PC Minutes 3-5-19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 5, 2019
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, Mark
Randall, and Michael McGonagill
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and John Tietz
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Erick Henricksen,
Project Engineer; Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Andrew Brotzler, Interim Public
Works Director
PUBLIC MEETING TO REVIEW CHANGES TO THE GALPIN PROPERTY
SUBDIVISION.
Aller: Today’s meeting is a public meeting to review changes to the Galpin property
subdivision. The proposed Galpin subdivision has been before us on two prior occasions at
which formal notice public hearings were conducted. The first time it was before the Planning
Commission public hearing was on the concept PUD and that was in July on July 17, 2019. The
benefits of that type of hearing were that the Planning Commission continues to gather public
comments without requiring any formal Findings of Fact. The developer’s not required to
prepare costly or detailed plans for consideration and the City is not necessarily obligated to
grant approval at that point in time. There’s no legal binding obligation on either party without
the Findings of Fact so it makes it easier for the parties to continue to talk and discuss and to take
your comments and turn it into action. The developer receives input without direction or with
our direction and then it goes before the City Council to do the same. The second time it was
before the Planning Commission there was a public hearing on a preliminary plat. That was on
January 15, 2019. We were discussing whether the proposed plat met the standards outlined for
a PUD. At a recent meeting the item has been remanded to the Planning Commission for public
comment to review the most recent changes to the proposed Galpin subdivision. The Planning
Commission may or may not ask questions and may or may not comment on the project after
public comments have been received. The Planning Commission will not be making any formal
decision tonight or taking a vote or making a formal recommendation to the City Council. This
hearing is not about us the Planning Commission making a decision. It’s about you as the
residents of the city of Chanhassen providing your thoughts, opinions and feedback to the
council for it’s consideration and their decision on March 11th. The City of Chanhassen values
communications to it’s residents and in an effort to provide exceptional service we have a
website available for your use. All the documents, all the minutes, all the proceedings that we’ve
had in this matter before the City Council or the Planning Commission are found on that website.
It’s a one stop location and the address is ci.chanhassen.mn.us. We will be proceeding tonight as
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
2
follows. The staff will open with a presentation of the project item. The applicant will address
the status of the proposed project. And then the public comment will be taken. That’s an
opportunity for the public to come forward and speak either for or against the item before us. At
that time we ask that you please state your name, your address and representational capacity if
any. If there are a number of individuals present who are here to speak on the same topic it’s
always great if you can elect one person to speak on your behalf. It saves some time and it gives
some clarity to the discussion. We ask that you limit your comments to no more than 5 minutes.
Additional time might be granted but is unlikely due to the large number of individuals before
us. When the public comment is open there are individuals at the senior center now that can hear
us and watch us on the televisions. You are certainly welcomed to come around and voice your
opinion so please feel free to come by when that happens. If you have written comments please
provide them to us and they will be prepared and put in the package to the City Council and
again those prepared items and statements will be available on the website between now and the
meeting before the City Council on the 11th. Our commission by-laws indicate that we conduct
business until 10:30 p.m. If we continue to 10:30 p.m. we may have to cut off our hearing so
again that’s the importance of keeping our comments to a point and between 3 and 5 minutes.
Finally for those of you who are maybe out of town and not familiar with the City of Chanhassen
and it’s residents we have a nice attitude here. We have a nice attitude here. We have
meaningful conversations and dialogue at these Planning Commission meetings and we request
that all individuals act with respect and courtesy while another individual is speaking. There will
be no major applause. We want to make sure that we hear what is being said and if there’s
interference or something, somebody wants to disrupt we’ll have to take action at that point in
time. With that we’ll begin this public hearing for comment with the staff presentation.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Just because we have
a large group I think it’d be important that we introduce the staff that’s here. I’m Kate
Aanenson. I’m the Community Development Director.
Hoffman: Hello I’m Todd Hoffman. I’m the Director of Parks and Recreation.
Henricksen: I’m Erick Henricksen, the Project Engineer.
Brotzler: Andy Brotzler, Interim Public Works Director.
Aanenson: So we’re also available if there’s technical questions that the Planning Commission
has. Again the Planning Commission’s goal tonight is to be an opportunity for public comments
and those comments will be gathered and forwarded up to the City Council for their meeting on
Monday. As you mentioned Chairman there is a packet available of the staff report. We put in
that report, and I’m not going to go through all those meeting dates because we are going to have
just a brief presentation from the developer of what you saw at your meeting in January and how
that’s evolved. There’s been a number of work sessions at the City Council and they wanted the
Planning Commission and the public to have an opportunity to comment on those changes. So
I’ll let the developer go through a number of those meetings but again there will be a staff report
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
3
that should go out, hopefully tomorrow for the Monday meeting and that will include everything
except for the Minutes for tonight. I’m not sure we can turn that around that quickly but there
has been a number of emails. Those will be part of the record. They are, have been stitched to
this packet so if you went online right now you could download the comments that have already
been submitted to the city as a part of this record and we’ll continue to add to that record too so
again the goal tonight is to listen to the comments from the residents and forward that
information onto the Planning Commission. As you stated Chairman you’re welcome, the
commission’s welcomed to ask questions. You’re not going to make a formal motion but if you
want to add additional comments that’s up to you and I think if we’re going to try to end by
10:30 and you want time for comments you may want to end at a little bit beforehand so I’ll
leave that up to you Chairman. But with that what I would be suggesting is that you give the
developer a chance to kind of go through the changes since you’ve seen it last and then go ahead
and open it up for public comment. And again as you stated we’re not having a sign up. We’re
going to let as many people to go through as we can and then just state their name for the record
so with that I’ll turn it over to the developer.
Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I want to start,
well first Joe Jablonski representing U.S. Home Corporation or Lennar as the applicant
developer. I want to start by giving a brief introduction of kind of where we’ve gone and some
of the things that we’ve gone through. I’m going to run through kind of where we started with
the concept plan that was mentioned and then how that’s evolved or changed and some of the
things that we’ve addressed. Some of the things that we’ve listened to and I want to make sure
some of the questions that still seem to be hanging out there that I’m trying to address now and
without getting.
McGonagill: Just a second.
Joe Jablonski: Yes sir.
McGonagill: That stuff’s not up on our screens. Can you get it up there please? Okay thank
you.
Joe Jablonski: You want me to keep going?
Weick: Yeah.
Joe Jablonski: So we started off and you mentioned that we started with a concept plan, even
prior to the introduction of the concept plan going back as far as the first part of June in 2018 we
invited Planning Commission members, staff, park commission and City Council members out to
the site to kind of introduce what we’ve thought was the vision that we wanted to proceed with
and had a chance to kind of walk around. Take a look at the site and from there we started
building immediately the following week. We went right into a council work shop where we got
a little bit more feedback and jumped right into the Planning Commission concept plan review
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
4
that was on July 17th, that was mentioned. Planning Commission recommended some changes.
We went through and I’ll talk about those. Leading up to that in November we also held a
invitation neighborhood meeting that I think went out to the same people that received the public
notices were invited to that meeting. It was well attended. We had an opportunity to meet some
of the neighbors one on one and we also have held one on one meetings. We’ve been in constant
communication with a number of residents by email and phone and have done several, as I
mentioned, one on one meetings as well. So that kind of leads us up meeting wise where we are
tonight. I wanted to start back at our original concept plan. The original concept plan had 198
homes on it. This is the version that had the density transfer and what you can see is in the
middle of that plan there was a large pond. I know you can’t see it up on your, is there a pointer
here? Oh yeah cool. I don’t know if you can see it up there. Okay. But there is a pond centrally
located in the middle and some of the things that, out of the concept plan that we really took to
heart was that the density transfer was preferred. We went through both the Planning
Commission, Park and City Council and I think the general acknowledgement was we’d like to
see the park preserved and we’d like to see you go forward with some form of density transfer.
That was the direction that we felt we were given so that’s the route that we took. One of the
other items that was very important, especially to the north neighborhood was that we did
something with the connection to Lucy Ridge. As you can see on this plan the street coming in
off of Galpin went all the way up into the Lucy Ridge neighborhood. That was something that
Lucy Ridge and Ashling Meadows were both fairly vocal about concerns over. Other things we
were asked to take advantage of some of the exiting topography on the site. It is a rolling site
from the street at Galpin down to the wetlands. There’s quite a bit of grade change. We were
asked to preserve trees and then we were also asked to preserve similar lot types against the
surrounding perimeters. On the bottom of this plan we had 55 foot wide villa style lots directly
adjacent to the neighborhood on the south. Majestic Oaks. So that was in your concept plan.
Then as we were proceeding into the preliminary plat, which goes through additional steps of
engineering, starts to work out hydrology and starts to gather a little bit more information to get
into where we are today so that led into a submission packet that had 191 homes so we at that
point we’ve already reduced that number by 7. We eliminated that connection to Lucy Ridge
and were able to do so by preserving quite a bit of landscape buffer around the perimeter of that
northern cul-de-sac. We also worked to, on the south we addressed the similar neighborhood
type by introducing 75 foot wide lots all the way on the south end there to match similar house or
similar product type on the south end. We went through and started addressing drainage
concerns were brought up during the preliminary plat. I’ll talk about that a little bit. And then
you also one of the other things to address some of the topography questions or challenges is that
central pond that we had that was kind of in the middle of the hillside. We moved it adjacent to
the wetland which was after the engineering was done on it seemed to be a more appropriate
place for that to allow the opportunity to take advantage of some of that rolling topography out
there. Which really brings us to and some of these questions or these items were things that we
pulled out of the preliminary plat stage. Some of the things that we felt we were asked by the
Planning Commission or through the workshop sessions with the council. To bring us to the
plan that you have before you now which is why I wanted to come up and talk about kind of
where we went from that pre-plat submission to where we are today. So now we’re at a plan that
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
5
has 181 homes. We reduced it by another 10. 17 from the original plan. And since then we’ve
gone through and we’ve changed all the homes on the south side buffering the Majestic Oaks
way have been changed to 90 foot wide lots. That was a change from 75 before so now they
match the R-1 zoning standards or are very similar in lot size. By doing that we also
reconfigured the, that central area that had, and I do have some more information on this leading
up to but we expanded the size of the other lots that were 55 feet wide in that south central area
to 65 feet. As part of our current plan we also relocated the Galpin pond. A couple things that
we’re doing out here is we’re having to take stormwater ponding for the future expansion of
Galpin Road. The locations of that are the preferred locations were provided to us by the County
originally and we took those into consideration but actually moved one of the pond locations
from what’s know today as where the guard house is a little bit to the south and in doing that
there’s a couple different things that we were able to do. One of it was move the pond but it
allowed us to save more trees and we also went through and enhanced some of the buffering
around the perimeters. I can go, I’ll go into that in a little more detail and address some of the
drainage concerns a little bit more closely so they go into those changes in more detail here. Up
on the north end now the plan obviously we’ve cut off the connection. We’re starting to show
the trail connections that were important to the park commission. We’ve included buffering
right at the north property line that is adjacent to the Lucy Ridge neighborhood. We’ve also been
contacted by the Ashling Meadows neighborhood and had requested that we consider some
additional buffering along the edge of Topaz Road which is something that we would certainly
look at. Either with preserving some existing trees along that property line or replanting and
buffering that’s not shown on here but it’s something that we would consider. On the south end
you can start to see the changes that have been made. We are doing more tree preservation down
on that southeast corner. Along the south and the central coming right off of Galpin we were
able to save about a 20 foot wide, 20 to 25 foot wide buffer of existing trees along that property
line. Now the lot sizes match. They’re 90 foot wide lots on the south. Going into the next ones
here. So as we talked about meeting into the topography it’s difficult to explain how that’s going
to look from a two dimensional plan in a 3D world so what I attempted to do, and it’s kind of
hard to read on this sheet obviously but at the north entrance, if I go back one. At that northern
entrance just south, not the far north but the one that lines up with Longacres Drive. The
elevation of the road coming in off of there is a 121.7 and down at the south end, or not south but
the eastern side of that it goes down to a 987.5 and that’s the road grade following the existing
topography. So I point that out because I think it’s important to understand that we’re not
flattening the site. From the road connection off Galpin and Hunter down to where those first
double cul-de-sacs are there’s about a 34 foot grade change and that’s in the road and that’s kind
of pushing the max of what the City design guidelines will allow for those road changes.
