PC Minutes 1-15-19Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
2
preparation for any time that you want to come visit or whether you want to follow this particular
item to the City Council for further action. Any person wishing to appeal a variance decision
made by us sitting as a Board of Appeals and Adjustments may do so. That should be done in
writing within 4 days. Public input is accepted when the Planning Commission opens the public
hearing portion of any item. Tonight we do have a public hearing item before us so we’ll be
taking testimony and again welcome to all present and we look forward to hearing your
comments. Any persons wishing to speak are requested to come to the podium. State your name
and address and your representational capacity, if any and then state your position either for or
against the item or just your comments regarding the item. We look forward to hearing them.
Any item is introduced first by the staff and they make a presentation of the report. Again that
report is on the website. Once the staff makes it’s presentation the applicant or developer can
come up and make a presentation. The public hearing is held. Once the public hearing is held
it’s closed and then the commissioners will make discussion and take whatever appropriate
action they deem necessary at that time. So with that we will begin with our public hearings and
item number one.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER REZONING PARCEL (GALPIN SITE) FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
(RR) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (PUD-R),
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND SUBDIVISION OF 191 ACRES
INCLUDING THE PRESERVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES AND THE
CREATION OF 191 LOTS.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. This item again
it will be scheduled to go forward to the City Council on February 11th. I just want to remind you
that we did have a meeting on this in the concept. That was held at the Planning Commission on
July 17th and the council also discussed the concept on August 13th. Again the concept was part
of the PUD process the applicant chose to go through to get feedback on that and we’ll talk a
little bit more about that as we move forward. So the request tonight is to rezone the property
from RR to PUD Residential. It’s also for the subdivision, a preliminary plat of 191 lots and a
wetland alteration permit for a 1.2 acres. Don’t have a map on that one. The concept review was
for low density. The site is guided low density. Excuse me, the land use designation is low
density. 1.2 to 4 units an acre. The zoning is rural residential, 2 ½ acres. Rural residential
typically is not serviced by sewer so in order for this project to go through the project proceeds
consistent with the land use guiding which allows 1.2 to 4 units an acre. So in looking at that the
applicant put together the different iterations of a, this is again was under the concept review. If
it was laid out as a traditional residential single family which would be an RSF zoning district
which allows 15,000 square foot lots. Also within the zoning would be compatible would be an
R-4 which allows for twin homes and 15,000, excuse me 10,000 for the lots and single family
homes for 15,000. Again the zoning also provides for residential low medium which allows
9,000 square foot single family homes and 7,260 square foot lots for twin homes and, or a PUD.
Now the only way you could get the RLM zoning district or the PUD would be you would have
to give preservation of a significant amount of woods so for example the Fox Wood is one that
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
3
we’ve done recently where we preserved a significant amount of upland trees and created a trail
through there and the lots were allowed to be smaller. So this applicant chose to go forward with
the PUD allowing for the density transfer. So in looking at this and meeting with perspective
people that were looking at purchasing the property the Comprehensive Plan for this area
adjacent to Lake Ann and to Lake Lucy was shown to be preserved so in order to that
preservation to take place with the dedication of open space in lieu of purchasing the property the
applicant and the City felt the PUD process would be the best way to go through to pursue the
preservation without purchase of the property that was deemed in the Comprehensive Plan to be
an area to be preserved. So with that.
Hoffman: Thanks Kate. Chairman Aller and members of the Planning Commission my name is
Todd Hoffman. It’s a pleasure to be here this evening. I serve as the Parks and Recreation
Director for the City of Chanhassen and I’ll go over the slides that have to do specifically with
the expansion, proposed expansion of Lake Ann Park. Significant size piece of property and
then talk briefly about some trail planning that’s taking go in that area as well. So if we go back
to 6-28-18. I can do it Kate from here I think. So the, or excuse me the Park and Recreation
Commission took a look at the concept plan as well and their recommendation to the City
Council at that time in the early stages of the development process was to say okay, we
understand the property owner has the right to develop their property. The Comprehensive Plan
and the Park System Plan says but our preference is to preserve that large area between the two
lakes. Not put homes in there. Preserve it as park space but obviously they own the property.
We don’t. How are we going to gain access to that property? Two ways. Well a number of
ways to do it. So park dedication takes about 10 percent of any development and so that’s about
9 acres, give or take in this scenario. It’s also, it’s another way of calculating it. It’s 1 acre per
75 people so for every 75 people you’re bringing into a new neighborhood the City can ask for 1
acre. That’s about 9 acres. But in total there’s just about 50 acres of upland in the area that
we’re going to be talking about. So maybe click forward. Is there a map? Yeah there we go.
So this is just gives some context about the, we’ll get back to the other stuff once we get to that
map. This will give you a context about what’s being planned in this general area. If you take a
look at the yellow lines on the outside of the entire area, so you’ve got Lake Lucy to the north.
Galpin to the west. Highway 5 and Audubon to the south and Powers Boulevard. Those all have
comprehensive trail systems and neighborhoods on them and the goal is to get all of those people
connected to this large expansion of Lake Ann Park. So Lake Ann Park currently is 100 acres in
size. Has many amenities but this proposed expansion will add about another 100 acres to the
park with all natural treed areas, some wetlands and then this trail system. So those lines that
you see there are representative of what has been in the City’s Comprehensive Plan for a long
time and so everybody that’s either owned this property or has proposed to develop it or any
citizen that has lived in the area could have had access to the comprehensive planning documents
and could have learned what the City was proposing for this property, both for parks and trails
into the future. That just again text I’m not going to read but that’s what the Comprehensive
Plan says is we’re going to build parks and trails within a half mile of everyone’s front door.
Connect our parks and our neighborhoods via trails. That’s what our comp plan says. Again
same thing. It talks about the 9 acres. So to accomplish that you have this large area inbetween
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
4
the lakes where the red arrows are and the red circles. That you could plat homes in but it’s just
simply, it’s not very desirable for a variety of reasons to do it. If you’re a developer or a
potential homeowner that might be desirable but from the City’s comp plan it says let’s get those
homes out of that area. Allow them to be transferred to the west and to transfer that density out
and so going back to the park dedication, 9 acres. That’s the first you can get so you’ve got 41
acres left to acquire. The City’s not in a position to buy 41 acres of property from Lennar but
they’re willing to go ahead and say we’ll work with you on this transfer of density. What we
want to do is we want to abide by your City’s Comprehensive Plan. We think it’s a good idea as
well. Provide all the open space for all the neighbors but we also have to financially you know
turn a profit. Make money in this deal just like any other developer and so same goes for the
land owner. When they sell the property they want to obtain the highest and best value of the
property and you just can’t, simply can’t say we’re going to take your property from either the
landowner or Lennar. So then this is what you accomplish with that transfer of density. All of
that open space. The large wetland area which is over 40 acres in size. 50 acres of upland
inbetween the two lakes is preserved and the density transfer is to the west into that
neighborhood. Gives you a little more of a graphical representation of what we’re talking about.
So the green is all upland. The light blue is the wetland area. That’s a large wetland that runs
north and south. It also drains, it drains from the south to the north. Drains into Lake Lucy and
then eventually Lake Lucy drains into Lake Ann so that gives you at least some scale of the size
of the area that’s proposed to be preserved as part of both the park dedication, 9 acres and then
the density transfer out of the other 41 acres. So this just, the City recently finished a Park
System Master Plan and this speaks to that. Development master plan defines the extent of the
park expansion to the west and north and that’s what’s being done so the Park System Plan, and
all that citizen input that was a part of that process just about 18 months ago said that this is the
number one priority in our city. So when residents were asked what’s the biggest parks and trail
priority in our city? They said preserving this area inbetween the two lakes is our number one
priority as a community. Last summer the City Council identified a key financial strategy that
said we want to start planning for this. We think it’s important for the future of our community.
We want to communicate to residents what we’re thinking. Redefine, or define that
Comprehensive Plan trail system a little bit more and so this is a concept trail plan that would
show how the trails would connect, both through Lake Ann. Around the east side of Lake Ann
and then connecting up to Greenwood Shores Park. That’s where the creek is so you would have
your first bridge at that location then you, is the cursor showing? There we go, fantastic. So
this trail here would continue. There would be a bridge over the top of the creek at this location.
The trail would continue to the north. Second bridge over this creek and then the trail would
connect to a dead end trail at this location right here which goes up to Lake Lucy Road. So
that’s the first leg. Second leg would continue down around Lake Ann and work it’s way over to
a boardwalk. This would be a boardwalk across the narrowest part of this neck down wetland
and this is where the Lake Ann Interceptor comes through and so that’s where the large sewer
line goes through for Met Council and then this would be the main connection, not just to the
new neighborhood but also over along to the back side of this wetland to Galpin Boulevard into
the adjoining neighborhoods so everybody can have access to this comprehensive trail system.
And then eventually if this property ever subdivides then the final piece could be developed and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
5
you would complete that ring around Lake Ann. But even without this parcel here you can still
access Lake Ann Park from the new developments and it will continue to, the trail to the north.
So you start making those connections that everybody would like to see happen around this area
to preserve a very significant stand of forested area that would otherwise be developed into
homes and you preserve that large wetland area so it becomes a common public space that
everybody can access and gain access to and it’s a benefit for all. Park System Plan identifies
those trail gaps and community input trails are the highest value amenity in our system.
Connections to our Lake Ann are key and the desire is for more trail access to parks and natural
areas, just what I talked about. That’s probably it for me. And so as we continue through, I’ve
been in the city a number, a good number of years. This no doubt represents the largest park
dedication opportunity that the City has ever been faced with so it’s a significant opportunity I
think for the citizens of Chanhassen to realize long range plan in the City’s Comprehensive Plan
but it does take that density transfer of housing and that’s the trade off and so I think that’s one
of the biggest talking points as the Planning Commission moves forward. Thank you for your
time.
Aanenson: So I talked about the rezoning portion of the property…the purpose of the PUD and
what we were trying to accomplish was using that as a tool so now we’re going to talk about the
preliminary plat which has a lot more of the planning aspects and then significant amount of
engineering so the preliminary plat then includes 191 lots. Of that the development area is 51
acres and it’s on 191 gross acres of land so there’s 3 outlots. The largest being the preservation
area and then 2 outlots that are located here and up here and then there’s right-of-way that will be
dedicated with this as a part of Galpin Boulevard. There is right-of-way being dedicated for that
when that gets built in the future and so all the right-of-way is taken out as is the outlot area as
far as taking the density so it is well under the 1.2 to 4 units an acre which is a requirement of the
low density zoning district. So within the PUD one of the things that we look at besides the
preservation is a variety of housing types so within this you can see there’s 4 different housing
types and this was some of the issues that were brought up and I’ll let engineering go through a
little bit more details but the original design showed the through street which is the preferred
direction for the fire department but I’ll let the developer go into a little bit more detail but
meeting with some of the neighbors to the north that they felt like having the two cul-de-sacs
was the preferred. So this was one of the designs. So these are all, these are in the shoreland
district which requires the 15,000 square foot lots so those would be the largest lots. It’s also,
while talking about the shoreland district the DNR supports the density transfer and the
preservation of those amenities next to the lake for water quality. And then the next, there’s
some transitional zoning that came up at your concept plan. Some transitional, some larger lots
here on the south side so that’d be 10 lots there so you can see within the PUD there’s 3, excuse
me 4 different lot sizes and then they’ve got the 34 lots here and then the largest would be the
116 of those lots. Included in your packet we put the PUD ordinance in place so one of the goals
I know would be the variety of housing types and then also we calculated all the lots. We went
through and measured all the lots to make sure they met compliance and then also that they
provide an opportunity because we know houses are flexible. Sometimes people want to add a
screen porch or a deck so there was an opportunity for that so we went through that exercise too.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
6
So within that PUD ordinance there’s also an attachment of the housing types so within each, so
for example the landmark series, there‘s different facades and then there’s different floor models
and I’ll let the developer talk a little bit more about those but it’s my understanding that some of
those will be changing over the summer. They might do a little bit different branding on those
but we are going to make those a part of the PUD ordinance that they are similar and that they
mix up the facades on the exterior and so they’d be different housing types so that has been
demonstrated with the PUD which is also one of the requirements. Also the setbacks. The 20-25
foot setbacks. 7 ½ between yards. Again you have that in other zoning districts in the RLM.
