approved and so we want to make sure those
standards in that zoning district are codified similar to the other ones so, again it would take a
redevelopment project for somebody to go in there. There isn’t any vacant lots in there right
now but we’ve had other interests over the years to do redevelopment. Nothing at this current
time
Aller: Alright questions of staff. Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: A question, you know this is mostly again mechanics. You all spend a lot of time
and work doing exactly what you said, the commercial district. You did a lot of mission work.
What should be down here. Realize this is code but how does that get rolled into this? I mean
you talk about what’s permitted but you all did a lot of work on the intent of what you wanted
downtown to look like and where it wanted to go so how does that drive what people are allowed
to do? You understand my, where I’m going with the question. It’s almost like the
Comprehensive Plan itself.
Aanenson: Yeah.
McGonagill: How does that plan get included in the direction you would give to someone?
Aanenson: So the Comprehensive Plan describes land uses. When it says commercial. Then
you go to the zoning ordinance. Within the zoning ordinance there’s a subset of types of
commercial like you have the central business district. You have highway business. You have
as MacKenzie talked about the regional commercial zoning district. This is what we added a
number of years ago. The central, or community commercial.
McGonagill: Right.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
15
Aanenson: Which allowed for larger footprint of buildings. So if you look at like Target or a
grocery store, we didn’t have an opportunity for some additional, adjacent to the core of
downtown so it would kind of extend that so it has permitted uses within that district.
McGonagill: But you all did write a document. I know around that kind of stuff if I recall what
you wanted in the commercial district.
Aanenson: Absolutely. In this community commercial district.
McGonagill: Right. So can the code point to that and said you know reference this, use this, you
know it’s like.
Aanenson: Yes it’s currently in the code right now.
Walters: Yeah if you, sorry if I may jump in. If you check the staff report we actually pulled the
code for community commercial and you’ll notice the first section is intent and I think that gets
to what you’re getting at. Where we looked at the Comprehensive Plan and then within the
zoning code we said this is what this zone is designed to do. To clarify the channel…
McGonagill: Let’s see it’s 20-741.
Walters: The changes here are purely cosmetic and for readability. They don’t change any of
the intent or.
McGonagill: So that’s how you’re rolling in the direction you want to take it.
Aanenson: Correct. Yep. So again the intent of this wasn’t to you know to do a lot of smaller
type businesses but to provide the opportunity for some larger accessory offices or something
like that. Yes.
McGonagill: So based on the code, this is, I know I’m off base here if you’re talking just
formatting.
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: I’m trying to educate myself a little bit. If someone came in with a smaller
footprint, as a real small deal you could deny it because it doesn’t meet this?
Aanenson: Well once this is the total building on any single level could be no more than 65,000
square feet and then you could have one at 15,000 square feet. At a time there was a lot of fast
foods that wanted to come in and that wasn’t what we wanted to see in this district so we tried to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
16
say there had to be a minimum of tenant space of 15,000 or up to 65,000 which would prevent a
larger warehouse type thing.
McGonagill: Alright got it. Okay that answers my question, thank you.
Aller: Additional questions? Alright. I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item.
Having heard the request and the comments so far anybody will come forward and speak either
for or against the item and make a comment? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public
hearing. I think the discussion that was just had shows the need for the clarification and the fact
that the ease of readability and the assistance that it will give an individual looking at the code
and pointing those things out is beneficial so thank you for requesting the modification. With
that any other comments so I’ll entertain a motion.
Undestad: I’ll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code
concerning community commercial district formatting.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Aller: Thank you Commissioner Madsen.
Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of
the Chanhassen City Code concerning community commercial district formatting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aller: Motion carries. Again that will be heard on March 11th. So anyone wishing to follow that
item before the City Council for final action will be March 11th. Moving onto item 4.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW CONTINUING CARE
RETIREMENT FACILITIES IN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Walters: So one of the things staff does is we periodically review the code for internal
consistency and one of the things we noticed in our last round of reviews was that the continuing
care retirement facility performance standards set a maximum bed limit of 6 beds per acre and
specifically mentioned that they were allowed in high density districts so the R-12 and R-16
districts. Districts guided for up to 16 units an acre. However when we cross checked those
districts it’s not listed as a permitted use within any of the high density districts so I did a little
research. Looked at the initial proposal. How it ended up being passed and it looks like what
happened was when the original code went through it was paired with the Beehive development
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
17
that was in a medium residential district and essentially in one of the revisions the R-12 and R-16
was omitted and it was passed just narrowly targeted to that one development instead of with the
bigger all over arching intent of the initial draft. So staff is proposing to bring it in line with the
listed performance standards and add continuing care retirement facilities as permitted uses in
high density residential districts in line with the original intent of the drafted ordinance before it
was you know combined with a specific project, if that makes sense.
Aller: Questions of staff? I think it’s pretty straight forward the way you presented it. You’re to
be commended on the report. Any individual, I’m going to open up the public hearing portion of
this item. Any individual again wishing to speak either for or against this item or make a
comment can come forward and do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the
public hearing portion of this item and open it up for discussion or action.
Undestad: I’ll propose a motion.
Aller: Commissioner Undestad.
Undestad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning continuing
care retirement facilities.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Weick: Second.
Aller: Commissioner Weick. Having a motion and a second any further comment or discussion?
Okay I, I’m glad to see this before us. I think that our city has taken strides in the last couple of
years to make sure that we’ve been taking care of our elderly and making sure that our housing
program fulfills the mission of Chanhassen becoming a life long community so an individual can
literally have their starter home here and then move into a facility like this and be present in
Chanhassen for the remaining days so I think it’s incumbent upon municipalities like the City of
Chanhassen to step up and make sure that these things are taken care of in code and I think that
we’re doing so, so I would at this point in time request a vote.
Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen
City Code concerning continuing care retirement facilities. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aller: Motion carries and again that will be on March 11th so any individual wishing to follow
the item for final action it will be heard on March 11th before the City Council.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
18
Aanenson: Chair I’d just like to add a couple things. I think sometimes we’re moving through
this, just for clarification for everybody so we added this definition. If you remember we had
that kind of that remnant piece along Highway 41 that we were trying to find a use for so we
thought that would be a good use so we added this as a new definition as MacKenzie talked
about. The Beehive because they’re living in a group home. They don’t really have individual
kitchens and everything so there’s a new definition added so we’ve got this one and then shortly
after that we had the one that came down off of Lyman Boulevard. The Olive, so that’s our
second one so this is a little bit different where we, there was new introducing to the city and as a
need and so what we’re seeing now is to codify that with some of the other senior housing that
we looked at that there may be some other uses coming down the road and so it’s just codifying
all that but up until Beehive came in we didn’t accommodate that type of use.
Aller: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO UPDATE SIGN DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS REFERNCE (BUILDING CODE).
Walters: This is another example of checking for internal consistency. We were contacted with
a request to provide the 1997 Uniform Sign Code and we do not have a copy of it and so we
spoke with the building inspectors and the people who actually inspect commercial signage and
they recommended that we adopt Appendix H of the International Building Code. It’s a much
more common document. Much more easily attainable. It’s one that we feel sign contractors
and our inspectors are both more familiar with and so staff is proposing that the section of the
code that requires all commercial signage to meet the 1997 Uniform Sign Code standards be
replaced with requiring them to meet Appendix H of the International Building Code which also
has construction design standards and is on file with the City.
Aller: Great. Any questions of staff?
McGonagill: One question.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: We adopt Appendix H, do you know of any violations of Appendix H that already
are out there that we would have to deal with?
Walters: Not to my knowledge.
McGonagill: Okay thank you.
Aller: Any additional questions? Commissioner Madsen.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
19
Madsen: So is Appendix H similar to what you remember that the 1997 edition was?