They’re in the some portions are about 5 to 6 percent. The City does allow up to 7 but it’s really
not preferred to go that steep and it makes it difficult from a grading perspective from house to
house but I think it is important to show that we are attempting to match the existing topography
from Galpin down to the wetlands and then on the south entrance there, from the south to the
southern cul-de-sac there’s about a 19 foot grade change and it’s not quite as steep there because
Galpin actually comes down in elevation quite a bit there from the other intersections so we’re
maintaining a level above the wetlands that’s required but what we’re doing is trying to match
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
6
the locked location or elevation that we’re stuck with off of Galpin down to the wetlands and
rolling that street through there at the maximum grades that are allowed for street construction
throughout so I know it’s difficult to see that and how that looks but I wanted to make sure that I
explain that a little bit because we have gotten quite a few questions. You know are you just
going to flatten it and it really isn’t going to be just flat. It is going to have and maintain some of
that natural topography throughout. So the changes down in the south end by moving the pond
we eliminated, while we both changed from 65 to, or from 55 to 65 wide lots and we changed,
we eliminated this little bump out cul-de-sac and put the pond down in that location. What that
allows for is a little bit less intrusive view from Longacres. Rather than looking at a small cul-
de-sac of houses and roof tops, they’ll be looking across at some ponding and some of the
revegetation that we’re going to do. By removing or changing that pond location we were also
able to, where the existing guard house is preserve another area of trees. There’s a number of
large standing oaks in that area. 14 to 20 inch that are in pretty good shape that we were able to
maintain and that pond really wasn’t taking much of our water. It was taking a lot of the
stormwater from Galpin so moving it we had to get some leeway from the County but I think
they understand the importance of putting that in a location and it still is in a low point for them
so it allows the opportunity to preserve some more trees and potentially the guard house as a
neighborhood identification marker at the trail head. So if I go forward here, another one of the
things that may be a little bit confused in this is the perception that we’re going to be flooding
the neighbors. One of the things in our design guidelines and the City’s rules and the watershed
is you can’t change the volume of water leaving the site. In fact you have to reduce it. So what
we’ve actually done here and what this highlights is the house in the corner here, I highlighted it
or I can’t tell. Can you see that up there or not? Yeah it disappears in the screen. So right by
where you had the cursor there, that 1002 elevation that you see is one of the existing homes
there and the houses that we’re proposing immediately adjacent to it are actually 10 feet below
so, and we’ve put in a series of catch basins and a series of storm sewer running through that rear
line there so our homes will actually be sitting 10 feet below. Oh yeah. So the elevation of this
home in Majestic Oaks is 1002. Our home here is actually at a 992 so it sits 10 feet below the
adjacent property and this property actually takes water from the neighbors so what we are doing
here is allowing an out for some of the design and some of the, there is no storm, rear yard storm
sewer in the existing neighborhood. By putting the number of catch basins and enhancing the
storm sewer system that isn’t there today, it allows us the opportunity to collect some of the
water from the neighbors. I also talked to one of the neighbors that we would allow or with the
City’s permission there may be an opportunity to allow rear yard sump pumps to connect into
that storm sewer as well. We could put leads. We’ve done that in other communities in
Chanhassen where we put sump pump leads up to the property line to allow the opportunity to
connect their sump pumps into that storm sewer. It’s something that we’ll have to review with
staff if the neighbors are interested in but it certainly could help that situation. We do have a
retaining wall along here and the purpose of that retaining wall, because our lots are sitting down
it actually it holding up the hillside and there’s vegetation and trees that we’re preserving on top
of it and then in the areas that we aren’t able to preserve trees through here our landscape plan
proposes putting them back in on top of the wall so I think there was some misunderstanding
that the wall was actually going to be above the existing properties but it’s actually below
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
7
because our houses will sit below. So I wanted to make sure that that was spelled out and
understood a little bit better. That’s been something that has been a concern that we wanted to
make sure was understood and addressed. Continuing through one of the other things we were
asked to do was continue working on the creativity of the plan and what this shows is locations
that we’re starting to show some enhancing of landscape. Monumentation at the south entrance,
both entrance sides. The north and the south of that road will get an entrance monument with
landscaping. At the guard house we are proposing somewhat in and in some respects to the
existing or the former owner, some landscaping that would be enhanced by purple flowers of
aster, chives and petunias. We thought that that may be a subtle way to show some recognition
of the previous owner without going too far over the top and they are kind of a wild species that
don’t require a ton of maintenance so it should be something that would be appropriate and take
fairly well in a location like that. Down into, I know you can’t see but detail 5 is right in this
area. As I click into the next screen we’re also doing some upgrading of landscaping there.
Again trying to do more of a wildflower type of situation that’s highlighted by some of the
purple colors. Purples and yellows. So lastly I want to make sure that I talk briefly about this
because this has been something that from the start has also been kind of part of this
conversation is do we want to see a density transfer or do we want to go straight zoning and I’m
sure that the Planning Commission understands that with following straight zoning guidelines
there are rules in place. There are rights in place that allow property owners and people to
develop their property provided they’re following those guidelines. For this area the minimums
are 90 foot wide lots with 15,000 square foot requirements. There are some shoreland overlay
district rules that apply as well but this plan is a pretty good visual of how that looks. If you
follow exactly to the T what those zoning guidelines are and this plan you can see some things
that are happening here. The road goes back through because that could happen if the plan is
followed to the T. There are the opportunity for lots that meet those 90 foot requirements and
15,000 square foot minimums to go in that location. There is obviously the park area, this plan
shows the minimum park required per the ordinance and development of more homes in the area
that’s shown on our PUD plan as preserved for park. The overall lot count on this plan is 195
versus 181 on our plan. I think that there is maybe some misunderstanding that this plan creates
less traffic. It creates less, you know less pressure on schools. Whatever the case is but in fact
there is more houses on it so it’s important to understand that it’s more than a straight trade off of
park. There is the opportunity that there’s going to be more pressure on the infrastructure and
the roads with a plan like this. There’s obviously more tree removal as well. This whole park as
everybody knows is wooded and that’s why we’ve elected to try to preserve it. So the other
question that has come up that I want to make sure I address is that area in the park. Can you
actually develop that? We’ve taken a little bit more time. We’ve gotten some opinions from
wetland consultants about that and we feel that it can. In fact this is a plan, it looks a little
different but this is a community that we are building in Victoria. It’s Laketown. Lake
Wasserman is actually up on the north part. This is a large wetland complex that goes through
here. We actually built a road very similar fashion right through the middle of it. Is it
challenging? Is there permits? Yes there is but we were able to not only accomplish this but in
this project, this is Minnehaha Creek Watershed. We actually got an innovation award for the
work that we did here so can it be done? I do think it can and our wetland consultants think it
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
8
can and I think it’s important to, that people understand that if the decision is made that the PUD
plan is not supported that something like this can certainly occur. Whether it ends up being
Lennar. It ends up being somebody else but it is possible I believe and I think it’s important for
people to know and understand that. That basically concludes the last slide that I have and I
know this table is hard to read but what I want to point out here is compatibility with the existing
neighborhoods. Our plan by definition is, has a 1.3 density units per acre and by definition I
mean net acres which is gross acres or the total land mass minus wetlands. Minus county right-
of-way. That’s where that 1.3 units per acre comes from. The area around it averages 1.33 so by
definition we fall right in line with that but just for the sake of the math, if you take out the park,
which is roughly 50 acres and the 89 acres of upland we come in at 2.03 units per acre and that’s
181 homes at 89 acres. So I think the misconception that it doesn’t fit in with the existing
neighborhoods is maybe a little misleading. The neighborhood to the south is actually 2.5. Lucy
Ridge is 1.89. Ashling Meadows is 1.28. Parts of Longacres, Longacres is a little bit different.
It’s 1.19 but the way that that is, those lots are counted was also different. They were platted into
wetlands and platted into ponds and lot sizes are a little misleading on that one. So I wanted to
make sure also that that was pointed out because there’s been some maybe misleading or
misunderstandings that we’re coming in with a plan that doesn’t match the neighborhoods and
it’s significantly more dense but the numbers here really don’t indicate that. So I would be
happy to answer any questions that you have. I’d be, certainly will stick around and be happy to
answer any at the end or however you feel I’ll be close by.
Aller: Great thank you.
Joe Jablonski: Thanks.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill, you have questions?
McGonagill: Just a couple Mr. Jablonski. A question when you look at this, on your concept
plan 7 which is different, a little bit different than what we saw on January 15th. How did the
grading plan, how much percentage wise did the grading plan change as far as you know you
talked I think if I recall a couple hundred thousand yards of dirt was going to be moved around
and now you’ve reduced lot size. You’ve done that. How much has the grading plan come
down?
Joe Jablonski: The grading plan didn’t change too much. The location of the ponds changed and
some of the, we did a little bit more work in that back yard area but the volume of dirt moving
doesn’t necessarily change and with that the other plan that follows the zoning, I think it’s
important to understand that that requires or ends up with a very similar type of grading situation
and probably even more because of the grading that occurs into the park area. So does that?
McGonagill: Yeah that answers that question. One more. Quite a few of the citizens have
talked about traffic concerns and the interconnections between, and I’ll have to use Longacres
and Hunter because I don’t remember the name of the streets across but the streets exiting the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
9
Galpin development will be single line roads? Are they going to be divided? And then on,
you’d have to ask probably Kate, this is probably directed to you. The Galpin project will there
will be turn lanes? What’s going to be on Galpin to allow egress from those two neighborhoods
now that will be abutting each other with traffic.
Aanenson: I’m going to turn that over to the engineering department. Someone that can answer
that question regarding the plans that they’ve got on Galpin.
McGonagill: Okay. So why don’t we start with you as far as in and out’s. Were those single
roads? You know you had a chart of where the monuments were.
Joe Jablonski: I have the best plan here. Well here’s one for the south. It is single lane each
direction. We weren’t splitting the entrances. We were electing to put monuments on the sides
so it would be one lane in, one lane out.
McGonagill: So it wasn’t like a monument in the middle of a cul-de-sac?
Joe Jablonski: No.
McGonagill: Where you’d go around it. It was.
Joe Jablonski: No. That’s not the way that we were proposing it. We were proposing it on the
outside edges.
McGonagill: Okay.
Joe Jablonski: And that’s the same in all three connecting points.
McGonagill: Okay. And so I guess I’ll turn it to, okay. What about on the Galpin itself?
Aanenson: Erick? Or Andrew.
Brotzler: Mr. Chair, commissioners we were just going through the Galpin Boulevard design
study that was completed in 2018 and the proposed project that’s currently planned for 2022, to
reconstruct Galpin Boulevard does include the addition of dedicated turn lanes.
McGonagill: It does include?
Brotzler: Yes.
McGonagill: Okay. At both.
Brotzler: That is a part of the proposed plan.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
10
McGonagill: At both roads?
Brotzler: Yes.
McGonagill: Turn lanes going just one turn lane or will there be two? I mean I’m getting into
the details I know.
Brotzler: It’d be a right turn lanes and then a left turn lanes in the opposing direction.
McGonagill: Okay thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Aller: And just to add, tack onto that as a result of the PUD plan that you’re proposing there will
be enough easement granted for those turn lanes to be created?
Joe Jablonski: Correct.
Aller: Okay.
Joe Jablonski: Yes.
Aller: Any additional questions from commissioners at this time? Commissioner Weick.
Weick: One question. I know we don’t have a plan yet but have you given any thought to the
phasing of the buildout and what that might look like?
Joe Jablonski: We have. Let’s see if I can, well this is probably the best way to look at it. The
sewer comes through here, the Interceptor Line down, that runs kind of like this. So we would
be electing to start our first phase in this area so that we have immediate connection or the easiest
connection to the sewer. Grading would probably occur up to somewhere in here that first
development season. And then we’d continue to the north and then the further north can really,
both of these can kind of work independently. That really will depend on market and depend on
the timing of interest for those neighborhoods but as far as the grading and the infrastructure
works it can kind of be broken into thirds with us planning to start on the south third. Work our
way to the north knowing that those, that those two areas on the far north could kind of happen
simultaneously or at any time. Does that answer?
Weick: Yep thank you. That’s all Chairman.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: In this most recent proposal you mentioned that there was additional tree preservation.
Could you just clarify exactly what areas that is and some sort of quantity of tree preservation?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
11
Joe Jablonski: On the south end we were able to preserve down at the far southeast corner a little
bit more and then about a 20 foot, 20 to 25 foot wide existing tree buffer here. And then these
circle trees, kind of the more blob style is what we’re preserving where my cursor is and then
these circle ones are trees that we’re planning to replant. So that would be the south end. In the
center area, which I don’t know I have a real good. Well let’s go up to the north. The north
from the start between the time of our concept plan and the preliminary plat is where we
probably spent the most time concentrating on what we can and can’t preserve up in the north
section so all of this vegetation you see here would be preserved. We are preserving this area.
One thing that we did change based on staff recommendations or that we support is putting these
trees that would be within private lots into conservation easements. We’d be happy to work with
staff to, on language for that to occur. There was some concern from neighbors about you know
it’s great you’re saving the trees but how do we know they’re going to stay in the long run so I
think conservation easements in those situations is a good opportunity for that. And then in the
central area the biggest change or the place that we were saving the most was near the guard
house. This is at Galpin, just south of the water station. So there were a number of existing oak
trees there that are in pretty good shape that we were able to preserve and save by moving that
pond. The exact quantity here it’s easy to determine but the other places, I don’t have a number
for you sorry.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Aller: Any additional questions at this point in time? Okay, thank you sir. So now is the time
we’re going to open up the public hearing for comment by the public. Again that’s an
opportunity for those present to come forward, speak either for or against the item. Those
individuals in the other rooms if you want to feel free to come by and come around to the front
and get in line when you feel like speaking please feel free to do so. You’re certainly welcome.
