CC Minutes 3-11-19Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
2
3. Approve Purchase Agreement for Acquisition of Property Located at 770 Pioneer Trail
for Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant
4. Resolution #2019-14: Lake Drive East Street Improvement Project Approve Plans and
Specifications and Authorize Ad for Bid; and Resolution #2019-15: Designate No
Parking on Dakota Avenue
5. Ordinance 639: Amendments to Chanhassen City Code
6. Approve Chanhassen Farmers Market Agreement
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None.
GALPIN SITE PRELIMINARY PLAT & REZONE PUD.
Mayor Ryan: I want to share with you the plan for tonight since that’s what most of you are here
for. I plan to make a few opening comments as it relates to this project. I will then turn it over
to staff and staff is going to provide an update for everybody. Then we will ask Lennar to come
forward and present any updates that they have and then it be returned to council for questions
and conversation. To be clear this is not a public hearing or a public comment session. We have
held four public meetings for the public to speak. We have received hundreds and hundreds of
your emails which we greatly appreciate. We’ve received phone calls. Had conversations and I
want to express how much we really appreciate the active engagement by the residents of this
community. We have really taken the time to consider the different feedback and information
that each of you have provided so we want to thank you for that. Over the course, starting last
week we held a Planning Commission meeting and asked for public comment at that time and
this was one more step in the process. As council we decided at one of our work sessions to
have it return since there was still more discussion and comment that we wanted to receive from
the residents. We asked the Planning Commission to hold another public hearing. Or not public
hearing but a public comment session and at that time many of you came forward and many of
you came and followed up with emails. We have received all those meeting minutes. We, many
of us watched the meeting online either live or afterwards so we appreciate your participation
and attendance. After that meeting I spoke with our City Manager Todd Gerhardt and expressed
concern over a list of items that I thought were repeatedly brought up by the public. Obviously
the park, you know maintaining the park. Some trail. Access to the park. Density. Buffers
were some of those items at the top of the list. Since then, and I want to disclose full
transparency I had a meeting with Lennar on this past Friday where we went through those
comments and feedbacks that they heard and we heard at the meeting on Tuesday night and
shared the concerns and challenges that we felt that this project still is facing from the comments
that we received. Lennar worked I’m assuming over the weekend. Took those, that feedback
and those concerns into account and tonight I believe is presenting a new plan for consideration
this evening and so I’m not going to get into the details of that plan but I wanted to fully disclose
that those conversation did take place and they were rooted from the conversations that were
expressed to Lennar. Conversations and emails that were sent to the council and passed along to
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
3
our city manager and shared with the Lennar team so with that I want, like I said I wanted to
share that with you and now I’d like to turn it over to Mr. Generous who is going to give us an
overview of some of those changes from staff’s perspective. Thank you.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor Ryan, council members. I’m not going to get into details on
the plan itself because the applicant will present that however we did have a, like I said a public
hearing in January and this is council’s opportunity to review the plan. The request that we had
before us is a rezoning of a property from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development
Residential. It’s a subdivision preliminary plat which incorporates, and this is a revision that we
had today. We believe it’s 167 lots within the development and the final article of that would be
a Wetland Alteration Permit that’s required within the development. As you said we wanted to
point out that this item has had a lot of input and reiterations and discussions about it and so now
this is before council. It’s the final time they’ll, the development, the City has until April 5th to
actually make a final decision but due to timing we believe this is the opportunity to make a
decision. Based on the review of the revised plans and the changes that they are providing staff
is recommending approval of the rezoning in the PUD and I provided you with a revised sheet.
We don’t have the exact numbers but we would make the ordinance consistent with the plat that
we’re reviewing tonight so it would have the additional 90 foot lots and 65 foot lots would go
out. We also are approving the, recommending approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit and
finally we do need, there are two changes to the recommendations for the preliminary plat and
we gave copies of that. That’s in the parks and recreation condition number 9 on page 36 of the
report. Condition number 9 would be deleted in it’s entirety. We would no longer need that due
to the revisions to the plan. The trail that would go into the road could come in later when the
City upgrades Galpin Boulevard in conjunction with Carver County. The next revision is on
page 37. It’s condition 8 of the engineering recommendations and it’s that the undergrounding
of all the utilities from West 78th Street to the development. Again that’s something that would
be done in conjunction with the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard.
Mayor Ryan: Mr. Generous may I interrupt you real quickly please?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Ryan: So when you’re referencing the report are you talking about the staff report in the
packet?
Bob Generous: Yeah the staff report for the preliminary, the Planning Commission.
Mayor Ryan: Okay. Could you read the, I apologize for making you go back. Could you read
the park and rec one again please?
Bob Generous: It would be the entirety of the Galpin Boulevard trail between Street E and Street
A shall be constructed in dedicated right-of-way.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
4
Todd Gerhardt: That’s deleted.
Bob Generous: That’s deleted.
Mayor Ryan: Okay.
Bob Generous: And then number 8 on page 37. The developer shall underground all overhead
utilities from West 78th Street to the northern property line of the development. That also would
be deleted.
Mayor Ryan: And that one is the one that would then be addressed once the Galpin Road up, the
project.
Bob Generous: Yes in conjunction with the Galpin Boulevard project.
Mayor Ryan: Okay thank you.
Bob Generous: And then the final revision to the conditions is on page 38. It’s number 34 and
we’d delete the existing driveway off Galpin Boulevard located on Parcel 250100400 shall be
abandoned and tied into Street C. And revise that with language that says the developer shall
provide a curb cut and accesses for Parcel 250100400 off of Street Z.
Mayor Ryan: Okay.
Bob Generous: And that was the only new changes based on our review of the plans today. And
with that I’d be happy to answer any questions or allow the developer to go forward and make
their presentation.
Mayor Ryan: And just for clarification the last one you mentioned number 34, that’s just
removing the driveway so there’s no direct access onto Galpin Boulevard but instead it would
come through the residential neighborhood into the.
Bob Generous: Correct. The street to the north would become it’s access point.
Mayor Ryan: Right because currently it’s a private home.
Bob Generous: Yes. It’s a private home.
Mayor Ryan: Okay. Council any questions of staff at this time?
Councilman Campion: Not at this time.
Mayo r Ryan: Okay. Mr. Jablonski, welcome back.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
5
Joe Jablonski: Good evening Madam Mayor, members of the council. Joe Jablonski
representing Lennar Corporation this evening. Appreciate all the time and effort that’s been
spent on this. It has been a long time coming and we’re excited to be here tonight. Wanted to
put up a copy of the new plan. There’s obviously been a lot of work going on in the last 72 plus
hours trying to see what kind of changes we can make to address additional concerns of the
neighborhood as well as making some additional changes and with that also knowing that, even
as late as this afternoon we were still kind of in a process of looking at things. Talking about
things. Some of the changes that were presented even in the staff report so for full disclosure the
plan that you see before you actually has 173 homes on it and just to walk through the changes
that are there. What we did, the biggest difference here is we, is this on, can you guys see this?
Todd Gerhardt: If you want it there Joe.
Joe Jablonski: There we go. My big fingers. I’ve got a pointer here. The biggest change we did
here is down on the south end. We were able to open up quite a bit more space and able to save
what equates to between some additional tree preservation here and here. Almost 7 acres of
additional trees that would be buffering. With that we’ve also relocated the trail in that area to
connect to here. Some of the comments we heard were related to the ability for neighborhoods
to the south to easily access that park and I think that that trail corridor allows that without
having to go out to Galpin so we thought that that was one of the important changes to look at.
Really the buffering and concentrating on how that is looking and the overall lot count reduction.
Again I know Mr. Generous presented that we were at 167 but the plan in front of you is 173.