Walters: I must confess I have never read the 1997 edition of the Uniform Sign Code. Could not
comment on that. We did look, we did read Appendix H. I did go over it with Eric Tessman
who is the City Building Official. It from our perspective seemed to be comprehensive. Seemed
to discuss wind load. You know proper securing. All the things we’d want to protect the safety
and welfare of our citizens. It is somewhat difficult for me to imagine that there were
meaningful standards that were different between the International Building Code and
construction standards in another sign code manual but again I have not personally read it.
Aanenson: Just to be clear all building permits for signs go through the building department so
they are inspected and reviewed for compliance. This just documents that, what we’re using for
that compliance.
Aller: Which is going to just a follow up question if I might and that is in your discussions were
there any concerns that this subdivision would leave out something that they would want to have
in?
Walters: No. This is what the inspectors asked me to propose.
Aller: Okay. Additional questions, comments? Hearing none open the public hearing portion of
the item. Again having heard the request any individual wishing to come forward and speak
either for or against the item or just give a comment can do so at this time. Seeing no one come
forward we’ll close the public hearing portion of the item. Open it up for discussion, comment
or action. Have you done one yet today?
McGonagill: I’m getting ready to.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: I was getting ready to read it. May I?
Aller: Absolutely. Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Thank you. I’d like to propose a motion that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter
20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning sign design and construction standards.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? No race this time.
Madsen: Second.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
20
Aller: Commissioner Madsen, thank you. Having a motion and a second, any additional
comments, questions or concerns?
McGonagill moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of
the Chanhassen City Code concerning sign design and construction standards. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aller: That motion carries and again that item will be forwarded to City Council on March 11th.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CLARIFYING TRASH STORAGE
ENCLOSURE EXEMPTION.
Walters: So this is another housekeeping internal consistency and making sure the code reads
like we want it to. I was reviewing the trash enclosure section of the code and I noticed that the
way it was structured we have a section that requires all trash containers to be stored within
basically a self contained building and then we have an exemption from that that says single
family properties don’t have to do this. So the goal was this, the enclosure provision was
designed to regulate industrial and commercial properties. We wanted to make sure it didn’t also
regulate single family properties so they exempted them from it. However the first sentence of
that section also is a section that prohibits the exterior incineration of trash so by exempting
single family residences from the enclosure provision it also exempted them from the provision
preventing them from exterior incineration of trash. Now I don’t believe anyone but myself and
now yourselves noticed this so no one has yet made the case that they’re allowed to burn in an
enclosed trash container in their yard but we thought it would be wise to separate this out and fix
the problem before it occurred. So staff is proposing to break that into 3 subsections. One
subsection prohibiting the exterior incineration of trash. The other exempting single family
residences from the enclosure provision. Does that make sense?
Aller: Yeah.
Walters: Yeah, okay.
Aller: Questions?
McGonagill: Another educational question.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: What is the code on burning leaves? I wanted to ask that because I really don’t
know.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
21
Walters: I would, I wish the Fire Marshal was here. I’d defer to that but I believe you are not
supposed to burn yard waste. Nope.
McGonagill: Okay.
Aanenson: You can get a burning permit but it’s highly regulated so you’re not supposed to
burn.
Aller: I was going to say when in doubt call the fire department and ask to speak with them and
see what you need to do to get a permit.
McGonagill: Thank you very much.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Now if you happen to be in an association that requires that it be inside a garage or
have some sort of covering in front of it, would that pre-empt this?
Walters: Yes. So as always association rules can be more stringent than the City but not less
stringent. So the City also just for full discussion we have another provision in our general code
that says trash containers must be kept out of public view except on day of pick up. And so
obviously if your association also had an additional provision defining what out of public view
meant like in garage, behind wall, whatever it may be that would not be affected by this change.
All this would do is guarantee no one can ever make the argument it’s okay I lit my trash
container on fire because of X.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Walters: Yeah.
Aller: Additional questions, comments? Hearing none I’ll open up the public hearing portion of
the item. Again it’s the last opportunity of the evening. Any individual wishing to come
forward speak for or against the item. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the item. We’ll
bring it up for discussion, comment or action. Anyone?