To all those present I usually try to welcome you when you get here. Instead of saying that a
hundred times tonight I just welcome everybody so we can move it along and I can hear the
individuals. Again just a short reminder. 3 to 5 minutes. Please state your name, your address
for the record. This is all going to go to the City Council to read and review and to digest and it
will also give us a good record of who’s present before us tonight so with that welcome sir.
Alan Nikolai: My name is Alan Nikolai, 6570 Galpin Boulevard which is about three-quarter
mile north of this property. I go back a ways. I’ve been here in Chanhassen for 60 years. My
family used to be about a couple one percent of the population back in early 60’s. For some of
those people in those units north and south of this property, I used to hunt that. So you want to
talk about not in my backyard. I get it. Bottom line is I’m looking a little bit on the wildlife
aspect of it. That was one of the things when this first came up. What are we going to do to
preserve natural areas for wildlife? That’s one of the intrinsic values of when people are seeing
deer, owls, fox, whatever. When the little kids are seeing the fawn first time in June. Look at
the little fawn. How do you put a dollar value on that? You can’t. We’re going have is
basically a refuge here. It’s been that way for a while already. We’ve got another big refuge out
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
12
to the west. Lake Minnewashta Park. And there’s a wildlife corridor, if you ever talk to the
DNR. How do you connect the two? That little creek on the north side that’s the connection.
That’s the corridor that goes through there. With the PUD there’s more buffer space for wildlife
to transverse east to west. They go way up that creek, I watch it all the time. I’ve been driving
that road for 45 years. I understand what goes on with the wildlife. Frankly the PUD, all the
work that’s been done with all the Lennar and all the city officials, well done. Very well done.
We have a much bigger natural area for wildlife that people will enjoy for years to come.
Frankly this, that area in the, those that have it. This red area, that’s the feather in the hat for the
city of Chanhassen for the next couple generations. When they look back, what did we do well?
Is to preserve that naturally. Now mowed. Natural. Let he dog gone turkeys and deer and fox,
whatever have some room. So I strongly recommend that the City Council and, approve the
proposed PUD. It’s dramatically increased. I have a background in construction. Civil
engineering. Soils engineering. Architecture. I know what it takes to come together to do this.
That’s a monumental step forward compared to the first proposal. Fully in support of this, the
new version that you’ve come up with. Representative from Lennar thank you for working with
the city but this is what we’re supposed to do. All come together. What’s going to be best so I
know I heard through the grapevine you wanted to hear from some people that weren’t right next
to it. Well I’m three-quarter miles away and this is the PUD is really a remarkable thing that can
happen for the city. Thank you.
Marnie Wells: Good evening. My name is Marnie Wells and I’m actually a Minneapolis
resident. However I am the CEO of Camp Fire Minnesota. We own and operate Tanadoona
which is just not even 4 ½ miles from here so thank you for including me tonight. Thank you
Chairman and commissioners and staff. And I bet many of you have been to Tanadoona so again
we’re jut down the road and I’ve been leading the organization for nearly 14 years. Tanadoona
is 103 acres with 2,000 feet of shoreline on Lake Minnewashta. We are home of birds, bugs,
critters. Lots of critters. Five unique eco regions including wetlands, prairie and a big woods.
And we’ve been serving our kids of this community since 1924. And we believe that nature is
the catalyst for change and we believe children have a right and we believe all kids deserve
access to nature and that’s why I’m here tonight. Many of you may know this but I’ll just
remind you. Kids spend 90 percent of their time indoors. Kids spend 50 hours a week in front of
a screen. That is a full time job in front of a screen. That’s about 7 ½ hours a day. And we all
know, we all know this and the research shows that when kids are unplugged and in nature it
makes them happier, healthier, and better in school. So it seems really clear that being exposed
to more nature, and that’s not just the Boundary Waters, or even Tanadoona for that matter, any
nature and even perhaps this park in your back yard will have an enormous benefit on their lives
and their future success and that is why I support the density transfer plan. This area has the
potential to be 100 acre park for the community. That’s another Tanadoona in your back yard.
And you know the property’s going to be developed. There’s no bones about it. And you all
have an opportunity to create a legacy that will outlive all of us and benefit young people for
many, many generations. I believe supporting the density transfer plan is the smartest and most
thoughtful way to develop this gem. This absolute gem of an area. Now is my dreams were to
come true we would do nothing other than leave it alone and let the turkeys do what they’re
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
13
doing out there but we know it will be developed so the reality, knowing it will be developed,
supporting the density transfer plan is my stance. Of course I encourage you all to think
carefully and clearly. You all have. I am very impressed with the work that’s been done. The
positive impact that nature has on us, especially our children is immeasurable. And we are very
well positioned to create and ensure a legacy that will benefit generations to come. And as
someone who’s been working with children in a nature network and community I encourage you
to support this plan, the density transfer plan. Thanks so much.
Aller: Thank you.
Craig Mertz: My name’s Craig Mertz. I’m a resident of town here. I’ve lived here for 40 plus
years. I’m speaking on behalf and in support of Lennar’s plan for the density transfer. I came
here because I wanted to explain a little bit of institutional memory here of historical context to
what is happening here. This is the 50th anniversary, the half century anniversary of the
establishment of Lake Ann Park. 1969 the then mayor Al Klingelhutz and his wife Mary Jane
Klingelhutz and some other community leaders in town here came up with the idea of buying the
Welter Farm that became Lake Ann Park. People here probably don’t know that there was
opposition in 1969 to taking that big step of buying the parkland. The objections were didn’t
need a park or this park was too big or the City shouldn’t be in the business of buying raw land
for park purposes or the City shouldn’t buy any more land unless it has money in the bank
already to do the internal developments in the park. If the City village council back in that year
had gone along with the naysayers we wouldn’t have Lake Ann Park here. Now I know there’s
going to be some limited objections to what’s going on. The effect on the surrounding
community but just as the village council did in 1969 we need to be looking forward to what’s
going to happen 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now where this park, this doubling of the size
of the park is going to be another, we’re doubling the size of the jewel of the city park system
and I would ask that the City and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lennar
plan and we do a density transfer and accept the gift of the additional parkland so thank you.
Jennie Skancke: Hi, my name is Jennie Skancke. I’m the area hydrologist for this area from the
Minnesota DNR. My role as the area hydrologist is to review and approve preliminary plats
when they come from cities. I cover 3 different counties so I review a lot of plats for
developments across Dakota, Scott and Carver County. I did see this plan in a very preliminary
idea at the very beginning and sent Kate my support for this density transfer idea. I want to
essentially just echo what that first man said. I honestly cannot overstate the importance of
setting aside this land, not only for the community of Chanhassen but creating resiliency to deal
with the amount of flooding that we might have in the future due to climate change. I want to
especially commend the staff here for coming up and working with Lennar on this kind of a
design. This is truly a unique and commendable design. I rarely see anything this wonderful
that sets aside this much space. I think Lennar is really to be commended for not only working
with the City but for hearing the concerns of the neighbors for preserving these spaces that
they’re willing to set aside an easement. You know they can get extra money for an individual
parcel if they don’t set aside those trees in the conservation easement. If they have a larger
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
14
acreage for that each individual parcel but they are hearing what this community wants and
honestly it’s very, very rare that a developer is so willing to work with the community so you
know just from I haven’t reviewed the details so this is not intended to be a formal support of the
plan but generally I think it looks really great and I would strongly support this density transfer
concept. Thank you.
Conrad Fiskness: Good evening. My name is Conrad Fiskness. I live at 2385 Bridle Creek
Circle which borders right up to Galpin. I’m about, between a half a mile and three quarter miles
south of Highway 5. Been a resident of Chanhassen since 1966. In 1969 I was appointed to the
Park and Recreation Commission and very early on, actually our chairman at the time came to
the meeting all excited. He had discovered this piece of property that would make a wonderful
park and within a few days as a group went to look at it and it was remarkable. Anybody driving
down 5 thought it was just a field of cabbages. Where the ballfields are now and I had no idea
that there was a lake behind that hill. We actually commission, park and rec commission, there
were 7 of us decided that we did want to go ahead with the park. The council supported us. We
put together a plan. Council let us go ahead and promote a bond issue. We bought 60 acres out
of 120 that was available. We proposed to buy that and it went, the cost was $3,000 an acre.
The comment was made earlier about opposition. I went to 3 different organizations to present
the plan. I was told that we were the dumbest people on the face of the earth to consider paying
$3,000 an acre for land. Unheard of. And probably if you were looking at it in terms of growing
corn, soybeans or cabbage probably that was true but we did proceed. We passed the bond issue.
We constructed the park during, I guess it would be 1970 and ’71 and it’s something that I feel
very good about having been a part of. I think the fact that Chanhassen has been the number 10,
number 4 and number 2 best city under 50,000 in which to live in the country that Lake Ann
would have something to do with that. January of 1972 I was appointed to represent this area on
the Riley-Purgatory, Bluff wasn’t a part of it yet. At the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District. At
the time I came on I, excuse me let me back up. While I was on the Park and Recreation
Commission there was a developer that either owned or had option to this land and was
proposing building right up to the lake. The park and rec commission, supported by the council
promoted the idea and it was accepted that Lake Ann would be the one lake in Chanhassen
around which there would be no houses built. In other words there would be a public area all the
way around the lake. And so we, that position was accepted by the council and has been to the
best of my knowledge supported by park and recreation commissions and councils ever since so
we have virtually half a century of support for Lake Ann, the park and the way it has been
managed. While on the watershed district board of managers, when I came on Lake Ann was the
second best quality lake, well it was the best in Chanhassen. The second best in the district. The
only other lake that was better was Round Lake in Eden Prairie. However in Eden Prairie
substantial development took place to the west and to the north of the area and the water quality
deteriorated rather significantly. Excuse me. To the extent that we spent a lot of effort, time and
resources trying to improve the quality of Round Lake. The watershed has supported
Chanhassen during the, and I was on the park and rec, I mean on the watershed district for 34 ½
years and during that time we did what we could to maintain and enhance the quality of Lake
Ann and that’s where we are today. I checked yesterday and Lake Ann is still the best lake in
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
15
Chanhassen and so it would be a shame in my opinion to do anything that would be possible and
deterioration of that quality. And the 50 some acre wetland that is proposed for the density
transfer is a very high quality wetland. It’s not something that should be given up without great
consideration. And to the extent that, and I don’t know from this plan where the stormwater
discharges will go but certainly the straight zoning plan brings houses awfully close down to that
west shore of Lake Ann. So I guess in conclusion I would say that I have a lot of years of being
involved, either directly or indirectly with Lake Ann and the park and it’s something that I look
back on with satisfaction that I was a part of it and maybe even a little bit of pride. And I would
be sorely disappointed if a decision was made to negate all that half a century of work that poses
a greater jeopardy then might be necessary so thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Brenda Darkow: Hello, my name is Brenda Darkow. I live at 2198 Red Fox Circle which puts
me pretty much directly across from the gate house so for the last really for 15 years I have had
my family have had a great view. We’ve enjoyed all the trees. We’ve seen plenty of turkeys and
deer and everything. Even when as they cross that corridor. I teach my teenagers to, when
there’s one deer there’s always more to follow so, but we’ve enjoyed that. We love living in
Minnesota for what Minnesota gives us. Not just the city of Chanhassen but the state of
Minnesota. We have parks. We have trails. We have woods. We have wildlife. We have so
many things that not everyone gets to have and appreciates and I’m happy that my kids have
been able to grow up in a place that they’re not so confined. That they have room and that
maybe 10 percent of the time that they’re not looking at a screen for whatever reason but my kids
have gone to Tanadoona. They’ve played at Lake Ann. You know they’ve been everywhere.
It’s great so, which leads us to our Mr. Rogers. Ideally he would have left us a will and Marnie
says that it’d be great if we could do nothing but that is not realistic and it’s not reasonable.
