Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC Staff Report 8-13-18
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday,August 13,2018 Subject Galpin Property:Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review Section NEW BUSINESS Item No:G.1. Prepared By Kate Aanenson,AICP,Community Development Director File No:PC 2018-12 SUMMARY The developer is requesting conceptual review to consider rezoning from Agricultural Estate to Planned Unit Development PUD)Residential.Specifically,the developer is seeking guidance if this is the zoning application for the development of this property. BACKGROUND The request for PUD provides for the opportunity for the developer to request a concept review.Notice of the meeting was sent to surrounding properties.It should be noted that the properties in the Royal Oaks Subdivision were inadvertently omitted from the mailing however,there were residents from the neighborhood in attendance.The concept review was held by the Planning Commission on July 17,2018.The minutes from that meeting are included in the August 13,2018 City Council packet. DISCUSSION Those that spoke at the Planning Commission meeting were concerned about the environmental impacts,the changes to the character of the area,the number of lots and their sizes,and traffic.Two Planning Commissioners shared their comments which included the impact to natural resources,lot sizes,and amount of grading. RECOMMENDATION The City Council provides observations and feedback on the Concept Planned Unit Development Plan,including the staff comments and the comments from the July 17,2018 Planning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report PC Staff Report Attachments Letter from Brian Donna Strauss dated July 29,2018 Emails Affidavit of Mailing Notice of City Council Meeting CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: July 17, 2018 CC DATE: August 13, 2018 REVIEW DEADLINE: August 15 CASE # 2018-12 BY: KA PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a general concept plan review for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The site is currently zoned Rural Residential. LOCATION: 7141 Galpin Boulevard APPLICANT: U.S. Home Corporation, d/b/a Lennar PRESENT ZONING: RR Rural Residential 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1.2 – 4 units an acre ACREAGE: Approximately 188 acres gross DENSITY: 2.26 units an acre net 88 acres net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting conceptual review to consider rezoning from Agricultural Estate PUD Residential. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The Planning Commission is providing the City Council with comments and direction on the Concept Planned Unit Development. Notice was sent to adjacent properties within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan review for a Planned Unit Development PUD). The site is currently zoned Rural Residential. BACKGROUND 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. (from the developer’s narrative) PROPOSED ACTION: The Planning Commission provides observations and feedback to the City Council on the Concept Planned Unit Development. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 2 of 13 Map of property Parcel and Site Information Parcel ID Taxpayer GIS Acreage Land Use Current Zoning 256900030 PRN 8.95 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 256900020 PRN 149.0 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 250100100 Paisley Park Enterprises Inc. 3.23 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 256900010 PRN 20.78 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 250100200 PRN 6.62 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential Total 188.58 Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 3 of 13 The surrounding land uses are included in the following table: Subdivision Zoning Land Use Notes South Royal Oaks RSF Low Density 13 acres-33 lots West Woods at Long Acres PUD Low Density 97 acres-115 lots Wynsong - shoreland district PUD Low Density 9.4 acres 4 units North Ashling Meadows RSF Low Density 40 acres-51 units Lake Lucy Ridge RSF Low Density 9 acres-17 units East Lake Ann Recreational not applicable not applicable Undeveloped Adjacent LAND South Gorra Property Zoning Land Use Notes Rural Residential Low Density 38 (25 net) acres- 50 units Rural Residential Low/Medium 34 acres – 204 units Rural Residential Medium Density 46 acres - 276 units Rural Residential High Density 28 acres -336 units The main access point to the development will be of off Galpin Boulevard. The plan proposes connections from the Ashling Meadows subdivision streets of Topaz Drive, Ruby Lane and Lucy Ridge Lane. An existing home that is on 2.62 acres at 7011 Galpin Boulevard is not included in the subdivision. ZONING DISTRICT Low-density zoning options 1.2-4 Units an acre Residential Single Family (RSF) requires 15,000 square foot lots. This zoning district would cause the most the environmental impact to the site. In order to achieve the desire for a larger preservation area next to the lakes, the most appropriate zoning would be either a planned unit development (PUD) or residential-low and medium density (RLM). Both of these districts require preservation of environmental features. It will be the city’s goals to ensure that the request for either zoning meets the intent. ARTICLE VIII. – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DIVISION 1. – GENERALLY Sec. 20-501. – Intent. Planned Unit Developments (PUD) offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the city’s expectation is to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 4 of 13 The applicant is pursuing the PUD Zoning. In their narrative, they have stated, “The use of the PUD zoning also allows for greater specificity in the types, location and sizes of uses. The city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would be the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectations are to be realized as evaluated by the city’s goals.” Concept PUD – What is required? Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article VIII. – Planned Unit Development District, Division 2. – Procedures Sec. 20-517. - General concept plan. a) In order to receive guidance in the design of a PUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended for large PUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following information appropriate to the type of development, e.g., commercial, industrial or residential: 1) Approximate building areas, pedestrian ways and road locations; 2) Height, bulk and square footage of buildings; 3) Type, number or square footage or intensities of specific land uses; 4) Number of dwelling units; 5) Generalized development plan showing areas to be developed or preserved; and 6) Staging and timing of the development. b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: 1) The developer meets with city staff to discuss the proposed developments. 2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. 3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing. Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten days prior thereto to owners of land within 500 feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. 4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider and comment on the concept plan. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 5 of 13 The PUD process provides an opportunity to receive observation and feedback from other jurisdictions, Planning Commission, City Council and residents of Chanhassen. Summary of Request The applicant proposal is requesting the Low Density Residential PUD Zoning. Site Analysis Gross area 188 acres Wetland Area 49 acres Galpin Boulevard ROW Area 1 acre Dedicated Public Park Area 50 area ( upland) Net acres 88 Manage 1 Wetland Standards Buffer 30 feet Building Setback for Buffer 25 feet Accessory Building setback from the Buffer 15 feet Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 6 of 13 Proposed Lot standards: North lots - Shoreline Overlay non-riparian lots 45 Width 90 feet Area 15,000 sq. feet OHW 75 foot setback Bluff 30 foot setback Local street ROW setback 30 feet Impervious Surface 25 % lots with in the Shoreland District Central Lots 102 Width 65 feet Area 8,450 sq. feet Front setback 25 feet Rear setback 25 feet Side setback 5 feet and 10 feet Lot Coverage 35 % South Lots 52 Width 55 feet Area 6,000 sq. feet Front setback 25 feet Rear setback 25 feet Side setback 5 feet and 10 feet Lot Coverage 35 % The developer has submitted a plan that uses the RSF Zoning District. While the plan is not consistent with the Park Comprehensive Plan, the Developer has shown what they could achieve applying the RSF (15,000 square foot minimum) zoning district. The total lots under this proposal is 20. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 7 of 13 Planning Departments Comments Provide a variety of housing types. Attached are Lennar’s Home Plans. Engineering Comments These comments are intended to identify major considerations for PUD plan approval based upon a review by the Engineering department in response to a development plan submitted by Lennar and received June 15, 2018. Engineering supports the “density transfer” plan. Tie the development design into the reconstruction project along Galpin Blvd. The city is considering significantly changing the profile of roadway between Hunter Dr. and Longacres Dr. The city would add an underpass in this area and adjust the existing profile by filling between the higher areas near the intersections. Evaluate safe intersection design requirements and sight distances along Galpin Blvd. Detail trail connections through the development to Galpin Blvd and the existing park system. Consider an access for city vehicles to the well house site along Galpin Blvd. Propose and coordinate property swap near the well site to facility proposed layout. Consider access along the MCES interceptor and their permanent easement to facilitate maintenance of the sanitary pipeline. Show the permanent easement on the site plan. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 8 of 13 Evaluate and maintain bluff stability along the northeast side of the site adjacent to Lake Lucy. Communicate plan for bluff areas along north grouping of homes (90 lot area). Develop and communicate a detailed storm water plan. Identify sanitary and water planning meeting the city’s comprehensive plans. Identify wetland areas intended to be mitigated. Communicate plan to address mitigation requirements. Detail right-of-way and street widths. Document proposed street grades. Detail areas intended for use of retaining wall systems and proposed wall heights. Include information regarding intended block systems. Show building pad setbacks. Document mass grading intentions and site balancing. Identify grading coordination with the neighboring properties. Identify soil stockpile areas left after mass grading. Show streams and water flow conveyances along with their protection. Evaluate coordination with the proposed street connections to Topaz Dr. Identify naturally occurring features intended to be preserved. Provide traffic impact study in conjunction with the developer’s proposal. There is outstanding Assessments for the Lake Ann Interceptor Water Resources Comments Water resources is strongly supportive of density transfer to preserve connected wetland and woodland areas. An open space preservation narrative should also discuss wetland and water resource protection. The importance of these spaces to the community goes beyond regulatory and stormwater requirements. HOA (Master Association) required to maintain open spaces including permanent stormwater best management practices, and buffers. Must include an open space preservation plan and permanent funding mechanism to ensure maintenance and preservation of open spaces. Drain tile must be installed back of curb and all sumps connected per Chanhassen Standards and Specifications. Developer is responsible for completing MnRAM assessments for all wetlands on the property. MnRAMs must be approved by Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD). Approved MnRAMs are required to determine wetland buffer requirements, impacts, and assessments. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 9 of 13 Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) process must be completed for all proposed impacts. A Notice of Decision for Boundary and Type is the only Decision that has been issued at this time. All WCA conditions of approval must be completed prior to issuing a grading permit. All buffers and setbacks must be shown on plans. Buffer averaging must be shown on all plans. All lots must meet minimum buffer and setback requirements. All water resources, and water resource impacts must be shown on plans including creeks, streams, riverines, and natural drainage ways. Not all water resources are identified on the Wetland Delineation. The creek at the northwest corner connecting Wetland 2 to Wetland 1 must be preserved as an open channel. No filling or piping is permitted. Crossings of natural channels must be in the form of bridges to allow for passage of wildlife and native vegetation preservation. Shoreline and streambank restorations shall be incorporated into the plan whenever possible. Wetlands, buffers, water resources, and stormwater BMPs must be placed in outlots Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 10 of 13 All pervious surfaces must utilize native vegetative cover, deep rooted low mow/no mow/turf alternatives, or approved landscape plantings. Landscape plantings include woody vegetation, annual and perennial forbs, ornamental grasses, fruit/vegetable gardens, and mulch. Irrigation systems are discouraged unless they prioritize stormwater re-use. Identify how green design practices will be prioritized to reduce environmental impact. Tree preservation and native habitat preservation credits should be discussed further with the city and RPBCWD. Identify all wildlife corridors, and opportunities to incorporate wildlife corridors into plans. No structure may be constructed or reconstructed such that its lowest floor elevation is less than 3 feet above the 100 year flood elevation or emergency overflow of any water resource. Note this standard varies slightly from the RPBCWD standard. Every effort should be made to locate any wet detention basins in low visibility locations. Residents do not find these hard working, pollutant removal devices appealing. They are critical to environmental health, function and public safety, however, these are not “water features.” Consider aeration in wet detention basins to increase evaporation and reduce algal growth. A master grading plan will be reviewed and approved for the development. Each lot should also be reviewed by builder and staff to identify missed opportunities to improve grading, drainage, erosion and sediment control, including impacts to adjacent lots. Provide pet waste facilities throughout the development that include biodegradable bags, disposal containers, educational signage. Facilities must not be directly adjacent to water resources. Facilities will be owned and maintained by HOA. Identify all public and private stormwater infrastructure, water resources, and drainage pathways on adjacent properties. The proposed maximum lot coverage of 25% (shoreland overlay district), and 35% (all other lots) is acceptable, however, the developer should limit this to 20% and 30% respectively during the initial development of each lot. This will allow residents 5% lot coverage to utilize for future patios, pathways, sheds, fireplaces, etc. This is a significant issue in the city. Identify opportunities to incorporate pervious surfaces into lot coverage during development. Applicant must provide the annual runoff volumes to each wetland for the pre- and post- project conditions. The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District RPBCWD) permits. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). Project must meet all stormwater requirements of the city and RPBCWD. Project will require stormwater management fees associated with city development review and permitting process. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 11 of 13 The city is in agreement with the RPBCWD comments identified in the Memorandum dated June 29, 2018 titled ‘Proposed Single Family Residential Development Galpin Boulevard Planning Case 2018-12.’ Any deviation from those comments are noted in this document. Landscaping Comments/ Tree Preservation Existing conditions on site include maple/basswood (Big Woods) forest in the eastern and northern sections of the property, a lowland floodplain forest in the center area, a mesic oak forest in the central western half and mixed hardwood forest in the southwestern corner of the site. The wooded areas cover a significant portion of the site. Aggressive understory species, such as buckthorn, are present in the western half of the site and are starting to move into the eastern half. There are significant, mature trees in all wooded areas with some of the largest trees being white and red oaks and some maples. Tree Preservation comments: Applicant will be required to provide a tree inventory for all wooded areas within/near construction limits. Areas of preservation will not need to be inventoried. In either Scenario, the applicant will need to meet canopy coverage requirements for the development. Preservation within the construction limits (small areas of tree groupings) should be pursued in order to meet requirements. However, oak and maples are sensitive to grade changes and if there is significant grading on site, then Scenario 2 would be highly preferable for tree preservation. In either Scenario tree preservation along the north and south property lines adjacent to residential areas will be recommended. The maple basswood in the eastern half of the site is of a better quality than the wooded areas on the west side of the property due to a lesser impact by invasive species. Protecting this forested area should be a priority and staff strongly recommends Scenario Two for tree preservation for future generations. Linking wooded areas from Lake Ann and Greenwood Shores parks to the western side of the lake will be highly beneficial for forest health, wildlife protection and habitat. Landscaping Comments: Tree Preservation/Canopy Coverage requirements may incur reforestation requirements for the developer, depending on preservation. When re-planting, the applicant shall use a diverse mix of species Bufferyard requirements will need to be met for the north, south, west and internal areas, depending on density differences. Foundation plantings will be required for the Villa homes. In common areas/HOA lots: Preferable to have minimum mowed turf areas. Use prairie or no mow mixes in low use areas Employ capture-and-use irrigation systems Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 12 of 13 Park Comments At their June 26th meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council acknowledged 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+/- 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 design of a preliminary plat for the proposed development. Arguably, the now pending subdivision and development of this parcel of land has been one of the most highly anticipated opportunities to create a quality housing community while simultaneously preserving a large tract of public open space that guarantees the character and integrity of Lake Ann Park will be preserved. More than a half dozen potential developers met with city staff prior to considering how they would propose to develop this property and how much they would offer the sellers as a purchase price. Lennar stated in that initial meeting that it was their desire to bring forward a plan that was both viable and met the goals and requirements of the city's guiding plans and ordinances. Now that Lennar has secured an option to purchase the property, they have delivered two concepts for developing the parcel to the city. It is staff's position that Concept Plan 07 succinctly captures the dual goals of creating a quality housing community while simultaneously preserving a large tract of public open space. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 13 of 13 Park and Recreation System Initiatives – from the System Plan: While the objectives and policies offer broad guidelines for park and recreation system development, the following initiatives have been identified by city staff, the Park and Recreation Commission, and citizens as key to completing the system and improving existing facilities to meet needs today and over the next 25 years. Numbered initiatives correspond to efforts depicted in Figure 6-8. Parks and Recreation Facilities: P-1. Expand Lake Ann Park to create a premier community park. Expansion of the park would incorporate natural woodlands west of Lake Ann and would preserve views across the lake, protect wildlife habitat, and preserve the community’s natural heritage. The expansion would also allow for a loop trail around Lake Ann and a connection to Lake Lucy. P-2. Create a new ball field complex to meet demands created by increasing population. P-3. Create neighborhood parks in the general locations identified on Figure 6-8 along with development. Fire Department Cul-de-sacs to deviate from minimum sizes for fire apparatus roads in fire code (96 feet). Fire hydrants put into area per code. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission provides observations and feedback on the Concept Planned Unit Development along with the following comments: 1. With the Preliminary PUD, the developer shall address the comments in the staff report from a. City Engineering b. Water Resources Coordinator c. Environmental Resources Specialist d. Parks and Recreation e. Building f. Planning g. Watershed District g:\plan\2018 planning cases\18-12 galpin development - lennar\concept staff report.doc 1 Galpin Property City of Chanhassen 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 application we are submitting two conceptual scenarios. The first scenario is a ‘lot yield’ plan that has 202 homes and demonstrates how the property could be developed following the existing RSF zoning standards with one standard lot width and home style for the entire property. The second scenario is a ‘density transfer’ plan that has 199 homes with varying lot sizes demonstrating how the property could 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. Lot yield Plan – 1.46 DU/Acre (202/138) Concept Plan – 2.26 DU/Acre (199/88) Zoning Classification The site is currently zoned as Rural Residential with underlying zoning of RSF; low density residential 1.2-4 units per acre. The lot yield plan follows RSF standards and has a density of 1.46. The density transfer plan requires a zoning 2 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 2.26 units per acre the density transfer plan also fits within the RSF density classification. 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 neighborhood to the North (Ashling Meadows) provides two existing 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. Both Ashling Meadows and Long Acres were built by Lennar under the Lundgren Bros Construction name. On the North end, both plans mirror the lot dimensions of the existing neighborhood. Topographical challenges naturally make the North portion of the site more conducive to a wider home style that may not require as much depth for building pads. On the South end of the property the ‘lot yield’ plan shows nine homes backing to the existing neighborhood to the South. The density transfer concept mitigates the visual impacts of smaller lots to the existing neighborhood by incorporating the use of cul-de-sacs and by limiting the home-style in that location to a single story Villa. In this scenario eleven homes will be visible to the existing neighborhood but will be orientated in a manner that attempts to minimize the number that back directly to the existing homes. 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. As part of this application we have provided two conceptual plans. The first scenario is a lot yield’ plan that follows the City’s land use designation for the property and conforms to the minimum lot sizes and setbacks allowed within the RSF and Shoreland Overlay district. Park dedication would follow the Cities requirements as described in City Code. The second scenario is the ‘density transfer’ plan that 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. The overall lot count in both scenarios is roughly 200 homes. The difference between the two lies in the concentration of acreage used. In scenario one approximately 138 acres 3 are being developed to reach 200 homes. By mixing lot sizes scenario two strategically places the same 200 homes on 88 acres of land giving the opportunity to preserve significantly more open space for use by the residents of Chanhassen. 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 an architecturally interesting variety of homes, and price points, that meet multiple buyer niches in Galpin Property . 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’ 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. Traditional Series - The Traditional series is designed for the 90’ wide homesites with the move up buyer in mind. A variety of house plans will be offered ranging from 2,600 sq ft to 3,700 sq ft. plus the ability to finish the basement to add additional footage to the home. These well thought out plans typically include four bedrooms, a large open living space on the main level, master suite, craft room, three car garage, and allow for luxury upgrades such as an indoor sport court. No deviation from RSF standards is requested in the large lot area. An interesting streetscape will be maintained through the incorporation of a variety of elevations, materials, and color packages. Luxury Villa – The Luxury Villa is designed for the 55’ wide homesites along the Southern Boarder. The Luxury 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, gourmet kitchen, 4 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. It is important to note that the lot yield plan would be made up of all Traditional Series homes. Based on our absorption forecasts and financial modeling it is a possible that we would need to sell off portions of the lots to other builders. Environmental Impacts Wetlands - A wetland delineation was completed on the site in September 2017. Wetland impacts have been minimized by careful planning and the preservation of open space. The ‘lot yield’ plan will 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. The ‘lot yield’ concept that follows the existing zoning guidelines will have a much greater impact on the large stands of trees located in the upland areas fronting Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. 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). Homeowners Association(s) A Master Homeowners Association will be established to maintain private common areas and community monuments. In the density transfer concept 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 detached 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. 5 Project Team Developer: U.S. Home Corporation, D/B/A Lennar Builder: Lennar Corporation Primary Contact: Joe Jablonski Planner/Engineer/Surveyor: Pioneer Engineering Wetland Specialist: TBD Landscape Architect: Pioneer Engineering Legal Council: Vantage Law Group Association Manager: TBD Project summary (US Home/Lennar) Galpin Property – 188 Gross Acres Scenario # 1 Total Homesites – 202 Approximate Developed Area – 138 acres Open Space – 50 acres Traditonal homesites – 202 Average Lot – 90’ wide Scenario # 2 Total Homesites – 199 Approximate Developed Area = 88 Acres Open Space = 100 Acres Traditional homesites – 45 Average Lot – 90’ wide Landmark Homesites – 102 Average Lot – 65’ wide Villa Homesites – 52 Average Lot – 55’ wide c 1OFGALPINBOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 6-1-18 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 LANDSCAPEARCHITECTSLANDSURVEYORSLANDPLANNERSCIVILENGINEERS xx 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 1CONCEPTPLAN07 LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUENORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 55' LOTS 65' LOTS 90' LOTS c 1OFGALPINBOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 6-1-18 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 LANDSCAPEARCHITECTSLANDSURVEYORSLANDPLANNERSCIVILENGINEERS xx 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 1CONCEPTPLAN07 LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUENORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 55' LOTS 65' LOTS 90' LOTS c 1OFGALPINBOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1-5-18 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 LANDSCAPEARCHITECTSLANDSURVEYORSLANDPLANNERSCIVILENGINEERS xx 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 1CONCEPTPLAN04 LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUENORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 c 1OFGALPINBOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1-5-18 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 LANDSCAPEARCHITECTSLANDSURVEYORSLANDPLANNERSCIVILENGINEERS xx 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 1CONCEPTPLAN04 LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUENORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 From:Aanenson, Kate To:Potter, Jenny Subject:FW: Chanhassen Planned Unit Development Concept Review Request Date:Wednesday, July 11, 2018 2:22:21 PM Attachments:image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png From: Carlson, Ben (BWSR) <ben.carlson@state.mn.us> Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 1:03 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim <kmeuwissen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Potter, Jenny <JPotter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: RE: Chanhassen Planned Unit Development Concept Review Request In regards to the Galpin Development – PUD Concept review, I strongly support the “Density Transfer” plan as this would result in less wetland impact and would also preserve a high quality maple-basswood forest. I do not support the “lot yield” plan for the reason previously listed. Ben Carlson Wetland Specialist Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources From: Meuwissen, Kim [mailto:kmeuwissen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 10:28 AM To: Carlson, Ben (BWSR) <ben.carlson@state.mn.us> Cc: Potter, Jenny <JPotter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Chanhassen Planned Unit Development Concept Review Request Mr. Carlson, Please review and respond to the attached Agency Review Request no later than Thursday, July 5, 2018. Documents related to this request can be found at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-12. Thank you. Kim Meuwissen Office Manager CITY OF CHANHASSEN PH. 952.227.1107 FX. 952.227.1110 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us protect. manage. restore. 18681 Lake Drive EastChanhassen, MN 55317952-607-6512www.rpbcwd.org Memorandum To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director From: Terry Jeffery, CWD Subject: Proposed Single-Family Residential Development Galpin Boulevard Planning Case 2018-12 Date: June 29, 2018 c: Claire Bleser; Administrator Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District This proposed redevelopment will need a Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) permit prior to beginning construction activities. This includes clearing and grubbing and any grading activities. We appreciate the opportunity to provide preliminary comments on the project. The RPBCWD has not received a permit application for this project but offers the following summary of preliminary RPBCWD review comments for the proposed Galpin Boulevard Development in Chanhassen, MN. Additional comments will likely arise once an official application is submitted for RPBCWD review. We are currently scheduled to meet the developer to discuss the project the week of July 1st. The RPBCWD permit application, rules and rule guidance are available for download on the RPBCWD website: http://www.rpbcwd.org/permits/. The following comments are based on the rules that would likely apply to this project and highlight the areas where revisions or additional information would be needed to meet the RPBCWD rules. These review comments do not constitute approval, a variance, or exemption from the rules. Therefore, this project will require permit approvals from the RPBCWD Board of Managers. These comments should be considered in the context that Lake 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. 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 of woodland and wetland areas, especially those more proximal to Lake Ann through better site design practices such as density transfer are strongly supported. Rule B: Floodplain Management and Drainage Alterations Rule B: Floodplain Management and Drainage Alterations applies if a project alters or fills land below the 100-year flood elevation of a waterbody in the watershed. Based on the submitted plans, it is unclear if the project will fill below the 100-year flood elevation of one or more of the wetland on the site. In this case Rule B would apply, and the comments below should be reflected in the plans. Compensatory storage at the same elevation (+/- 1 foot) and within the floodplain of the same waterbody must be provided for any fill below the 100-year flood elevation. 2 Rule C: Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and Sediment Control Permit (Rule C) is required from the RPBCWD because more than 50 cubic yards of earth will be placed, altered, or removed and more than 5,000 square feet of land-surface area will be altered (Rule C, Section 2.1). Please see Rule C, Section 3 for the applicable criteria and notes that must be included with the erosion control aspects of the proposed project. Given the high level, generalized nature of the provided plans the necessary erosion control notes or needed erosion prevention and sediment control features are not shown. The needed erosion control notes for inclusion on the plan sheets are available for download under supporting documents on the RPBCWD website: http://www.rpbcwd.org/permits/. Rule D: Wetland and Creek Buffer A Wetland and Creek Buffer Permit (Rule D) is required from the RPBCWD because the proposed activities trigger RPBCWD Rule J (Rule D, Section 2) and there are several wetlands on the project parcel downgradient of the proposed work based on the submitted site survey, the approved wetland type and boundary determination report, National Wetland Inventory mapping, and indicated in the project narrative. Efforts should be taken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts where possible in a manner consistent with the MN WCA and with consideration given to the comments of the Technical Evaluation Panel. Comments provided below are preliminary in nature and the applicant should review the RPBCWD’s Wetland and Creek Buffer Rule for full details on submittal requirements. The following criteria would apply. A copy of the wetland delineation report and MnRAM assessment must be provided with the application package to confirm the wetland value in accordance with RPBCWD Appendix D1. The RPBCWD value may differ from the value assigned by the city of Chanhassen. Buffer must be indicated by permanent, free-standing markers at the buffer’s upland edge, in material conformity with a design and text provided by the District. A marker must be placed along each lot line, with additional markers at an interval of no more than 200 feet or where the buffer changes direction. The location of the markers and a detail for the markers must be provided. A note must be included on the plans indicating: The potential transfer of aquatic invasive species e.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, etc.) must be minimized to the maximum extent possible. Before any work subject to District permit requirements commences, buffer areas and maintenance requirements must be documented in a declaration and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar. Rule J: Stormwater Management A Stormwater Management Permit (Rule J) is required for this project because more than 50 cubic yards of earth will be placed, altered, or removed and more than 5,000 square feet of land-surface area will be altered (Rule J, Section 2.1) based on the information provided by the City. Based on the information provided, it appears the project is a new development and the criteria in Rule J, Section 3 would apply to the entire parcel. Comments provided below are preliminary and general in nature and the applicant should review the RPBCWD’s Stormwater Management Rule for full details on submittal requirements. The following criteria would apply. 3 An applicant for a permit under this rule must demonstrate, using a model utilizing the most recent applicable National Weather Service reference data (e.g., Atlas 14), that the implementation of its stormwater management plan will: o Limit peak runoff flow rates to that from existing conditions for the two-, 10- and 100-year frequency storm events using a nested 24-hour rainfall distribution, and a 100-year frequency, 10-day snowmelt event, for all points where stormwater discharge leaves the site; Provide for the abstraction onsite of 1.1 inches of runoff from the new or fully reconstructed impervious surface of the parcel; o Soil borings must be provided at all stormwater BMP locations. These must support the infiltration rates used in the design and confirm that the ordinary high groundwater level is at least three feet below the bottom of any proposed filtration or infiltration features. o The narrative notes that ponding will be used. While it may well be that ponding becomes a part of the overall stormwater management strategy, the applicant must first look to abstract 1.1 inches using the sequencing set forth in Rule J, §3.3. o Infiltration is not the only method of abstraction. The stormwater management must consider other methods of abstraction and discuss the feasibility of these measures such as reuse mentioned in the narrative. Provide for at least sixty percent (60%) annual removal efficiency for total phosphorus, and at least ninety percent (90%) annual removal efficiency for total suspended solids from site runoff. The onsite abstraction of runoff may be included in demonstrating compliance with the total suspended solids and total phosphorus removal requirements. No structure may be constructed or reconstructed such that its lowest floor elevation is less than 2 feet above the 100-year event flood elevation and no stormwater management system may be constructed or reconstructed in a manner that brings the low floor elevation of an adjacent structure into noncompliance with this standard. General Comments: o All stormwater management structures and facilities must be designed for maintenance access and properly maintained in perpetuity. A maintenance and inspection plan must be provided. The maintenance and inspection plan must include specific maintenance requirements for the proprietary BMPs installed. o See Rule J, Section 4 for permit exhibit requirements. Summary Based on the information provided to date, a permit from the RPBCWD will be required prior to construction to likely cover the following: Erosion and Sediment Control, Wetland and Creek Buffer, and Stormwater Management. It is also possible that the Floodplain Management and Drainage Alteration rule will be triggered. The online permit application, rules, maintenance declaration template, and financial assurance templates are available for download on the RPBCWD website: http://www.rpbcwd.org/permits/. The District supports and encourages the utilization of Better Site Design and other methods to protect the water quality in Lake Ann as well as the downstream water resources. Thank you for the opportunity to review this concept plan. Please contact us with any questions. From:Aanenson, Kate To:Potter, Jenny Subject:FW: Prince’s land off Galpin Date:Wednesday, July 11, 2018 2:22:45 PM 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 I just read through the development plans from Lennar for Prince’s land. Those 55’ and 65’ 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. It 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 BRIAN DONNA STRAUSS 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 phone:952.474.6235 fax:952.474.6237 cell:310.743.4684 Brian) cell:952.412.6011 Donna) e-mail:briancstrauss@me.com Brian) e-mail:donnamstrauss@me.com Donna) July 29,2018 Delivered By Email The Mayor The City Council City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen,MN 55317 To The Attention Of: Mayor Denny Laufenburger dlaufenburger@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) Councilwoman Bethany Tjornhom btjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) Councilman Jerry McDonald jmcdonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) Councilwoman Elise Ryan eryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) Councilman Dan Campion dcampion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) Subject: Galpin Boulevard Property Development Dear Mayor Councilmembers, We respectfully submit to you our concerns as residents of Chanhassen in connection with the proposed development of the land between Powers Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard more commonly referred to as the Prince Property”.We have resided at our current address since 2004 which is part of the Lake Lucy Ridge neighborhood;our neighborhood borders the northern most edge of the continuous parcels of land being proposed for development. To be very clear,we respect the property rights of all landowners,and do not oppose the estate of Prince R. Nelson from monetizing those land assets.However,as proposed,the concepts are offensive to us,and we suspect they are,and will continue to be,offensive to many other Chanhassen residents particularly those in close proximity to the proposed development.We note that this matter is on the tentative agenda for the August 13,2018 Chanhassen City Council Meeting.We request that,if the current concepts come in front of you for approval,you vote them down outright. The contents herein outline some of our more pertinent objections and provide other additional commentary. Disclaimer Of Expertise We disclaim here certain areas of expertise.By way of background,our education and professional experiences are in business and general business management.We are not experts in conservation,environmental matters, water quality,water runoff,wetlands,or watershed management.We are not arborists,forestry experts,or experts in flora or fauna.We are not zoning experts,land surveyors,property developers,or land use experts/land use attorneys.We are not experts in local governmental procedures or experts in the relevant laws of the State of Minnesota.That all notwithstanding,we have begun to put a fair amount of personal time into researching issues around this very concerning matter. The Mayor City Council City of Chanhassen July 29,2018 Page 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Of July 17,2018 Unfortunately,neither of us could attend the Planning Commission Meeting of July 17,2018.We did,however, provide a written letter see Appendix 1)to the Commission in advance of that meeting;you all were copied on our letter as well.While we were unable to attend in person,we have watched the meeting via the on-line recording.Certain elements of that meeting raise concerns and bear mentioning here: 1. This process may already be in non-conformance with Minnesota state law.Minnesota statute 394.26 governs public hearings”see Appendix 2).It states in part Written notice of public hearings regarding the application of official controls to specific properties,including but not limited to conditional uses, variances,interim uses,zoning regulations,and subdivision regulations,shall be sent to all property owners of record within 500 feet of the affected property in incorporated areas.”The City of Chanhassen is an incorporated area.Please note that in the Affidavit Of Mailing Notice”see Appendix 3) associated with the July 17,2018 Planning Commission Meeting,it is clear that no notice was made to certain addresses on at least:a)Majestic Way,b)Topaz Drive,c)Emerald Lane,or,d)Lucy Ridge Lane addresses which would be included in the within 500 feet”requirement of the statute given that certain residents on those streets actually border the property in question.That’s before we even get the tape measure out to accommodate a full 500 feet. 2. All,or virtually all,of the Chanhassen residents who submitted advance written comments or spoke at the July 17,2018 Planning Commission Meeting did so in strong opposition to the proposed concepts as currently contemplated.We share many of those objections,and will lay those out in this letter. 3. One long-time city resident rightly noted that when the Lake Lucy Ridge neighborhood our neighborhood)was developed in the early 2000’s,concerned neighboring residents had an opportunity to comment which led to the developer Noecker Development,LLC)making substantial and accommodating changes.We are hopeful the same will hold true here. 4. When speaking to the issue of connecting the development to the northern neighborhoods,Joe Jablonski,Director of Land at Lennar stated something to the effect of the dead end streets to the north likely are marked with signs stating future road connection possible”and at the direction of city staff,at least at this point,we have connected the roads”.Two points bear mentioning in response to those comments by Mr.Jablonski.First,Lucy Ridge Lane does not,and has not had,such a sign. Second,it is somewhat concerning to us that city staff is apparently down a path of directing the developer on street connections.However,we would also argue that it can be inferred in Mr. Jablonski’s statement that streets to the north do not need to be connected for development to be viable. 5. Also noteworthy is Mr.Jablonski’s statement of Lennar admitting that the property has dramatic topography”and a fair amount of dirt will need to be moved”. 6. At the conclusion of the July 17,2018 Planning Commission Meeting,certain commissioners offered brief comments and opinions: a. Concern over destruction to natural resources. b. Opposition to large houses on small lots. c. Opposition to 35%lot coverage and increasing lot coverage above 25%. d. This property is a natural resource that can’t be duplicated. e. The concepts do not respect the land and will require massive grading and massive tree clear cutting. f. The proposed new road to the north is difficult to envision given topographical constraints. g. Less is more in this case. h. Finding an Option C”that serves all is preferred and should be expected. The Mayor City Council City of Chanhassen July 29,2018 Page 3 Our Objections To The Concepts Being Contemplated In the event the concepts are presented to you in substantially their current form,we would request that you vote them down for at least these reasons: Environmental The current concepts will harm the environment beyond repair.These things should be considered: Disturbance To Wetlands.The property is covered with natural wetlands.Overdevelopment like the type currently contemplated would see unacceptable destruction to those wetlands. Disturbance To Lake Lucy,And All Downstream Bodies Of Water Including Lake Ann.As is well known, Lake Lucy sits on top of the watershed and feeds Lake Ann and subsequent bodies of water.And it is well understood by the City that the health of these lakes is paramount to our community.On the City of Chanhassen’s own webpage,Lake Ann is described as having good water quality and low phosphorous.However,perhaps what is less know outside of the surrounding neighbors of Lake Lucy,is the substantial damage already caused to Lake Lucy through recent development.We are referring to the nearby neighborhood currently being constructed at the northwest corner of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite Avenue Anthem On Park see Appendix 4).During 2016,the City of Chanhassen approved the rezoning of this property from Rural Residential District RR)to Single-Family Residential District RSF)to accommodate this 12-lot subdivision.Two full years later the property has changed hands between builders,only one home has partially been constructed,and the water quality of Lake Lucy has suffered tremendously.All residents in at least our neighborhood have been appalled at witnessing the serious degradation of water quality,and the enormous amounts of algae and invasive growth,which has recently developed in Lake Lucy.These devastating effects are the direct result of runoff from Anthem On Park traveling across/under Lake Lucy Road,and directly into Lake Lucy.It should be noted that at least one of the current concepts being contemplated calls for just this same type of rezoning, only on a much more massive scale,and physically much closer to both Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. Massive Clear-Cutting The Dramatic Removal Of Big Woods”.As you likely know,Big Woods” refers to a type of forest of hardwoods found in parts of Wisconsin and Minnesota.They take decades and centuries to grow and conservation is key to their preservation.The proposals contemplated will result in massive clear cutting of these types of trees.At the densities contemplated,the resulting topography will be more akin to prairie land,as opposed to the existing beautiful forest we all enjoy. Sizable Earth Moving Massive Re-Contouring Of The Land.By Mr.Jablonski’s own admission at the July 17,2018 Planning Commission Meeting,the property has dramatic topography”.Combining that with the densities being contemplated will only result in a permanent scaring of that property and the environment. Buffers,Construction Traffic,Additional Traffic/Connection Points Buffers Are Too Small.The buffers between what is being proposed,and the surrounding neighborhoods appear to be non-existent. Construction Traffic Will Be Unbearable.This development as contemplated,involves approximately 200 homes.This will add massive construction traffic to the surrounding neighborhoods for years.And, as currently contemplated,it will open up new lanes to the north for that construction traffic to flow directly into,and through,the Lake Lucy Ridge neighborhood,and,to a lesser degree,the Ashling Meadows neighborhood. Additional Traffic/Connection Points.Similar to the issue of construction traffic,opening up permanent outlets to the north will overburden the Lake Lucy Ridge neighborhood and the Ashling Meadows neighborhood with new,and dramatically increased traffic.This is clearly a safety concern. The Mayor City Council City of Chanhassen July 29,2018 Page 4 Connecting The Proposed Development To The North Is Inconsistent With The Lake Lucy Ridge Neighborhood Lake Lucy Ridge Was Not A Tract Home Developed Neighborhood.Unlike the proposed concepts,our neighborhood was not developed in tract home fashion see Appendix 5).Owners purchased lots, selected customer builders,and,complying with a light set of neighborhood covenants,built custom homes.Those qualities were desirable to the homeowners and a market need was met.However, extending our neighborhood into the proposed development is concerning from an aesthetics,lot size, and economic perspective. Concerns Over Governance/The Possibility Of An Inappropriate Quid Pro Quo”Between City Developer Notwithstanding the previously cited matter of the Affidavit Of Mailing Notice”,we have these additional concerns: Overreliance On A Comprehensive Plan.The city seems too reliant on Comprehensive Plan as a guidepost.For a document that is now many years old,and one that,when crafted,likely did not allow the citizenry to fully connect the dots with what could really happen under this plan”,it seems to bear too much weight.Further,this Comprehensive Plan was crafted well after certain residents bought into their homes;in other words,it’s a massive curveball after the fact. Is There Already A Quid Pro Quo?The proposed concepts see Appendix 6 for Yield Plan”and Appendix 7 for Density Transfer Plan”)screams of a wink-and-a-nod deal already in place between the City of Chanhassen and Lennar.It screams to us…..we the developer)are going to drop in 200 houses with minimal need for variances in the Yield Plan”,but if you approve the more aggressive variances with the Density Transfer Plan”we will give you your park not withstanding that this jams overaggressive development to the west and overly burdens those surrounding neighborhoods. Why Did The City Of Chanhassen Not Enter The Marketplace And Compete To Procure Land For Parks Like Any Other Person Or Entity?If The City Of Chanhassen wanted a park extension on the east side of the property,why did the City not approach the land owner and procure that land through the normal marketplace and normal governmental budgeting and expenditure avenues?Instead,as contemplated, the City is obtaining its park on the financial and quality of life backs of the western neighborhoods. There May Be A Rush To Development Now At A Tipping Point With Chanhassen Residents.In 2017 it appears to us that there was a groundswell of massive opposition to the city center development of the retail and apartment complex see Appendix 8 and Appendix 9)now under construction.Nevertheless, the City Council moved forward with 3 to 2 vote of approval.This is concerning to us as it is indicative of a city counsel whose majority may be out of touch with the views of the residents of Chanhassen. Other Matters For Consideration/Recommendation For Rejection Lennar Does Not Appear To Own The Land.It appears that,given Mr.Jablonski’s comments at the July 17,2018 Planning Commission Meeting,Lennar does not currently own the land.We would speculate they have purchased an option on the land at a de minimis fee for a fixed duration of time. The Burden On An Acceptable Concept Does Not Fall With The City Of Chanhassen,Or Neighboring Residents.It resides firmly with the developer,and if they can’t come forward with an acceptable plan, their recourse is to simply let their option on the land expire and move on and the City Council is within its right to reject either of these concepts as contemplated. If The Concepts As Proposed Come To The City Council,You Should Vote Them Down Outright.For at least all the reasons cited herein. The Mayor City Council City of Chanhassen July 29,2018 Page 5 What Would Be Acceptable To Us,Likely The Surrounding Neighbors Again,the burden on landing on a concept which is feasible does not fall upon us.Nevertheless,let us outline here what would be acceptable development for the property in question: Overall Environmental guideposts must be established for the protection of the watershed,Lake Lucy,and Lake Ann.Development should be further buffered from these wetlands and lakes from what is currently contemplated. The property should be developed with more reasonable density,larger lot sizes,and improved lot coverage ratios which are all meaningfully different from the proposed concepts.This will be more aesthetically pleasing,but,more importantly,it preserves more of the trees than currently contemplated. The new development should only be accessed via Galpin Road,and not connected to the northern established neighborhoods. Substantially wider buffers of substance including trees and other natural dividers should be utilized between the proposed development and the northern neighborhoods and the southern neighborhoods. Specific To the North Connections With Lake Lucy Ridge Ashling Meadows As you know,the property is a series of continuous tax parcels.Parcel 25.6900030 see Appendix 10), the northern most parcel,is of particular interest to us and,we suspect,to many of our neighbors in the northern bordering area.We would like to see this parcel developed separately see Appendix 11 for an illustrative example concept only). This parcel should be developed only as an extension of the Lake Lucy Ridge neighborhood consistent with custom homes,lot sizes,and aesthetics of the current neighborhood.We have our own neighborhood association duly on file with Carver County which is inclusive of reasonable building covenants,and it is not unrealistic to think that our neighborhood association would be willing to annex these homes into our association.Lennar could develop parcel 25.6900030 in such a fashion,or they could sell that parcel to another builder or developer who could do the same.This method of development of parcel 25.6900030 would be an ideal solution for certain issues raised in the northern neighborhoods. We do,however,recognize not connecting that parcel leaves concerns over the length of a one outlet” cul-de-sac for the developer in the northern section outside of parcel 25.6900030.However,if developed within the overall suggestions raised here,perhaps that becomes a small cul-de-sac with larger lots,more trees,and a wider northern buffer,all of which could satisfy a very narrow variance if needed. Again,we stand in strong opposition to this proposed development as currently contemplated.That said,we believe there are options for development that work for all parties. Thank you for your consideration.Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Brian C.Strauss Donna M.Strauss The Mayor City Council City of Chanhassen July 29,2018 Page 6 With Copies To: Note To City of Chanhassen:Please refrain from publishing this copy list to any public docket or record Note To Media:Please refrain from publishing any materials in this copy list City Of Chanhassen Planning Commission by mail): 1. Andrew Aller 2. Nancy Madsen 3. Michael McGonagill 4. Mark Randall 5. John Tietz 6. Mark Undestad 7. Steven Weick Lake Lucy Ridge Homeowners by email): 8. Debbie Gordon Medeiros 6820 Lucy Ridge Lane medeiros45@me.com,medeiros13@me.com) 9. Lisa Bill Rothschild 6860 Lucy Ridge Lane bill.rothschild8@icloud.com, blrothschild@gmail.com) 10. Jeff Sarah Cannon 1810 Emerald Lane jeffjcannon@gmail.com, sarahanncannon@hotmail.com) 11. Cara Angelo Galioto 1805 Emerald Lane c_galioto@hotmail.com, agalioto@lockton.com) 12. Karin Steve Wallace 6900 Lucy Ridge Lane khirschey@hotmail.com, spwallace@hotmail.com) 13. Jennifer Barry Friends 6935 Lucy Ridge Lane jenniferjfriends@gmail.com,barryfriends@gmail.com) 14. John Julie Butcher 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane jbutcher518@gmail.com, johnbutcher518@gmail.com) 15. Kris Andy Lenk 6895 Lucy Ridge Lane k.lenk@msn.com, alenk@vardeeurope.com) 16. Molly Per Lagerback 6875 Lucy Ridge Lane mmlagerback@gmail.com, lagerback@gmail.com) 17. Koen Baars Hilke Snels 1795 Lucy Ridge Court hilkesnels@hotmail.com) 18. Michelle Brian Schlichter 1750 Lucy Ridge Court mnb.schlichter@mchsi.com) 19. Jacquie Mark Phillips 1760 Lucy Ridge Court markjacq@yahoo.com) 20. Meredith Greg McGuirk 1770 Lucy Ridge Court meremcguirk@gmail.com,gomcguirk@gmail.com) 21. Carey Doff Lohrenz 1780 Lucy Ridge Court ffodcbou@aol.com, badgerf14@aol.com) 22. Jeff Neichin Chris Capko 1790 Lucy Ridge Court capkoc@aol.com) Ashling Meadows Contact Person by email): 23. Greg Stewart 1893 Topaz Drive grstewart77@gmail.com) Majestic Way Contact Person by email): 24. Dake Chatfield 2200 Majestic Way dake.chatfield@gmail.com) Media by email): 25. Liz Sawyer Reporter General Assignment Reporter,Star Tribune liz.sawyer@startribune.com) 26. Mark Olsen Community Editor,Chanhassen Villager editor@chanvillager.com) APPENDIX 1 BRIAN DONNA STRAUSS 6840 Lucy Ridge Lane Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 phone:952.474.6235 fax:952.474.6237 cell:310.743.4684 Brian) cell:952.412.6011 Donna) e-mail:briancstrauss@me.com Brian) e-mail:donnamstrauss@me.com Donna) July 4,2018 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Attention: Andrew Aller,Steven Weick,Mark Randall,Mark Undestad,John Tietz,Nancy Madsen,Michael McGonagill Subject: Galpin Property Planned Unit Development PUD)Concept Review Planning Commission Members, We are residents of Chanhassen and have resided at our above address since 2004.We live in Lake Lucy Ridge, the neighborhood directly north of the Chanhassen parcels of land commonly referred to as the Prince Property”.Regarding that property,we see that during the July 17,2018 Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting,you will be taking up a Planned Unit Development PUD)Concept Review.While one of us will endeavor to attend that meeting,we write to you today to register our strongest possible opposition to that proposed development.We cannot emphasize our opposition to this project enough;and please note that in our 14 years as residents of Chanhassen,this is the first stance we have taken in opposition to any development in our city. We oppose this development for at least these reasons: 1. Environmental.The proposed development is overly disruptive to the environment.As you know, there are wetlands on and around the property which need to be managed with care.This development will certainly harm the wetlands,both during construction as well as after construction.Additionally,we would imagine that hundreds of trees will need to be removed from the parcels in question. 2. Duration Of Construction.To accommodate approximately 200 new homes,our community will be burdened by construction activity for many,many years.Of note,we have a small development going in near us on the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite Avenue.That small neighborhood alone will likely take 2-3 years to complete at the current pace. 3. Congestion To The Surrounding Neighborhoods.This is not a small development being proposed.This is a massive,approximately 200 lot development and it will leave the area overly congested. 4. Traffic Traffic Flow.The proposed development will add exorbitant traffic to the broader area. Additionally,and importantly,our neighborhood Lake Lucy Ridge),and the existing neighborhood to the west of us Ashling Meadows),will bear the brunt of this additional traffic,as the proposed development calls for the opening and continuation of existing dead ended streets into the proposed development. Planning Commission City of Chanhassen July 7,2018 Page 2 5. Proposed Housing Styles/Declining Property Value.After a review of Lenar’s presentation materials,it appears the houses being proposed for the site are of sizes and types that will lower housing values for existing neighboring homeowners.Additionally,the massive scale of approximately 200 new homes coming to market will depress housing value meaningfully.Of note,housing values are just now coming back to pricing levels seen in the early 2000’s,when much of the current housing stock in the surrounding area was built. 6. Alternatives Are Available Have Not Been Explored.Based on our review of the Application For Development Review as posted on the City of Chanhassen website which is not signed by the property owner),as well our review of property records on the Carver County Property Information website,it appears Prince R.Nelson and we would assume,now,his estate)is still the taxpayer of record for the parcels.Given the property has not yet been sold,it remains that there are a multitude of development alternatives available alternatives which are more equitable to all stakeholders in the community including the property rights of the current property owner.At least these options are available: a. Having the City of Chanhassen acquire the land,or a portion of the land for communal property benefits,and to preserve the environment. b. In keeping with the current zoning of the parcels,develop the land with larger lot sizes which will reduce the density of housing and lower the adverse impacts as previously discussed. c. The land is a continuous piece of property made up of various parcels.Parcel 25.6900030 is of particular interest to us and,we suspect,to many of our neighbors in the northern bordering area.This parcel,if it was broken off and sold separately”could be developed in a fashion in keeping with the current zoning,and in a manner which would not require streets breaking through to the balance of the southern parcels in question.The significant benefit to that would be to minimize undue disruption to our neighborhood Lake Lucy Ridge)and the neighborhood to the west of us Ashling Meadows),the two existing neighborhoods which would be most adversely affected.I can assure you there would likely be a buyer for that parcel as a standalone parcel. 7. A Zoning Change Is Required.It appears the proposed development will require a zoning change to accommodate this development. Again,we stand in strong opposition to this proposed development and encourage you,as the Planning Commission,to reject it in it’s current form,using all avenues and procedures available.There are a plethora of alternatives that offer greater benefit to all stakeholders,including the property rights of the current property owner. Sincerely, Brian C.Strauss Donna M.Strauss APPENDIX 2 394.26 PUBLIC HEARINGS. Subdivision 1. [Repealed, 1974 c 571 s 51] Subd.1a.When required.In additionto publichearingsrequiredby section 375.51prior totheadoption by ordinance of any comprehensive plan or amendments thereto or of any official control or amendment thereto, public hearings shall be held before any conditional use permit, interim use permit, variance, or proposal for a subdivision is approved or denied by the responsible authority, and in circumstances where a public hearing is otherwise required by sections 394.21 to 394.37. Such public hearings may be continued from time to time and additional hearings may be held. Subd.2.Notice.Notice of thetime,place,and purposeof any publichearing shall begivenbypublication in a newspaper of general circulation in the town, municipality, or other area concerned, and in the official newspaper of the county,at least ten days before the hearing, except that notice of public hearings in connection with the adoption by ordinance of any comprehensive plan or amendments thereto or adoption or amendment of any official controls shall be given in the manner provided by section 375.51, subdivision 2. In addition to the requirements of section 375.51, subdivision 2, written notice of public hearings on all official controls and amendments thereto shall be sent to the governing bodies of all towns and all municipalities located within the county. Written notice of public hearings regarding the application of official controls to specific properties, including but not limited to conditional uses, variances, interim uses, zoning regulations, and subdivision regulations, shall be sent to all property owners of record within 500 feet of the affected property in incorporated areas. In unincorporated areas, the written notice shall be sent to property owners as follows: a)in the case of variances,to owners of record within 500 feet of the affected property; b)in the case of conditional uses and interim uses,to owners of record within one-quarter mile of the affected property or to the ten properties nearest to the affected property, whichever would provide notice to the greatest number of owners; c)inthecase of all otherofficial controls,including butnot limitedtozoning regulations and subdivision regulations,to owners of record within one-half mile of the affected property. Written notice shall also be given to the affected board of town supervisors, and the municipal council of any municipality within two miles of the affected property. Subd. 3. [Repealed, 1974 c 571 s 51] Subd. 3a.Who runs hearing.The board may assign responsibility to conduct public hearings for one ormorepurposes to theplanningcommission,boardofadjustmentoranyofficialoremployeeofthecounty, except as provided in section 375.51. History:1959 c 559 s 6; 1963 c 692 s 4; 1974 c 571 s 20-22; 1976 c 177 s 1; 1980 c 477 s 1; 2008 c 331 s 4 Copyright © 2017 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. 394.26MINNESOTASTATUTES20171 APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 4 660.00S01° 56'12"W330.00 N88°03' 48"W 250.00 N87°12' 20"WN02°47'40" E275.0080.00 N87°12'20" W13rods3links(deed)N11°17' 40"E216. 4818 rods (297.00 feet deed) S87° 12' 20" E 285. 10 49. 73S01° 57' 26" WS88° 17' 20" E 330. 76 48. 90N03° 10' 50"W6. 40 S 8 8° 0 3' 48"E N02° 47'40"E170.501 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 OUTLOT A EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SEC. 3,TWP. 116, RNG. 23 333.03 ( measured)EXCEPTION330. 00 (deed)80.00 (deed)170.00 (deed)384.68(measured) 610.00(measured)274.60(measured)275.00(deed) 275.00( measured)275.05(measured)74. 62 (measured)WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC. 2, TWP. 116,RNG. 23 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OFSEC. 2,TWP.116,RNG.23 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTEROFTHENORTHEASTQUARTEROFSEC. 3,TWP. 116,RNG.23 CARVER COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT)SOUTH LINE OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC. 2,TWP.116,RNG. 23SOUTHLINE OFTHE SOUTHEAST QUARTEROFTHENORTHEASTQUARTER OFSEC.3,TWP.116,RNG.23 FNDIP UNREADABLECAPNUMBERFNDOPEN IP FND OPEN IP FNDIPRLS8506±0. 70'wFNDIPw/ NAIL591. 5CARTWAY 591. 5 CENTERLINEPERRLS38593. 5680. 00 ( measured & deed) 385. 00( deed) 275. 00( deed) 224. 72N01° 42' 45" E154. 33N01° 42' 40" E98. 65 N88° 09' 48" W 200. 95459. 0541. 77 N60°42' 15" W 126. 13N75° 47' 53" W15. 78N36° 00' 00" E47.93R=100. 27° 27' 33" 79. 03R= 300. 15° 05' 37" 70. 86R=103.39°25'07"60.00S02° 11'00"EN88°14' 02"E 60.00 3030303030303 0 7 2 2 2'46R89. 5 0 1 1 3. 0 6 7 4 58' 3 0 R11950 1 5 63773.99N00° 49'23" W282.31 R60.00 269° 34'58"30N01°50'12" E380.2831. 9333. 00298.83 1 1 9 5 S 5 6 4 4 4 6 WS56 °44 ' 4 6 " W 11 .95S67 °5 8 '2 6 "W 6 6 .0 8N82°54'01"W38. 22 N 4 2 3 9'52 W 3 5. 3 7N12° 49' 39" W86. 28N01° 46' 05" W58.9656. 05N28°59'34" E2.4065.4065.4062. 27°27'33" 27° 27'33"33.5538. 73 37.95 3. 823.0454. 11°29'43"16. 13° 35'54"15°05'37"86.9311.1373.06 53. 07115. 00 7 2 2 2' 4 6 7 5. 1 6 17. 13°57'21"96.92°14'29"94°06'20"98. 5530.28°38'52"35.33° 39'41" 2 1 .9 1 2 0 ° 5 5 ' 3 5 " 68. 465 . 5 3 12. 145 3 . 9 41 8. 1 7 40. 88N85°34'31" EN 3 2 4 2 2 0 W5 8 3 2N01°46' 05"W110.95139. 11143. 59 S87° 12' 20"E136. 42 S87° 12'20"E 170. 39 S87°12'20"E174. 57 S87°12'20"E 97.34 36. 32S61°33'40"W94. 6075.9014. 26101.11101.11236.605. 40110.00 90.00 49. 35 42.59 92.10 162.50 N01°50'12"E137.89157.68S14°12' 07"W195.90S14° 12' 07"W215.24S14°12' 07"W200.00S02°47'40"W55.61S51°27'21"W 41.20°05'22"30.14°23'02"84. 40°30'06"NOTTANGENT30301 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 17 17 92.59S71°03'11"E 75.0026.46N55°33'21"E65.26101.54S80°57'29"E 55.3111.76S80°57'29"E1 3 .3 3 S 0 1 °5 6 '1 2 "W 40.9377.22 S88°03'48"E 4040S57° 17'53"W 64.53 42.7448.98 S43°16'19"W 32.42 36.7815151515S53°56'16"E 82.33 91.06 50.3345 45 57.72S03°49'58"E1010101042.30S25°25'34"E17 1553.34 B L O C K O N E DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT DRAINAGE &UTILITY EASEMENT DRAINAGE &UTILITY EASEMENT DRAINAGE&UTILITYEASEMENTDRAINAGE&UTILITYEASEMENTWETLAND WETLAND YOSEMITEAVENUELAKE LUCY ROAD ANTHEM PLACE 333333333333333366661 4 .2 0 N 0 1 °4 6 '0 5 "W 48.84N10°43'03" W27.14N67°12'20"WS89°44'35"W 10.00'ANTHEM ON THE PARK COUNTY SURVEYOR, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to Chapter 395, Minnesota Laws of 1971, this plat has been approved this day of ________________, 20_____.Signed:Luke Kranz, County Surveyor KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Yosemite Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property:That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows:Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter, Section 2, Township 116, Range 23; thence East along the half section line 330 feet (20 rods); thence North 660.00 feet (40 rods); thence West 330 feet (20 rods) to the section line; thence South 660 feet (40 rods) to the place of beginning; EXCEPT so much of the following described tract as in the foregoing description, beginning at a point on the section line between said Section 2 and 3; Township 116, Range 23, said point being 610 feet North of the Quarter section corner between said Section 2 and 3 and marked by an iron gas pipe set in the ground; thence North along the section 591.5 feet to a cartway 16.5 (1 rod) wide; thence East along the South boundary of said cartway 280.5 feet to the center of a street 33 feet (2 rods) wide; thence South 4 degrees 47 minutes East along the center of said street 593.56 feet; thence West 330 feet to the place of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof.AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE1/4NE1/4) of Section 3, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Starting at the Southeast Corner of said NE 1/4 of said Section 3, running Westerly along the South line of said SE 1/4 of said NE 1/4 a distance of 80 feet, then Northerly 275 feet, then Easterly 80 feet, thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said SE 1/4 of said NE 1/4 to the point of beginning, Carver County, Minnesota.AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 116, Range 23, as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, 80 feet West of said Southeast corner; thence continuing along said line 170 feet; thence North 275 feet; thence West 80 feet; thence North 170.5 feet; thence North 8 1/2 degrees, East 13 rods and 3 links; thence East 18 rods, thence South 385 feet; thence West 80 feet; thence South 275 feet to the point of beginning, Carver County, Minnesota.Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as ANTHEM ON THE PARK and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the public way and the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat. In witness whereof saidYosemiteHoldings, LLC, aMinnesotalimitedliabilitycompany, has caused these presents tobesignedby its proper officer this _______ day of ___________________, 20____.YOSEMITE HOLDINGS, LLC, a MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Terry Forbord, Principal STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF _________________________________This instrument was acknowledged before me on , by Terry Forbord, principal of Yosemite Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.Notary Signature) Notary Printed Name) NOTARY PUBLIC, _____________________MY COMMISSION EXPIRES __________________________________CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL This plat of ANTHEM ON THE PARK was approved accepted by the City Council of Chanhassen, Minnesota,at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.Mayor Clerk COUNTY AUDITOR/TREASURER, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that taxes payable in and prior years ave been paid for land described on this plat. Dated this _________ day of _______________, 20______.Laurie Davis, County Auditor/Treasurer By: .COUNTY RECORDER, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plat of ANTHEM ON THE PARK was filed this ________ day of 20___ at ___ o' clock __.M., as Document Number . Luke Kranz, County, Recorder By: .PLUG INSCRIBED WITH 43133IRON MONUMENT SET WITH PLASTICDENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH CAST IRON MONUMENTDENOTES FOUND CARVER COUNTY SEC. 2 & 3, TWP. 116, RNG. 23 NOT TO SCALE)SITE IRON MONUMENT FOUND LAKE LUCY RD BEING 10FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING APPENDIX 5 Ultimately Developed With One Home Across Two Lots APPENDIX 6 c 1OFGALPINBOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1-5-18 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 LANDSCAPEARCHITECTSLANDSURVEYORSLANDPLANNERSCIVILENGINEERS xx 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 1CONCEPTPLAN04 LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUENORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 APPENDIX 7 c 1OFGALPINBOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 6-1-18 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 LANDSCAPEARCHITECTSLANDSURVEYORSLANDPLANNERSCIVILENGINEERS xx 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 1CONCEPTPLAN07 LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUENORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 55' LOTS 65' LOTS 90' LOTS APPENDIX 8 Avoid the dangerous traffic and delays. Ride with us and have a stress-free trip to work this winter! For more information and to see schedules Click Here https://www.swnewsmedia.com/chanhassen_villager/news/local/council-splits-on-aldi-development-grant/article_fbd5bae9-3b41-5cb5-8731-69f95dfb86b9.html CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL Council splits on Aldi development grant By Mark W. Olson editor@chanvillager.com Jun 28, 2017 The Chanhassen City Council split on a 3-2 vote Monday night asking to support a grant application for a proposed downtown development. The development proposal, by United Properties, would tear down the Frontier retail strip mall, next to the Chanhassen Dinner Theatres complex, and replace it with a 130-unit apartment building and Aldi grocery store. The $715,000 Metropolitan Council Livable Communities grant would help pay for some items of the new development, such as a storm water tank system, “green roof,” solar power and pedestrian connection to the nearby park and ride. The city staff had recommended approval of the resolution. Councilors Jerry McDonald and Bethany Tjornhom and Mayor Denny Laufenburger voted in support of the grant, and councilors Elise Ryan and Dan Campion voted against. The council also: Approved the master plan for Manchester Park, a neighborhood park next to the city’s future West Water Treatment Plant Facility. Awarded a contract for the Park Road/Park Place street rehabilitation project to Valley Paving for 856,210.45 Noted that Councilor Jerry McDonald would throw out the first pitch at the Chanhassen Red Birds game, 7:30 p.m. Thursday, June 29, City of Chanhassen Employee Appreciation Night. The Chanhassen City Council approved, on a 3-2 vote, a request for a Metropolitan Council grant that would help fund a proposed Aldi grocery story and 130-unit apartment building along West 70th Street in downtown Chanhassen. City of Chanhassen rendering Mark Olson Community Editor Mark Olson, the Chaska and Chanhassen community editor who has worked in Carver County for 20 years, makes any excuse to write about local history. In his spare time, Mark enjoys perusing old books, watching blockbusters and taking Midwest road trips. Ryan was concerned that developers were asking for a significant amount of money for this project” and noted that developers had also applied for a $60,000 grant through the Carver County Community Development Agency. She also said that the city has been asked to create a ($1.3 million) tax increment financing district for the development. “I just am very concerned about the amount of money that is going to this particular project,” Ryan said. Ryan said she also was concerned about the impact of using resources for the redevelopment project, when the council recently started a long-term planning process for downtown. Regarding the size of the grant application, Community Development Director Kate Aanenson said councilors should look at the “proportionality and the complexity” of the project. She also noted that the project may only get a portion of the grant request, or it may get none. Is this funding now to make it economically viable,” Campion asked. “Without this, does the development go forward?” Mayor Laufenburger later said it was up to a developer to gauge the economic feasibility of a project. Campion also wondered if the grant application would prevent future funds for downtown. I don’t want you to think your approving this grant application will automatically grant approval of the venue,” said City Manager Todd Gerhardt. The council will discuss the development again at its July 10 meeting. Accepted a donation from the Chanhassen Estates Residents Association for 672.50 to help the Chanhassen Fire Department purchase a thermal imaging camera. Recognized “Why I Love Chanhassen” Essay Contest Winners Ava Joos and Luke Hilgendorf; and runners-up Danica Grafelman and Hannah Quiner. (Look for essays in an upcoming edition.) Recognized “Mayor for a Day” essay winner Jacob Buboltz, a sixth- grader at Chapel Hill Academy, who began the council meeting and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Invited the public to Fourth of July festivities in downtown Chanhassen, July 2-4. APPENDIX 9 APPENDIX 10 Carver County GIS APPENDIX 11 1 Meuwissen, Kim From:Tim Nordberg <nord0296@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:11 PM To:Aanenson, Kate Subject:7141 Galpin PUD Concept Re: 7141 Galpin PUD Concept Hi Kate, I attended the 7141 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 off each 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: 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. 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 of the 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: 1. 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). Traffic 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. 2 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 property. 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 1 Meuwissen, Kim From:Gordie Hampson <gordie.hampson@cushwake.com> Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2018 2:01 PM To:Aanenson, Kate 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 Chanhassen for 26 years 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 persuaded 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: +1 952 465 3310 Mobile: +1 612 366 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 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.If 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.If you have received this email in error,please notify 2 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. 1 Meuwissen, Kim From:Meredith McGuirk <meremcguirk@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:15 PM To:Aanenson, Kate 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 Ridge neighborhood, adjacent to the PUD land. Interestingly, 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 16 unit custom home development contains the other. The current plan proposes direct access through the Lucy Ridge neighborhood. We oppose the PUD in its current form for the following reasons: 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 ignore 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 of traffic from another adjoining neighborhood twice the size. Simply stated, the current plan is only acceptable if the Commission disregards public safety to the children in our neighborhood. 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 of Lake Ann's pristine quality and clarity in concert with the proposed development would be naive and reckless. 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 alternative 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 15 years ago. Sincerely, Meredith and Greg McGuirk 1770 Lucy Ridge Court 1 Meuwissen, Kim From:Archer, Jessica Sent:Thursday, July 19, 2018 1:25 PM To:Aanenson, Kate Subject:Fwd: Prince Property Lennar Development Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From:Erica TenBroek tenbre13@gmail.com> Date:July 19,2018 at 11:33:43 AM CDT To:dlaufenburger@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>,eryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>, btjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>,dcampion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>, jmcdonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject:Prince Property Lennar Development Dear Chanhassen Mayor and City Council, I read recently of the proposed Lennar Corporation development near Lakes Ann and Lucy in the Tribune.It is unfortunate that the Prince heirs have decided on such a fate for a beautiful expanse of land.I understand you will be voting soon on options provided by the developer and wonder if it is possible to delay the vote while the city evaluates the ramifications of such a large development. I am writing to encourage you to act outside of the norm for this particular case by proactively enabling requirements beyond the usual.Since this is a very large development next to two very large bodies of water,it makes sense to consider options.Your actions could circumvent the need for a costly and time consuming environmental review or expensive problems in water quality down the line.Much of the acquired land surrounding the Lakes/wetlands appears to be relatively undisturbed and likely provides substantial habitat,supporting many species of animals and plants.The proposal to build up to 200 luxury homes will drastically change all of this.You have a chance to make a very positive difference in the community and even the surrounding cities by placing restrictions on how and where the development occurs. As a scientist/biologist with some experience in environmental restoration,I’ve heard from many different groups how urgent it is that people with power limited as it may be)move out of their comfort zone to play a substantially larger role in protecting native habitat.With U.S.amphibian populations declining more than 4%a year,and more than 1/3 of the bird species in North America on their way to extinction,our communities need to make changes.Since 1950 at least 5 butterfly species have gone extinct in the U.S.and some additional species are now nearly there.There is the plight of the bees,and at least 26 U.S.freshwater mussel species have gone extinct,with at least 87 mussels listed as threatened or endangered Feb March 2017 National Wildlife WWW.NWF.org publication).A continued progression toward more holes in the safety net that holds this large whale of humanity afloat. Our existing protected areas are not enough.Experts who monitor such areas in Minnesota have told me of depressing changes,such as habitat degradation due to neighboring development,agricultural runoff,and increased population.Pressures such as these diminish biodiversity,bring in invasive species 2 and exotic disease,and gradually lead to dying off of a variety of species.All this happening when we actually need to increase animal and plant biodiversity if we want to successfully adapt in the face of climate changes. Please brainstorm to find ways to prevent damage to this very valuable and beautiful asset that your city is lucky enough to control.Such an extensive loss of land,habitat,increased run off,and loss of animal life means inevitable losses for everyone.It also means eventual changes in the quality of Lakes Lucy and Ann and adjacent watershed.At the very least,the wild area surrounding the lakes could be maintained as a natural area.I realize the color of money is green,and that the city sees added tax income as desirable.More importantly,you don't own the land.But you really do have the power to change how the development in these areas proceeds.If you take the time to make changes now,the citizens of your community will applaud your proactive thinking and Chanhassen will be a model that other cities will surely follow. Thank you for all that you do.Below I listed some ideas,although admittedly I know little about your city’s existing ordinances. Warm regards, Erica TenBroek Roseville,MN 1)One could try to make a deal with the developer.It might mean putting the greater good before tax revenue,but you would be rewarded in many other ways. For example,the city could offer to buy back,perhaps over a period of time,the woodlands next to the lakes.Or the developer could agree to develop only the grassy open areas.In return for waiting for a sale or maybe to achieve a lower price point on that land,the city could agree to pay for installation of paved trails,say connecting the new community to Lake Ann Park,and perhaps boat slips in exchange for not developing until the area can be transitioned to city or state as parkland) the city could talk with the state and/or land trusts to transfer the land later for a price 2)The council could move quickly to create a city ordinance to increase the size of the buffer zone to protect the water and to also enact a stricter tree ordinance so that every native tree removed would be replaced with several new native trees or shrubs.For that matter,all right of ways could be required to be native plants.There are communities in Florida now with strict requirements such as these. A 10 30 foot buffer is not enough to preserve the fragile ecosystems that maintain water quality.Years ago,we learned that 300 feet of buffer around bodies of water was needed to maintain water health and biological communities.It is no surprise that we in MN now have very expensive water woes considering how the needed buffer zone has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk to accommodate more development or other land use.A larger buffer requirement would help to prevent water quality issues that will cost your community in the years to come. 3)The developer could be given incentives to place large shoreline buffer easements around the lakes.Or an ordinance could require larger lots around the lakes due to the size and scope of this development.The lots around the lake could be required to be 6 acre lots different from those on the interior,including a natural shoreline with no loss of tree cover.Many wealthy people will pay to own beautiful lakesides with undeveloped land for privacy and their own enjoyment.At least the land would be undeveloped and would help to maintain the freshwater ecosystems in the area. OR maybe a hybrid of ideas where the city could pay for trails or lake access in exchange for easements? 3 I do hope you are able to think of some way to preserve this jewel of an area.Best of luck moving forward. E 1 Meuwissen, Kim From:Chrissy Boberg <cnboberg@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, July 28, 2018 12:15 PM To:Aanenson, Kate Subject:Proposed Development on Galpin Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged 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.Of the 100 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.It 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, Mike Boberg and Family 1 Meuwissen, Kim From:Julie Witt <juliewitt20@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, July 14, 2018 11:01 AM To:Aanenson, Kate Subject:Re: Galpin Blvd Proposed Development Thanks Kate.I appreciate the information.I’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.It 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.65’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,Aanenson,Kate kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>wrote: Julie, There will be a number of opportunities for you to give input into the proposed development.There is a concept 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.952.227.1139 FX.952.227.1110 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Original Message 2 From:Julie Witt juliewitt20@gmail.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