We were still kind of running through some numbers and some conversations this afternoon so
not to confuse things but I would like to discuss the 173 plan at this point. And we could talk
about where some, maybe some additional changes can be made as well. So a couple things and
I assume that you know you probably saw my presentation at the Planning Commission. We had
quite a bit of detail on going into some of the things that we’ve, where we started. Kind of some
of the things that have gone on through the process. The changes that we made. The things that
we addressed. A couple other things that I did just want to quickly highlight just to make sure
that the understanding of what’s occurring here is really taken into consideration. Wetland
impacts. We’ve heard a lot about impacts to the environment. This…does well in the staff
report that we are preserving 97 percent of the wetlands. We were disturbing 3 of them. 3
percent and actually that number goes down a little bit with this plan because we would not
likely have to disturb a small wetland down in that section so our wetland disturbance is actually
very low on this site for a site of this size. Tree removal is another thing that’s been questioned
and there may be some misunderstanding there. Our previous plan had a tree removal
percentage of 47 percent. That was about 42 acres of the 89 was being removed for trees. With
trees on them. Again on a site of this size that doesn’t account for the preservation of the entire
park area so obviously that percentage changes quite a bit but with this new plan we’ve been able
to bring that down to about 37 ½ percent. That was with the change to save the guard house area
of trees. The Galpin area and then the area in the south so I think we have continued to address
the need to preserve buffers. Again we’re really working hard to try to help work with the
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
6
neighborhoods around and that we’ve really taken a lot of effort and made a lot of steps. We’ve
done some incremental changing along the way but this is a plan and a change that we felt was
important and that we are interested to hear your thoughts on tonight. I guess that’s really the
difference in the plan that you see tonight versus the plans that you’ve previously seen working
through the additional detail. You know I’ll certainly be here for comment if you have more
questions about grading or about you know additional impervious surface. We did just to
explain briefly our, the way that we’ve calculated impervious surface across this site is we’ve
taken averages of two different lot sizes. 90 foot we’ve given an impervious coverage of 5,500
square feet and the 65 foot wide lots we dedicated a 60, or 4,400 square foot impervious
coverage and what we do again is we take our full plan line up, which is made up of all the single
family, the villa, all the plans that we could build out here and we calculate out each plan with
each elevation to show with front porches. How much area that building envelope encases and
how much is remaining and when I looked at how that works out, assuming our largest footprint
that would be built on a 65 foot wide house has about 3,400 square feet with a four season porch
or patio that adds a little bit but what we figured was we would have a remaining on this 900
square feet to add to each property’s allocation of that impervious coverage. That’s quite a bit of
space on top of deck or patio or porch so we felt that we were comfortable with that in addition
to that. But on the lot surveys in the customer disclosures we’d put the maximum impervious
surface for each lot and then we put what their impervious coverage is the day that they move in
so that those customers know right from the start what the change is from the start to what their
allotment is for any adjustments. We’ve done that in a couple other neighborhoods recently
including a couple in Chanhassen I think that’s been successful so. That was my last note
actually. I believe that you know we’ve really met a lot of the challenges of the site. We worked
really hard with staff. We’ve worked hard with council members and the public to come up with
a plan that addresses a lot of the concerns that we’ve heard and I think that we’re excited to hear
what you think about it.
Mayor Ryan: Alright thank you. I know I have some questions but I will open it up to council
members if you have any questions.
Councilwoman Coleman: Ah yes. I was wondering if you could please tell me how this
addresses the concerns I had spoken with you about the Ashling Meadows neighborhood...their
concern about opening up their neighborhood and their pool being affected. Staff or developers
at this time.
Todd Gerhardt: It would be the northerly piece how we put the temporary cul-de-sac in and not
connecting the street from Ashling Meadows over.
Joe Jablonski: Councilmember Coleman, what we were looking at doing is in our opinion a
connection through that street is important. We feel that making a cul-de-sac at that location
does not solve the problem of people potentially going up and around and using the facilities the
same way. What we did offer Ashling Meadows was to again provide our community residents
documentation reminding them that they were not allowed to use, those are private facilities and
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
7
we would also be…increased buffering and/or some kind of designation to separate
neighborhoods to make sure there was some landscaping and things to help separate the two.
Councilwoman Coleman: Thank you.
Mayor Ryan: Anybody else?
Councilman Campion: I have a question.
Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion.
Councilman Campion: So Mr. Jablonski it looked like you had communicated with staff earlier
about 167. Can you comment on the 6 lots that were apparently added back?
Joe Jablonski: I can. We were talking over a plan and doing some numbers calculating over a
piece of paper on a table and the plan that we had already had rendered up and looked at and
presented I guess or looked at with staff was this plan. It is, it was between the time that staff,
we left that meeting and tonight that we decided that we wanted to show you the plan that we
had finished and what was in front of you tonight is this plan. The 167 number there is some
opportunities and things that we can continue to talk about on where that number changed but
really what it came down to was we went back to the, you know in full disclosure we went back
to our office. Started running numbers on lot loss and started looking more closely on how much
space we actually had to lose to make some of the adjustments that were requested and we didn’t
need to get to the number 167 to get there. Is that?
Todd Gerhardt: Joe so you’re saying the lots on the perimeter on the north and on the east are 90
foot lots? Of the two cul-de-sacs.
Joe Jablonski: There’d be here and here.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Joe Jablonski: On this plan they are not. That is what we talked about today.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct. So how wide are those lots?
Joe Jablonski: On this plan they’re 65.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question, sorry.
Mayor Ryan: No go ahead Councilwoman.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
8
Councilwoman Tjornhom: During your presentation I think I didn’t hear everything you were
saying. When you talked about tree removal did you say you got down to 37 percent? From 47
percent.
Joe Jablonski: We’re down to about 37 ½.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay because I wasn’t sure if you said 37 or 7.
Joe Jablonski: No, no, no. It was 37.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: It was 37, okay. Okay and so you know I with great interest watched
the Planning Commission, I don’t want to call it a hearing. I guess it was a comment time for
residents and then we of course received a lot of after thoughts from that meeting and I think one
resident eloquently kind of broke it down into 5 pieces. Five things they were concerned about
which I agreed that was kind of the main comments people that were against the PUD and the
development. So between you and staff if you can both answer these for me. So the first one
was prevent clear cutting. And so do you think to the best of your ability you’ve prevented all
the clear cutting that you can?
Joe Jablonski: Yes, at this point we have.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And so if you move onto the increase of lot sizes. How many
lot sizes have increased because of this new plan?
Joe Jablonski: The lot sizes did not change. We shifted the orientation of the lots so this whole
lower section is 65 feet.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I know a lot of the residents were upset because they didn’t
want to look out their window and see a house in their back yard so it looks to me like you’ve
kind of taken care of that issue on the southern part of the development with the prevention of
more tree loss is that correct?
Joe Jablonski: Correct. That’s the way we were trying to address it and also made the decision
or made the change to make the south portion villa lots which would be our one story that would
have less visual impact to those people on the south neighborhood.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay and then the northern part of the development also did you
continue to preserve more trees?
Joe Jablonski: The northern part we were looking at one minor modification and that would be
the potential tree preservation right along the border there or the replanting in that location. But I
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
9
think we’ve done quite a bit on that north part to save and adjust the plan to get to where we are
today. With tree preservation.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And expanding of the buffers.
Joe Jablonski: Expanding of the buffers. Down on the south end that’s the biggest change is we
did add that 6, 6 to 7 acres between this and this of buffering that occurred so that there is more
buffering that occurred so that there is more buffering across to Longacres in this area and then
on the south. It’s really preservation of those existing trees.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And then let’s see there’s preserve the natural resources and
character of the property.
Joe Jablonski: I think that again it, the opportunity to save more trees does that. We’ve also
been able to, with this plan we avoid a small wetland. As I mentioned that’s one of the natural
characteristics. The grading of the site I tried to explain in the Planning Commission that from
the location of this home down to the location of this home the elevation change from where the
entrance is down to the bottom is about 32 ½ feet and with that is a, the opportunity or the need
to follow the existing topography so I think that we have in that location then and down in the
south part done what we can to preserve the existing topography while meeting the design
requirements for roads and public infrastructure.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And then the last one that was written was maintain safety
and access to Galpin Boulevard for all ages. Can staff maybe talk about that or I think that’s
kind of more our area. Maintaining safety and giving residents access, safe access to cross and
enjoy the park also.
Todd Hoffman: I think one of our engineers can speak to the future upgrading of Galpin
Boulevard and all the improvements that will be included as a part of that.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Andrew Brotzler: Thank you Mayor, Council member. As Mr. Hoffman stated in 2018 the City
partnered with Carver County to develop a corridor plan for Galpin Boulevard. That plan
outlines a number of improvements not only to the road but there’s options in there that include
future roundabouts proposed at several of the intersections to provide traffic calming measures as
well as pedestrian crosswalks at major intersections. So that is identified as concept for future
improvements that are slated for 2022.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So what will be done before 2022 then when it comes to safety and
Galpin Boulevard?
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
10
Andrew Brotzler: Mayor, council member. I would anticipate like any other public
improvement project at a point in time in the, you know before 2022 when the final project is
selected there will be a robust public involvement process with the city and the county to
determine what those final design standards ultimately will be.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And then one last question I have is how many different
revisions do you think you have done so far on this process?
Joe Jablonski: Well Councilwoman we have done a lot. Internally the ones that we’ve shared,
there’s been a lot of different revisions. Each time we change something we consider that a
different revision so we’ve probably, from where we started even before the first time you folks
saw it we’ve probably done 25 to 50. Somewhere in there. It’s been, we’ve done a lot of
different iterations and changes and looked at things differently and when we start to get some
engineering feedback, we start to have, move some things around and take in some additional
geotechnical information and moving things around so there’s been a lot. We’ve studied this
pretty hard and every change that we’ve made has done so in the attempt to not offset a different
problem somewhere else. So I think the one thing that maybe adds to the safety conversation
that didn’t make it on this plan but we did discuss with our landscape planner was the need for a
parking lot somewhere down here. It’s not shown on here but it’s something that we would be
willing to look at and address as well for access into the large park area which I didn’t mention
in the preservation and the resources part of it but I think it’s important to remind ourselves too
that there is a large park area that is being preserved as part of this and in fact we would, our idea
is that all this portion up here becomes additional park space with that trail corridor too so that
would expand that park even more.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry and once again where would the parking lot go?
Joe Jablonski: We were looking at something down in the south end but we would work with
staff on a location of that if it’s necessary.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Did you say where would cars access that?
Joe Jablonski: From the.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: The parking lot, how would they get to the parking lot?
Joe Jablonski: From the public street.
Todd Hoffman: Just off of this road. It would be located right here.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Oh okay. Okay. Alright thank you. And how many, do you know
how many stalls or lots?