Anyone who thinks, in my opinion that just nothing can happen that’s not going to happen so on
the premise that something will happen we need to make the best of it. I do commend Lennar for
listening to residents. I know that I, I think have talked to you as well as other people and one of
the things that I’ve emphasized is nature so I appreciate in hearing that we’re taking more steps,
as many steps as possible. It just tears me apart to see new development and the first thing they
do is rip out all the trees. They grade everything out and it’s frustrating for me to look at all of
that and it just goes away and the fact that you plant 60 more trees to replace just doesn’t replace
a 30-50 year old tree when you have a 5 year old tree. So I appreciate those efforts that have
been made to make that. So I guess as you’re probably getting there I have been thinking a lot
about it and looking at the main conceptual. Thinking for the map. I do support the PUD
because I think it gives, it’s a compromise. It’s a compromise that you know Lake Ann gets
more park and that it feeds into things that we as Chanhassen residents love and residents in the
state of Minnesota love. We have woods. We have more trees and landscaping and everything
like that so we’re trying to follow the grade and do all those things because I love my view. I
know my view is going to change and so this is the compromise I think with getting, preserving
as much nature and trees as possible. Adding to the parks and just sort of minimizing that and as
Mr. Aller knows he’s an attorney, compromise is not, you know if everyone walks away a little
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
16
unhappy it’s been a good day because it’s what you can live with because not everybody’s going
to get what they want. I know that I won’t get what I want which is nothing to happen so in this
case I’m trying to, you know as a resident and as a resident that’s more directly affected than
some and I’m sure as many others that are more directly affected as well this is the compromise
that I think will hopefully work. Have more nature. Less houses and hopefully will not have
such a long term effect onto the neighborhoods that surrounds and Longacres and Ashling
Meadows and everyone as we have brand new houses that are being built and we all have 20
year old houses that are being built and sometimes that causes a conflict so I’m hoping that the
proposed PUD is a compromise for everyone. Thank you.
Josh Kimber: Hello, good evening. I’m Josh Kimber. 2060 Majestic Way. I’ve kind of been
the opposition mascot for this development but I want to start by saying I want this to be a
conversation. If you guys have additional questions I know this is public comment I also want to
just open it up to questions if you have any for me so I’d be open, willing to do that. When Joe
was talking earlier about Majestic and he was pointing out the elevation of this one house. This
is actually my house. I had a really good meeting with Joe. I agree that Lennar has done a really
good listening to, well at least in my opinion, listening people on the southern end. This, the
water in our area is a major concern. It has been a major concern. Even he spoke when the two
entry lots, I mean if you picture the land it slopes down towards us and specifically if you look at
my lot, I really don’t have a lot of topography in my back yard and this was intended to have the
water leak out the back and what as happened is water doesn’t leak out the back and it basically
sits in our two yards and makes it way down to my basement and that’s why I’ve been flooded a
couple times. So as you know I’ve been to every meeting since January about this listening and I
had a really good meeting with Joe and he went over in detail the plan that he went over. I won’t
go over it again but I will say that I do feel a lot better about it because of the location. I mean
the development is doing basically what we would ask of it. The property from where it is will
go down and will slant towards the new houses and not towards my house. It was really good to
understand this hill and how the water is supposed to go and how they plan on doing that so I
mean Joe did a really good job and I thank him for taking the time for him doing that. So then
you may be saying well Josh it really sounds like you’re in agreement with this plan. What are
you doing up here? Well the reality is we on Majestic don’t have an option. These are 90 foot
lots on both plans. Both plans are the exact same. So regardless we’re going to be losing a
significant amount of tree loss. They’re going to be moving a significant amount of dirt. I
believe this will probably be one of the most destructive developments in the city of Chanhassen
that will lose 80 percent of the tree cover. It will lose 90 percent if you do both plans and I agree
that there… I’ve been to every meeting. I don’t think this is an either or situation. I think there
are other options out there and I believe with the Mayor that we should be pushing developers to
come up with a different plan that just treats the land differently. I completely agree with the
Tanadoona comments that nature is of utmost importance and we should use it but I don’t this
plan, either plan does that. The topography, the character that’s in the land. It just, we shouldn’t
touch it or we should do something different with it. Whether we put 180 homes there or you
spread the 180 homes over a great piece it’s both poor use of land in my opinion. That was some
of the comments you guys had in July. This is a poor use of land. Commissioner Tietz said
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
17
there’s a complete disregard for natural resources on both plans and that’s why I don’t have a
vote. I’m not going to pick one over the other but I did bring up a couple of additional points. A
lot of people are talking about the park. The park would be fantastic. When we moved into that
house, we’ve been there almost 10 years this year, we did our homework. We looked and we say
hey this is going to be zoned low density. Man look there’s going to be a park there. Man that’s
going to be great. What we didn’t ask is how is the City going to get that land so in the past the
City has gone through a bond and actually did purchase park space. Even he said they were
ridiculed or you know commented about how that was a poor decision to do at the time. Why
doesn’t the City do that again here? Put together a bond. Let’s buy the land. Then you don’t
have to have a trade off. We don’t have to have a density transfer. We can buy the land outright.
Sorry, we can buy the land outright. Use it as we’d like and to me that’s what we should do.
That’s what we’ve done in the past and we should look at doing it again. In terms of this park
space I’d like to remind people that the park space is really in the middle of nowhere. There’s
going to be three walking paths. One would involve over a one mile walk around the lake. The
other two would be requiring you to park in city neighborhoods to get to that land so yes it’s a
great park but there isn’t a way to get to it. Either the guard shack, I question if there are going
to be cross walks for people to cross Galpin there safely. There’s not a walkway that goes from
Longacres down to the guard shack so the trail head really connects nothing and you wonder if
kids are going to cross in the middle of nowhere there. It’s of concern. Learning more about the
Galpin…element I think would really appease residents. I know the turn lanes are there but
we’re talking about two blinds intersections that both come up hills and I would recommend
regardless of what the plan is, even though we haven’t seen anything that the City looks at
reducing the speed limit on Galpin. It’s a dangerous cross way. You’ve got to play Frogger just
to get across the street and some intersections it’s unsafe. The last comment I have would be
about the density units. I know you got creative with numbers but if you look at what the lot
sizes are in general and you look at what these property owners are going to have it isn’t in
comparison to anything in the area. I believe the math that’s being used would be something
along the lines of me buying 2 acres from the Gorra property and then selling my house at 2 ½
acres. Well it doesn’t work like that. The lots that are going in this space are significantly
smaller than the south, on the north and the west and that’s really what we oppose in this
development is there’s a density transfer and this fits with nothing that’s in the community and
that’s why I believe we should be pushing all developers, including Lennar and maybe coming
up with a different plan. Everyone has asked for a different plan to come forward back in, even
when we were in the concept phase. I think there were 2 people that said we should be looking
at a concept 3. City Council members said we should, 3 City Council members at the time said
we should be looking at 3 different options here. That didn’t happen so I know that there is great
turnout here tonight and I know that there is a lot of people who are passionate about this but I
don’t think this went down the right path. I think we should have been looking at alternative
plans to use the land better. There’s better use for this land than either plan and that’s really
where I stand so any questions for me? No.
Aller: No, thank you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
18
Josh Kimber: Awesome. Now I’m going to leave but I have to go get my daughter and I’ll be
back so, I’m not leaving because I’m upset or anything so thank you.
Tijuana Burton: Hello, my name is Tijuana Burton. I don’t live in Chanhassen but I served a lot
of time here being a fan, supporter and volunteering at Paisley Park. Probably half of you
haven’t listen to his music, current music or been to his late night parties. Morning parties. He
has expressed, Prince the former owner. His name is Prince Roger Nelson. He stated in his
music that the most important thing is not the building but the land that the building is on and the
reason why after he tore his house down after his second divorce he didn’t want to build
anything on it because everybody was like what are you going to build next? What you going to
build next? And he said nothing and everybody was like why? He was like for what? I’m cool
living in Paisley Park. I don’t need a big house. I’ll just let the land be the land. I enjoy it how
it is and the neighbors said thanks. We appreciate you not building anything. We enjoy you
know not having anything on the land. We enjoy the wildlife and you know the habitation and
the way it is. He left it the way it was so if he wanted something on there he would have built
something on there. Okay I knew eventually after we wished him heaven that somebody was
going to end up buying it and when I heard the news this morning that somebody bought it and
was going to put some houses on it I’m like oh Lord, and when you all said your meeting was at
7:00, I put it on Facebook. I’m coming. I was going to chew you out because I thought you was
going to be you know the regular contractor. Tear all the trees out and concrete everything,
whatever but as I listened to you and some of the neighbors I’m like huh maybe he ain’t half bad.
But when I found out you all had meetings before this and everybody was trying to come with a,
that things falls a hundred times a day child. Thank you. That you all were trying to work
together and at least leave some type of you know natural habitat or whatever like the woman
was saying, you know teaching her kids about nature because that’s the problem. Why do people
think bears are in their back yard? They don’t have nowhere to go. All of this development,
everybody get a little piece of land and they want to put something more on it but when bears
and deer come knocking on their door they’re like why is there deer in my back yard? Because
they don’t have nowhere to go. But if you leave some at least they won’t be at your back door
not as often so I don’t know the right answer because I don’t live here but I came to support the
residents because I know that street. I’ve been up that street. I’ve been up that driveway. I
know that shack and if, that street needs to be widen. If you’re going to build, because you’re
going to do whatever you want to do anyway, so if you, when you do build your houses there
that poor little street is going to get so worn out. You’re going to have to repave that street.
You’re going to have to widen that street. The turning lanes. That would be fine going this way
but if somebody want to make a left turn to go up in that property that traffic going to get backed
up. The school buses is going to get jammed up. It’s going to be a problem and you’re going to
be back here and all these people are going to be back here and I’m going to be back here. So I
don’t know what to tell you but you all continue to converse and you all going to have to come
up with agreement but I’m here to say I know and I know what he wanted and he would
appreciate this and you all coming together and he liked wildlife you know. I know you bought
it and you had buildings in mind and homes and what not. It’s too late like the gentleman just
left here saying. If we could have left it alone but it is what it is but you all continue to come to a
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
19
compromise and communicate. It sounds like you know you’re taking huge consideration on
you know how to do the natural plumbing and what not and everything but please continue to
respect the residents. Please keep Prince in thought and mind even though he’s the former
resident. He’s not the Artist Formerly Known as Prince. His name still is Prince so please
continue to take their thoughts in consideration because they live here. I mean the guy that’s
been here since ’66. I was born in ’67. I wasn’t even here yet. So they know okay. Alright
thank you guys.
Aller: Thank you. Just a quick reminder to all present. I know people like to turn their back to
me so that I can’t tell them their time is up but if you speak into the microphone the City Council
is going to get a better hear of what you actually present and say so if you can speak into the
microphone, again let us know your name, address, representational capacity if any.
Matthew Myers: Matthew Myers, 7421 Windmill Drive. I’m on the south edge of the property
representing myself. I don’t think it’s an either or. I think when these gentlemen talk about
they’ve been here for 60 years and I’m only 20 years so I’m new compared to them but the City
took a chance and bought Lake Ann. They bought it. Why didn’t they buy the whole thing?
Take the deal. Put in a stage there. Have music concerts instead of here in the city. Let’s really
honor Prince. Let’s really buy this. Let’s step up like the City Council did in 1969. They’re
saying they stepped up and they bought that part of Lake Ann and now this is the best
compromise. Why do we have to compromise? Chanhassen is never going to see the piece of
property like this again. There’s plenty of open farmland that they can build 200 houses on
sometime in the future but the rolling hill and the wetlands and the Lake Ann access, it’s never
going to be available again. What we’re going to run out of is open land like this. Beautiful
piece of property… I see pheasants every day coming out of there. The turkeys, the deer, all the
wildlife. It’s a wildlife preserve. Let’s keep it for the generations. I’m old….it’s for 20, 30, 40
years like they said. Let’s say in 40 years when people come back and say hey in 2019 they
stepped up and they bought that piece of property. Referendum. Work with the County. Work
with the State. Get the whole piece and do it right. Be bold like they were in ’69. Not the ’69
they did a great job and now you want to compromise to add to that? No let’s be bold and do the
whole thing and leave it all green. It’s not an either or and nothing against Joe. Joe’s done a
great job of listening but we don’t have to cow cow to a billion dollar corporation and to heirs
that never lived here and the millionaires, the money they’ve made off of Prince. No work of
their own. Why does Chanhassen residents need to work with them? We can say no to it all. Be
creative. Find a way to work with other agencies, other foundations and preserve this land for
the next generation of Chanhassen so when I come up and say I’ve been here 60 years and say
hey I was part of stopping the development of 200 homes and doing it right, preserving this land
for everyone.
Steve Scharfenberg: Steve Scharfenberg, 1470 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Chairman Aller,
members of the commission, I’m here tonight as Chairman of the Park and Recreation
Commission and I’m speaking in favor of the revisions to the proposed Galpin property. At the
most recent City Council work session the developer presented their updated proposal. Mr.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
20
Jablonski has gone through some of that tonight. They’ve revised the plan to reduce the number
of houses to 181. They’ve changed and modified the lot sizes. They’ve made revisions to both
the north, south and the Galpin property. I believe that those revisions were made after listening
to the public. Following the January session of this commission the revised plan is now back to
you tonight to review and I understand that you will not be voting on it per se but
recommendations will be made to the council. As a Park and Recreation Commission we refer
back to the recently completed 20 year Park Recreation System Plan. We received feedback
during the completion of that plan to expand Lake Ann’s open space. In addition citizens
expressed the desire to continue the existing trails around the lakes. The Park and Recreation
Commission shares the community’s desire to preserve as much open space as possible. The
proposed density transfer to the west will preserve 50 acres of forested public area with the
remaining 44 acres as a wetland. I don’t believe that anyone here wants to see that 50 acres
developed along Lake Ann or along Lake Lucy. It would be a shame if that were to happen.