Sometimes we use the 5 and 10. You’ve seen it a couple different ways. The nice thing when
you get to the 7 ½ it really kind of eliminates storage in the side yards because you don’t have a
10 foot side yard to put storage. And also it’s my understanding that they’ll also be submitting
homeowners association rules of how they’ll regulate that. If you look at some of the other
neighborhoods that Lennar’s done they have those requirements. So that is pretty much the
subdivision itself. How it’s laid out so just wanted to remind everybody kind of what we talked
about. This was a slide we showed doing the concept kind of the forestry area. So if you look at
where the, kind of the open area is here. The preservation of this area of the woods. So the City
Forester put quite a bit of detail in the comments for the preservation and yes there are some
woods that are going to be removed but also significant portion of the woods will be saved. So
in looking at that we also looked at the fact that if you did a traditional subdivision there would
also be, could you do some custom grading? Potentially but there’d also be some tree loss with
that too so I’ll go in a little bit more detail of the preservation area. Everything in that shaded
like this is in the preservation area. Then you can see some of the grading limits. I know some
of these edges of the wetlands are important but we’ll talk about that in the wetland in a minute
but the nice thing about on this side of the wetland you kind of preserve these existing edges.
But in the tree canopy the minimum about 9 ½ acres was not included in the calculations so you
don’t get to double, you have to dedicate something so you can’t double count that so the canopy
is a little bit less than what was calculated as far as the total preservation area. There’s, so a
recommendation of revegetation of the landscaping. I think there’s some areas that we think
preserve some of those edges along the wetland. Also along Galpin Boulevard for those typical
buffers so there will be trees that will be put into the back yards or the front yards on those lots
and then we’ll be looking at that with the final grading plan but there’s a pretty detailed report
from the City Forester then on that and feel good about the direction that we’re moving in that
regard in the forestry and landscaping plans. With that I’ll turn it over to engineering to go
through.
Henricksen: Alright thank you Kate. Good evening everyone, commissioners. My name’s Erik
Henricksen. I’m the project engineer with the city. I’ll be presenting the engineering review for
easements, right-of-way, streets, retaining walls, utilities such as sanitary sewer and watermains.
Beginning with easements and right-of-ways. As you can see from the map the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services has a 20 foot easement that bisects the site diagonally from the
northwest corner to the southeast corner. There are two locations the applicant is proposing to
impact their easement. One is location A where they’re going to be constructing the Street Z and
location B where they’ll be grading for some lots off of Street G. The council or MCS has been
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
7
provided and supplied the plans and have no comments or concerns at this time regarding the
impacts to their easement. If there are any changes to any of grading plans MCS will again be
provided the plans for comments. Right-of-way dedication will be required along the east side of
Galpin Boulevard. This is per Carver County’s comments along with Highway 117 corridor
study and the typical roadway sections identified in the County’s draft 2040 Comprehensive
Plan. The corridor study did identify that specific, there were specific right-of-way needs right
here. It indicated that a 50 foot dedication from the center line of Galpin Boulevard would be
required. This has been illustrated on the preliminary plat by the applicant. In order to satisfy
the County and City’s conditions the applicant will be required to produce cross reference
submittals such as grading plans, profiles and respective cross sections at key locations such as
intersections where ponds kind of abut the right-of-way and other key locations identified by the
City. These will be subject to review by the County prior to recording of the final plat. The
applicant is proposing to construct 5 stormwater basins. From the preliminary grading plans and
grading details drainage from individual lots will be routed away from buildings into a series of
catch basins and reinforced concrete pipe in the back drainage utility easements located in the
back yards. Drainage from proposed public streets will be collected through catch basins located
next to curbs and routed to stormwater basins for treatment. The applicant has not provided in
their narrative or in the preliminary plans details regarding whether the site will be mass graded
or will undergo a phase approach. The applicant shall supply a mass grading plan or a phased
grading, whichever is applicable for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of
grading permits. Lastly the stormwater best management practices and proposed facilities for
treating runoff have been evaluated and are found to be feasible to meet the City’s stormwater
master plan or management plan and the stormwater standards. All required updates addressed
in the staff report to the preliminary models must be addressed and submitted to the City for
review. Additionally this development falls within the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed
district. They have been provided plans. Pending any comments from the watershed district the
applicant shall address those as well. More grading. There are two bluffs within the site. It’s
kind of difficult to see but this hashed area up here is what has been identified as a bluff within
their site plan. This is located behind the lots of 111 through 115 off Lucy Ridge Lane. There is
a second bluff located behind the lots of 125 and 126 abutting Street Z. As you can see the
grading plans do not indicate the location or extents of the bluffs and their appropriate buffers
and setbacks. This may impact grading of these areas and any subsequent construction of
retaining walls or building pads in the area. Thus the applicant would be required to submit
updated grading plans that illustrate these bluffs and their setbacks while adhering to bluff
protection ordinances prior to issuance of grading permits. The preliminary grading plans do
illustrate grading for Basin 400 that will encroach into the southern section of the City’s well
house number 3 and water station site located off of Galpin Boulevard. As addressed under the
water section of the staff report the applicant will be required to perform site improvements to
the well house number 3 site. One of the improvements is the inclusion of the realignment of the
access off of Galpin Boulevard. As you can see from the preliminary grading plans that hasn’t
been incorporated yet so we want to see the coordination of this access and it being illustrated on
the grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. Furthermore this access point is one
of those key locations that we’d like to see the cross reference material for the Galpin project
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
8
that’s scheduled in 2022 to insure proper alignments, elevations, and the like. The preliminary
grading plans indicate drainage of back yards from these lots here. This stems from Lot 164
down to Lots 174 which abut Street A. This runoff will be, will go directly onto the proposed
trail. Runoff from these lots will degrade the trail and unnecessarily and warrant undue
maintenance and upkeep. Furthermore runoff would actually go directly into the Wetland 11
untreated so the applicant shall submit revised grading and stormwater plans to deal with the
stormwater here. One of the recommendations might be either to swale it or as they proposed
prior to is to install the catch basin and RCP system to come into Basin 400 for treatment. East
of Lot 111 abutting Street A the applicant is proposing a stormwater conveyance system. The
preliminary grading plans indicate a grade of up to approximately 30 percent which runs
perpendicular or across slope to the stormwater system. Maintenance and repair activities on
such a steep slope are difficult and can pose safety concerns. The applicant shall adjust the
grading plans for a more appropriate grade. Engineering does recommend not more than 10
percent over the utility. Additionally staff does have concerns about slope stability in this area
here. The applicant shall submit an updated geotech report which will include the soil types, the
ground water elevations and slope stability calculations for this area based on the proposed
structure to be constructed on this lot here. Retaining walls. There are 3 retaining walls that are
proposed on the preliminary plans. All of these retaining walls do exceed a height of 4 feet.
Therefore they’re going to have to be designed by a professional engineer or landscape architect.
Those designs will have to be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of grading permits so
that we can review their stability. Wall 1 is approximately 200 feet long and ranges from 6 to 8
feet in height. The construction of this wall appears to be within a bluff setback area. That was
discussed earlier. This is Street Z. This is Lot 124 and 125. The retaining wall may have to be
adjusted but this is going to be pending the updated grading plans so engineering will be excuse
me looking at that for review. Wall 2 is approximately 170 feet long. This here will require, this
is another key location that we’re going to want to see cross reference material because of the
proximity to the right-of-way line which we discussed earlier on cross reference material. Wall 3
to the south here is approximately 420 feet long and ranges from 4 to 10 feet in height. The
retaining wall is offset approximately 10 feet from a stormwater conveyance pipe that you can
see from the drainage and utility easement here. This retaining wall will have to be adjusted to
maintain a 1 ½ to 1 buffer from the bottom of the stormwater pipe to the bottom of the retaining
wall. This is for maintenance purposes along with structural stability of the wall to give it an
appropriate buffer if those maintenance activities have to be conducted. Moving now to streets.
The applicant is proposing the construction of 9 new city streets and the extension of 2 existing
streets. The City shall own and maintain the streets after acceptance of the public improvements
by the City Council. All newly constructed street sections shall be designed to meet the current
standards specifications and details and detail plates for residential streets. After review by
engineering they do appear to meet the majority of all our detail plates and standards. One
addition will be the, from the detail plate for our residential streets would be the addition of
draintile on both sides which weren’t provided. The proposed streets in line with existing ones
off Galpin Boulevard which are Longacres Drive and Hunter Drive. These alignments promote
full access management and circulation of traffic and also match the design considerations for
the Galpin Boulevard construction and the Highway 117 corridor study. These new streets and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
9
extensions will result in 6 cul-de-sacs with 5 of the 6 proposed cul-de-sacs meeting city code.
Street Z, a newly constructed street and cul-de-sac in the northern section of the development
exceeds the maximum length for a cul-de-sac per the city ordinance. As proposed Street Z has a
length of 1,576 feet measured from the center line of Galpin Boulevard to the center of the turn
around radius of the cul-de-sac. Engineering recommends the approval of the cul-de-sac as the
topography would require substantial grading for a through street and the loss of significant trees
that would alter the physical character of the property and the surrounding parcels. Furthermore
as Kate mentioned the residents to the north in the Ashling Meadow neighborhood strongly
opposed the through street. Because and since Street Z has not been proposed as a through street
the stub off Ruby Lane is no longer necessary. Ruby Lane services no driveways and will not be
required for future connections. Therefore the developer will be required to remove the hard
surface, restore the area to the existing natural conditions and construct half street improvements
which would be curb and gutter to maintain continuity of Topaz Drive and the drainage along
Topaz Drive. The City will reach out to the abutting property owners to see if they are interested
in the vacation of the right-of-way. However all utility easements will remain in place. Then
here the sidewalk located at the intersection of Galpin and Street E terminates to, with no
proposed connectivity to, at the intersection to the existing trail system on the west side of
Galpin. Using the manual of uniform traffic control devices approved practices for pedestrian
crosswalk and intersection improvements the applicant shall construct that connection. Water
and sanitary sewer. The applicant is proposing to construct an 8 inch PVC C900 watermain and
8 inch PVC sanitary sewer main throughout the entire development as well as streets. The
watermains and the sanitar y sewer mains shall be owned and maintained by the City after
acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. The staff report enumerates the
comments and conditions regarding both systems. However all those comments and conditions
addressed are in regards to the building and construction permits. Overall the applicant has
proposed systems that meet the City’s best management practices, construction standards and
standard specifications for construction for the installation of public utilities. The only major
change to the preliminary plans would be the addition of a back feed location for the long dead
end of Street Z which shall connect to the existing stub off of Ruby Lane. There’s an existing
watermain that was stubbed out during this, the construction of a stub out of Ruby Lane.
Aanenson: Thank you. So now we’re onto the third action which is the wetland alteration
permit. So as we mentioned before there was a 41 acre wetland that’s going to be preserved.