Madsen: No.
Undestad: Then I’ll make the motion.
Aller: Commissioner Undestad.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
22
Undestad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning trash
enclosures.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
McGonagill: Second.
Weick: Second.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill got it.
Weick: You got it.
McGonagill: I sure did.
Aller: Thank you. Having a valid motion and a second, any further discussion or comment?
Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code concerning trash enclosures. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aller: Motion passes. That concludes our public hearings for today’s meeting and we’ll open up
request for approval of the Minutes.
McGonagill: A lot of good work MacKenzie by the way on going through all this stuff.
Walters: Thank you. I have a whole other 40.
McGonagill: Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 15, 2019 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. So on January 28th the
City Council took under advisement during the work session the Galpin site. They also
discussed it again on February 11th and you will be seeing it on your March 5th meeting. It’s not
a public hearing because you held a public hearing on it. There were specific directions given to
you and I’ll be working with the City Attorney’s office on that formatting how that meeting is
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
23
going to go. Wanted to see you know what the reception is for the redesign and the other is
reception or thoughts about preservation of the open space so I’ll be structuring that.
McGonagill: So you said we will get instructions on how that will go.
Aanenson: Absolutely, yep. We’re working on the staff report now, yep.
McGonagill: So it will come in…
Aanenson: What you’re doing is, it’s remanded back to give some additional information back
to the City Council.
McGonagill: Okay.
Aanenson: Not formalizing correct.
McGonagill: So very, very specific.
Aanenson: Correct because to have the public hearing would be different notification and then
in addition to that would be all the engineering plans that you approved so those would just be
revised as it moves forward to City Council. The City Council will be making a
recommendation also at their March 11th meeting so it’s going to be a quick turn around from
that with all their engineering so there’ll be specific instructions regarding that and it is being
noticed, a flyer attached in the Villager and there’s information out on the City’s website too for
anybody that wants to come comment on the project. So that was one of the issues to make sure
we had additional.
Weick: But they can’t comment though right?
Aanenson: Pardon me?
Weick: There was no public hearing I thought.
Aanenson: Well it’s public comment.
Aller: It’s not technically a public hearing.
Aanenson: What they want is input but it’s not a public hearing. The legal form when you do
notice to everybody within 500 feet.
Aller: So there won’t be Findings in there and there don’t have to be notices.
Weick: So you will open it for public comment?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
24
Aanenson: That’s the whole purpose correct.
McGonagill: So will we or will we not be voting on it? I just want to be sure.
Aanenson: Well that’s what I’m trying to formalize yet. How that works.
McGonagill: Okay.
Aller: We left them with a 3-3 the last time.
McGonagill: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yep so or summarizing what the majority of the comments were and that sort of
thing so that’s what we’re working on yeah so.
McGonagill: Okay.
Aller: So they want.
Aanenson: More to come.
Aller: They want more. They said go back to work.
Aanenson: So right now at the, that’s the only item on for that meeting. We were going to try to
put some additional code amendments. As you know with the Comprehensive Plan there’s some
other code amendments that will be coming too. Mostly regarding stormwater management. A
big chunk of them but so right now we’ll just put that item on because I don’t know how many
people are going to be here and that want to be heard on that so we’re just kind of leaving that
open just for that item as long as we had nothing external. It would just be internal things that
we’d be bringing forward to have more flexibility. So with that also at that, the 11th meeting you
know there’s discussion of the Applebee’s site so there was a desire for redevelopment on the
site. The council encouraged the developer to find a different type of business for that site so
they’re ongoing with that one too. Again there’s been a lot of work trying to find restaurants and
they’ve struggled to try to find a restaurant to go in there and it is permitted for some other type
of commercial uses would be permitted in there too so we’ll see what happens with that. So
that’s all I had for council updates.
YEAR END REVIEW/2019 WORK PROJECTS ANNUAL REPORT.