However that may happen as indicated by Mr. Jablonski and the council does not, if the council
not take the necessary steps and action this evening and later on on March 11th. There are
additional goals that should be considered in reviewing the plan and those include the following.
Helping to protect the water quality of both Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Preserving undeveloped
shoreline. Allowing the City to complete the trail system around Lake Ann. Allowing additional
trails to be constructed connecting the surrounding neighborhoods to the area. Those
connections will be made. The people both in Longacres and to the south will have and to the
north will have those connections to that large 50 acre development and that trail will now
almost go all the way completely around Lake Ann. This development plan has been a work in
progress to say the least. Changes have been made and I believe the public has had the
opportunity to bring forth their concerns. Tonight we have one last chance to comment on this
proposal. I know that our two commissions look at different aspects of this proposed
development. However I believe as a community our goal is to preserve as much beautiful open
space that we can. The Park and Recreation Commission would encourage the council to adopt
this revised development plan. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
John Garry: Excuse me, my name is John Garry. I’m at 1460 Knob Hill Lane. Live about a
mile away from this. Wasn’t planning on saying anything tonight but sat here listened and
appreciate what everybody has to say. I appreciate the work staff has done. Lennar as well
especially probably in this situation. I’ve gotten a little selfish. I got 3 boys that live a mile from
here so 50 acres of woodland is probably in favor for me personally and my kids. But I do have
a history for 10 years owning probably one of the biggest ecological restoration companies in the
Midwest and it’s pretty rare working with developers and with cities to see a piece of property
like this that’s available to the city. Not necessarily for purchase but for free and as a citizen I
would say it wouldn’t be very financially responsible I don’t think for the City Council to try and
buy this when they’re getting the prime ecological aspects of the property for nothing. I think it
sounds crazy to me. I’m under the belief that this area will be developed, whether it’s now or
unless you know one of us wins the lottery and wants to buy the whole thing and leave it. It’s a
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
21
lot of money and I think it’s a lot of money for the whole of Chanhassen to eat if we think that
we’re just going to purchase it. But what kind of drove me to say something is I’ve seen a lot of
these plat maps and I agree with the first gentleman who spoke about the wildlife corridor and
you know it’s extremely rare to find 50 acres of upland woodland on the edge of these lakes that
you can preserve. And I’m really impressed with what you guys have done by closing off the
roads. By changing this so everybody kind of gets the advantage of the best parts of this
property. I you know I put a hockey rink in my back yard every year and my neighbor looks at it
like you going to flood my basement in the spring so I don’t disagree with the neighbors but I’ll
also say as a guy who worked around erosion and these developments that Lennar knows damn
well they can’t flood anybody out and they’ve you know, Lennar has lots bigger pockets to go
after than I do from my neighbor so I understand that and I think the neighbors should too. But I
think it’s a great plan and I would be in full support of it and I just, you know the gentleman who
said it’s going to be tough to get back to those woods and you’ve got to walk a mile and there’s
only a couple trails, perfect. That’s exactly what it should be so thanks.
Todd Simning: Todd Simning, 2145 Wynsong Lane. I probably come with a little bit of a
different perspective and really ask the City to, I’ll say honest to goodness you guys have done a
really good job of revamping your plan but I want to throw it back at the City to say truly do you
need 50 acres over here? Okay so across the street on Wynsong Lane we did the same thing and
didn’t destroy the environment. Didn’t destroy the wetlands around. We really preserved a lot
of the area. I developed that property. I live there myself and we, we’re very sensitive to what
the area was and I don’t see how or why you can’t develop some of the 50 acres there. There’s o
reason why you can’t have the trail system connect. I mean whether you go to Eden Prairie or
whether you go to Chanhassen I mean you guys are all connecting your trail systems and what
not. I mean it’s really a phenomenal system that we all have to really enjoy. Whether you’re in
Minneapolis. Whether you’re in Plymouth or whatever, cities are really doing a great job of
connecting their trail systems and that. This right here, you’re not going to destroy an entire 50
acres. You might take some of it out of there, okay. You may take some density transfer from
the area where you’re completely taking out almost every tree and moving it over to the east
side. You know when you look at the emails and what not that have been sent to the City there’s
so many, what do you call it? Residents that from Utica and everything else on the east side that
were very pro I don’t want anything to happen on the west side. Well why? I mean I don’t want
to look at houses. They’re afraid that every tree is going to be taken out but if you guys do a
good job of helping the developer, helping the builder develop a good plan you will have a great
project. You don’t have to throw density over to one area all the time. You can have a balance.
And it’s disappointing to see the City on so many different levels and I think that we did a good
job and maybe Kate, Todd and whoever, Erick wasn’t here at the time, maybe they didn’t think
that we did a good job balancing out what we did over on Wynsong Lane but we took a 10 acre
parcel over there and only subdivided it into 4 lots and granted I make my living building and
developing so I’m so cognizant of you’ve got to make money because that’s why we’re in
business but you can also be cognizant about what you’re doing with the land to make it
beneficial and just to say that we need to transfer everything over to the west side and we need to
take out pretty much every tree and God bless us we’re saving this wetland which you’re not
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
22
going to destroy anyway and with all the ecologically sound practices, business practices that we
have as developers today you can’t just destroy everything anyway. So to say that they’re doing
something better than somebody else is not truly what’s happening. It’s the City has some
choices to make and if you say that gosh darn we want to save 50 acres just because we want to
save 50 acres, well so be it. You can do that. But on the other hand if you say that we want to
take 50 acres, we want to balance everything out and we want trees over here. We want to
protect this land. We want to have our corridor system coming through so the trails line up, I
mean goodness. My kids will run through there. I mean I’m just on the other side of the road.
We’re always outside. My kids are out on the ponds all the time. I mean we have what, 3
natural ponds with Lake Harrison just behind us. You can do a good job making a good project.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be just density transfer. It can be a balance. I don’t have anything
other than that to say but truly if you guys can just take that into consideration. You’re acting
like it’s one of the other and it really isn’t one or the other. It can be a good balance working
with the developer because he needs to make money. We want him to make money. We want
him to build houses because we want houses to be in Chanhassen. We want the tax revenue and
everything else. We want Lennar to make money. I don’t care if you’re a billion dollar business
or 10 billion dollar business. You need to make money just like me. Just like you guys when
you go to your jobs. Every one of us has to make money. But you can make a good decision
about what you really want to balance out with the project and it doesn’t necessarily all have to
be over on one side. That’s all I have to say, thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
John Yanta: Hi my name’s John Yanta. I’m a Chanhassen resident. 365 Pleasant View Road. I
think you did a great job with your plan and I have seen my taxes increase every year since I’ve
lived in Chanhassen. I enjoy Chanhassen but I’ve seen taxes increase. Therefore I recommend
the City to not buy this piece of ground. If people want to come up and step up as private
citizens God bless them but this is not a way to buy this site and I think they did a nice job with
this new plan. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Scott Dewing: I’ll be quick. Scott Dewing, 6735 Mulberry Circle. I live just on the other side
of Lake Lucy. 20 year resident. Born in 1966. I’m excited about this plan. I’ve been following
this pretty closely. I believe that Lennar’s done a great job of allowing us to enjoy that area. I
drive, walk, run, bike around that area almost daily. I’m very much in favor of this new plan.
Thank you.
Cheree Theisen: Hi everybody once again. Cheree Theisen. I live at 2072 Majestic Way and
I’m in the Royal Oaks development which is the immediate south side of the property. I was the
second house in there 25 years ago. I’ve been there all this time. Now I’m looking at our entire
back yards being totally demolished. You talk about this wonderful walkway around this lake.
Well no one realizes that there’s a big piece of private property still that you’re not going to be
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
23
putting a walkway through so that’s going to be like maybe three quarter walkway to get there as
Josh said is going to be a mile walk to get around to your new property. For me on Majestic
Way there if I want to go and get on the walkway system I have to walk down Majestic Way, get
on Galpin. Go north hopefully down to maybe they’ll put a crosswalk in where the guide track is
or I’ll have to go even further but I have go down there, cross again okay. If I had children I’d
be very concerned about that. To get down into the nice little walkways that are going to be
down to get me and my family down to the lake. That’s a lot. And then the biggest thing I want
to say is I wish somebody would put out for these people of Chanhassen, it’s easy for you to
come in here and say we need the park. We need the park. Okay but it’s not at a cost to the City
of Chanhassen. It’s a cost to us who have been there for 25 years. 30 years or even longer
because we’re losing. We’re losing a lot and I don’t think that that’s fair. I would like to see
somebody put out a graph so everyone in Chanhassen can see, this is what it’s going to look like
and then another one that shows this is what it looks like with every single tree that’s there and
then you could realize the impact of what you’re doing to that property by ripping out those trees
and putting 5 foot little spruce trees in and I look out my yard I’ll see the top of a fence and I’ll
see the roof tops of houses. That’s what we’re going to see there in a beautiful development that
we created. Just saying. I think it sucks.
Aller: Thank you.
Barb Klick: Barb Klick, 7196 Utica Lane. I’m a resident of Chanhassen for 32 years. First of
all I want to say I’m glad that this session is being taped. We could send it to the federal
government and tell them how the government in the community and the private sector can
actually work together to get a good outcome. Number one. Second of all Prince has been a
great neighbor for 32 years for all of us. What a great person who let us use that land. He never
posted it and we’re all grieving the loss. I mean I don’t want it to change. None of us want it to
change but it’s going to change so we’ve got to make the best of it and we’ve seen what the
outcome is and how we’ve pulled together and we do need to preserve the 54 acres and they need
to be preserved intact, not split up. I’m a big nature lover. I’ve taken gray horn owls to the
Rapture Center. I’ve seen deer die from getting hit by cars in my front lawn. We need some
land for the nature and I’m telling you as a nurse we do need to walk so people we do need to
park our cars and walk down and see the nature. I’m telling you we need to move. We do. It’s
part of it so I’m a huge supporter of this high density transfer. It’s our brutal reality that things
are changing but accolades to everyone for coming together. It’s the best of the worst situation
and if this slips out of our fingers and all these other developers will come in and do exactly what
they want shame on all of us.
Laurie Susla: Hi my name is Laurie Susla. I live at 7008 Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen. I think
that I very much appreciate the Planning Commission listening to the public again tonight. I
think this is a very important topic for the whole town but certainly everyone here and over in the
senior center. It’s packed over there so a lot of people are very, very passionate about this. My
concern I think there are a lot of people who are in favor of the density transfer. My concern is
that the number of homes that are being transferred from the east to the west at 54 homes. That
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
24
seems to have been a matter of negotiation. I as of yet haven’t seen any actual engineering plat
that says this could work this way. There was a landscape architect plan that was given to you
all but no real hard facts that 54 is the number that we should be dealing with and when you take
those 54 homes what ends up happening as you well know is the hard cover in the 181 homes
gets very, very high. We have two thirds of those lots are at 40 percent hard cover or higher.
Over a quarter are at 50 percent hard cover or higher and that’s not including the streets so when
you take a look at all the stormwater that’s going to be coming off all of this new hard cover and
where is that going? That’s going into Wetland 1. It is a Preserve wetland. It’s going into Lake
Ann. It’s going into Lake Lucy. It’s going into everything that we all want to preserve so my
comment is to re-examine that 54. Is 54 the right number? Is that what we really should be
talking about transferring to the west? Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Shane Waskey: Hi Shane Waskey, 1925 Topaz which is on the north end of the development
there and I’m just, I live otherwise tonight I kind of have a unique perspective because I’ve been
going back on that land for quite a few years and if it’s okay I’ll grab the mouse. I just feel like
this picture really doesn’t represent reality at all. So this swamp or wetland or whatever you
want to call it, I think everyone knows pretty well or is well documented, what it doesn’t show is
the water flows out here into Lake Lucy and then you cross over here and it goes north out on
this peninsula here. You know in the summer we’ll hike back here but we’ll put up a, you know
a lot of people lay down logs and things like that but it’s flowing water so, and then all along this
area it appears to be trees. This is all, I mean it’s so low that I can’t imagine that, I mean unless
they’re allowed to excavate and bring in a lot of dirt, you could not have a home with a basement
through here. It’s very low. As you come through here I would agree that there would be some
nice property, you know houses that you could probably align but I would say 5-6 or something.
When you come in here it gets very tall and steep like it’s like Split Rock Lighthouse sort of
thing. Put a tower up here and very steep down the edges. No way you could build so I just, I
think that these concessions and these nice things that the builder has offered, especially you
know starting off at 55 foot lots and oh we’re going to be nice now and go bigger is a bit of
smoke and mirrors so I just wanted to mention that. That I feel like a lot of us are negotiating
from a place of weakness when really this property I really question the ability to do anything
with it. Furthermore if there was houses put out here, correct me if I’m wrong but I think there’s
already well documented plans that there would continue to be a trail through here so if we lost
some of this area we still have the trail. There’s already a park on the other side of the lake. I
mean how many lakes do you have a continuous park all around. I don’t know that it makes a lot
of sense so in turn you know all these houses are getting blitzed over on this property as a result
of just some weird you know messaging in my mind. Thank you.