There are 3 impacted, excuse me 5 impacted wetlands and those include 12 and 12A. These two
wetlands here and then wetlands 3, 4 and 5 would also be impacted so if you look at the total of
wetlands on the site, 1.2 acres of 47.54 acres are being impacted so 3 percent of the wetlands are
being impacted so this is going through a wetland alteration permit process. We are
recommending approval as we’ve done with other applications but there’s, it’s still moving
through the process so we are supporting the alteration permit itself. So before we get to the
motion there are a lot of conditions in the staff report. All those conditions, I mean there might
be some modifications to the plat itself. That’s not that uncommon. As the project engineer
indicated there’s condition to mitigate all that and we believe that all those things can be
accomplished with some modifications. That may be if we have to stay away from a bluff or to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
10
get a trail through there might be some changes or reconfigurations or maybe even a loss of a
couple of lots as it moves through those modifications. But with that we do believe that it, that
this project again with all the conditions of approval could move forward so with that we are
recommending approval of the rezoning to the PUD. PUD Resident including the design
standards. As I indicated we put together specific design standards calling out the different plans
and the standards that we would recommend for that. In addition we’re recommending approval
of the subdivision with 191 lots, the 3 outlots, the dedication of the public right-of-way and the
plans proposed here tonight and then also that we approve the City recommend that the City
Council approve the wetlands. We also have attached Findings of Fact so with that I’d be happy
or any of the staff would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission has.
Aller: A lot to digest.
Tietz: Andrew?
Aller: Any questions at this point of staff?
Tietz: Chairman Aller.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Yeah I have a couple things Kate and Todd. Obviously preservation of open space and
parkland is pretty critical but I have a fundamental issue with the transfer of density. The June
plan or concept plan that we, that was presented in July illustrated 54 lots on the Lake Ann parcel
or the east parcel. And my question and one of my questions on this is how was the plan tested
and verified? To my knowledge there is no grading plan, wetland assessment other than the plan
that we saw here. The impact on wetlands. Whether they’d be filled. Tree removal or inventory
of trees on any of that parcel and obviously the shoreline and wetland setbacks. I don’t know
that there is, that plan was tested so I can’t logically say that there were 54 buildable lots or if
there were 70 buildable lots or 20 buildable lots. To follow up on that I really question the, if the
acreage is feasible for development because of it’s accessibility. There’s wetland crossing on the
south. There’s wetland and steep slopes connecting to either Topaz or Lake Lucy Lane on the
north. If not feasible economically or the ability to obtain approvals for those two connections,
developable, to make it developable, then the lot count is irrelevant so I guess I’d like the staff’s
comment on that. I just, there’s no evidence that that plan was tested to the level that we see on
this, or on this current set of plans.
Aanenson: So is your question is would you like to see a full blown engineering plan on that
then I would think they would probably move towards that as an option for cost.
Tietz: Well I’m just not sure that it’s developable period. Under current regulations crossing the
wetland and traversing the slope and connecting to the north, we always have issues with the
north, with the traffic issues and they illustrated a change in their plan to create two, one long
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
11
cul-de-sac which the fire department in our document says that they do not agree with that even
through engineering says that it’s feasible but the fire department disagrees with that. So I’m
just questioning whether or not that connection to the north would be obtainable and the crossing
of the wetland to the south is it, obviously anything is financially feasible if you have enough
money but, and the duration of trying to get a permit for the wetland crossing. If the land is not
technically developable there’s no transfer of density.
Hoffman: Commissioners I’d be glad to address some of that. So density transfer is a tool that
we want to use and so the City wants to have access to a density transfer tool to make this
possible. It’s a negotiation and so there was a 54 lot count at one time. Now we’re down closer
to 41 lots being transferred out of that area. So are 41 lots developable in that area? That’s a
negotiation. We’re not, if the City Council directs us to go out and decide if those lots are
absolutely buildable into that area that may be something we would have to do. But it’s a
negotiation. You just can’t take these people’s property from them. Is it accessible? Sure. It
could be accessible from the south. It’s got a dry land connection from the south. Does it have
value? Absolutely and so if it’s not developed during this subdivision you could just simply
hang onto it. Lennar could hang onto it and sell it when the south piece develops and you can
just drive right into it. And so the City is attempting or recommending to both the Planning
Commission, the Park Commission and the City Council that we utilize the density transfer.
Right now it’s somewhere in area of 41 lots. Could 41 lots be developed in that property?
That’s a question that you’d have to ask yourself. Staff believes it is. It’s valued at that. That’s
an area that you could put 41 lots. If we can transfer that out and move it to the west that’s a way
we can access millions of dollars of property that the City would not otherwise have the ability to
go ahead and purchase so it’s a tool that we want to use. How far you want to test that tool,
that’s a discussion item.
Aller: Do you have a second one?
Tietz: Well yeah a couple more but I think that was the most critical one and I’m not sure, where
did the 41 comes from Todd? I’ve never seen it in any publication.
Hoffman: So if you take a look at there was originally 119 lots over there. Now I think we’re
down to 160 and so that equals you know about 41 that are being transferred over there. So we
have 160 lots now. I think there was 119 on one of the original plans so you know it’s, again
that number if fluid. It goes from it started at 54. It could be down to 41. It might be
somewhere inbetween. That’s a negotiable number.
Tietz: Okay. Can the, and my second question would be related to the Galpin, the standards for
the PUD. It doesn’t appear that there’s a lot of standards applied in there other than the setbacks
and so forth. And I’m just curious whether that can be amended to include other items?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
12
Tietz: Such as trail lighting. Such as way finding. I’m also concerned about the appearance on
the street front that all the models that have been submitted to us have the standard garage
compliment which will be a wide open mouth to every one of those high density units. I’d like
to personally see that a significant percentage of those lots have garages that enter 90 degrees to
the street because it gives, it changes the character of the neighborhood that the setbacks as
opposed to everything being lines up just 20 feet back from the right-of-way. There should be
some variation. I think architecturally we deserve to have the benefit of some alteration to the
strict picket fence street frontage and I’d like to see further discussions of that maybe after the
meeting and as this plan progresses.
Aanenson: Sure.
Tietz: To have an opportunity to have the Planning Commission and others address those site
specific things. Ashling Meadows has a wonderful neighborhood facility that was built in
conjunction with the development. They have the community building of their own. It’s not city
owned to my knowledge. It has a pool and it has wonderful facilities for the neighbors and that’s
just the immediate property to the north. Items such as that could certainly have been considered
in this development so those are a couple of questions I have.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Erik I’ve got a couple technical questions for you. When you were going through
the catch basin size and I was just looking at that, the amount of water coming in there because
it’s a fairly large footprint of the subdivision. Particularly I was thinking about Basin 400 and
some of the others, how did the sizing of that because I worry about if those basins overflow
impacting the houses in proximity and then as it went into the wetland. I guess it’s Wetland 1 to
the south if I get this right. Or Wetland 11 I guess to the south and it was backing up into those
homes so tell me about catch basin size and water handling because that is, that will be an issue
with this given the fact it’s low and there’s going to be a lot of rain off if there happens to be a
significant rain event.
Henricksen: The stormwater analysis and the models provided were reviewed first by our Water
Resources Coordinator or our previous Water Resources Coordinator. Right now she’s no longer
with the City and then along with a consulting agent so when it comes to the sizing of the rate
control and volume control for the stormwater system it was inputted into hydrocad. Those
models were provided to the City from their stormwater management report they were meeting
all the hydraulic conveyance requirements. However through the review of the model there were
some changes that we needed to see about some of the variables they used so that is actually
some of the resubmittals that we’re waiting for in order to insure that those size requirements
have been met.
McGonagill: What size rain event were you thinking? You know it’s in the model because I’m
not familiar with the hydrocad you’re using.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
13
Henricksen: Okay yeah, the rate control or those standards are for the 2 year, the 10 year and the
100 year I believe that is one of the requirements for the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed
district requirement that they’re also conducting a review on. The actual intensities of those
events I don’t have on hand. I’d be happy to.
McGonagill: So maybe the simpler question, are the basins designed for 100 year event? 10
year event?
Henricksen: Yes.
McGonagill: So they’re designed for 100 year event?
Henricksen: Yeah.
McGonagill: Okay. Next question. In the package Carver County talked about the access roads.
Entering from the subdivision onto Galpin and they were talking about the need I think for you
know proper turn lanes. I think it was off Street A and Street E. To have enough wide so they
can turn in there to traffic. Were those addressed?
Henricksen: Is that for the full access control off Galpin?
McGonagill: Perhaps. Maybe I don’t have my terminology right.
Henricksen: So the Highway 117 corridor which was a study that was completed by Kimley-
Horn. They did an evaluation on a couple proposals for best access management control. They
did include right turn lanes, left turn lanes for both north and south bound but that’s off of
Galpin.
McGonagill: No I’m talking about off of the streets in, what kind of, did they put the tur lanes
into Streets A and E on this subdivision or are they just straight stops?
Henricksen: So the, that project won’t have any effect on the actual access points for…
McGonagill: Okay I’ll try it this way. Street A and E run into Galpin.
Henricksen: Right.
McGonagill: Are there going to be turn lanes on Street A and E?
Henricksen: Okay so we haven’t received those, that cross reference material that’s being
requested for those key intersections.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
14
McGonagill: You haven’t received that from the developer?
Henricksen: We have not yet.
McGonagill: Okay.
Henricksen: That’s part of the what we need to see prior to issuance of final plat to insure that
we have proper widths.
McGonagill: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: I actually just follow up to that and I’m, is there any indication how those intersections
at Longacres and Hunter will be managed? Whether it’s like stop sign or stop light, do we have
any?
Henricksen: Those two intersections will have stops from the east and west but north and, up
and down Galpin Boulevard will be, it will be free flowing with left and right turn lanes. The
Highway 17 corridor study there will be, on Galpin there will be improvements to install cul-de-
sacs north and south of this development but for these locations you’ll have no stop control.
Weick: And is there, did you do any estimate of how much dirt, earth will need to be excavated
off of this property? Do we have any, and I can ask the developer that too.
Henricksen: The developer should be able to answer that. That’s a part of the comments with
the, that we weren’t given any type of mass grading or phased grading approach with that. When
we get that grading plan obviously we want to see haul routes, stockpile routes. We want to see
cut, fill sheets and that kind of things so we can.
Weick: Okay. I just was wondering if there was an early estimate on that or not. Okay. And
then I just had two other questions I think probably Kate. On page 1 when it talks about the
acreage and it talks about gross versus net. Can you just clarify the difference between gross and
net?
Aanenson: Yeah. So we take the wetlands out for net. So gross is a total acre of 191 so then we
would take out stormwater ponds, right-of-way, wetlands, those all come out.
Weick: Okay. Actually that’s my last question.
Aller: Great, any additional questions at this time? Commissioner Madsen.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
15
Madsen: These I think are for Kate. When we looked at this request last time there were some
areas of concern and I was just wondering if you could summarize if and how those areas of
concern were addressed. The first was there was a concern of overall density. Another one was
steep slopes on the north side and the through traffic. A third one is the width of the lots on the
south end along with the buffers to that south neighborhood and water runoff in that south
neighborhood.
Aanenson: Yeah I’ll address some and I’ll let the developer address them too but regarding the
steep slopes and that was where the two cul-de-sacs came into play kind of blending those two
neighborhoods. Preservation along here. I know the trees that are on this property are of interest
to the people to the north. Those are some of the areas that were of concern so these are all
15,000 square foot lots and I know there’s a greater buffer creating for some of those existing
homes and again I’ll let the developer talk to that. On the south end those lots were made larger
on the south end abutting the 15,000 square foot lots to the south. Also the project engineer
talked about the retaining wall and drainage to pick up some additional water that’s coming off
the backs of those lots there and providing a conveyance for those to get treated so those lots
were transitioned to be larger lots so there’s a better buffer there. I think some of the challenge
too with that retaining wall is to provide, continue to maintain some of that buffer on the south
but as we pointed out in the staff report as a general rule we don’t require a buffer between single
family single family. That’s, you know we usually try to buffer between higher intense uses but
through the preservation of the, if you came with the retaining wall there may be some areas that
they can try to preserve through that area. I’ll let the developer, as far as stormwater and the rest,
those have been as the project engineer indicated, I believe those have been addressed.