Aller: Great. So then we would move onto our year end review.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
25
Aanenson: Yes. So for everybody’s edification, not just the Planning Commission but we at the
end of every year do an annual report and this is also the City Council. This is in the By-laws of,
and the duties and powers of the Planning Commission to get an annual report. So this is this
year’s annual report and the first thing we’ll talk about is a population projection. As of April 1st
will be 26,355 so we are continuing to grow. Having problems with our power point here. I’m
just going to kind of go through the, maybe MacKenzie can just kind of scroll along. Go through
kind of what the 2018 year in review and kind of what we see anticipating or what we anticipate
for 2019. So for 2018 the conditional use permits, 3 of those. Four planned unit developments,
PUD’s. One rezoning. Three site plan reviews. Again site plan review is either an office,
commercial or industrial. Four subdivisions so those can be a one lot subdivision, two lot and
then 9 variances so that added up to 20 cases. And also in 2018 we had a record number of 373
dwelling units which is typically about double what we usually do and again those were driven
by two, the senior housing project down it’s now called Riley Crossings Senior Housing which
formerly was called the Mission Hills down at 101 and Lyman. If you’ve driven by and seen
that. And also the Venue downtown. So we see about a 2 percent increase in the housing stock.
Again we’re predominantly and will always be predominantly single family residential as our
largest portion of the housing stock. We also permitted, the average is 132 single family and 69
attached so attached can be a townhouse or a tri-plex or the like. So again there’s a slight
deficiency of approved lots available for development with lot inventory of 103 platted lots. We
keep that report in there too. That’s one of the things Bob’s done a great job of tracking all that
so we track all the permits that come through so we’re always looking at our land inventory.
That affects prices and fluctuation and when developers want to increase their stock so the one
that we went through pretty quickly because there was some pent up demand for that price point
was the townhouses down at 101 and Lyman, just north of the Kwik Trip there. Those went
through pretty quickly and then scattered 61 single family lots. So you can see there the projects
that went through. The Arbors 2nd Addition and then Red Cedar Point, just a two lot subdivision.
The Arbors a 3 lot so those were some of the smaller ones. The ones on 101 and Lyman, kind of
the cottage type homes those are still working their way through the permitting. Again market
based. So what we do anticipate in 2019, some of the big projects coming through is Avienda.
They were going to go to the Planning Commission, go to that one slide right here. So that’s the
lot information right there. That’s hard for you to read but we keep that internally and we keep
track of how many vacant lots are per subdivision. We get that request from developers when
they’re out doing some of their market studies so we know on the top half of that is actually the
single family and the bottom half is the multi-family so it kind of, when a subdivision comes in
not always get final platted as you know. They bring in so many lots. Put the infrastructure in
and then they’ll do phases on those so that helps us kind of keep track of that. That also
happened on the townhouse projects so this is typical in multi-family too. Typically it’s not on
an apartment. They pull a permit and that’s what kind of skews your numbers so an apartment
like senior, the senior hill, the senior housing and the Venue downtown, those permits for you
know 130 approximately in each of those units get pulled all at once. Typically that doesn’t
happen in other types of multi-family or single family so those are the things that we keep track
of on an annual basis and helps us understand what’s happening in the marketplace. What’s
moving. So going back to what we see happening next year, you approved as did the City
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
26
Council the Avienda project and that project, the lifestyle center has made some changes to it.
They got their grading permit at the end of last year. They came in for final plat and now they’re
going to make some changes to that. They are working in getting their grading permit tied to the
preliminary plat. That’s not uncommon that we do that. They would still provide security for
that project. They still have to dedicate the 23 acres of the wooded knoll. They had that all
staked and there’s some other requirements that were tied to the wetland permit. Wetland
banking. Also some additional money for acquisition on Lyman Boulevard so those things will
happen before they get the grading permit. I’m working on that with Project Engineer Erick
Henricksen on that and they’re hoping to start grading on that sometime in April. Meanwhile
they’re going to make some changes to the project itself. Some of the internal things. You know
there’s a hotel. Some senior housing also in that project. Some smaller lot housing in there.