Greg Stewart: Hi my name is Greg Stewart. My wife Gerry and son Ian live at 1893 Topaz
Drive and I guess I’ll be one of the naysayers as my property abuts the northern edge of the
forest of the Prince property. Just so it’s clear that the impact this development will have on the
neighbors that adjoin this property. The construction project will take 2 to 4 years which means
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
25
for 2 to 4 years everybody that has property along this area will suffer from noise pollution, air
pollution, traffic and noise. Our property values will be greatly depressed and will remain
depressed first because nobody will want to buy a house seeing what’s being built behind it.
Nobody will want to buy a house perhaps afterwards when all the homes are in and our property
values are devalued because of the new home sales and the prices that they may bring so I’m
really concerned you know. There really are tangible impacts to the neighbors that adjoin this
property. I must say that I was dumb founded at the comments of Jerry McDonald in the paper
that residents apparently aren’t supposed to have a voice in City Council so I’m very pleased that
tonight we’re demonstrating our ability to speak out and speak our mind. However if this plat is
going to go through I guess one observation is everywhere you see a house crammed to the left
of that wetland is now forest or other wetland and so you’re destroying half of the forest to save
the other half. I’m not sure that that’s a reasonable trade off but again unfortunately because
Prince didn’t leave a will we’re in the situation we’re in so I guess the one thing I would ask the
council to definitely consider is that there are provisions put in place to ensure that there truly is
a conservation of trees, as Mr. Jablonski mentioned earlier, and that there is additional buffer line
built into the north. And so I just want to make sure that if the PUD is approved that these
provisions are also firmly put in place and that we bring together some kind of standing
committee between Lennar and the City and the neighbors so that we can hash out some of these
details in a more open venue than these types of meetings that obviously are not a good setting
for doing that. Anyways those are my thoughts, thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward at this time? Anyone from the senior
center that would like to work their way around?
Jeri Sorensen: I’m Jeri Sorensen. I live at 8121 Maplewood Terrace. I’ve lived in Chan for 28
years. Love Lake Ann Park. We spend a lot of time there. Doing every form of recreation that
you can enjoy and it’s been a gift to our family and I thank the founders of Chanhassen for
setting aside. I love the idea of the north side of the lake being preserved because it’s a beauty.
Can’t think of anything more that I enjoy in the town but kind of thinking compromise. What
can we do that you know there is, as I’m looking at that similarly dense areas. What about the
City purchasing some small areas in some of those dense things on the west for neighborhood
parks. Leave the big park. The compromise would be…smaller parks in the neighborhoods.
And maybe a small tree buffer between the adjacent neighborhood to the south…just a little area
of compromise. Just a thought. I would not want to give up the Lake Ann Park area but I sent a
letter in earlier saying what about you know not putting the path in right away to have some
money to put in some additional park space. And don’t build anything more in Lake Ann Park
until that property is paid for. And then like thinking 50 years from now. Not just about our
families or our kids or what’s in it for me. I think there’s way too much of that kind of thing
going on. But what if after it’s paid for then you make a memorial path through Lake Ann and
it’s built by you know, where are we going to put people when they die? What about using that
money like I would like my name along that path or think of parkland as a memorial for the
people who love the city and love the lake so put in a couple more small parks. I wouldn’t want
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
26
to ditch the whole deal. I want to keep Lake Ann but if there’s an area of compromise that’s
where I see it. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Greg Andrews: Hi, Greg Andrews. I’m at 6895 Ruby Lane. Ashling Meadows. Prince…from
what I’ve kind of written here is Prince may have loved this land but he didn’t will the property
to the city and he’s got some heirs and they want to monetize this and they’re going to monetize
it to the highest bidder and that’s going to force any developer, and I do believe this will be
developed, to need to build more houses to make money because they’re not charity
organizations. I don’t believe the City’s going to buy this land. They’re not going to get that
through. When I originally heard about this project last summer I contacted the Sierra Club.
We’re going to fight for the trees. They really don’t care. It really surprised me. That’s a small
project. They really don’t care. They’ve got bigger things to fight. I contacted the watershed
district. They’re like look, if the builder follows the rules, City’s on board, this is going to go
through. Not going to happen. News to me. I thought there has to be some preservation laws to
protect this. Watershed district’s going to do their job and follow the rules, so will the builder, et
cetera. There’s not enough million dollar donors in our community willing to pony up a lot of
money and buy this. It’s reality and I tend to try to live in reason. My original concern was
building next to this lake because Lake Ann is a gem. It’s crystal clear. But if you build near a
lake you’re going to get phosphorus leakage from the soil that comes up from developing land
and guess what, I know the builders on Lake Lucy Road didn’t intent that to happen but it
happened. All the drainage over the last 3 years of building up there has come down the storm
drains and for those people on Lake Lucy Ridge who built a dock a couple of years ago on north
Lake Lucy, their beautiful lake right there is green muck and weeds and they can’t use their dock
anymore because they put, the builders up in Lake Lucy Ridge, who probably didn’t intend it to
happen, polluted the lake. I do believe that if that goes in there and building is still next to the
lake, Lennar’s not going to try to do that. You know there’s no builder would want to pollute a
lake but it could happen. Maybe, I don’t know. I’m not a landscape engineer etcetera but it
happened on the north end of Lake Lucy so I saw it here. So I think this development’s going to
happen. You know I was like originally I don’t want it to happen but I think it’s going to happen
so my question to all of you is what if we run Joe and Lennar out of town and say nope, you
can’t do it? My question is since Prince’s heirs want their money, what’s next and so that’s my
question to you. Maybe it’s been said. Maybe people know. Does it go back to them and say
okay open up for bidding? Next builder please give us your highest bid and we start all over
again? So I don’t know the answer to that question. That was my question. Do you have an
answer for that?
Aller: I can’t answer that.
Greg Andrews: Anybody? Anybody got a good guess?
Aller: Only the heirs with title can.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
27
Greg Andrews: Okay, what do you think’s going to happen Joe?
Joe Jablonski: I think it will get approved.
Greg Andrews: No, no but if, but if we run you out of town? You know who’s going to say
what’s going to happen here, next bidder right?
Joe Jablonski: Correct.
Greg Andrews: Because they’re yeah, that’s why I think it’s, and Lennar’s listened to a lot of
people. They’ve made a lot of changes here and I do believe that creating an area that’s
unencumbered by houses, not houses weaving in it is better for nature and the animals and
everything, etcetera and if you want to traipse through there yeah it’s, that’s you have to walk
into it. You just don’t go next to your house etcetera. So I guess you know there’s been a lot of
conversations and they’ve done, my biggest concern was safety. Running roads right through
Ashling Meadows so if that ever changes call me. Because that I mean that could be, that’s a bee
line and that was my concern as a father that cars were coming right down Ruby Lane or going
right through Lucy Ridge etcetera so with that said this is not going to be perfect. Guys on
Majestic Lane I feel for you. Like you said it kind of sucks. It really does but I don’t know. I
guess we just don’t know what we’re going to get if we kick this to the curb. Does the next
builder come in and follow the rules and get to build whatever they want within the guidelines
next to Lake Ann? I just don’t know so right now I’m tending towards this. It’s not perfect but
that’s kind of what we’ve got.
Aller: Thank you.
Joe Myss: Hi I’m Joe Myss. I live at 2419 Hunter Drive. I’m representing my kids and my
family. So first off thank you to the City Council. Thank you to Lennar for you know taking,
you know listening to everyone here. Taking the matter seriously and clearly putting forth a
good effort because clearly the development of some form is going to happen. I do want to make
sure that it’s noted I am actually pro development. I am just anti development in it’s current
state. Right now I live in Longacres as some of the others that are here also do. Specifically on
Hunter Drive. The issue’s been brought up numerous times. I personally have nearly been run
over by a car speeding through my neighborhood. I felt it appropriate to follow up the last
speaker here and thank you sir when he brought up safety. And as we put in much larger
densities of population it’s critical in order to manage that traffic. As we brought it to the City
Council’s attention before you know we need something whether it be a different methods to
manage the traffic. Speed bumps would be great. I do understand there are challenges with that
but when we put the safety of our children of our residents at risk and we have issues where
we’re now adding additional housing, specifically dropping the entrances to a new development
that is you know a fairly significant size that goes right into Longacres and as well as some of the
other neighboring communities, I kind of feel it’s very irresponsible and I would hold you guys
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
28
really personally accountable when, because it’s not a matter of if. It’s a matter of when a child
or an adult gets hit by a car just because we have so much traffic going through specifically on
Hunter because it doesn’t have even a sidewalk. So that’s really the big message that I wanted to
communicate through because I am confident that that will happen. Otherwise one other item I
did just want to note, and I appreciate that it’s been somewhat discussed in the last couple of
speakers is that, that piece of land there that they have given us isn’t developable. It’s pretty
clear. You know while I understand that there are people who may look at it and say it can be
developed for a cost, Lennar is not choosing to cut from 195 single family homes. Giving away
property and land to the City in order to cut it down to one, whatever it is. 81 or I heard 17 off of
whatever they were at, whatever. But that would technically be a loss of revenue and I’m sorry
but I don’t buy it that Lennar’s in that business so that’s all I got. I appreciate your time and
thank you for your consideration.
Kurt Oddsen: My name is Kurt Oddsen. I live at 7325 Moccasin Trail in Longacres. What I’m
concerned about is I think this will be developed. I truly believe that. Don’t want to see it but I
believe it will happen but I’d like to see the project and property managed in a way that is
respectful of the land and the density. I think we kind of need to get a one time shot at this in
Chanhassen. I don’t want to see that land murdered for the profit of a developer. I understand
the cost factors. I understand return on investment. I would ask people to go up on Highway 19
to a little par 3 golf course that used to be there called Red Oak. It had nice beautiful oak trees.
It had some ponds and it had topography. It was bought by Lennar who developed it and in my
opinion if you go in there now they murdered the land to accommodate the housing. They’re
nice houses. It’s a nice neighborhood but I’m not sure that I want to have that happen to this
project across the street on Galpin. I think the density is a little too high. From what I’m seeing
we have two access points onto Galpin Boulevard. Longacres goes by my house. Not directly
but down a block away, a house away from it. I think that Longacres will get to be a cut through
street and I think if you have 181 units, if you only take one car per unit coming out in two
directions on Galpin I think there’s going to be a lot of traffic. And I believe that people coming
from the north on 41 or coming south on 41 can cut through Lake Lucy Road. I think people
coming up from 41 to the north can cut through Longacres. I don’t know whether people will
take 5 to Galpin and go up there. I have not done a traffic study obviously. Maybe somebody
has but I just think that’s a lot of traffic coming out of two points of a development. And I’m
just afraid looking at this density that they’re going to be right on top of one another and I like
the idea of having the wetlands to the east of the development preserved but I’m, this land
density and transfer it does appear to be smoke and mirrors because I don’t know whether that
can be developed or not but I do know that it does increase the density on the west side of that
property and I’m very concerned about what that’s going to look like when it’s done. And when
it’s done we can’t say wait, maybe we should have looked at it a little differently. I don’t have
the answer. I just don’t want the density to be there to affect the neighborhoods around it.
Wherever they are. I just think that it’s a lot of houses and a limited access in and out of there
and that’s my concern. It will be developed. I think the City of Chanhassen needs to really look
at it and say is this what we want it to look like when it’s done? Somebody said can we see a
mock up of what it’s going to look like when it’s done. That’d be great. I don’t think it’s going
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
29
to happen and therein lies another concern is when it happens we won’t get to say, we won’t get
a do over. I’m not sure what I, I don’t have an alternative for this but I think we ought to really
consider it. I think Lennar is been cognizant of what some of our concerns are but they are in it
to make money and they have to have a density and I’m concerned that we as the city are going
to suffer for that. Thank you.
Mark: Mark…Hill Street. I have zero vested interest in this. I live like 4 miles that way and so I
don’t have a strong opinion. I was just kind of watching and I thought there’d be more fireworks
but everyone’s been pretty cool. But and I was starting to take tallies. So it looked like for the
PUD was kind of weighing in and then anti PUD came up and it’s about a tie ballgame now so,
but I think we have to be cognizant. Everyone of us has agendas. That’s human nature. We
have agendas so I don’t think we can discount the people who are on that property. Now I live
right off 101. When you guys start to come at my 101 and want to tear down my house I’m going
to bitch big time but I’m not but I respect the people on that, on the side. I don’t think we can
discount it and I don’t think, I’m tired of hearing the word gift and there’s no gift here. And Joe
not to pick on ya, you’ve been on the hot seat but we’ve been asking for a third option for about
6 months and that was asked by the mayor and by other people. We’ve been asking for a third
option. That’s the one thing I got out of this meeting is that we need an alternative and…buying
it out is probably not feasible but we need a third option. We are not, we’re at 50/50 right now.