Obviously there’s still some minor tweaking for those as we locate some of the trail connections
that might again impact the total number of lots and as we talked about maybe a free right or a
free left on some of these. The widening of the intersections of the streets also a potential for
some of the lots too, to not make the total. Did I answer them all?
Madsen: I think you did.
Aanenson: Okay.
Madsen: One follow up question.
Aanenson: Sure.
Madsen: There was a letter from the fire marshal and he was not sure of the width of some of
the cul-de-sacs and indicated what the required width needed to be. Will that all, if it is found
that those widths need to be adjusted will that all be incorporated into what they will be required
to do?
Aanenson: That’s correct. So there’s a difference of opinion, the City hasn’t adopted those
standards but that would be the fire marshal’s request so we’re working through that issue but
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
16
yes that would also impact the number of lots. So to be clear the 191 would be the ultimate. It
may be less than that as we work through some of the trail connections and the right-of-way at
the end of the cul-de-sac, those sort of issues. And as we, the touch down point at Galpin
Boulevard as we talked about that. If there needed to be additional turn lanes or something of
that there.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions based on those? Hearing none if the, oh
Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: You know…talked about averages. Lot averages. The front yard width averages. I’m
assuming that we have no averages anymore. That if this plan does proceed forward that
minimum lot sizes would be minimum lot sizes. It’s not an average of a lot size. It’s not an
average of a front width. If it’s 65 or 90 or 75.
Aanenson: You’re correct. So if you look at the compliance table, yep. We put those in the
compliance table. Each lot has.
Tietz: I just want to be sure that
Aanenson: Agreed.
Tietz: Now you always spoke of averages.
Aanenson: No.
Tietz: In the previous submissions.
Aanenson: No. There is a, and that might have been just in general but no we calculated all
those. We also asked them to give us an area for additional…per lot so we checked all those but
we do measure at the building setback line which is how we turn in any zoning district so but
you’re right, they are all calculated and those are all in the table that’s with the PUD ordinance.
Tietz: But on additional buildable per lot, I know Steve we’ve always had a lot of discussions
about preserving space for people to do something in the future. Some of these lots have
dramatic drop off’s.
Aanenson: Correct.
Tietz: They may have theoretically space for that future gazebo or, but there’s no way you can
build it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
17
Aanenson: That’s correct. So those.
Tietz: How do we protect in this process that every lot has a buildable area that’s been set aside
for future?
Aanenson: So as with other parts of the city people are also living on bluff areas that they have
not the potential so what we talked to with the developer is that as part of the disclosure with
those lots that have maybe a more scenic view but not as much space to add something else on,
that those are all part of their disclosure documents because we do have other lots in the city but
also abut a bluff or, yeah so we’ve asked them to put that in their disclosure documents and I’ll
let Lennar talk a little bit more about that.
Tietz: I guess to avoid variances for the first homeowners.
Aanenson: Absolutely and we don’t, yeah. We don’t want that.
Aller: Okay hearing none we’ll have the developer come forward. If you could state your name
and address and representational capacity. Tell us about your project.
Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe
Jablonski here this evening representing Lennar Corporation as the Director of Entitlements and
Forward Planning.
Aller: Welcome back.
Joe Jablonski: Thank you. I was taking some notes so if I missed anything feel free to stop me.
I’m going to kind of back up a little bit and want to go through a few of the changes that we
made and some of the things that we’ve been working on since you originally saw this back in
July and council saw it in August. We have gone back. We have met with, we did hold a
neighborhood meeting. We had, I had met individually with some of the neighbors as well and
in doing that some of the things that we’ve done and changes that we’ve made, I’m going to kind
of walk them through on this plan here. As staff mentioned we did change the north portion
quite a bit. We eliminated that road and that was something that was very important to the
neighbors to the north. Connectivity and the reduction of traffic concerns was very important to
them. There were some challenges related to the grades and some of that stuff that had to be
looked at more closely as well but the decision to do that was really based off of the importance
of not having those connections to the neighborhood. They really wanted to keep the
neighborhoods separated and we were able to support that with this plan and in doing so these
couple lots that you see here also changed significantly from the original concept. We actually
had lots backing up to that area. What we’ve done here has allowed us to preserve a lot more
trees as a buffer between the two neighborhoods. That was important to some of the residents
that lived right up against the back of it. It also allowed some, there’s a fair amount of grade
change from the back of this property line down to the back of this area down there. It ends up
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
18
being about a 30 foot grade change and leaving some of that northern part natural allows it to be,
keep that slope. Keep some of those trees that were there and we recognize the importance doing
that. Lot sizes. We did go back and change the south end quite a bit. We had a series of smaller
cul-de-sacs. There were approximately 54, 55 foot wide, what we referred to as villa lots in that
area. We reduced that down to 34 and put them a little bit more centrally located in through this
area and what we did along the south property line is we expanded those to be 75 feet wide so we
did make them 20 feet bigger than what we originally proposed to help match up to the
neighbors to the south. One of the things that we also learned at the neighborhood meeting was
the importance of not only planting a buffer there but also trying to preserve some of the trees
that were allowed on the south side. So after we conducted our tree inventory we did go back
and were able to preserve some trees along the south. It’s about a 20 foot corridor that we hope
to maintain up through about halfway where the transition to the grade becomes challenging and
we have to put in a retaining wall. But in doing that it does help relieve some of the water and
we’ll be adding storm sewer to the back of those too to help relieve some of the water that was
brought up as well. Architecturally we are proposing a variety of house plans. We do have two
very distinct styles. One of them in the smaller lot area is more of a villa type product where we
would see full maintenance type of product that would be catered to folks that don’t want to
maintain yards. Folks that aren’t interested in maintaining the exteriors of their homes. That
will be handled by a homeowners association. So it really is the type of product that as needs of
people change and whether it’s spending time in other parts of the country or just don’t have the
time or don’t want to spend time doing that kind of thing we feel it’s an important piece of the
neighborhood to allow something that’s a little it different. We did cut back the number of those
a little bit but that was just as much to demonstrate a reduction in the lot count as it was
recognizing that there’s a real need for that type of product. It’s a very under served market so
we felt it was very important to maintain and keep some of that. The predominant or the single
family that you see throughout I did mention that we did do some larger lot sizes adjacent to the
neighborhood there. Those would be a plan style that could accommodate up to 4 car garages. It
is a little bit bigger type of plan. We did, the rest of the plans in the interior we have a variety of
styles. Some of them have been submitted for the packet but we have at least a selection or a
catalog of 10 homes which each have 4 to 5 house plans. We’re constantly changing them. As
Community Director Aanenson mentioned we tend to constantly change and evolve our house
plans to meet the desires of the market and in doing so recognize that we would have to maintain
the architectural standards that are set forth in the PUD. It would be probably more interior type
changes. Name changes to the plans. And variety in façade and what that does is it helps create
a dynamic neighborhood. I think our neighborhoods stand up very well to the test of time and
variety and we do have a, we also impose a monotony code that doesn’t allow for us to put the
same house across from or on either side of a home to continue that trend for variety throughout
a neighborhood. Color packages are also looked at very closely. We have an in-house design
team that reviews that to make sure that the neighborhood is full of variety and interest. Talk a
little bit to the north property. What we were planning to do which is a little different from the
original concept, we’re looking at sectioning that portion off to potentially allow custom builders
or to even allow a different developer to proceed with that portion of it recognizing that they
would be part of the overall PUD and that would have to appear to the rest of the PUD but
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
19
knowing that you know in some capacity we may participate in it but also recognizing that
there’s strong interest from the custom building world that may like to take a crack at some of
that as well. Let’s see. There’s a couple questions about grading and earth work that I heard.
The way that the grading plan appears to be working out is the area up in, whoops sorry about
that. The north portion will likely be able to kind of balance on it’s own. That’s approximately
85,000 yards to finish this north portion which would be this cul-de-sac and this portion and the
ponds that go with it. That’s not final numbers but it’s the ballpark that we’ve been going off of.
The south portion could, it looks like we can grade that probably in two phases. We would start
at the south end where the watermain utilities start at this intersection. We would have to
connect into the Met Council interceptor line and our first phase of development or first final plat
would probably be in this area here. The grading for the completion of the south section is about
a 285,000 yards so it’s a, obviously there’s a lot of earth work to move but it’s not, for something
of this size it’s not an uncommon type of number for earth work. Let’s see what else did we
have here? I think I mentioned that the final plat area for the first phase would be in here.
Moving on from there I would expect that we would do this in about 4 to 5 final, subsequent
final plats which would allow us would take out about 5 to 6 years for final buildout. That’s not
fully considering what exactly happens up on this north end but that’s kind of what our range or
our target absorptions and what our vision of the property is. We do recognize and we see that
we think that this is going to be a real asset to the City of Chanhassen. Not only to the new
residents here but the existing residents and to have the trail connectivity and the ability to access
public space and that much public space. It’s one thing when you work in a 5 acre park or a 10
acre park, a pocket park or something like that but this is something here that has the opportunity
to be incredibly special for the city with the two lakes. Trail connections to a major regional
park and we think that it will be a tremendous asset not just to our community but to the overall
community of Chanhassen. Let’s see we have met, sat down and met with the engineering staff.
He did a good job of going through some of the details of that. There’s a lot of items in there
that need to be worked on but as we went through them item by item we feel that we can address
the items in the report and we’ll do so as we get to final plans. Final construction drawings and
before we address the permitting process so I’m confident that we will be able to continue
working through those. I guess if there’s any other questions I’d be happy to answer them for
you. I guess there were a couple questions about street frontage, architecture, and some variety.
We have offered as part of the packet we did include a side loaded plan that was, we refer to as
our next gen plan. That is a little bit different type of concept or housing type that it’s, we refer
to it as the home within a home. It is a, it has it’s own grandmother suite. Architecturally it is a
side loaded garage so it does allow for that to be incorporated into our plan set. I know that staff
has some concerns about how exactly that’s used but from an architecture standpoint and from
the streetscape it does allow an additional plan style that could meet some of the desire for the
side loaded garage and I’d be happy to talk about that a little bit more if needed. As far as the
community center, a neighborhood amenity. In our opinion the park is the neighborhood
amenity. We really try to highlight the use of open space and community space and when we
build isolated communities that aren’t attached to large regional parks and large systems like
that, that’s when our marketing platform tends to focus more on the smaller neighborhood type
private features which is what at one time Ashling Meadows was. You know it was kind of a
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
20
stand alone community in an area that wasn’t real highly developed but now you’ve got the parks
into place and the addition of this park and the trail system and we feel that that is more than
adequate to support the recreational needs of the neighborhood. So I hope I answered the
questions. I do have a couple of drawings here just cross sections that might help show a couple
of areas. This is a cross section of the, it’s referred to as Street Z. The long cul-de-sac so this is
looking to the south from the Ashling Meadows neighborhood. So if you were in this house here
and this would be your home, this is the elevation approximately of where our homes would be.
So they do sit down because of the topography and where the street gets cut in. They do sit
down a little bit. We did preserve quite a bit of tree space inbetween the two and it just kind of
gives you a little picture of relationship wise how that works. I do have some that overlook the
park space. This shows how much wooded area is being preserved through there and helps
highlight the wetlands, the low areas. The low areas in the wetland, this wetland is along the
edge of it is full of trees as well. I do have one more here on the south. This is the cross section
for the south neighborhood approximately halfway down the street. The existing home this time
is on this side. So originally the spacing between the back of the house and the property line was
at 50 feet. We were able to free up a little bit more space and we limited the depth of the house
pads on the first 10 homes that, we made them wider and we elected to limit the depth that those
houses could be so we were able to create 50 feet to the tree line and then another about 20 feet.