Some office and as I mentioned retail so some of those are going to move around a little bit so,
because they’re amending that PUD that does require a public hearing back before the Planning
Commission so you’ll see that. But before it comes back to you it will start at the top at the City
Council. They’ll present to the City Council what they’re thinking about those plans before you
see that but we do anticipate that sometime this spring again. Kind of all the same time they’ll
be coming forward with the grading permit so that will probably be a pretty large discussion on
that meeting too kind of going through all the idiosyncrasies so when we do a big PUD like that,
that also has design standards so we put together the architectural package which I think they
might be making some tweaks. As you recall that had a unique attributes to their sign package
so that’s a pretty large development so we’ll be going through all that again with you so have an
opportunity for input on that.
Aller: So this will be a reverse concept process. It’s going to go by City Council first for
comment and then come back to us.
Aanenson: Correct yep, yep. Yep, yep so they’ll get a chance to see it. I think they were
anticipating that they might be on this coming up council meeting but I think they wanted to
refine a few things before they come back before the council. I know we’ve got a lot of requests
from neighbors that think that that project went away. It’s not. I think some of the changes are
really for the better. Making not only architecturally but some of the uses and the location of
some of those uses so anticipating bringing that forward to you. Again looking at our growth
rate, about a 2 percent growth rate. We talked about the city code with the changes with the
Comprehensive Plan. We did get some feedback on the Comprehensive Plan. It seems like
every city got some minor tweaks that we’ve had a little angst over. We have a nuance wording
that we’re working through right now on getting those changes. Some of it also involves some
watershed district comments so we’ve got our consulting engineers working on that so we’re
anticipating that going back up to the Met Council for a final review and then once we get that in
place then the clock’s ticking for us to do some more code amendments so you’ll be seeing that.
Although the watershed or the wetland actually goes first because we have a shorter window
when those changes need to be made. So I think we’ll spend some time with you on that.
Education. We talked about that before we spent a lot of time last year on that. The four
different watersheds. How we make our rules align so our residents aren’t bumped around
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
27
between all the different rules and we’re taking back the permitting on that so there will be a
little bit more education on that moving forward so we’ll spend some time on that.
Comprehensive Plan we talked about that. What else am I looking up there? Joint commission
tours. So we’ll plan that again. And then also we have our typically our meeting in April is a
work meeting because we have our new commissioners that would be involved in that so we’re
looking through, kind of thinking of some ideas that we might want to spend some time doing a
deep dive on some educational things and if you have suggestions we’d love to hear about that
too. So and then also for our tour but those are really the big things we’ve got going. I don’t
know what I missed on the slides there that Bob had put together but again it’s in a formalized
report. We’ll make sure this gets out online. It tells you kind of where we are in the permits.
We also have good numbers in here. What’s our valuation. Our housing valuations compared to
other cities and that sort of thing. What our building permit valuation is and that’s total number
of inspections. We have a lot more detail on there too so that will be out on the website too so
again we just want to share that with you. Be happy to answer any questions that you might have
about it.
Aller: Any questions or comments at this point? Other than you know thank you again for
providing us with a really deep dive report on the status of planning in Chanhassen. Keeping up
with it is a bear just on a bi-weekly basis for us but you keep track of everything so we
appreciate it and the fact that it will be put on the website. It gives the public an opportunity to
deep dive on their own and take a look at ask questions and be prepared to come in and give their
ideas on where they want Chanhassen to head in their planning. So thank you. And is that it for
our agenda? Any correspondence? None. Okay so I’ll entertain a request for adjournment
immediately following the meeting or after a short break I believe there’ll be a work session for
interviewing commission applicants so we look forward to doing that.
Aanenson: Yep.
Aller: And what that I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Subject City Council Action Update
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: G.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Action Update
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2019
Approval of a Two-Lot Subdivision with a Variance for Approved
Reducing Lot Frontage at 3800 Red Cedar Point Road
The minutes for these meetings can be viewed from the City’s website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links.
g:\plan\forms\city council action update.doc