We are not agreeing so we need another option and I know that’s the last thing you want to do. I
wouldn’t want to tell your graphic artist to build a new one but it’s got to be done so, anyway
just when you think about, because I guess it’s pretty easy to say if I’m 4 miles away it’s pretty
easy for me to say yeah let’s have another park in town. But put yourself in their shoes and it’s
going to happen in your back yard and just be cognizant. That’s all I have.
Dan O’Connor: Hi Dan O’Connor, 7124 Northwood Court in Chanhassen. I do live on the other
side in Longacres so that road does go by my house. I do have concern about the traffic that’s
going to flow right through that the gentleman back there mentioned. It will be a direct corridor
to 41. It definitely will be. It will be the quickest access from that development to 41 and it will
go right by my house and cars already come over there going too fast. I’ve seen a lot of kids
almost get hit. It’s very dangerous. The other thing I’d like to point out is the last election was
very much a referendum on the development in Chanhassen and with the new mayor and a
couple new council members because of it. And they won pretty overwhelmingly and I think if
you look at some of the development that’s gone on over the last several years I’ve heard a lot of
meetings like this. There’s a lot of voicing opinions against some development and it still just
seemed to kind of go through. This land is a gem as a lot of people have said. I can’t imagine
there’s a better chunk of land in the metro than this. That’s this close to the metro. To
Minneapolis. I just don’t understand the rush. I understand Lennar’s rush. I know they’ve got
to participate in a timeline they’ve got to hit. They knew that risk when they put this bid out and
put the work into this. I respect that but I do not understand why Chanhassen has to rush in the
notion that some Joe’s going to come next and another guy and just develop this. I’m sure
somebody will at some point in time. I’ve got to think there’s an awful lot of people who would
love at some point in time in the future to develop this in a very, very good way that really does
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
30
honor the land and does honor the citizens of Chanhassen. And someone pointed out the article
in the Villager a week or so ago and the council member kind of wondered why the citizens of
Chanhassen kind of had a voice in some of these developments stuff the other way. This is our
city. I mean this is, this is our city and it’s really critical that we understand these voices and if
there’s this much debate and there’s this much voicing I think of concern we don’t have to say
we got to pick one of the two. We have to do that today. We don’t. We can pause. We can hit
the pause button and take another look down the road when the next developer comes around
with the next proposal and do what is best for this city in the eyes of the residents of the city.
And again I’d like to point out I do believe that that last election was very, very much a
referendum on the development that has gone on in this city and the changes that have taken
place in Chanhassen the residents of Chanhassen isn’t really a big of so thank you.
Peter Polingo: Peter Polingo, 1981 Topaz Drive representing Ashling Meadows and it’s like
answering the teachers question. You’re the 29th person up. There’s so many good things that
have been said. So many things about the safety and the congestion in the, kind of the plan that
Lennar put together and their strategy towards starting with a Plan A and then making a Plan B
when realistically you know they never thought Plan A would work anyway so the Plan C idea
that the gentleman had has been what we have been pushing for for quite a while. The
opportunity for them to have routes out of these developments without creating a safety hazard is
ridiculous. There are so many opportunities right now with Galpin for our security issues when
going up and down there from a traffic point of view so it is real to parents. It scares us and we
also have a, in the proposal a pass through Ashling Meadows down Topaz Drive which is
already like a little raceway so to add more homes and to add more people coming from up
above it scares us because we have a private park that we have our kids play at so our biggest
challenge is again to have you listen to what we’re trying to achieve and thank everyone for all
the comments on support of doing the right thing for Chan. Thank you.
Aller: Anyone else wishing to come forward? We’re not getting married here but speak now or
forever hold your peace. Anybody from the senior center wishing to come forward?
Jessica Landon: My name is Jessica Landon and I live at Fox Hill Drive so I’m actually also
pretty far away but my main concern just looking at this is how many homes are there. I think
it’s too many. Too much population especially living of the border Carver County and
Minnetonka schools. I worry about the number of incoming families and how many kids would
be attending you know whichever schools and things like that. Even pollution just around the
lakes. A lot of things that have already been covered but the traffic that like many people have
already said is already there but it’d be nice to see because unfortunately as everyone is saying
it’s like it’s gonna get developed. I prefer to just see it as it is but seeing how it is and what is
eventually going to be it’d be nice to just see it with less homes. Kind of how it is on the east
side where people can actually enjoy their back yards versus living on top of one another.
Thanks.
Aller: Thank you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
31
Alan Nickolai: Alan Nickolai again. One point that hasn’t been brought up and that is with the
Galpin being, proposed to be redone here in a few years. Let’s be careful about wasting
taxpayers dollars and redoing things twice. They’re going to have you know exit lanes. Let’s
put them in that section, so we’re not redoing it 3-4 years from now. Wasting the taxpayer’s
dollars. I think that’s critical. Little bit just…3-4 years. Do it once, not twice on those turn
lanes. Whatever needs to be done so it’s done safely because I’ve got to believe some of the
people safety is a issue but I’ve seen it with other developments. They did it at two stages and
frankly it was, they wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s our money. Not your
money. It’s our taxpayer’s money so just spend the money wisely when the turn lanes etcetera
off of Galpin. By the way I remember when Galpin was a gravel road and our biggest concern
was not to hit the horses because there used to be 20 to 30 horse back riders there every Saturday
morning so I’ve been around a little bit so anyways, do it safely. Spending money wisely on the
turns. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. And I don’t want it to turn into point counter point but if somebody hasn’t
had a chance please come up and speak. If somebody wants a second chance now is the time to
get in line.
Judy Bolstad: Hi I’m Judy Bolstad. I live over on 1101 Lake Lucy Road but I grew up on Lake
Lucy. My parents still live there so I’ve been familiar with this area since I was 8 so 1972 so I
have concerns about the Lake Lucy getting polluted and where the drainage is going to go and
what that’s going to do to that lake. I like a lot of the ideas of, I obviously want that land
preserved. I’ve been walking that land since I was a kid and I love it and I you know I think
that’s a good idea but I think that even the traffic that people are talking about, I’m over on you
know Powers and Lake Lucy and we have trouble getting out now and so adding another 150
homes or whatever it is is going to, it’s not going to just affect the people in that area. Those
neighborhoods. It’s going to affect everybody in Chanhassen and like I said I don’t know what
you, if you have plans to change how some of the roads work or what the speed limits are but
right now I can’t get out of my neighborhood as it is so if people start to use you know Lake
Lucy to get out to Powers to be able to go to 5 I’m just wondering what the plan is I guess for
traffic so thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Jean Burke: Good evening. My name is Jean Burke. I live at 225 West 77th Street. That’s on
old Chanhassen. Tom Klingelhutz’ house. Tom is the brother to Al Klingelhutz. The old
homes. Should I be excited about a new park for the citizens of Chanhassen? Absolutely not. In
my opinion when I look at this, this is a park for the new development. It will be like
Greenwood Shores Park with signs saying do not park here and a bar across the road. There’s a
gazebo, lake access, picnic area but only the people in Greenwood Shores can use it. How am I
living in old town Chanhassen going to benefit from this park? As I look at the drawing it
appears that the people that are going to buy the houses and build the beautiful homes, their
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
32
children will be able to take a trail and access Lake Ann. For myself and for other residents of
Chanhassen I know the City paper said it’s close to downtown Chanhassen. No Tom it isn’t. It
isn’t close to those of us that live in the area other than the Lennar development. Even this
woman who talked about living across the road, she’s got to cross the road. Go down and around
and navigate to get on the trail and get out to the lake. Obviously the density of one side just
blows me away that they would crowd that many houses in an area that has been so pristine and
undeveloped. It’s going to have to have water runoff, pollution. And speaking of pollution of
Lake Ann we do fireworks over our clear lake every year which pollutes Lake Ann terribly with
sulphur so if we citizens want to give up a few things and buy some property over here, let’s not
do fireworks for a couple years. Sacrifice for our future and leave the trees and say to Lennar
hey sell us part of your development so we can leave it. And maybe the citizens can come and
park a car and actually access the trail from the other end of Lake Ann. Otherwise I…thank
Lennar for the gift of a park that is really like somebody said, it’s in the middle of nowhere for
those of us that like Lake Ann Park the way it is so that’s my opinion. It’s not beneficial for
those of us that want to see parks built for Chanhassen and what to see developments that make
our city proud.
Aller: Thank you.
Art Roberts: Art Roberts, I’m in the…association at Vasserman. Property at Galpin and 5. I’ve
got one thought. People are saying we need a third alternative and the following has occurred.
We need to ask the expert from Lennar, what if you took the lots in the middle that are 65 feet
wide and got out your slide rule or drawings instruments here and made those 80 foot lots or 75
foot lots. What would happen of course is that the larger lots would go for a higher dollar value.
And we’ve have a few fewer homes but you’d have maybe a lot more space. A lot more trees
you could leave so if I was looking for a third alternative to ask him to look I’d say spend a day.
Do a what if and then run the numbers. How much more expensive could you sell 80 foot wide
lots versus 65 so I think this is basically the right plan but I would just say hey, could you
enlarge those lots a bit to make it a little bit more liberal? A little bit more roomy and leave a
few more trees. That’s what I would do at this point is say I think there is a third alternative but
it’s not redesigning the whole shebang. It’s just widening the 65 foot lots and saying what if.
Please try that in real numbers and tell me, Lennar who, would that work.
Sharon McCotter: Hi my name is Sharon McCotter. I live at 7000 Utica Lane and in the last 10
years as I’ve been preparing to retire this summer I’ve been getting involved with the watershed
and learning more about how it operates and as they try to do their plan and you know they had a
lot of opposition to some of the rules and I think it was really great to have public hearings to get
input from both sides. Listening to everybody tonight you know I can sympathize and empathize
with all of the parties that are speaking. I think what I’ve learned in these last 10 years working
with the watershed is there’s no perfect plan. Some people will be, most people will be
inconvenienced and I think one of the first people talked about a good day is when nobody feels
like they left totally mutilated. Somebody, you got something out of it so I feel like at the last
City Council meeting the mayor quoted out of the City’s 2040 plan I think it was or 2020 plan
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
33
and she quoted about how the City is charged to preserve green spaces and preserve the trees and
things like that and be very environmentally conscience and she put that back to Lennar to say
you know what can you do to keep helping us to meet the goals of our city plan and seeing that
they’ve done some things I think it’s great but I also can empathize with the people that are
living there. But I would ask that we step back and say sometimes you have to look at the bigger
good. So not what’s good for any one neighborhood or any one district but what’s good for
Chanhassen and I do believe that this transfer density plan does have the best interest of
Chanhassen as a whole in preserving the most trees and the most, we heard that this plan would
preserve the most trees and be the most environmentally friendly so I would just say you know if
we have to choose I think we’ve got a good option and like people have said, this is a
concentrated dense space that you won’t get back so it’s not like we have another opportunity to
do a do over so I just, I know some people will not like it. I live on the other side of Lake Lucy
and we now look across at a big gated steel thing that went in a dock that people said they can’t
use because it’s all socked in over there so we all have to make compromises because the
world’s moving forward but I do think this plan of preserving this larger space is really in line
with the 2040 city plan. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item
tonight?
Paul Theis: Good evening, I’m Paul Theis. I live at 6520 White Dove Circle. Been a resident of
Chan for about 27 years. My wife is here. She was going to speak because she’s usually not
known for being too quiet but anyhow I certainly agree with the lady that last spoke and I
support the density transfer. You know a lot of the earlier speakers talked about the other option
developing lots and I don’t know if the topography’s right. The soil compaction is correct not to
have the density transfer. The other plan that would build close to a shoreline but I certainly
don’t want to see that. I certainly want to see this bigger strip of land saved. I want to thank the
earlier speakers that talked about some of the earlier citizens here that went into the planning.
The watershed people. Planning and zoning. City vision over the years. Retain that area around
the lake. We live a little bit north of, northwest of Lake Lucy and you know we look forward to
being able to walk from our place along Lake Lucy and around the lake but other residents of the
city would like to see if possible to have Lennar put some parking in. You know maybe to give
up a lot or something here or there so people that aren’t immediately adjacent can use it. Also I
do have some sympathy for the drainage issues but I would hope between Lennar’s engineering,
I know they’ve made some attempts to fix the problem for the folks in the south end and maybe
there can be some access put into the plat to also help those people gain quicker access to the
park area I’ll call it. So I say a little bit additional minor tweaking and I think it’s a terrific plan
and I would support what’s been presented in terms of the density transfer. Thank you.