25 feet between the tree line and the property line. And we’re also proposing to plant trees
within there too so we are creating a pretty substantial buffer not just for the existing homes but
also for our residents looking into their back yards so with that I’ll be happy to answer any
questions and recognize that there’s several people here that probably want to talk so if I have to
come back up I won’t be too far.
Aller: Alright thank you. Questions?
McGonagill: Yes Mr. Jablonski. When you on your grading plan I was trying to interpret this
from the package and I was having trouble. Could you point out the areas where you have the
maximum elevation change and how much of an elevation change there is within the grading
plan because you know it doesn’t have to be exact but orders of magnitude because with the
285,000 yards you’re moving there’s a lot of dirt. You know it’s going to be cut and refilled so
could you show me that. Show us, the commission where those points are and how much of an
elevation change there is. Because there’s quite a bit of elevation on the site and you know for
sure.
Joe Jablonski: The most significant change from top to bottom would be from the north property
line down to the backs of these lots that go down to the wetland and inbetween there we have to
cut in a flat road which is why you start seeing a retaining wall kind of down along here. You
can see that there’s quite a bit of slope off the back of these. That’s where from top to bottom
there’s the most.
McGonagill: So about how much?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
21
Joe Jablonski: From this property line down to here it’s about 30 feet.
McGonagill: Of cut that you’re going to have to cut?
Joe Jablonski: No not that we have to cut. Some of that is being made up by the walkout
elevation too so we’re proposing 10 foot basements on there as well to help make up from the
front of the house to where the walkout elevation is, that helps make up some of that. So we’re
cutting the road in but allowing the natural topography that’s out there in some degree to set the
elevations of the houses. The other places, and I didn’t bring a full cut fill map but the other,
let’s see if I have that. The other places that we’re moving the largest amounts of dirt is where
on the edges of, let’s see. I apologize. This might be as easy as anything. So there’s a fairly
significant hill kind of right in the middle and then it starts dropping down to the wetland and
from the top of the hill down to the wetland again you’re probably looking at about 30-35 feet
and the areas that are getting the most cut and fill, the elevation is locked at Galpin so we’re
coming in at Galpin and gradually sloping it down to the wetland area so what we’re doing is
kind of taking that hill and starting to pull that out and down to fill in the areas to set the
basement elevations that are an acceptable level above the wetland but starting to fold that grade
down out of that hill and pushing it through down towards the wetland.
McGonagill: How much are you going to have to pull it down?
Joe Jablonski: From the top to the bottom?
McGonagill: (Yes).
Joe Jablonski: Well the elevation along the wetland has to be built up about 12 feet so there’s
about and I think there’s about 6 feet but a lot of the dirt coming from here is actually coming out
of the pond. Because we do have to excavate fairly large ponds in there too.
McGonagill: Right okay.
Aller: Any additional questions at this point?
Tietz: Commissioner Aller.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Back in July the council requested additional concepts to be submitted and I think that if
you look at your concept from June and July of this year that all I see is really a subtle variation
of the original concept. Can you explain your process and why there weren’t other submissions
made that would be considered alternative concepts? Personally I don’t consider this an
alternative concept.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
22
Joe Jablonski: What we have elected to do is meet the desires of the request that we felt were
necessary. Out of the comments, out of the neighborhood meetings, out of the council, the items
that, the big ticket items that we felt could be addressed through our planning, we’ve done that
and elected to move forward with the plan that you see before you tonight.
Tietz: So it was really just in response to neighborhood requests and not really looking at it from
a technical standpoint of what else could be done with the property to potentially preserve more
of the vegetation and more of the terrain, is that accurate?
Joe Jablonski: There’s a million different ways that this property could be developed. This is
the way that we’ve elected to move forward.
Tietz: One concept.
Joe Jablonski: I wouldn’t say it’s one concept.
Tietz: Okay. The intent, in approving a PUD of this nature, and this is from the ordinance, is
that the product reflects a higher quality of design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Can you explain how your proposal achieves these expectations?
Joe Jablonski: We have a product that is designed to meet the market demands. We are
proposing or self imposing a higher standard of architecture and exterior materials than is
required by code.
Tietz: But is it higher than anything else in the community?
Joe Jablonski: Higher than some communities certainly.
Tietz: Okay. Can you explain your sustainable practices that have been incorporated in this
plan and design?
Joe Jablonski: Is this from the PUD language?
Tietz: No, this is just a question. What are your sustainable practices that have been
incorporated in this design?
Joe Jablonski: I apologize I don’t understand the question.
Tietz: Well there are sustainable design practices. Whether it’s reclamation of water and reusing
it for irrigation. There’s a lot of sustainable practices that are being used in other communities
and in other practices today. What is Lennar doing on this project?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
23
Joe Jablonski: We’re following the standards in the code. We haven’t, we’ve elected at this
point not to go into water reuse because, and we may change our minds on that when we start
getting comments back from the watershed that it’s something that as we get into further design
and planning. We have looked at the area of the townhouses using water reuse but at this point
because of the proximity to the ponds it didn’t make sense. Sustainability wise I would say that
the amount of preservation we’re doing is by far exceeding what is required both I the 50 acres
and our willingness to not disturb the wetlands.
Tietz: Okay. That’s all I have.
Aller: Additional questions at this time? Thank you sir. Okay at this point in time we’ll open
up the public hearing portion of this item. It’s an opportunity for those present to speak either
for or against an item before us. In particular the item that we’ve just been presented with.
We’d ask that you come forward. Don’t step on each other’s toes as you come forward. Go
ahead and speak your mind but do so politely and respectfully as we would expect all citizens of
Chanhassen to do. I understand that there have been several meetings. We’ve had several
presentations before us where people have had an opportunity to speak so what I’d like to do is
concentrate on those areas that are most important to you. This is a public forum and an avenue
to put our thoughts and our processes down so the City Council then can take additional action
on it at a later time so we want to make sure that we’re clear in our intentions for them. So with
that I will open the public hearing portion of the item. Any individual wishing to speak either for
or against the item please step up to the podium.
Geri Stewart: I guess I don’t have specific for or against. My name is Geri Stewart and I live at
1893 Topaz Drive so it’s that northern zero with the cul-de-sac. I just have a concern that
supposedly, well we did get a buffer and I was very excited about it for a while until I saw that,
the cul-de-sac has got houses that are backing up kind of almost to my yard but I don’t know
how deep that buffer is and it turns out that the buffer is part of two yards. They crammed two
houses in on either side up against and that property actually belongs to those yards so if they can
do anything they want with that what’s to keep them from building a pool right behind my yard
or have a huge ugly swing set or cutting down all the trees that supposedly were a buffer. I was
just wondering if there’s anything that can be done to truly make it a buffer. Make it
conservancy. Make it some kind of thing that they’re not allowed to cut down the trees. I don’t
know how easily the City gives variances on that. I just, I think it’s nice that they wanted to
make the buffer but I would really like it to be a real buffer instead of having that one house at
the end and then several houses that go past the cul-de-sac at this end. That’s kind of my
personal thing there.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Geri Stewart: And I would like to know how much space that is. It’s a little drawing. If the
road has to be graded they may wind up having to cut down a lot of the trees just to put that road
in. I don’t know how in the end, how much of a buffer it will really be. L
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
24
Aller: Great, thank you. Any additional comments? Individuals wishing to come forward,
speak for or against the property that would be great. And while he’s stepping forward I would
also note that we did receive an email correspondence from Gregory Stewart which has been
received and read and will be made part of the package.
Dake Chatfield: Alright my name is Dake Chatfield. I live at 2200 Majestic Way. I’m in the
southwest quadrant of the development being planned. You can see my home is here so we’re
looking at Galpin Boulevard here and Majestic Way on the south side here and so I’m right in
this corner lot here and I think my questions are probably to Mr. Jablonski. There’s quite a bit of
old growth woods and forest here and looking at the plan I guess I’m assuming that all that’s
going to be clear cut and houses will be put in there. So this is the same thing only with the
overlay. So I guess a question is, is all that woods going to be clear cut. And then I want to
make sure I understand the buffer here. On the south side it looks like a 25 or 20 to 25 foot
buffer which I guess is not super significant in my opinion. That’s, I mean that’s half the size of
this room or whatever. That’s not a very big buffer and so if I were to offer any
recommendations I think if you know these neighbors could get a little bit bigger buffer
inbetween there that would be my recommendation.
Aller: Thank you. Welcome sir, please state your name and address for the record.
Scott Wosje: Okay thank you for giving me a moment. Scott Wosje. W-o-s-j-e, 7125
Northwood Court in Chanhassen. Longacres neighborhood.
Aller: Welcome.
Scott Wosje: I actually, thank you. I actually sit, I’m the guy that didn’t show up for the
Longacres Board meeting and they made me President again this year so. So we did talk
amongst the Board and amongst the 222 homes. We’ve tried to gather some information and
everybody has their own perspective. You know Mr. Hoffman, actually I’ve gone to the Park
and Rec Commission to try and say hey, get us a mountain bike trail. Carver Trails is a non-
profit that I’ve helped start that’s trying to develop mountain bike in Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver
County so very much support the parks and Kate I’m sure has a perspective of it meets the city
code let’s do it. Perspective is everything and so that’s what I guess I’m trying to say. If you
live in Ashling Meadows the perspective be this helped us a little bit. If you live in Longacres
the perspective is this is going to hurt our home values. The developer seem to be concerned
with keeping a buffer but yet is going to clear cut everything along the Galpin Boulevard. When
my son was born in 2001, January of 2001, December of 2001 I put him in a back pack and
every weekend I walked through Prince’s land and would say hi to, believe it or not Roger Prince
Nelson would be out and he would be out and about. Larry Graham who used to live in the
rambler that was torn down were out and about and they invited us over. I walked that land a lot.
The contour of the land leads me to believe that this is questionable whether that this can really
happen. There’s a lot of unknown. As I’m sitting here listening I’m going, it seems like we’re
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
25
trying to force something and so the perspective is the developer says well hey we’re, we want to
develop this. Let us do this. The City has a perspective. The Longacres perspective is this is not
good for us. They’re clear cutting everything. We’ve been used to having this. The density
transfer doesn’t seem to be fair because you’re dumping everything on our side of the
neighborhood. Again that’s our perspective. Everybody has a fair perspective. I would also like
to love to know who, or I would love to hear your motion actually because the proposed motion
is the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve this. I
would like to hear your motion not, I’m guessing that’s a city staff. I want to hear what your
motion is or what your proposed motion is because I don’t know how this proposed motion can
move forward. I also wonder what the plan is for the development on the south. You’re pushing
all this traffic onto Galpin but what happens when there’s a development on the south and does it
make sense to spread that traffic out a little bit more. If this would get approved I would also ask
that you would lower the speed limit. At 45 there’s a lot of people that use the sidewalks and as
you know or may or may not know the grade going up and down along Galpin is somewhat
dangerous and there’s a lot of, that sidewalk’s also very close to Galpin as well so a lot of
thoughts. I’m trying to think if I have, I just was writing a couple meandering thoughts. But I
guess I would respectfully ask with all the unknown variables I would ask you not to approve
this motion and actually get another plan because as council or whatever, John Tietz say, I mean
I’ve watched this all along and I was expecting to see another plan and we don’t see another plan
quite honestly so thank you for your time.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments?
Josh Kimber: Good evening everyone. Josh Kimber, 2060 Majestic Way. I’m on the south side
of the lot. You know what I’ll be honest with you, when we were here in July and August I
mean I left both this meeting and the City Council meeting you know feeling pretty good. The
comments that we had, both from City Council and what you provided the developer I think
were spot on and I guess I just don’t think that we see that reflected in this plan. At the Planning
Commission, or at the City Council meeting 3 council members did express the desire to see a
Plan C and they spoke about it as seeing 3 separate plans that they could look at and that actually
didn’t happen which was a little disappointing. Specifically asked for 3 plans to go through
concept review but a lot of their comments were matched a lot of the residents and the quote that
Mayor Laufenburger said at the time was, he used closely similar when speaking to lot sizes and
he said similar, similar buffers and similar hard cover and again I just don’t see that in this plan.
Specifically when speaking to lot sizes right, actually this one’s a better view. When I look at lot
sizes here there are 3 proposed lots to 2 lots and to me I don’t look at that as similar lot sizes or
of similar sizes. Also the image that was shown showing the side view of the buffers, I don’t
believe that happened either. Now I know that we use creative words to talk about how there’s
expanded lots or larger lots but the old lot sizes that were in this southern side were those villa
houses and overall if you look at what was proposed versus what is proposed on this south side
we actually added 5 houses so they removed 14 houses from the north but added 5 houses to the
south so I understand that this line of homes did receive a larger density but overall at that
southern lot this whole, that whole package is actually more houses than what was on the other
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
26
side which is a little disappointing. Another comment that was left out tonight was when staff
provided comments on the concept review was the desire to keep a tree line to that south side
which is where I reside and that essentially has been gone away. They did provide a copy of
what trees would be removed and they do keep some of these trees now on the south side but a
majority of those trees that my neighbor so generously talked about do get removed. All the
trees on the south side, all the trees along Galpin which is really disappointing in my mind.
Overall, and I don’t, there’s some weird math that happens in these plans but when you look at
the canopy plan it talks about how there are 42 acres of canopy to be removed and there’s a total
of 52 acres of development so that means 80 percent of this plan to put houses in removes trees
and that’s extremely disappointing to me and I wish that overall I wish you guys would deny the
plan to move forward. I think it’s important that we see 3 comprehensive plans or concept
review plans side by side and not look at this. I don’t look at this as Plan C. I look at this as
Plan A2 so thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Cherree Theisen: My name is Cherree Theisen. I live at 2072 Majestic Way. I too am
neighbors with these guys. I was one of the very first houses built on Majestic Way. When I
built I’m repeating the story that you have heard at the other meetings but it doesn’t seem like
it’s sunk in with anyone. Went to the City and I asked okay I plan on being here for a while.
There’s this wonderful natural tree line. If Prince sells that property what’s going to happen and
they said we will never remove that natural tree line and I went alright. So our whole
neighborhood, I don’t have to show you but our entire back yards were for the most part treeless.
Our kids were young. They could run. They could play football. They could play soccer. They
could do whatever. My kids grew up in that back yard with the neighbor’s kids. I look out and I
see a wall of trees. My house is one of them that he’s planning on going in there and clear
cutting the whole damn thing. And then also putting in that water treatment thing, I would like
to show you the pictures of my west wall of my house that was collapsing 2 years after it was
built because of the drainage that was coming down in. I had to remove everything on the west
side of the house. Have the wall pushed back out. Steel beams, the City of Minneapolis came,
or State of Minnesota came to engineer these beams that had to go in my basement to hold my
house up and keep that wall where it’s supposed to be. They took out all the clay that was on the
west side of the house. They put in 2 sump pumps. Ripped up my whole totally finished
basement. I mean I spent thousands of dollars and I did all that work myself when I moved in so
it kind of hurts a little bit more than the average bear. However it’s very discerning to find out
that what you’re going to do is going go what, 25 more feet up? More water’s going to come
down into my yard. It’s going to come into Joshua’s yard. It’s going to come into my
neighbor’s yard and we’re all going to get flooded again. I have two sump pumps running
constantly and my basement has flooded more than once. Now there appears to be an awful lot
of effort put into this new development for the north side. Meetings with the people. No one
came down to the south side and invited any people from the south side to discuss. Nothing has
been changed down there. Like Josh said I look at those plans and here’s my back yard. To
have nothing back there now but there’s going to be 3 houses there for 2 houses on our side of
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
27
the street. If this goes on I’m outta here and I know you don’t care but I do. I’ve been here since
’95 and I’m getting dry mouth so I’ll shut up.
Aller: Thank you for your comments.
Jim Freebersyser: My name is Jim Freebersyser, F-r-e-e-b-e-r-s-y-s-e-r. I live at 6935 Ruby
Lane in the Ashling Meadows neighborhood. We’ve been tracking this project as it’s gone along
and come to previous meetings and it’s pretty clear that the builder is doing as little as possible in
terms of giving us other options. They’re understand as a businessman that they’re trying to
minimize their up front costs but I would suggest that the City consider a really radical option
which is the City should buy the property and just end this nonsense. End this monstrosity that
seems to be just like a train hurtling down the tracks trying to force fit this whole project. I
would be more than willing to see my taxes go up and even localize that levy to the people who
are affected than to continue to do this. I’d much rather see it stay the way it is so my
recommendation would be that the planning committee could consider that as an option and say
no to this PUD.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Please sir.
Todd Simning: Todd Simning, 2145 Wynsong Lane. I’m just across I guess the west side from
Prince’s property and full disclosure I’m a builder/developer. Pro development because that’s
how I make my living. I would actually recommend tabling or not approving the plan tonight
myself. I’ve heard many instances from Erik over here that there’s a lot of items out there, issues
out there that just aren’t fully completely understandable from grades to drainage to bluffs to, I
mean you name it. I mean from drainage pipes or whatever that he mentioned over there. He
went through a litany of items. In my opinion anything that the Planning Commission would
look at tonight to say that I give approval to something, you really need to have a full
understanding of what you’re approving and with the plan tonight you don’t. I have no problem
with density transfer. It’s my business. I’ve done it before. I’ve done it in the city of
Chanhassen. I’ve worked with Kate. I’ve worked with Todd. They’ve been very good to work
with. In the case of the ghost platting with 54 lots, Todd’s saying it’s a negotiation. 41 lots.
Let’s call it that. Without having a true understanding of what the impact is on grading. When
you look at, when you look at the west side what they’re doing, it’s a mass grade. The only way
they’re getting lots in there they need to completely rip down all the trees and they need to
completely grade it out to make it work. What do you think’s going to happen on the other side?
You think they’re really going to fit 54 lots in there? 41? Call it 32. I don’t know what it is. I
don’t think anybody actually knows what it is so when you’re in negotiation I’m with the City. I
think it’d be a really super cool area and I think it’d be a great park area. But you’re negotiating
with something you don’t even know yet. And it could be 100. Okay? I’d take that chance to
say that it’s probably less than 54 and probably less than 41 but to be honest with you if you
don’t really know what you’re negotiating with how could you really actually give them the
density transfer? Whether it’s myself. Whether it’s Lennar. Whether it’s Gonyea. I don’t care
who it is. Whoever it might be if you actually don’t know the impact you’re negotiating with
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
28
yourself without, not even knowing what you’re negotiating with. So just again pro
development. Something’s going to be there. I just want to see it be the best plan that it can and
I think as good stewards of Chanhassen, as elected public officials you just owe it to yourselves.
You owe it to the City. You owe it to everybody, to all of us, just to make certain you know
what kind of decision you’re making before you actually make it and so if it meant it took
another 60 days to actually kind of look at it and see what the real impacts are, take that time.
It’s okay. So that’s all I have. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Aller: Any other individuals wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item?
Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing on this item. I will invite Mr. Jablonski
if you’d like to comment or make comment after hearing any of those items. Again
understanding the comments weren’t something that you could truly anticipate so we’d love it if
you could do your best to comment on those items that you can or let us know that there’s
additional work or information that needs to be done.
Joe Jablonski: Mr. Chair and members of the commission. I was taking some notes but if I
missed some things I apologize. As far as the north portion, it was the recommendation of staff
in the report that conservation buffering or a conservation easement be placed over the areas that
tree preservation was proposed especially in the more significant standing areas and I agree that
that’s a good idea and we support that so while we don’t have a prepared conservation easement,
that is something that we will continue to work on with staff and imagine that would be more of
a final plat type of condition as well or on a document that would be resolved with the final plat.
Let’s see the, you know I think one of the things and it’s difficult for me to say this or potentially
difficult for people to hear this but there is a willing seller out there that wants to see their
property sold. We’re a developer who is in the business of developing property and building
houses. The overall density that we’re proposing on this is at the very low range of what is
allowed in RS-1 and you know there’s concerns and of obvious nature over the tree removal but
we’re also meeting the City’s standards. We’re meeting the tree replacement requirements. We
do have some adjustments to make within our plan but we feel we can make those. We have
done what we can to preserve the perimeters and buffer the perimeters. And properties of this
nature, there’s change that occurs and change can be difficult and at the same time there’s certain
rights and there’s certain rules set up within the city code that allows for tree replacement. Tree
preservation. Tree canopy. That’s why you have those systems in place and we’re meeting
those guidelines and our desire is to meet those guidelines and part of the density trade, it’s
difficult for us to consider or even propose giving up 50 acres of land as well but it’s important
to understand that that’s part of the trade here is you’re not just getting a small park. You’re not
just getting a small area or a neighborhood park. You’re getting a very substantial area that has a
very substantial cost to it and there was a suggestion that you know perhaps the City could
entertain buying it. That’s a possibility but right now the contract is with us. We have a contract
to purchase it and so right now to me that’s not an option and that’s because there is a valid
contract in place. It is something you know the City could certainly discuss if the City would
like to entertain or make an offer to us to do it, you know that’s something that is a whole
different conversation but there is value there. It has been serviced by sewer and water. It is
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
29
guided for development to occur on it so regardless who the former owner was and what the
property was intended to do by the former owner, right now the intent is to sell it and for it to be
developed and we’re playing within the guidelines of the code. We’ve asked for a PUD but we
feel that we’re giving up a substantial amount of area in exchange for some of the requests that
we’re making. You know there’s certain items in here that we will continue to work with staff
on but the conversation of what could or could not be done in the south area is, or the eastern
part is, as Mr. Hoffman mentioned, that’s part of the negotiation. We feel that part of the trade
off for some of these other things occurring is that the City is getting a much larger park than
what is required of us and that’s, you know I think that addresses quite a few of the concerns
here. Maybe not necessarily the way that people want to hear them. I do want to point out that
we are proposing storm sewer along the Majestic Oaks property line to help alleviate some of the
water concerns or the stormwater concerns. That is the reason why we’re putting storm sewer
near that property line to pick up some of that drainage of that area and in doing so we have to
take down trees to do that. We have to put that as far back as we can to pick up as much water
from the Majestic or the Royal Oaks neighborhood as we can. We’re not necessarily required to
do that but that’s one of the items recognizing the concerns that were brought up that we’ve
elected to address. I don’t know if there’s, was there any other specific items that I missed?
Aller: Any additional questions while he’s up? No thank you.
Joe Jablonski: Thanks.
Aller: Alright so now it’s time for the Commissioners to speak amongst themselves. Pros.
Cons. Thoughts. Motions. Actions.
McGonagill: You just want us to start down the line?
Aller: You can go ahead. Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: First thanks for all the citizens that came tonight and have been coming and
particularly to the staff. You put a lot of work in this. You have and to the developer as well. A
lot of time. A lot of money. A lot of effort and trying to work. It’s a difficult problem. This
property is a jewel and all of Mr. Hoffman’s work is trying to preserve that jewel and I really
appreciate that. I’m in favor of development. I think development’s good. I mean that’s why
we live here. I really enjoy Chanhassen. We have a development we live in, in a beautiful
setting and this property as I say is a jewel and I do believe it deserves a beautiful setting for that
jewel and it needs to be done in a proper way. One of the things on the Planning Commission
that we take very seriously is a couple of things when we look at proposals that we cited. Two
things. One is what I call function. Does it meet the function but also does it meet form.
Function, engineering term, does it meet function. Stormwater drains. Driveways. Egress and
plain and clearly meets function. It’s functional. It works. Homes build there. People can get
there and has a lot of other really great attributes and so that’s done. Then you look at form and
there’s a lot of really pluses to the form. Like Mr. Hoffman said beautiful park. Access to trails.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
30
And things that are really good so when I started looking at the question of form, and I’ve been
looking at this for the last few days, how do you do that and what’s lens you look through so I
pulled out the Comprehensive Plan because that’s where we should go. That’s the plan that
governs our growth. I mean that’s why it’s here. It lays it out so as I went through the plan, and
citizens please bear with me because I’m really talking here to, now to my commissioners. Is
that what I found when I was going through it in my rudimentary way was that really in some
ways there’s a lot of benefits to what we’ve seen here from the developer and from staff but
there’s also some limitations. When I look at natural resources in Section 1.7.3 of Natural
Resources there’s 9 goals and of those goals 4 are violated in the plan. It does not preserve
natural slopes wherever possible. It doesn’t preserve wooded areas, plant communities and
native habitat. It does not minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. I realize they do with their
plan but when I look at the amount of soil that’s going to be moved and the soil mixing that’s
going to occur that bothers but more importantly it does not increase overall tree cover in
Chanhassen. That’s goal 5. Also with that it does not increase canopy cover on private and
public lands to a minimum standard of 50 percent. I noticed in the cutting plan that they said
they’re, what they’re going to cut and they’re going to add plants, add trees back but they’re still
33 percent short. And they said well they would fix that and I’m going, and I said how are you
going to fix it when the density’s that high. I mean I drove around over the last days and went by
other developments that have this kind of density and it’s hard to get trees in there so I just don’t
think that’s possible to do goal 6 which is maintain a healthy and diverse urban forest. But all
things you can’t have everything but that’s just the first piece. And then when I looked at I guess
densities. Yes you can do mixed use. You can move, increase densities. Alternative homes and
it goes through that but then I went back to the primary goal that we come in on land use and our
goals and policies. Again I’m an engineer myself but I have to look at principles. Does it meet
form? And when I looked at that I said one of the things that it says here and it’s particularly in
the fourth point that our goal is to create a mixture of development capable of providing high
quality of life and a reliable tax base here in Chanhassen. I agree with that. High quality of life.
That’s why I joined the Planning Commission a year ago was wanting, I’ve been here 20 years. I
wanted to continue to have that for not only myself but also for the people that would follow me.
It’s a wonderful place to live. So in that what it says in the four negatives it says we will support
low density residential development in appropriate areas of the communities in such a manner
and I quote this, to mainly aesthetics of existing single family areas and to create new
neighborhoods of similar character and quality. It also goes on in one of the other statements
that transition should be created between different land uses and the more important the
transition zone it has to have been these land uses. And to me the way this looks it’s a real big
change in land use. I’m a simple person so what I ended up doing and I took the plat of this
development. I laid it up against a base plat that we all get. The big plan plat and said what does
this look like, and it didn’t fit. And then I took Google Earth and did it again and laid it on there
and then I started imaging what it would look like in 20 years. We are going to clear cut trees.
Will the trees go in? Will it be back and I just could not get there. And so I had to ask myself a
question. Does this development, does this plan, following the core principles for our
Comprehensive Plan, which is our structure that allows our plan that allows the City to flourish,
will this neighborhood allow itself to flourish in it’s position, will it flourish in position relative
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
31
to the other neighborhoods in close proximity. Will it be additive or will it be subtractive? And
so from the environmental standpoint it’s a plus because of the park but with the surrounding
neighborhoods and the rest of Chanhassen that’s where it kind of gets dark. A little bit cloudier
to see. So as I said at the beginning this is a choice piece of property. It’s a wonderful jewel. It
needs a beautiful setting. I do believe there ought to be a Plan C setting better. I’m not, I don’t
look at this and I say does it meet my personal test on, particularly when I look what’s in our
plan and when I looked at the overall design. So pros and cons are all there but I’ve concluded
personally that it’s not additive for the City. It’s not additive for what we want and I’m not in
favor of it. And I would encourage you, my fellow commissioners and the City Council to do
the same. Thank you.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Andrew I’ll probably add to what Michael has just stated but you know the plan proposes
diversity in housing type and size yet the process of developing the property has reduced, if not
eliminated the natural diversity. The loss of habitat, flora and fauna. There’s loss of visual
diversity. Disruption of natural water flow. Loss of wetlands and topographic diversity. Mass
grading accompanied by the loss of vegetation and if I look at the sheets that were submitted of
the inventoried trees there’s over 2,600 inventory trees on the site and looking at the ones that are
going to be saved I’m guess that there’s over 90 percent of the inventoried trees which were trees
of significant size are going to be lost through this process of mass grading. Included edge and
as we all know the edge is the most diverse area in the landscape. The edge is where you have
vegetation change. You don’t have the big canopy trees. You’ve got, well you’ve got buckthorn
I know but you also have a lot of dogwoods and other understory trees that provide a diversity
for habitat and for birds and just for visual diversity and that zone will be lost. It’s significant
resulting in, and this will result in a new, a very basic plan with little natural diversity. This is
not a call for no build but rather a question of what is the proper carrying capacity of the resource
to create a truly high quality development. What makes a neighborhood and what makes our
community? What does Chanhassen want of this, for this prime development site? What is
proposed is just another housing development planned to the maximum allowable within the
transfer of density with no distinguishable character. That’s all I’m going to say.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I guess in some ways my view differs from your’s. I do see that there have been some
changes to the plan. Some of the streets have been changed. Maybe it’s not a large enough
change that you know others have requested but I do see that the developer has listened. Has
made some changes. Trying to preserve some of the steepest of the slopes. Preserving some of
the trees. And then as I understood it I believe that there might be even an easement on the north
side. For the buffering that neighborhood. I’m not sure if there’s an easement on the south side
but I see that the developer has listened to the concerns of the neighbors on the south side and it
sounds like they are going to address some of the water issues that were not of their making and
to try to improve that. He showed us some of the additional footage for that buffer down there
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
32
but it was limited because of those improvements that he wants to put in. I do see that the lots on
the south side are larger to be more comparable but are definitely smaller than the ones on the
south side but I don’t know that our zoning requires that lots have to be exactly the same size
from neighborhood to neighborhood when it’s all single family. So perhaps there is more that
could be done to preserve this unique and wonderful property but they have proposed to preserve
a huge amount of parkland to keep it pristine. To keep it natural and as what I’ve heard from the
Park and Rec Director was when they went out and spoke to citizens of Chanhassen that one of
the most important things that they wanted was the trail connectivity. Was to have this unique
park which I think is a unique asset, not to just this neighborhood but to the surrounding
neighborhoods and to the whole city so perhaps there are some tweaks that do need to happen to
preserve those steep slopes. Maybe you can preserve more of those trees. I don’t know all the
particulars of all that but I do see an effort to try to listen, adjust the plan and work with the city
so you know I am leaning in favor of it.
Aller: Commissioner Weick. Thank you everyone for your position. Yeah this is tough
because our hands are tied. There are, there is more than one option out there as I understand it
and that is for the developer to develop the land as they wish and not give us a park and go ahead
and develop that land around the lake and probably in so doing make the lots bigger all over the
property. Probably save some of the grading issues and we wouldn’t have to sit here and debate
it at all because we would not be able to connect the park around Lake Ann. As I understand it.
I, you know maybe my understanding is wrong but they certainly don’t need to be here to listen
to this and you know maybe that’s an elephant in the room but it truly comes down to a hands are
tied type of decision. Do you want the 50 acres or don’t you? And really that’s what it comes
down to. To get the 50 acres we have to stuff a bunch of houses on the southwest side of that
property. I mean that’s it. I mean that’s the trade off. I don’t see a solution where you can say I
want the 50 acres and I don’t want 190 lots or whatever it is stuffed on the southwest side. I’d
love for that to be the case. And I think it’s noble to say I’m going to vote no because I don’t
like that but understand what you’re voting against which is a really nice big jewel of a park for
the City of Chanhassen. I’m not, I don’t know how I’m going to vote I’ll be honest with you but
I, our hands are absolutely tied here. This is not, this is not a good position for us to be in. I
mean you can join in. I’m not trying to, but that’s the way I see it so I’d love to hear otherwise
and I hear you know people that I do care. I do care about the houses and I do care about the
potential for flooding. That does matter to me. I hear that the contour, some, I’m sorry I don’t
know who said it but you know they say the contour of land just doesn’t work. You’re right but
when they’re done just flattening it, it will work and that’s what they’re going to have to do.
They’re going to have to flatten it and they’re going to have to take out all the trees and to do
that then the other side of it is we get a park. I hate it. I hate it. I hate that there could be, I
actually wrote it down before all this even started. I said it’s not much of a choice, and this was
before this whole thing even started. I said I’m sad that there’s nothing I can do. I would be
proud of the legacy of the lake preservation and that park and embarrassed by the legacy of the
housing density and those are the choices that I have to face as a planning commissioner and I
hate that.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
33
Aller: Commissioner Randall.
Randall: Yeah I agree with you. It’s a tough decision. I mean I read through all the stuff
tonight. Immediately I thought of the people on Majestic right away because of the flooding
issues. You know is that going to be an improvement? Is that going to fix the problem for them
or is it going to make it worst? You know Lennar will be long gone after, if they do have
flooding issues but at the same time if it improves it it makes their property better. I went with a
lot of different angles on this. Looking, trying to make a decision. Whether it be decisions that
we’ve made in the past with variances for cul-de-sacs and if it’s going to be a through street right
off of, we dealt with that a few weeks ago. Or few months ago. This is another compromise
where do we make, were we thinking that same way on that side? I don’t know if we were or
not. That bothered me. I looked at the aerial photos back to 1937 to see what this area was like.
There was farms in the Topaz development. There was farms at Majestic. There was wooded
coverage in this lot because it was undevelopable without moving, until the value got there for
them to move the earth to develop it and that’s where they’re at right now so it’s the growth of
the city. I get the trade off. I think the point on a lot of different angles that need to be taken yet,
or there’s a lot of moving parts to this but now all the moving parts have been totally figured out
and that’s a concern of mine too without moving forward and right now I’m still undecided so
I’m hoping we have more discussion and get some input from you guys so.
Aller: I agree that it’s a tough position to be in and I look to our responsibility, my responsibility
as a commissioner to try to please not just the neighboring community. Not just one particular
section in a plan but the entire city and the entire plan. I mean we spent the better part of last
year creating that plan and one of the biggest things that we all talked about and discovered as
we went through week after week, or bi-weekly was the integration of that plan. How traffic
interplayed with the environment and how the tree cover and the water structures all had to
interplay and then we went through that process where we were hearing about the visioning of
the city and I heard big things about where do we want to go and were we going to fast to
develop and here we have an opportunity to preserve a pristine piece of land with an incredible
size. An incredible stature for all citizens and for all residents and one of the biggest problems
that we’ve been facing as a planning commission over the last year was the infill. We’re running
out of developable property in such big sizes so we’re infilling and we’re putting pocket
properties in and we’re doing a lot of variances because the properties have gotten older and the
needs of the community have changed. So when I look at the process that we’re going through.
We’ve got 65 different items that still have to be met and I agree that there’s a lot that still has to
be done. Commissioner Weick with his trees, I’m surprised to hear you say anything other than
no and I’m glad to hear that you recognize you know those responsibilities as we all do and I’m
on your side. There’s a plan to be looked to and guidelines that we’ve created as a community
over time but I think those change but the one thing that we can do and have an opportunity to do
now is to move this forward and that’s one of my things that I’ve always done here on the
commission is I try to move them forward with the guidance to the City Council because we’re
not making a final decision tonight. With the guidance to the City Council to further input of the
community so that they can have the opportunity to modify this plan, to tweak it and they’ve
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
34
shown the ability to listen to the community. Make changes. Some are small. Some are large
but I think if they take it to heart, you know the comments about the ability to do things that are
grander and in a long term sense and benefit to the city and the community and I think they will.
I hope they will and when I vote I try to look at that positive side and that’s where I am right
now. I’m going to vote I hope in what’s in the best interest of the community as a whole.
Tietz: Andrew this isn’t just about natural resources. I know I said and talked a lot about
diversity and natural resources. It’s about creating a neighborhood. It’s creating a neighborhood
for people. People who want to be there and is this going to be a model neighborhood in
Chanhassen or is this going to be just another neighborhood by a large national developer? I
could go to Brooklyn Center, I could go to Omaha, I could go to anyplace and find lots stashed
on the site. Now we’re creating a site, we’re creating, there’s been said several times tonight
we’re creating a flat site to do what this happened. You know what this is proposed to be and
there’s a lot of flat sites around. Maybe not in Chanhassen but there’s a lot of flat sites around to
stuff houses on. …opportunity here to create a model neighborhood that people are excited.
We’ve got all the resources. We have schools. We have parks. Nothing against the potential of
getting a large piece of land against, adjacent to Lake Ann. I fully support that. I just disagree
with the amount that is being stuffed onto this property. This is a giant variance is what we’re
being asked to approve. The biggest variance that I’ve ever been a part of. It’s a PUD but
essentially it’s a variance because all the rules are being negotiated and massaged to make it
happen.
Aller: Well I agree with you but also a PUD by definition is a variance. I mean.
Tietz: I know.
Aller: It is so we’re talking about the same thing. We’re talking about taking a piece of property
in it’s raw state which includes everything from the Lake Ann setback all the way to Galpin and
modifying it to some degree.
Tietz: Changing all the standards.
McGonagill: Chairman?
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Appreciate the comments of fellow commissioners. I’ve been exactly where
you’re at. I’ve been all over the map on this. I look at it one way as a citizen. I look at it
another way as a planning commissioner so I actually pulled out and pull out the job description
of a planning commissioner and again I look at it. What’s our job? You know and it’s really to
look at summarizing subdivisions, flow, design of use of land. I’m not on the parks and rec
commission. I’m on the Planning Commission and as such I agree with you Commissioner
Weick. Parks are beautiful. The subdivision is not what I want. It’s, I’m sad, I would be sad to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
35
see it in here particularly where it’s at because it’s such, it’s surrounded by beautiful
subdivisions. It’s got the lake. It’s got everything there. I just go it’s the wrong spot for this.
It’s not wrong for Chanhassen but it’s the wrong spot for this kind of development and so I had,
when I put on my planning commissioner hat that’s how I got to where I am. It is just a lot of
things about it don’t meet what we would say to be an aesthetic of what Chanhassen is. And I
took some more encouragement on that, and I don’t know if any of you all had the chance to do
it but from our new mayor in her comments last night. She commented in her, after her swearing
in ceremony that she wanted to see Five C’s for Chanhassen. I won’t go through all of them.
She can do it better than I but it’s community, communication, collaboration and the last two
were commitment to excellence and a commitment to Chanhassen and those two are where I’m
at and in that commitment to excellence she said take aim for excellence. We do not want
mediocrity and I agree with that 100 percent and I think listening to her and the comments of the
other council members and particularly the one on Chanhassen that together we can build a
better community is what put me where I am in this camp. As hard as this is and what it means
to the 50 acres over by the lake, I worry about that. How does this all work? But as a planning
commissioner I’m not committed to mediocrity and neither is the council, at least our mayor and
I’m with that so that’s how I got there. Thank you.
Aller: Any additional comments?
Randall: I have one.
Aller: Commissioner Randall.
Randall: I, you know I go back and forth here but there was one element in here that I really
thought of and it went back to some of these other variances we’ve dealt with in the past and it
was the one from the Fire Marshal.
Weick: Yeah.
Randall: And that was, you know I man it seems simple but have we gone that far with this that
we’re going to allow that when we wouldn’t do it somewhere else and that’s the issue I have
with it. It doesn’t get fixed I mean you know I might be somewhere else but right now just for
that one little thing I mean it seems simple but it’s not because we wouldn’t allow that
somewhere else so. So that’s why I’ll be voting no for it.
Weick: But if we’re voting no then what’s the next step for him? What do you see as the next
step? What does tomorrow look like?
McGonagill: Well I do believe the way the process works, Chairman you can correct me, we’re
making a recommendation to City Council and the City Council has to act on it. Now they do
take us under advisement but they have made decisions in the past I understand and 180 degrees
from what the Planning Commission has recommended. But as a body we’re here to advise
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
36
them and that’s what we’re doing. Now have we dumped them a big problem in their lap?
Absolutely but they get the big bucks for that you know and so, you know they ran for this so I, I
understand Commissioner Weick. What is the option? It’s like I looked, I had to get another
way because I always think of analogies. Yes that park we could get is beautiful but I can’t let
that blind me in one eye and lose sight in the other. You know I can do that but I still have to
have a subdivision that meets what we want here and that’s when I got here so yes, they have to
sort that out. They have more resources than perhaps we do but that’s, I appreciate their problem
and I’m glad I’m not there.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Just wanted to make one comment about the cul-de-sac and normally I would never go
along with that because of the Fire Marshal’s comments but the reason it arose, the cul-de-sac
came about was after listening to concerns about traffic flow and safety the plan was changed
based on the comments that citizens had so do you go back to having you know, having it cut
through the steepest areas and disturbing the dirt more and perhaps having more runoff and more
concerns with traffic or do you go with the long cul-de-sac? Maybe there’s another plan but this
is a, it’s a very unique property. I don’t have enough engineering background to come up with
another plan but this is the one that we have to make a recommendation on today.
Aller: Additional comments? I’ll entertain a motion.
Randall: We can make a motion really quick but will all our comments be forwarded to the City
Council?
Aller: Yeah the verbatim Minutes will be received.
Randall: Okay perfect.
Aller: It’s part of the package and part of, and which is the transparency that we all have and so
I’ll add on to the comments that have been made before too that I would hope that everybody
present, everybody watching, we’re dealing with, when we’re dealing with water issues and
canopy issues and I think I heard the Mayor say last night that she wanted us all to get up and
participate so I would appreciate it if everybody would go plant a tree. Bottom line is, is that
we’re always looking for somebody else to plant trees for us and we have our own yards so let’s,
if we want a buffer, truly want a buffer, create one on your own property. I think that’s the best
way to guarantee that you’re going to have that buffer. Protect your own property. Protect your
own wetlands. Stand up for them. We are trying to do our best to stand up for the community
which is why you know I vote and of course why we differ in our comments because we are
diverse. We’re a diverse segment of the community. We’re from different backgrounds. From
different areas in town and we look at things differently which has given us a great perspective I
think over the last year as a working commission so we’re not always in lock step but I think that
after discussion our votes normally are unanimous or close to it because of the fact that we’re all
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
37
looking to do what’s best for the city and if that doesn’t necessarily play out in tonight’s vote
that’s fine but thank you for your participation and your comments and let’s entertain a motion
and move this thing forward and see where we’re at with our recommendation to City Council.
Would anyone like to take a stab at a motion? This is why a lot of times we take the one that’s
on there.
McGonagill: I guess Mr. Chairman I’m a little bit, help me on the Robert’s Rules of Order here
a little bit. We have a motion in front of us that the planning staff has proposed to us to act on
that’s on the agenda. So do we have to vote on that? Do we vote it down? I’m just, I don’t
understand process as well.
Aanenson: You can modify the motion.
Aller: That is a motion that has been presented because it’s.
Tietz: Easy to present.
McGonagill: I lost my screen. I lost my screen. That’s okay
Aller: It is easy for us to use because it goes through the report and provides us with that
information but as we have in the past we can modify it to add comments. To add conditions.
And this is a recommendation and it can be voted up or voted down depending upon how you
want to present it.
McGonagill: May I ask a process question?
Aller: Sure.
McGonagill: Okay. In the motion I don’t, I think where we’re getting hung up, I don’t think we
have, I offer this as an opinion. That I don’t think we have a problem with the first state of
rezoning the PUD. You know that one is fine. Where we’re getting the, where we have a lot of
debate on is the number of lots. The density and the way it’s created in the plans by Pioneer
Engineering. This is where we’re having I believe most of the debate so this part of the motion s
okay. This part probably is okay on the wetland piece. The third piece. And then we of course
have the attached Findings of Fact and recommendations so it’s this middle one if I correctly
look at it where we are not having agreement on what…
Aanenson: Chairman Aller if I may. All the conditions are tied to each other so once you rezone
the property it’s rezoned so you’d really have to recommend denial of all of them because
they’re all tied to that specific plan. That would be my recommendation.
McGonagill: Okay that answers my question.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
38
Aanenson: Thank you.
McGonagill: Thank you. Well then I will offer a recommendation for denial of the proposed
motion that this recommend denial of the motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends to City Council to approve the rezoning for 191 acres from Rural
Residential District (RR) to Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) including PUD
ordinance for Galpin Design Standards and the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council approve the subdivision preliminary plat creating 191 lots, 3 outlots and
dedication of the right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated
December 5, 2018 subject to conditions in the staff report and the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28
acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report and the Planning Commission
also adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations.
Aanenson: Can I get a clarification, excuse me. So we’re recommendation on all of the issues.
Is that what the intent was?
McGonagill: Well I understood I couldn’t break them apart so therefore I have to.
Aanenson: Okay.
McGonagill: That’s what you said and I’m following. Okay.
Aanenson: Again I just want to make sure I understood the motion. I’m sorry.
McGonagill: Proposing the motion.
Aller: So we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Tietz: Second.
Aller: Having a.
Weick: Can I have a clarification please on the vote because I want to be perfectly clear.
Aller: We have a motion with a second.
Weick: So a vote for this motion is a vote against.
Aller: The proposal.
Weick: The proposal.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2019
39
McGonagill: Thank you for that because I probably had it screwed up.
Aller: Okay?
McGonagill: Thank you Commissioner Weick.
Aller: So having a motion and a second and a vote in favor of the motion is for a denial of the
presentation.
McGonagill: Correct.
Aller: Everybody okay with that? Any other discussion based on that?
McGonagill moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the proposed motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends to City
Council to approve the rezoning for 191 acres from Rural Residential District (RR) to
Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) including PUD ordinance for Galpin
Design Standards; and the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the subdivision preliminary plat creating 191 lots, 3 outlots and dedication
of the right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated December 5,
2018 subject to conditions in the staff report; and the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of
wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; and the Planning Commission
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Commissioners McGonagill,
Tietz and Randall voted in favor of the motion for denial. Commissioners Madsen, Weick
and Aller voted against the motion for denial. The motion is tied with a vote of 3 to 3.
Aller: So we have a 3-3 which is not unexpected in a situation like this and that’s why we toss it
to the people who make the big bucks. With our thanks to the community for their presentations.
Please note that you have been heard. We are still listening. We know that the developer is
listening. The City is listening and this matter will go to the City Council on what date Kate?
Aanenson: The 11th.
Aller: The 11th.
Aanenson: 11th of February.
Aller: The 11th of February. Let’s take a minute while the room clears.
There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.