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
11
Joe Jablonski: A number between 6 and 8 was kind of thrown out there. Depending on needs.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright thank you.
Mayor Ryan: Thank you. I have a few comments and questions. Oh I’m sorry Councilman
McDonald, go ahead.
Mayor Ryan: I have a question. I need to get a couple things clarified. I think I heard the City
Manager say that we’re going to do a temporary cul-de-sac and I think I heard you say that you
don’t want to do a temporary cul-de-sac. What does this plan reflect?
Joe Jablonski: This plan reflects a temporary cul-de-sac is currently located right here in the
corner of Ashling Meadows. This plan shows that street going through and connecting. That
would be our preference.
Councilman McDonald: And was that what your understanding is?
Todd Gerhardt: That’s contrary to what we discussed.
Councilman McDonald: I think I’ve had conversations with the City Manager about this and I
would say that I would be in favor of a through street only because we’ve had experience with
this before and at some point in the future people living in that area will come back to the City
and they will want a through street and we will redo this fight all over again so at this point I
think the plan should have a through street and they need to get it just taken care of. I think it’s
unfair to ask people moving into that development to go all the way up to Lake Lucy, turn the
corner and come around and then come up through the back way. Where we’ve done this before
there have been fights about what it’s going to do to the neighborhood. All kinds of detrimental
things were going to happen. They’ve never happened and as a matter of fact a year after we’ve
taken down barriers it’s as though the barrier was never there so I would like to postpone any
fight about taking down any temporary barriers and just make sure that that’s a through street
from the very beginning. Thank you.
Mayor Ryan: Do you?
Councilman Campion: Not at this time.
Mayor Ryan: Okay. I have a couple questions or points of clarification. I’m a little sure no
surprise to you Mr. Jablonski, I’m a little taken aback. Obviously when you left today and city
staff had their final conversation with you they were under the impression that the, when you had
said 173 it had been changed to 167 and that’s how you left and that’s why when we, when Mr.
Generous went through the recommendation, the staff recommendation that’s why we saw 167
and before I get into any of the other details and ask you some of the questions about it, I
struggle with that because that seems a little disingenuous to make a commitment to our city staff
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
12
who you have been working closely with and then more or less do an end around and come back
and say well now actually we’re going to go back to 173 and some of the commitments that we
made to you 2 hours ago and it was, you know now it’s 7:30. You know 4 hours ago we’re back
here and that is concerning to me not only for you know the difference of a few lots but then
what is the commitment and expectation as we move through this project. This is just the
preliminary plat. We still have a lot of work to do and if we can’t count on your word when you
leave City Hall that concerns me so I’m disappointed in that. One of the things that again it was
my understanding when you left was, and Councilwoman Tjornhom pointed it out or asked about
it, the assortment of, have any of the lot sizes changed and that was something that was
important not only does it relate to density but it relates to the character and the look and feel of
the neighborhood. Instead of having a vast majority of 65 foot lots it had been asked to scatter in
some differentiation and add additional 90 foot lots and that’s how by adding those 90 foot lots
as Mr. Gerhardt pointed out and you, you know I don’t know if it works this far away. I don’t
want to zap you Mr. Gerhardt but here we go. It’s not going to go on the screen. Okay,
obviously I don’t use laser point.
Todd Gerhardt: Through here and here and then this lot up to here. This lot are at 90.
Mayor Ryan: And so that was the request to change those lots from 65 to 90 and it, like I said it
offers two things. It offers less density. It offers more variety throughout the entire, throughout
the entire project. So I had hoped to have that consistent with what you had said when you left
the office. You know again it doesn’t show on here for the parking lot. I know you did mention
that that’s something that you’re going to consider. You said we’ll take a look at and address
later. We’ve seen too many projects where we’ve been promised to have it looked at or consider
later and then those things slip through the cracks and they don’t happen and access is a huge
piece of this. If the intent is to save the park as we heard in hundreds of emails save the park.
Save the park. The only access to this park cannot be from Lake Ann parking lot and that’s why
it was imperative that we worked with you and we had this conversation on Friday that let’s
figure out if we can put a parking lot in and I’d like a commitment tonight that that parking lot’s
going to go in and we can have access. As I pointed out to you and your team on Friday we’ve
had a commitment from the watershed district that they are willing to work with the City and
Lennar to do some education around there. Put up placards and work with the City and make an
investment to make this a starting point to experience this great asset. New asset to the city.
And asked for that and that’s not shown on here. You know there is concern and I know
Councilman McDonald, and I’m happy to discuss this further. That was also something that we
talked about that this, that it was going to end in a cul-de-sac and if the, and the reasons why was
the private association and distinguishing between Ashling Meadows and the other
neighborhoods and that was something very important to Ashling Meadows. If the council feels
that that connection is imperative then you know you mentioned on the north side about there’s
some preservation and then some tree planting. Preservation and tree planting are totally
different. As we all know this, this development has beautiful mature trees and when you cut
down those trees to put up you know plant a new one, you can’t make that, that’s just not a fair
comparison especially when you’re utilizing it as a buffer. So you know willing to continue to
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
13
talk about that. To acknowledge some of the changes you did make. I’m very pleased with what
I see on the south side of this development. I know that was a challenge for the folks that lived
along there and tree preservation. Increase the buffer. Water issues and not just preservation in
terms of I don’t want to see houses in my back yard but because of the extensive water issues
that they have, that was a huge concern so I am appreciative that you saved those trees along
there as well as an entry on the south side of the southwestern portion of this entire property. So
that’s it for now. Instead of you leaving and saying well we’ll discuss it or we’ll address it later,
you know I’d like to get back to that 167 lots. I want to see that variety of 65 and 90 foot lots
and I want to have the commitment that we are going to have a parking lot so we can access.
And these are while you may have made multiple changes internally, you know we’ve seen a,
you know half a dozen versions of this plan and I thought we were close tonight but by going
back to what you had committed to our city staff who has really worked hard with you on this
I’m just, I’m disappointed and I hope we can get back to the number that you committed to when
you left the office today. And so if you have any thoughts or responses to any of that.
Joe Jablonski: Madam Mayor in all fairness when we left with staff it wasn’t a commitment. It
was a we need time to review it. It was that we had to go back and see what the difference in
that change was going to make in a lot yield situation and to allow us to make financial decisions
on that and I think if we misled staff I apologize for that but I think we were pretty clear that we
had to look at that before tonight and that we would openly discuss it more this evening. It was
difficult to sit there over an 11 by 17 inch plan and decide exactly how many lots that meant.
We understood the intent when we left but I think it’s important to realize that we needed to go
back and evaluate it. Everything is moving very quickly at this point and that’s why the plan that
you see before you is before you this evening and not that one. It wasn’t a full commitment out
of us at that point but it was a we’ve got to go look at that a little bit and we’ll communicate it,
our intent at the council meeting. To allow some open discussion and feedback about it too
because there are some different ways that that can be achieved and if it’s purely a lot count issue
that may be one thing. If it’s the desire to have certain lots be 90 feet, that could potentially be
done in multiple areas too so it was something that we wanted a little opportunity for some
dialogue and feedback from you folks too to see exactly where that occurred. So the parking lot
issue, we are committed to that. I think we left and this is probably more we don’t know exactly
where it’s going to go because that will require a little bit more engineering detail. We haven’t
had the opportunity to spend a lot of time on grading plans and things with this new site plan that
you see before you so in order for us to designate or pick exactly where it’s going to be, we have
a pretty good idea but we want to try to minimize retaining walls. We want to try to do that so
finding a solution or the position that makes the most sense for accessibility and for us and for
the city is something that we needed to continue working on a little bit.
Mayor Ryan: And I appreciate that feedback. My concern about that is if you know here you’re
committed to the 173 and then you say we’re committed to a parking lot, well as we know likely
putting in a parking lot is a loss of lots.
Joe Jablonski: Correct.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
14
Mayor Ryan: And so where do those lots go? And does it come back to well we need 173 in
order to make this work so now we can’t put in a parking lot.
Joe Jablonski: Well that’s exactly why we wanted to have this conversation tonight because
putting in a parking lot would require the loss of a lot, maybe two. That’s part of what we have
to evaluate and there is a number for us that becomes important that we have to hit and with the
amount of changes that we’ve made. The amount of reductions in lot count that we’ve already
made, that’s part of why I was hoping for some open dialogue on that so that we could get some
direction on well you know the parking lot’s really important to us and we want to see you know
whether it’s one lot, two lots, we want to be committed to that and then if there’s certain areas or
an area or a certain number that we need to hit. 167, if I was standing here and we were
comfortable with 167 I wouldn’t have showed you a plan that has 173 on it.
Mayor Ryan: So then how are you going to get down from 173 if we ask for a parking lot and
additional?
Joe Jablonski: It’s a great question.
Mayor Ryan: Well if you’re not willing to move from 173 and we’re saying, I’m not going to
speak for council and I personally would like to see, as I expressed on Friday, I mean full
disclosure I had told you, you said well what’s the number. Not you personally but somebody in
your team what’s the number and I said well I think we need to get to 160 and I didn’t pull that
number out of anywhere. I took the lots on the perimeter. Now this is a little bit different and
change the, those lots into 90 foot lots and that’s how I got from 181 to 160 and why I thought
160 was reasonable is because of the conversation that we had at length about the density
transfer and whether or not there was the ability to build 54 houses on that park and with the
wetlands existing in the middle and whether I thought that was a realistic density transfer. And I
did not believe that 54 lots were buildable on that lot. I agreed that you are going to have access
to that and you would get the permit to access that land but based on what I learned over my
looking for information or digging for information and working with Riley-Bluff-Purgatory
Creek Watershed I learned about those wetlands and what possibly could be built there and so I
took that number with what you had proposed and not, and so that’s how I arrived at the number
on the western portion. So you know I have the numbers in my head in terms of what can be
changed around and I’m not a planner or anything else but those were the, you know those were
the asks of the residents because when you look at it it’s two fold. Yes there are those
individuals that say don’t build anything. The City should buy, you know should buy the whole
thing and I recognize there’s a desire for that but you know realistically we’re being faced with
we have a seller, there’s a buyer and we have a proposal in front of us and we need to make a
decision on what’s in front of us and so we need to make the best decision based on the
information that we have and we know. And so then I would save the park and you get less
dense and save some of the environmental impacts or be sensitive about some of the
environmental impacts and so while I recognize you’ve saved the parkland space, density and,
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
15
density is an issue and variety in lot sizes is still an issue. And so while I would prefer to be at
160, it was my understanding we were going to be, whether it was fully committed or you were
still discussing it, I had heard 167 and with some of the work you did to bring this plan back that
was in my mind mentally my compromise is they did a lot of work on the south end. They’re
working on some of the buffers on the north end. They’re getting, adding some lot sizes. And so
I was comfortable with 167. Now maybe that you know, you know the different or the delta isn’t
that great to you but it is to me because I think that this can be a better project the less dense it is
with more variety. Council any other comments or questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I would like to explore actually, I said this meeting took place
without other council members there so I think I’m kind of catching up to speed right now
because I didn’t know any of these details. I don’t think anyone else did either. I’d like to, it
seems to me there’s kind of a bargaining chip or this kind of well you’re doing the density
transfer and you know this is what we want and in reality you can’t really touch the rest of the
parkland that’s being dedicated to the City if it was to go back to the straight zoning where you
could build houses on there so I really want to know realistically what are, what are the odds that
you could put in 45 homes in that parkland area?
Joe Jablonski: Our plan has 54 and at this point we believe that we could build 54 on there.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. So you say we believe, that’s great but where’s your
evidence? I mean for me to make a good decision I want to know can you do that?
Joe Jablonski: It’s really not that much different than developing west of the upland. There are
some small wetlands that we’re impacting on that portion of it. We have demonstrated the
ability to build roads through wetlands. There’s permitting process. There’s requirements and
things that need to be met but we did enough homework to feel comfortable that 54 was a
number that could be built.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so let’s just say worst case scenario it comes down to that.
Council feels that 6 homes is a deal breaker and so we’re just back to what you can actually do.
What happens to the western part that you already have platted? Does it stay the same? And
then you just add on did you say 54 more homes to the parkland?
Joe Jablonski: I guess I don’t.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay so you see the plat that you have right in front of us.
Joe Jablonski: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Would that stay the same and then you would just add on more
homes on the other side then, 54?
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
16
Joe Jablonski: No the intent would then be that would be all 90 foot wide lots to follow the
straight zoning ordinance. Part of the trade off or the opportunity here is by preserving the 54
acres we’re able to increase the density and reduce the lot sizes by some in the central area there.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Joe Jablonski: And I think you know whether it’s, one thing that I think is, needs to be
understood is the number of lots that can be developed in here what it really does is jeopardize
the opportunity to preserve it for park and if that number is our number which is 54 or it’s less.
If it’s 30. If it’s 40. It becomes private space. It could be one lot down there and it could be, or
it could be 3 custom lots. It would impact the opportunity that the City has before it to preserve
that space and I think that that is something should be strongly considered.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well in, because I understand the bargaining that’s going on between
you and who you’ve been meeting with. Another question I have is so you have 45, 54, 30
homes, whatever it is in this parkland that would have been dedicated, you know worst case
scenario to me is then an association is formed and there are docks all along the Lake Ann
shoreland, correct staff? I mean could that happen then? Yeah. And I think that studies have
shown that a lot of times the great way for a lake to be infected with zebra mussels or any other
invasive species is through private ownership of boats and docks. So then we’re opening up a
whole other avenue of bad things that can happen. That’s just first worst case scenario I’m just
asking if that’s a possibility. I mean you can’t answer that, staff can. But I mean opening it up
so it is now basically available to the public to do what they want on their land with their
recreational vehicles. Their boats.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council what we would do as a part of that traditional subdivision is
preserve that lakeshore and put a trail along there very similar to the Lake Susan development
that abuts Lake Susan on the west side. Our trail follows inbetween the homes and the lakeshore
so we would take you know roughly 50-60 feet along the lakeshore. The high water mark for a
trail on that side. To follow the comp plan.
Councilman McDonald: Mayor?
Mayor Ryan: Yes.
Councilman McDonald: Okay I feel a little lost about what’s been going on here. Evidently
there’s been negotiations going on and council hasn’t been involved. I’m a little taken aback by
that because I thought as a council we speak with one voice but if we’re not given options then
where does council fit into all this? I don’t know if the number is 160. 170. 200 and something.
210 at one time. I have no idea where the number is at because I have not been informed about
any of this as to what our options are. I do not believe that we can even vote tonight because I
don’t feel as though I have all the relevant information about this development. I’m not sure
where the City or the City Council is at on any of this because I haven’t heard from anybody.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
17
Our customary practice has always been within a work session to discuss these things and give
direction to staff to carry things out. If now what I’m hearing is all these last minute negotiations
and discussions are taking place, I’m not sure if that isn’t a violation of the state statute as far as
how this council is organized because we are not a strong mayor council. We are a council and it
takes a majority vote to get anything done by the council so I’m just a little bit concerned about
how things are being run on this development and until I have more information about where are
we going, not so much where the developer’s at because I don’t even know what to tell him
anymore. I think that we need to get our act together and that needs to start with a discussion of
council in a work session with staff and make a determination on where do we want to go with
this.
Mayor Ryan: I’ll answer that Councilman McDonald. We had work sessions. You have offered
your support of the 181, the original plan. You expressed that in our last work session. I have
continued from last August said where is a different plan. I have continued from every meeting,
every work session expressed very specific changes that I would like to see in this concept or in
this, the proposal before us. I am not speaking for anybody on council. The developer asked, I
had talked to Todd and mentioned where I was at. That is not breaking any rules that I am aware
of and I will ask Mr. Knutson and whether or not I can ask our city manager or let our city
manager know where I’m at.
Roger Knutson: Mayor yes you can.
Mayor Ryan: And so I communicated how I felt. We know how you felt. You wrote an article
in the paper. You’ve already committed to the developer that this is what you want to see. It is
not what I want to see and I am here trying to communicate that not only to the residents but to
the developers more importantly and I have given justification and reason for why I am where
I’m at. It has nothing to do with any other council member up here. They have every right to
ask questions. Make suggestions as they always have. For the past 4 years as I sat on council I
have sat with page after page after page of questions and suggestions when we have a
development before us. That is no different now. It’s just that I have talked more with Todd
recently because he knows how passionately I feel about this development and that is it and I am
insulted that you think that I’m doing anything disingenuous or to break the law and I would
jeopardize my role as mayor. That is insulting.
Councilman McDonald: Mayor you said it yourself. It’s what you want. You need to speak for
the council. Not just yourself and what I’m saying is right now you do not have a mandate from
this council as to what the numbers are. These are numbers that you want. You said it yourself.
Mayor Ryan: Right.
Councilman McDonald: Right.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
18
Mayor Ryan: But I base my opinion and my information on the feedback and the conversations
that I’ve had with residents. This isn’t personal to me. I’m speaking for residents. That is our
role as council members is to represent the citizens. I am talking from my point of view or my
perspective because I’m speaking in the first person but I’m representing the hundreds of emails
and phone calls that we’ve received from residents and we all get them. They’re not exclusive to
me. They say City Council. I have received phone calls. I have gone to neighborhood meetings
that I’ve been invited to but my feelings and the questions that I ask and have offered
suggestions are not my personal views. They are, I am the conduit to the developer in sharing
their feedback. That is our sworn duty as public officials representing the residents of
Chanhassen.
Councilman McDonald: You know Mayor that’s exactly what I’m doing because I get the same
emails from people saying you know save that as a park. Do what we need to do to make sure
that that developer gives us that as a park so I’m doing the exact same thing you are doing. You
choose to listen to one group of citizens. I’m listening to the rest of the citizens.
Mayor Ryan: And Councilman McDonald that is incorrect. And thank you for saying yes I am
representing the people. I’m representing all the people. That is why I work so hard in asking
and listening and paying attention and offering a alternative solution to save the park because I
did hear the people and I recognize the importance of that park. I do. But when the whole
premise of the number of lots on the west size is a density transfer and you just heard Mr.
Jablonski get up here and say whether it was one, whether it was 7, whether it was 55, the
premise of this whole plat and proposal before us is based on the premise that there is a density
transfer of 54 homes going to the western side of the property and that’s it. I have never
expressed, while it was said otherwise, I have never expressed my opposition to the park. I have
never expressed my feeling one way or another about this proposal. I have simply offered
suggestion after suggestion trying to make sure that this is a win for everybody.
Councilman McDonald: Well Mayor I guess we disagree because I believe that you should have
kept the council more informed as to what was going on and that we should all be on board as to
what the plan is so really just disagree as to what role each of us has played in all of this but let’s
continue.
Mayor Ryan: Alright and to follow up on that the council has been informed of every plan that
has come before it. I have shared my views based on the feedback that I have received with
council or with City Manager Mr. Gerhardt and that is it.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council you have two items before you. You have the plan as presented
by Lennar. If that’s something that you support and would like to approve or you can go with
what staff’s presentation was before you with directing the City Attorney to prepare new
Findings of Fact for the final plat. You have those two choices or you may table this item and
have a special meeting next Monday if you feel as you need a further discussions regarding this
plat. Preliminary plat.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
19
Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion.
Councilman Campion: I looked at comments and propose a motion. So I do feel that it was a bit
disingenuous for Lennar to have the conversations with staff and then to go back just hours
before and change their proposal based on some concessions that were made by staff to allow
them to remove certain items from the plan in exchange for the targeted new density. I do
support keeping the temporary cul-de-sac separating Ashling Meadows from the new
development in light of the fact that they have a homeowners association with access to their
private pool. Considering that I also I do strongly favor the addition of a parking lot so that
Chanhassen can more easily access the new parkland once it is in place. The rough location in
the southeast corner there I think is a good target for that. I’d like to see that included in the
plan. Based on this I would like to make a motion.
Mayor Ryan: Go ahead.
Councilman Campion: So I move that the City Council approves the rezoning of 191 acres from
Rural Residential District (RR) to Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R), including
the PUD ordinance, Galpin Design Standards. The City Council approves the Wetland
Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland impact subject to conditions in the staff report. The
City Council approves the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 167 lots, 3 outlots and
dedication of public right-of-way as shown in the plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated
February 28, 2019 to be modified to match the site plan dated March 11, 2019 subject to
conditions in the staff report and I would like to add the inclusion of a parking lot with at least 8
spaces in the southeast corner of the developed land and I would also add that the temporary cul-
de-sac is kept in place separating Ashling Meadows. And the City Council adopts the attached
Findings of Fact and Decision of Approval.
Roger Knutson: Just to be clear the Findings of Fact will have to be amended in certain cases to
reflect that motion so that includes amending the Findings of Fact to be consistent with this.
Councilman Campion: Yes that’s what I intended.
Mayor Ryan: We have a valid motion?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Ryan: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Coleman: I will second that.
Mayor Ryan: We have a valid motion and a second. All those in favor please.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
20
Councilman Campion: Comments?
Mayor Ryan: Oh comments. I’m sorry. Go ahead Councilwoman.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question. The developer did not agree to 167 lots so how
can we make a motion to approve this if we don’t have an agreement with the developer? For
the number.
Todd Gerhardt: It’s something that the developer is going to have to consider. They can always
come back and suggest changes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. I guess because I whether approved or voted on a motion
where we’re not all on the same page because what happens if they definitely say I’m sorry,
we’re back at, I don’t know what number you presented. 173 and we can’t change it. What
happens and they come back and we’re right here again.
Todd Gerhardt: You would have to approve that.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So we’re right back here again then.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Roger Knutson: Unless they go along with it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay well can, is that something we can take care of tonight or is this
just going to linger on? This whole because it’s silly to keep it, keep it going and going and
going.
Joe Jablonski: Madam Mayor and members of the council I appreciate the opportunity to come
back up here. Lot count is obviously important to everyone here. It is, it’s been made clear that
all the intent wasn’t there to do anything. It’s important for everyone to understand that there’s a
target that you folks are comfortable with. There’s a target that we’re comfortable with and
we’re really getting close. I mean we really are getting close and while it doesn’t sound like
much the changes in the Ashling Meadows, the reduction in the lots to 167 and the parking lot
probably yields a lower lot count than 167 at the end of the day because it’s going to take away
some of the areas that, and there’s actually not a plan dated March 11th at this point which is also
kind of a problem. The one that you have before you has 173. So you know I think it, if we’re
willing to talk about this a little bit and we understand that everybody is very cognizant of the lot
count, and we’re very close, is there an opportunity to discuss meeting in the middle with that
number? Is 170 something that you would consider? You know we’ve made a lot of
concessions along the way here and I think that asking for the opportunity to get 3 back helps us
one, avoid having to come back and ask for it and two, helps us get to some of the parameters
that we have to be at to help drive this to be a successful development. At the end of this
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
21
nobody’s going to win if you keep, the lot counts keep changing, things keep changing and we
can’t be successful at it. We’re going to have to come back. We’re going to have to ask for stuff
so I think that we’re close and I would ask or ask for your consideration for the opportunity to
have a couple of those back. We’re comfortable with the number of 170. 167 is really, while it
doesn’t seem like much it’s a little bit of give and take both ways.
Mayor Ryan: Thoughts from council members?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m just going to throw out there that you know I think this project
needs a hero and I think mayor you really truly, your heart’s in the right spot and your conviction
is there and you’re a tough negotiator and I’m proud of you for doing that and I think now we’ve
come to the end of the road where it’s time. It’s time to just love it or leave it and you know I
think that we have an opportunity, you have an opportunity, the council does to be a hero for the
rest of the city and just maybe compromise and move on and really make sure this is a stellar
development. I mean they’re going to come back for things still you know so let’s then use that,
that opportunity to tweak it and to really make it our own because I know you feel passionate
about that too. You know I think we both said at work sessions make this a neighborhood that
we are so proud of that lasts forever and that people drive by and go wow, why can’t this be in
our city and I am confident that Lennar can do that. You can put in landscaping and you can put
in different models of homes and different features even if it’s geographically, I don’t know but
you know we can work together with that but we need a place to start and so that’s where I’m
looking is let’s start and thank you for all of your hard work. You’ve been like I said a champion
for everybody that needed to and I commend you for that.
Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilman Campion.
Councilman Campion: Mr. Jablonski I don’t want to haggle but how about 169?
Joe Jablonski: It’s close to where the middle of where our plan is and where council’s desire is
at this point. I think that we can live with that number if that’s the number that you’re
comfortable changing your motion to.
Councilman Campion: Okay. I personally am comfortable with modifying my motion for that.
Do I need to read it all again?
Todd Gerhardt: No we’re in discussion stage so you would modify your motion to read 169 lots
versus 167 but I would also like to amend your motion saying as shown in future plans prepared
by Pioneer Engineering since they have not submitted the plans showing the 169 lot subdivision
in the staff report.
Councilman Campion: Okay I accept those modifications.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
22
Mayor Ryan: And just a point of clarification. So that still includes the, the motion still includes
the 8 stall parking lot?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Roger Knutson: And the temporary cul-de-sac.
Mayor Ryan: And the temporary cul-de-sac.
Roger Knutson: Stays.
Mayor Ryan: Stays.
Todd Gerhardt: Those are in there correct Bob?
Mayor Ryan: Yes okay.
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Ryan: Any other comments?
Councilwoman Coleman: Well I do have a brief statement if that’s alright.
Mayor Ryan: Yes.
Councilwoman Coleman: Yes well I got started with this process before I was elected to serve
this great city. I jumped into the middle of things and like all new experiences I came into it
with an open mind. Sat and listened, learned. Took time to carefully craft my questions and
reached out to all the parties involved. After gathering the facts it was time to hear from the
people. I have been so inspired by the level of community involvement on this issue. This
council received hundreds of emails and dozens of phone calls on all sides of this issue. I
responded to each and every one of them and met with those for and against this proposal. At
the end of the day it appears that many in this community will be unhappy regardless of what
decision we make but know this, you have been heard. I have deeply considered what you have
had to say and your thoughts mattered. I applaud and encourage this great community to keep up
this level of outspoken engagement. I was disappointed however that some thought the only
opposition to the PUD was not in my back yard. I encourage all of us to give each other the
benefit of the doubt. The concerns I heard from those neighboring this development have never
been not in my back yard. They have been real serious concerns, questioned the impact this will
have on all of us. In addition I’ve heard countless pleas from those not neighboring the
development share in your concerns. This is not a greater Chanhassen versus the neighbors
debate. It is a discussion amongst all community members about what’s best for this entire city.
For those wanting to save the parkland I agree. I wish this city could afford to buy it but that’s
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
23
unfortunately not realistic at this time. I believe we should always fight to protect and preserve
our land while never settling in our values. And that’s why I would like to thank Mayor Ryan
for making sure that we did not settle on our values and for fighting hard and showing all of us
how this is done. Thank you.
Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilwoman Coleman. Any further comments?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council, as staff reviewed the lot counts it got to be concerns regarding
the roadway. The upgrading of Galpin Boulevard and the amount of traffic that would exit out
onto that roadway was our key focus in determining these lot sizes so that’s, I just wanted that to
be sure it was in the record.
Mayor Ryan: Thank you Mr. Gerhardt. I’d like to also share some of my thoughts before we
pass a final vote, or take a vote on the motion that’s before us. At the foundation of moving this
city forward I shared with you the night that I was sworn in, I shared with you that I live by the
five C’s and it’s, it was more than just a speech for me that I shared with you but it was how I
thought we could be successful as a city. The five C’s, for those of you who don’t remember.
Don’t have them written down. They’re community, communication, collaboration,
commitment to excellence and Chanhassen and this is really what’s at the core for me for my
analysis and how I arrive at decisions. I use it for the items that come before the City and I used
it in the proposal that we have in front of us tonight and I always want to make sure that I check
the boxes when those things are accomplished. So number one community. Yes for the first
people to respond to this development were the ones that were immediately affected. We heard
from them fast. We heard from them often and they were very engaged but they were the ones
that were most impacted. They saw it immediately. They saw the signs. They got the letters
about the public hearings and so they immediately got engaged because it was in their back yard.
But as conversations continued and there were newspaper articles following this project and the
plan, residents helped spread the word in a variety of ways. The community paid attention and
for that as I said from the very beginning is something that I’m really grateful for and really
appreciative of. They paid attention and sent in emails. Made phone calls and this participation
in this proposal is something that we should all be proud of and so I felt yes, the community had
been engaged so I could check that box. Next was communication. As I said I was on the City
Council for 4 years before this and I am confident that I have never seen such an outreach of
communication in the 4 years that I was there. We held four public meetings to ask for feedback
from the residents. We put a mailer in the Villager to inform the residents that there was a public
comment session asking people to come laying out what was before us and we were very active.
The city staff was very active on social media because we all know that’s how a lot of people do
get their news and we invited people again to attend and we wanted to keep them informed on
what was happening and what vote we were going to be taking and what proposal we were
considering and so yes I could check that box. That communication had been taking place.
Number 3 was collaboration. As I said working together is something that’s very important to
me and having everybody have an opportunity to a seat at the table is imperative to making
decisions. There were neighborhood meetings that I attended because I was asked to attend there
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
24
as a representative of the residents of Chanhassen. I did meet with the City Attorney. It was
very important for me to understand the legal ramifications for any decision that we made
because I am committed to making sure that I serve this community fairly and honorably and it
was important for me to have the full scope and understanding of what decisions were before us
and that I did not put the City in jeopardy. I heard from commissioners. We have awesome
commissioners. Those we’re going to be appointing more tonight. We have awesome very
passionate commissioners that reach out to the community to get their feedback. They too called
me and sent me emails. Send the council emails about what their concerns were. What they
would like to see. We heard from them. I met with the watershed district because I was
concerned about the wetlands and the impact and got their feedback and their engagement
because I couldn’t get enough out of the staff report that I wanted to dive deeper and get
information from a very active watershed. The watershed district in our community and yes I
did meet with Lennar. Not in any disingenuous sort of way but because Lennar had asked you
know for further input and feedback from the mayor and I am the mayor and I’m proud to be the
mayor and I shared the feedback that I had received from the residents in the numerous emails
and phone calls that I had received and then of course thank you residents for your collaboration
and commitment to showing up and engaging. That is something that I have asked for from the
beginning. Be engaged and participate and I appreciate all of you for that. Number 4
commitment to excellence. We can never waiver on that commitment to excellence. This has to
be the expectation of this council and the city staff. I want it to be clear that we aren’t going to
be pushed around and a lot of times people chuckle when I say that. That we’re not going to be
pushed around and I’m not suggesting Lennar did that but we did receive a email from somebody
associated with this project talking about their fiduciary responsibility to represent the heirs and I
felt that it was, it was an aggressive letter and that is not the way that we should expect to be
treated from people that want to come into the city and I think it’s important for us to show that
we’re willing to work with anybody but we are committed to excellence and so for future
developers and people that come before the City we welcome you and we want you here. We
are open. Chanhassen is open but let’s work together and you have to have the understanding
that we have a commitment to excellence. The community push for something better. You
showed up. Again you came to the meetings. You sent in emails and though the negotiations
were tough, even down to the last minute, I feel that this commitment to excellence is something
that we can check the box. And number 5, Chanhassen. This is at the heart of it all. This again
as I said this is us and while as Mr. Jablonski said it’s been an extensive and exhausting process
at times I think that it has made us a better community. It has brought us together and I think
ultimately has put forward a better development. I am happy that the residents know, as
Councilwoman Coleman said that we are listening and you are being heard and we ask for your
engagement. Developers now know that we do have a high expectations when you want to do
business in this city and I think that’s a good thing. And collectively when we all work together
it’s a win and these are some of the win’s that I believe are representative in this plan. On the
north we eliminated two road connections. We forget about the first one that took place at the
end of last year. We increased the buffer along the north side. On the south the road was moved
north to increase the buffer and hopefully will help some of the stormwater and water collection
in the neighbor’s back yard. We had a reduction in density. We started at 201 and we are now
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
25
at, in my notes I had 167 but now if it is voted upon 169. We have larger lots. Hopefully we
will get those 19-90 foot lots added back into the plan as part of this overall development. We
have park access. That was something that I distinctly remember from our, the public hearing
where a woman said this shouldn’t be a private park. This should be a park for all the residents
and by having a public access, by having a parking lot is something that is going to be important
for this community to access this new gem that we have and I’m excited to partner with the
watershed district on that. And number 6, because I was listening and I do care and I think, I
know all of our council cares, that park was in our future and we preserved that park. I never did
see it as a gift as sometimes it was implied but I did see it as a tremendous asset to this
community and something that was not, and that was not lost on me. So finally in closing while
I understand that not everybody is going to be pleased. I know there’s still traffic concerns and
probably some buffer areas but I am asking you to stay engaged because this is just the
preliminary plat. There is still a lot of details that have to be worked out and we need to have
you continue to be engaged. We do these things and it’s in the plan it’s called on site walk
through’s and it usually takes place just between the developer and city staff. I encourage you to
identify yourself to city staff and ask to be a participant in those walk through’s when we talk
about buffers of neighborhoods. As I mentioned we are appointing commissioners tonight.
Sorry, we are appointing commissioners tonight after we vote on this and so I challenge the
future commissioners and the future bodies that are recommending bodies to this City Council.
To the park and rec commission. We have this new land. When we meet in April please come
forward with ideas on what you’re going to do and how you’re going to utilize this new park.
Access. Trails. Use that new park plan that we just approved last year. Take a look at that.
There was some innovative thought and ideas. Bring those ideas to council and let’s do
something and really evaluate this parkland that’s in front of us. To the new Planning
Commission members, continue to review plans exhaustively. Use the five C’s that I’ve laid out
tonight and don’t be afraid to expect more. I believe that you can and I believe that we can
achieve great things. To the senior commission. We now have this new beautiful park and trails,
we want seniors to be able to enjoy it. Figure out, look at new programming and access and
educational ways that we can work together with the Senior Commission. And finally the
Environmental Commission. I encourage you to work closely with the watershed on education
and ideas for making this new park impactful piece, and impactful piece of the community. In
closing, I know that’s probably the third time I said in closing and teachers always did that and
I’d roll my eyes but in closing I do believe that this is a win for the City and I do appreciate all
the comments and hard work that council has put forward. I very much value and appreciate the
hard work of Mr. Gerhardt working through some of the challenges and all of city staff. I know
all the departments had a hand in this as it was being worked through and I appreciate your hard
work and dedication and of course Mr. Knutson I won’t leave you out. Thank you for your legal
advice. In closing I want to again thank the residents for your participation in this process. With
that we have a valid motion and a second.
Campion moved, Coleman seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve the
Rezoning of 191 acres from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development -
Residential, PUD-R; including the PUD ordinance “Galpin Design Standards”; and
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
26
that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland
impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; and that the City Council approve the
Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 169 lots, 3 outlots and dedication of public right-of-
way, as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated January 15, 2019, updated
on March 11, 2019, and to be revised in the future including a 8 stall parking lot to access
the park, temporary cul-de-sac next to the Ashling Meadows neighborhood, subject to the
following conditions in the staff report; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision of
Approval:
Parks & Recreation
1. Dedication of 100+/- acres of wooded open spaces and wetlands in the eastern half of the
property to the City of Chanhassen for parkland in exchange for a housing density transfer
and fulfillment of a nine +/- acre parkland dedication requirement.
2. Acknowledgement that the dedicated land may be developed at the city's discretion as
parkland for public use and may include, but is not limited to trails, boardwalks, bridges,
structures, and signage.
3. The planning, engineering and construction of a 10-foot wide bituminous east/west trail
connection between Galpin Boulevard and a location east of Street “D” and a 10-foot wide
bituminous trail adjacent to Galpin Boulevard between Street “E” and Street “A”.
4. All trails shall meet all city standards for trail construction.
5. The east/west trail shall maintain a minimum 10-foot setback from outside edges of trail to
private property and be designed to minimize encroachment of wetland buffers.
6. The east/west trail crossing of Street “A” shall be relocated from a midblock crossing as
shown to the intersection of Street “A” and Street “D”.
7. The east/west trail be designed and constructed so as not to require retaining walls.
8. The entirety of the east/west trail and associated buffers shall be constructed within the
dedicated public outlots.
9. The entirety of the Galpin Boulevard trail between Street “E” and Street “A” shall be
constructed in dedicated public right-of-way.
10. The planning, engineering and construction of 10-foot wide bituminous trails connecting
both Street “Z” and Topaz Drive Ridge Lane to the planned trail at the western edge of Lake
Lucy including trail easements.
Planning
1. All 191 acres must be included in the PUD.
2. All lots and homes must be developed consistent with the standards in the Compliance Table.
3. Approve the length of the cul-de-sac on Street “Z”.
Engineering
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
27
1. Any requirements set by the MCES to work within the MCES’s sewer and utility easement
shall be addressed by the applicant.
2. An executed agreement between the developer and the MCES allowing work within the
MCES’s easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits.
3. Deleted.
4. The width of the public right-of-ways shall be called out on the final plat prior to acceptance
and recording, this includes radii cul-de-sacs bulbs.
5. Thirty foot (30’) wide drainage and utility easements, for the purpose of accessing utilities
and basins, shall be provided between but not limited to Lots 120 and 121 abutting Street
“Z”, prior to acceptance and recording.
6. Right-of-way dedication in conformance with the attached Carver County Development/
Access Review Comments, subject to review and approval by the county and city prior to
acceptance and recording of the final plat.
7. On-going coordination with the county and city regarding future improvements to Galpin
Boulevard. Also see Condition 25.
8. Deleted.
9. The developer shall locate on the existing condition survey all existing wells and septic
fields.
10. The developer shall abandon all existing wells and septic fields in accordance with all
federal, state and local regulatory agency standards, and obtain all necessary permits for said
abandonments. Prior to commencement of abandonment activities, a copy of all required
permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be provided to the city.
11. Provide an updated existing condition survey that illustrates the MCES sanitary and utility
easements on parcels 250100400 and 257580040.
12. The applicant shall submit a mass grading plan or a phased grading plan (as applicable) for
review and approval by the city prior to issuance of grading permits.
13. Proposed spot elevations shall be shown on the grading plans at the center of the proposed
driveway at the curbline for review prior to issuance of grading permits.
14. Proposed spot elevations shall be shown on the grading plans at top of curb for review prior
to issuance of grading permits.
15. Deleted.
16. Drainage arrows for all EOF routes shall be included on the grading plans prior to issuance of
grading permits.
17. Grading within bluff setbacks is subject to review and approval by the city prior to issuance
of grading permits.
18. All existing buildings and structures within the city’s well house #3 property abutting Galpin
Boulevard shall be included on the grading plans.
19. Grading plans shall be updated to include the location and grade of the improved and
relocated access driveway to well house #3 off Galpin Boulevard.
20. Grading plans shall be updated to include the location and protection methodology of the
significant oak tree on the well house #3 site.
21. Deleted.
22. The applicant shall submit revised grading plans and stormwater plans so that no stormwater
runoff flows directly onto the public trail south of Lots 164-174 abutting Street “A”.
23. Deleted.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
28
24. An updated geotechnical report assessing slope stability immediately east of Lot 110 abutting
Street “A” shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading
permits.
25. Final grading plans, including pond locations, sizing and analysis, along with right-of-way
dedications off Galpin Boulevard, shall conform to the future Galpin Boulevard
reconstruction project. Cross reference of grading plans, profiles, and respective cross
sections are to be provided at key locations such as intersections, ponds, or other special
features required by the County and city for review prior to acceptance and recording of the
final plat.
26. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall have plans and details prepared by a
registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance of building permits.
27. The retaining wall south of Lots 108-111 abutting Street “A” shall be adjusted to
accommodate a 1.5:1 buffer from the bottom of the proposed stormwater line to the bottom
of the proposed retaining wall foundation.
28. Deleted.
29. Grading and construction within bluff setbacks are subject to review and approval by the city
prior to issuance of grading permits.
30. All newly constructed streets and the extension of any existing streets shall be public streets,
owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City
Council.
31. All newly constructed public streets shall be designed to meet the current standard
specifications and detail plate for residential streets (Detail Plate #5200), unless otherwise
directed by the City Engineer.
32. Any and all conditions associated with the alignment and configuration of Street “Z” set by
the Planning Commission or City Council shall be addressed by the applicant prior to
acceptance and recording of the final plat.
33. The applicant shall remove all impervious surface from the existing Ruby Lane stub-out,
construct half street improvements (extending curb and gutter) on Topaz Drive, and restore
the area to the surrounding conditions.
34. The developer shall provide a curb cut and accesses for Parcel 250100400 off of Street Z.
35. A water service lateral shall be stubbed off Street “Z”’s watermain for the future connection
to parcel 250100400.
36. An updated geotechnical report with additional soil borings shall be provided for review and
approval prior to the commencement of construction.
37. Sidewalks shall be extended along the cul-de-sacs located off Streets “D”, “G”, and “Z” and
shall be constructed in accordance with the city’s standard specifications and detail plates for
concrete sidewalks.
38. Deleted.
39. All curb ramps shall be constructed to meet ADA standards and the city’s Detail Plates
#5215-5215D.
40. Intersection improvements to provide pedestrian access at the intersection of Galpin
Boulevard and Street “E” shall be constructed in accordance with MUTCD best management
practices.
41. A detail of the proposed street lights shall be provided prior to the issuance of building
permits.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
29
42. An enumerated list of all street lights and their proposed locations shall be provided for
review and approval prior to the recording of the final plat.
43. Street lights shall be installed at all intersections and at the end of each cul-de-sac subject to
review and approval of the city prior to issuance of building permits.
44. The site plan shall be updated to provide proposed street grades (centerline gradients).
45. All newly constructed water mains shall be public water mains, owned and maintained by the
city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council.
46. Water mains located on Streets “A”-“H” and Street “Z” shall be tied into the high-pressure
zone located on Galpin Boulevard. Water main extensions on Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge
Lane shall be tied into the existing water main stubs (low-pressure zone).
47. The water main located on Street “Z” shall be tied into the existing stub off Ruby Lane and a
gate valve near the connection point shall be installed. The gate valve shall be closed to
separate the pressure zones.
48. The developer shall field verify the location of all water main taps prior to the issuance of
building permits and update the plans accordingly.
49. The developer’s contractor shall schedule a preconstruction meeting with Engineering and
Public Works Utilities prior to the commencement of any work to the water main installation
and tapping.
50. Updated plans indicating the location of all underground utilities on the east side of Galpin
Boulevard, along with plan and profiles of any utility crossings on the east side of Galpin
Boulevard, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits.
51. An agreement that lists the conditions and required improvements for the land swap between
the developer and the city regarding Lot 163 and a portion of the well house #3 site shall be
executed and recorded prior to the acceptance and recording of the final plat.
52. All utility crossings of potable water and sanitary and/or storm mains will require 18” of
vertical separation and 10’ of horizontal separation. The developer shall submit construction
plans with profiles and plan views of the utilities for review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
53. All utility crossings of potable water and sanitary sewer will require that the sanitary sewer
main at that crossing be constructed of PVC C900 water main material. The developer shall
submit construction plans indicating material type at these locations for review and approval
of the city prior to issuance of building permits.
54. The developer shall submit construction plans indicating that pipe lengths of sanitary sewer
mains are centered over potable water crossings.
55. Water mains shall be constructed at 7.5’ below grade, or insulated, and constructed in
conformance with the city’s standard specifications and detail plates.
56. Cluster valves located around water main tees shall be installed at a minimum of 5’ from the
tees to the valves, where feasible. All valve locations and any other water main
appurtenances shall be reviewed and approved by Engineering and Public Works prior to the
issuance of building permits.
57. All comments and conditions regarding fire appurtenances, spacing, and location set forth by
the Fire Department shall be addressed by the applicant.
58. All newly constructed sewer mains shall be public sewer mains, owned and maintained by
the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
30
59. All conditions set forth by the MCES for the direct connection and installation of an access
manhole to their trunk line shall be addressed by the applicant, and all permits required for
the connection and installation of the manhole shall be obtained prior to the commencement
of construction.
60. Deleted.
61. The applicant shall ensure the city’s sanitary sewer nomenclature is incorporated in the
construction plans.
62. Profile sheets for all public utilities, including sanitary sewer, shall be required for review
and approval by the city prior to issuance of building permits.
63. PVC sanitary sewer pipes that will be constructed at a burial depth of 0-16 feet shall be
constructed of pipe class SDR 35, burial depths of 16-26 feet shall be of pipe class SDR 26,
and burial depths of greater than 26 feet shall be of pipe class C900.
64. Inverts that have a 20 inch or greater differential shall be supplied inside drops per city
standards and be constructed per the city’s Detail Plate No. 2104.
65. Deleted.
Stormwater Conditions & Wetlands
The SWMP Fee is $432,183.23, pending any plan revisions. This fee will be applied to the new
lot of record being created. It is calculated as shown in the table below:
Assessments
Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hookup fees will be
assessed at the rate in effect at that time. The remaining partial hookups fees are due with the
building permit.
Fees
Based on the proposal the following fees would be collected with the development contract:
• Administration Fee: If the improvement costs are between $500,000 and $1,000,000, 2%
of the improvement costs. If the improvement costs exceed $1,000,000, 2.5% of the first
$1,000,000 plus 1.5% of the remainder.
• Surface water management fee: $432,183.23
• A portion of the water hook-up charge: $2,311/unit
• A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $691/unit
• GIS fees: $25 for the plat plus $10 per parcel
• Street light operating fee for one year: $300 per light
PER ACRE FEE ACRES FEE
$8,320 191.0465 1,589,506.88$
$8,320 16.79 (139,692.80)$
$8,320 122.3114 (1,017,630.85)$
51.9451 432,183.23$
AREA
GROSS AREA
ROW
OUTLOTS
NET AREA
SURFACE WATER
DEVELOPMENT FEE
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
31
1. Wetland permitting is required due to the proximity and proposed impacts to wetlands onsite.
A wetland permit application has not yet been received by the city from the applicant.
Grading permits will not be issued until approved wetland permits have been received.
2. Wetland review will include ensuring hydrology is maintained to all wetlands to be preserved
as well as review of proposed stormwater impacts.
3. Storm sewer sizing calculations should be provided to confirm storm sewer is sized to
convey the 10-year storm event.
4. An NPDES permit and accompanying Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will
be required prior to the start of construction.
5. An operations and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater management system will
be required prior to approval.
6. Provide infiltration test results per MPCA Requirements in the location of each proposed
infiltration area.
7. All comments and conditions set forth by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
shall be addressed by the applicant.
8. Show all existing storm sewer and other water resource related features in plans.
9. Adjust and show all easements over the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’
sanitary sewer on the preliminary and final plat.
10. Clearly indicate what storm sewer will be private and what will be public. All public storm
sewer will be required to be shown in profile view. Applicant should confirm there are no
conflicts with the watermain or sanitary sewer throughout the site.
11. The following comments pertain to all proposed ponds that include an infiltration bench
(Basins 100, 200 and 300):
a. Infiltration test results will be required in the location of all proposed infiltration
benches and infiltration basins. Infiltration test results have not been submitted in the
location of proposed Basin 100. If filtration is to be used, the applicant will need to
provide a specification for amended soils.
b. The exfiltration above the piped outlet elevation should be included in the HydroCAD
model and the exfiltration rate should correspond to what is presented in the
infiltration test results.
c. The proposed infiltration benches will be required to meet the 48-hour drawdown
requirement.
d. Outlets from the pond should be moved out of the permanent pond area and should be
moved away from the inlet to minimize the risk of short circuiting.
12. The proposed piped outlet being modeled for Basin 400 is not shown in the plans.
13. Access routes for all proposed stormwater basins are required for maintenance purposes.
Applicant should callout access locations for all proposed stormwater basins.
14. A defined riprap EOF spillway will be required for all stormwater basins per details provided
on Sheet 33. Applicant should include location and elevation of all EOF spillways on the
storm sewer plans.
15. The soil borings provided show that there are clay soils throughout the site. Modeling should
be updated to reflect the D soils present.
16. Proposed and existing HydroCAD models should be modeling the same area. There is
roughly 120 acres included in the existing conditions model that is not included in the
proposed conditions model. All offsite drainage should be included in the models.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
32
17. Existing and proposed conditions drainage area maps should be updated to show the location
and boundaries of all subcatchments included in the models.
18. Time of concentrations should be calculated in HydroCAD and not directly entered to
confirm accuracy. Provide supporting calculations for all directly entered times of
concentrations.
19. From the drainage area maps, it appears that P-LU 2-6 (P.E. Edit) in the existing model
corresponds to Pond 500P in the proposed conditions model. The modeled storage for the
wetland differs between the existing and proposed conditions models but no wetland impacts
are shown on Sheet 37 for this wetland. Applicant should update the models so that they
have the same storage modeled for the wetland.
a. There is a proposed piped outlet from this wetland that is over four feet lower than the
current natural spillway outlet. The applicant will be required to show that this does
not change the hydrology of the existing wetland as part of the wetland permit
requirements.
20. There are numerous inconsistencies between what is shown in the plans on Sheet 35 for the
outlets of the stormwater basins and what is being modeled in HydroCAD and P8. Applicant
will need to update the models so that they are representative of what is being shown in the
plans.
21. The same total area should be modeled in P8 as in HydroCAD.
22. The model should be run for at least 50 years and should include the most recent
precipitation data included in the precipitation file to get accurate removal efficiencies.
23. The modeling of the proposed stormwater ponds with filtration benches is incorrect and is
overestimating the removal efficiencies of the basins. The applicant should update the model
for the stormwater basins in the following way:
a. The design infiltration rate should be added to the flood pool section of the
stormwater pond devices where applicable. This will model infiltration above the
outlet elevation. The design infiltration rate should match what is being modeled in
HydroCAD.
b. The infiltration basins should be removed from the model (except for Device 600i).
c. Applicant should confirm total phosphorus and total suspended solids removal
requirements are still being met after the model has been updated.
24. Watersheds 201 and 600 are only modeling the impervious area. The pervious area in these
watersheds should be added to the model.
25. Watershed 300 in the P8 model has 25% impervious while the corresponding HydroCAD
subwatershed has 45% impervious modeled. Applicant should update the models to be
consistent with one another and representative of the plans.
26. The total areas listed in the table in Section III.A of the Stormwater Management Plan are
inconsistent with the total area called out in the plans and the total area being modeled.
Applicant should include the entire site in the areas shown in the table.
27. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to
submit the following incomplete requirements: Existing and proposed drainage areas to
wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d).
28. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on-site. If this is not
feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible,
then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation
cannot be accomplished on-site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off-
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
33
site, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major
subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing
wetland credits from the state wetland bank.
29. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment
as prescribed by this Code.
30. If a Wetland Alteration Permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards
shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and
hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland, (2) It shall be located as to minimize the
impact on vegetation, (3) It shall not adversely change water flow, (4) The size of the altered
area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action, (5) The disposal of
any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas, (6) The disposal of any
excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures, (7)
Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish
spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for
waterfowl breeding or fish spawning, and (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated
in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland
area and/or function and value of the wetland.
31. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland, if a
portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Show how hydrologic
patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands.
32. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy of the delineated wetland boundaries
must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database.
33. Sec. 20-406. Wetland classification. All wetlands delineated under Sec. 20-405 of this article
that have not been previously classified shall be classified using the results from the
Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version
3.0), or future versions. A MnRAM shall be completed by the property owner or applicant
for each previously unclassified wetland. An electronic version of the MnRAM evaluation
must be submitted to and approved by the city to establish the classification of each wetland
prior to any alteration or impact to the wetland.
34. Staff review will be conditional upon the approved Wetland Replacement Plan.
35. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process.
36. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the
wetlands on site. Please indicate wetland buffers widths and locations where signage will be
placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the
guidance document attached. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of
materials. Alternative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they
contain similar information.
37. Sec. 19-146. Wetland elements.
a. Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to
two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of
wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation.
b. Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to
discharge into wetlands.
c. Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat
shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity of plants and wetland
inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins.
Chanhassen City Council – March 11, 2019
34
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
1. The developer shall conduct a walk-through of the grading limits on site prior to
removals with city staff to inspect for opportunities for additional tree preservation.
2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any
construction activities and remain installed until completion.
3. All trees shall be planted outside of the street right-of-way.
4. The applicant shall increase tree planting in the development to meet minimum
requirements of 590 trees.
5. Buffer plantings shall be added to the east of the city well building.
6. The three oaks on city property (not inventoried) to the south of the city well building
shall remain and the grading limits be adjusted to provide for preservation by avoiding
any grading within the critical root zone areas of the trees.
7. Autumn Blaze maples shall be eliminated from the plant schedule.
8. Northern Pin oak shall be replaced with white, bur, red or bicolor oak species in the plant
schedule.
9. Additional selections of tree species shall expand the breadth of tree types and take into
consideration soil conditions and future hardiness zone changes.
10. No tree Genus shall comprise of more than 20% of the total number of trees and no tree
species shall comprise of more than 10% of the total number of trees.
11. The applicant shall revise the plans to show the bluff impact zone on both bluffs and
eliminate grading within these areas.
12. Private lot boundaries shall not encroach into bluff areas.
13. Lots with significant tree cover contain conservation easements to protect the wooded
areas. Lots 101, 104, 105, 130 and 131should have protective easements over parts of the
lot containing existing forest. Specifically, the rear 40’ of Lot 101, the rear 100’ of Lots
104 and 105, the westerly 200’ of Lot 130 and the easterly 250’-300’ of Lot 131.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS:
Mayor Ryan: Next on our agenda is commission appointments. Let me pull it up. Alright we’ll
get back to it. As I said the next item on our agenda is commission appointments. Over the
course of the last few weeks we have been interviewing candidates for the Planning
Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Environmental Commission, and Senior
Commission. We had our final round of interviews this evening and would like to make those
appointments. Mr. Gerhardt is there anything else you’d like to add?
Todd Gerhardt: No. I just want to thank the council for taking a special day to knock out most
of our applicants. I think that process worked well. It’s nice that we’re going into March fully
commissioned up.
Mayor Ryan: Alright. Council are there any motions for appointment to the commissions?