Aller: Any additional speakers? Are you sure? I’ve been pretty good every time I say that
somebody comes up. Alright seeing no one come forward I will close the public comment
section of this meeting. Before I move to any additional actions or comment I just first and
foremost would like to thank you one and all for sharing your thoughts with us and with the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
34
council and with each other. I said before and I continue to say that I believe that we as a
commission and a city are at our finest when everybody shows up and participates and whether
they’re on one side of the issue or the other they voice their opinion and make themselves heard
and participate in the process. Regardless of the outcome I think that the final action, which will
be taken again on March 11th by the City Council, is better with rather than without your input. I
would like to thank the City Council for providing our residents with the additional opportunity
tonight to voice those opinions. I’d like to again thank staff for being present and for working
diligently with Lennar and with the public and covering the many different items that were put
together in the plans and keeping them up and available for everyone to again see on the website
and so all those items are available for your viewing. And then I would, I’d like to thank Lennar
Homes and their representatives for recognizing what we already know. Chanhassen is a
wonderful place to live and for both their past efforts and continuing commitment to listen to the
citizens input and offering what they believe are economically viable win/win developments for
the City Council’s consideration. So with that I’ll open it up for any additional comments at this
time from the commissioners. We’re not here to make any formal recommendations but if you
have a comment or would like to say anything now is the time.
McGonagill: Go ahead Steve. I’m following you.
Weick: You sure?
McGonagill: No I’m fine.
Weick: I’d be happy to speak. And gosh this one, this doesn’t get any easier. The more we talk
about it that is for sure. There’s big issues at hand and I think one thing that I struggle with
personally is, I don’t, and this is just me. Yeah I don’t see a pause button out there because it is
land that’s for sale with a buyer with regardless of how many homes you can put on that 50 acres
could come in and build a really significant amount of homes. On that property and can take out
a very significant amount of trees with or without our input. And I, you know that’s one thing
that’s on the table. I would love to be able to not do that. I don’t believe that’s an option
because you have, we have a seller and we have a buyer and we have codes that could be
followed to build single family homes on that property in a well over 150 homes I think. In my
opinion which is a lot. So in light of that, and I’ve been fairly consistent in my opinion that a
density transfer to protect that wetland and make it a park would be better than just you know
filling the space with homes on as much buildable property as you can because I do think that
there is a difference between building a path through a neighborhood and having truly you know
100 plus acres to be able to use and this land is accessible from Powers. I mean if you imagine
all those folks that live on Powers and on that side can access it through the neighborhoods there
off of Powers. You can access it from 5. You know people park in Lake Ann Park to go to
Prince’s museum. Can you imagine the ability to be able to go to the museum and then walk
several miles on his land and that’s possible as well. One of the things that is a positive to me
that’s been mentioned as a negative is the fact that it is miles of paths and land and I think that’s
a positive. Where else can you go and do that in a wooded area so I think that’s a gem of an
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
35
opportunity for the city and again based on, unless somebody can explain it to me differently but
based on the really limited options that are out there based on having a seller and a buyer and
code that allows homes to be built, with or without our opinion, I still believe and I have believed
and I still believe that a density transfer is the best option for the city of Chanhassen.
Aller: Comments?
McGonagill: Yeah.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: First off I again as Chairman mentioned we appreciate everybody coming and I
would also encourage you to, as you feel led to write a thank you note to the mayor and the
council for allowing this meeting to occur. They heard the feedback and they came back and had
this session which is different. It’s unusual and so it’s very, very positive for that and I think it
was as a referendum from the election and they’re trying to listen to everyone so I really think
that is important. Just some facts for folks that may be listening or online. Again I always talk
about this. You need to read the Comprehensive Plan and if you did what you would see is the
amount of growth that’s going to, projected to occur in Chanhassen over the next 20 years.
Basically we will see about a 37 percent increase in population here. By 2040 the city will be
built out. I mean it basically will with the amount of land that’s available so our objective, our
charge that, the trust you’ve put on us and on the council is to do that buildout in a pragmatic and
wise fashion. What we’ve heard over and over, and we have in our Comprehensive Plan the
thing that people want to maintain and it’s in the plan, again if you refer to it, is to maintain the
small town appeal of Chanhassen. That’s what people want. It does have parks. It does have
lakes but it’s the small town feel. So when you put that together with the amount of increase in
population we’re talking you know basically if my numbers are right, Kate will correct me, about
2,000 homes that have to go in here somehow over the next 20 years. We’re talking about only a
tenth of that so we’ll be talking about these issues over and over again so I think it’s important to
understand that and set a precedent of how we want developments like this to occur. And so
with that what should they look like to be done to maintain the feel. What I appreciated about
the mayor’s question and the council to come back here really there’s two questions that we’re
talking about tonight really is one is do you have a PUD or not. That’s the first question. And
the second one does this PUD work? I’ve separated those in my mind and so we’re not voting
on it tonight. I’m glad we’re not in some ways but at least we can express our opinions on that.
On the first question as far as having a PUD or not. I am not crazy about density transfers. I
never have been. You know we’ve talked about this. I like the feel. Small town feel. It has
larger lots. If the density was coming in more like 1.7, 1.8 as opposed to 2 I can be there but
with a density of being north of 2 I’m not in favor of that. But that being said it is, and because
of that there’s a lot of transition issues around with the neighborhoods in the area. Longacres,
north Lake Lucy, Ashling Meadows, those numbers are more like 1.2 to 1.9 so that’s where I
come from on density. This is a 48 percent increase in density over the average for those and
that does give me some pause. You know also too if I look in the Comprehensive Plan again the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
36
ownership values map it, you can look at it. It’s 3-31. I look at that and go is this consistent
with that and it is inconsistent and with the land use map so again I’d kind of, that’s where I kind
of come down on the side that I would rather see the density less but that may or may not be
possible. I still believe we can do better on that density transfer as it occurs and I’d like to see
that. So let’s go with the next question about the PUD itself. Is this PUD acceptable that we
see? I’m still of the, I’m first off grateful and glad that we did not approve that or vote in
January because I think Lennar came back with a better deal. It looks, it has better opportunities.
There’s more trees. There’s more of that. We made the right decision there. So a couple of
these, I’ve got really 3 major issues that I would challenge Lennar to work with the City Council
on. The first is both concepts, both whether you have a PUD or not are inadequate for park
access. One of the individuals tonight talked about that. There is really no way to get to that
park. You’ll be parking on the street. That is, there has to, we need to come up with a solution
to that as this development’s getting done, particularly as you’re starting in the south and you
work north there needs to be some area like Sugarbush Park or somewhere where people can
park. If they’re not they’re going to park on the street and you’re going to have conflicts
between citizens. That’s not what we should do. There needs to be an area where people can
park. Access the trails and go through there. And we all walk. We’ll get those miles in anyway
but the ability to go there and take your car, park your car and take your bikes off, do what you
need to do, there needs to be an area like that and I would encourage the City Council to work if
the PUD is pursued to work very aggressively with Lennar to get that so there is some sort of
access so that we can live in harmony with our neighbors. The second thing I would look to
Lennar on the designs. One of the concerns that I have if the density transfer goes forward is
actually the design or the construction itself of Lennar. Particularly on the higher density deal.
You showed us the proposals. I would encourage you to continue to vary those designs such as
varying setbacks. Varying 1 and 2 stories. Varying, you know everything you can to do this to
make this the neighborhood as I think Commissioner Tietz talked about, the place to live in
Chanhassen. I think you can build a lot of culture and character into it with some thought. Side
loaded garages. Front loaded garages. You know doing all that you can, working with the
Planning Commission and staff to really make this, if this is where we go, to make it look really
nice. What I don’t, this is a jewel of a piece of property. I’ve said that before. It’s a jewel of a
piece of property. I don’t want it to turn out like costume jewelry. I want it to be a jewel. You
know so when I come back here 20 years from now when I’m 85 I can see that. I want that.
That would be my, as a citizen I would say. The last point, one of the speakers talked about
tonight and I totally agree with is to be very careful about impervious surfaces. As this density
goes up the impervious surface issue becomes more and more and we’ll have more and more
variances come to the Planning Commission to be dealt with. What I don’t want to have is a
development where someone builds a home and suddenly he has to get a variance to build a
patio. Or a deck. Or another parking area. We have too much of that even now and so I really
don’t want that box to be built. That is why when I again I go back to this whole question about
density. Particularly in the 65 footers that you have in there. How are those people, they won’t,
they will want to live there. They’ll want to grow. They’ll want to have their deck. How’s that
going to happen under the current guidelines and so again that’s where my concerns come from
the density and I would like to see that addressed. In other words don’t build a box that you have
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
37
a hard time getting out of. I do still believe there’s room here to get better on that and I would
challenge the council and the Lennar to come up with that. I do appreciate what you guys have
done. I do like the monuments. I do like what you’ve done on some of the other stuff but that’s,
those two issues are the issues where I land on Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to
comment.
Aller: Additional comments? Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I just wanted to thank everyone for their input this evening and also for the input that
they provided last January and then the previous summer as well. I think with all that input the
City Council and the Planning Commissioners if I can speak with them really listened to your
concerns and I think changes were made to address that. I also want to thank the people who
gave the input into the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and people gave input to that plan through
open houses and through public meetings and gave input to the Planning Commission and one of
the items that they told and it came through in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was that the Galpin
property was identified as a priority expansion area and so, and a goal of the parks is the
elimination of the trail gaps and creating trails within the preserves so that people can have better
access. I’m not sure about the parking and all the access points but I just wanted to thank
everyone through all these various processes for their input and for the City Council to give that
opportunity for it and I think because of that we hope to come up with a better plan that will
work out best for all the citizens of Chanhassen and that’s it.
Aller: Great, thank you. Commissioner Randall.
Randall: Again I second that on the, everyone’s input was great tonight. I have 4 pages of notes
that I took down. Lot of new ideas. People brought up new concepts. Things on the fly and
there weren’t any fighting, or what was the quote from, I think I got it here. When he came over
and said that it wasn’t getting too heated over here. That was good and I was glad to hear, or
glad that everything went well tonight. I got a lot out of it tonight and I appreciated everyone’s
input.
Aller: The Comprehensive Plan is designed to be a flexible tool that we look at and we take a
look at all the projects that come before us and we look at what the citizens and what the
Planning Commission, who’s spent along with the City Council the better part of a year in
creating and getting public input on all the different sections and how that applies. In this case
when we apply the project and we look at what kind of trade off’s we need to make based on the
plan and based on the Comprehensive Plan simplistically stated it’s park versus density and
that’s really what I think the City Council was digging into to hear from the citizens tonight and I
think they got a really good indication that yes we’re going to be split on that but I think because
of the hearing itself they are going to be better informed. They’ll be more strategic and more
deliberate about that decision that the make come Monday. We’ve seen during tonight’s
presentation that the proposal has changed over the past year based upon the back and forth
between Lennar and the community and the City and it’s staff and as a resident I want it all. I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019
38
want to have the park and I want to have zero zip density. I love the lakes. I live on Lotus Lake.
I don’t want to have anything impact Lake Ann. At the same time I have to live in the real world
and so on a reality based decision I know that developers are going to come in and they’re going
to need to be developing and make a decent profit from what they have and what they deliver to
us. And when I look at that desire I look back at the proposed PUD and what it does with regard
to the plan and I look at the land use goals and I think that one of the goals was to enhance
preservation of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy by limited development and I think that the transfer
creates development on one side but it does limit it and create a buffer for the lake. There’s a
reduction in total impervious surface throughout the clustered environment because you don’t
have roads going through that additional parkland but yes the density location is going to have
more hard cover. What happens later after a decision is made I trust that the watershed, that the
City is going to come in and enforce the rules and regulations. That they’re going to make sure
that based upon the impervious surface that’s there, the runoff and the storm drainage that we’re
going to comply with the rule and that there will be a zero impact and of course with every plan
it’s imperfect. I hope that that’s the case. With regard to the trails and open space. Preserving
the public, for the public over 100 acres of unique natural open space, 50 acres of upland around
Lake Ann and Lake Lucy that could otherwise be built on I think fulfills that need. Providing
land and connections for the trails to eliminate trail gaps and the better connection to the
community and it’s areas. I think it fills that goal. Allowing for the expansion of the Lake Ann
Park and enhancing it’s role with Chanhassen’s premiere community park and in fact I think it
will be a destination park for Carver County and the State. In looking at it it’s not a perfect plan.
Again I would love to have zero density. What plan is especially when we all bring biases. You
know people that live right next to it are going to have a different view point than me who lives
on a different lake. But at the same time I think that the community has come together. Has
expressed it’s opinions in these hearings and I think it’s important that they do so and as
someone came up and stated that there’s value and we should respect the desires and the
thoughts and the intent of the individuals who both are homeowners next to the development as
well as the rest of the community and I think that’s what the City Council did when it pushed this
back to us to have more input so they could look at it again thoughtfully and strategically.
Tonight wasn’t about listening with the intent to respond. I too took a thousand notes but I think
the intent of the City Council was just to hear what your voices said and I think they have the
ability now to look at the record. To look at the tape. To listen to your voices and over the next
week consider your opinions. And I think that we’ve created that record and I hope that, and I
know that they’re going to consider that record thoughtfully. Additional comments, questions.
I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim