The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Staff Report 3-11-19CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, March 11, 2019 Subject Galpin Site Preliminary Plat & Rezone PUD Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: F.1. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director File No: PC 201901 PROPOSED MOTION Denial “The City Council denies the Rezoning of 191 acres from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUDR; including the PUD ordinance 'Galpin Design Standards'; “The City Council denies the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; The City Council denies the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 181 lots, three outlots and dedication of public rightofway as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated February 28, 2019; And The City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision for Denial." Approval “The City Council approves the Rezoning of 191 acres from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUDR; including the PUD ordinance 'Galpin Design Standards'; The City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; The City Council approves the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 181 lots, three outlots and dedication of public rightofway as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated February 28, 2019, subject to conditions stated in the staff report; And The City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision of Approval." Approval requires a Majority Vote of the entire council. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, March 11, 2019SubjectGalpin Site Preliminary Plat & Rezone PUDSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: F.1.Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP, CommunityDevelopment Director File No: PC 201901PROPOSED MOTIONDenial“The City Council denies the Rezoning of 191 acres from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned UnitDevelopment Residential, PUDR; including the PUD ordinance 'Galpin Design Standards'; “The City Council denies the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions in thestaff report;The City Council denies the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 181 lots, three outlots and dedication of publicrightofway as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated February 28, 2019;AndThe City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision for Denial."Approval “The City Council approves the Rezoning of 191 acres from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned UnitDevelopment Residential, PUDR; including the PUD ordinance 'Galpin Design Standards'; The City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions inthe staff report;The City Council approves the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 181 lots, three outlots and dedication of publicrightofway as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated February 28, 2019, subject to conditionsstated in the staff report;And The City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision of Approval." Approval requires a Majority Vote of the entire council. BACKGROUND On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission held a meeting to review changes that have been made to the project since the public hearing was held on January 15, 2019. Minutes for this meeting will be made available by the end of day Friday, March 8, 2019. DISCUSSION There have been a number of meetings on the development. Following is a list of these meetings: Where Meeting type Date City Council, Planning Commission and Park & Recreation Tour of the Site June 4, 2018 City Council Work Session June 11, 2018 Park Commission Concept PUD June 26, 2018 Planning Commission Public Hearing Concept PUD July 17, 2018 City Council Concept PUD August 13, 2018 City Council Work Session December 3, 2108 Planning Commission Public Hearing Preliminary Plat January 15, 2019 Park Commission Preliminary Plat January 22, 2019 City Council Work Session January 28, 2019 City Council Work Session February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Public Comment March 5, 2019 (minutes not yet available) City Council Preliminary Plat Scheduled for March 11, 2019 ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report PUD Ordinance Findings of Fact and Decision Approval Findings of Fact and Decision Denial Development Review Application Project Narrative Affidavit of Mailing Compliance Table March 5, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit A Home Styles Galpin Site Plan Sheets 131 Galpin Site Plan Sheets 3251 Fire Marshall Letter Carver County Development / Access Review Comments Letter MCES Notes Army Corp of Engineers Letters Email Comments Received Emails received March 10 and 11, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: January 15, 2019 CC DATE: March 11, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: February 12 April 5, 2019 CASE # 2019-01 BY: KA, EH, JS, TH PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Subdivision approval, rezoning to PUD-R and a wetland alteration permit. LOCATION: 7141 Galpin Boulevard APPLICANT: U.S. Home Corporation, d/b/a Lennar PRESENT ZONING: RR Rural Residential 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1.2 – 4 units per acre ACREAGE: Approximately 191 acres gross GROSS DENSITY: 1 unit per acre net 129 123 acres net NET DENSITY: 1.33 units per acre net LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a Preliminary Plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving Rezoning’s and Planned Unit Developments (PUD) because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A rezoning or PUD must be consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Notice was sent to adjacent properties within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting Preliminary Subdivision approval, rezoning to PUD-R and a wetland alternation permit. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 2 of 45 Map of Property Parcel and Site Information Parcel ID Taxpayer GIS Acreage Land Use Current Zoning 256900030 PRN 10 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 256900020 PRN 156.07 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 250100100 Paisley Park Enterprises Inc. 3.75 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 256900010 PRN 19.74 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 250100200 PRN 6.49 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential Total 191/188 Deeded acres vs. GIS City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 3 of 45 The surrounding land uses are included in the following table: Subdivision Zoning Land Use Notes South Royal Oaks RSF Low Density 13 acres-33 lots West Woods at Long Acres PUD Low Density 97 acres-115 lots Wynsong - Shoreland District PUD Low Density 9.4 acres 4 units North Ashling Meadows RSF Low Density 40 acres-51 units Lake Lucy Ridge RSF Low Density 9 acres-17 units East Lake Ann Recreational not applicable not applicable Undeveloped Adjacent Land South Gorra Property Zoning Land Use Notes Rural Residential Low Density 38 (25 net) acres- 50 units Rural Residential Low/Medium 34 acres – 204 units Rural Residential Medium Density 46 acres - 276 units Rural Residential High Density 28 acres -336 units An existing home that is on 2.62 acres at 7011 Galpin Boulevard is not included in the subdivision. BACKGROUND The following meetings were held discussing the PUD/Subdivision: Where Meeting type Date City Council, Planning Commission and Park & Recreation Tour of the Site June 4, 2018 City Council Work Session June 11, 2018 Park Commission Concept PUD June 26, 2018 Planning Commission - Public Hearing Concept PUD July 17, 2018 City Council Concept PUD August 13, 2018 City Council Work Session December 3, 2108 Planning Commission - Public Hearing Preliminary Plat January 15, 2019 Park Commission Preliminary Plat January 22, 2019 City Council Work Session January 28, 2019 City Council Work Session February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Public Comment March 5, 2019 (minutes not yet available) City Council Preliminary Plat Scheduled for March 11, 2019 City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 4 of 45 A public meeting was held on a concept PUD before the Planning Commission on July 17, 2018 and with the City Council on August 13, 2018. Included in the concept review were two layouts. One demonstrated a traditional subdivision using the RSF zoning district and the second layout applied the PUD zoning with a cluster development. The RSF zoning district showed a plan with 202 lots and the PUD showed a plan with 199 lots. The City Council held an additional work session on December 3, 2018 to discuss proposed changes for the preliminary review based on neighborhood meetings held in November. A summary of the comments from the Concept review include: • The elimination of the through street the on the north end. • Reduction of eight lots. • Larger lots and deeper lots were created on the southern end (Majestic Oaks) to accommodate stormwater and tree preservation. • Four lot sizes were introduced. The most significant changes from the Concept PUD and the Preliminary PUD application are: Plan modifications since initial concept review Overall • 50+ acres designated for city park. • Lot count has been reduced to 191 181 homesites down 17 lots since the concept (1.37 1.33 DU/Acre). • Stormwater ponding has been incorporated to accommodate Galpin Boulevard upgrades and has shifted to minimize visual impact to the Longacres neighborhood and allows an opportunity to preserve the existing guardhouse as a symbol of neighborhood identity (condition and ability to preserve guardhouse to be further evaluated for safety). • Perimeter buffering has been evaluated. • Monumentation and landscape detail created. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 5 of 45 North end • Through-street from Galpin Boulevard to Lucy Ridge Lane has been eliminated. • Buffering through preservation has been identified. • Fourteen (14) lots have been eliminated to minimize environmental impacts. South end • Twelve (12) lots have been eliminated from the southern 1/3 of the property to reduce density. • Lots along the southern property line have been enlarged from 55’ to 75’ wide to 75 90’ wide to meet the RSF standard to accommodate standard homes rather than a Villa. • Storm sewer and emergency overflows have been identified to alleviate water issues in adjacent neighborhood. • Back yard areas along the southern property line have been expanded allowing for the preservation of existing trees. • Landscape buffering has been integrated into the plan. ZONING DISTRICT Low-density zoning options for 1.2-4 units an acre. Within the low-density land use, there are a number of zoning applications including RSF, RLM, R-4 and PUD. The applicant’s proposal is requesting the Low Density Residential PUD Zoning. Residential Single Family (RSF) requires 15,000 square foot lots. This zoning district would cause the most environmental impacts to the site. In order to achieve the desire for a larger preservation area next to the lakes, the most appropriate zoning would be either a PUD or residential-low and medium density (RLM). Both of these districts require preservation of environmental features. It will be the city’s goal to ensure that the request for either zoning meets the intent. ARTICLE VIII. – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DIVISION 1. – GENERALLY Sec. 20-501. – Intent. Planned Unit Developments (PUD) offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the city’s expectation is to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. The applicant is pursuing the PUD zoning. In their narrative, they have stated, “The use of the PUD zoning also allows for greater specificity in the types, location and sizes of uses. The city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would be the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It is the City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 6 of 45 applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectations are to be realized as evaluated by the city’s goals.” Justification for Rezoning to PUD Sec. 20-501. – Intent. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD in this instance is to preserve a significant open space (100 +/- acres) next to Lake Ann Park as identified in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The transfer of density preserves land by dedication rather than acquisition by the city. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. The proposed subdivision provides a compatible development with the surrounding development and subject to the recommended modifications to the plan. The proposed PUD rezoning assists in the furtherance of the following land use goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • Enhanced preservation of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy by limited development within the shore land district. • Reduction in total impervious surface through the cluster development. • Preservation of native vegetation and habitat within the shoreland district. • Preservation of over 90% of the wetlands on the site. • Reduction of city long-term maintenance costs. • Provide connectivity (trials) to existing parks and trails. • Dedication of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard. The proposed amendment and rezoning assists in the furtherance of the following housing goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. • Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Chapter 20: Article VI. - Wetland Protection Article VII. - Shoreland Management District Article VII. - Planned Unit Development District City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 7 of 45 EXISTING CONDITIONS • A bluff area to the northern off of Lake Lucy Ridge. • A portion of the site is within the Shoreland District of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. All lots within 1000 feet of the shoreland must have a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. This standard has been meet with the lots on the end of Street “Z” and the end of Lake Lucy Lane. • There are several wetlands on the site, the largest of which is approximately 42 acres. The wetlands have been delineated and a Notice of Decision has been made. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is requesting subdivision of 191 acres into three outlots and 191 181 residential lots. Access to the site is from Galpin Boulevard except for the connection to the north that connects Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge Lane. Street “Z” off of Galpin Boulevard is now a cul- de-sac. While a variance is not required for the cul-de-sac length, staff has reviewed the criteria necessary to permit longer cul-de-sacs. The maximum length of a street terminating in a cul-de- sac shall be 800 feet. The city manager or their designee may approve a cul-de-sac exceeding 800 feet if they determine that the following necessitates a length in excess of 800 feet. Topography would require substantial grading and the loss of significant trees that would alter the physical character of the property and surrounding parcels. Additionally, the 16 lots proposed for housing accessed via this cul-de-sac are on larger lots, rather than the 26-30 homes that would be permitted by City Code. Site Analysis Total Gross Area 191.0456 +/- Acres Total Development Area 51.9451 51.21 Acres Number of Lots 191 181 Number of Outlots 3 Total Outlot Area 122.3114 123.28 Acres Total Right-of-Way Area 16.79 16.47 Acres Gross Density .9474 Lots/Acre Net Density (Excludes Wetlands & Co. Rd. 117) 1.5 1.33+/- Acres City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 8 of 45 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS Staff is proposing that the following development standards govern the development of the property. Wetland Standards - Manage 1 • Buffer: 30 feet • Building Setback for Buffer: 25 feet • Accessory Building setback from the Buffer: 15 feet Proposed Lot Standards 90-Foot Lots - Shoreline Overlay Non-Riparian Lots Width: 90 feet Area: 15,000 sq. ft. OHW: 75-foot setback Bluff: 30-foot setback Local street ROW setback: 20 feet (25 feet with sidewalk) Corner Lot Right-of-way: 20 feet Lot Coverage: 25% Total Lots: 31 42 City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 9 of 45 75-foot lots Width: 75 feet Area: 11,000 sq. ft. Front setback: 20 feet Rear setback: 25 feet Side setback: 7.5 feet Corner at ROW: 20 feet County Road 117: 50 feet Lot Coverage: 35% Total Lots: 10 65-Foot Lots Width: 65 feet Area: 8,450 sq. ft. Front setback: 20 or 25 feet Rear setback: 25 feet Side setback: 7.5 feet Lot Coverage: 35% Total Lots: 116 139 55-foot lots Width: 55 feet Area: 6,000 sq. ft. Garage setback: 25 feet; Living space: 20 feet Rear setback: 25 feet Side setback: 7.5 feet Lot Coverage: 35% Total Lots: 34 *Lots within each category may exceed the pervious surface because they are averaged with the overall preservation area within the development. The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays these setbacks: GALPIN PROPERTY COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 90 foot frontage 15,000 90 125 5,500 90 foot frontage ** 11,250 90 125 5,500 65 ft Lots 8,450 65 125 4,400 City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 10 of 45 Front Setback Rear Setback Side Yard Setback Corner Setback CR 117 Setback 20 ft * 25 ft 7.5 ft 20 ft 50 ft 25 ft 25 ft 7.5 ft 20 ft 50 ft Wetland Buffer Setback 20 ft. *25 ft. with Sidewalk **Lots 101-111 90-Foot Frontage Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 501 18,092 100 177 5,500 502 17,455 90 167 5,500 503 15,030 90 167 5,500 504 22,829 90 249 5,500 505 24,572 90 249 5,500 506 16,733 90 175 5,500 507 18,427 90 201 5,500 508 17,037 90 142 5,500 509 23,848 90 159 5,500 510 20,017 90 137 5,500 511 18,801 90 156 5,500 512 17,844 90 167 5,500 513 15,032 90 167 5,500 514 15,030 90 167 5,500 515 16,667 100 167 5,500 516 15,574 90 175 5,500 517 15,514 90 175 5,500 518 15,482 90 174 5,500 519 15,576 90 174 5,500 520 15,300 90 170 5,500 521 15,300 90 170 5,500 522 15,300 90 170 5,500 523 15,440 90 172 5,500 524 15,882 90 168 5,500 525 16,629 90 136 5,500 526 22,359 90 140 5,500 527 27,426 90 143 5,500 528 16,764 90 160 5,500 529 15,371 90 165 5,500 530 44,983 90 165 5,500 531 47,788 90 125 5,500 City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 11 of 45 90-Foot Frontage Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 101 19,897 135 143 5,500 102 13,371 90 148 5,500 103 13,297 90 148 5,500 104 13,297 90 148 5,500 105 13,297 90 148 5,500 106 13,297 90 148 5,500 107 13,297 90 148 5,500 108 13,297 90 148 5,500 109 14,599 90 148 5,500 110 14,840 90 148 5,500 111 25,529 90 148 5,500 Avg. 18,479 65-Foot Frontage Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 301 9,993 78 125 4,400 302 8,450 65 125 4,400 303 8,450 65 125 4,400 304 8,450 65 125 4,400 305 8,450 65 125 4,400 306 8,450 65 125 4,400 307 11,132 65 125 4,400 308 13,748 78 131 4,400 309 8,925 65 129 4,400 310 12,282 65 126 4,400 311 8,607 65 125 4,400 312 8,126 65 125 4,400 313 8,257 65 125 4,400 314 8,795 65 130 4,400 315 9,683 65 142 4,400 316 12,836 78 125 4,400 317 12,591 78 150 4,400 318 10,414 65 145 4,400 319 10,228 65 145 4,400 320 11,448 65 145 4,400 321 13,180 65 147 4,400 322 12,052 65 145 4,400 323 11,853 65 142 4,400 324 10,767 65 142 4,400 325 9,524 65 139 4,400 City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 12 of 45 326 9,135 65 132 4,400 327 8,609 65 132 4,400 328 8,609 65 132 4,400 329 10,232 65 132 4,400 330 9,750 65 125 4,400 331 9,478 65 125 4,400 332 10,900 65 125 4,400 333 16,107 78 125 4,400 334 11,215 78 136 4,400 335 10,404 65 153 4,400 336 11,607 65 167 4,400 337 10,622 65 142 4,400 338 11,545 65 133 4,400 339 14,532 65 125 4,400 340 12,761 65 125 4,400 341 13,019 65 125 4,400 342 10,858 65 125 4,400 343 10,887 65 163 4,400 344 10,502 65 152 4,400 345 9,306 65 134 4,400 346 10,263 78 125 4,400 347 10,020 78 125 4,400 348 9,385 65 135 4,400 349 10,984 65 154 4,400 350 10,228 65 126 4,400 351 8,474 65 126 4,400 352 8,474 65 125 4,400 353 8,776 65 125 4,400 354 8,864 65 125 4,400 355 13,586 65 131 4,400 356 14,313 65 130 4,400 357 12,790 65 132 4,400 358 12,963 65 125 4,400 359 14,449 65 145 4,400 360 11,360 65 126 4,400 361 11,011 78 125 4,400 362 10,508 65 142 4,400 363 11,458 65 145 4,400 364 13,033 65 130 4,400 365 12,790 65 130 4,400 366 12,940 65 132 4,400 367 12,790 65 130 4,400 368 9,728 65 131 4,400 369 10,036 65 140 4,400 370 10,303 78 125 4,400 City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 13 of 45 371 8,933 65 130 4,400 372 9,242 65 130 4,400 373 9,242 65 130 4,400 374 9,242 65 130 4,400 375 9,236 65 130 4,400 376 8,450 65 130 4,400 377 8,450 65 130 4,400 378 8,450 65 130 4,400 379 8,450 65 130 4,400 380 8,450 65 130 4,400 381 8,801 65 130 4,400 382 15,319 95 130 4,400 383 11,772 78 145 4,400 384 9,453 65 145 4,400 385 9,780 65 145 4,400 386 9,898 65 134 4,400 387 9,263 65 130 4,400 388 8,450 65 130 4,400 389 8,450 65 130 4,400 390 8,450 65 130 4,400 391 8,450 65 130 4,400 392 8,450 65 130 4,400 393 8,749 65 130 4,400 394 9,189 65 130 4,400 395 9,390 65 130 4,400 396 9,313 65 130 4,400 397 8,922 65 134 4,400 398 12,754 78 130 4,400 399 8,474 65 130 4,400 400 8,450 65 130 4,400 401 8,450 65 130 4,400 402 8,450 65 130 4,400 403 8,450 65 130 4,400 404 8,450 65 130 4,400 405 10,504 65 130 4,400 406 11,092 65 130 4,400 407 8,819 65 130 4,400 408 8,450 65 130 4,400 409 8,729 65 130 4,400 410 12,658 78 131 4,400 411 10,192 78 127 4,400 412 9,559 65 127 4,400 413 9,104 65 145 4,400 414 9,702 65 137 4,400 415 14,151 65 135 4,400 City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 14 of 45 416 9,676 65 135 4,400 417 8,779 65 130 4,400 418 8,570 65 130 4,400 419 9,103 65 136 4,400 420 9,344 65 143 4,400 421 9,170 65 143 4,400 422 10,929 78 132 4,400 423 12,265 78 142 4,400 424 9,984 65 130 4,400 425 10,465 65 130 4,400 426 11,434 65 159 4,400 427 12,108 65 170 4,400 428 12,591 65 178 4,400 429 12,589 65 178 4,400 430 12,101 65 170 4,400 431 10,764 65 130 4,400 432 9,554 65 130 4,400 433 11,046 78 128 4,400 434 12,618 65 141 4,400 435 14,656 65 212 4,400 436 14,357 65 248 4,400 437 14,285 65 248 4,400 438 13,661 65 200 4,400 439 12,931 65 134 4,400 Avg. 10,475 Design Standards 1. The permitted uses in this zoning district shall be single-family detached houses and their accessory uses. House styles include the Lennar Lifestyle, Luxury, Landmark, Classic and Villa home plans; similar or equivalent as approved by the Community Development Director. 2. The 31 northern lots that are adjacent to Lake Lucy Ridge and Ashling meadows maybe developed by another entity. These lots are a part of these governing documents; the home styles may differ but must be similar in architectural scale and quality (Exhibit A). EASEMENTS & RIGHT-OF-WAY There is an existing 20’ wide Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) sewer and utility easement located on the property as illustrated on the submitted preliminary plat. Generally, the easement traverses from the northwest corner of the property to the southeast corner of the property, bisecting the site diagonally. The applicant is proposing to impact the easement at two locations. The first location is within the northwest corner of the site where grading and construction of Street “Z” and Basin 200 are proposed. The second location is to the east of Street “G” where grading is proposed behind Lots 143-144. The MCES has been City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 15 of 45 supplied with the applicant’s site plans. The applicant shall address all comments and conditions set forth by the MCES. An agreement to construct any of the proposed improvements over the MCES’s easement must be executed and supplied to the city for review prior to the issuance of grading permits. Furthermore, the applicant shall supply callouts identifying the width of the MCES easement on the plat prior to recording. The applicant is proposing standard drainage and utility easements (D&U’s) around the majority of the lots on the provided preliminary plat. Additional 20’ wide D&U’s have been provided within Lots 116-130 abutting Street “Z”, Lots 108-111 abutting Street “A”, and Lots 102-105 abutting Topaz Drive. These 20’ wide D&U’s are provided for stormwater collection and conveyance systems located in backyards that fall outside the standard D&U’s. Furthermore, 30’ wide D&U’s between Lots 133-134 abutting Street “H” and Lots 116-117 abutting Street “D” have been proposed. These additional 30’ wide D&U’s are provided for access to proposed utilities and the north side of Basin 300. However, 30’ wide D&U’s between additional lots throughout the development shall be provided in areas requiring access to utilities and stormwater basins. This shall include the location of a water main connection off Street “Z” to a stub off Ruby Lane, discussed under the “Water” section of this staff report, and between lots abutting stormwater Basins 100, 300, and 600. Right-of-way dedication will be required along the east side of Galpin Boulevard per Carver County’s review and comments (see attached “Carver County Development / Access Review Comments” letter), the Highway 117 Corridor Study, and the typical roadway sections identified in the county’s Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Corridor Study identifies specific right-of- way needs and the plat will be required to follow and be consistent with the preferred roadway alternative. The right-of-way shall tie into the existing highway right-of-way north and south of the proposed development. The preliminary and final plat proposals shall be reviewed and approved as to form and content by the county surveyor and city. Specific right-of-way dedications and recommended cross-section submittals are referenced in the county’s comments under Item 5. Currently, there exists overhead utilities within the right-of-way abutting the development on the east side of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant will be required to underground all overhead utilities from W. 78th Street to the northern property line. Underground utilities reduce the risk of accidents, such as vehicles colliding with poles and service impacts such as storms knocking down limbs on lines. It also improves the overall esthetics of roadway corridors and neighborhoods, which improves and promotes livability. The undergrounding of utilities from W. 78th Street to the southern property line is required to maintain continuity, discourage associated impacts with piecemealed undergrounding activities, and promote constructability. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY The provided existing conditions survey does not call out any existing septic systems or water wells. However, Engineering and Public Works are aware of a potential septic system near the “guard house” on the development. The applicant shall determine, to the satisfaction of the City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 16 of 45 Engineering and Public Works departments, that there are in fact, no existing septic systems and/or wells located on the property. If found, the abandonment of all existing wells shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health’s review and regulations, and the abandonment of all existing septic systems shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s review and regulations. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any abandonment(s). There is an existing MCES sanitary and utility easement on parcels 250100400 and 257580040 that is not delineated on the existing conditions survey. The applicant shall identify the document numbers and illustrate the extents of the easement on these parcels and resubmit the existing conditions survey. GRADING The applicant is proposing to construct five stormwater basins (Basins 100, 200, 300, 400, 600) within and around the development. Through the preliminary grading plan and grading details, drainage from individual lots will be routed away from buildings into a series of catch basins and reinforced concrete pipe located within drainage and utility easements in backyards. Drainage from proposed public streets will be collected through catch basins located next to curbs and routed to stormwater basins within and around the site. The applicant has not provided in the narrative or on the preliminary plans details regarding whether the site will be mass graded or if the site will be graded under a phased approach. The applicant shall supply a mass grading plan or a phased grading plan (whichever is applicable) for review and approval by the city prior to the issuance of grading plans. There are proposed driveways that approach the maximum 10% grade (e.g. Lot 130 abutting Street “Z” is at 9.9% grade) and one street that reaches the maximum 7% grade (Street “A” near station 24+50) allowed by city ordinance. Staff recommends limiting maximum grades in order to achieve a higher level of constructability. Any constructed street or driveway that exceeds maximum allowable grades upon final inspection will be required to be removed and replaced. The applicant has not supplied top of curb elevations or spot elevations at the center of proposed driveways at curb line on the submitted grading plans. Updated grading plans shall be submitted illustrating these elevations for review by the city to ensure constructability and any potential conflicts. The proposed grading to the north of Street “Z” between stations 6+50 and 11+00 is called out as a 2:1 slope. The slope shall be reduced to 2.5:1, at a minimum, upon submittal of construction drawings and prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Certain locations that call out the emergency overflow route (EOF) are missing the associated drainage arrows. All locations of the EOF shall be illustrated with accompanying drainage arrows upon resubmittal of grading plans. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 17 of 45 There are two bluffs within the site. One bluff is located west of Lots 111-115 abutting Lucy Ridge Lane and a second bluff is located south of Lots 125-126 abutting Street “Z”. The grading plans do not indicate the locations or extent of the bluffs and their appropriate buffers and setbacks. The extent and location of all bluffs shall be provided on the grading plans upon submittal of construction drawings, and the grading and/or building of any structures adjacent to bluffs shall be subject to review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Proposed grading for Basin 400 encroaches into the southern section of the city’s well house #3 and water station site off Galpin Boulevard. The applicant will be required to perform site improvements associated with the well house site as discussed under the “Water” section of this staff report, including the relocation of the access driveway off Galpin Boulevard. Additionally, there is a significant oak tree that shall be protected during grading operations. The grading plans shall show the relocated access driveway location and grades, the location and footprint of the well house, and call out the protection of the oak tree upon resubmittal of grading plans. There is a low point indicated on the preliminary grading plans at the intersection of Street “E” and Street “H” that does not align with the proposed storm catch basin. The applicant shall adjust the grading plans so that the low point is adjacent to the catch basin for optimal drainage and to reduce ponding or “bird bathing”. The preliminary grading plans indicate drainage of backyards from Lots 164-174 abutting Street “A” to runoff directly onto the proposed public trail, north of Wetland 11. The applicant shall submit revised grading plans and stormwater plans so that no stormwater runoff flows directly onto the public trail. Furthermore, no untreated stormwater shall be routed to wetlands prior to treatment. Immediately east of Lot 110 abutting Street “A”, the applicant is proposing a stormwater conveyance pipe with catch basins. The preliminary grading plans indicate a grade of approximately 30% running perpendicular to the stormwater system. The applicant shall adjust the grading plans to create a grade of not more than 10% over the utility for maintenance and accessibility purposes. Furthermore, staff has concerns regarding slope stability immediately east of Lot 110. The applicant shall submit an updated geotechnical report, including soil types, groundwater elevations, and slope stability calculations for this area based on the proposed structure to be constructed on the lot. The public trail adjacent to the back lot lines of Lots 112-115 has a proposed continuous grade of 8% extending over 150’. While the proposed public trail system meets the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for maximum running slope of trail segments (no more than 30% of the total trail length to exceed a 1:12 slope), staff recommends the installation of a level resting pad over this continuous grade. This recommendation is based on the intent of ADAAG which is to provide access to the greatest extent possible. The plat’s final grading plans, ponds, and right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the county and the city to show how they conform to the potential City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 18 of 45 future Galpin Boulevard reconstruction. A cross reference of grading plans, profiles, and respective cross sections should be provided at key locations such as intersections, ponds, or other special features for review by the county and city prior to acceptance. RETAINING WALLS There are three proposed retaining walls on the site. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect and shall be constructed of a durable material (smooth face concrete/poured in place, masonry/mortared, railroad ties and timber are prohibited). No such plans or details were submitted with the plan sheets and must be provided prior to issuance of grading permits. The retaining wall on the south side of the development behind Lots 108-111 abutting Street “A” is approximately 420’ long and ranges from 4’-10’ tall. The retaining wall is currently proposed to be offset approximately 10’ from a proposed stormwater conveyance line. The retaining wall 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. The 1.5:1 buffer is required for maintenance and repair purposes and to maintain structural stability of the wall during such activities. The retaining wall on the west side of the development behind Lots 161-163 abutting Street “A” is approximately 170’ long. Top of wall and bottom of wall spot elevations were not provided. The updated grading plans shall include the top of wall and bottom of wall elevations. The retaining wall on the north side of the development behind Lots 123-125 abutting Street “Z” is approximately 200’ long and ranges from 6’-8’ tall. The construction of this wall appears to be within a bluff setback. Pending updated grading plans that illustrate the bluff, addressed previously under the “Grading” section of this staff report, the retaining wall may have to be adjusted outside the bluff protection area. STREETS The applicant is proposing the construction of nine new streets (Streets “A”-“H” and Street “Z”) and the extension of two existing streets (Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge Lane) that shall be owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. All newly constructed street sections shall be designed to meet the current standard specifications and detail plates for residential streets. These new streets and extensions will result in six cul-de- sacs with five of the six proposed cul-de-sacs meeting current City Code and standard specifications. Street “Z”, a newly constructed street and cul-de-sac in the northern section of the development, exceeds the maximum length for a cul-de-sac per city ordinance. City ordinance section 18.57.k limits the length of any cul-de-sac to 800’. Street “Z” is proposed as a cul-de-sac with a length of 1376’ measured from the centerline of Galpin Boulevard to the center point of the turnaround radius. However, Engineering recommends approval of the cul-de-sac as City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 19 of 45 the topography would require substantial grading and the loss of significant trees that would alter the physical character of the property and surrounding parcels (Ordinance 18.57.k.2). Furthermore, public outreach efforts and public hearings were conducted by the city regarding the option for a local through street connecting Galpin Boulevard to Lucy Ridge Lane (i.e. Street “Z”). The responses received from residences in the Ashling Meadows neighborhood noted that they opposed the connection. The concerns were regarding perceived increased cut-through traffic, safety associated with an increase in traffic through residential neighborhoods, and loss of the natural barrier between neighborhoods. The alternative to connect Galpin Boulevard with Lucy Ridge Lane was conceptually proposed back in June of 2018 by the applicant (see exhibit below). Exhibit 1: Pioneer Engineering’s Concept Plan 07 from 6-1-2018 As the applicant has proposed not to extend or connect the development of the north section through the existing stub off Ruby Lane, the developer shall remove the existing hard surface and construct half-street improvements (extending curb & gutter) to maintain the continuity of Topaz Drive. The city will reach out to the property owners abutting the removed stub to discuss vacating the right-of-way, while maintaining utility easements over existing utilities. Access to Street “Z” is from Galpin Boulevard, a collector road. There is an existing driveway 30 feet south of Street “Z” providing access to parcel 250100400. This spacing does not meet MnDOT Access Management Guidelines or Carver County’s requirements for access points off collector roads. The parcel’s access from Galpin Boulevard shall be abandoned and realigned to City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 20 of 45 tie into Street “Z”. Additionally, a water stub for future connection shall be installed to serve the property. The city has had discussions with the resident of this property and has obtained verbal agreeance of such a realignment and future water service connection. The applicant has supplied a geotechnical evaluation report that was completed by Braun Intertec Corporation on June 29, 2018. The report discussed and explored design and construction recommendations for roadway sections, amongst other topics. The report utilized eight boring locations for the entire site. Due to the size of the development, the city will require additional borings. In-situ soil strata and subsoil conditions over a large area, such as this development (approximately 52 acres), requires a more comprehensive understanding of subsoil constraints that additional borings can provide. The city will require additional borings where roadways are to be constructed and at all cul-de-sac locations. The city will require the applicant to submit an updated geotechnical evaluation report based on the additional borings. Sidewalks and pedestrian access points have been proposed on a majority of the streets throughout the development. However, Streets “D”, “G”, and “Z” will require extensions of sidewalk to provide access within the cul-de-sacs. Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with city standard specifications and detail plates. Furthermore, there are considerable stretches of sidewalk that do not provide access points or curb ramps to the newly constructed sidewalks. The applicant shall provide curb ramp/access points for every 500 feet of sidewalk. This will result in three additional curb ramps/access points from the provided preliminary site plan. All curb ramps shall be constructed to meet ADA standards and the city’s detail plates. The sidewalk located at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Street “E” terminates with no proposed intersection improvements to access the existing trail system on the west side. The developer will be required to extend connectivity by providing access from the newly constructed east side to the existing west side of Galpin Boulevard by utilizing approved MUTCD practices for pedestrian crosswalk and intersection improvements. Street lights have been proposed throughout the development. No street light construction detail or specifications were provided with the subdivision submittals. A detail of the street lights shall be submitted and reviewed prior to the issuance of building permits. An enumerated list of all street lights and their locations shall be submitted prior to the recording of the final plat. Street lights will be required at all intersections and at the end of each cul-de-sac. The developer will need to work with Xcel Energy for the installation of city-approved street lights. A $300 fee shall be collected with the development contract for each street light for the purpose of electricity costs for the first year of operation. WATER MAIN & SANITARY SEWER Water The applicant is proposing to construct 8” PVC C900 water main throughout the development that shall be owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 21 of 45 the City Council. The development is located between two pressure zones in the city; a high pressure zone and a low pressure zone. To the west in the Longacres neighborhood is a high- pressure zone. To the north and south in the Ashling Meadows and Royal Oak Estates neighborhoods, respectively, are low-pressure zones. The city has modeled the impact of the development based on the proposed usage. It was found that in order to provide adequate pressures and fire flows, water mains shall be tied into the high-pressure zone located on Galpin Boulevard. This will result in some areas of the development experiencing pressures above 90 PSI. Therefore, a portion of the homes will likely require individual pressure reducing valves. The developer will need to work with the Building Department and Public Works Utility Department to determine which homes will require pressure-reducing valves. In the northwest area of the development where Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge Lane will be extended, the developer is proposing to tie into the low-pressure water system via the existing 8” PVC water mains. Engineering does not anticipate any extraordinary impacts to the water system’s pressure or fire flow for the proposed 15 connections. Street “Z” will be tied into the high zone water system via the existing 14” HDPE SDR 11 water main off Galpin Boulevard. Street “Z” is currently proposed as a cul-de-sac and the applicant is proposing the creation of a dead end system. Public Works will require the applicant to resubmit plans to tie into the proposed water main on Street “Z” to the existing water main stub located off Ruby Lane, to the north. Because Street “Z” will be within the high-pressure zone and the north tie-in location on Ruby Lane (Ashling Meadows neighborhood) is within the low-pressure zone, updated construction plans shall call out a gate valve to be installed where the system ties in. This gate valve will remain closed in order to separate the two zones and will be opened by city forces during any maintenance or repair work in order to “back feed” the system, as necessary. The majority of the water main to be installed is within the central and southern portion of the development (Streets “A”-“H”). The applicant is proposing to create a looped water system which meets city best management practices for water utilities. Looped systems improve reliability by feeding water from two directions rather than one, which subsequently allows service to continue during an event that may otherwise cause disruption to water service. Water main connections will be tied into the high zone water system off Galpin Boulevard via a 14” HDPE SDR 11 pipe. The applicant shall verify the location of the connections on the construction plans. All water main taps, connections, and required water main testing shall be witnessed by the city. A pre-construction meeting prior to the commencement of any work shall be scheduled by the developer’s contractor with the city. Additionally, all underground utilities on the east side of Galpin Boulevard have not been located. For example, the city’s raw water main that feeds the west treatment plant. This area on the east side of Galpin Boulevard is where water and sanitary sewer will cross before entering the development. Thus, prior to the issuance of building permits, all underground utilities in this area shall be surveyed and illustrated in the profile sheets in order to identify any conflicts. The applicant is proposing a “land swap” to build Lot 163 abutting Street “A” within the city’s well house #3 property off Galpin Boulevard. This exchange of land will require the execution City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 22 of 45 of an agreement to be reviewed and approved by the city prior to acceptance and recording of the final plat. The agreement will set forth conditions for improvements to the well house #3 site in exchange for the land required for Lot 163. The improvements will include: the relocation of the ingress/egress driveway to well house #3 due to vertical curve and sight distance hazards, relocation of the SCADA antenna due to the impact of Lot 163, improvements to the hard surface area surrounding the well house which shall include a turning movements analysis to ensure proper widths for design vehicles are adequate, and potential landscaping improvements. Furthermore, the applicant must maintain a 50-foot setback of all structures from well house #3 in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. From the proposed preliminary water plans, there are multiple areas where water main and sanitary sewer mains will cross. All crossings of water and sewer utility mains are required to have 18” of vertical separation and 10’ of horizontal separation, measured from the edge of pipe. Additionally, where water mains cross sanitary sewer mains, the sanitary sewer shall be constructed of C900 water main material and the sanitary sewer pipe length shall be centered over the water main crossing. The preliminary plans delineate areas where water main will run closely adjacent to, or under, stormwater catch basins. This may cause a potential for freezing of the water main at these locations due to inadequate ground cover from catch basin bottoms (sumps) to the water main. 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. Plan and profile sheets provided with the construction drawings of the water main shall include the location and depth of catch basins and their sumps for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The location of gate valves at some locations are up to 40’ away from tees. The applicant shall cluster all valves at tees to obtain a minimum of 5’ spacing from the tee to the valves, where feasible. Review of valve locations and other water main appurtenances shall be conducted by Public Works and Engineering prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant shall ensure all fire hydrant spacing meets fire codes and are subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department. Sanitary Sewer The applicant is proposing to construct 8” PVC sanitary sewer main throughout the development that shall be owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. The entire sanitary sewer system will operate as a gravity system and connects to existing sanitary sewer mains at five locations (Lucy Ridge Lane, Topaz Drive, the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Hunter Drive, a direct connection to the MCES sanitary sewer trunk line on Street “Z”, and at the Majestic Way extension off Street “D” through a utility easement). City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 23 of 45 As proposed, the connection to the MCES sanitary sewer trunk line from Street “Z” and its subsequent manhole are not within the roadway, down steep grades, and abutting Basin 200. The applicant shall resubmit construction drawings to provide the access manhole and tie-in on and within Street “Z”. All conditions set forth by the MCES shall be addressed by the applicant for the required access manhole and direct connection to their trunk line, and all permits required shall be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. The sanitary sewer line to the south, adjacent to Lots 101-109 abutting Street “A”, are proposed to be constructed at the minimum slope for gravity systems based on 10 States Standards (0.4% for 8” PVC pipe). It is the recommendation of the Engineering department to increase the slope to a minimum of 2% for a more effective cleaning velocity. This approach is feasible as the proposed manhole depths are 12-22 feet (e.g. MH-92) from top of lid to invert-outs. Also, the tie-in of this sewer line is to a manhole at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Hunter Drive. From the proposed preliminary plans, the applicant is proposing a new manhole, while city records show an existing manhole directly adjacent to the proposed new manhole. The applicant shall field verify this connection and its configuration prior to the submittal of construction plans. The preliminary plans submitted utilize a nomenclature for identifying proposed manholes that differs from the city’s. Prior to the submittal of construction drawings, the applicant shall ensure the city’s manhole naming conventions are incorporated within the plans. The city will provide a list of appropriate manhole identifiers. This will ensure an efficient transition of the newly constructed public improvements into the city’s asset management system for sanitary sewer appurtenances. 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. Based on the provided plan sheets, the applicant is proposing sanitary sewer that reaches a maximum depth of 26.47’ (see MH-26 in front of Lot 172 abutting Street “A”). PVC sanitary sewer pipes that have a burial depth of 0-16 feet are required to be class SDR 35, burial depths of 16-26 feet requires class SDR 26, and burial depths of greater than 26 feet requires class C900. The applicant shall update construction drawings indicating sanitary sewer pipes that fall within these burial depths to have the appropriate class of PVC. Furthermore, all 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 for inside drops. The preliminary plans show one manhole (MH-99 in front of Lot 118 abutting Street “C”) having sewer flows in opposing directions, i.e. the east “invert out” flows to the east, and the west “invert-out” flows to the west. The applicant shall submit construction drawings that isolate flow directions via separate manholes and independent pipe systems. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 24 of 45 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Please note that due to the need to review additional stormwater information, additional comments will likely be provided on any resubmitted plans. General The applicant has delineated all wetlands on the property and agencies have approved the boundaries and type. 1. Wetland permitting is required due to the proximity and proposed impacts to wetlands on site. 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. See “Wetland Alteration” of this staff report for more information. 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. A 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. Preliminary Plans 1. Show all existing storm sewer and other water resource related features in plans. 2. Adjust and show all easements over the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’ sanitary sewer on the preliminary and final plat. 3. 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 water main or sanitary sewer throughout the site. 4. 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. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 25 of 45 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. 5. The proposed piped outlet being modeled for Basin 400 is not shown in the plans. 6. Access routes for all proposed stormwater basins are required for maintenance purposes. Applicant should callout access locations for all proposed stormwater basins. 7. 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. HydroCAD Model 1. The soil borings provided show that there are clay soils throughout the site. Modeling should be updated to reflect the D soils present. 2. 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. 3. Existing and proposed conditions drainage area maps should be updated to show the location and boundaries of all subcatchments included in the models. 4. 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. 5. 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 4 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. 6. 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. P8 Model 1. The same total area should be modeled in P8 as in HydroCAD. 2. 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. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 26 of 45 3. 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. 4. Watersheds 201 and 600 are only modeling the impervious area. The pervious area in these watersheds should be added to the model. 5. 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. Stormwater Management Plan 1. 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. WETLAND ALTERATION Wetland Protection The plan set shows intent to impact several wetlands on site. A Wetland Replacement Plan application needs to be submitted to the city and reviewed per the WCA. Many requirements of Article VI have not been addressed. Some of the important requirements include: 1. 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). 2. 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-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. 3. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by this Code. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 27 of 45 4. 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, (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. 5. 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. Please show how hydrologic patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Staff review will be conditional upon an approved Wetland Replacement Plan. 9. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. 10. 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. 11. 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. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 28 of 45 Wetland Acres Status 1 41.9 preserved 2 0.18 preserved 3 0.16 filled 4 0.2 filled 5 0.05 filled 6 0.06 preserved 7 0.62 preserved 8 0.17 preserved 9 0.38 preserved 10 0.13 preserved 11 2.79 preserved 12 0.6 filled 12A 0.04 filled 13 0.03 preserved 14 0.23 filled Percent Total 47.54 100% Filled 1.28 3% Preserved 46.26 97% City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 29 of 45 EROSION PREVENTION & SEDIMENT CONTROL The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). The applicant has prepared and submitted a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the city for review. The SWPPP is a required submittal element for preliminary plat review. No earth disturbing activities may occur until an approved SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements as listed in Parts III and IV of the permit. The SWPPP will need to be updated as the plans are finalized, when the contractor and their sub-contractors are identified and as other conditions change. Financial Assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be $7,500.00 per acre. The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls. STORMWATER UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGES Section 4-30 of City Code sets out the fees associated with surface water management. Water quality and water quantity fees are collected with a subdivision. These fees are based on land use type and are intended to reflect the fact that the more intense the development type, the greater the degradation of surface water. This fee will be applied to the new lot of record being created. It is calculated as shown in the table below: The SWMP Fee is $432,183.23 pending any plan revisions. 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 City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 30 of 45 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. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 31 of 45 The applicant for the Galpin Property development submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. However, the minimum parkland dedication of 9.1 acres was not included in the calculations; it has been incorporated into staff’s calculations. Total upland area (excl wetlands, bluff and parkland) 130.2 acres Baseline canopy coverage 69% or 89.8 acres Minimum canopy coverage required 46% or 59.8 acres Proposed tree preservation 36% or 47.5 acres The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage for the site; therefore, the applicant must bring the canopy coverage on site up to the 46% minimum. The difference between the required coverage and the remaining coverage is multiplied by 1.2 for total area to be replaced. One tree is valued at 1,089 SF. Minimum required 59.8 acres Less canopy preserved 47.5 acres Minimum canopy coverage to be replaced 12.3 acres Multiplied by 1.2 14.76 acres Divided by 1089 = Total number of trees to be planted 590 trees The applicant has submitted a landscape plan showing a total of 397 trees to be planted in the development. The applicant shall increase tree planting in the development to meet minimum requirements. While it may seem that tree removal on the site is significant, the intensity of it is regulated to the proposed development of the west side of the property. Out of a total of 89.8 acres, which does not include wooded wetlands, forested bluffs or parkland dedication, 42.3 acres will be removed for homes, but a majority of 47.5 (52% of existing woods) acres will be preserved. This is a positive outcome for the preservation of natural resources on the site. The development is required to install a buffer yard along Galpin Boulevard. Landscaping Item Required Proposed Bufferyard B – Galpin Boulevard., 1200’ 12 Overstory trees 24 Understory trees 24 Shrubs 12 Overstory trees 66 Evergreen trees 0 Shrubs The applicant is also proposing bufferyard planting along the south property line. According to ordinance, a low-density development abutting a low-density development is not required to have a bufferyard. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 32 of 45 Landscaping Item Required Proposed Bufferyard B – South property line, 1050’ 0 Overstory trees 0 Understory trees 0 Shrubs 6 Overstory trees 61 Evergreen trees 0 Shrubs The city well house on Galpin Boulevard abuts the development. Staff recommends that buffer plantings be added to the east of the building. There are also three oaks on city property to the south of the building that appear to be within the grading limits for a proposed pond. Staff recommends that these trees remain and the grading limits be adjusted to provide for preservation by avoiding any grading within the critical root zone areas of the trees. The plant schedule submitted with the landscape plan lists overstory and evergreen tree selections. Applying the city ordinance dealing with species diversity, each type (species) of tree should be in quantities of 40 or less (10% of the total) and each group (Genus) of trees (maples, oaks, etc.) should have no more than 80 specified. Using those designations, staff recommends that Autumn Blaze maples be eliminated from the plant schedule since maples comprise 23% of the total trees and these types of maples are overplanted and have an undesirable structure as they mature. The applicant shall choose a different genus of tree to replace the Autumn Blaze. Other trees which are noted in excess of the maximum quantities allowed include Northern Pin Oak, Black Hills Spruce and White Pine. These quantities must be reduced to a maximum of 10% of the total trees and new varieties of trees added to increase diversity of plantings. Additionally, Northern Pin Oak shall be replaced with white, bur, red or bicolor oak species. The alkaline soils of Chanhassen make the Northern Pin Oak selection undesirable for long-term survivability. Additional selections of tree species should expand the breadth of tree types and take into consideration soil conditions and future hardiness zone changes. Staff has reviewed the tree clearing limits for the development on the plans and on site. There are a number of trees at the edge of the grading limits that staff would like to consider for preservation. Staff requests that the developer conduct a walk-through of the grading limits on site prior to removals with city staff to inspect for opportunities for additional tree preservation. Grading and tree removal is not allowed within the bluff impact zone. The grading plan does not show the impact zone on the plans and proposed grading and tree removal to the top of the bluffs. The applicant shall revise the plans to show the bluff impact zone on both bluffs and eliminate grading within these areas. Additionally, private lot boundaries should not encompass surveyed bluff areas. Property lines could meet the edge of the bluff, but not encroach into it. Staff recommends that lots with significant tree cover contain conservation easements to protect the wooded areas. Lots 101, 104, 105, 130 and 131 should 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. Staff fully supports the clustering of development/density transfer to preserve the significant open space to the east. The existing woods on the east side of the property contain significant City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 33 of 45 oaks, maples, and other native species. Many of these trees are over a hundred years old and provide a wooded legacy within the community. Traditional subdivision development would not preserve as many trees and would compromise the health of Lake Ann by removing woods and vegetation along the lakeshore. As stated earlier, the applicant is preserving a majority of the existing woods on site thereby allowing the Chanhassen community, and more directly the residents of this neighborhood, an experience not found in every community whereby significant open space is reachable and accessible from someone’s front door. That experience is a rare gem and would offer this neighborhood, and the others adjacent to it, an enhanced quality of life. PARKS & RECREATION Summary Lennar is proposing to develop 191 acres of property located midway between W. 78th Street and Lake Lucy Road and east of Galpin Boulevard. The existing zoning is rural residential and the existing guide plan designation is residential low density (1.2- 4 units per acre). Two concept plans were originally submitted by Lennar for consideration. One plan titled Concept Plan 04 depicted an invariable plat of uniform sized residential single-family lots covering all quadrants of the property. A second plan titled Concept Plan 07 depicted a variable plat of mixed lot sizes clustered to the west-central and north-central quadrants of the property, 3.6 units per acre, and preserving 100+/acres of public park area utilizing a density transfer and park dedication in the eastern quadrant of the property. The Park and Recreation Commission supported the density transfer and park dedication proposal at a concept review on June 28, 2018. Background This site has been held as an estate property in the community for an extended period of time and is now being proposed for development as a single-family home community. The property includes a large quadrant of land identified in the city's Comprehensive Plan as conceptual park expansion area and in the city's Parks and Recreation System Plan as a priority park expansion area. This eastern quadrant proposed for preservation is 100+/acres in size consisting of wetlands and wooded uplands and featuring extensive shoreline on both Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 34 of 45 Discussion Upon completing conceptual plan review with city Commissions and Council this past summer, Lennar also held a neighborhood meeting in November and met with individual residents to receive feedback on the proposed development. The preliminary plat that has developed as a result of the input gained from these reviews, is an excellent model of the use of a PUD. City Code states "The use of a planned unit development for residential purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and developer. The developer gains the potential for offering reduced lot sizes and the flexibility in development standards that result in a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordnance requirements". The city's PUD ordinance addresses the desire for the creation of parks and open space consistent with the city's planning documents. The proposed PUD, with the noted conditions, provides public benefit and helps the city meet stated goals with respect to parks, trails, and open space by: • Preserving for the public 100+/acres of unique natural open space with very high recreational and environmental value. This includes 50+/acres of upland around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy that might otherwise be privatized. • Providing land and connections for trails to eliminate trail gaps and better connect the community and natural areas. • Allowing for the expansion of Lake Ann Park and enhancing its role as Chanhassen's premier community park. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 35 of 45 This proposed PUD benefits all parties and ultimately fulfills the desires and intent of the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Park and Recreation System Plan. On December 28, 2018, the city received letters from Lennar and Comerica requesting additional compensation for the proposed 50+/acre dedication of upland for park purposes above and beyond the granting of full park dedication fee credit ($1,107,800) and application of a density transfer moving housing density from the eastern half of the property to the western half of the property. In that this is a PUD application, staff is not recommending that compensation be granted beyond the density transfer and full park dedication fee credit. RECOMMENDATION Denial “The City Council denies 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 denies the Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; “The City Council denies the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 181 lots, three outlots and dedication of public right-of-way, as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated February 28, 2019. And The City Council a adopts the attached findings of fact and decision for denial. Approval “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 impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; “The City Council approves the Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 181 lots, three outlots and dedication of public right-of-way, as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated February 28, 2019, subject to conditions in the staff report subject to the following conditions: City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 36 of 45 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 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. The width of the MCES sewer and utility easement shall be called out on the final plat prior to acceptance and recording. 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 109 and 110 abutting the cul- de-sac of Lucy Ridge Lane and Topaz Drive, Lots 152 and 153 abutting Street “E”, Lots 119 and 120 abutting Street “D”, in the area of Lots 128 and 130 abutting Street “Z” where the City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 37 of 45 water main loop is to be installed, and 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. The developer shall underground all overhead utilities from W. 78th Street to the northern properly line of the development. 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. Slopes north of Street “Z” called out as 2:1 between stations 6+50 and 11+00 shall be adjusted to achieve a minimum slope of 2.5:1. 16. Drainage arrows for all EOF routes shall be included on the grading plans prior to issuance of grading permits. 17. Grading plans shall be updated to include bluff extents and setbacks. 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. The low point south of the catch basin (CBMH-306) near the intersection of Street “E” and Street “H” shall be adjusted to be adjacent to the catch basin. 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. Slopes shall not exceed 10% immediately to the east of Lot 110 abutting Street “A” where stormwater conveyance systems are proposed. 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. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 38 of 45 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. Spot elevations of top of wall and bottom of wall for the retaining wall behind Lots 161-163 abutting Street “A” shall be included on the grading plans. 29. Grading and construction within bluff setbacks are subject to review and approval by the city prior to issuance of grading permits. This includes, but is not limited to, the retaining wall located south of Lots 123-125 abutting Street “Z”. 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 existing driveway off Galpin Boulevard located on parcel 250100400 shall be abandoned and tied into 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. The applicant shall install curb ramps for pedestrian access to stretches of sidewalk greater than 500’ between intersections and/or proposed curb ramps. 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. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 39 of 45 41. A detail of the proposed street lights shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits. 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 plans 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. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 40 of 45 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. 59. A 30’ utility easement shall be recorded over the existing public sewer line, within Outlot A located near the south-central area of the preliminary plat, prior to acceptance of final plat. 60. 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. 61. The applicant shall field verify the proposed sanitary sewer connection and existing sewer system configuration at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Hunter Drive prior to the submittal of construction plans. 62. The applicant shall ensure the city’s sanitary sewer nomenclature is incorporated in the construction plans. 63. 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. 64. 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. 65. 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. 66. The applicant shall submit construction drawings that isolate flow directions via separate manholes and independent pipe systems. 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: 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 City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 41 of 45 • 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 1. Wetland permitting is required due to the proximity and proposed impacts to wetlands on site. 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. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 42 of 45 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. 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. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 43 of 45 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 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. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 44 of 45 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. 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 501, 504, 505, 530 and 531 should have protective easements over parts of the lot containing existing forest. Specifically, the rear 40’ of Lot 501, the rear 100’ of Lots 504 and 505, the westerly 200’ of Lot 530 and the easterly 250’-300’ of Lot 531. City Council Galpin Property Preliminary Subdivision Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2019-01 January 15, 2019 and Updated March 11, 2019 Page 45 of 45 And The City Council a adopts the attached findings of fact and decision of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. PUD Ordinance 3. Findings of Fact and Decision - approval 4. Finding of Fact and Decision - denial 5. Development Review Application 6. Project Narrative 7. Affidavit of Mailing 8. Compliance Table 9. March 5, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes 10. Exhibit A – Home Styles 11. Pioneer Engineering Plan set dated February 28, 2019 12. Fire Marshall Letter 13. Carver County Development / Access Review Comments Letter 14. MCES Comments 15. Army Corp of Engineers dated 1-8-2019 16. Emailed Comments g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-01 galpin site preliminary plat and rezoning pud\pc prelim staff report - 1-15-19.docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the city's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning all property described within Exhibit A from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R. Section 2. The rezoning of this property incorporates the following development design standards: The Galpin Site Zoning Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for single-family detached housing. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. The development will preserve 50 acres of woods adjacent to Lake Ann. There are a number of housing collections with a variety of housing styles and exterior materials with in each collection serving different life stages. Except as modified by this PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM. The property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. 1. Preliminary Plat 2 2. Landscaping Plan 3. Tree Preservation Plan 4. House Plans (Exhibit A) b. Permitted Uses 1. The permitted uses in this zoning district shall be single-family detached houses and their accessory uses. House plans include the Lennar Lifestyle, Luxury, Landmark, Classic and Villa home plans or similar or equivalent plans. c. Design Standards 1. Development - Amenities Design • Integrate pathways with the local street system to maximize access and flexibility of use. 3 2. House designs • There shall be a mix and a variety of housing materials. • Linear repetitive streetscape appearance and building facades shall be avoided by providing variation between the front elevations. No two identical facades shall be located next to each other. • The same front or rear elevations shall not be located directly across from one another. • No similar material/colors shall be located adjacent to each other. • There shall be articulation of wall planes, a variety of roof forms, variation in roof heights or other architectural treatments. • If side loaded garages are incorporated into the development, the front facing wall must be architecturally integrated with the design of the home (no blank wall). d. Lot Requirements and Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: GALPIN PROPERTY COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 90 foot frontage 15,000 90 125 5,500 90 foot frontage ** 11,250 90 125 5,500 65 ft Lots 8,450 65 125 4,400 Front Setback Rear Setback Side Yard Setback Corner Setback CR 117 Setback 20 ft * 25 ft 7.5 ft 20 ft 50 ft 25 ft 25 ft 7.5 ft 20 ft 50 ft Wetland Buffer Setback 20 ft. *25 ft. with Sidewalk **Lots 101-111 90 foot frontage Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 501 18,092 100 177 5,500 502 17,455 90 167 5,500 503 15,030 90 167 5,500 504 22,829 90 249 5,500 505 24,572 90 249 5,500 506 16,733 90 175 5,500 507 18,427 90 201 5,500 508 17,037 90 142 5,500 509 23,848 90 159 5,500 510 20,017 90 137 5,500 511 18,801 90 156 5,500 4 512 17,844 90 167 5,500 513 15,032 90 167 5,500 514 15,030 90 167 5,500 515 16,667 100 167 5,500 516 15,574 90 175 5,500 517 15,514 90 175 5,500 518 15,482 90 174 5,500 519 15,576 90 174 5,500 520 15,300 90 170 5,500 521 15,300 90 170 5,500 522 15,300 90 170 5,500 523 15,440 90 172 5,500 524 15,882 90 168 5,500 525 16,629 90 136 5,500 526 22,359 90 140 5,500 527 27,426 90 143 5,500 528 16,764 90 160 5,500 529 15,371 90 165 5,500 530 44,983 90 165 5,500 531 47,788 90 125 5,500 90 foot frontage Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 101 19,897 135 143 5,500 102 13,371 90 148 5,500 103 13,297 90 148 5,500 104 13,297 90 148 5,500 105 13,297 90 148 5,500 106 13,297 90 148 5,500 107 13,297 90 148 5,500 108 13,297 90 148 5,500 109 14,599 90 148 5,500 110 14,840 90 148 5,500 111 25,529 90 148 5,500 Avg. 18,479 65 foot frontage Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 301 9,993 78 125 4,400 302 8,450 65 125 4,400 303 8,450 65 125 4,400 304 8,450 65 125 4,400 305 8,450 65 125 4,400 306 8,450 65 125 4,400 307 11,132 65 125 4,400 308 13,748 78 131 4,400 309 8,925 65 129 4,400 310 12,282 65 126 4,400 5 311 8,607 65 125 4,400 312 8,126 65 125 4,400 313 8,257 65 125 4,400 314 8,795 65 130 4,400 315 9,683 65 142 4,400 316 12,836 78 125 4,400 317 12,591 78 150 4,400 318 10,414 65 145 4,400 319 10,228 65 145 4,400 320 11,448 65 145 4,400 321 13,180 65 147 4,400 322 12,052 65 145 4,400 323 11,853 65 142 4,400 324 10,767 65 142 4,400 325 9,524 65 139 4,400 326 9,135 65 132 4,400 327 8,609 65 132 4,400 328 8,609 65 132 4,400 329 10,232 65 132 4,400 330 9,750 65 125 4,400 331 9,478 65 125 4,400 332 10,900 65 125 4,400 333 16,107 78 125 4,400 334 11,215 78 136 4,400 335 10,404 65 153 4,400 336 11,607 65 167 4,400 337 10,622 65 142 4,400 338 11,545 65 133 4,400 339 14,532 65 125 4,400 340 12,761 65 125 4,400 341 13,019 65 125 4,400 342 10,858 65 125 4,400 343 10,887 65 163 4,400 344 10,502 65 152 4,400 345 9,306 65 134 4,400 346 10,263 78 125 4,400 347 10,020 78 125 4,400 348 9,385 65 135 4,400 349 10,984 65 154 4,400 350 10,228 65 126 4,400 351 8,474 65 126 4,400 352 8,474 65 125 4,400 353 8,776 65 125 4,400 354 8,864 65 125 4,400 355 13,586 65 131 4,400 356 14,313 65 130 4,400 357 12,790 65 132 4,400 358 12,963 65 125 4,400 359 14,449 65 145 4,400 360 11,360 65 126 4,400 361 11,011 78 125 4,400 6 362 10,508 65 142 4,400 363 11,458 65 145 4,400 364 13,033 65 130 4,400 365 12,790 65 130 4,400 366 12,940 65 132 4,400 367 12,790 65 130 4,400 368 9,728 65 131 4,400 369 10,036 65 140 4,400 370 10,303 78 125 4,400 371 8,933 65 130 4,400 372 9,242 65 130 4,400 373 9,242 65 130 4,400 374 9,242 65 130 4,400 375 9,236 65 130 4,400 376 8,450 65 130 4,400 377 8,450 65 130 4,400 378 8,450 65 130 4,400 379 8,450 65 130 4,400 380 8,450 65 130 4,400 381 8,801 65 130 4,400 382 15,319 95 130 4,400 383 11,772 78 145 4,400 384 9,453 65 145 4,400 385 9,780 65 145 4,400 386 9,898 65 134 4,400 387 9,263 65 130 4,400 388 8,450 65 130 4,400 389 8,450 65 130 4,400 390 8,450 65 130 4,400 391 8,450 65 130 4,400 392 8,450 65 130 4,400 393 8,749 65 130 4,400 394 9,189 65 130 4,400 395 9,390 65 130 4,400 396 9,313 65 130 4,400 397 8,922 65 134 4,400 398 12,754 78 130 4,400 399 8,474 65 130 4,400 400 8,450 65 130 4,400 401 8,450 65 130 4,400 402 8,450 65 130 4,400 403 8,450 65 130 4,400 404 8,450 65 130 4,400 405 10,504 65 130 4,400 406 11,092 65 130 4,400 407 8,819 65 130 4,400 408 8,450 65 130 4,400 409 8,729 65 130 4,400 410 12,658 78 131 4,400 411 10,192 78 127 4,400 412 9,559 65 127 4,400 7 413 9,104 65 145 4,400 414 9,702 65 137 4,400 415 14,151 65 135 4,400 416 9,676 65 135 4,400 417 8,779 65 130 4,400 418 8,570 65 130 4,400 419 9,103 65 136 4,400 420 9,344 65 143 4,400 421 9,170 65 143 4,400 422 10,929 78 132 4,400 423 12,265 78 142 4,400 424 9,984 65 130 4,400 425 10,465 65 130 4,400 426 11,434 65 159 4,400 427 12,108 65 170 4,400 428 12,591 65 178 4,400 429 12,589 65 178 4,400 430 12,101 65 170 4,400 431 10,764 65 130 4,400 432 9,554 65 130 4,400 433 11,046 78 128 4,400 434 12,618 65 141 4,400 435 14,656 65 212 4,400 436 14,357 65 248 4,400 437 14,285 65 248 4,400 438 13,661 65 200 4,400 439 12,931 65 134 4,400 Avg. 10,475 Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____, 2019 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ______________________________) 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of U. S. Home Corporation, DBA Lennar, and Comerica Bank and Trust, NA, for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and Paisley Park Enterprise, Inc. for Rezoning, Preliminary Plat with a Wetland Alteration Permit. On January 15, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U. S. Home Corporation, DBA Lennar, and Comerica Bank and Trust, NA, for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and Paisley Park Enterprise, Inc. for a Rezoning from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development – Residential, PUD-R; Preliminary Plat approval creating 191 lots and three outlots with and approval of a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands on site. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning, subdivision and wetland alteration permit preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and at the conclusion of the public hearing and discussion by the Planning Commission, McGonagill moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning for 191 acres from Rural Residential District (RR) to Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) including PUD ordinance for Galpin Design Standards; the wetland alteration permit and the subdivision preliminary plat creating 191 lots, three outlots and dedication of the right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated December 5, 2018. Commissioners McGonagill, Tietz and Randall voted in favor of the motion for denial. Commissioners Madsen, Weick and Aller voted against the motion for denial. The motion tied with a vote of 3 to 3, and, therefore failed. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public comment meeting. No formal action was taken. On March 11, 2019, City Council met and reviewed the proposed development. They reviewed the testimony from the Planning Commission. The City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District (RR). 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Low Density (net density 1.2-4.0 units per acre) use. The net density of the PUD is 1.3 units an acre. 3. The city’s Comprehensive Plan has identified the eastern portion of this site (49 acres) as future park expansion. This development will dedicate these 49 acres as open space. 2 4. The legal description of the property is: (See Exhibit A) 5. The Zoning Ordinance directs the city to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official city Comprehensive Plan since the zoning is consistent with the land use designation of the property, preserves significant areas of natural habitat, trees and vegetation, protects shore land area, utilizes available infrastructure and provides a variety of housing opportunities; b. The proposed use is and will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area, which are residential uses to the west, north and south, an arterial roadway to the west and is buffered from existing single-family homes by distance and landscaping. The subdivision buffers existing development/homes on the north and south by matching or exceeding lots sizes and creating a landscape buffer; c. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the conditions of approval for the subdivision and wetland alteration; d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed since the use is similar to surrounding uses as well as providing a significant area of permanent open space to be enjoyed by the community, which adds value to all the homes; e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity since adequate infrastructure is available to the site; and f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. This subdivision will dedicate the necessary right of way for the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard. 6. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the city to consider seven (7) possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the zoning ordinance; b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's Comprehensive Plan; c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance; e. The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage; f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but will provide additional required easements; and g. The proposed subdivision is not premature since it is providing all required infrastructure improvements necessary for residential housing as well as improving 3 existing stormwater issues for adjacent properties. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate stormwater drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 7. When approving a Wetland Alteration Permit, the city must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Sec. 20-232, include the following 12 items: a. The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. While the development impacts several wetlands, the majority of the wetlands (97 percent) are being preserved and protected. The developer shall mitigate any wetland impacts as well as preserve significant areas of permanent open space for enjoyment by the community. b. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The developer shall meet all water quality standards required of it. c. The proposed residential development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing and intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The project proposes the development of single-family homes, which currently exist to the south, west and north of this parcel. d. The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The project proposes single-family homes and a significant public open space. e. The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools and will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. The developer shall preserve the easterly outlot as permanent open space. f. The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community, but will increase the value of the community through the provision of additional housing as well as a significant public open space. g. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash since the use is similar to adjacent uses. h. The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Primary access is provided via full intersections off of a collector street. 4 i. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Wetland impacts will be mitigated. A significant amount of the site will be preserved as permanent open space. j. The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. The project proposes the development of single-family homes similar to those in the developments to the north, south and west. k. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. The project proposes the development of residential uses similar to those in the developments to the north, south and west and will increase the value of the community through the provision of additional housing as well as a significant public open space. l. The proposed development will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 20, Articles VI, VII, VIII, XIV - Division 1, XXIII and XXIV of the Chanhassen City Code. 8. The Planning Report #2019-01 dated January 15, 2019, and updated March 11, 2019, and prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. MOTION The City Council approves the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development - Residential, PUD-R; Preliminary Plat approval creating 181 lots and three outlots; and a Wetland Alteration Permit; and an ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the City Code, subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 11th day of March, 2019. BY: BY: Todd, Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor 5 EXHIBIT A Legal Description: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the North Quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South along the North- South Quarter line of said Section 10 as distance of 409.69 feet; thence West along a line parallel with the South line of the North Half of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 435.76 feet to the centerline of the Excelsior-Shakopee Road; thence Northeasterly along said centerline a distance of 419.39 feet to the North line of side Section 10; thence East along the North line of said Section 10 to the point of beginning, all according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof. That part of the South half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 Carver County, Minnesota lying easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117, also known as Galpin Boulevard, and lying North of the South 186.00 feet of said South half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter thereof. Together with: That part westerly 183.00 feet of each of the following two tracts: (1) That part of the South 186.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117 (also known as Galpin Lake Road and formerly known as Chaska and Excelsior Road and as Excelsior and Shakopee Road). (2) That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117 (also known as Galpin Lake Road and formerly known as Chaska and Excelsior Road and as Excelsior and Shakopee Road). Which lies northerly of lines described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 49 minutes 08 seconds West, along the North line of 6 said South half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 588.71 feet, to the beginning of the lines to be described; thence South 65 degrees 37 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 98.69 feet; thence Northwesterly a distance of 141.37 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 180.00 feet and a central angle of 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, the chord of said curve is 137.77 feet in length and bears North 46 degrees 52 minutes 45 seconds West; thence North 69 degrees 22 minutes 45 seconds West, tangent to said curve a distance of 40.00 feet and said line there terminating. g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-01 galpin site preliminary plat and rezoning pud\city council 3-11-19\findings of fact and recommendation cc approval.docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, DBA Lennar, and Comerica Bank and Trust, NA, for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and Paisley Park Enterprise, Inc. for Rezoning, Preliminary Plat with a Wetland Alteration Permit. On January 15, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, DBA Lennar, and Comerica Bank and Trust, NA, for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and Paisley Park Enterprise, Inc. for a Rezoning from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development – Residential, PUD-R; Preliminary Plat approval creating 191 lots and three outlots with and approval of a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands on site. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning, subdivision and wetland alteration permit preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and at the conclusion of the public hearing and discussion by the Planning Commission, McGonagill moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the rezoning for 191 acres from Rural Residential District (RR) to Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) including the PUD ordinance for Galpin Design Standards; the wetland alteration permit and the subdivision preliminary plat creating 191 lots, three outlots and dedication of the right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated December 5, 2018. Commissioners McGonagill, Tietz and Randall voted in favor of the motion for denial. Commissioners Madsen, Weick and Aller voted against the motion for denial. The motion tied with a vote of 3 to 3 and, therefore, failed. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public comment meeting. No formal action was taken. On March 11, 2019, the City Council met and reviewed the proposed development. They reviewed the testimony from the Planning Commission. The City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District (RR). 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Low Density (net density 1.2-4.0 units per acre) use. 3. The legal description of the property is: (See Exhibit A) 2 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the city to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official city Comprehensive Plan since the zoning and resultant cluster development does not create a homogeneous development with the single-family zoning to the north and south of the project; b. The proposed use is not compatible with the present and future land uses of the area since it consists of cluster housing development, rather than the single-family residential uses to the west, north and south on 15,000 square foot or larger lots; c. The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance for any existing residential zoning categories; d. The proposed use may not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed since the use is similar, but not the same as surrounding uses; e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity since adequate infrastructure is available to the site; and f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the city to consider seven (7) possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed subdivision does not comply with the zoning ordinance; b. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with all applicable city plans including but not limited to the city's Comprehensive Plan since it does not create a homogeneous development with the single-family zoning to the north and south of the project; c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance; e. The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage; f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but will provide additional required easements; and g. The proposed subdivision is not premature since it is providing all required infrastructure improvements necessary for residential housing as well as improving existing stormwater issues for adjacent properties. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate stormwater drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 3 6. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. The applicant has not demonstrated that the city's expectation is to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: a. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. b. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. c. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. e. Development that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. f. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. g. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. h. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. i. Use of traffic management and design techniques including the provision of transit and pedestrian linkages to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Where appropriate, the use of transportation demand management strategies may be required within a project. 7. When approving a Wetland Alteration Permit, the city must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Sec. 20-232, include the following 12 items: a. The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. While the development impacts several wetlands, the majority of the wetlands (97 percent) are being preserved and protected. The developer shall mitigate any wetland impacts as well as preserve significant areas of permanent open space for enjoyment by the community. b. The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The developer shall meet all water quality standards required of it. c. The proposed residential development is not designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing and intended character of 4 the general vicinity and will change the essential character of that area. The project proposes the development of single-family homes that are on smaller lots than currently exist to the south, west and north of this parcel. d. The proposed development will not be hazardous, but are disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The project proposes single-family homes on smaller lots than surrounding development. e. The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools and will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community but will increase the value of the community through the provision of additional housing as well as a significant public open space. g. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash since the use is similar to adjacent uses. h. The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property that do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Primary access is provided via full intersections off of a collector street. i. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Wetland impacts will be mitigated. j. The proposed development will not be aesthetically compatible with the area since it consists of lots smaller than adjacent development. The project proposes the development of single-family homes on smaller lots than to those in the developments to the north, south and west. k. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. The project proposes the development of residential uses. l. The proposed development will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 20, Articles VI, VII, VIII, XIV - Division 1, XXIII and XXIV of the Chanhassen City Code. 8. The Planning Report #2019-01 dated January 15, 2019, and updated March 11, 2019, prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. 5 MOTION The City Council denies the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development - Residential, PUD-R; Preliminary Plat approval creating 181 lots and three outlots; and a Wetland Alteration Permit; and an ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the City Code. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 11th day of March, 2019. BY: BY: Todd, Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor 6 EXHIBIT A Legal Description: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the North Quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South along the North- South Quarter line of said Section 10 as distance of 409.69 feet; thence West along a line parallel with the South line of the North Half of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 435.76 feet to the centerline of the Excelsior-Shakopee Road; thence Northeasterly along said centerline a distance of 419.39 feet to the North line of side Section 10; thence East along the North line of said Section 10 to the point of beginning, all according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof. That part of the South half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 Carver County, Minnesota lying easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117, also known as Galpin Boulevard, and lying North of the South 186.00 feet of said South half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter thereof. Together with: That part westerly 183.00 feet of each of the following two tracts: (1) That part of the South 186.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117 (also known as Galpin Lake Road and formerly known as Chaska and Excelsior Road and as Excelsior and Shakopee Road). (2) That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117 (also known as Galpin Lake Road and formerly known as Chaska and Excelsior Road and as Excelsior and Shakopee Road). Which lies northerly of lines described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 49 minutes 08 seconds West, along the North line of 7 said South half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 588.71 feet, to the beginning of the lines to be described; thence South 65 degrees 37 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 98.69 feet; thence Northwesterly a distance of 141.37 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 180.00 feet and a central angle of 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, the chord of said curve is 137.77 feet in length and bears North 46 degrees 52 minutes 45 seconds West; thence North 69 degrees 22 minutes 45 seconds West, tangent to said curve a distance of 40.00 feet and said line there terminating. g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-01 galpin site preliminary plat and rezoning pud\city council 3-11-19\findings of fact and recommendation cc denial.docx QC lcrrq-o t )2-A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O, Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952)227-1300 / Fax: (952)227-11'10 *crTYorcttAtlttAs$rtl APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW submittato",",ldlrtt ( f<i ecoate:l lr 6 I rq ccDater }-t ,t \tq 6GDayReviewDate:U tu[ rq tr Comprehensive Plan Amendment ... $600 E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... $100 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) I Single-Family Residence ................................ $325 D Allothers......... .......$425 lnterim Use Permit (lUP) fl ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325 D m Others.......... ..... $425 a Subdivision (SUB) D Create 3lots or 1ess............. ,......$300 E Create over 3 lots.......................$600 + $15 per lot( 191 66; D n4etes & Bounds (2lots)........, .....$300 E Consolidate 1ots......, ...................$150 I Uot Line Adjustment.........,..... .....$150 ! rinatP1at.............. ....$700 (lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs)' 'Additional esdorv may be required for other applicatiorE through the development contracl. Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC )........ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR).......... ... .... ............ $200 tr tr tr tr n I Sign Plan Review E Site Plan Review (SPR) $1s0 \E wettand Alteration Permit (wAP) E Aoministrative........... ......... ......... $100 Ei Cilil'"i.urnor.t'i"i o;i;;;. : : :. :................ ssoo Ptus $10 per 1 ,000 square feet of building area: (- thousand square feet) 'lndude number of erisfit o emdq€os: 'lndude numb€r ol new emPloYees: fl ResictentialDistricts... ... .. ..... ...$500 Plus $5 per ctwelling unit ( units) Notification SBn lcity to installand remove) ..{*t*.t.y.f-d... . ! Single-Family Residence... ........ $150 E ru CIhers......... ......$275 D Zoning Appea1......... ..... $100 I Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 p!!: When multlple appllcatlons ate proco3sed concurrently, the approprl.to fac chall bc charged for each .ppllcstlon. $200 D tr Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after prtapplication meeting) SJei -'-.1...-4 $3 per address(_ addresses) Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply).......... ! ConditionalUse Permit D tnterim Use Permit E Vacation ! Variance I Uetes & Bounds Subdivision (3 doas.) ! Easements (- easements) $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement fl WetlanO Alteration Permit fl oeecs TOTAL FEE: Property Address or Location:7141 Galpin Rd, Chanhassen parcet *,)S 69Ooot O- Lesat Description,' RLS 81 Total Acreage:188.00 Wettands Present? Z Ves E ruo Present Zoning: Rural Residential District (RR)Requested Zoning:Planned Unit Development (PUD) Present Land Use Designation: ResidentialLow Density Requested Land Use Designation: Existing Use of Property: Vacant (Refer to 1116 epprorytate A!{i,lcalt)n Checklist fot requhed submiftal inloonafion lhat must ffilimpany this apdication) Description of Proposal: Pretiminary plat application and rezoning to PUD for residential development ECfrecf box if separate nanative is attached. Residential Low Density Section 1:allthat APPLTCANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by condiiions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to lile the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom ihe Gity should contact regarding any mafter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additionalfees may be charged for consutting fees, feasibility studies, etc. \rvith an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. lcertifythat the information and exhibits submitted are true and corect. US Home Corporation, DBA Lennar Joe Jablonski Address:16305 36th Street NE, Suite 600 (952) 249-3014 City/State/Zip:Plymouth, Mn 55446 Cell: Fax: (612)49G.6076 Email: Joe Jablonski 12113118Signature:13 1a:56:@ 46'.00',Dats: Contact: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree lo be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand thal additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studiss, etc. with an estimats prior to any authorization to proceed wilh the studv. I certifv that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.' Andrea' Bruce. VP for Comerica Bank & Trusl, N,A. as Personal Represeniative Name. for the Estaie of Prince Rogers Nelson AND Peisley Park Enterprise, INC Contact. Gerard Snover, VP 355lHamlin Road Addr€ss:Phone. 212-590-9992 City/State/Zip:Aubum Hills, Ml 48326 cefi. 2154224'.126 Signature:Date:1i,17 t2018 This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Bafore filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine lhe specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness ofthe application shall be made within l5 business days of application submittal. written notice of application deticiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Pioneer Engineering Contact:Paul Cheme Address:2422 Enteryrise Drive (651) 2s1-0630 City/State/Zip: Email: Mendota Heights pcheme@pioneereng.com Cell: Fax: DZZtr Who should receiys coples of stafi reporE?'Other Contact lnfomation : Property Owner Applicant Engineer Oulef Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Email: INSTRUCTTONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your de\4ce. TR|NTTORm and deliver to city along with required documents and paytnent. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. Via: E Email E Mailed Paper copy Via: E Email E Mailed Paper copy via: E Email ! Maited Paper Copy Via: D Email E Mailed Paper copy Section 3:Owner and lnformation Section 4:lnformation 1 Galpin Property City of Chanhassen Introduction U.S. Home Corporation, d/b/a Lennar is proposing to develop Galpin Property (actual name TBD) in a manner that is sensitive to the environment and surrounding area. With this Preliminary Plat we are submitting a plan that has taken into account input from public leaders, staff, and neighbors. Our plan has 191 homes demonstrating how the property can be developed through the use of a PUD that will offer diverse housing opportunities and price points accompanied by the preservation of open space. Background/History In November 2017 the property was listed for sale by Comerica Bank; Trust NA, as personal representatives of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and Paisley Park Enterprises. On several occasions the seller’s agents and members of Lennar have met with City staff to begin reviewing the zoning standards and the best use for the property. In May of 2018 U.S. Home Corporation entered into an Option Agreement to purchase the property. Property Description The site consists of approximately 188 acres made up of several tax parcels (PID 25.6900010, 25.6900020, 25.6900030, 25.0100100, and 25.0100200) located in the Notheast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23. All buildings have been removed and the property has been vacant for some time. The site suffers from frequent trespassers that use the property for walking trails. City Standards • Land Use designation The property is designated for Low Density residential: RSF 1.2-4 units per acre. Pre-plat – 1.37 DU/Acre • Zoning Classification The site is currently zoned as Rural Residential with underlying zoning of RSF; low density residential 1.2-4 units per acre. Our plan requires a zoning change to PUD to allow flexibility and the relaxation of strict application of the zoning ordinance in exchange for greater environmental sensitivity and preservation of open space for public use. At 1.37 units per acre our plan also fits into the low range of the RSF density classification. 2 • Surrounding Land Uses Residential developments of varying densities surround the site to the North, South, and West. To the West, across Galpin is Long Acres which was developed as a PUD to allow flexibility in design standards. Our primary street connections appropriately line up with Hunter Drive and Long Acres Drive. Boarding the property to the North and South are existing neighborhoods zoned RSF. The existing neighborhoods to the North (Ashling Meadows and Lucy Ridge) provide road stubs to the subject property. There are no road connections to the South. Lake Lucy, and Lake Ann and their surrounding wetlands are located to the East. Plan modifications since initial concept review Overall • 50+ acres designated for City Park • Lot count has been reduced to 191 homesites (1.37 DU/Acre) • Stormwater ponding has been incorporated to accommodate Galpin Rd upgrades • Perimeter buffering has been evaluated North end • Through street from Galpin to Lucy Ridge has been eliminated • Buffering through preservation has been identified • 14 Lots have been eliminated to minimize environmental impacts South end • Density in Southern 1/3 of the property has decreased • Lots along Southern property line have been enlarged from 55’ wide to 75’ wide to accommodate standard homes rather than Villa. • Storm sewer and Emergency Overflows have been identified to alleviate water issues in adjacent neighborhood • Back yard areas along South property line have been expanded allowing for the preservation of existing trees • Landscape buffering has been integrated into the plan Open Space Preservation The City of Chanhassen’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies significant trail improvements along the Eastern boundary of the property that would enhance the Lake Ann Park and trail system by completing important connections between Lake Ann, Lake Lucy and Galpin Road. Our plan for the Galpin property focuses housing development closer to Galpin and preserves approximately 50 acres of land adjacent to Lake Lucy and Lake Ann that could be used for park dedication to the City. By mixing lot sizes our plan strategically places the 191 homes on 88 acres of land giving the opportunity to preserve significantly more open space for use by the residents of Chanhassen then would be available if strict RSF 3 zoning standards were followed. Preserving the open space in this manner not only minimizes environmental impacts but also significantly reduces the length of public infrastructure (sewer, water, roads) required for long term maintenance by the City. Building Plans/Product Information Extensive research on housing availability and market conditions within the City of Chanhassen has guided us in putting together a plan that is matched by a product portfolio that includes architecturally interesting variety of homes, and price points, that meet multiple buyer niches. Landmark Series - Designed with efficiency in mind, the Landmark series meets the demands of today’s challenging housing market by offering a fantastic value planned specially for 65’& 75’ wide homesites. Lennar has successfully built the Landmark series in Reflections at Lake Riley, Boulder Cove, and Camden Ridge. Typical footprints are 50’ wide allowing the ability to maintain setbacks designated by zoning standards. A variety of houseplans and elevations make up this series offering square footages ranging from 2,200 sq ft to 3,200 sq ft plus the ability to finish the basement to add footage to the home. With families in mind, the homes typically include four bedrooms, a large open living space on the main level, a master suite, mud room, and three car garage. Sixty-five foot wide lots allow the ability to preserve open space without compromising the integrity of the neighborhood. Typical side yard setbacks will be maintained. An interesting streetscape will be maintained through the incorporation of a variety of elevations, materials, and color packages. Lots are arranged in a manner that will include an assortment of walk-outs, look-outs, and flats. The 75’ wide lots will provide additional spacing and allow the opportunity to expand certain elevations to include a four-car garage. Included in this series are Lennar’s NextGen plans. This revolutionary series is a multi-generational home plan designed specifically to accommodate generations living under one roof with privacy and convenience. This truly unique home highlights the ‘NextGen suite’ that provides a separate first floor living space with its own entrance, living area, kitchenette, attached garage and laundry all under one roof with access to the rest of the home. The result is a 5-bedroom, 5 bathroom home that creatively satisfies a variety of unique housing needs while fitting into the architectural styling of the neighborhood. Luxury Villa – The 34 Luxury Villa are designed for the 55’ wide homesites just North of the Southern entrance. The Luxury Villa provides minimal maintenance housing for an underserved market in Chanhassen; and the Twin Cities in general, the ‘empty nester’. Designed for single level living, the Villa homes offer a spacious first floor that includes a master suite, fireplace, open living room, gourmet kitchen, and study. A deck or three season porch is included with the home to allow the opportunity to enjoy the natural features of Galpin Property . Multiple elevations and color packages will be incorporated to reduce monotony. 4 Traditional - The 31 Traditional homesites on the North end of the property are currently being marketed for sale to custom homebuilders. We are requesting a lot split that would allow that portion of the site to be developed in the future, perhaps by another entity. It is recognized the lot split will not release the North portion of the site from the responsibilities of the overall PUD request. Lennar ultimately reserves the ability to participate in development and construction of homes in that area but does not have the intention to do so at this time. Environmental Impacts • Wetlands - A wetland delineation was completed on the site in September 2017 and was followed by a Wetland classification analysis. Wetland impacts have been minimized by careful planning and the preservation of open space. Following RSF standards for the entire property would require more impact to existing wetlands for the extension of public infrastructure (sewer, water, streets) to serve the upland adjacent to Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. • Tree Preservation – Preservation of open space for public use will allow the opportunity to preserve large wooded areas that may otherwise be disturbed with development. Tree replacement as required by code has been factored into the landscape plan. Following the RSF zoning guidelines would have a much greater impact on the large stands of trees located in the upland areas fronting Lake Ann and Lake Lucy that are contemplated by Public Park with this plan. • Water Quality – Water quality will be managed through the incorporation of on- site ponding and other appropriate erosion control measures. We are evaluating the potential for water re-use on site to supplement irrigation systems. Lennar is committed to following stormwater policies enacted by the City of Chanhassen and the Minnesota Pollution Control Association (MPCA). Plans have been submitted to the Riley Purgatory Watershed to allow for the simultaneous review of stormwater management designs. • Impervious Surface – Lennar recognizes the importance of managing the runoff of hard surface areas. To help regulate standards we have created the following table to set average thresholds for each sized homesite. Note: A more detailed table specific to each homesite has been provided with the other submission materials. To help inform customers of these standards Lennar intends to provide each customer with a copy of their lot certificate that includes the current impervious 5 area, the maximum impervious area allowed, and the remaining impervious area left for future improvements such as patios, 4-season porches, and pools. Flexibility through the use of PUD Our plan requires a zoning change to PUD to allow flexibility and the relaxation of strict application of the zoning ordinance in exchange for greater environmental sensitivity and preservation of open space for public use. The items we are requesting flexibility include; lot width and area, cul de sac length, and relaxation of front setbacks along the North and South boarders. All three items are requested for consideration to allow for the preservation of open space and trees. Homeowners Association(s) A Master Homeowners Association will be established to maintain private common areas and community monuments. A Sub-Association will be created to take care of the common elements within the Villa area. The Villa will be ‘full maintenance’ in nature to include; professional management, mowing, plowing, and exterior upkeep of the homes. Owners of single family homes will be responsible for their own upkeep and maintenance subject to City Ordinance and Architectural Controls established within the Master Association. Summary Lennar has a long history of building successful Communities in the City of Chanhassen under the names Lennar, Ryland, Lundgren Bros. Construction, and Orrin Thompson Homes. We are very excited for the opportunity that lends itself through the careful development of this fantastic property and ask for your support. (US Home/Lennar) Galpin Property – 191 Gross Acres Total Homesites – 191 Approximate Developed Area – 89 acres Open Space – 50 acres Preserved wetlands – 49 acres Traditional homesites – 31 Average Lot – 90’ wide Landmark Homesites – 126 Average Lot – 65’ wide -115 75’ wide -11 Villa Homesites – 34 Average Lot – 55’ wide 6 Project Team Developer: U.S. Home Corporation, D/B/A Lennar Builder: Lennar Corporation Primary Contact: Joe Jablonski Planner/Engineer/Surveyor: Pioneer Engineering Geotechnical Engineer: Braun Intertec Wetland Specialist: Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. Landscape Architect: Pioneer Engineering Legal Council: Vantage Law Group Association Manager: TBD CITY OF CHAI\HASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on January 3,2019, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing to consider rezoning parcel from Rural Residential (RR) to Planned Unit Development/Residential District (PUDR), Wetland Alteration Permit, and Subdivision of 191 acres including the preservation of approximately 100 acres and the creation of 191 lots, Planning Case File No. 2019-01 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Notary Public Subscribed and trrifr'J day to before me This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought bt User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the useds access or use of data provided. (TAX_NAME) (TAX-ADD-L1) (TAX-ADD-L2>, <<TAX-ADD-L3) << Next Record ><<TAX-NAM ED (TAX-ADD-L1ll (TAX-AD D-L2>, (TAX-ADD-L3)) This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be us-ed for reference purposes only. The City does not wanant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are enorfree, and the City does not represeni that the Gls Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the Oepiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the use/s access or use of data provided. ,l t"l Disclaimer Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time:Tuesday, January 15,2019 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the eveninq, dependinq on the order ofthe agenda. Location:Citv Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard Proposal: Consider rezoning parcel from Rural Residential (RR) to Planned Unit DevelopmenUResidential District (PUDR); Wetland Alteration Permit; Subdivision of 191 acres including the preservation of approximately 100 acres and the creation of 191 lots. Applicant:US Home Corporation, D/B/A Lennar Property Location: 7141 Galpin Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the proiect. Questions & Comments: lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2019-01. lf you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by emailat kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1139. lf you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project website Iisted above the Thursday prior to the Planninq Commission meetinq. Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www. ci. chan hassen. m n. us/notifyme to sig n u p ! City Review Procedure; . Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within at least 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the applietion in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. . Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. . Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their @mplexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. . A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is en@uraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). . Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be included in the reoort. olease contact the Plannino staff person named on the notification. Date & Time:Tuesday, January 15,2019 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the eveninq. deoendino on the order ofthe aqenda. Location:City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard Proposal: Consider rezoning parcelfrom Rural Residential (RR) to Planned Unit DevelopmenVResidential District (PUDR); Wetland Alteration Permit; Subdivision of 191 acres including the preservation of approximately 100 acres and the creation of 191 lots. Applicant:US Home Corporation, D/B/A Lennar Property Location: 7141 Galpin Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps.1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public.4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the oroiect. Questions & Comments: lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2019-01. lf you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by email at kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1139. lf you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project website listed above the Thursday prior to the Planninq Commission meetinq. Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the clty's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to siqn upl Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within at least 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the appli€tion in writing. Any interested party is anvited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overyiew of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 51 9.99 requires all applications to be proessed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some appliGtions due to their mmplexity may take several months to mmplete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the pro@ss should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the pOect with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any mrrespondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning staff person named on the notification. TAX-NAME ALLAN R & MARYJ OLSON ANDREW WERNER ANGELOJ&CARALGALIOTO ASHLING MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASHLING MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS BARRYG & JENNIFER J FRIENDS BLAKE M &TAMI C GOTTSCHALK BRADLEY G & ALISA L LACOMY BRIAN J & BARBARA A KNUDSON BRIAN L LAROCHE BRIAN M LARAMY CARVER COUNW CHARLES E LOEFFLER II CHARLES PETERSON CHERREE R THEISEN DAGMAR DIETHELM REV INTER TRUST DAKE N & DEIRDRA CHATFIELD DARYOUSH GOLBAN DAVID A EICKMEYER REV TRUST DAVID D KOESTER DAVIDG&MAUREENNELSON DAVID K WEIBY DAVID KOELLN DAVID SENIOR DOUGLAS J AHRENS ECKANKAR ELIZABETH BARNES ERICS&LISAMHAMBORG GERARD W MAHER GREGORY BTAUFUSS GREGORY R STEWART HSIN.HUNG HUANG HUGH REVOCABLE TRUST TAX_ADD-11 7461 WINDMILL DR 2241 HUNTER DR 1805 EMERALD LN 16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 PO BOX 396 2197 MAJESTIC WAY 7301 FAWN HILL RD 7312 FAWN HILL RD 1880 TOPAZ DR 747LrUUP Cr 602 4TH ST E 7327 FAWN HILI RD 7496 CROCUS CT 2072 MAJESTIC WAY 2085 MAJESTIC WAY 22OO MAJESTIC WAY 2232 HUNTER DR 7339 FAWN HILL RD 7290 FAWN HILL RD 6885 SAPPHIRE LN 2149 MAJ ESTIC WAY 2133 MAJ ESTIC WAY 7431 WINDMILL DR 4011 E VALLEY RD PO BOX 2000 2179 RED FOX CrR 1861 TOPAZ DR 7101 UTICA tN 7116 UTICA LN 1893 TOPAZ DR 2045 MAJESTIC WAY 7441 WINDMILL DR TAX_ADD_12 CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN PLYMOUTH PLYMOUTH EXCELSIOR CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHASKA CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN WAYZATA CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN TAX_ADD_13 MN 55317-9366 MN 55317 MN 55317-7595 MN 55446-4270 MN 55446-4270 MN 55331-0396 MN 55317-93ss MN 55317 MN 55317 MN 55317-7662 MN 55317-9330 MN 55318-2102 MN 55317 MN 55317-9351 MN 55317-9352 MN 55317-9356 MN 55317-9354 MN 55317 MN 55317 MN 55317 MN 55317-7591 MN 55317-9355 MN 55317-9355 MN 55317-9366 MN 55391-3667 MN 55317-2000 MN 55317 MN 55317-7662 MN 55317-9528 MN 55317-9528 MN 55317- MN 55317-9356 MN 55317-9366 JAMES A & LESAW BOETTCHER JAMES A FREEBERSYSER JAMES W & CYNTHIA A ROSENDAHL JAY R & ANN MARIE GERCZAK JEFFREY J & STACEY J MORKEN JEFFREYS & CRISTIN L MASCHKA JEROLD R CLAIR JOAN E WEIS JOCELYN J O'BRIEN JODI LV LANNOM INTERVIVOS REV TRUST JOELW & SUSAN M REIMERS JOHN C & CARRIE M TIE'I-Z LIV TRUSTS JOHN D & CAROLA P PI\Z JOHN E ELVECROG JON & MARY BETH HEBEISEN JT REV TRST JOSE L MARRUJO JOSHUA KIMBER KARLD&DIANNEMDEAN KENNETH LEER KEVIN J SUNDEM LAKE LUCY RDG HOMEOWNERS A55N LARRYJ &YOKO N STUEVE LE THU CA LEOTA M HALES LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC MARK E & JULI A GEMPLER MARKR&TANYALERICKSON MARK S & GERI SRADKE MARK SEEFELDT MARTIN ZIELINSKI REV TRUST MATTHEW & MICHELLE N MYERS MATTHEW RAU MAURICIO FERREIRA DE GOES 7476 CROCUS CT 6935 RUBY LN 7O9O TECUMSEH LN 1941 TOPAZ DR 6945 RUBY tN 2086 MAJESTIC WAY 7460 WINDMILL DR 2101 MAI ESTIC WAY 2198 BRINKER ST 6920 RUBY LN 7495 CROCUS CT 7011 GALPIN BLVD 2117 MAJESTIC WAY 7411 FAWN HILL RD 2150 MAIESTIC WAY 1973 TOPAZ DR 2060 MAJESTIC WAY 2251 HUNTER DR 2181 MAJESTIC WAY 1845 TOPAZ DR 8315 PLEASANT VIEW DR 7324 FAWN H ILL RD 7319 FAWN HILL RD 7451 WINDMILL DR PO BOX 542 PO BOX 542 1877 TOPAZ DR 2216 HUNTER DR 1989 TOPAZ DR 7470 TULIP CT 2211 HUNTER DR 7421 WINDMILL DR 6925 RUBY LN 6930 RUBY LN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN EXCELSIOR CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MOUNDS VIEW CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9351 MN 55317-7595 MN 55317-8330 MN 553L7-7593 MN 55317-7595 MN 55317-9352 MN 55317-9362 MN 55317-9355 MN 55317-9359 MN 5531.7-7595 MN 55317-9351 MN 55331-8026 MN 55317-9355 MN 55317-8430 MN 5s31.7-9353 MN 55317-7593 MN 55317-9352 MN 55317 MN 55317-9355 MN 5531.7-7662 MN 551r.2-6139 MN 55317 MN 55317 MN 55317-9366 MN 55317 MN 55317 MN 55317-7662 MN 55317 MN 55317-7593 MN 55317-9330 MN 55317 MN 55317-9366 MN 55317-7595 MN 55317-7595 MEHDI AYOUCHE MICHAEL D & JANE E FELMLEE MICHAEL J GORRA MICHAEL L & KRESSIN B KRAUSE TRUSTS MICHAEL WESCHE NATHAN DEKAM PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES INC PATRICK DOUGLAS SIMMONS PAULA&AMYC HOLLIS PAUL A SJOGREN PAUL D JOHNSON PAULJ & LYNNETTEAOLSON PAUL M ENGEBRETSON PETERJ & LYNN M POLINGO PRINCE R NELSON RICHARD A SIT ROBERT J RAJALINGAM ROBERT LESTER SHEEHAN ROGERJ&SALLYAHAMM ROSE-MARIE J ANDERSON SCOTTE&TAMARAGSATHER SENGTAVANH B & MARIO S MEAS SHANE D WASKEY SHAWN YOU STEPHEN M & RENEE L PAWLYSHYN STEPHEN M BARNES STEVEN P WALLACE STUART REID SUSAN M LOMBARDO REV TRUST THOMASF&NANCYLHAUSER THOMAS P & ANGELA D VUKOVICH TIMOTHY C STEWART TIMOTHY NORDBERG TODDM&KARENTBIMBERG 2102 MAJESTIC WAY 7336 FAWN HILL RD PO BOX 9798 7O5O UTICA LN 7475 CROCUS CT 2231 HUNTER DR PO BOX 826s 7055 NORTHWOOD CT 2221 HUNTER DR 7490 TULIP CT 2174 MA]ESTIC WAY 2189 RED FOX CIR 7O5O TECUMSEH LN 198], TOPAZ DR PO BOX 8265 1957 TOPAZ DR 1909 TOPAZ DR 21.99 RED FOX CtR 2180 BRINKER ST 7210 GALPIN BLVD 7O9O UTICA LN 7440 WINDMILL DR 1925 TOPAZ DR 7263 FAWN HILL RD 7266 FAWN HILL RD 71OO UTICA LN 6900 LUCY RIDGE LN 7423 FAWN HILL RD 7278 FAWN HILL RD 1920 TOPAZ DR 1965 TOPAZ DR 7287 FAWN HILL RD 2126 MAJESTIC WAY 7275 FAWN HILL RD CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN FARGO CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN WICHITA FALLS CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN WICHITA FALLS CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN EXCELSIOR CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9353 MN 55317 ND 58106- MN 5s317-9214 MN 55317-9351 MN 55317 TX 76307-8265 MN 55317 MN 55317 MN 55317-9330 MN 55317-9353 MN 55317 MN 55317-8330 MN ss317-7593 TX 76307-8265 MN 55317-7593 MN 55317-7593 MN 55317 MN 55317-9359 MN 55331- MN 55317-9214 MN 55317-9362 MN 55317-7593 MN 55317 MN 55317 MN 55317-9528 MN 55317-7599 MN 55317-8430 MN 55317 MN 55317-7593 MN 55317-7593 MN 55317 MN 55317-9353 MN 55317 TODD M SIMNING TODD N & ANNE BJUTTING TRENT J MAHR TREVOR A ST JOHN TYLER N TREAT WILLIAM H THOMPSON WILTIAM K & KRISTINE GUGGEMOS 2145 WYNSONG tN 7311 FAWN HILL RD 2065 MAJESTIC WAY 19OO TOPAZ DR 2148 WYNSONG LN 7491 TULIP CT 2165 MAjESTIC WAY CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4841 MN 55317 MN 55317-9356 MN 55317-7593 MN 55317-4841 MN 55317-9330 MN 55317-935s Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 90 ft Lots PUD 15,000 90 125 5,500 90 ft Lots PUD** 11,250 90 125 5,500 65 ft Lots PUD 8,450 65 125 4,400 Front Setback Rear Setback Side Yard Setback Corner Setback CR 117 Setback 90 ft Lots 20 ft * 25 ft 7.5 ft 20 ft 50 ft 65 ft Lots 25 ft 25 ft 7.5 ft 20 ft 50 ft Wetland Buffer Setback 20 ft. * 25 ft with Sidewalk **Lots 101-111 90 ft Lots Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 501 18,092 100 177 5,500 502 17,455 90 167 5,500 503 15,030 90 167 5,500 504 22,829 90 249 5,500 505 24,572 90 249 5,500 506 16,733 90 175 5,500 507 18,427 90 201 5,500 508 17,037 90 142 5,500 509 23,848 90 159 5,500 510 20,017 90 137 5,500 511 18,801 90 156 5,500 512 17,844 90 167 5,500 513 15,032 90 167 5,500 514 15,030 90 167 5,500 515 16,667 100 167 5,500 516 15,574 90 175 5,500 517 15,514 90 175 5,500 518 15,482 90 174 5,500 519 15,576 90 174 5,500 520 15,300 90 170 5,500 521 15,300 90 170 5,500 522 15,300 90 170 5,500 523 15,440 90 172 5,500 524 15,882 90 168 5,500 525 16,629 90 136 5,500 526 22,359 90 140 5,500 527 27,426 90 143 5,500 528 16,764 90 160 5,500 529 15,371 90 165 5,500 530 44,983 90 165 5,500 531 47,788 90 125 5,500 GALPIN PROPERTY COMPLIANCE TABLE 90 ft Lots Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 101 19,897 135 143 5,500 102 13,371 90 148 5,500 103 13,297 90 148 5,500 104 13,297 90 148 5,500 105 13,297 90 148 5,500 106 13,297 90 148 5,500 107 13,297 90 148 5,500 108 13,297 90 148 5,500 109 14,599 90 148 5,500 110 14,840 90 148 5,500 111 25,529 90 148 5,500 65 ft Lots Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 301 9,993 78 125 4,400 302 8,450 65 125 4,400 303 8,450 65 125 4,400 304 8,450 65 125 4,400 305 8,450 65 125 4,400 306 8,450 65 125 4,400 307 11,132 65 125 4,400 308 13,748 78 131 4,400 309 8,925 65 129 4,400 310 12,282 65 126 4,400 311 8,607 65 125 4,400 312 8,126 65 125 4,400 313 8,257 65 125 4,400 314 8,795 65 130 4,400 315 9,683 65 142 4,400 316 12,836 78 125 4,400 317 12,591 78 150 4,400 318 10,414 65 145 4,400 319 10,228 65 145 4,400 320 11,448 65 145 4,400 321 13,180 65 147 4,400 322 12,052 65 145 4,400 323 11,853 65 142 4,400 324 10,767 65 142 4,400 325 9,524 65 139 4,400 326 9,135 65 132 4,400 327 8,609 65 132 4,400 328 8,609 65 132 4,400 329 10,232 65 132 4,400 330 9,750 65 125 4,400 331 9,478 65 125 4,400 332 10,900 65 125 4,400 333 16,107 78 125 4,400 334 11,215 78 136 4,400 335 10,404 65 153 4,400 336 11,607 65 167 4,400 337 10,622 65 142 4,400 338 11,545 65 133 4,400 339 14,532 65 125 4,400 340 12,761 65 125 4,400 341 13,019 65 125 4,400 342 10,858 65 125 4,400 343 10,887 65 163 4,400 344 10,502 65 152 4,400 345 9,306 65 134 4,400 346 10,263 78 125 4,400 347 10,020 78 125 4,400 348 9,385 65 135 4,400 349 10,984 65 154 4,400 350 10,228 65 126 4,400 351 8,474 65 126 4,400 352 8,474 65 125 4,400 353 8,776 65 125 4,400 354 8,864 65 125 4,400 355 13,586 65 131 4,400 356 14,313 65 130 4,400 357 12,790 65 132 4,400 358 12,963 65 125 4,400 359 14,449 65 145 4,400 360 11,360 65 126 4,400 361 11,011 78 125 4,400 362 10,508 65 142 4,400 363 11,458 65 145 4,400 364 13,033 65 130 4,400 365 12,790 65 130 4,400 366 12,940 65 132 4,400 367 12,790 65 130 4,400 368 9,728 65 131 4,400 369 10,036 65 140 4,400 370 10,303 78 125 4,400 371 8,933 65 130 4,400 372 9,242 65 130 4,400 373 9,242 65 130 4,400 374 9,242 65 130 4,400 375 9,236 65 130 4,400 376 8,450 65 130 4,400 377 8,450 65 130 4,400 378 8,450 65 130 4,400 379 8,450 65 130 4,400 380 8,450 65 130 4,400 381 8,801 65 130 4,400 382 15,319 95 130 4,400 383 11,772 78 145 4,400 384 9,453 65 145 4,400 385 9,780 65 145 4,400 386 9,898 65 134 4,400 387 9,263 65 130 4,400 388 8,450 65 130 4,400 389 8,450 65 130 4,400 390 8,450 65 130 4,400 391 8,450 65 130 4,400 392 8,450 65 130 4,400 393 8,749 65 130 4,400 394 9,189 65 130 4,400 395 9,390 65 130 4,400 396 9,313 65 130 4,400 397 8,922 65 134 4,400 398 12,754 78 130 4,400 399 8,474 65 130 4,400 400 8,450 65 130 4,400 401 8,450 65 130 4,400 402 8,450 65 130 4,400 403 8,450 65 130 4,400 404 8,450 65 130 4,400 405 10,504 65 130 4,400 406 11,092 65 130 4,400 407 8,819 65 130 4,400 408 8,450 65 130 4,400 409 8,729 65 130 4,400 410 12,658 78 131 4,400 411 10,192 78 127 4,400 412 9,559 65 127 4,400 413 9,104 65 145 4,400 414 9,702 65 137 4,400 415 14,151 65 135 4,400 416 9,676 65 135 4,400 417 8,779 65 130 4,400 418 8,570 65 130 4,400 419 9,103 65 136 4,400 420 9,344 65 143 4,400 421 9,170 65 143 4,400 422 10,929 78 132 4,400 423 12,265 78 142 4,400 424 9,984 65 130 4,400 425 10,465 65 130 4,400 426 11,434 65 159 4,400 427 12,108 65 170 4,400 428 12,591 65 178 4,400 429 12,589 65 178 4,400 430 12,101 65 170 4,400 431 10,764 65 130 4,400 432 9,554 65 130 4,400 433 11,046 78 128 4,400 434 12,618 65 141 4,400 435 14,656 65 212 4,400 436 14,357 65 248 4,400 437 14,285 65 248 4,400 438 13,661 65 200 4,400 439 12,931 65 134 4,400 55 ft Lots Lot Lot Area (SF) Lot Width (Feet) Lot Depth (Feet) Impervious Area (SF) 201 11,262 55 115 3,400 202 8,851 55 148 3,400 203 8,645 55 146 3,400 204 8,659 55 146 3,400 205 8,894 55 149 3,400 206 9,079 55 156 3,400 207 9,043 55 165 3,400 208 8,470 55 132 3,400 209 13,623 55 115 3,400 210 10,635 55 137 3,400 211 11,580 55 139 3,400 212 10,688 55 132 3,600 213 13,820 55 124 3,600 214 9,059 55 164 3,400 215 7,285 55 132 3,400 216 7,285 55 132 3,400 217 7,488 55 133 3,400 218 9,065 55 131 3,400 219 8,605 55 124 3,400 220 6,824 55 122 3,400 221 7,222 55 140 3,400 222 8,456 55 168 3,400 223 11,920 55 176 3,400 224 10,548 55 128 3,400 225 7,164 55 131 3,400 226 9,284 55 127 3,600 227 8,832 55 126 3,600 228 6,875 55 125 3,400 229 6,875 55 125 3,400 230 6,875 55 125 3,400 231 6,875 55 125 3,400 232 6,875 55 125 3,400 233 7,651 55 126 3,400 234 10,745 55 142 3,400 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 5, 2019 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Erick Henricksen, Project Engineer; Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Andrew Brotzler, Interim Public Works Director PUBLIC MEETING TO REVIEW CHANGES TO THE GALPIN PROPERTY SUBDIVISION. Aller: Today’s meeting is a public meeting to review changes to the Galpin property subdivision. The proposed Galpin subdivision has been before us on two prior occasions at which formal notice public hearings were conducted. The first time it was before the Planning Commission public hearing was on the concept PUD and that was in July on July 17, 2019. The benefits of that type of hearing were that the Planning Commission continues to gather public comments without requiring any formal Findings of Fact. The developer’s not required to prepare costly or detailed plans for consideration and the City is not necessarily obligated to grant approval at that point in time. There’s no legal binding obligation on either party without the Findings of Fact so it makes it easier for the parties to continue to talk and discuss and to take your comments and turn it into action. The developer receives input without direction or with our direction and then it goes before the City Council to do the same. The second time it was before the Planning Commission there was a public hearing on a preliminary plat. That was on January 15, 2019. We were discussing whether the proposed plat met the standards outlined for a PUD. At a recent meeting the item has been remanded to the Planning Commission for public comment to review the most recent changes to the proposed Galpin subdivision. The Planning Commission may or may not ask questions and may or may not comment on the project after public comments have been received. The Planning Commission will not be making any formal decision tonight or taking a vote or making a formal recommendation to the City Council. This hearing is not about us the Planning Commission making a decision. It’s about you as the residents of the city of Chanhassen providing your thoughts, opinions and feedback to the council for it’s consideration and their decision on March 11th. The City of Chanhassen values communications to it’s residents and in an effort to provide exceptional service we have a website available for your use. All the documents, all the minutes, all the proceedings that we’ve had in this matter before the City Council or the Planning Commission are found on that website. It’s a one stop location and the address is ci.chanhassen.mn.us. We will be proceeding tonight as Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 2 follows. The staff will open with a presentation of the project item. The applicant will address the status of the proposed project. And then the public comment will be taken. That’s an opportunity for the public to come forward and speak either for or against the item before us. At that time we ask that you please state your name, your address and representational capacity if any. If there are a number of individuals present who are here to speak on the same topic it’s always great if you can elect one person to speak on your behalf. It saves some time and it gives some clarity to the discussion. We ask that you limit your comments to no more than 5 minutes. Additional time might be granted but is unlikely due to the large number of individuals before us. When the public comment is open there are individuals at the senior center now that can hear us and watch us on the televisions. You are certainly welcomed to come around and voice your opinion so please feel free to come by when that happens. If you have written comments please provide them to us and they will be prepared and put in the package to the City Council and again those prepared items and statements will be available on the website between now and the meeting before the City Council on the 11th. Our commission by-laws indicate that we conduct business until 10:30 p.m. If we continue to 10:30 p.m. we may have to cut off our hearing so again that’s the importance of keeping our comments to a point and between 3 and 5 minutes. Finally for those of you who are maybe out of town and not familiar with the City of Chanhassen and it’s residents we have a nice attitude here. We have a nice attitude here. We have meaningful conversations and dialogue at these Planning Commission meetings and we request that all individuals act with respect and courtesy while another individual is speaking. There will be no major applause. We want to make sure that we hear what is being said and if there’s interference or something, somebody wants to disrupt we’ll have to take action at that point in time. With that we’ll begin this public hearing for comment with the staff presentation. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Just because we have a large group I think it’d be important that we introduce the staff that’s here. I’m Kate Aanenson. I’m the Community Development Director. Hoffman: Hello I’m Todd Hoffman. I’m the Director of Parks and Recreation. Henricksen: I’m Erick Henricksen, the Project Engineer. Brotzler: Andy Brotzler, Interim Public Works Director. Aanenson: So we’re also available if there’s technical questions that the Planning Commission has. Again the Planning Commission’s goal tonight is to be an opportunity for public comments and those comments will be gathered and forwarded up to the City Council for their meeting on Monday. As you mentioned Chairman there is a packet available of the staff report. We put in that report, and I’m not going to go through all those meeting dates because we are going to have just a brief presentation from the developer of what you saw at your meeting in January and how that’s evolved. There’s been a number of work sessions at the City Council and they wanted the Planning Commission and the public to have an opportunity to comment on those changes. So I’ll let the developer go through a number of those meetings but again there will be a staff report Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 3 that should go out, hopefully tomorrow for the Monday meeting and that will include everything except for the Minutes for tonight. I’m not sure we can turn that around that quickly but there has been a number of emails. Those will be part of the record. They are, have been stitched to this packet so if you went online right now you could download the comments that have already been submitted to the city as a part of this record and we’ll continue to add to that record too so again the goal tonight is to listen to the comments from the residents and forward that information onto the Planning Commission. As you stated Chairman you’re welcome, the commission’s welcomed to ask questions. You’re not going to make a formal motion but if you want to add additional comments that’s up to you and I think if we’re going to try to end by 10:30 and you want time for comments you may want to end at a little bit beforehand so I’ll leave that up to you Chairman. But with that what I would be suggesting is that you give the developer a chance to kind of go through the changes since you’ve seen it last and then go ahead and open it up for public comment. And again as you stated we’re not having a sign up. We’re going to let as many people to go through as we can and then just state their name for the record so with that I’ll turn it over to the developer. Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I want to start, well first Joe Jablonski representing U.S. Home Corporation or Lennar as the applicant developer. I want to start by giving a brief introduction of kind of where we’ve gone and some of the things that we’ve gone through. I’m going to run through kind of where we started with the concept plan that was mentioned and then how that’s evolved or changed and some of the things that we’ve addressed. Some of the things that we’ve listened to and I want to make sure some of the questions that still seem to be hanging out there that I’m trying to address now and without getting. McGonagill: Just a second. Joe Jablonski: Yes sir. McGonagill: That stuff’s not up on our screens. Can you get it up there please? Okay thank you. Joe Jablonski: You want me to keep going? Weick: Yeah. Joe Jablonski: So we started off and you mentioned that we started with a concept plan, even prior to the introduction of the concept plan going back as far as the first part of June in 2018 we invited Planning Commission members, staff, park commission and City Council members out to the site to kind of introduce what we’ve thought was the vision that we wanted to proceed with and had a chance to kind of walk around. Take a look at the site and from there we started building immediately the following week. We went right into a council work shop where we got a little bit more feedback and jumped right into the Planning Commission concept plan review Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 4 that was on July 17th, that was mentioned. Planning Commission recommended some changes. We went through and I’ll talk about those. Leading up to that in November we also held a invitation neighborhood meeting that I think went out to the same people that received the public notices were invited to that meeting. It was well attended. We had an opportunity to meet some of the neighbors one on one and we also have held one on one meetings. We’ve been in constant communication with a number of residents by email and phone and have done several, as I mentioned, one on one meetings as well. So that kind of leads us up meeting wise where we are tonight. I wanted to start back at our original concept plan. The original concept plan had 198 homes on it. This is the version that had the density transfer and what you can see is in the middle of that plan there was a large pond. I know you can’t see it up on your, is there a pointer here? Oh yeah cool. I don’t know if you can see it up there. Okay. But there is a pond centrally located in the middle and some of the things that, out of the concept plan that we really took to heart was that the density transfer was preferred. We went through both the Planning Commission, Park and City Council and I think the general acknowledgement was we’d like to see the park preserved and we’d like to see you go forward with some form of density transfer. That was the direction that we felt we were given so that’s the route that we took. One of the other items that was very important, especially to the north neighborhood was that we did something with the connection to Lucy Ridge. As you can see on this plan the street coming in off of Galpin went all the way up into the Lucy Ridge neighborhood. That was something that Lucy Ridge and Ashling Meadows were both fairly vocal about concerns over. Other things we were asked to take advantage of some of the exiting topography on the site. It is a rolling site from the street at Galpin down to the wetlands. There’s quite a bit of grade change. We were asked to preserve trees and then we were also asked to preserve similar lot types against the surrounding perimeters. On the bottom of this plan we had 55 foot wide villa style lots directly adjacent to the neighborhood on the south. Majestic Oaks. So that was in your concept plan. Then as we were proceeding into the preliminary plat, which goes through additional steps of engineering, starts to work out hydrology and starts to gather a little bit more information to get into where we are today so that led into a submission packet that had 191 homes so we at that point we’ve already reduced that number by 7. We eliminated that connection to Lucy Ridge and were able to do so by preserving quite a bit of landscape buffer around the perimeter of that northern cul-de-sac. We also worked to, on the south we addressed the similar neighborhood type by introducing 75 foot wide lots all the way on the south end there to match similar house or similar product type on the south end. We went through and started addressing drainage concerns were brought up during the preliminary plat. I’ll talk about that a little bit. And then you also one of the other things to address some of the topography questions or challenges is that central pond that we had that was kind of in the middle of the hillside. We moved it adjacent to the wetland which was after the engineering was done on it seemed to be a more appropriate place for that to allow the opportunity to take advantage of some of that rolling topography out there. Which really brings us to and some of these questions or these items were things that we pulled out of the preliminary plat stage. Some of the things that we felt we were asked by the Planning Commission or through the workshop sessions with the council. To bring us to the plan that you have before you now which is why I wanted to come up and talk about kind of where we went from that pre-plat submission to where we are today. So now we’re at a plan that Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 5 has 181 homes. We reduced it by another 10. 17 from the original plan. And since then we’ve gone through and we’ve changed all the homes on the south side buffering the Majestic Oaks way have been changed to 90 foot wide lots. That was a change from 75 before so now they match the R-1 zoning standards or are very similar in lot size. By doing that we also reconfigured the, that central area that had, and I do have some more information on this leading up to but we expanded the size of the other lots that were 55 feet wide in that south central area to 65 feet. As part of our current plan we also relocated the Galpin pond. A couple things that we’re doing out here is we’re having to take stormwater ponding for the future expansion of Galpin Road. The locations of that are the preferred locations were provided to us by the County originally and we took those into consideration but actually moved one of the pond locations from what’s know today as where the guard house is a little bit to the south and in doing that there’s a couple different things that we were able to do. One of it was move the pond but it allowed us to save more trees and we also went through and enhanced some of the buffering around the perimeters. I can go, I’ll go into that in a little more detail and address some of the drainage concerns a little bit more closely so they go into those changes in more detail here. Up on the north end now the plan obviously we’ve cut off the connection. We’re starting to show the trail connections that were important to the park commission. We’ve included buffering right at the north property line that is adjacent to the Lucy Ridge neighborhood. We’ve also been contacted by the Ashling Meadows neighborhood and had requested that we consider some additional buffering along the edge of Topaz Road which is something that we would certainly look at. Either with preserving some existing trees along that property line or replanting and buffering that’s not shown on here but it’s something that we would consider. On the south end you can start to see the changes that have been made. We are doing more tree preservation down on that southeast corner. Along the south and the central coming right off of Galpin we were able to save about a 20 foot wide, 20 to 25 foot wide buffer of existing trees along that property line. Now the lot sizes match. They’re 90 foot wide lots on the south. Going into the next ones here. So as we talked about meeting into the topography it’s difficult to explain how that’s going to look from a two dimensional plan in a 3D world so what I attempted to do, and it’s kind of hard to read on this sheet obviously but at the north entrance, if I go back one. At that northern entrance just south, not the far north but the one that lines up with Longacres Drive. The elevation of the road coming in off of there is a 121.7 and down at the south end, or not south but the eastern side of that it goes down to a 987.5 and that’s the road grade following the existing topography. So I point that out because I think it’s important to understand that we’re not flattening the site. From the road connection off Galpin and Hunter down to where those first double cul-de-sacs are there’s about a 34 foot grade change and that’s in the road and that’s kind of pushing the max of what the City design guidelines will allow for those road changes. They’re in the some portions are about 5 to 6 percent. The City does allow up to 7 but it’s really not preferred to go that steep and it makes it difficult from a grading perspective from house to house but I think it is important to show that we are attempting to match the existing topography from Galpin down to the wetlands and then on the south entrance there, from the south to the southern cul-de-sac there’s about a 19 foot grade change and it’s not quite as steep there because Galpin actually comes down in elevation quite a bit there from the other intersections so we’re maintaining a level above the wetlands that’s required but what we’re doing is trying to match Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 6 the locked location or elevation that we’re stuck with off of Galpin down to the wetlands and rolling that street through there at the maximum grades that are allowed for street construction throughout so I know it’s difficult to see that and how that looks but I wanted to make sure that I explain that a little bit because we have gotten quite a few questions. You know are you just going to flatten it and it really isn’t going to be just flat. It is going to have and maintain some of that natural topography throughout. So the changes down in the south end by moving the pond we eliminated, while we both changed from 65 to, or from 55 to 65 wide lots and we changed, we eliminated this little bump out cul-de-sac and put the pond down in that location. What that allows for is a little bit less intrusive view from Longacres. Rather than looking at a small cul- de-sac of houses and roof tops, they’ll be looking across at some ponding and some of the revegetation that we’re going to do. By removing or changing that pond location we were also able to, where the existing guard house is preserve another area of trees. There’s a number of large standing oaks in that area. 14 to 20 inch that are in pretty good shape that we were able to maintain and that pond really wasn’t taking much of our water. It was taking a lot of the stormwater from Galpin so moving it we had to get some leeway from the County but I think they understand the importance of putting that in a location and it still is in a low point for them so it allows the opportunity to preserve some more trees and potentially the guard house as a neighborhood identification marker at the trail head. So if I go forward here, another one of the things that may be a little bit confused in this is the perception that we’re going to be flooding the neighbors. One of the things in our design guidelines and the City’s rules and the watershed is you can’t change the volume of water leaving the site. In fact you have to reduce it. So what we’ve actually done here and what this highlights is the house in the corner here, I highlighted it or I can’t tell. Can you see that up there or not? Yeah it disappears in the screen. So right by where you had the cursor there, that 1002 elevation that you see is one of the existing homes there and the houses that we’re proposing immediately adjacent to it are actually 10 feet below so, and we’ve put in a series of catch basins and a series of storm sewer running through that rear line there so our homes will actually be sitting 10 feet below. Oh yeah. So the elevation of this home in Majestic Oaks is 1002. Our home here is actually at a 992 so it sits 10 feet below the adjacent property and this property actually takes water from the neighbors so what we are doing here is allowing an out for some of the design and some of the, there is no storm, rear yard storm sewer in the existing neighborhood. By putting the number of catch basins and enhancing the storm sewer system that isn’t there today, it allows us the opportunity to collect some of the water from the neighbors. I also talked to one of the neighbors that we would allow or with the City’s permission there may be an opportunity to allow rear yard sump pumps to connect into that storm sewer as well. We could put leads. We’ve done that in other communities in Chanhassen where we put sump pump leads up to the property line to allow the opportunity to connect their sump pumps into that storm sewer. It’s something that we’ll have to review with staff if the neighbors are interested in but it certainly could help that situation. We do have a retaining wall along here and the purpose of that retaining wall, because our lots are sitting down it actually it holding up the hillside and there’s vegetation and trees that we’re preserving on top of it and then in the areas that we aren’t able to preserve trees through here our landscape plan proposes putting them back in on top of the wall so I think there was some misunderstanding that the wall was actually going to be above the existing properties but it’s actually below Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 7 because our houses will sit below. So I wanted to make sure that that was spelled out and understood a little bit better. That’s been something that has been a concern that we wanted to make sure was understood and addressed. Continuing through one of the other things we were asked to do was continue working on the creativity of the plan and what this shows is locations that we’re starting to show some enhancing of landscape. Monumentation at the south entrance, both entrance sides. The north and the south of that road will get an entrance monument with landscaping. At the guard house we are proposing somewhat in and in some respects to the existing or the former owner, some landscaping that would be enhanced by purple flowers of aster, chives and petunias. We thought that that may be a subtle way to show some recognition of the previous owner without going too far over the top and they are kind of a wild species that don’t require a ton of maintenance so it should be something that would be appropriate and take fairly well in a location like that. Down into, I know you can’t see but detail 5 is right in this area. As I click into the next screen we’re also doing some upgrading of landscaping there. Again trying to do more of a wildflower type of situation that’s highlighted by some of the purple colors. Purples and yellows. So lastly I want to make sure that I talk briefly about this because this has been something that from the start has also been kind of part of this conversation is do we want to see a density transfer or do we want to go straight zoning and I’m sure that the Planning Commission understands that with following straight zoning guidelines there are rules in place. There are rights in place that allow property owners and people to develop their property provided they’re following those guidelines. For this area the minimums are 90 foot wide lots with 15,000 square foot requirements. There are some shoreland overlay district rules that apply as well but this plan is a pretty good visual of how that looks. If you follow exactly to the T what those zoning guidelines are and this plan you can see some things that are happening here. The road goes back through because that could happen if the plan is followed to the T. There are the opportunity for lots that meet those 90 foot requirements and 15,000 square foot minimums to go in that location. There is obviously the park area, this plan shows the minimum park required per the ordinance and development of more homes in the area that’s shown on our PUD plan as preserved for park. The overall lot count on this plan is 195 versus 181 on our plan. I think that there is maybe some misunderstanding that this plan creates less traffic. It creates less, you know less pressure on schools. Whatever the case is but in fact there is more houses on it so it’s important to understand that it’s more than a straight trade off of park. There is the opportunity that there’s going to be more pressure on the infrastructure and the roads with a plan like this. There’s obviously more tree removal as well. This whole park as everybody knows is wooded and that’s why we’ve elected to try to preserve it. So the other question that has come up that I want to make sure I address is that area in the park. Can you actually develop that? We’ve taken a little bit more time. We’ve gotten some opinions from wetland consultants about that and we feel that it can. In fact this is a plan, it looks a little different but this is a community that we are building in Victoria. It’s Laketown. Lake Wasserman is actually up on the north part. This is a large wetland complex that goes through here. We actually built a road very similar fashion right through the middle of it. Is it challenging? Is there permits? Yes there is but we were able to not only accomplish this but in this project, this is Minnehaha Creek Watershed. We actually got an innovation award for the work that we did here so can it be done? I do think it can and our wetland consultants think it Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 8 can and I think it’s important to, that people understand that if the decision is made that the PUD plan is not supported that something like this can certainly occur. Whether it ends up being Lennar. It ends up being somebody else but it is possible I believe and I think it’s important for people to know and understand that. That basically concludes the last slide that I have and I know this table is hard to read but what I want to point out here is compatibility with the existing neighborhoods. Our plan by definition is, has a 1.3 density units per acre and by definition I mean net acres which is gross acres or the total land mass minus wetlands. Minus county right- of-way. That’s where that 1.3 units per acre comes from. The area around it averages 1.33 so by definition we fall right in line with that but just for the sake of the math, if you take out the park, which is roughly 50 acres and the 89 acres of upland we come in at 2.03 units per acre and that’s 181 homes at 89 acres. So I think the misconception that it doesn’t fit in with the existing neighborhoods is maybe a little misleading. The neighborhood to the south is actually 2.5. Lucy Ridge is 1.89. Ashling Meadows is 1.28. Parts of Longacres, Longacres is a little bit different. It’s 1.19 but the way that that is, those lots are counted was also different. They were platted into wetlands and platted into ponds and lot sizes are a little misleading on that one. So I wanted to make sure also that that was pointed out because there’s been some maybe misleading or misunderstandings that we’re coming in with a plan that doesn’t match the neighborhoods and it’s significantly more dense but the numbers here really don’t indicate that. So I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. I’d be, certainly will stick around and be happy to answer any at the end or however you feel I’ll be close by. Aller: Great thank you. Joe Jablonski: Thanks. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill, you have questions? McGonagill: Just a couple Mr. Jablonski. A question when you look at this, on your concept plan 7 which is different, a little bit different than what we saw on January 15th. How did the grading plan, how much percentage wise did the grading plan change as far as you know you talked I think if I recall a couple hundred thousand yards of dirt was going to be moved around and now you’ve reduced lot size. You’ve done that. How much has the grading plan come down? Joe Jablonski: The grading plan didn’t change too much. The location of the ponds changed and some of the, we did a little bit more work in that back yard area but the volume of dirt moving doesn’t necessarily change and with that the other plan that follows the zoning, I think it’s important to understand that that requires or ends up with a very similar type of grading situation and probably even more because of the grading that occurs into the park area. So does that? McGonagill: Yeah that answers that question. One more. Quite a few of the citizens have talked about traffic concerns and the interconnections between, and I’ll have to use Longacres and Hunter because I don’t remember the name of the streets across but the streets exiting the Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 9 Galpin development will be single line roads? Are they going to be divided? And then on, you’d have to ask probably Kate, this is probably directed to you. The Galpin project will there will be turn lanes? What’s going to be on Galpin to allow egress from those two neighborhoods now that will be abutting each other with traffic. Aanenson: I’m going to turn that over to the engineering department. Someone that can answer that question regarding the plans that they’ve got on Galpin. McGonagill: Okay. So why don’t we start with you as far as in and out’s. Were those single roads? You know you had a chart of where the monuments were. Joe Jablonski: I have the best plan here. Well here’s one for the south. It is single lane each direction. We weren’t splitting the entrances. We were electing to put monuments on the sides so it would be one lane in, one lane out. McGonagill: So it wasn’t like a monument in the middle of a cul-de-sac? Joe Jablonski: No. McGonagill: Where you’d go around it. It was. Joe Jablonski: No. That’s not the way that we were proposing it. We were proposing it on the outside edges. McGonagill: Okay. Joe Jablonski: And that’s the same in all three connecting points. McGonagill: Okay. And so I guess I’ll turn it to, okay. What about on the Galpin itself? Aanenson: Erick? Or Andrew. Brotzler: Mr. Chair, commissioners we were just going through the Galpin Boulevard design study that was completed in 2018 and the proposed project that’s currently planned for 2022, to reconstruct Galpin Boulevard does include the addition of dedicated turn lanes. McGonagill: It does include? Brotzler: Yes. McGonagill: Okay. At both. Brotzler: That is a part of the proposed plan. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 10 McGonagill: At both roads? Brotzler: Yes. McGonagill: Turn lanes going just one turn lane or will there be two? I mean I’m getting into the details I know. Brotzler: It’d be a right turn lanes and then a left turn lanes in the opposing direction. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Aller: And just to add, tack onto that as a result of the PUD plan that you’re proposing there will be enough easement granted for those turn lanes to be created? Joe Jablonski: Correct. Aller: Okay. Joe Jablonski: Yes. Aller: Any additional questions from commissioners at this time? Commissioner Weick. Weick: One question. I know we don’t have a plan yet but have you given any thought to the phasing of the buildout and what that might look like? Joe Jablonski: We have. Let’s see if I can, well this is probably the best way to look at it. The sewer comes through here, the Interceptor Line down, that runs kind of like this. So we would be electing to start our first phase in this area so that we have immediate connection or the easiest connection to the sewer. Grading would probably occur up to somewhere in here that first development season. And then we’d continue to the north and then the further north can really, both of these can kind of work independently. That really will depend on market and depend on the timing of interest for those neighborhoods but as far as the grading and the infrastructure works it can kind of be broken into thirds with us planning to start on the south third. Work our way to the north knowing that those, that those two areas on the far north could kind of happen simultaneously or at any time. Does that answer? Weick: Yep thank you. That’s all Chairman. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: In this most recent proposal you mentioned that there was additional tree preservation. Could you just clarify exactly what areas that is and some sort of quantity of tree preservation? Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 11 Joe Jablonski: On the south end we were able to preserve down at the far southeast corner a little bit more and then about a 20 foot, 20 to 25 foot wide existing tree buffer here. And then these circle trees, kind of the more blob style is what we’re preserving where my cursor is and then these circle ones are trees that we’re planning to replant. So that would be the south end. In the center area, which I don’t know I have a real good. Well let’s go up to the north. The north from the start between the time of our concept plan and the preliminary plat is where we probably spent the most time concentrating on what we can and can’t preserve up in the north section so all of this vegetation you see here would be preserved. We are preserving this area. One thing that we did change based on staff recommendations or that we support is putting these trees that would be within private lots into conservation easements. We’d be happy to work with staff to, on language for that to occur. There was some concern from neighbors about you know it’s great you’re saving the trees but how do we know they’re going to stay in the long run so I think conservation easements in those situations is a good opportunity for that. And then in the central area the biggest change or the place that we were saving the most was near the guard house. This is at Galpin, just south of the water station. So there were a number of existing oak trees there that are in pretty good shape that we were able to preserve and save by moving that pond. The exact quantity here it’s easy to determine but the other places, I don’t have a number for you sorry. Madsen: Okay thank you. Aller: Any additional questions at this point in time? Okay, thank you sir. So now is the time we’re going to open up the public hearing for comment by the public. Again that’s an opportunity for those present to come forward, speak either for or against the item. Those individuals in the other rooms if you want to feel free to come by and come around to the front and get in line when you feel like speaking please feel free to do so. You’re certainly welcome. To all those present I usually try to welcome you when you get here. Instead of saying that a hundred times tonight I just welcome everybody so we can move it along and I can hear the individuals. Again just a short reminder. 3 to 5 minutes. Please state your name, your address for the record. This is all going to go to the City Council to read and review and to digest and it will also give us a good record of who’s present before us tonight so with that welcome sir. Alan Nikolai: My name is Alan Nikolai, 6570 Galpin Boulevard which is about three-quarter mile north of this property. I go back a ways. I’ve been here in Chanhassen for 60 years. My family used to be about a couple one percent of the population back in early 60’s. For some of those people in those units north and south of this property, I used to hunt that. So you want to talk about not in my backyard. I get it. Bottom line is I’m looking a little bit on the wildlife aspect of it. That was one of the things when this first came up. What are we going to do to preserve natural areas for wildlife? That’s one of the intrinsic values of when people are seeing deer, owls, fox, whatever. When the little kids are seeing the fawn first time in June. Look at the little fawn. How do you put a dollar value on that? You can’t. We’re going have is basically a refuge here. It’s been that way for a while already. We’ve got another big refuge out Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 12 to the west. Lake Minnewashta Park. And there’s a wildlife corridor, if you ever talk to the DNR. How do you connect the two? That little creek on the north side that’s the connection. That’s the corridor that goes through there. With the PUD there’s more buffer space for wildlife to transverse east to west. They go way up that creek, I watch it all the time. I’ve been driving that road for 45 years. I understand what goes on with the wildlife. Frankly the PUD, all the work that’s been done with all the Lennar and all the city officials, well done. Very well done. We have a much bigger natural area for wildlife that people will enjoy for years to come. Frankly this, that area in the, those that have it. This red area, that’s the feather in the hat for the city of Chanhassen for the next couple generations. When they look back, what did we do well? Is to preserve that naturally. Now mowed. Natural. Let he dog gone turkeys and deer and fox, whatever have some room. So I strongly recommend that the City Council and, approve the proposed PUD. It’s dramatically increased. I have a background in construction. Civil engineering. Soils engineering. Architecture. I know what it takes to come together to do this. That’s a monumental step forward compared to the first proposal. Fully in support of this, the new version that you’ve come up with. Representative from Lennar thank you for working with the city but this is what we’re supposed to do. All come together. What’s going to be best so I know I heard through the grapevine you wanted to hear from some people that weren’t right next to it. Well I’m three-quarter miles away and this is the PUD is really a remarkable thing that can happen for the city. Thank you. Marnie Wells: Good evening. My name is Marnie Wells and I’m actually a Minneapolis resident. However I am the CEO of Camp Fire Minnesota. We own and operate Tanadoona which is just not even 4 ½ miles from here so thank you for including me tonight. Thank you Chairman and commissioners and staff. And I bet many of you have been to Tanadoona so again we’re jut down the road and I’ve been leading the organization for nearly 14 years. Tanadoona is 103 acres with 2,000 feet of shoreline on Lake Minnewashta. We are home of birds, bugs, critters. Lots of critters. Five unique eco regions including wetlands, prairie and a big woods. And we’ve been serving our kids of this community since 1924. And we believe that nature is the catalyst for change and we believe children have a right and we believe all kids deserve access to nature and that’s why I’m here tonight. Many of you may know this but I’ll just remind you. Kids spend 90 percent of their time indoors. Kids spend 50 hours a week in front of a screen. That is a full time job in front of a screen. That’s about 7 ½ hours a day. And we all know, we all know this and the research shows that when kids are unplugged and in nature it makes them happier, healthier, and better in school. So it seems really clear that being exposed to more nature, and that’s not just the Boundary Waters, or even Tanadoona for that matter, any nature and even perhaps this park in your back yard will have an enormous benefit on their lives and their future success and that is why I support the density transfer plan. This area has the potential to be 100 acre park for the community. That’s another Tanadoona in your back yard. And you know the property’s going to be developed. There’s no bones about it. And you all have an opportunity to create a legacy that will outlive all of us and benefit young people for many, many generations. I believe supporting the density transfer plan is the smartest and most thoughtful way to develop this gem. This absolute gem of an area. Now is my dreams were to come true we would do nothing other than leave it alone and let the turkeys do what they’re Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 13 doing out there but we know it will be developed so the reality, knowing it will be developed, supporting the density transfer plan is my stance. Of course I encourage you all to think carefully and clearly. You all have. I am very impressed with the work that’s been done. The positive impact that nature has on us, especially our children is immeasurable. And we are very well positioned to create and ensure a legacy that will benefit generations to come. And as someone who’s been working with children in a nature network and community I encourage you to support this plan, the density transfer plan. Thanks so much. Aller: Thank you. Craig Mertz: My name’s Craig Mertz. I’m a resident of town here. I’ve lived here for 40 plus years. I’m speaking on behalf and in support of Lennar’s plan for the density transfer. I came here because I wanted to explain a little bit of institutional memory here of historical context to what is happening here. This is the 50th anniversary, the half century anniversary of the establishment of Lake Ann Park. 1969 the then mayor Al Klingelhutz and his wife Mary Jane Klingelhutz and some other community leaders in town here came up with the idea of buying the Welter Farm that became Lake Ann Park. People here probably don’t know that there was opposition in 1969 to taking that big step of buying the parkland. The objections were didn’t need a park or this park was too big or the City shouldn’t be in the business of buying raw land for park purposes or the City shouldn’t buy any more land unless it has money in the bank already to do the internal developments in the park. If the City village council back in that year had gone along with the naysayers we wouldn’t have Lake Ann Park here. Now I know there’s going to be some limited objections to what’s going on. The effect on the surrounding community but just as the village council did in 1969 we need to be looking forward to what’s going to happen 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now where this park, this doubling of the size of the park is going to be another, we’re doubling the size of the jewel of the city park system and I would ask that the City and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lennar plan and we do a density transfer and accept the gift of the additional parkland so thank you. Jennie Skancke: Hi, my name is Jennie Skancke. I’m the area hydrologist for this area from the Minnesota DNR. My role as the area hydrologist is to review and approve preliminary plats when they come from cities. I cover 3 different counties so I review a lot of plats for developments across Dakota, Scott and Carver County. I did see this plan in a very preliminary idea at the very beginning and sent Kate my support for this density transfer idea. I want to essentially just echo what that first man said. I honestly cannot overstate the importance of setting aside this land, not only for the community of Chanhassen but creating resiliency to deal with the amount of flooding that we might have in the future due to climate change. I want to especially commend the staff here for coming up and working with Lennar on this kind of a design. This is truly a unique and commendable design. I rarely see anything this wonderful that sets aside this much space. I think Lennar is really to be commended for not only working with the City but for hearing the concerns of the neighbors for preserving these spaces that they’re willing to set aside an easement. You know they can get extra money for an individual parcel if they don’t set aside those trees in the conservation easement. If they have a larger Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 14 acreage for that each individual parcel but they are hearing what this community wants and honestly it’s very, very rare that a developer is so willing to work with the community so you know just from I haven’t reviewed the details so this is not intended to be a formal support of the plan but generally I think it looks really great and I would strongly support this density transfer concept. Thank you. Conrad Fiskness: Good evening. My name is Conrad Fiskness. I live at 2385 Bridle Creek Circle which borders right up to Galpin. I’m about, between a half a mile and three quarter miles south of Highway 5. Been a resident of Chanhassen since 1966. In 1969 I was appointed to the Park and Recreation Commission and very early on, actually our chairman at the time came to the meeting all excited. He had discovered this piece of property that would make a wonderful park and within a few days as a group went to look at it and it was remarkable. Anybody driving down 5 thought it was just a field of cabbages. Where the ballfields are now and I had no idea that there was a lake behind that hill. We actually commission, park and rec commission, there were 7 of us decided that we did want to go ahead with the park. The council supported us. We put together a plan. Council let us go ahead and promote a bond issue. We bought 60 acres out of 120 that was available. We proposed to buy that and it went, the cost was $3,000 an acre. The comment was made earlier about opposition. I went to 3 different organizations to present the plan. I was told that we were the dumbest people on the face of the earth to consider paying $3,000 an acre for land. Unheard of. And probably if you were looking at it in terms of growing corn, soybeans or cabbage probably that was true but we did proceed. We passed the bond issue. We constructed the park during, I guess it would be 1970 and ’71 and it’s something that I feel very good about having been a part of. I think the fact that Chanhassen has been the number 10, number 4 and number 2 best city under 50,000 in which to live in the country that Lake Ann would have something to do with that. January of 1972 I was appointed to represent this area on the Riley-Purgatory, Bluff wasn’t a part of it yet. At the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District. At the time I came on I, excuse me let me back up. While I was on the Park and Recreation Commission there was a developer that either owned or had option to this land and was proposing building right up to the lake. The park and rec commission, supported by the council promoted the idea and it was accepted that Lake Ann would be the one lake in Chanhassen around which there would be no houses built. In other words there would be a public area all the way around the lake. And so we, that position was accepted by the council and has been to the best of my knowledge supported by park and recreation commissions and councils ever since so we have virtually half a century of support for Lake Ann, the park and the way it has been managed. While on the watershed district board of managers, when I came on Lake Ann was the second best quality lake, well it was the best in Chanhassen. The second best in the district. The only other lake that was better was Round Lake in Eden Prairie. However in Eden Prairie substantial development took place to the west and to the north of the area and the water quality deteriorated rather significantly. Excuse me. To the extent that we spent a lot of effort, time and resources trying to improve the quality of Round Lake. The watershed has supported Chanhassen during the, and I was on the park and rec, I mean on the watershed district for 34 ½ years and during that time we did what we could to maintain and enhance the quality of Lake Ann and that’s where we are today. I checked yesterday and Lake Ann is still the best lake in Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 15 Chanhassen and so it would be a shame in my opinion to do anything that would be possible and deterioration of that quality. And the 50 some acre wetland that is proposed for the density transfer is a very high quality wetland. It’s not something that should be given up without great consideration. And to the extent that, and I don’t know from this plan where the stormwater discharges will go but certainly the straight zoning plan brings houses awfully close down to that west shore of Lake Ann. So I guess in conclusion I would say that I have a lot of years of being involved, either directly or indirectly with Lake Ann and the park and it’s something that I look back on with satisfaction that I was a part of it and maybe even a little bit of pride. And I would be sorely disappointed if a decision was made to negate all that half a century of work that poses a greater jeopardy then might be necessary so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Brenda Darkow: Hello, my name is Brenda Darkow. I live at 2198 Red Fox Circle which puts me pretty much directly across from the gate house so for the last really for 15 years I have had my family have had a great view. We’ve enjoyed all the trees. We’ve seen plenty of turkeys and deer and everything. Even when as they cross that corridor. I teach my teenagers to, when there’s one deer there’s always more to follow so, but we’ve enjoyed that. We love living in Minnesota for what Minnesota gives us. Not just the city of Chanhassen but the state of Minnesota. We have parks. We have trails. We have woods. We have wildlife. We have so many things that not everyone gets to have and appreciates and I’m happy that my kids have been able to grow up in a place that they’re not so confined. That they have room and that maybe 10 percent of the time that they’re not looking at a screen for whatever reason but my kids have gone to Tanadoona. They’ve played at Lake Ann. You know they’ve been everywhere. It’s great so, which leads us to our Mr. Rogers. Ideally he would have left us a will and Marnie says that it’d be great if we could do nothing but that is not realistic and it’s not reasonable. Anyone who thinks, in my opinion that just nothing can happen that’s not going to happen so on the premise that something will happen we need to make the best of it. I do commend Lennar for listening to residents. I know that I, I think have talked to you as well as other people and one of the things that I’ve emphasized is nature so I appreciate in hearing that we’re taking more steps, as many steps as possible. It just tears me apart to see new development and the first thing they do is rip out all the trees. They grade everything out and it’s frustrating for me to look at all of that and it just goes away and the fact that you plant 60 more trees to replace just doesn’t replace a 30-50 year old tree when you have a 5 year old tree. So I appreciate those efforts that have been made to make that. So I guess as you’re probably getting there I have been thinking a lot about it and looking at the main conceptual. Thinking for the map. I do support the PUD because I think it gives, it’s a compromise. It’s a compromise that you know Lake Ann gets more park and that it feeds into things that we as Chanhassen residents love and residents in the state of Minnesota love. We have woods. We have more trees and landscaping and everything like that so we’re trying to follow the grade and do all those things because I love my view. I know my view is going to change and so this is the compromise I think with getting, preserving as much nature and trees as possible. Adding to the parks and just sort of minimizing that and as Mr. Aller knows he’s an attorney, compromise is not, you know if everyone walks away a little Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 16 unhappy it’s been a good day because it’s what you can live with because not everybody’s going to get what they want. I know that I won’t get what I want which is nothing to happen so in this case I’m trying to, you know as a resident and as a resident that’s more directly affected than some and I’m sure as many others that are more directly affected as well this is the compromise that I think will hopefully work. Have more nature. Less houses and hopefully will not have such a long term effect onto the neighborhoods that surrounds and Longacres and Ashling Meadows and everyone as we have brand new houses that are being built and we all have 20 year old houses that are being built and sometimes that causes a conflict so I’m hoping that the proposed PUD is a compromise for everyone. Thank you. Josh Kimber: Hello, good evening. I’m Josh Kimber. 2060 Majestic Way. I’ve kind of been the opposition mascot for this development but I want to start by saying I want this to be a conversation. If you guys have additional questions I know this is public comment I also want to just open it up to questions if you have any for me so I’d be open, willing to do that. When Joe was talking earlier about Majestic and he was pointing out the elevation of this one house. This is actually my house. I had a really good meeting with Joe. I agree that Lennar has done a really good listening to, well at least in my opinion, listening people on the southern end. This, the water in our area is a major concern. It has been a major concern. Even he spoke when the two entry lots, I mean if you picture the land it slopes down towards us and specifically if you look at my lot, I really don’t have a lot of topography in my back yard and this was intended to have the water leak out the back and what as happened is water doesn’t leak out the back and it basically sits in our two yards and makes it way down to my basement and that’s why I’ve been flooded a couple times. So as you know I’ve been to every meeting since January about this listening and I had a really good meeting with Joe and he went over in detail the plan that he went over. I won’t go over it again but I will say that I do feel a lot better about it because of the location. I mean the development is doing basically what we would ask of it. The property from where it is will go down and will slant towards the new houses and not towards my house. It was really good to understand this hill and how the water is supposed to go and how they plan on doing that so I mean Joe did a really good job and I thank him for taking the time for him doing that. So then you may be saying well Josh it really sounds like you’re in agreement with this plan. What are you doing up here? Well the reality is we on Majestic don’t have an option. These are 90 foot lots on both plans. Both plans are the exact same. So regardless we’re going to be losing a significant amount of tree loss. They’re going to be moving a significant amount of dirt. I believe this will probably be one of the most destructive developments in the city of Chanhassen that will lose 80 percent of the tree cover. It will lose 90 percent if you do both plans and I agree that there… I’ve been to every meeting. I don’t think this is an either or situation. I think there are other options out there and I believe with the Mayor that we should be pushing developers to come up with a different plan that just treats the land differently. I completely agree with the Tanadoona comments that nature is of utmost importance and we should use it but I don’t this plan, either plan does that. The topography, the character that’s in the land. It just, we shouldn’t touch it or we should do something different with it. Whether we put 180 homes there or you spread the 180 homes over a great piece it’s both poor use of land in my opinion. That was some of the comments you guys had in July. This is a poor use of land. Commissioner Tietz said Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 17 there’s a complete disregard for natural resources on both plans and that’s why I don’t have a vote. I’m not going to pick one over the other but I did bring up a couple of additional points. A lot of people are talking about the park. The park would be fantastic. When we moved into that house, we’ve been there almost 10 years this year, we did our homework. We looked and we say hey this is going to be zoned low density. Man look there’s going to be a park there. Man that’s going to be great. What we didn’t ask is how is the City going to get that land so in the past the City has gone through a bond and actually did purchase park space. Even he said they were ridiculed or you know commented about how that was a poor decision to do at the time. Why doesn’t the City do that again here? Put together a bond. Let’s buy the land. Then you don’t have to have a trade off. We don’t have to have a density transfer. We can buy the land outright. Sorry, we can buy the land outright. Use it as we’d like and to me that’s what we should do. That’s what we’ve done in the past and we should look at doing it again. In terms of this park space I’d like to remind people that the park space is really in the middle of nowhere. There’s going to be three walking paths. One would involve over a one mile walk around the lake. The other two would be requiring you to park in city neighborhoods to get to that land so yes it’s a great park but there isn’t a way to get to it. Either the guard shack, I question if there are going to be cross walks for people to cross Galpin there safely. There’s not a walkway that goes from Longacres down to the guard shack so the trail head really connects nothing and you wonder if kids are going to cross in the middle of nowhere there. It’s of concern. Learning more about the Galpin…element I think would really appease residents. I know the turn lanes are there but we’re talking about two blinds intersections that both come up hills and I would recommend regardless of what the plan is, even though we haven’t seen anything that the City looks at reducing the speed limit on Galpin. It’s a dangerous cross way. You’ve got to play Frogger just to get across the street and some intersections it’s unsafe. The last comment I have would be about the density units. I know you got creative with numbers but if you look at what the lot sizes are in general and you look at what these property owners are going to have it isn’t in comparison to anything in the area. I believe the math that’s being used would be something along the lines of me buying 2 acres from the Gorra property and then selling my house at 2 ½ acres. Well it doesn’t work like that. The lots that are going in this space are significantly smaller than the south, on the north and the west and that’s really what we oppose in this development is there’s a density transfer and this fits with nothing that’s in the community and that’s why I believe we should be pushing all developers, including Lennar and maybe coming up with a different plan. Everyone has asked for a different plan to come forward back in, even when we were in the concept phase. I think there were 2 people that said we should be looking at a concept 3. City Council members said we should, 3 City Council members at the time said we should be looking at 3 different options here. That didn’t happen so I know that there is great turnout here tonight and I know that there is a lot of people who are passionate about this but I don’t think this went down the right path. I think we should have been looking at alternative plans to use the land better. There’s better use for this land than either plan and that’s really where I stand so any questions for me? No. Aller: No, thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 18 Josh Kimber: Awesome. Now I’m going to leave but I have to go get my daughter and I’ll be back so, I’m not leaving because I’m upset or anything so thank you. Tijuana Burton: Hello, my name is Tijuana Burton. I don’t live in Chanhassen but I served a lot of time here being a fan, supporter and volunteering at Paisley Park. Probably half of you haven’t listen to his music, current music or been to his late night parties. Morning parties. He has expressed, Prince the former owner. His name is Prince Roger Nelson. He stated in his music that the most important thing is not the building but the land that the building is on and the reason why after he tore his house down after his second divorce he didn’t want to build anything on it because everybody was like what are you going to build next? What you going to build next? And he said nothing and everybody was like why? He was like for what? I’m cool living in Paisley Park. I don’t need a big house. I’ll just let the land be the land. I enjoy it how it is and the neighbors said thanks. We appreciate you not building anything. We enjoy you know not having anything on the land. We enjoy the wildlife and you know the habitation and the way it is. He left it the way it was so if he wanted something on there he would have built something on there. Okay I knew eventually after we wished him heaven that somebody was going to end up buying it and when I heard the news this morning that somebody bought it and was going to put some houses on it I’m like oh Lord, and when you all said your meeting was at 7:00, I put it on Facebook. I’m coming. I was going to chew you out because I thought you was going to be you know the regular contractor. Tear all the trees out and concrete everything, whatever but as I listened to you and some of the neighbors I’m like huh maybe he ain’t half bad. But when I found out you all had meetings before this and everybody was trying to come with a, that things falls a hundred times a day child. Thank you. That you all were trying to work together and at least leave some type of you know natural habitat or whatever like the woman was saying, you know teaching her kids about nature because that’s the problem. Why do people think bears are in their back yard? They don’t have nowhere to go. All of this development, everybody get a little piece of land and they want to put something more on it but when bears and deer come knocking on their door they’re like why is there deer in my back yard? Because they don’t have nowhere to go. But if you leave some at least they won’t be at your back door not as often so I don’t know the right answer because I don’t live here but I came to support the residents because I know that street. I’ve been up that street. I’ve been up that driveway. I know that shack and if, that street needs to be widen. If you’re going to build, because you’re going to do whatever you want to do anyway, so if you, when you do build your houses there that poor little street is going to get so worn out. You’re going to have to repave that street. You’re going to have to widen that street. The turning lanes. That would be fine going this way but if somebody want to make a left turn to go up in that property that traffic going to get backed up. The school buses is going to get jammed up. It’s going to be a problem and you’re going to be back here and all these people are going to be back here and I’m going to be back here. So I don’t know what to tell you but you all continue to converse and you all going to have to come up with agreement but I’m here to say I know and I know what he wanted and he would appreciate this and you all coming together and he liked wildlife you know. I know you bought it and you had buildings in mind and homes and what not. It’s too late like the gentleman just left here saying. If we could have left it alone but it is what it is but you all continue to come to a Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 19 compromise and communicate. It sounds like you know you’re taking huge consideration on you know how to do the natural plumbing and what not and everything but please continue to respect the residents. Please keep Prince in thought and mind even though he’s the former resident. He’s not the Artist Formerly Known as Prince. His name still is Prince so please continue to take their thoughts in consideration because they live here. I mean the guy that’s been here since ’66. I was born in ’67. I wasn’t even here yet. So they know okay. Alright thank you guys. Aller: Thank you. Just a quick reminder to all present. I know people like to turn their back to me so that I can’t tell them their time is up but if you speak into the microphone the City Council is going to get a better hear of what you actually present and say so if you can speak into the microphone, again let us know your name, address, representational capacity if any. Matthew Myers: Matthew Myers, 7421 Windmill Drive. I’m on the south edge of the property representing myself. I don’t think it’s an either or. I think when these gentlemen talk about they’ve been here for 60 years and I’m only 20 years so I’m new compared to them but the City took a chance and bought Lake Ann. They bought it. Why didn’t they buy the whole thing? Take the deal. Put in a stage there. Have music concerts instead of here in the city. Let’s really honor Prince. Let’s really buy this. Let’s step up like the City Council did in 1969. They’re saying they stepped up and they bought that part of Lake Ann and now this is the best compromise. Why do we have to compromise? Chanhassen is never going to see the piece of property like this again. There’s plenty of open farmland that they can build 200 houses on sometime in the future but the rolling hill and the wetlands and the Lake Ann access, it’s never going to be available again. What we’re going to run out of is open land like this. Beautiful piece of property… I see pheasants every day coming out of there. The turkeys, the deer, all the wildlife. It’s a wildlife preserve. Let’s keep it for the generations. I’m old….it’s for 20, 30, 40 years like they said. Let’s say in 40 years when people come back and say hey in 2019 they stepped up and they bought that piece of property. Referendum. Work with the County. Work with the State. Get the whole piece and do it right. Be bold like they were in ’69. Not the ’69 they did a great job and now you want to compromise to add to that? No let’s be bold and do the whole thing and leave it all green. It’s not an either or and nothing against Joe. Joe’s done a great job of listening but we don’t have to cow cow to a billion dollar corporation and to heirs that never lived here and the millionaires, the money they’ve made off of Prince. No work of their own. Why does Chanhassen residents need to work with them? We can say no to it all. Be creative. Find a way to work with other agencies, other foundations and preserve this land for the next generation of Chanhassen so when I come up and say I’ve been here 60 years and say hey I was part of stopping the development of 200 homes and doing it right, preserving this land for everyone. Steve Scharfenberg: Steve Scharfenberg, 1470 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Chairman Aller, members of the commission, I’m here tonight as Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission and I’m speaking in favor of the revisions to the proposed Galpin property. At the most recent City Council work session the developer presented their updated proposal. Mr. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 20 Jablonski has gone through some of that tonight. They’ve revised the plan to reduce the number of houses to 181. They’ve changed and modified the lot sizes. They’ve made revisions to both the north, south and the Galpin property. I believe that those revisions were made after listening to the public. Following the January session of this commission the revised plan is now back to you tonight to review and I understand that you will not be voting on it per se but recommendations will be made to the council. As a Park and Recreation Commission we refer back to the recently completed 20 year Park Recreation System Plan. We received feedback during the completion of that plan to expand Lake Ann’s open space. In addition citizens expressed the desire to continue the existing trails around the lakes. The Park and Recreation Commission shares the community’s desire to preserve as much open space as possible. The proposed density transfer to the west will preserve 50 acres of forested public area with the remaining 44 acres as a wetland. I don’t believe that anyone here wants to see that 50 acres developed along Lake Ann or along Lake Lucy. It would be a shame if that were to happen. However that may happen as indicated by Mr. Jablonski and the council does not, if the council not take the necessary steps and action this evening and later on on March 11th. There are additional goals that should be considered in reviewing the plan and those include the following. Helping to protect the water quality of both Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Preserving undeveloped shoreline. Allowing the City to complete the trail system around Lake Ann. Allowing additional trails to be constructed connecting the surrounding neighborhoods to the area. Those connections will be made. The people both in Longacres and to the south will have and to the north will have those connections to that large 50 acre development and that trail will now almost go all the way completely around Lake Ann. This development plan has been a work in progress to say the least. Changes have been made and I believe the public has had the opportunity to bring forth their concerns. Tonight we have one last chance to comment on this proposal. I know that our two commissions look at different aspects of this proposed development. However I believe as a community our goal is to preserve as much beautiful open space that we can. The Park and Recreation Commission would encourage the council to adopt this revised development plan. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. John Garry: Excuse me, my name is John Garry. I’m at 1460 Knob Hill Lane. Live about a mile away from this. Wasn’t planning on saying anything tonight but sat here listened and appreciate what everybody has to say. I appreciate the work staff has done. Lennar as well especially probably in this situation. I’ve gotten a little selfish. I got 3 boys that live a mile from here so 50 acres of woodland is probably in favor for me personally and my kids. But I do have a history for 10 years owning probably one of the biggest ecological restoration companies in the Midwest and it’s pretty rare working with developers and with cities to see a piece of property like this that’s available to the city. Not necessarily for purchase but for free and as a citizen I would say it wouldn’t be very financially responsible I don’t think for the City Council to try and buy this when they’re getting the prime ecological aspects of the property for nothing. I think it sounds crazy to me. I’m under the belief that this area will be developed, whether it’s now or unless you know one of us wins the lottery and wants to buy the whole thing and leave it. It’s a Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 21 lot of money and I think it’s a lot of money for the whole of Chanhassen to eat if we think that we’re just going to purchase it. But what kind of drove me to say something is I’ve seen a lot of these plat maps and I agree with the first gentleman who spoke about the wildlife corridor and you know it’s extremely rare to find 50 acres of upland woodland on the edge of these lakes that you can preserve. And I’m really impressed with what you guys have done by closing off the roads. By changing this so everybody kind of gets the advantage of the best parts of this property. I you know I put a hockey rink in my back yard every year and my neighbor looks at it like you going to flood my basement in the spring so I don’t disagree with the neighbors but I’ll also say as a guy who worked around erosion and these developments that Lennar knows damn well they can’t flood anybody out and they’ve you know, Lennar has lots bigger pockets to go after than I do from my neighbor so I understand that and I think the neighbors should too. But I think it’s a great plan and I would be in full support of it and I just, you know the gentleman who said it’s going to be tough to get back to those woods and you’ve got to walk a mile and there’s only a couple trails, perfect. That’s exactly what it should be so thanks. Todd Simning: Todd Simning, 2145 Wynsong Lane. I probably come with a little bit of a different perspective and really ask the City to, I’ll say honest to goodness you guys have done a really good job of revamping your plan but I want to throw it back at the City to say truly do you need 50 acres over here? Okay so across the street on Wynsong Lane we did the same thing and didn’t destroy the environment. Didn’t destroy the wetlands around. We really preserved a lot of the area. I developed that property. I live there myself and we, we’re very sensitive to what the area was and I don’t see how or why you can’t develop some of the 50 acres there. There’s o reason why you can’t have the trail system connect. I mean whether you go to Eden Prairie or whether you go to Chanhassen I mean you guys are all connecting your trail systems and what not. I mean it’s really a phenomenal system that we all have to really enjoy. Whether you’re in Minneapolis. Whether you’re in Plymouth or whatever, cities are really doing a great job of connecting their trail systems and that. This right here, you’re not going to destroy an entire 50 acres. You might take some of it out of there, okay. You may take some density transfer from the area where you’re completely taking out almost every tree and moving it over to the east side. You know when you look at the emails and what not that have been sent to the City there’s so many, what do you call it? Residents that from Utica and everything else on the east side that were very pro I don’t want anything to happen on the west side. Well why? I mean I don’t want to look at houses. They’re afraid that every tree is going to be taken out but if you guys do a good job of helping the developer, helping the builder develop a good plan you will have a great project. You don’t have to throw density over to one area all the time. You can have a balance. And it’s disappointing to see the City on so many different levels and I think that we did a good job and maybe Kate, Todd and whoever, Erick wasn’t here at the time, maybe they didn’t think that we did a good job balancing out what we did over on Wynsong Lane but we took a 10 acre parcel over there and only subdivided it into 4 lots and granted I make my living building and developing so I’m so cognizant of you’ve got to make money because that’s why we’re in business but you can also be cognizant about what you’re doing with the land to make it beneficial and just to say that we need to transfer everything over to the west side and we need to take out pretty much every tree and God bless us we’re saving this wetland which you’re not Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 22 going to destroy anyway and with all the ecologically sound practices, business practices that we have as developers today you can’t just destroy everything anyway. So to say that they’re doing something better than somebody else is not truly what’s happening. It’s the City has some choices to make and if you say that gosh darn we want to save 50 acres just because we want to save 50 acres, well so be it. You can do that. But on the other hand if you say that we want to take 50 acres, we want to balance everything out and we want trees over here. We want to protect this land. We want to have our corridor system coming through so the trails line up, I mean goodness. My kids will run through there. I mean I’m just on the other side of the road. We’re always outside. My kids are out on the ponds all the time. I mean we have what, 3 natural ponds with Lake Harrison just behind us. You can do a good job making a good project. It doesn’t necessarily have to be just density transfer. It can be a balance. I don’t have anything other than that to say but truly if you guys can just take that into consideration. You’re acting like it’s one of the other and it really isn’t one or the other. It can be a good balance working with the developer because he needs to make money. We want him to make money. We want him to build houses because we want houses to be in Chanhassen. We want the tax revenue and everything else. We want Lennar to make money. I don’t care if you’re a billion dollar business or 10 billion dollar business. You need to make money just like me. Just like you guys when you go to your jobs. Every one of us has to make money. But you can make a good decision about what you really want to balance out with the project and it doesn’t necessarily all have to be over on one side. That’s all I have to say, thank you. Aller: Thank you. John Yanta: Hi my name’s John Yanta. I’m a Chanhassen resident. 365 Pleasant View Road. I think you did a great job with your plan and I have seen my taxes increase every year since I’ve lived in Chanhassen. I enjoy Chanhassen but I’ve seen taxes increase. Therefore I recommend the City to not buy this piece of ground. If people want to come up and step up as private citizens God bless them but this is not a way to buy this site and I think they did a nice job with this new plan. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Scott Dewing: I’ll be quick. Scott Dewing, 6735 Mulberry Circle. I live just on the other side of Lake Lucy. 20 year resident. Born in 1966. I’m excited about this plan. I’ve been following this pretty closely. I believe that Lennar’s done a great job of allowing us to enjoy that area. I drive, walk, run, bike around that area almost daily. I’m very much in favor of this new plan. Thank you. Cheree Theisen: Hi everybody once again. Cheree Theisen. I live at 2072 Majestic Way and I’m in the Royal Oaks development which is the immediate south side of the property. I was the second house in there 25 years ago. I’ve been there all this time. Now I’m looking at our entire back yards being totally demolished. You talk about this wonderful walkway around this lake. Well no one realizes that there’s a big piece of private property still that you’re not going to be Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 23 putting a walkway through so that’s going to be like maybe three quarter walkway to get there as Josh said is going to be a mile walk to get around to your new property. For me on Majestic Way there if I want to go and get on the walkway system I have to walk down Majestic Way, get on Galpin. Go north hopefully down to maybe they’ll put a crosswalk in where the guide track is or I’ll have to go even further but I have go down there, cross again okay. If I had children I’d be very concerned about that. To get down into the nice little walkways that are going to be down to get me and my family down to the lake. That’s a lot. And then the biggest thing I want to say is I wish somebody would put out for these people of Chanhassen, it’s easy for you to come in here and say we need the park. We need the park. Okay but it’s not at a cost to the City of Chanhassen. It’s a cost to us who have been there for 25 years. 30 years or even longer because we’re losing. We’re losing a lot and I don’t think that that’s fair. I would like to see somebody put out a graph so everyone in Chanhassen can see, this is what it’s going to look like and then another one that shows this is what it looks like with every single tree that’s there and then you could realize the impact of what you’re doing to that property by ripping out those trees and putting 5 foot little spruce trees in and I look out my yard I’ll see the top of a fence and I’ll see the roof tops of houses. That’s what we’re going to see there in a beautiful development that we created. Just saying. I think it sucks. Aller: Thank you. Barb Klick: Barb Klick, 7196 Utica Lane. I’m a resident of Chanhassen for 32 years. First of all I want to say I’m glad that this session is being taped. We could send it to the federal government and tell them how the government in the community and the private sector can actually work together to get a good outcome. Number one. Second of all Prince has been a great neighbor for 32 years for all of us. What a great person who let us use that land. He never posted it and we’re all grieving the loss. I mean I don’t want it to change. None of us want it to change but it’s going to change so we’ve got to make the best of it and we’ve seen what the outcome is and how we’ve pulled together and we do need to preserve the 54 acres and they need to be preserved intact, not split up. I’m a big nature lover. I’ve taken gray horn owls to the Rapture Center. I’ve seen deer die from getting hit by cars in my front lawn. We need some land for the nature and I’m telling you as a nurse we do need to walk so people we do need to park our cars and walk down and see the nature. I’m telling you we need to move. We do. It’s part of it so I’m a huge supporter of this high density transfer. It’s our brutal reality that things are changing but accolades to everyone for coming together. It’s the best of the worst situation and if this slips out of our fingers and all these other developers will come in and do exactly what they want shame on all of us. Laurie Susla: Hi my name is Laurie Susla. I live at 7008 Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen. I think that I very much appreciate the Planning Commission listening to the public again tonight. I think this is a very important topic for the whole town but certainly everyone here and over in the senior center. It’s packed over there so a lot of people are very, very passionate about this. My concern I think there are a lot of people who are in favor of the density transfer. My concern is that the number of homes that are being transferred from the east to the west at 54 homes. That Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 24 seems to have been a matter of negotiation. I as of yet haven’t seen any actual engineering plat that says this could work this way. There was a landscape architect plan that was given to you all but no real hard facts that 54 is the number that we should be dealing with and when you take those 54 homes what ends up happening as you well know is the hard cover in the 181 homes gets very, very high. We have two thirds of those lots are at 40 percent hard cover or higher. Over a quarter are at 50 percent hard cover or higher and that’s not including the streets so when you take a look at all the stormwater that’s going to be coming off all of this new hard cover and where is that going? That’s going into Wetland 1. It is a Preserve wetland. It’s going into Lake Ann. It’s going into Lake Lucy. It’s going into everything that we all want to preserve so my comment is to re-examine that 54. Is 54 the right number? Is that what we really should be talking about transferring to the west? Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Shane Waskey: Hi Shane Waskey, 1925 Topaz which is on the north end of the development there and I’m just, I live otherwise tonight I kind of have a unique perspective because I’ve been going back on that land for quite a few years and if it’s okay I’ll grab the mouse. I just feel like this picture really doesn’t represent reality at all. So this swamp or wetland or whatever you want to call it, I think everyone knows pretty well or is well documented, what it doesn’t show is the water flows out here into Lake Lucy and then you cross over here and it goes north out on this peninsula here. You know in the summer we’ll hike back here but we’ll put up a, you know a lot of people lay down logs and things like that but it’s flowing water so, and then all along this area it appears to be trees. This is all, I mean it’s so low that I can’t imagine that, I mean unless they’re allowed to excavate and bring in a lot of dirt, you could not have a home with a basement through here. It’s very low. As you come through here I would agree that there would be some nice property, you know houses that you could probably align but I would say 5-6 or something. When you come in here it gets very tall and steep like it’s like Split Rock Lighthouse sort of thing. Put a tower up here and very steep down the edges. No way you could build so I just, I think that these concessions and these nice things that the builder has offered, especially you know starting off at 55 foot lots and oh we’re going to be nice now and go bigger is a bit of smoke and mirrors so I just wanted to mention that. That I feel like a lot of us are negotiating from a place of weakness when really this property I really question the ability to do anything with it. Furthermore if there was houses put out here, correct me if I’m wrong but I think there’s already well documented plans that there would continue to be a trail through here so if we lost some of this area we still have the trail. There’s already a park on the other side of the lake. I mean how many lakes do you have a continuous park all around. I don’t know that it makes a lot of sense so in turn you know all these houses are getting blitzed over on this property as a result of just some weird you know messaging in my mind. Thank you. Greg Stewart: Hi my name is Greg Stewart. My wife Gerry and son Ian live at 1893 Topaz Drive and I guess I’ll be one of the naysayers as my property abuts the northern edge of the forest of the Prince property. Just so it’s clear that the impact this development will have on the neighbors that adjoin this property. The construction project will take 2 to 4 years which means Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 25 for 2 to 4 years everybody that has property along this area will suffer from noise pollution, air pollution, traffic and noise. Our property values will be greatly depressed and will remain depressed first because nobody will want to buy a house seeing what’s being built behind it. Nobody will want to buy a house perhaps afterwards when all the homes are in and our property values are devalued because of the new home sales and the prices that they may bring so I’m really concerned you know. There really are tangible impacts to the neighbors that adjoin this property. I must say that I was dumb founded at the comments of Jerry McDonald in the paper that residents apparently aren’t supposed to have a voice in City Council so I’m very pleased that tonight we’re demonstrating our ability to speak out and speak our mind. However if this plat is going to go through I guess one observation is everywhere you see a house crammed to the left of that wetland is now forest or other wetland and so you’re destroying half of the forest to save the other half. I’m not sure that that’s a reasonable trade off but again unfortunately because Prince didn’t leave a will we’re in the situation we’re in so I guess the one thing I would ask the council to definitely consider is that there are provisions put in place to ensure that there truly is a conservation of trees, as Mr. Jablonski mentioned earlier, and that there is additional buffer line built into the north. And so I just want to make sure that if the PUD is approved that these provisions are also firmly put in place and that we bring together some kind of standing committee between Lennar and the City and the neighbors so that we can hash out some of these details in a more open venue than these types of meetings that obviously are not a good setting for doing that. Anyways those are my thoughts, thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward at this time? Anyone from the senior center that would like to work their way around? Jeri Sorensen: I’m Jeri Sorensen. I live at 8121 Maplewood Terrace. I’ve lived in Chan for 28 years. Love Lake Ann Park. We spend a lot of time there. Doing every form of recreation that you can enjoy and it’s been a gift to our family and I thank the founders of Chanhassen for setting aside. I love the idea of the north side of the lake being preserved because it’s a beauty. Can’t think of anything more that I enjoy in the town but kind of thinking compromise. What can we do that you know there is, as I’m looking at that similarly dense areas. What about the City purchasing some small areas in some of those dense things on the west for neighborhood parks. Leave the big park. The compromise would be…smaller parks in the neighborhoods. And maybe a small tree buffer between the adjacent neighborhood to the south…just a little area of compromise. Just a thought. I would not want to give up the Lake Ann Park area but I sent a letter in earlier saying what about you know not putting the path in right away to have some money to put in some additional park space. And don’t build anything more in Lake Ann Park until that property is paid for. And then like thinking 50 years from now. Not just about our families or our kids or what’s in it for me. I think there’s way too much of that kind of thing going on. But what if after it’s paid for then you make a memorial path through Lake Ann and it’s built by you know, where are we going to put people when they die? What about using that money like I would like my name along that path or think of parkland as a memorial for the people who love the city and love the lake so put in a couple more small parks. I wouldn’t want Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 26 to ditch the whole deal. I want to keep Lake Ann but if there’s an area of compromise that’s where I see it. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Greg Andrews: Hi, Greg Andrews. I’m at 6895 Ruby Lane. Ashling Meadows. Prince…from what I’ve kind of written here is Prince may have loved this land but he didn’t will the property to the city and he’s got some heirs and they want to monetize this and they’re going to monetize it to the highest bidder and that’s going to force any developer, and I do believe this will be developed, to need to build more houses to make money because they’re not charity organizations. I don’t believe the City’s going to buy this land. They’re not going to get that through. When I originally heard about this project last summer I contacted the Sierra Club. We’re going to fight for the trees. They really don’t care. It really surprised me. That’s a small project. They really don’t care. They’ve got bigger things to fight. I contacted the watershed district. They’re like look, if the builder follows the rules, City’s on board, this is going to go through. Not going to happen. News to me. I thought there has to be some preservation laws to protect this. Watershed district’s going to do their job and follow the rules, so will the builder, et cetera. There’s not enough million dollar donors in our community willing to pony up a lot of money and buy this. It’s reality and I tend to try to live in reason. My original concern was building next to this lake because Lake Ann is a gem. It’s crystal clear. But if you build near a lake you’re going to get phosphorus leakage from the soil that comes up from developing land and guess what, I know the builders on Lake Lucy Road didn’t intent that to happen but it happened. All the drainage over the last 3 years of building up there has come down the storm drains and for those people on Lake Lucy Ridge who built a dock a couple of years ago on north Lake Lucy, their beautiful lake right there is green muck and weeds and they can’t use their dock anymore because they put, the builders up in Lake Lucy Ridge, who probably didn’t intend it to happen, polluted the lake. I do believe that if that goes in there and building is still next to the lake, Lennar’s not going to try to do that. You know there’s no builder would want to pollute a lake but it could happen. Maybe, I don’t know. I’m not a landscape engineer etcetera but it happened on the north end of Lake Lucy so I saw it here. So I think this development’s going to happen. You know I was like originally I don’t want it to happen but I think it’s going to happen so my question to all of you is what if we run Joe and Lennar out of town and say nope, you can’t do it? My question is since Prince’s heirs want their money, what’s next and so that’s my question to you. Maybe it’s been said. Maybe people know. Does it go back to them and say okay open up for bidding? Next builder please give us your highest bid and we start all over again? So I don’t know the answer to that question. That was my question. Do you have an answer for that? Aller: I can’t answer that. Greg Andrews: Anybody? Anybody got a good guess? Aller: Only the heirs with title can. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 27 Greg Andrews: Okay, what do you think’s going to happen Joe? Joe Jablonski: I think it will get approved. Greg Andrews: No, no but if, but if we run you out of town? You know who’s going to say what’s going to happen here, next bidder right? Joe Jablonski: Correct. Greg Andrews: Because they’re yeah, that’s why I think it’s, and Lennar’s listened to a lot of people. They’ve made a lot of changes here and I do believe that creating an area that’s unencumbered by houses, not houses weaving in it is better for nature and the animals and everything, etcetera and if you want to traipse through there yeah it’s, that’s you have to walk into it. You just don’t go next to your house etcetera. So I guess you know there’s been a lot of conversations and they’ve done, my biggest concern was safety. Running roads right through Ashling Meadows so if that ever changes call me. Because that I mean that could be, that’s a bee line and that was my concern as a father that cars were coming right down Ruby Lane or going right through Lucy Ridge etcetera so with that said this is not going to be perfect. Guys on Majestic Lane I feel for you. Like you said it kind of sucks. It really does but I don’t know. I guess we just don’t know what we’re going to get if we kick this to the curb. Does the next builder come in and follow the rules and get to build whatever they want within the guidelines next to Lake Ann? I just don’t know so right now I’m tending towards this. It’s not perfect but that’s kind of what we’ve got. Aller: Thank you. Joe Myss: Hi I’m Joe Myss. I live at 2419 Hunter Drive. I’m representing my kids and my family. So first off thank you to the City Council. Thank you to Lennar for you know taking, you know listening to everyone here. Taking the matter seriously and clearly putting forth a good effort because clearly the development of some form is going to happen. I do want to make sure that it’s noted I am actually pro development. I am just anti development in it’s current state. Right now I live in Longacres as some of the others that are here also do. Specifically on Hunter Drive. The issue’s been brought up numerous times. I personally have nearly been run over by a car speeding through my neighborhood. I felt it appropriate to follow up the last speaker here and thank you sir when he brought up safety. And as we put in much larger densities of population it’s critical in order to manage that traffic. As we brought it to the City Council’s attention before you know we need something whether it be a different methods to manage the traffic. Speed bumps would be great. I do understand there are challenges with that but when we put the safety of our children of our residents at risk and we have issues where we’re now adding additional housing, specifically dropping the entrances to a new development that is you know a fairly significant size that goes right into Longacres and as well as some of the other neighboring communities, I kind of feel it’s very irresponsible and I would hold you guys Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 28 really personally accountable when, because it’s not a matter of if. It’s a matter of when a child or an adult gets hit by a car just because we have so much traffic going through specifically on Hunter because it doesn’t have even a sidewalk. So that’s really the big message that I wanted to communicate through because I am confident that that will happen. Otherwise one other item I did just want to note, and I appreciate that it’s been somewhat discussed in the last couple of speakers is that, that piece of land there that they have given us isn’t developable. It’s pretty clear. You know while I understand that there are people who may look at it and say it can be developed for a cost, Lennar is not choosing to cut from 195 single family homes. Giving away property and land to the City in order to cut it down to one, whatever it is. 81 or I heard 17 off of whatever they were at, whatever. But that would technically be a loss of revenue and I’m sorry but I don’t buy it that Lennar’s in that business so that’s all I got. I appreciate your time and thank you for your consideration. Kurt Oddsen: My name is Kurt Oddsen. I live at 7325 Moccasin Trail in Longacres. What I’m concerned about is I think this will be developed. I truly believe that. Don’t want to see it but I believe it will happen but I’d like to see the project and property managed in a way that is respectful of the land and the density. I think we kind of need to get a one time shot at this in Chanhassen. I don’t want to see that land murdered for the profit of a developer. I understand the cost factors. I understand return on investment. I would ask people to go up on Highway 19 to a little par 3 golf course that used to be there called Red Oak. It had nice beautiful oak trees. It had some ponds and it had topography. It was bought by Lennar who developed it and in my opinion if you go in there now they murdered the land to accommodate the housing. They’re nice houses. It’s a nice neighborhood but I’m not sure that I want to have that happen to this project across the street on Galpin. I think the density is a little too high. From what I’m seeing we have two access points onto Galpin Boulevard. Longacres goes by my house. Not directly but down a block away, a house away from it. I think that Longacres will get to be a cut through street and I think if you have 181 units, if you only take one car per unit coming out in two directions on Galpin I think there’s going to be a lot of traffic. And I believe that people coming from the north on 41 or coming south on 41 can cut through Lake Lucy Road. I think people coming up from 41 to the north can cut through Longacres. I don’t know whether people will take 5 to Galpin and go up there. I have not done a traffic study obviously. Maybe somebody has but I just think that’s a lot of traffic coming out of two points of a development. And I’m just afraid looking at this density that they’re going to be right on top of one another and I like the idea of having the wetlands to the east of the development preserved but I’m, this land density and transfer it does appear to be smoke and mirrors because I don’t know whether that can be developed or not but I do know that it does increase the density on the west side of that property and I’m very concerned about what that’s going to look like when it’s done. And when it’s done we can’t say wait, maybe we should have looked at it a little differently. I don’t have the answer. I just don’t want the density to be there to affect the neighborhoods around it. Wherever they are. I just think that it’s a lot of houses and a limited access in and out of there and that’s my concern. It will be developed. I think the City of Chanhassen needs to really look at it and say is this what we want it to look like when it’s done? Somebody said can we see a mock up of what it’s going to look like when it’s done. That’d be great. I don’t think it’s going Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 29 to happen and therein lies another concern is when it happens we won’t get to say, we won’t get a do over. I’m not sure what I, I don’t have an alternative for this but I think we ought to really consider it. I think Lennar is been cognizant of what some of our concerns are but they are in it to make money and they have to have a density and I’m concerned that we as the city are going to suffer for that. Thank you. Mark: Mark…Hill Street. I have zero vested interest in this. I live like 4 miles that way and so I don’t have a strong opinion. I was just kind of watching and I thought there’d be more fireworks but everyone’s been pretty cool. But and I was starting to take tallies. So it looked like for the PUD was kind of weighing in and then anti PUD came up and it’s about a tie ballgame now so, but I think we have to be cognizant. Everyone of us has agendas. That’s human nature. We have agendas so I don’t think we can discount the people who are on that property. Now I live right off 101. When you guys start to come at my 101 and want to tear down my house I’m going to bitch big time but I’m not but I respect the people on that, on the side. I don’t think we can discount it and I don’t think, I’m tired of hearing the word gift and there’s no gift here. And Joe not to pick on ya, you’ve been on the hot seat but we’ve been asking for a third option for about 6 months and that was asked by the mayor and by other people. We’ve been asking for a third option. That’s the one thing I got out of this meeting is that we need an alternative and…buying it out is probably not feasible but we need a third option. We are not, we’re at 50/50 right now. We are not agreeing so we need another option and I know that’s the last thing you want to do. I wouldn’t want to tell your graphic artist to build a new one but it’s got to be done so, anyway just when you think about, because I guess it’s pretty easy to say if I’m 4 miles away it’s pretty easy for me to say yeah let’s have another park in town. But put yourself in their shoes and it’s going to happen in your back yard and just be cognizant. That’s all I have. Dan O’Connor: Hi Dan O’Connor, 7124 Northwood Court in Chanhassen. I do live on the other side in Longacres so that road does go by my house. I do have concern about the traffic that’s going to flow right through that the gentleman back there mentioned. It will be a direct corridor to 41. It definitely will be. It will be the quickest access from that development to 41 and it will go right by my house and cars already come over there going too fast. I’ve seen a lot of kids almost get hit. It’s very dangerous. The other thing I’d like to point out is the last election was very much a referendum on the development in Chanhassen and with the new mayor and a couple new council members because of it. And they won pretty overwhelmingly and I think if you look at some of the development that’s gone on over the last several years I’ve heard a lot of meetings like this. There’s a lot of voicing opinions against some development and it still just seemed to kind of go through. This land is a gem as a lot of people have said. I can’t imagine there’s a better chunk of land in the metro than this. That’s this close to the metro. To Minneapolis. I just don’t understand the rush. I understand Lennar’s rush. I know they’ve got to participate in a timeline they’ve got to hit. They knew that risk when they put this bid out and put the work into this. I respect that but I do not understand why Chanhassen has to rush in the notion that some Joe’s going to come next and another guy and just develop this. I’m sure somebody will at some point in time. I’ve got to think there’s an awful lot of people who would love at some point in time in the future to develop this in a very, very good way that really does Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 30 honor the land and does honor the citizens of Chanhassen. And someone pointed out the article in the Villager a week or so ago and the council member kind of wondered why the citizens of Chanhassen kind of had a voice in some of these developments stuff the other way. This is our city. I mean this is, this is our city and it’s really critical that we understand these voices and if there’s this much debate and there’s this much voicing I think of concern we don’t have to say we got to pick one of the two. We have to do that today. We don’t. We can pause. We can hit the pause button and take another look down the road when the next developer comes around with the next proposal and do what is best for this city in the eyes of the residents of the city. And again I’d like to point out I do believe that that last election was very, very much a referendum on the development that has gone on in this city and the changes that have taken place in Chanhassen the residents of Chanhassen isn’t really a big of so thank you. Peter Polingo: Peter Polingo, 1981 Topaz Drive representing Ashling Meadows and it’s like answering the teachers question. You’re the 29th person up. There’s so many good things that have been said. So many things about the safety and the congestion in the, kind of the plan that Lennar put together and their strategy towards starting with a Plan A and then making a Plan B when realistically you know they never thought Plan A would work anyway so the Plan C idea that the gentleman had has been what we have been pushing for for quite a while. The opportunity for them to have routes out of these developments without creating a safety hazard is ridiculous. There are so many opportunities right now with Galpin for our security issues when going up and down there from a traffic point of view so it is real to parents. It scares us and we also have a, in the proposal a pass through Ashling Meadows down Topaz Drive which is already like a little raceway so to add more homes and to add more people coming from up above it scares us because we have a private park that we have our kids play at so our biggest challenge is again to have you listen to what we’re trying to achieve and thank everyone for all the comments on support of doing the right thing for Chan. Thank you. Aller: Anyone else wishing to come forward? We’re not getting married here but speak now or forever hold your peace. Anybody from the senior center wishing to come forward? Jessica Landon: My name is Jessica Landon and I live at Fox Hill Drive so I’m actually also pretty far away but my main concern just looking at this is how many homes are there. I think it’s too many. Too much population especially living of the border Carver County and Minnetonka schools. I worry about the number of incoming families and how many kids would be attending you know whichever schools and things like that. Even pollution just around the lakes. A lot of things that have already been covered but the traffic that like many people have already said is already there but it’d be nice to see because unfortunately as everyone is saying it’s like it’s gonna get developed. I prefer to just see it as it is but seeing how it is and what is eventually going to be it’d be nice to just see it with less homes. Kind of how it is on the east side where people can actually enjoy their back yards versus living on top of one another. Thanks. Aller: Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 31 Alan Nickolai: Alan Nickolai again. One point that hasn’t been brought up and that is with the Galpin being, proposed to be redone here in a few years. Let’s be careful about wasting taxpayers dollars and redoing things twice. They’re going to have you know exit lanes. Let’s put them in that section, so we’re not redoing it 3-4 years from now. Wasting the taxpayer’s dollars. I think that’s critical. Little bit just…3-4 years. Do it once, not twice on those turn lanes. Whatever needs to be done so it’s done safely because I’ve got to believe some of the people safety is a issue but I’ve seen it with other developments. They did it at two stages and frankly it was, they wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s our money. Not your money. It’s our taxpayer’s money so just spend the money wisely when the turn lanes etcetera off of Galpin. By the way I remember when Galpin was a gravel road and our biggest concern was not to hit the horses because there used to be 20 to 30 horse back riders there every Saturday morning so I’ve been around a little bit so anyways, do it safely. Spending money wisely on the turns. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. And I don’t want it to turn into point counter point but if somebody hasn’t had a chance please come up and speak. If somebody wants a second chance now is the time to get in line. Judy Bolstad: Hi I’m Judy Bolstad. I live over on 1101 Lake Lucy Road but I grew up on Lake Lucy. My parents still live there so I’ve been familiar with this area since I was 8 so 1972 so I have concerns about the Lake Lucy getting polluted and where the drainage is going to go and what that’s going to do to that lake. I like a lot of the ideas of, I obviously want that land preserved. I’ve been walking that land since I was a kid and I love it and I you know I think that’s a good idea but I think that even the traffic that people are talking about, I’m over on you know Powers and Lake Lucy and we have trouble getting out now and so adding another 150 homes or whatever it is is going to, it’s not going to just affect the people in that area. Those neighborhoods. It’s going to affect everybody in Chanhassen and like I said I don’t know what you, if you have plans to change how some of the roads work or what the speed limits are but right now I can’t get out of my neighborhood as it is so if people start to use you know Lake Lucy to get out to Powers to be able to go to 5 I’m just wondering what the plan is I guess for traffic so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Jean Burke: Good evening. My name is Jean Burke. I live at 225 West 77th Street. That’s on old Chanhassen. Tom Klingelhutz’ house. Tom is the brother to Al Klingelhutz. The old homes. Should I be excited about a new park for the citizens of Chanhassen? Absolutely not. In my opinion when I look at this, this is a park for the new development. It will be like Greenwood Shores Park with signs saying do not park here and a bar across the road. There’s a gazebo, lake access, picnic area but only the people in Greenwood Shores can use it. How am I living in old town Chanhassen going to benefit from this park? As I look at the drawing it appears that the people that are going to buy the houses and build the beautiful homes, their Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 32 children will be able to take a trail and access Lake Ann. For myself and for other residents of Chanhassen I know the City paper said it’s close to downtown Chanhassen. No Tom it isn’t. It isn’t close to those of us that live in the area other than the Lennar development. Even this woman who talked about living across the road, she’s got to cross the road. Go down and around and navigate to get on the trail and get out to the lake. Obviously the density of one side just blows me away that they would crowd that many houses in an area that has been so pristine and undeveloped. It’s going to have to have water runoff, pollution. And speaking of pollution of Lake Ann we do fireworks over our clear lake every year which pollutes Lake Ann terribly with sulphur so if we citizens want to give up a few things and buy some property over here, let’s not do fireworks for a couple years. Sacrifice for our future and leave the trees and say to Lennar hey sell us part of your development so we can leave it. And maybe the citizens can come and park a car and actually access the trail from the other end of Lake Ann. Otherwise I…thank Lennar for the gift of a park that is really like somebody said, it’s in the middle of nowhere for those of us that like Lake Ann Park the way it is so that’s my opinion. It’s not beneficial for those of us that want to see parks built for Chanhassen and what to see developments that make our city proud. Aller: Thank you. Art Roberts: Art Roberts, I’m in the…association at Vasserman. Property at Galpin and 5. I’ve got one thought. People are saying we need a third alternative and the following has occurred. We need to ask the expert from Lennar, what if you took the lots in the middle that are 65 feet wide and got out your slide rule or drawings instruments here and made those 80 foot lots or 75 foot lots. What would happen of course is that the larger lots would go for a higher dollar value. And we’ve have a few fewer homes but you’d have maybe a lot more space. A lot more trees you could leave so if I was looking for a third alternative to ask him to look I’d say spend a day. Do a what if and then run the numbers. How much more expensive could you sell 80 foot wide lots versus 65 so I think this is basically the right plan but I would just say hey, could you enlarge those lots a bit to make it a little bit more liberal? A little bit more roomy and leave a few more trees. That’s what I would do at this point is say I think there is a third alternative but it’s not redesigning the whole shebang. It’s just widening the 65 foot lots and saying what if. Please try that in real numbers and tell me, Lennar who, would that work. Sharon McCotter: Hi my name is Sharon McCotter. I live at 7000 Utica Lane and in the last 10 years as I’ve been preparing to retire this summer I’ve been getting involved with the watershed and learning more about how it operates and as they try to do their plan and you know they had a lot of opposition to some of the rules and I think it was really great to have public hearings to get input from both sides. Listening to everybody tonight you know I can sympathize and empathize with all of the parties that are speaking. I think what I’ve learned in these last 10 years working with the watershed is there’s no perfect plan. Some people will be, most people will be inconvenienced and I think one of the first people talked about a good day is when nobody feels like they left totally mutilated. Somebody, you got something out of it so I feel like at the last City Council meeting the mayor quoted out of the City’s 2040 plan I think it was or 2020 plan Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 33 and she quoted about how the City is charged to preserve green spaces and preserve the trees and things like that and be very environmentally conscience and she put that back to Lennar to say you know what can you do to keep helping us to meet the goals of our city plan and seeing that they’ve done some things I think it’s great but I also can empathize with the people that are living there. But I would ask that we step back and say sometimes you have to look at the bigger good. So not what’s good for any one neighborhood or any one district but what’s good for Chanhassen and I do believe that this transfer density plan does have the best interest of Chanhassen as a whole in preserving the most trees and the most, we heard that this plan would preserve the most trees and be the most environmentally friendly so I would just say you know if we have to choose I think we’ve got a good option and like people have said, this is a concentrated dense space that you won’t get back so it’s not like we have another opportunity to do a do over so I just, I know some people will not like it. I live on the other side of Lake Lucy and we now look across at a big gated steel thing that went in a dock that people said they can’t use because it’s all socked in over there so we all have to make compromises because the world’s moving forward but I do think this plan of preserving this larger space is really in line with the 2040 city plan. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item tonight? Paul Theis: Good evening, I’m Paul Theis. I live at 6520 White Dove Circle. Been a resident of Chan for about 27 years. My wife is here. She was going to speak because she’s usually not known for being too quiet but anyhow I certainly agree with the lady that last spoke and I support the density transfer. You know a lot of the earlier speakers talked about the other option developing lots and I don’t know if the topography’s right. The soil compaction is correct not to have the density transfer. The other plan that would build close to a shoreline but I certainly don’t want to see that. I certainly want to see this bigger strip of land saved. I want to thank the earlier speakers that talked about some of the earlier citizens here that went into the planning. The watershed people. Planning and zoning. City vision over the years. Retain that area around the lake. We live a little bit north of, northwest of Lake Lucy and you know we look forward to being able to walk from our place along Lake Lucy and around the lake but other residents of the city would like to see if possible to have Lennar put some parking in. You know maybe to give up a lot or something here or there so people that aren’t immediately adjacent can use it. Also I do have some sympathy for the drainage issues but I would hope between Lennar’s engineering, I know they’ve made some attempts to fix the problem for the folks in the south end and maybe there can be some access put into the plat to also help those people gain quicker access to the park area I’ll call it. So I say a little bit additional minor tweaking and I think it’s a terrific plan and I would support what’s been presented in terms of the density transfer. Thank you. Aller: Any additional speakers? Are you sure? I’ve been pretty good every time I say that somebody comes up. Alright seeing no one come forward I will close the public comment section of this meeting. Before I move to any additional actions or comment I just first and foremost would like to thank you one and all for sharing your thoughts with us and with the Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 34 council and with each other. I said before and I continue to say that I believe that we as a commission and a city are at our finest when everybody shows up and participates and whether they’re on one side of the issue or the other they voice their opinion and make themselves heard and participate in the process. Regardless of the outcome I think that the final action, which will be taken again on March 11th by the City Council, is better with rather than without your input. I would like to thank the City Council for providing our residents with the additional opportunity tonight to voice those opinions. I’d like to again thank staff for being present and for working diligently with Lennar and with the public and covering the many different items that were put together in the plans and keeping them up and available for everyone to again see on the website and so all those items are available for your viewing. And then I would, I’d like to thank Lennar Homes and their representatives for recognizing what we already know. Chanhassen is a wonderful place to live and for both their past efforts and continuing commitment to listen to the citizens input and offering what they believe are economically viable win/win developments for the City Council’s consideration. So with that I’ll open it up for any additional comments at this time from the commissioners. We’re not here to make any formal recommendations but if you have a comment or would like to say anything now is the time. McGonagill: Go ahead Steve. I’m following you. Weick: You sure? McGonagill: No I’m fine. Weick: I’d be happy to speak. And gosh this one, this doesn’t get any easier. The more we talk about it that is for sure. There’s big issues at hand and I think one thing that I struggle with personally is, I don’t, and this is just me. Yeah I don’t see a pause button out there because it is land that’s for sale with a buyer with regardless of how many homes you can put on that 50 acres could come in and build a really significant amount of homes. On that property and can take out a very significant amount of trees with or without our input. And I, you know that’s one thing that’s on the table. I would love to be able to not do that. I don’t believe that’s an option because you have, we have a seller and we have a buyer and we have codes that could be followed to build single family homes on that property in a well over 150 homes I think. In my opinion which is a lot. So in light of that, and I’ve been fairly consistent in my opinion that a density transfer to protect that wetland and make it a park would be better than just you know filling the space with homes on as much buildable property as you can because I do think that there is a difference between building a path through a neighborhood and having truly you know 100 plus acres to be able to use and this land is accessible from Powers. I mean if you imagine all those folks that live on Powers and on that side can access it through the neighborhoods there off of Powers. You can access it from 5. You know people park in Lake Ann Park to go to Prince’s museum. Can you imagine the ability to be able to go to the museum and then walk several miles on his land and that’s possible as well. One of the things that is a positive to me that’s been mentioned as a negative is the fact that it is miles of paths and land and I think that’s a positive. Where else can you go and do that in a wooded area so I think that’s a gem of an Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 35 opportunity for the city and again based on, unless somebody can explain it to me differently but based on the really limited options that are out there based on having a seller and a buyer and code that allows homes to be built, with or without our opinion, I still believe and I have believed and I still believe that a density transfer is the best option for the city of Chanhassen. Aller: Comments? McGonagill: Yeah. Aller: Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: First off I again as Chairman mentioned we appreciate everybody coming and I would also encourage you to, as you feel led to write a thank you note to the mayor and the council for allowing this meeting to occur. They heard the feedback and they came back and had this session which is different. It’s unusual and so it’s very, very positive for that and I think it was as a referendum from the election and they’re trying to listen to everyone so I really think that is important. Just some facts for folks that may be listening or online. Again I always talk about this. You need to read the Comprehensive Plan and if you did what you would see is the amount of growth that’s going to, projected to occur in Chanhassen over the next 20 years. Basically we will see about a 37 percent increase in population here. By 2040 the city will be built out. I mean it basically will with the amount of land that’s available so our objective, our charge that, the trust you’ve put on us and on the council is to do that buildout in a pragmatic and wise fashion. What we’ve heard over and over, and we have in our Comprehensive Plan the thing that people want to maintain and it’s in the plan, again if you refer to it, is to maintain the small town appeal of Chanhassen. That’s what people want. It does have parks. It does have lakes but it’s the small town feel. So when you put that together with the amount of increase in population we’re talking you know basically if my numbers are right, Kate will correct me, about 2,000 homes that have to go in here somehow over the next 20 years. We’re talking about only a tenth of that so we’ll be talking about these issues over and over again so I think it’s important to understand that and set a precedent of how we want developments like this to occur. And so with that what should they look like to be done to maintain the feel. What I appreciated about the mayor’s question and the council to come back here really there’s two questions that we’re talking about tonight really is one is do you have a PUD or not. That’s the first question. And the second one does this PUD work? I’ve separated those in my mind and so we’re not voting on it tonight. I’m glad we’re not in some ways but at least we can express our opinions on that. On the first question as far as having a PUD or not. I am not crazy about density transfers. I never have been. You know we’ve talked about this. I like the feel. Small town feel. It has larger lots. If the density was coming in more like 1.7, 1.8 as opposed to 2 I can be there but with a density of being north of 2 I’m not in favor of that. But that being said it is, and because of that there’s a lot of transition issues around with the neighborhoods in the area. Longacres, north Lake Lucy, Ashling Meadows, those numbers are more like 1.2 to 1.9 so that’s where I come from on density. This is a 48 percent increase in density over the average for those and that does give me some pause. You know also too if I look in the Comprehensive Plan again the Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 36 ownership values map it, you can look at it. It’s 3-31. I look at that and go is this consistent with that and it is inconsistent and with the land use map so again I’d kind of, that’s where I kind of come down on the side that I would rather see the density less but that may or may not be possible. I still believe we can do better on that density transfer as it occurs and I’d like to see that. So let’s go with the next question about the PUD itself. Is this PUD acceptable that we see? I’m still of the, I’m first off grateful and glad that we did not approve that or vote in January because I think Lennar came back with a better deal. It looks, it has better opportunities. There’s more trees. There’s more of that. We made the right decision there. So a couple of these, I’ve got really 3 major issues that I would challenge Lennar to work with the City Council on. The first is both concepts, both whether you have a PUD or not are inadequate for park access. One of the individuals tonight talked about that. There is really no way to get to that park. You’ll be parking on the street. That is, there has to, we need to come up with a solution to that as this development’s getting done, particularly as you’re starting in the south and you work north there needs to be some area like Sugarbush Park or somewhere where people can park. If they’re not they’re going to park on the street and you’re going to have conflicts between citizens. That’s not what we should do. There needs to be an area where people can park. Access the trails and go through there. And we all walk. We’ll get those miles in anyway but the ability to go there and take your car, park your car and take your bikes off, do what you need to do, there needs to be an area like that and I would encourage the City Council to work if the PUD is pursued to work very aggressively with Lennar to get that so there is some sort of access so that we can live in harmony with our neighbors. The second thing I would look to Lennar on the designs. One of the concerns that I have if the density transfer goes forward is actually the design or the construction itself of Lennar. Particularly on the higher density deal. You showed us the proposals. I would encourage you to continue to vary those designs such as varying setbacks. Varying 1 and 2 stories. Varying, you know everything you can to do this to make this the neighborhood as I think Commissioner Tietz talked about, the place to live in Chanhassen. I think you can build a lot of culture and character into it with some thought. Side loaded garages. Front loaded garages. You know doing all that you can, working with the Planning Commission and staff to really make this, if this is where we go, to make it look really nice. What I don’t, this is a jewel of a piece of property. I’ve said that before. It’s a jewel of a piece of property. I don’t want it to turn out like costume jewelry. I want it to be a jewel. You know so when I come back here 20 years from now when I’m 85 I can see that. I want that. That would be my, as a citizen I would say. The last point, one of the speakers talked about tonight and I totally agree with is to be very careful about impervious surfaces. As this density goes up the impervious surface issue becomes more and more and we’ll have more and more variances come to the Planning Commission to be dealt with. What I don’t want to have is a development where someone builds a home and suddenly he has to get a variance to build a patio. Or a deck. Or another parking area. We have too much of that even now and so I really don’t want that box to be built. That is why when I again I go back to this whole question about density. Particularly in the 65 footers that you have in there. How are those people, they won’t, they will want to live there. They’ll want to grow. They’ll want to have their deck. How’s that going to happen under the current guidelines and so again that’s where my concerns come from the density and I would like to see that addressed. In other words don’t build a box that you have Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 37 a hard time getting out of. I do still believe there’s room here to get better on that and I would challenge the council and the Lennar to come up with that. I do appreciate what you guys have done. I do like the monuments. I do like what you’ve done on some of the other stuff but that’s, those two issues are the issues where I land on Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to comment. Aller: Additional comments? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I just wanted to thank everyone for their input this evening and also for the input that they provided last January and then the previous summer as well. I think with all that input the City Council and the Planning Commissioners if I can speak with them really listened to your concerns and I think changes were made to address that. I also want to thank the people who gave the input into the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and people gave input to that plan through open houses and through public meetings and gave input to the Planning Commission and one of the items that they told and it came through in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was that the Galpin property was identified as a priority expansion area and so, and a goal of the parks is the elimination of the trail gaps and creating trails within the preserves so that people can have better access. I’m not sure about the parking and all the access points but I just wanted to thank everyone through all these various processes for their input and for the City Council to give that opportunity for it and I think because of that we hope to come up with a better plan that will work out best for all the citizens of Chanhassen and that’s it. Aller: Great, thank you. Commissioner Randall. Randall: Again I second that on the, everyone’s input was great tonight. I have 4 pages of notes that I took down. Lot of new ideas. People brought up new concepts. Things on the fly and there weren’t any fighting, or what was the quote from, I think I got it here. When he came over and said that it wasn’t getting too heated over here. That was good and I was glad to hear, or glad that everything went well tonight. I got a lot out of it tonight and I appreciated everyone’s input. Aller: The Comprehensive Plan is designed to be a flexible tool that we look at and we take a look at all the projects that come before us and we look at what the citizens and what the Planning Commission, who’s spent along with the City Council the better part of a year in creating and getting public input on all the different sections and how that applies. In this case when we apply the project and we look at what kind of trade off’s we need to make based on the plan and based on the Comprehensive Plan simplistically stated it’s park versus density and that’s really what I think the City Council was digging into to hear from the citizens tonight and I think they got a really good indication that yes we’re going to be split on that but I think because of the hearing itself they are going to be better informed. They’ll be more strategic and more deliberate about that decision that the make come Monday. We’ve seen during tonight’s presentation that the proposal has changed over the past year based upon the back and forth between Lennar and the community and the City and it’s staff and as a resident I want it all. I Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 5, 2019 38 want to have the park and I want to have zero zip density. I love the lakes. I live on Lotus Lake. I don’t want to have anything impact Lake Ann. At the same time I have to live in the real world and so on a reality based decision I know that developers are going to come in and they’re going to need to be developing and make a decent profit from what they have and what they deliver to us. And when I look at that desire I look back at the proposed PUD and what it does with regard to the plan and I look at the land use goals and I think that one of the goals was to enhance preservation of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy by limited development and I think that the transfer creates development on one side but it does limit it and create a buffer for the lake. There’s a reduction in total impervious surface throughout the clustered environment because you don’t have roads going through that additional parkland but yes the density location is going to have more hard cover. What happens later after a decision is made I trust that the watershed, that the City is going to come in and enforce the rules and regulations. That they’re going to make sure that based upon the impervious surface that’s there, the runoff and the storm drainage that we’re going to comply with the rule and that there will be a zero impact and of course with every plan it’s imperfect. I hope that that’s the case. With regard to the trails and open space. Preserving the public, for the public over 100 acres of unique natural open space, 50 acres of upland around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy that could otherwise be built on I think fulfills that need. Providing land and connections for the trails to eliminate trail gaps and the better connection to the community and it’s areas. I think it fills that goal. Allowing for the expansion of the Lake Ann Park and enhancing it’s role with Chanhassen’s premiere community park and in fact I think it will be a destination park for Carver County and the State. In looking at it it’s not a perfect plan. Again I would love to have zero density. What plan is especially when we all bring biases. You know people that live right next to it are going to have a different view point than me who lives on a different lake. But at the same time I think that the community has come together. Has expressed it’s opinions in these hearings and I think it’s important that they do so and as someone came up and stated that there’s value and we should respect the desires and the thoughts and the intent of the individuals who both are homeowners next to the development as well as the rest of the community and I think that’s what the City Council did when it pushed this back to us to have more input so they could look at it again thoughtfully and strategically. Tonight wasn’t about listening with the intent to respond. I too took a thousand notes but I think the intent of the City Council was just to hear what your voices said and I think they have the ability now to look at the record. To look at the tape. To listen to your voices and over the next week consider your opinions. And I think that we’ve created that record and I hope that, and I know that they’re going to consider that record thoughtfully. Additional comments, questions. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner McGonagill moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 2 Stories l4 Bedrooms l4 Bathrooms l3 CarGarage 3,328 Sq. Ft. VERYTHING'S INCLUDED' TheWashburn Landmark Collection 95?-?49-3000 GREAT ROOM 18-0'X 15-0" DINETTE 12'-0',X t5'-0' STUDY 11'-0" X r0'4' 3 CARGARAGE 3o'-0' x 20'4' Upper Level 3,328 Sq. Ft. . 2 Stories . 4 Bedrooms . 4 Bathrooms . 3 Car Garage fi TWrN CtTtES #l ,!,i nomrBulLDER Elevatrons ol a home may vary and we reserve lhe r0ht to substitute and /or rnodify desion and mabrhls, in our sole opinion and witrriut notice. Pleas€ see your New Home C0nsultanl and home purchas€ agreement l0r actual leatures designated as an Everylhing's lncluded featire, additional information, discloGures, and dischimers relating to your home and its features. Phns are artist's renderings and may c!0tain options which are not sanrhrd on all models. Lennar reserves lhe right h make changes to phns and elevations wi$out orior notice. Stated dimensions and square lmtrge are approxinEte and should ndt be used as representation of the home's o.ecise or actual size. Any statement, verbal br writlen. reoardino 'under air" or "finished area" or hnf orrei desc{iption or nndifier o{ the square fmtage size of any home is a shorfiand description of the manner in which the square fmtage was estimated and should not be c0nstrued to indicate certainty. Garaoe sizes mav vary from home to home and hav not accilmmddate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.tbm or see a Lennar New Home Consultant lor further details and im@rtant leoal disclaimers. This s nol an otfer in states wiere orior reoistration is reouired,Void where orohibited by hw. tsource -' BATC, 201 5 Top 25 Builders List, Copyright O 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar. the Lennar logo, EveMhing's lncluded and the Everything-s lncluded logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corooration d/b/a Lennar r"ilii".,S' il',i3"ci+oi'dii. ffi ;; .S Sales CorD, - Broker, MN Bldr. Lc l=l+ gcooiars,(rotg1\ tha17 lffi 1530535thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNArT TheWaShbUfn Landmark Collection Main Level BEDROOM 2 13',\ fi', BE,DROON,{ 4 1l's 16' BEDROOM3 I2',X l{ 952-?49-3000LENNAFR.COIVI The Sinclair Landmark Collection EVERYTHII{G'S INCLUDED' H 95"-?49-3000 Main Level Upper Level ?,468 Sq. Ft. . Z Stories . 4 Bedrooms . 3 Bathrooms . 3 Car Garage fl TWrN CtTtES #l ,L[ nomrBulLDER El€vations ol a home may vary and we reserve the right to substfiute and /0r rnodify desion and rnaterials, in our sole opinion and witdut notice. Please see your Nelv tlome Coosultant and home purchase agreement lor actual leatures designated as an Everytling's lncluded feature, additional informati0n, disclosures, and dischimers relating t0 your home and its features. Phns are artist's rendsrings and may contain options lvhich are notstan&rd 0n all models. Lennar reserws the rioht t0 make changes t0 plans and elevations witlrout prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are appr0ximale and should not be used as representation ot the home's orecise or actual size. Any statement, verbal br written, regarding 'under air'or "finished area'or anv other desfiiDtion or rnodifier ol he souaie fmtage size ol any home is a shorhand description ot the manner in which the square fmtage was estimated and should not be construed t0 indi{xte certainty. Garaoe sizes rnay vary from home t0 home and mav not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.iom or see a Lennar New Home consultant for further details and important leoal dischimers. This is not an ofler in states wiere orior reoistration is reouired,Void where prohibited by -law. tsource - MTC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright @ 20'17 Lennar Corooration. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar lo0o, Everything's lncluded and the Everythingrs lncluded logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Horile Corporatbn d/b/a Lennar - License N0.20464871. Lennar sates coro. - Broker. MN Bldr. I=l Lic # Bodrol413.(10186) 4/3/17 ffi 1530536thAve.N. Suite 5OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 The Sinclair $6 DINING ROO\{ 11'x15' tr----l Yi KIl (.1ll.:\ lU'\ li' BEDROONI 2 12'x1l' llt,])R(x)NI 3 11'\ l1' BEDROOM 4 11' x l2' LENNAFT"The Lindbergh Landmark Collection 1 Story | 2 Bedrooms | 2 Bathrooms | 3 CarGarage L,9O?Sq. Ft. EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' **r*1r 95?-249-3000 Main Level NL\STER BEDROON{ 77',X14', DINING ROOM 73',y.14',GRE,\T ROOI,I 18',X 17', z = 3 CARGAfu\GE 30'x21' T-- - -- --- - -- -- --- ------l BEDROOI,I2 1l',X12', L,9OZ Sq. Ft, o l Story . 2 Bedrooms . Z Bathrooms . 3 Car Carage 1'TWIN CITIES #1 'lIK HOMEBUILDER Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or npdify desion and materhls, in our sole opinkm and with6ut notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and homs purciase agreement for actual leatures designated as an Everything's lncluded feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating t0 your home and its features. Phns are artist's renderinos and may contain options wtrich are not standlard on all ftodels. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without orior notice. Stated dimensions and souare fmtage are approximate and should not be used as representation ol fE home's orecise or actual size. Anv statement, verbal br written, regarding 'under ail' or 'finished area" or any other description 0r fiiodifier of the square lootage size 0l any home is a shorthand description of he manner in which the square f0otage was estimated and should not be mnstrued to indicate certainty. Garaqe sizes may vary from home to home and mav not accommodate all vehicles, Visit Lennar.tbm or see a Lennar New Home Consultant lor turther details and important leoal disclaimers. This is not an otfer in states w[ere orbr reoistration is reouired.Void where orohibited Dy iaw, tsource - BATC, 20'16 Top 25 Builders Lisl. Copyright O 2018 Lennar C0rporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar lo0o. EveMhino's lncluded and the Everythingrs lncludad hio are U.S. registered service marks or service marks 0l Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar - License No. 20464871. Lenn., fS, f 33#{lia',ili[dti]ilffi H 1630535thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 The Lindbergh LENNAFI The Taylor 2,680 Sq. Ft. o 2 Stories . 4 Bedrooms . 3 Bathrooms . 3 Car Garage II TWIN CITIES #I ,i,[ HoUTBUILDER Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify desion and materials, in our sole opini0n and with6ut notice. Please see your New tlome Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everylhing's lncluded feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating t0 your home and its features. Plans are artist's renderinos and mav contain ootions whlch are not sund'ard on all models. Lennar reserves the rioht to make changes to plans and elevations wilhout prior notice, Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation ol $e home's orecise or actual size. Any statement, verbal br written. reoardinq 'undeI air" or 'finished area" or ani othei descriDtion or rnodilier ot tre souaie footage size of any home is a shorthand descriplion of me manner in which the square lmtage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate ctrtainty. Garaoe sizes mav vary kom home t0 home and ftav not accbmmbdate all vehhles. Visit Lennar,6om or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for furlher details and important leoal disclaimers. This is nol an offer in states w[ere 0rior reoistration is reouired.Void where pronibiieo by hw. tsource -' BATC, 201 5 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright O 2017 Lennar Corooration. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar hqo, Everything's lncluded and the Everythrng's lncluded logo are u.S. registered service marks or servce marks 0t Lennar Corporation and/or ils subsidhries. U.S Horire Corporatbn d/Ua Lennar - License ilo. 20464871. Leonar Sales CorP. - Broker. MN BHr. Lic # 8C001413.{10187], 4ru17 1630535thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAII!' TheTaylOf Landmark Collection Main Level : EF*MF$:ffiflEBE#+IGREAr o,xrxc FffiROOAT RC}O\itni15' r1\r5' BE,DROON,I 4 10'x 13' BEDROOM 2 12',X 13', BEDROO]\{ 3 l1',>( 12', Upper Level LENNAFT.COIVI 95?-?49-3000 2 Stories | 4 Bedrooms I 3 Bathrooms | 3 CarGarage ?,gOG Sq. Ft. EVERYTHING'S lNCLUDED' The St. Croix ll 95?-?19-3000 Main Level OWNER'S SUITE 14'-0" x l4-0" Upper Level 2,806 Sq. Ft, r 2 Stories . 4 Bedrooms . 3 Bathrooms . 3 Car Carage 1'TWIN CITIES #I 'ift HOMEBUILDER Elevations ol a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or rnodify desion and materials, in our sole opinion and with6ut notice, Please see your New Home Consultant and home purdEse agreemenl l0r actual features designated as an Everytling's lncluded feature. additbnal information, disclosures, and dischimers relating to your home and its lealures. Plans are artist's renderings and may contain optiofls which are notstandard on all rmdels, Lennar reserves lhe rioht t0 make changes t0 plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square lbotage are approximale and should not be used as representation of the home's orecise 0r actual size. Any statement, verbal br written, regarding 'under air'or 'finished area" or anv other description or rnodifier ol the souaie tootage size ol any home is a shorthand descri,tion ol the manner in which the square lmtage was estimated and should not be mnslrued to indklate certainty. Garaoe sizes mav vary lrom home to home and irav not accbmmirdate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.iom or see a Lennar New Home Consuliant tor further details and lmportrnt leoal disclaimers. This 6 not an otfer in states wiere Drior reoistration is reouired.Void where orohiDited by hw. tSource - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright @ 2018 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar looo, Everything's lncluded and the Everythinds lncluded logo are U.S. registered seruice marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries, U.S. Home CorDoration d/b/a Lennar -liirn$'u"0.")6ns+'aii. ffi ;;; af- LILEIDE NU. eVaU+U' r. Lsil[or Sales Gorp. - Broker. MN Bldr Lic* gcoojarg.(rotaa) ovttng 1630535thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENN,\O Landmark Collection LENNAFI.COTVI 95?-?49-3000 The Snelling LENNAFT.COIVI 95?-249-3000 Main Level BEDROOI\I2 11'x l3'BEDROOM 3 11'x 13' Upper Level 3,?70 Sq. Ft. . Z Stories o 4 Bedrooms o 4 Bathrooms o 3 Car Carage fl TWIN CITIES #l 'i,1, HOMEBUILDER Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the r(lht to substiute and /or rnodily deshn and materhh, in our sole opinion and rvitbut notbe. Please see your New l'lome C0nsultant and home purdlase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything's lncluded feature, additional information, disclosures, and dischimers relating t0 your home and its leatjres. Phns are artist's renderings and may contain options which are nol standardon all rnodels. Lennar reserves the rioht to make changes to phns and elevations witimut orbr notict. stated dimensions and square fbtage are approxirnate and slpuld not oe used as representation of he home's orecise tr actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, reqarding 'under aif or 'tinished area' or anf ohea descriotion or rnodilier ol tre squaie lmtage size ol any home is a shorhand descriptbn of the manner in which the square rootage was estimaud and should not be @nstrued to indi{2te certainty, Garaoe sizes mav vary from home to home and irav not acc6mmirdate alt vehhles. Visit Lennar.rbm oI see a Lennar New Home Consultant lor furher details and imporhnt leoal dischimers. This is not an ofter in states wiere 0rior reoistration is reouired.Void where Drohibited by 6w. tsource '' BATC, 201 5 Top 25 Builders List. Gopyright @ 2017 Lennar CorDoration. All rights reserved, Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything's lncluded and the EveMhingJs lncluded logo are U,S. registered service marlG or servhe marks ol Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S, Horire Cormratbn d/b/a Lennarlit.,.#il'd iti+oieii ffi; fS Sales Coro, - Broker. MN Bldr. L= lic + scobtlte.(10192) 4/Y17 ffi 1630536thAve.N. Suite 5OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAFI' Landmark Collection F-_llr---t-_l i .----,--l Kl 1r\r lt\ BEDROOM4 12'r 15' LENNAFT.COIVI 95?-?49-3000 Main: 2 Stories t 4 Bedrooms I 4 Bathrooms | 2 Car Garage I 2,637 Sq._Ft.- private Suite: l Bedroom t i Bathroom ! Piivate Living Area I Kitchenette I Laundry 1553 Sq. Ft. l. NEXTCEN- THE HOi.IE WITHIN A IIOXEs I= LENNAFT The lndependence Collection I Main Home 2,637 Sq, Ft, . 2 Stories . 4 Bedrooms . 4 Bathrooms . ?Car Garage Private Suite 553 Sq. Ft. . L Bedroom . L Bathroom . Private Entrance . Kitchenette .laundry . Living Area . L Car Garage II TWIN CITIES #I ,Lll nOmTBUILDER Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right t0 substitute and /or modify desion and rnaterhls, in our sole opinion and wihbut notice. Please see your New Home Cmsultant and home purchase agreement l0r actual leatures designated as an Everyfiing's lncluded leature. additional information, disclosures, and dischimers relating to your home and its fealures. Plans are artist's renderinos and mav contrin ootions u,hich are not san&rdon altrircdels. Lennar reserves the rhht b make changes to plans and elevations wirout prior notice. stated dimensions and square fmtage are approximate and should not be used as representation 0f the home's orecise 0r actual size. Any statemenl, verbal or wriflen. reoardino 'under air or 'finished area' or anf otrei description 0r rnodilier of the sQuare lmtrge size of any home is a shonhand descriotion 0f the manner in whictl the square footage was estimated and should not be construed t0 indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehtcles. Visit Lennar. com 0r see a Lennar New tlome Consultant tor further detaih and important legal dlschimers. This is not an ofler in states where prior reqistration is required. Void lvhere prohibiled bv hw tSource - MTC.20'l6To0 25 Builders Li$.Copiright @ 2017 Lennar Corporalion. All riohts reserved. Lennar. the Lennar 1090, The Forn€ Wifiin a Home, The ihme Wthil a tlome lo0o and the Everytiling's lncluded and he Everything's lncluded l0go are U.S, reoistered servrce marl$ or servhe marks of Leirnar Comorathn and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. tlome Comoration d/b/a Lennarr-i-&#'l'6 iii46ft?i. Ienil; al Sales Corp. - Broker. MN Bldr. Lic L=# 8C001413 (1050n 01/0448 #l!ilf, 1530536thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 Main Level Upper Leve! NEXTC I=N N /A R{{r \1 L}T4FE I fIr LENNAFI"The lndependence Landmark Collection cREAr DTNING [ ]RooM AREA l. i i170"X15',-0" 12',-0"X15',0' : ! 2.CAR GARAGE r94" X 22'4" i------ ---------- -'---- LENNAJiI'The Cenesis.4-Car Main: 2 Stories I 4 Bedrooms ! 4 Bathrooms I 3 Car Garage a?,637 Sq. Ft. Private Suite: l Bedroom l l Bathroom I Private Living Area I Kitchenette I Laundry 1563 Sq. Ft. W ' g!." r*'+w:' ,,',,',t,='*,t a- )'t' Classic Collection LENNAFT-COIVI 95?-?49-3000 Main Home 2,637 Sq. Ft. . 2 Stories . 4 Bedrooms . 4 Bathrooms . 3 Car Garage Private Suite 563 Sq. Ft. .l" Bedroom . l Bathroom . Private Entrance . Kitchenette .laundry . Living Area . L Car Garage II TWIN CITIES #I ,i,ll nomrBulLDER Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /0r rodity desion and rEteriah, in our sole opinbn and witrrout notbe. Please see your New }lome Consultant and home purdEse agreement for actual leatures designated as an Everyfiing's lncluded feature, additbnal information, disclosures, and dischimers relating to your home and its features. Phns are artist's renderinos and may contain options which are notshn&rd 0n all i[dels. Lennar reserves the rhht b make changes to phns and ehvations ilithout orior notice. Slated dimensions and souare lirotaoe are a0oroxirnale and sfnuld nrit oe used ls reoresdntation of rE home's Drecise or actual iize. Any statemeflt, verbal br written, regarding 'un(h air' oI 'finished area" or anf otrei dessiotion 0r rnodifier of the souare tmtaqe size ol any home is a shorthand descriDtion ol the manner in which the souare footaoe was estinEted and shouE not brj mnstruad-to indilate c€rtainty. Garage sizes mav vary from home b honE and may not accohmodate all vehicles. ViSt Lennar' com or see a Lennat i,lew ibme Consultant for lurther details and im@rtant legal dischimers. This is not an offer in slal6 where prior reobtraton is reouired. Vord whele p{dibited bihw. tsource - BATC,2016Top 25 Buiklers List.Copyright O 2017 Lennar Corporatbn. All riohta reserved. Lennar, the Leflnar 1090, The Fome Within a Horne, The tlome Whin a Home lo00 and the Et/eryhing's lncluded afld fie Evarylhing3 lncluded dgo are U.S. reoistered service-nErks or servae rnarks of Le"nnar Corporatim and/or its $jbsilJiaries. U.S. Home Comoratbn d/t/a Lennar -"i-ten#'ru6. iriqoaslj. ffi* ar' Sales Coro. - Broker. MN Bldr. Lic l:l# Bcooi413.(1o5og) 01/04/18 ffi 1630535thAve.N- Suite 6OO, Plymouth, I.lN 55445 GItI]:\T R(X)\r l7-(f \ l5'rr' f#t6IB,rl0x ld-o' FO\ Main Level KI!(III;\ ll I=N N 7a\rlrlr FE rIr I The Genesis c 4-Car trh IT,[}J,f.E*} i owNER's ii SUIIE I I ra'o" x ts'o' i BEDROOM4 13'-0'X 12'-0' BEDROOM2 BEDROOM 3 15'-0" X 10'-0' Upper Level 2 Stories l4 Bedrooms l4 Bathrooms ! 3 CarGarage 3,344 Sq. Ft. EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' The Blakely Classic Collection LENNAFR.COTVI 95?-?,49-3000 Main Level Upper Level 3,344 Sq. Ft. . 2 Stories . 4 Bedrooms . 4 Bathrooms . 3 Car Garage II TWIN CITIES #I ,i,[ HomTBUILDER Elevatbns ol a home may vary and we reserve he rbht to substitute and /0r modity desion and materhh, ln our sole opinim and rvffiiut notice. Please see your NetY }lome Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Ewyfiing's lncluded feature, additional information, disclosures, and dischimers relating t0 your home and its feafures. Phns are artisfs renderings and may contain options v'?hich are not stan(kd on all rnodels. Lennar reserves the right h make changes to phns and el€vations witrout prior notice. Stated dimensioN and square fmtage are approxirlEte and srnuH not be used as represenhtion of $e home's orecise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, reoarding 'under air" oI 'finished area' u anf omer description or nndifier of he squde lmtage size 0f any honE is a shortrrand description of fie manner in whi*l the square fuotage wils estimated and sIEUld not be consrued h indbate ctrtainty. Garaqe sizes rEy vary lr0m home h home and mav not mmmodate all vehicles. visil Lennar.rfom oI see a Lennar I'lflv Home cmsultant fo{ furher details and importanl leoal dischimec.Ihis b rnt an otter in sEtes wiae prbr registatinr 6 required.Wfi wtEre orotribited by iaw. tSo.trce - BATC, 201 5 Top 25 Buil&rs Us1. Cogmdtt O m17 Leflnar Comoratbn. All righb ressrved. LenrEI, $e Lennar @, Erery$tng's lncluded and he Everylhingb lnctuded @ are U.S. regbtered servi{E rnarlG or seflice marks 0l Lennar CorpoBlbn ad/o( its $,bsuhrie$. U.S. tkrire Cormrabirn dua Lennar:U.#'ffi:io4d8;i. ffi^a, fS Sales Com. - Broker. MN Bldr. L= Lic fl 8C001413. (10156) 4/317 ffi 1530536thAve.N. Suite 5OO, Plymouth, MN 55445 The Blakely \( x-)1.. r=,,rtt iiN u_r i K|l;(:lJr:\ BEDROOM4 BEDROOM 3 r! tl!BEDROOM 2 ?,498 Sq. Ft. o l Story . 2 Bedrooms o 3 Bathrooms . 3 Car Garage II TWIN CITIES #I '1,!' HOMEBUILDER Elevations ol a home may vary and we reserve tre right to substitute and /or nEdify desion and nEterhls, in our soE opinlon and with6ut notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purdase agreement lor actual features designated as an Everyhing's lncluded feature, additional intormation, disclosures, and disclaimers relating b your home and its feaures. Phns are artist's renderings and may clntain options whlch are not standard on all nndels. Lennar resenes the rioht to make chanoes t0 ohns and elevations witrrout orior notic-e. Staied dimensions and s0uare lootaoe are aooroximate and should nrit be used ls representation of he home's Drecise or acfual size. Any statement, verbal br written, regarding 'under aif or 'linished area' or anf otrei description or rnodilier 0l the squaie lmtage size 0t any home is a shorfiand description of the rnanrEr in whbh the square footage wEs estimabd and should not be mnstrued t0 indicate certainly. Garaoe sizes may vary from home o home and fuav not accommodate all vehlcles. Msit Lennar.6om or see a Lennar New tlome Consultant lor further details and important leoal disclaimers. This is not an otfer in shtes wiere orior reqistration is required.Void where Drohibited by hw tsource - MTC, 201 5 Top 25 Builders List. C0pyright @ 2017 Lennar Corooration. All righb reserved. Lennar, the Lennar loqo, Everything's lncluded and the Everylhingrs lncluded logo are U.S. rqistered service rnarks or service rnarks ot Lennar Corporation and/or its subsllhrils. U.S. Home Comoratbn d/ty'a Lennar-tt'r# [',i iri+oisii. ie.* f-1 Sales Coro. - Broker. MN Bldr. Lr l=lI scooiats. (1olso 7nzl7 ffiF 1630536thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, tlN 55446 Main Level I I I I CffiI\IER'S i i-'----------- 'ii orNrNc ii noorrr i i 13'{" X 10'-0* i BEDROOM2 11'-0'X 12'4', STUDY 10'-0u x 14-0u I0RCH ii 2 Stories I 4 Bedrooms I 4 Bathrooms I 3 CarGarage 3,395 Sq. Ft. EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' I=rIlNN 7a\ RI{r WN4ISE t LENNAliR The Springdale Classic Collection 3,396 Sq. Ft. . 2 Stories . 4 Bedrooms . 4 Bathrooms . 3 Car Carage II TWIN CITIES #I '!,!, nOmfBUILDER Elevatbns of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or nndity desion and materhls, in our sob opinion and withiut notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual leatures designated as an Everything's lncluded feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating t0 your h0me and its leatures. Phns are artist's renderinos and mav contain ootions v'/hich are not stan&rd on all irodels. Lennar reserves the rioht to make changes to phns and elevations w'ihout orior notice. Stated dimensions and souare foolaoe are approxirnate and should not be used as representaton ol the home's Drecise or actual size. Any slatement, verbal br written. regarding 'undeI aif or 'tinished area' or anf othei description or rnodifier of he square fmtage size 0l any home is a sh0rthand descriplion of the manner in which the square lootage was estimated and should not be mnstrued t0 indi€te certainty. Garaoe sizes may vary lrom home t0 home and mav not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.6om or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and imDortant leoal disclaimers. This is not an ofler in states wiere orior registration is required.Void where Drohibited by hw. tSource - BATC, 201 5 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright @ 2017 Lennar Cor@ration. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything's lncluded and the Everyihing-s lncluded logo are U.S. registered service marks or serviE marks of Lennar Coeoration and/or its subsidhries, U.S. Home Corporation d/Ua Lennar - Lbense llo.20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. - Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC00'1413. (10154) 11/08n7 1630535thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55445 Main Level The Springdale LENNAFT.COIVI 95?-?49-3000 \( )( )K Rlr\lr\IL\till KI I1]I I]I\ BEDROOM4 11'4',X 14-o', Upper Level 1 Story ! 3 Bedrooms I 3 Bathrooms | 3 Car Garage 2,983 Sq. Ft. @ EVERYTHIl{G'S INCLUDED' LENNAFT The Riviera LENNAFI.C(]IVI 9s?-373-0485 LENNAFI'The Riviera 2,983 Sq. Ft. . L Story . 3 Bedrooms . 3 Bathrooms . 3 Car Garage Elsvatjons of a home may mry and we reserve the rioht to substitute and /or modity design and materials, in our soh @inicm and wittput notice. Please see your I'lew Home Coflstlltant and home purchase agreement l0r aclual features de$gnated as an Everylhirqb hduded featrre eddilional infomatM. disdosures. and C0r0. - Broker LicerEe *.40021205. iir_,,[{,".d!;fi,,ffififf g 1630536thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55445 MAIN LEVEL 9s"-373-0485LENNAFR.COIVI 2 Stories I 4 Bedrooms t 5 Bathrooms I 3 CarGarage 3,974 Sq. Ft. @ EYERYTHIilG,S INCLUDED' LENNAliR'TheSalisbury LENNAFT.COM 95?-249-3000 MAIN LEVEL I- OEM rlr]\rn UPPER LEVEL 3,974 5q. Ft. . 2 Stories . 4 Bedrooms . 5 Bathrooms . 3 Car Garage 1'TWIN CITIES #1 TiK HOMEBUILDER Elevations of a home may vary and w€ reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our s0le oprnion and without n0tice. Please see vour New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement tor aclua' leatures designated as an Everythings lnduded feature. additional information, disdosures. and disclaimers relating to your home and ihfeatures. Plans are artisl's renderings and may contain oDtions which are not Sandard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes t0 ohns and elevations without prior notice. Stated iimensons and souare lootaqe are approximate and should not be used as representation ol fie home's precise or actual size. Arry slatement, verbal or written, reqarding 'under air'or'finished area" or any o$er des{ription 0r modilier ol the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square tootaoe was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. visit Lennar.com s see a Lennar New Home Consultant lor further details and imp0rtant l€gal disclaimers. Ihis is not an olfer in states where prior regisEation is reouired. Void where prohibited by law. tsource' MTC. 2017 Top 25 Buil@rs List Copynght @ 2018 Lennar Corporation. All nghts ressved. Lennar. the Lennar logo, Evel&ing's lnduded and fie Everything's lnclud€d logo are U.S. reoister€d seruce marl6 or seMce rnarlc ol Le-nnar Corporation and/ol its $Ndiatus. U.S. Llome Corporation d y'a Lennar^--Lennar Sal€s corp. - giolGr Licer6e #40@1205. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413. CalAtlantic Group, lnc.; BC numbet is - 8C736565. Q48731 W17t18 1530535thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAJiI"TheSalisbury 95?-?49-3000LENNAFT,C(fIVI 2 Stories l4 Bedrooms l4 Bathrooms | 3 CarGarage 3,874 Sq. Ft. @ EVERYTHII{G'S INCLUDED' LENNATiT The Muifield LENNAFT.C(]IVI 952-373-0485 nff.li K]TCHEN 13'X lr', FAMILY ROOM 17 Xfr', 3-CAR GARAGE 3/ XA', -1- MAIN LEVEL '-I OWNER'S SUITE 14'X 16vwr(ffi BEDROOM2 13':{12. BEDROOM4 14](1t UPPER LEVEL 3,874 Sq. Ft, o 2 Stories o 4 Bedrooms . 4 Bathrooms o 3 Car Garage 1'TWIN CITIES #I Tih HoMEBUILDER Elsvations of a home may vary and we reserve the rigm to substitute and /or modity design and materials, in our sole opinion and withod notice. Please see your NelY Home Consultant and home ourchase agreemenl tor aclual features designated as an Everything's lncluded feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its featur$. Plans are artis:tb renderings and may contain ootions which are not $andard on all models. Lbnna reserves the right to make changes h Dhns and elevations withod prior notice. Stated dimen$ons and square lootage are approximate and sir0uld not be used as reoresentation of he home's precise or aclual size. Arry shtement, verbal 0r written, regarding 'under air'or'finished area" or any other desc{iption 0r modili€r of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand d€scriptlon ol the manner in which the square lootage was eslimated and should not be consfued h indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary tlom home to home and may nol accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com 0I see a Lennar Nav Home Consuttant lor turther details and important legal disclaimers. Ihis is not an ofler in $ates where prior Iegistralion is required. Void where prohibited by law. tsource - MTC, 2017 Top 25 Builders List. Copynght @ 2018 LenMr Corporatjon, AII rights reserved. Lenna( the Lennar logo, Eveq/thing's hcluded and tlE Eveqniing's lncluded logo are U.S. reoislered seflice marks or seMce marks of Le-nnar Corporation and/or its subsidianes. U.S. Hom€ Corporation d y'a Lennar - Lennar Sales corp. - &okel Licer6€ #40021205. MN Btdr Lic # BCml413. CalAdantc &o|,p, lnc.; BC number is - 8C736565. (24816) W17/18 16305 35th Aue. N. Suate 5OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAIiI"The Muifield 95?-373-0485LENNAFI.COIVT 1Story ll Bedrooms lZ Bathrooms l2 CarGarage 1,96.2Sq. Ft. EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' LENNAIiT The Madrid Lifestyle Collection LENNAFR.COTVI 95?-?49-3000 OPI. PORCH IOC.\TION DINING ROOM 12'xL5' MASTER BEDROOM 13' x 15' I\IASTER BATH 2 CAR GARAGE 27'x25' PORCH Main Level L,962Sq. Ft. . l Story . L Bedroom o Z Bathrooms o Z Car Carage TheTwinCities #1 homebuilder for the last 10 years! Plans and elevatbns are artist's renderings and may contain options whhh are not standard on all nndels. Lennar reserves the riqht to make changes t0 trEse floor plans, sd,ecitications, dimensbns and elevations witrrout orior notice. Stated dimensbns and square footage are approxirnate and should not be used as representatron ol he home's orecise or actual size. Any strtement, vefual ilr written. reoardino 'under air or 'tinished area" s ani othei description 0r modifier of the square footage size ol any home is a shorthand description of tile manner in which the square fmtage was estimated and should not be construed to indbate certainty. Garaoe sizes mav varv from home t0 home and ilnv not accbmmirate all vehbles. U.S, Home Corporation d/t/a Lennar - Lftnse No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. - Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # 8C001413. Copyrighl O 2016 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved Lenna( he Lennar logo and he Every$iru's lncluded hgo are registered servile marks or service fiiarks of Lennar corDorati0n and/or its subsidhries. !ftl002004/15/16 F 1530536thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 The Madrid 1 Story | 1 Bedroof l?Plthrooms I 2 Car Garage Z,OOB 5q. Ft. I EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' LTI,ZFEI|IINI=N N 7a\ RiI.r I The Monaco Main Level 2,008 Sq, Ft, o l- Story . 1 Bedroom . 2 Bathrooms . ? Car Garage TheTwinCities #7 homebuilder for the last 10 years! Plans and elevations are artist's renderinos and mav contain ootions lvhich are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans. s6ecilications. dimensions and ele{iations wihout Drior notice. stated dimensions and souare footaoe are aDproximate and should not be used ls representation of the home's orecise or actual size. Any statement, verbal br written, regarding "under air" or "linished area" cr anf otrei description or rnodilier ol tre souaie lmtage size of any home is a shorhand description ol the manner in whch the square footage was estimated and should not be mnstrued to indicate certainty. Garaoe sizes rEv vary from home to home and inav not actirmmirdate all vehicles. U,S Home Crrporation d/b/a Lennar - License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. - Broker' MN Bldr Lic # 8C001413, Copyright @ 2016 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, he Lennar logo and the Everything's lncluded boo are reoistered servbe fi;,:l'T;,il ;i,"il!i ft'ffi ra. Crrooration and/or its subsidiaries. E-(10204)4/15/16 ffi 1630535thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 The Monaco LENNAFT.COIVI 952-?49-3000 1 Story I 2 Bedrooms | 2 Bathrooms | 2 CarGarage 2,068 Sq. Ft. EVERYTHII{G'S INCLUDED' LENNAFT The Birkdale LENNAFT.COIVI 95?-373-0485 OI$(/NBR'S SUITE 13'X 14 TRAY CEILING MAIN LEVEL 2,068 Sq. Ft. o l Story . 2 Bedrooms o 2 Bathrooms . ? Car Garage 1'TWIN CITIES #1 'iiK HOMTBUILDER Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the riont to substitute and /0r modify design and niateriats, in our sole opinion and without notice. Pleas€ see vour Ne{v Home Consultant and home Durchase agreemenl lor aclual features desionated as an Everything's lncluded leature. additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating h your home and ils features. Plans are artisl! renderings and may cofltain ootions which are not standard on all models. Lbnnar reserves the righl t0 make changes io Dlans and elevations without prior notice. Stated irimen$ons and sQuare footage are approximate and should not be used as reples€ntation of tre home's precise or actJal size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding 'under air'or'finished area'or any other desc{iption 0r modilier of the souare footage size ol any home is a shorthand description ot the manner in which the souare lootage v{as estimated and shoulo not be consfued h indicate certainty. Garage sizes may \rary lrom home l0 home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Vlsit Lennar.com 0r see a Lennar New Home Consjlhnt lor funher details and importanl bgal disdaimers. This is not an ofter in states where prior registration is reouired. Void where Orohibited by lali. tsource - gAfC, ZOtz Top 25 Builde6 List. Copynght @ 2018 Lennar Corporati0n. All righls res€rved. Lennar, he Lennar 1090, Everything's lncluded and the Everything's lncluded logo are LJ.S r€oislered griict marks or seM@ marks of Le'nnar CorDoration and/or its subsidranes. U.S. Home Corporation dhla Lennar - Lennar Sales Corp. - Bioker License #40021205. MN 8ldr. Lic # BC001413. CalAtlantic Group, lnc.; 8C number is - 8C736565. {25561) 0t17n8 1630535thAve.N. Suite 6OO, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAFI'The Birkdale 95?-373-0485LENNAFI.COM 1 Story | 2 Bedrooms I 3 Bathrooms I 2 CarGarage Z,lg7 Sq. Ft. @ EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' LENN TheOlympia 95?-373-0485 "*R oPr. lrINDOV O\TNER'S SUITE 13'X 15' TRAYCEILING oPr. VINDOW MAIN LEVEL 2,L87 Sq, Ft. o L Story . 2 Bedrooms . 3 Bathrooms . 2 Car Garage 1'TWIN CITIES #I ,iik HotrnrBulLDER Elevations oI a home may vary and we reserve the rioht to sub$itute and /0r modify design and ni'aterials, in our sole opinion and wilhoul notice. Please s€e vour New Home Consultant and home ourcha& agreement loI aclual features desionated as an EveMhing's lncluded t$ture, additional information, disclosures. and disclaimers relating to your home and itsleatures. Plans are arti$'s renderings and may contain ootions which are not slandard on all models. Lennar reserves the riohl to make changes t0 olans and elevations without prior notice. Stated bimensions and squale lootage are approximate and should not be us€d as reDresentation of the home's precise or aclual size. Any statement, verbal 0r written, regarding 'under air" or'finished area" or any ofier description 0l modilier of the souare footage size ol any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the souare lootaoe was estrmated and should not bri construeci'to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not ac@mmodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com 0r see a Lennar New Home Consulhnt for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an otfer in states where prior registration is reauired. Void where prohibited by law. tsource - BATC, 2017 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright @ 2018 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything's lncluded and the EveMhing's -lncluded logo are u.s. reoistered seriice harks or service marks ol Le-nnar Comoration and/or its subsidiaries. U.S Home Cor0oration d/b/a Lennar - Lennar Sales Coro. - Broker License #40021205. H,-',,i,-.;ny;#-,fq'Jfi',t H 1530535thAve.N. Suite 5OO, PIymouth, MN 55446 LENNAFI'The0lympia 95"-373-O48sLENNAFR.COIVI LENNAR®The Valencia LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 A C B D VILLA COLLECTION LENNAR® 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 The Valencia Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16743) 4/6/17 Main Level VILLA COLLECTION 1,536 Sq. Ft. • 2 Bedrooms • 2 Baths • 2-Car Garage Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16743) 4/6/17 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR®The Valencia LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 VILLA COLLECTION Options Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16743) 4/6/17 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR®The Valencia VILLA COLLECTION Optional Finished Basement LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 LENNAR®The Oxford LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 A C B D VILLA COLLECTION LENNAR®The Oxford 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 Main Level VILLA COLLECTION 1,541 Sq. Ft. • 2 Bedrooms • 2 Baths • 2-Car Garage Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16747) 4/6/17 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16747) 4/6/17 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR®The Oxford LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 VILLA COLLECTION Options Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16747) 4/6/17 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 LENNAR®The Oxford VILLA COLLECTION Optional Basement LENNAR®The Buckingham 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16746) 4/6/17 Main Level VILLA COLLECTION 1,930 Sq. Ft. • 3 Bedrooms • 2 Baths • 2-Car Garage LENNAR®The Buckingham LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 A C B D VILLA COLLECTION LENNAR®The Buckingham VILLA COLLECTION Options Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16746) 4/6/17 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16746) 4/6/17 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR®The Buckingham LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 VILLA COLLECTION Optional Basement LENNAR®The Barcelona 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16744) 4/617 VILLA COLLECTION Main Level 1,631 Sq. Ft. • 2 Bedrooms • 2 Baths • 2-Car Garage LENNAR®The Barcelona LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 A C B D VILLA COLLECTION LENNAR®The Barcelona VILLA COLLECTION Options Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16744) 4/617 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16744) 4/617 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR®The Barcelona LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 VILLA COLLECTION Optional Finished Basement LENNAR®The Brighton 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16745) 4/6/17 VILLA COLLECTION Main Level 1,649 Sq. Ft. • 2 Bedrooms • 2 Baths • 2-Car Garage LENNAR®The Brighton LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 A C B D VILLA COLLECTION Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16745) 4/6/17 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR®The Brighton VILLA COLLECTION Options LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 Elevations of a home may vary and we reserve the right to substitute and /or modify design and materials, in our sole opinion and without notice. Please see your New Home Consultant and home purchase agreement for actual features designated as an Everything’s Included feature, additional information, disclosures, and disclaimers relating to your home and its features. Plans are artist’s renderings and may contain options which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to plans and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home’s precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding “under air” or “finished area” or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Garage sizes may vary from home to home and may not accommodate all vehicles. Visit Lennar.com or see a Lennar New Home Consultant for further details and important legal disclaimers. This is not an offer in states where prior registration is required. Void where prohibited by law. †Source - BATC, 2015 Top 25 Builders List. Copyright © 2017 Lennar Corporation. All rights reserved. Lennar, the Lennar logo, Everything’s Included and the Everything’s Included logo are U.S. registered service marks or service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. U.S. Home Corporation d/b/a Lennar – License No. 20464871. Lennar Sales Corp. – Broker. MN Bldr. Lic # BC001413.(16745) 4/6/17 16305 36th Ave. N. Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 LENNAR®The Brighton VILLA COLLECTION Optional Basement LENNAR.COM 952-249-3000 BASIN 300 BASIN 200 BASIN 100 WETLAND 2 WETLAND 6 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 11 WETLAND 10 WETLAND 7 WETLAND 7 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 8 BASIN 600 WETLAND 13 LAKE ANN LAKE LUCY OUTLOT A OUTLOT C OUTLOT C OUTLOT A OUTLOT A OUTLOT A OUTLOT B BASIN 400 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-COVR 1COVER LOCATION MAP SITE PLANPRELIMINARY PLATEXISTING CONDITIONSLEGEND SHEETCOVER SHEETSHEET INDEX1.2.3-6.7-9.10-11. GALPIN SITE PRELIMINARY PLAT & PUD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA R EROSION CONTROL PLAN SANITARY SEWER & WATER PLAN12-13.14-19. 28-29. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL DETAILSSEEDING PLAN30-31.32-35. STORM SEWER PLAN LANDSCAPE PLANL1-L5.TREE PRESERVATION PLANT1-T7. I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND IMPACT & BUFFER PLAN36-37.IMPERVIOUS AREA PLAN38-39. 20-27.GRADING PLAN 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-LGND 2LEGEND I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 EX-SURV-118100-SHEET-EX CON 3EXISTING CONDITIONS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 554464229912-7-2018 Pete Hawkinson EX-SURV-118100-SHEET-EX CON 4EXISTING CONDITIONS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 554464229912-7-2018 Pete Hawkinson EX-SURV-118100-SHEET-EX CON 5EXISTING CONDITIONS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 554464229912-7-2018 Pete Hawkinson EX-SURV-118100-SHEET-EX CON 6EXISTING CONDITIONS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 554464229912-7-2018 Pete Hawkinson 00-SURV-118100-SHEET-PLAT 7PRELIMINARY PLAT c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Peter J. Hawkinson 12-05-201842299 00-SURV-118100-SHEET-PLAT 8PRELIMINARY PLAT c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Peter J. Hawkinson 12-05-201842299 00-SURV-118100-SHEET-PLAT 9PRELIMINARY PLAT c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Peter J. Hawkinson 12-05-201842299 BASIN 200 BASIN 100 WETLAND 2 WETLAND 6 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 BASIN 600 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B OUTLOT A NORTH - 90' LOTS (501-531) WIDTH 90' AREA 15,000 SF OHW SETBACK 75' BLUFF SETBACK 30' LOCAL ROW SETBACK 20' (25' WITH SIDEWALK) CORNER AT ROW 20' TOTAL LOTS 31 SOUTH - 90' LOTS (101-111) WIDTH 90' AREA 11,250 SF FRONT SETBACK 75' REAR SETBACK 30' SIDE SETBACK 20' (25' WITH SIDEWALK) CORNER AT ROW 20' C.R. NO. 117 50' TOTAL LOTS 11 65' LOTS WIDTH 65' AREA 8,450 SF FRONT SETBACK 25' or 20' (SEE PLAN) REAR SETBACK 25' SIDE SETBACK 7.5' CORNER AT C.R. NO. 117 50' TOTAL LOTS 139 TOTAL LOTS PROPOSED 181 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-SITE 10PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 BASIN 300 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 11 WETLAND 10 WETLAND 7WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT C WETLAND 13 OUTLOT C OUTLOT A OUTLOT A BASIN 400 NORTH - 90' LOTS (501-531) WIDTH 90' AREA 15,000 SF OHW SETBACK 75' BLUFF SETBACK 30' LOCAL ROW SETBACK 20' (25' WITH SIDEWALK) CORNER AT ROW 20' TOTAL LOTS 31 SOUTH - 90' LOTS (101-111) WIDTH 90' AREA 11,250 SF FRONT SETBACK 75' REAR SETBACK 30' SIDE SETBACK 20' (25' WITH SIDEWALK) CORNER AT ROW 20' C.R. NO. 117 50' TOTAL LOTS 11 65' LOTS WIDTH 65' AREA 8,450 SF FRONT SETBACK 25' or 20' (SEE PLAN) REAR SETBACK 25' SIDE SETBACK 7.5' CORNER AT C.R. NO. 117 50' TOTAL LOTS 139 TOTAL LOTS PROPOSED 181 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-SITE 11PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 BASIN 200 BASIN 100 WETLAND 2 WETLAND 6 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 BASIN 600 OUTLOT B OUTLOT A OUTLOT A 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-SSWR 12PRELIMINARY SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 BASIN 300 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 11 WETLAND 10 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT C WETLAND 13 OUTLOT C OUTLOT A OUTLOT A BASIN 400 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-SSWR 13PRELIMINARY SANITARY & WATERMAIN PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT A 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-STRM 14PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 2 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT B 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-STRM 15PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 6 OUTLOT C OUTLOT A 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-STRM 16PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT C OUTLOT A 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-STRM 17PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT A 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-STRM 18PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 13 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-STRM 19PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT A 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-GRAD 20PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 2 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT B 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-GRAD 21PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-GRAD 22PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 6 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT A 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-GRAD 23PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 OUTLOT C OUTLOT C 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-GRAD 24PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-GRAD 25PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 13 OUTLOT A 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-GRAD 26PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT A 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-GRAD 27PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 BASIN 200 BASIN 100 WETLAND 2 WETLAND 6 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 BASIN 600 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B OUTLOT A LEGEND 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-EROS 28PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 BASIN 300 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 11 WETLAND 10 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT C WETLAND 13 OUTLOT C OUTLOT A OUTLOT A BASIN 400 LEGEND 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-EROS 29PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 BASIN 200 BASIN 100 WETLAND 2 WETLAND 6 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 BASIN 600 OUTLOT A OUTLOT AOUTLOT B · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-SEED 30PRELIMINARY SEEDING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 BASIN 300 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 11 WETLAND 10 WETLAND 1 WETLAND 1 OUTLOT C OUTLOT C OUTLOT A OUTLOT A BASIN 400 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-SEED 31PRELIMINARY SEEDING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 · · · · · · 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-DTLS-GR 32GRADING DETAILS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 · · 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-DTLS-GR 33GRADING DETAILS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-DTLS-GR 34GRADING DETAILS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-DTLS-GR 35GRADING DETAILS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 5 IMPACT AREA=2,288 SF (0.053 AC) WETLAND 4 IMPACT AREA=8,749 SF (0.201 AC) WETLAND 3 IMPACT AREA=7,036 SF (0.162 AC) WETLAND 2 WETLAND 1 (PRESERVED) BUFFER=40' MIN. & 80' AVG WETLAND 8 WETLAND 8 AVERAGE REQUIRED BUFFER REQUIRED MINIMUM BUFFER AVERAGE REQUIRED BUFFER REQUIRED MINIMUM BUFFER PROPOSED BUFFER PROPOSED BUFFER EXISTING BLUFF LINE EXISTING BLUFF LINE WETLAND 6 (MANAGED 2) BUFFER=20' MIN. & 40' AVG BASIN 200 BASIN 100 SURFACE WATER IMPACT AREA = 1,406 SF (0.032 AC) SURFACE WATER IMPACT AREA = 2,323 SF (0.053 AC) BUFFER NAME REQ'D. AREA (SF)PROP. CREDIT AREA (SF)PROP. TOTAL AREA (SF) WETLAND 1 487,766 533,919 534,584 WETLAND 6 15,830 16,477 16,477 WETLAND 11 60,834 61,844 61,844 WETLAND 13 6,064 6,140 7,265 WETLAND NAME IMPACT AREA (SF) WETLAND 3 7,036 WETLAND 4 8,749 WETLAND 5 2,288 WETLAND 12 26,149 WETLAND 12A 1,798 WETLAND 14 9,861 SURFACE WATER 3,729 TOTAL 60,551 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-WETL 36WETLAND IMPACT & BUFFER PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 WETLAND 12 IMPACT AREA=26,149 SF (0.600 AC) WETLAND 13 (MANAGED 2) BUFFER=20' MIN. & 40' AVG WETLAND 14 IMPACT AREA=9,861 SF (0.226 AC) WETLAND 12A IMPACT AREA=1,798 SF (0.041 AC) WETLAND 5 IMPACT AREA=2,288 SF (0.053 AC) WETLAND 4 IMPACT AREA=8,749 SF (0.201 AC) WETLAND 1 (PRESERVED) BUFFER=40' MIN. & 80' AVG WETLAND 11 (MANAGED 2) BUFFER=20' MIN. & 40' AVG WETLAND 10 AVERAGE REQUIRED BUFFER REQUIRED MINIMUM BUFFER AVERAGE REQUIRED BUFFER REQUIRED MINIMUM BUFFER PROPOSED BUFFER PROPOSED BUFFERAVERAGE REQUIRED BUFFER REQUIRED MINIMUM BUFFER PROPOSED BUFFER BASIN 400 BASIN 300 BUFFER NAME REQ'D. AREA (SF)PROP. CREDIT AREA (SF)PROP. TOTAL AREA (SF) WETLAND 1 487,766 533,919 534,584 WETLAND 6 15,830 16,477 16,477 WETLAND 11 60,834 61,844 61,844 WETLAND 13 6,064 6,140 7,265 WETLAND NAME IMPACT AREA (SF) WETLAND 3 7,036 WETLAND 4 8,749 WETLAND 5 2,288 WETLAND 12 26,149 WETLAND 12A 1,798 WETLAND 14 9,861 SURFACE WATER 3,729 TOTAL 60,551 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-WETL 37WETLAND IMPACT & BUFFER PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-IMP 38IMPERVIOUS AREAS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 00-ENG-118100-SHEET-IMP 39IMPERVIOUS AREAS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 39OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTH 12-05-18 PJC/BNM BNM/NCR Name Reg. No.Date Revisions 1. 2-28-2019 City Comments Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 12-05-2018 Paul J. Cherne PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544619860 c 5OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-7-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 2-28-19 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson L1LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 LANDSCAPE PLAN2-28-19 city comments c 5OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-7-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson L2LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 LANDSCAPE PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 city comments c 5OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-7-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson L3LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 LANDSCAPE PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 city comments c 5OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-7-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson L4LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 LANDSCAPE PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 city comments c 5OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-7-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson L5LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 LANDSCAPE PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 city comments c 7OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-5-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 2-28-19 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson T1LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN2-28-19 updated tree calculations for site plan revisions c 7OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-5-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson T2LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 updated tree calculations for site plan revisions c 7OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-5-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson T3LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 updated tree calculations for site plan revisions c 7OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-5-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson T4LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 updated tree calculations for site plan revisions c 7OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-5-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2018 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson T5LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 updated tree calculations for site plan revisions c 7OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-5-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson T6LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 updated tree calculations for site plan revisions c 7OFGALPIN SITE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 12-5-18 JLT JLT Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson T7LENNAR 16305 36TH AVENUE NORTHPLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55446 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 2-28-19 2-28-19 updated tree calculations for site plan revisions Carver County Public Works 11360 Highway 212, Suite 1 Cologne, MN 55322 Office (952) 466-5200 | Fax (952) 466-5223 | www.co.carver.mn.us CARVER COUNTY December 28, 2018 City of Chanhassen, c/o Paul Oehme, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer 952-227-1169 poehme@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Development / Access Review Comments: Nelson Property Preliminary Plat on CR 117/Galpin Blvd. Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject development in the City of Chanhassen. Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and County Codes, the following are comments and recommended conditions of approval and as potential requirements for any necessary permits to be issued for the project: 1. The subject plat and development has been reviewed against several other major planning and infrastructure projects, with the result that several changes and/or cross-checks of the subject plat will be required. CR 117/Galpin Blvd. is planned as turn back project and studied as part of a Highway 117 Corridor Study. Galpin Blvd is also identified in the County’s Comprehensive Plan as an Urban/Urbanizing Collector, with a guided access spacing of 1/4- mile full access and 1/8-mile secondary access. In addition, a draft master stormwater and pond management was developed, based on planned development and road design elements. 2. In terms of access management, the proposed accesses across from Hunter Dr. and Longacres Dr. meet the guideline for full access. These two access points are also identified in the Highway 117 Corridor Study for full access. 3. In terms of access management, the access across from Wynsong Ln. meets the 1/8 spacing guideline for a secondary access. Note that this access could be restricted to a right-in/right- out access in the future. As such, it is recommended the City and developer consider a local through road connection instead of the proposed cul-de-sac. As a condition of the secondary access across from Wynsong Ln, the driveway from parcel no. 250100400 will need to be removed from CR 117/Galpin Blvd. and connect to the proposed new local road. 4. Exclusive left turn and right turn lanes should be required at all full access points across from Hunter Dr. and Longacres Dr., and if full access allowed at Wynsong Ln. Left turn lanes are preferred over right turn lanes if space is a premium. These are shown conceptually in the preferred alternative from the Highway 117 Corridor Study. The Hunter Drive location looks like it will need additional right of way and / or special design transitions to the south to fit the recommended turn lane lengths and transition tapers. 2 | P a g e 5. Right of way dedication will be required along the east side of CR 117/Galpin Blvd. per the above considerations, the Highway 117 Corridor Study, and the typical roadway sections identified in the County’s Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Corridor Study identifies specific right of way needs and the plat will need to follow and be consistent with the preferred roadway alternative. The right of way will need to tie into the existing highway right of way north and south of the proposed development. The preliminary and final proposal will need to be reviewed and approved as to form and content by the County Surveyor. Specifically, given that most all of the existing corridor is platted at approximately 100-ft total now, this new plat’s right of way could also be a total of 100 ft total or 50-ft on center. The typical roadway section for a 2-lane urban undivided with continuous left turn lane (intersection) should be followed and revised to fit in the 100-ft right of way planned, with an exact cross-section to be reviewed and approved by the County and City. The recommended cross-section could run as follows from west to east: 1’-offset; 8’-trail-5’- blvd; 2’-gutter; 4’-bike lane; 12’-right turn lane; 12’-thru lane; 12’-left turn lane; 12’-thru lane; 12’-right turn lane; 4’-bike lane; 2’-gutter; 5’-blvd; 8’-trail; 1’-offset (with variations in offset and/or blvd). Potentially, the right turn lanes could be shared Thru/Right Turn Lanes as exclusive left turn lanes are preferred over right turn lanes if space is a premium. It could be that the left turn lane or center left turn lane could be left out of the section where Pond “C” Wetland is existing to keep the road narrower in this section. From the Corridor Study centerline stationing reference numbers, it looks like the typical left turn lane is about 600-800-feet long, such that the LT lane at Hunter Drive falls at Sta 32+00 to Sta 40+00; and the LT lane at Longacres Dr falls at Sta 40+00 to Sta 48+00; and so on to the north. More exact design layouts can verify some of these details. 6. The technical details of the plat, its boundaries and form(s) will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Surveyor. 7. The plat’s final grading plans, ponds, and right of way along CR 117/Galpin Blvd. will need to be reviewed and approved to show how this is set up for the potential future CR 117/Galpin Blvd. reconstruction. A cross reference of grading plans, profiles, and respective cross sections should be provided at key locations such as intersections, ponds, or other special features. 8. A new a draft master stormwater and pond management will need to be developed for this plat and area, based on planned development, road design elements, and the draft ponds planned from the Corridor Study Storm Drainage Plan. Ponds “D”, “C”, and potentially “B” will need to be verified accordingly. 9. Prior to any work affecting or on County highways or in County right of way, the applicant shall coordinate plans with the County Engineer and obtain a Utility or Excavating/Filling/Grading Permit(s) from Carver County Public Works: (http://www.co.carver.mn.us/how-do-i/apply-for/a-permit). Final details of locations, grades, and profiles affecting County roads as well as any utility connections will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any permits. 3 | P a g e 10. Any damages, modifications, or changes incurred on County highways from current or approved conditions will need to remedied or updated at development expense, including costs incurred by the County. These are comments at this time. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at dmccormick@co.carver.mn.us or by phone at (952) 466-5208. Sincerely, Dan McCormick, P.E. PTOE Transportation Manager Carver County Public Works REPIY TO ATTENTIOT{ OF REGULATORY BRA CH DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 180 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 7OO sT.PAUL,t N 55101-1678 January 08, 2019 Regulatory File No. 2017-03447-MMJ City of Chanhassen Community Development Department Planning Division c/o Kate Aanenson, AICP 7700 Market Boulevard , P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Aanenson: This letter is in response to correspondence we received from the City of Chanhassen regarding the proposed rezoning of an approximately 188.S-acre property located east of Galpin Boulevard and west of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. This letter contains our initial comments on this project for your consideration. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that based on the Galpin Site Preliminary Plat and PUD for the project referenced above, a Department of the Army (DA) permit may be required for the proposed activity. We concurred with the delineation of aquatic resources that was completed on the Galpin property, and completed an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) for numerous waters located within this project site, as indicated in the enclosed letter dated March 26, 2018. We determined that Wetlands 3-13 on this property are not jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; the discharge of dredged or fill material into these wetlands would not require Corps authorization. However, the Galpin site project may require a Corps permit if it would involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetlands or waters on the property not included in the enclosed AJD, as they could potentially be walers of the U.S. Please consider the following information concerning our regulatory program that may apply to the proposed project. lf the proposal involves the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, it may be subject to the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA Section 404). Waters of the United States include navigable waters, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands (33 CFR S 328.3). CWA Section 301(a) prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, unless the work has been authorized by a Department of the Army permit under Section 404. lnformation about the Corps permitting process can be obtained online at htto://www. mvo. usace.armv. mi l/reoulatorv. The Corps evaluation of a Section 404 permit application involves multiple analyses, including (1) evaluating the proposal's impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (33 CFR part 325), (2) determining whether the proposal is contrary to the public interest (33 CFR S 320.4), and (3) determining whether the proposal complies with the Section 404(b)(1 ) Guidelines (Guidelines) (40 CFR part 230). lf the proposal requires a Section 404 permit application, the Guidelines specifically require that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental Regulatory Branch (File No. 2017-03447-MMJ) consequences" (40 CFRS 230.10(a)). Timeand money spent on the proposal priorto applying for a Section 404 permit cinnot be factored into the Corps' decision whether there is a less damaging practicable alternative to the proposal. lf an application for a corps permit has not yet been submitted, the project proposer may request a pie-application consultation meeting with the Corps to obtain information regarding the data, studies or other information that will be necessary for the permit evaluation process A pre-application consultation meeting is slrongly recommended if the proposal has substantial impacts to waters of the United States, or if lt is a large or controversial project. lf you have any questions, please contact me in our St. Paul office at (651) 290-5363 or Melisia.m jenny@usace.army.mil. ln any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory file number shown above. Enclosure Cc: Joe Jablonski, US Home Corporation Vanessa Strong, City of Chanhassen Ben Carlson, BWSR Sincerely, rtu{)6 Melissa Jenny Project Manager Page 2 of 2 Depenrueur oF THE Anuv ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 180 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 7OO sT. PAUL, MN 55101-1678 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF REGULATORY BRANCH March 26,2018 Regulatory File No. 2017 -03447 -MMJ Comerica Bank c/o Gerard Snover 230 Park Avenue, Suite 634 New York, New York 10169 Dear Mr. Snover: This letter is in response to your request for Corps of Engineers (Corps) concurrence with the delineation of aquatic resources completed on an approximately 188.5-acre property on Galpin Boulevard, in the City of Chanhassen. You also requested an approved jurisdictional determination (AJD)for numerous wetlands located on the property. The project site is located in Sections 3, 10, & 11, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, as identified on the enclosed Figures 1-2. We have reviewed the delineation report completed for this property, dated September 27, 2017 , and determined that the limits of the aquatic resources have been accurately identified in accordance with current agency guidance inqluding the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(1987 Manual) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region. This concurrence is only valid for the review area shown on the enclosed figures labeled MVP-2017-03447-MMJ, Figures 1-2.fhe boundaries shown on the enclosed figures accurately reflect the limits of the aquatic resources in the review area. We have also completed an ,\JD for the wetlands labeled as Wetlands 3, 4, 5, 6,7 ,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12a & 13 (3-13) on the enclosed Figure 2. We have determined that these wetlands are isolated, and are not jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Therefore, you are not required to obtain Department of the Army authorization to discharge dredged or fill material within these wetlands. The rationale for this determination is provided in the enclosed Approved Jurisdictional Determination form. This determination is only valid for Wetlands 3-13, as shown on the enclosed Figure 2. lf you object to this AJD, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA) form. lf you request to appeal this determination, you must submit a completed RFA form to the Mississippi Valley Division Office at the address shown on the form. ln order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the enclosed NAP. lt is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the division office if you do not object to the determination in this letter This delineation concurrence and AJD may be relied upon for five years from the date of this letter. However, the Corps reserves the right to review and revise the boundary in response to changing site conditions, information that was not considered during our initial review, or off-site activities that could indirectly alter the extent of wetlands and other resources on-site. This determination may be renewed at the end of the five year period provided you submit a written Regulatory Branch (File No. 2017-03447-MMJ) request and our slaff are able to verify that the limits established during the original determination are still accurate. We did not complete a jurisdictional determination for the remaining wetlands or walerbodies on this property. While not required, you may request a jurisdictional determination for these wetlands from the Corps contact indicated below. Please note that the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the united states without a Departmenl of the Army permit could subject you to an enforcement action. Receipt of a permit from a state or local agency does not obviate the requirement for obtaining a Department of the Army permit. lf you have any queslions, please contact me in our St. Paul office at (651) 290-5363 or Melissa.m jenny@usace.army.mil. ln any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory file number shown above. Sincerely, NC/,6' Melissa Jenny Project Manager Enclosures Cc: Vanessa Strong, City of Chanhassen Andrew Krinke, KES Ben Carlson, BWSR Page 2 of 2 2017 -A3447-MMJ, Figure 1 Figurel-SiteLocation N M), A ? ''1?0"* !!fl$ \Jotluuc EN'r R oN M Er{rA r. s r. Rv'r c F.s c ovpAr\y rA.Ai/ Sounc; ESRI StreB Brsemrp Galpin Property (KES 2017-ll0) Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. 2017 -03447-MMJ, Figure 2 Figure 2 - Existing Conditions Io600 K1 otluvc ENvrRo NMENT^L sE*vr cEs coMpANy Sdrcc: Mlnndotr DNR (2013) - - > Drainageway - - > Ravine - Transect - omamental Feature - Lake Edge Vlbtand Boundary i- ] ] nssessmentArea Galpin Property (KES 2017-110) Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are aPProximate and do not constitute an official surveY Product. APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV ofthe JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 03126120t8 B. ST PAUL, MN DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBEn: MVP-2017-03447-MMJ; Comerica Bank/Galpin Boulevard C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFOR]VIATION: StAtE:MN County/parish./borough:Carver City:Chanhassen Center coordinates of site (latllong in degree decimal format): tat.44.873952'N. tong. -93.568829. *V. Universal Transverse Mercator: X:455069.3 9l I I 4, Y:4969 I 05.6303 Name of nearest waterbody: Bluff Creek Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit code (HUC): 0702001211 [! Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.[-l Checkifothersites(e.g.,offsitemitigationsites,disposal sites,etc...)areassociatedwiththisactionandarerecordedona different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): ffit Omce (Desk) Determination. Date: February 6,2018 E fleta Determination. Date(s): SECTTON II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There are no"waters of the U.5." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. l. Waters of the U.S.: N/A 2. Mn-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):1 [$ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: There are multiple wetlands in the review area; however, this determination is only for the wetlands labeled as Wetlands 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 12,l2a & 13 (3-13) on the enclosed map labeled MVP-2017-03447-MMJ, AJD Figure 2. Wetlands 3-13 are depressional wetland basins that do not have a surface or shallow subsurface hydrologic connection to any navigable waters or their tributaries, as confirmed in the Galpin Boulevard delineation report dated September 27,2017, and revised on October 24,2017. The wetland delineation boundaries on this property were confirmed in the field by State of Minnesota and City of Chanhassen government staff on October 11,2017. The wetlands are surrounded by upland, and do not have any swales, pipes or other means to connect them to waters of the U.S. (WOUS). Wetlands 3,7,8,9, 11, & 12 are mapped as isolated basins on the updated National Wetland Inventory (NWI). Wetlands 4,5,6,10 & 13 are not mapped on the NWI. Wetlands 7, 8, 9 & l0 are shallow forested depressions located on topographically prominent upland features on the property, and are surface water driven features that contain ephermeral hydrology. Wetlands 12 and 13 continue offthe project site, but are not connected, via swales, pipes or other means, to any downstream waters. We have determined that Wetlands 3-13 are isolated depressions and are not WOUS. Wetlands 3-13 do not support a link to interstate or foreign commerce because they are not known to be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreation or other purposes; they do not produce fish or shelllish that could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; and they are not known to be used for industriat purposes by industries in interstate or foreign commerce. These wetlands do not have a significant ecological connection to other waters within the review area. Wetlands 3-13 were determined to not be jurisdictional under the CWA. SECTION III: CWA A]TIALYSISA. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs: N/A I Supporting documentation is presented in Section Ill.F. c. D. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): N/A SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION: N/A DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CIIECK ALL THAT APPLY): N/A ISOLATED IINTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATEI WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS' THE USE' DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): N/A NON.JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): tr iidili *.tt*a. *.r. urr..r.i within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements' I Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. - - prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SIIANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solelv on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ! Waters dJ not meet the "significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: I Other lexplain, ifnot covered above): provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., pi...n.. ofmigratory birAs, presence ofendangered species, use ofwater for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that aPPIY): f] Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (f0. I Lakes/ponds: acres. I Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type ofaquatic resource: fr wetlands: Wetland 3: 0.16 acre, Wetland 4: O.2O acre, Wetland 5= 0.05 acre, Wetland 6:0.02 acre, WetlandT:0.62 acre,Wetland 8: 0.17 acre, Wetland 9:0.38 acre, Wetland 10: 0.13 acre, Wetland ll:2.79 acres, Wetland l2&l2a:0.61 acre, Wetland 13: 0.03 acres. provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required forjurisdiction (check all that apply): E Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft)' fl Lakes/ponds: acres. E Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type ofaquatic resource: I Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. sUppORTINc DATA.EI;eviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ffi Uaps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicanVconsultant KES [t Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. X Omce concurs with data sheets/delineation report. n Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared bY the CorPs: Corps navigable waters' studY: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: X uscs NHD data. E uscs 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: MN-Shakopee USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Carver County Soil Survey National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS NWI & MnDNR NWI State/Local wetland inventory map(s): FEMA/FIRM maps: 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: [t eerial (Name & oate;:FSA 199l-2016 or E other (Name & Date): Google Earth 2016-2018 Previous determination(s). File no. and date ofresponse letter: Applicable/supporting case law: Applicable/supporting scientifi c literature: Other information (please specifo): E. F. trtrtr trx trntrtr tr antrtr 2 B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS To SUPPORT JD: Based on the wetland delineation report, Wetlands 3-13 are isolated wetlands and are therefore not jurisdictional and not regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. NOTIFIC/'TION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REOUESTFORAPPEAL - Applicant: Comerica Bank Attached is:See Section below II.IITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT tSt"naa.a pe.-it o.l-ett A PROFFERED PERMIT (Stunda@ B PERMIT DENIALffi DETERMINATION C Dx PREIIVTN ERY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E nd options regarding un u@decision. Additional infnmotinn mav hc f.r,nd i-t httn://usace.armv.miUineVfunctions/cw/ceqwQh9g or Corps regulations al 33 CfR Part 331. ffi-lftel pnOpfeRED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. r ACCEpT: If you received a Standard permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. lf you received a Letter of Permission (LoP), you may accept the LoP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard permit or acceptance of the LoP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights tJappeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit' o oBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LoP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. you must complete Section II of this form and retum the form to the district engineer. your objections must be received by the district .rgir.". within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt ofyour letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) -ojifv the peimit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modifo the permit having determined that tire permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below' pnOnfgnEp PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit ACCEpT: If you received a Standard permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized' Your signature on the dtandard permit or acceptance of the LoP mlans that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights tJappeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit' AppEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LoP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps oiEngineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this ror'n ura sending the form to the division engineer. ttts rorm must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date ofthis notice. B: C: pERMtT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps ot bnglneers Aomlnlsratlve Appear rroucss completing Section II ofthis to.m and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. v eppnOVgO JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approveo JU or provrqe new rnrorrlatrufl' ACCEpT: you do not need to notifu the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date ofthis notice, means that you accept the app.or.d JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD' AppEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal process by coripleting Section II of this fo.rn und r"rrding the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days ofthe date ofthis notice' D: tneedtorespondtotheCorpsregardingthepreliminary JD. The preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Alsoyou may irovide-newinformation for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. From: Sent: To: Subject: Steve Albrecht <salbrecht8791 @gmail.com> Tuesday, February 26, 2019 12:20 PM Aanenson, Kate Prince's land development proposal We are in favor of the PUD plan with 54 acres set aside for lake Ann park expansion We live at 6951 Tecumseh Lane in Chanhassen Thanks 1 Flom: Sent: To: Subject: timleberle@gmail.com Tuesday, February 26, 2019 12.47 PM Aanenson, Kate Prince land development Please support the PUD plan to give the city as much parkland as possible. Thanks Sent from my iPhone :) 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Nick Lawson <nicklawson3l 1 @gmail.com> Tuesday, February 26,2019 2:21 PM Aanenson, Kate Prince land/Development oPinion Hello Kate, I just wanted to extended my opinion on the proposal of the Prince land by my house. Of the options that have been brought to my attention I would vote for the "Proposed PUD" option that maintains as much of the beautiful woods as possible. My family moved to Chanhassen in 2015 into the Greenwood shores neighborhood and my 3 kids, wife and myself as well as most of our neighborhood use and enjoy those woods every summer. It would be a shame to let them be developed if there is a viable option to save them that is on the table' part of what makes Chanhassen so great is its parks and natural woods. Its something you cant get back once its given up. Fl"ur. do all that you can to save that area for future generations to use and enjoy and not just reminisce about how great it was when we were young.. Thanks for your time. Ill see you on the 5th. --*t"U ru*ron - 612.232.3464 7071 Redman Ln, Chanhassen, MN 55317 ] From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jim Rosendahl <jimr@systium.com> Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:48 PM Aanenson, Kate City Council Galpin Boulevard Property As a resident of Chanhassen and the Greenwood Shores neighborhood for 24 years I am in favor of the Proposed PUD. lt would be a big plus for Lake Ann Park! Jim Rosendahl 7090 Tecumseh Lane Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Sent: To: Subject: Kate, Stephen Barnes <s.m.barnes@gmail.com> Tuesday, February 26,2019 3:49 PM Aanenson, Kate Prince Property Development I just wanted to make known my support for the PUD plan (not the original plan). I hope this helps guide the negotiations and approvals by the council. Thanks! -Steve Barnes 7100 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 612.237.0660 5 From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Wednesday, February 27,2019 9:11 AM Steckling, Jean Fwd: Prince's Land proposal. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message : From: Mike Boehm <mikeboehml I1474@y Date: February 27,2019 at 9:01:50 AM CST To: "kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <kaanenson@ci.chanhas , "council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <council(Eci.chanhassen. mn.us) Subject: Prince's Land ProPosal. Reply-To: "mikeboehml I 1474@yahoo.com" <mikeboehml 1 1474@y Hello, Just sending an email in case I can not make it to the March 5th meeting. I am heavily in favor of the proposed PUD. I can not support the concept plan. Thank you Mike Boehm G From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Wednesday, February 27,2019 2:20 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Lake Ann/Susan Development From: Chad Johnson <chadmtka@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27 ,2019 11:47 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Lake Ann/Susan Development Good morning Kate, I wanted to reach out to you via email since I will not be able to attended the City councils meeting on the Lake Ann/ Susan development project. I have been a resident in the greenwood shores neighborhood for over 17 years. My family and I have enjoyeO the natural beauty of this area and would like to keep it that way for others. Everything from the paved path that reaches the length of the east side of Ann up to the park, to the foot paths that split between Susan into dense woodlands has kept this i one of a kind area available for everyone to enjoy. With the minimal disturbance of the southside with the exception of a park and additional trails, ln my opinion, the PUD plan would be the best way to accomplish this. Sincerely, The Johnson Family '7 ? Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Wednesday, February 27 ,2019 2:22 PM Steckling, Jean FW: 16 residents support Proposed PUD of Galpin property From: Barry Da llavalle <barry.dallavalle@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27 ,2019 1:55 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.cha nhassen.mn.us> Cc: City Council <Council@ci.cha nhassen.mn.us> Subject: 15 residents support Proposed PUD of Galpin property To Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council, The following residents unanimously support the Proposed PUD plan for the Galpin property. We wish to thank Lennar and our city planners while working with the community to achieve this well-conceived proposal. We urge its recommendation. Our reasons are stated at the bottom of this letter. Scott and Tamara Sather 7090 Utica Ln Mike and Kressin Krause 7050 Utica Ln Tim and Sharon McCotter 7000 Utica Ln Bill and Joanne Lambrecht 6990 Utica Ln Barry and Laura Dallaval-le 6960 Utica Ln Daryl and Kim Weispfennlg 6930 Utica Ln Dal-e and Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Ln Pat Mohr and Maureen Lord Mohr 6890 Utica Terrace Ron and Mary Knudten 5850 Utica Terrace Rob Long and Louise Ou-Yang 6830 Utica Terrace Chris and Nicole Liwienski 612L Point Lake Lucy Bryan and Bonnie McCoskey 6'720 Point Lake Lucy Matt and Suzanne Woods 61 45 Lakeway Drive Betsy RandaII 1571 Lake LucY Rd John and Anne Wicka 1501 Lake Lucy Rd Al and Mary Weingart 1685 Steller Ct Reasons supporting our recommendation: l. More green space to mitigate runoff damage to Lakes Lucy and Ann and the Riley Creek watershed. Many of the co-signers here have willingly contributed significant time and money to control the invasive plant growth in Lake Lucy each year. 2. More green space for the surrounding community to enjoy the natural beauty and numerous wildlife of both lakes and their environs. 3. Preserve the long-envisioned legacy of Lake Ann Park. Respectfully submitted, Barry Dallavalle 6960 Utica Ln 952-737-8433 6 { From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Harding <PSJCAHarding@msn.com> Wednesday, Fefiuary 27,2019 8:39 PM Aanenson, Kate Support for PUD Dear Ms. Aanenson, We would like to voice our support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land surrounding Lake Ann. We believe that dedicating the land as park space would the best option for the City of Chanhassen and for Carver County. Than k you for taking into consideration the input of the residents in making this decision. Sincerely, Patrick Harding 1 /o From: Sent: To: Subject: Anna Harding <hardil 80@umn.edu> Wednesday, February 27,2019 8:41 PM Aanenson, Kate Support for PUD Dear Ms. Aanenson, We would like to voice our support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land surrounding Lake Ann. We believe that dedicating the land as park space would the best option for the City of Chanhassen and for Carver County. Thank you for taking into consideration the input ofthe residents in making this decision. Sincerely, Anna Harding Stecklino. Jean 1 From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Aanenson, Suzanne Harding <psjcaharding@gmail.com> Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:25 AM Aanenson, Kate Support for PUD We would like to voice our support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land surrounding Lake Ann. We believe that dedicating the land as park space would the best option for the City of Chanhassen and for Carver County. Thank you for taking into consideration the input of the residents in making this decision. Sincerely, Suzanne Harding 1 /I From: Sent: To: Subject: Alyson Duneman <alysond23@gmail.com> Thursday, February 28,2019 6:31 AM Aanenson, Kate Galpin Boulevard PropertY PUD Dear Planning Commission Director, I would just like to send a quick word in my support of the PUD plan. In an effort to preserve the invaluable beauty our lake shore and our highly sought after and well cared for Lake Ann Park, I am strongly requesting that the city does approve the concept plan. Kind Regards, Alyson Duneman 612-272-6297 i3 Stecklinq, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28,2019 9:17 AM Steckling, Jean FW: Lake Ann/Susan Development From: Chad Johnson <chadmtka@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 27,2019 11:47 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Lake Ann/Susan Development Good morning Kate, I wanted to reach out to you via email since I will not be able to attended the City councils meeting on the Lake Ann/ Susan development project. I have been a resident in the greenwood shores neighborhood for over 17 years. My family and I have enjoyed the natural beauty of this area and would like to keep it that way for others. Everything from the paved path that reaches the length of the east side of Ann up to the park, to the foot paths that split between Susan into dense woodlands has kept this a one of a kind area available for everyone to enjoy. With the minimal disturbance of the southside with the exception of a park and additional trails, ln my opinion, the PUD plan would be the best way to accomplish this. Sincerely, The Johnson Family Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Include in the packet Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28, 2019 10:17 AM Steckling, Jean FW: Comments on Prince's Galpin Property From: Hoffman, Todd <thoffman @ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 10:16 AM To: Gerhardt, Todd <TGerhardt@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Comments on Prince's Galpin Property Sent fl'om ury Verizon, Samsung Galaxy surartphone Original message From: Marcia Mclean <dmclean602@email. > Date:2128119 1002 AM (GMT-06:00) To: "Ryan, Elise" <ERyan@ci.chanhass >, aaller@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, "Hoffinan, Todd" <thoffinan@ci.chanhas > Cc: Dianne <dmclean602@gmail. > Subject: Comments on Prince's Galpin Property Please share my thoughts at all meetings related to Prince's Galpin property. Thank you. It has been legally accepted that Prince Rogers Nelson left no will. He did, however, leave his thoughts, his views, and his philosophy. One only has to look at his discography and approach the lyrics on literal and figurative levels. One only has to consider his many philanthropic endeavors. One only has to see the devastation he felt upon the loss of his child. Thus, I petition all parties involved to rethink the "Galpin project" in light of what Prince would have wanted. I propose that the property be given to the city of Chanhassen to become an extension of Lake Ann with an Arts Center and a playground for children with disabilities within its boundaries. Would this be easy to do at this point? No. Consider Prince's famous work ethic and it can be done, however. He loved Chanhassen and it is time for Chanhassen to show its love for him. To obtain the property and create this adjunct Paisley Park, inclusive, accepting and a place where people can play, refresh, and just be, funding would be necessary. Create a 50lc(3)? Endless resources are "out there". There is no doubt that the "Purple Family" all over the world would respond, as well as the PRN Alumni Foundation, the People of Paisley Park, the Timberwolves, the Lyn*, Tavis Smiley, Spike Lee, Oprah Winfrey, Sheila E., his photographers, and COUNTLESS others. They could give monitarily and/or in creative and imaginative ways. Further, would his heirs donate a record from the Vault to raise money? A "Go Fund Me" Account could be created? Prince always went to "The Max". He sang "When I go, I go, I go to the Max". Let's all continue affirming his legacy by doing exactly that "4 him". / Ll Marcia Mclean 110 Stratton Ct Columbia SC29210 2 'll From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Friday, March 01,2019 11:46 AM Steckling, Jean FW: Addendum to Email Marcia Mclean sent 2-28-19 From: Andrew Aller <aaller@mchsi.com> Sent: Friday, March L,2OL911:33 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen'mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Addendum to Email Marcia McLean sent 2-28-19 Addendum to yesterday email Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Marcia Mclean <dmclean602@gnail.com> Date: March 1,2019 at9:40:34 AM CST To : eryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, thoffrnan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, aaller@mchsi.com Cc : Dianne <dmclean602@ernail. co Subject: Addendum to Email Marcia Mclean sent 2-28-19 Please consider these additional thoughts. Yesterday a friend asked me why I was writing to you. I replied it was because I felt a connection to Chanhassen. From the first time I came up there, I loved it. Perhaps, it is because I grew up in and lived in a town with a seemingly similar character and "rhythm of life". In my opinion, unfortunately, my hometown has not evolved positively. Farmland and woods have been consumed by developers and the town is filled with so many housing developments and endless cars. While I realize progress and change is inevitable and typically necessary, the officials in my city did not appear to be very thoughtful in their decision-making. Thus, I respectfully encourage you, members of government, in Chanhassen to consider the environmentai effects of the decisions you make about the Prince Galpin Property. Land is a limited commodity and environmentally sensitive. There are many places housing can be constructed. Further, I continue to encourage all involved to think about using it in a manner that would have been Prince-approved and benefit ALL of the people of Chanhassen and be in keeping with the uniqueness and specialness of the city. I do not want what happened to my hometown to happen to Chanhassen. Sincerely, Marcia Mclean /5 From: Sent: TO: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28, 2019 1:44 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Planned Unit Development From: Ray Gaylord <rgaylord@qualitymold-inc.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 li42 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subiect: Planned Unit Development We would like to voice our opinion on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for land surrounding Lake Ann. believe that dedicating the land as park space isthe best optio n for the City of Cha n hassen and Carver County. Thank you for your consideration, Pat and Sue Ha rding Q Virus-free. www.avast.com lc From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28,2019 3:53 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Galpin Boulevard Property PUD From: Alyson Duneman <alysond23@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28,2079 6:31 AM To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.m n. us> Subject: Galpin Boulevard Property PUD Dear Planning Commission Director, I would just like to send a quick word in my support of the PUD plan. In an effort to preserve the invaluable beauty our lake shore and our highly sought after and well cared for Lake Ann Park, I am strongly requesting that the city does approve the concept plan. Kind Regards, Alyson Duneman 612-272-6297 t? From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28,2019 3:54 PM Steckling, Jean FW 7141 Galpin Boulevard Comments & Pictures DS-City Development - Aug 2018.pptx From: david senior <davidtsenior@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 8,2OL87:57 PM To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.m n.us> Cc: Trish Ann Wisell <trish.wisell@yahoo.com> Subject: 7141Galpin Boulevard Comments & Pictures Hi Kate - my wife & I bought the property located at7431 Windmill Drive, Chanhassen just 12 months ago. We love the neighborhood, neighbors and City. The Prince property development as proposed I have concerns about how close the Concept plan comes to the back of all neighbors property lines without any significant tree buffer, and considering the existing wetlands which do not seem to have been correctly considered. Our property gives a unique insight into why this area is so wet as we have a city storm drain in our back yardi I have attached 2 slides that show the back yard & the view of the Prince property from our backyard showing the wetlands & outlet from the storm drain. I understand the desire of the City to expand the parkland, but have to agree with the 2 Planning Commission Council members & many neighbors that had serious reservations on the plan as submitted in the July meeting. I just want to add our voices to that concern as we were on vacation during the last meeting time. I recognize you may not have time to come visit, but we do extend that offer given the gravity of what is being proposed. Best Regards, David & Trish Senior oIIe=az.antx fiHFE; 7t ;IE =5EIE=;lr;F=lAfr= g=firH r==r;--r-uZt ntfiHjE=><llJr-=uJuJE : aot IJJJfo mz I o-J o FtT'N t,oll a UJ :)aLz J o- F o- IIJozoo Ft ITJ(Lto)tOo E =oO:<Jo H#>zoo z to =toFa ua>o 9eurJ ilH : aot, IIJJfo mz I o-J o !Ft!FN Eo lJ.aul :)aIz J o- F o- IJJozoo ?. at! r9 From: Sent: To: Subiect: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28, 20'19 3:54 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Proposed Development on GalPin --.-Original Message--- From: Chrissy Boberg <cnboberg@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 28,2OL812:15 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> subject: Proposed Development on Galpin I am writing in in support of the proposed development of the land off of Galpin. My family and I have lived in Chanhassen for over 10 years and currently live at 1321 Heather Court. We live close to Lake Ann and have enjoyed that and other parks in the area. After looking at the planes it looks like the developer is offering up to the city around 100 of the 188 acres. Ofthe 1OO acres given to the city it appears the plan has the Lake Ann Park expanded to the west side of the lake. We have often visited that park and it would be wonderful to be able to walk almost entirely around the lake with this expansion. lt seems very generous and responsible of the developer to offer such a large part of the property to the city to preserve green space for all to use and enjoy. we strongly hope that the city supports this plan at the upcoming meetings. Thank you, Mlke Boberg and Family 1 rq Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28,2019 3:54 PM Steckling, Jean FW: draft for consideration From: Gord ie Ham pson <gord ie. ha m pson @cushwa ke.com> Sent: Thursday, July 26,2078 2:01 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: FW: draft for consideration Dear City Council, Planning Commission and Staff: Attention: Kate Aanenson: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us My family and I have lived in Ghanhassen for 26 yearsi at 7003 Sandy Hook Circle. We understand that the 188 acres on Galpin Road is being considered for development. I have reviewed both plans that the developer has submitted to the city. We very strongly support the plan which shows the majority of the units on the west side of the property. Not sure how the developer was pensuaded up to this point, however, it seems pretty amazing that they are offering to deed approximately 100 acres to the City of Chanhassen. This would really open up the two lakes which have been non-accessible until now! This seems like a huge win for everyone in the community! We understand that the developer could legally develop adjacent to the lake as presented in the first plan. We hope the city supports the second plan proposed by the developer at the Planning Commission meeting July 17th. On behalf of our family, we would enthusiastically express our support for the second plan of the proposed project. Thank you, Gordie Hampson and Family. Gordie Hampson Senior Director Brokerage Services Direct: +1952 465 3310 Mobile: +1612 366 6139 gordie. hampson@cushwake. com 3500 American Blvd W, Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55431 | USA cushmanwakefield.com The information contained in this email (including any attachments) is confidential, may be subject to legal or other professional 1 privilege and contain copyright material, and is intended for use by the named recipient(s) only. Access to or use of this email or its attachments by anyone else is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. lf you are not the intended recipient(s), you may not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email or its attachments (or any part thereof), nor take or omit to take any action in reliance on it. lf you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and delete it, and all copies thereof, including all attachments, from your system. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of transmitting software viruses, we accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unapproved access. 2 )<> Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28,2019 3:55 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Proposed Galpin Plan From: Dewing Scott <dewscott@Email.com> Sent: Monday, July 23,20L810:24 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaa nenson@ci.chanhassen.m n.us> Subject: Proposed Galpin Plan Attention Kate Aanenson; My famity and I have lived in Chanhassen for 20 yeans, currently at 6735 Mulberry Circle. We understand the 188 acres on Galpin Road is being considered for development. ! have had a chance review both plans the developer has submitted to the city. We strongly support the plan, which shows the majority of the units on the east side of the property. It is a great position to have the Developer to agree to offer approximately 100 acres to the city of Ghanhassen. Everybody in the community and area will benefit from this layout with the ability to walk it and enjoy the added space. We spend a lot of time outdoors and look fonrvard to seeing this preserved for all. Please express my famities' support for the project. We understand the developer could legally develop adiacent to the lake. We hope the city supports the second plan proposed by the developer at upcoming Planning Commission meetings. Thank you, - Scott Dewing and Family )l Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28,2019 3:55 PM Steckling, Jean FW 7 141 Galpin PUD Concept From: Tim Nordberg <nord0296@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July L9,2O!8 3:11 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.m n.us> Subject:7141 Galpin PUD Concept Re: 7l4l Galpin PUD Concept Hi Kate, I attended the 7l4l Galpin PUD Concept Review session on Tuesday to learn more about the Galpin Concept and really appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the process, the city and developer's ideas and public's opinions on the matter. I know the session's public commentary has passed, but I wanted to take the time to send over some of my own thoughts, many came up in retrospect of attending the meeting and hearing what was said. Hopefully you can share this with anyone involved in the back-and- forth with the Concept Development. One takeaway I had from the meeting I had was few proposed solutions or additional ideas to consider. Nearly all in the public seemed clearly worried about environmental impact and preservation or trees / nature, while clearly the developer cares most about economics, i.e. profit. The two notions aren't necessarily polar opposites (developer profit vs environmental impacts), but they definitely trade offeach other. I wonder if on the South side of the development the path connection into Lake Ann's park system could be considered along the north edge of, within, or near the current tree cover. It would help with several of the concerns I heard in the meeting: o Poorly or under marked wetland area within the Southern trees - it is really wet there, with often standing water for 4 months of the year. Development would impact the environment due to filling in the space, but also potentially push water back on other existing properties that back up to the land. . Buffer between current homes and new development - especially important if realistically considering 55' lots in this area with high percentage lot coverage. A proper buffer should add value and desire to the lots abutting it new development making it a positive for current residents and developers alike. o Preservation of Trees - during the meeting I heard this was a priority within the city overall within long term plans (i.e. 2040 review). It may be true that "replacing" if removed trees is technically allowed, but can you consider planting hundreds of new, young trees the same as replacing 30-50+ year old woods equivalent and adequate "replacement"? Hopefully it can be considered, the idea came to mind while I was enjoying a run along the Bluff Creek trail, portions nicely tucked into and around the trees are one ofthe things I really enjoy since moving to Chanhassen a few years ago. I have come to appreciate the City's commitment to excellence in Parks, Trails and outdoor activities (Walking, Bicycling, Running). I would love for this commitment to hold true in new developments rather than see "Trail Connections" run along a sidewalk or within a dense neighborhood. Further items I had thought of, and wanted to reiterate with my communication: l. The Galpin Road project really needs to be closely tied to this planning. The proposed development seems to be roughly the size of Longacres, but it is effectively forced to put all traffic on Galpin while Longacres has Hwy 41 on the West Side. Galpin is already difficult to manage (as a pedestrian or in a car) near Majestic due to traffic flow including numerous cars rolling through or completely missing the stop signs at Sugar Bush Park (Galpin and Brinker). Trafhc from nearly 200 additional homes would have a significant impact here that may be difficult to properly estimate with a simple traffic study. Galpin to the North (into Shorewood / Hennepin Cty) and Lake Lucy Rd do not seem suitable for significant increases either. 2. Housing density and lot coverage may be within rules (perhaps pushing the limits), but when I look at similar new developments I always worry about places for small children to play without ending up on the road. Cul-de-sacs help (because they somewhat create a safe place _in the road_ to play, but in the concept plan the cul-de-sacs were all targeting the "Empty Nester" home styles (likely' without small children). Often in these new developments I see the streets lined with signs and flags (i.e. "Drive like your children live here", "Caution kids at play"), highlighting the safety risks of such layouts, density and lot coverage. 3. I don't fully understand the need to line up the road connections to Hunter and Longacres, especially the alignment with Hunter seems to have an immediate challenge with the large holding pond / wetland space adjacent to the road. Relaxing this need may help offer more favorable layouts within the usable land on the properfy. On the positive side, I really appreciate the concept that expands Lake Ann's paths and the City's long term plans for further trails and connections. The more options we have, the better for the enjoyment and health of those in the community. I really believe these concepts are primary drivers that attract people to moving to the City of Chanhassen in the first place -- it was for my wife and I. Thinking of large developments like this reminds me of the praise early Minneapolis planners now receive in setting up the groundwork for their interconnected trail system (Lake and River trails, Parkway system, etc...). This is a key chance to ensure we develop an exceptional shared natural resources (Lakes and Trails) for everyone in our community to enjoy for many years to come. Ultimately I agree with the Planning Committee's final points, especially that neither of the concepts proposed thus far seem to respect the land, but with enough effort an acceptable compromise between the Environment, the City, current residents and the developers could be made. Best Regards, Tim Nordberg 2126 Majestic Way, Chanhassen 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28,2019 3:55 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Galpin Property - PUD From: Meredith McGuirk <meremcguirk@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 77,2018 5:L5 PM To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson @ci.cha nhassen.mn'us> Subject: Fwd: Galpin Property - PUD July 17,2018 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Planning Commission Members. We recently learned of the Planned Unit Development for the Galpin Property, formerly owned by Prince. We write today to formerly register our opposition to the plan. We are residents of Chanhassen in the Lucy fudge neighborhood, adjacent to the PUD land. lnterestingly, the concept review offered by Lennar on page 2 states that the "existing neighborhood to the North (Ashling Meadows) provides two existing road stubs to the subject property." This is inaccurate. Ashling Meadows provides one existing road stub, while our neighborhood, a I 6 unit custom home development contains the other. The current plan proposes direct access through the Lucy fudge neighborhood. We oppose the PUD in its cunent form for the following reasons: o Safety. We are a 16 home development currently attached to a 45 home development, commonly called Ashling Meadows. The one street leaving our community is already heavily flooded with traffic from Ashling Meadows. With one access road out of neighborhood residents cutting through often travel well beyond the speed limit and igrrore stop signs, causing significant hazards to the small children living in our neighborhood. The same road proposed as a pass through to the PUD property contains a bus stop for dozens of elementary children aged k-5. I cannot imagine the additional safety hazard caused by the increased flow oftraffic from another adjoining neighborhood twice the size. Simply stated, the current plan is only acceptable ifthe Commission disregards public safety to the children in our neighborhood. o Environmental. I think it is reasonable that even with the VERY BEST construction and water management techniques, given the proximity of proposed development to Lakes Lucy and Ann, it is, as a practical matter, impossible to prevent harmful phosphorous runoff(especially at the outset), and to furthermore expect the preservation ofLake Ann's pristine quality and clarity in concert with the proposed development would be naive and reckless. o Please also refer to Donna and Brian Strauss' letter, dated July 4, 2018. We concur with all statements raised in their letter to the Commission and City Council. It is my sincere hope that the Planning Commission and City Council will consider altemative road access points. Alternatively I urge the Commission to consider the development of a smaller community ending in a cul de sac connecting to our community that will be less hazardous and disruptive to current community members. While I understand the desire to have several access points, I also find it alarming that the Commission would not consider the disruptive and significant impact this will have on neighborhoods developed almost l5 years ago. Sincerely, Meredith and Greg McGuirk 1770Ltcy fudge Court clJ- From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:55 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Galpin Development - Staff Report From: j bra nda ll@aol.com <jbrandall@aol.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2018 8:49 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Re: Galpin Development - Staff Report Kate, After reading the Staff Report I have a few questions: Page 6 last paragraph: I assume this paragraph is referring to the North lots which are the only ones listed as 15,000 sf if so the number of lots may not be correct. Would you please explain why/how the development plan is not consistent with the Park Comp Plan Looking at scenario 2 and reading the small print, it looks as though they will be requesting variances' for lot area size on both the central and south lots. Betsy ---Original Message---- From: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> To: jbrandall <jblalde!!(Da.Ql@!0> Sent: Tue, Jul 10,201810:26 am Subject: RE: Galpin Development Betsy, The developer is requesting the PUD, which preserves the large area adj acent to Lake Ann. The staff report should be available by the end ofthe day Thursday. You can address any concems to me and I will forward then to the Planning Commission and the City Council Kate Kathryn Aanenson, AICP Community Development Direclor CITY OF CHANHASSEN PA. 952.227 .1139 FX. 952.227.11'tO www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: iEa!dal!@iq!.es!0 <.i!ra-!.d.a.!l@.q-q]-!o.!0> sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:19 AM To:Aanenson, Kate<@> Subject: Galpin Development Kate, When might the staff reporUrecommendations be posted for the development? Do you know which concept plan the city might be recommending? Pleases let me know if I should be directing my questions to someone else' Regards, Betsy Randall 1571 Lake Lucy Road Av Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:56 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Galpin Blvd Proposed Development -:-Original Message--- From: Julie Witt <juliewitt20@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July L4,20L811:01 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Re: Galpin Blvd Proposed Development Thanks Kate. I appreciate the information. l'm not sure I will be able to join future meetings so I will take you up on the offer to leave my feedback with you. Comments are below. My vote if I had to choose between the 2 would be for concept #2. This concept builds 199 homes on 88 acres. Why this plan is better: 1. Less impact to wetlands. One of the things I love about Chanhassen is how much natural land there is. I am concerned how many trees the first concept will take down and the disruption to nature it will create. I would love to see Chanhassen utilize the undeveloped acres for trails instead. lt is a beautiful piece of land and I would appreciate the ability for the public to use part of it. 2. Variety of price ranges. 55' and 90' lots will probably still be above average home prices especially with the opportunity for families to add upgrades (having priced Lennar homes before). One question, would the city consider adding trails for biking and/or hiking to the undeveloped land? Thanks for you consideration as you assess the available plans. Julie Witt > On Jun 27 ,2018, at 8:01 AM, Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson @ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: > J ulie, >Therewill be a num ber of opportunities for you to give input into the proposed development. Thereisaconcept review going to the Planning Commission on July 17th. You can review the staff report online on the city's website and should be available on July 12th. You can attend that meeting or submit your comments in writing to me and I will share with the Planning Commission and City Council. The staff report outlines the review process, after the concept review they will come go through preliminary plat with another public hearing at the Planning Commission. The developer has expressed they would have a neighborhood meeting. > Kate > Kathryn Aanenson, AICP > Community Development Director > CITY OF CHANHASSEN > PH. 952.227 .t139 1 > FX. 952.227 .t7t0 > www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us > ---Original Message--- > From: Julie Witt <juliewitt20@gma il.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26,2018 7:00 PM > To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn. us> > Subject: Galpin Blvd Proposed Development will ou > Hi Kate, > Will the public be able to give input to the decision for this development? > Thanks, > Julie 2 J9 From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28,2019 3:56 PM Steckling, Jean FW: 18-12 Galpin Development From: Barry Da llavalle <barry.dallavalle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 9,2O!82:46 PM To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.cha nhassen.m n. us> Subject: 18-12 Galpin Development Hi Ms. Aanenson, My name is Barry Dallavalle and am current President of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. As you might expect, our association membership is interested in how this development moves forward. Currently, there appears to be two alternatives, a "density trade" and a "yield plan". Has the planning group settled on either? Or would the selection be the subject of the planning commission meeting on the lTth? Would you or another on your staff be interested in receiving our comments prior to or at the meeting? Thank you, Barry Dallavalle 6960 Utica Ln 952-737-8433 1 .1( Stecklinq, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:57 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Prince's land off Galpin ---Original Message--- From: Holly Nelson <hollysn9@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 20,2018 9:12 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn us> Subject: Prince's land off Galpin ljust read through the development plans from Lennar for Prince's land. Those 55'and 55' lots make me sad. I was hoping this would be an elite development in Chan and instead it's sadly dense. I read their justification that if they spread it out they'd fit that many lots but are condensing it for the parkland. lt would be so much nicer to have the 90' lots through the whole development and have the park land too. This is valuable land. Please don't let them waste it. Holly Nelson 1 3t-1 From: Sent: To: Subiect: Aanenson, Kate r[liiioiv,'rebruary 28, 2o1e 5:oe PM PffiI[?fiJ"3:rpin Propertv comment From: Marcia Mclean <dmclean602@gmail'com> Date: February 28,2019 at12:59:46 PM CST To: aaller@mchsi.com Subject: Prince Galpin Property Comment Please share my thoughts at Galpin Property meetings' It has been legally accepted that Prince Rogers Nelson left no will' He did, however, leave his ihorrghtr, his views, and his philosophy' One only has to look at his discography and approach the lyrics on literal and figurative levels' One only has to-consiier his many philanthropic endeavors. One only has to see the devastation he felt upon the loss of his child' =- ih;;, I petition uil purti.r involved to rethink the "Galpin projectu in light^of what Prince would have wanted. I propose the property be given to the city of Chanhassen to become an extension of the Lake Ann Park, with an Arts Center and a playground for children with disabilities to be developed within its boundaries. would this be easy to do at this point? No. consider Prince's famous work ethic and it can be done. He loved Chanhassen. It is time for Chanhassen to show its love for him. To obtain the property and create this adjunct Paisley Park, inclusive, accepting, and where people can play refresh and just be, funding will be requiredlCreate a SOf ct:) perhaps? There is no doubt that people from the ,,Purple Family,, around the world, the PRN Alumni Foundation, the People of PaisleyPark,thefimUerwotves,theLyn*'TravisSmiley'SpikeLee'Oprah Winfrey, Sheila e., t,i, pt,otographers,-and countless others will respond either monetarily o, ir.r"uiiri u"aI*^uginative ways to gather resources' Maybe his heirs will donate a song from the Vaull prince always *"r,io ,,The Max". He sang "whenJ gg,I go,I go to the Max"' Let,s ali continue and affirm his legacy by doing exactly that "4 him"' Thank You. Marcia Mclean 110 Stratton Ct' Columbia SC29210 lr From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Friday, March 01,2019 8:06 AM Steckling, Jean FW: Development plan From: Ron Robey <trapshooterl 100@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28,2019 6:38 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Development Pla n I'm in favor of the proposed pud plan to have more green space and protect the lakes Thanks Ron Robey J? From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Friday, March 01,2019 12:27 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Lennar Galpin subdivision From: Andrew Dunema n <a nd rew@bulkreefsupply.com> Sent: Friday, March 'J.,2019 12:23 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Lennar Galpin subdivision Kate - I wanted to drop you a quick note supporting the Proposed PUD version of the Galpin Subdivision project. l'm a resident of Greenwood Shores (7050 Redman Lane)just on the other side of Lake Ann. My family and I along with our neighbors love hiking through the woods around Lake Ann year round. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a space that all residents of Chanhassen and the surrounding area can enjoy for generations to come. l, along with my neighbors, strongly oppose the Concept Plan which will eliminate this valuable recreational area for good. I attached a few pictures of our kids hiking here this last August. I look forward to attending the meeting on March 5th to express my support for protecting this priceless area. Andrew Duneman lntegrotor Direct:763.231.9061 Cell:612.242.9838 Andrewt@bulkreefsuoolv.com BUI.K REEF SUPPLY 3o From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Friday, March 01 , 2019 12:26 PM Steckling, Jean FW: l'm in favor of the proposed PUD Plan From: Mike Harding (mharding) <mharding@cisco.com> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 L1:58 AM To: City council <council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen mn.us> Sublect: I'm in favor of the proposed PUD Plan Kate and Council members - l'm urging you to back the PUD plan. Please help us maintain some community green space and keep our city an outstanding place to live. Mike Harding Mobile: 612-860-5584 mhardinq@cisco.con-l 1 3r From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Friday, March 01,2019 2:12PM Steckling, Jean FW: PUD - Lake Ann park space From: Tim Harding <t.h@visi.com> Sent: Friday, March L,2OL91:59 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci'chanhassen'mn'us> Subject: PUD - Lake Ann Park sPace Dear Ms Aanenson, I would like to voice my support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land surrounding Lake Ann. I believe that dedicating the land as park space would the best option for the residents of the City of Chanhassen and Carver County. Thank you for your careful consideration in making this important decision. Sincerely, Tim Harding {- From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Monday, March 04, 2019 8:1 1 AM Steckling, Jean FW: Suppo( for PUD plan From: RICHARD MARIETTA MCLEOD <rmktm@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 11:04 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson @ci.cha nhassen.mn.us> Subiect: Support for PUD Plan Dear Ms. Aanenson, We are writin8 to voice our support for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for the land surrounding Lake Ann. We believe that this would be the best long-term option for the City of chanhassen and carver county. we have friends who live near Lake Ann, and have enjoyed spending time with them in this natural setting. Thank you for your consideration, Marietta and Rick Mcleod 13306 Kipling Ave So Sava8e MN 55378 952-895-8676 rm ktm @ msn.com 3_3 February 27,2019 Mayor Ryan and Council Members: Thank you for seeking public comment regarding the Galpin Boulevard property development. I understand the two proposals and support the change from the Concept Plan to the Proposed PUD with a density transfer. lunderstand the density transfer results in approximately4l lots to be transferred to smaller parcels which will allow approximately 45 acres of land to be available for parkland. The density transfer would benefit the wetlands by creating more green space for water runoff, natural filtration and a buffer for the Lake Ann and Lake Lucy's water health. ln addition, a community with a strong park system is a more desirable community, a more interactive community and a healthy community. The hard work of Council, Planning Commission, City Staff and Lennar to create this option with a life time benefit is much appreciated. please approve the density transfer Proposed PUD in order to capture the land for public use and the benefit of Chanhassen's residents.s Sincerely, Solvei and Todd Wilmot 7101 Shawnee Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-470-2360 cc: Chanhassen Planning commission 3t From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Tuesday, March 05, 2019 2:09 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Once in a life time opportunity! 100 acres on Ann & Lucy From: Jon Rausch/USA <Jon.Rausch@cushwake.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 2:08 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: FW: Once in a life time opportunityl 100 acres on Ann & Lucy Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I understand that as a result of the work session last night l2/l/191, the council has requested that the Developer re-present its latest plan to the Planning Commission. Additionally, the City is asking the residents their opinion on the park, for example, residents are being asked " How important is the new park to the residents"? As I understand the project, the Developer is proposing to transfer density from the East side to the West side of the property in order to preserve a laree oark alons the lake. This is INCREDIBLE! For the sake of the land and our future generations enjoyment of this incredible green space, I would strongly urge you to consider the density transfer, which would result in a 100 acre oark. At Camo Tanadoona, we have an internal wetland comDlex that we eniov (ducks. qeese, deer. turkev CllgL lt's amazing to see such a diverse wildlife on our property. Outdoor experts believe that contact with nature leads to improved mental health, lower stress levels, and enhanced cognitive skills! Please feel free to contact me anytime. Again, to be clear - | support the transfer of density to the West side of the site and the preservation of the 100 acres on Lake Ann and Lucy, especially given the alternative of the Developer/Owner pursuing a development plan that would impact the land adjacent to the lake. Which I understand they could do by code. Thank you. All my best, Marnie Marnie K, Wells ch ief Executive Off icer camp Fire Minnesota Direct (612) 284-6816 t'lain (612 ) 235 7284 www. ca mpfiremn.oro Find us on Facebook & Twitter Light the fire within The information contained in this email (including any attachments) is confidential, may be subject to legal or other professional privilege and contain copyright material, and is intended for use by the named recipient(s) only. Access to or use of this email or its attachments by anyone else is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. lf you are not the intended recipient(s), you may not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email or its attachments (or any part thereof), nor take or omit to take any action in reliance on it. lf you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and delete it, and all copies thereot including all attachments, from your system. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of transmitting software viruses, we accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unapproved access. Z7 Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Tuesday, March 05, 2019 3:24 PM Steckling, Jean FW: Lennar Galpin Boulevard Property Planned Unit Development From: Julie Sorensen <Julie@TeamSorensen.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:23 PM To: Ryan, Elise <ERyan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Sinclair, Jill <jsinclair@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; McDonald, Jerry <J McDonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Tjornhom, Bethany <BTjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Coleman, Julia <JColeman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Campion, Dan <DCam pion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson @ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; AlJaff, Sharmeen <SAlJaff@ci.cha nhassen.mn.us>; Generous, Bob <bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subiect: Lennar Galpin Boulevard Property Planned Unit Development Thankful for Lake Ann Park!!l My husband and I moved to Chanhassen 28 years ago. We actually bought our lot 29 years ago and could not afford to build Initially. We were attracted by the natural beauty. We are so thankful the founding fathers of Chanhassen put aside such a wonderful park - Lake Ann. We have picnicked, swam, fished and walked the paths as much as possible over the past 28 years. lt has been a gift of tra nquility; sun rises, sunsets and quiet moments. So many of Chanhassen's ' current residents were attracted by the beauty and green space of Chanhassen. lt is a great place to enjoy life and raise a family. We are grateful for the comprehensive plan to make the north shore of Like Ann a park. We feel the City of Chanhassen should not lose this opportunity to preserve this beauty of nature with little to no investment by the citizens of Chanhassen. What Lennar has proposed to have 41 acres added to the park at no cost to the city in exchange for increased density is incredibly generous on their part. Money doesn't grow on trees. The concept that the city purchase the acreage instead of allowing increased density is fiscally irresponsible. That is clearly only for the benefit ofadjacent nelghbors. lf thecity were to pursue such a financial transaction, are the neighbors willing to pay for this through a special property tax assessment against their property? lam guessing not. They want to entire city to unnecessarily pay money it doesn't have. lf the city does have it, it should be used for other purposes or reduced property taxes in the future. When lookinB at the density they are complaining about, the complaining neighborhoods aren't any different than the PUD's proposed density. The proposed density is in keeping with the adjoining neighborhoods and property. The parkland version also leaves more trees in place, especially on the north side where those neighbors are complaining about loss of natural buffer. This park version is a gift by Lennar on multiple levels. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Even the city purchase instead of density transfer would be fewer trees excluding the park land when comparing the two versions. The park plan minimizes cost to the city and maximizes trees retainage. The City's logo is a tree leaf. Kind of implies that we value maintaining as much green space as possible especially with mature trees. With the natural buffer at the north side and the 90 foot lots on the south side, the plan completely complements adjacent neighborhoods for consistency. Even the wetland segment benefits from increased tree borders in the park based plan. Again this wouldn't be the case if the city purchased the density where the park is planned. The park plan basically is setup to make lt appear the wetland is a part of the pa rk given the tree separation on the west and north perimeters of the wetland. Lennar clearly bent over backwards to maximize parkland and natural areas with their new plan. lf city/cltizens get to greedy and Lennar walks away, the next developer will not likely be as generous. The other financial downside of the city purchasing the park acreage is reduce property tax basis. So any cost of an estimated 57 to S10 million is a clear misstatement of actual costs to the city. Losing the property tax revenue from those lots in perpetuity is a staggering amount of revenue to the city. With what looks to be roughly 54 lots being taken offthe property tax rolls, that is easily at least S2oo,OOO/year and likely much more based on size/quality of homes built on the lots. Let's not think only of ourselves or our families, but what we can leave behind. Make Chanhassen a place people want to stay, especially in a fiscally responsible way! Greg and Julie Sorensen 2 3g Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Wednesday, March 06, 2019 8:18 AM Steckling, Jean FW: Proposed Galpin PUD From: Kathy O'Connor <kjoconnorl3@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5,2O!9 11:08 PM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Proposed Galpin PUD Kate- First of all, thank you all so much for sitting through the Public comment meeting tonight. It was wonderful to witness a collaborative environment. Chanhassen residents are the best :) 1. NEED PLAN C! I will say, I was surprised at the number of comments from residents who thought the proposed plan was an EITHER/OR situation. Who wouldn't chose the "gift" of park land ?!?!?! I have sat through all the meetings in person or via streaming and it was clear to me that a plan C had been requested a few times. The council had challenged Lennar to come back with something creative, unique, something Chanhassen could be proud of. I truly believe this gem of a property deserves something very special. They need to get creative! While Lennar listened to some neighborhood concerns and appeased Lake Lucy Ridge residents with no thru street and the south side residents by addressing water run off, elevation, etc., they did nothing to addressing a unique neighborhood - plan C. They also fluffed up the design by including entrance monuments, flowers, etc......I'm soffy, those are a given. Not a concession! The last thing we need is another Longacres, Ashling Meadows or Vasserman neighborhood. While I love living in Longacres, I do NOT want another cookie cutter Lennar development, especially on this arnazing property. 2. Need to address parking for any park land - I agree with Michael McGonigill that they also need to address parking for any park land within the neighborhood development. There will be conflict between residents who are parking on their neighborhood streets and trying to utilize the park. That is a given. 3. PLEASE Don't Settle - Please don't settle for just another Reflections on Lake Riley, Vasserman, Camden Ridge, Ashling Meadows, Longacres - type neighborhood. This extraordinary piece of land deserves extraordinary home in an extraordinary neighborhood with an extraordinary feel! An executive neighborhood that draws people to Chanhassen. Don't allow this builder to come in and nueter this land! Any builder can come in and do what they have propsed. Make them work for this pizel And if they won't, let's find someone who will. I have also sent this email to the City Council. Kathy O'Connor Resident Longacres 7124 Northwood Ct, Chanhassen, MN 55317. 612.309.1712 2 Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Wednesday, March 06, 2019 8:17 AM Steckling, Jean FW: Proposed Galpin PUD Development Proposed by Lennar Homes From: Jim Aiken <jaiken299@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:25 PM To: Aa nenson, Kate <kaanenson @ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Re: Proposed Galpin PUD Development Proposed by Lennar Homes Dear Ms. Aanenson and Esteemed Commissioners: I am a Chanhassen resident living at 751 Carver Beach Road. I am a professional geologist and have 25 years of experience in reviewing development plans and performing environmental review on large development projects. I am in no way connected with the proposer associated with the development. Based on review of the proposal packet and staff recommendations, I find that the planned unit development (PUD) proposal that is currently proposed (with the density transfer plan including a large 54 acre woodland buffer area along the northwest side of Lake Ann) is thoughtful and represents an excellent opportunity for increasing and protecting public access and water quality in Lake Ann. ltherefore strongly support the proposed development proposed by Lennar on the former Prince Rogers Nelson estate. My opinion is based on the following observations: o The land is guided for residential development. lt will be developed and we will have new neighbors on this land sooner or later. o lf this plan is rejected there will be another, perhaps less accommodating plan eventually. The proposal could be far worse including more homes and removing much of the woodland areas northwest of Lake Ann. This would be disastrous and should never be supported it in any way. o The development plan provides for significant buffer between the residential areas and lake shore with stormwater runoff control and pre-treatment. The county and watershed requirements for runoff control are substantial and proven to protect water quality. o The provisions for tree preservation are substantial and In my experience, exceptional benefit of this proposal . I routinely bike along Galpin. Contrary to recent public comments, the existing traffic on Galpin is relatively sparse and has adequate controls for safe and efficient egress and access. This road has been long planned for expa nsion. o The development will provide additional recreational and wildlife viewing opportunities for city residents. Lake Ann is a favorite snowshoeing and fishing lake for our famlly and increased trail connections will enhance these opportunities. o Much of the opposition to these developments is fear of the unknown and uncertainty on how the existing neighbors will adapt to the changes from the development. History shows that new developments in our area work out fairly well. . Unless you are descendent of one of the original settlers in the area (a nd I know a few), at one time, we were ALL a new neighbors in Chanhassen. We are all part of change. The reality is we have no right to seek the close the door on those who wish to join us in future. . Recreational connection to lakes greatly enhances the value and quality of life in any city. Connection to water is paramount. Looking at what the trails and lakes do for the City of Minneapolis, it appears likely that this project will similarly result in benefits to all residents. o I live near Lotus Lake and one problem is that when it was developed there were no modern stormwater controls and no public imperative to improve access to lakefront via trails. The result is that water quality has struggled and very few hiking and riding opportunities along the shores ofthis otherwise beautiful lake. This project represents an opportunity. The Commission and the Council have rare chance to create a legacy for future generations ofChanhassen residents. Please approvethe plan with the additional parkland for Lake Ann. Thank you ! Jim Aiken, PG 2 4c Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Aanenson, Kate Thursday, March 07, 20191 1 :04 AM Steckling, Jean FW: How to Ensure the Top Notch "Prince" Property Has Top Notch Homes Built On lt From: Art Roberts <artroberts3 @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 7,2019 10:57 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Hoffman, Todd <thoffman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Henricksen, Erik <EHenricksen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Brotzler, Andy <ABrotzler@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: How to Ensure the Top Notch "Prince" Property Has Top Notch Homes Built On lt Kathryn: I am told you are the one who forwards this to the Planning Commission. Thanks. A well known standard for ranking real estate is "Location/Location/Location". The "Prince" property is truly a Top Notch, impressive property based on 3 Locations: Location #1: Chanhassen itself is a highly rated, respected, sought after city. Location #2: Homeowners will have easy access to an adjacent 50 acre park. Location #3: Homeowners will have easy access to Lake Ann plus Lake Ann Park. We should strive to have Top Notch homes filling up this Top Notch, impressive property. Then, to allow for Top Notch homes to be built, we need to have larger properties/lots! At the March 5th public meeting there was nearly unanimous consensus that the "Proposed PUD", with no homes East of the wetland, provided the best street layout, by far. But the current proposal, with its 121 65-foot lots, accommodates only smaller homes. Lennar builds houses from small up to quite large. In the current Parade of Homes they are showing homes from $300,000 all the way up to $2 million. Having larger properties/lots will provide Lennar the space it needs to build homes that are a bit larger -- more Top Notch. Thus, could the Planning Commission request that Lennar flesh out a "third alternative" (which should take very little time)? In place of the 121 65-foot lots in the current "Proposed PUD", and probably using the same street layout, Lennar should redraw it using wider lots -- maybe SO-foot wide, for example. Sure, there willbe fewer lots than the current 121 65-foot ones, yet, as offsets: a) Each of the larger lots will be worth more dollars, plus b) These larger lots will accommodate larger more expensive homes for Lennar to build. Lennar should then "rerun the numbers" to check that the larger lots will: a) Generate equivalent total dollars, thanks to both more expensive lots and homes. b) Set a Top Notch home standard more in line with the "Prince" Top Notch property. Let's develop this site with a level of home excellence matching this siters excellence. Thank you for this opportunity to propose elevating this site to a true Top Notch development. ArtRoberts artroberts3@8mail.com (952)484-0233 Homeowner's Association President Vasserman Ridge Promenade [38 twinhomes] (Northwest of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5) From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Galpin Property - In Opposition to the PUD Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:07:59 AM From: Danlye Jones <danlye@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 9:29 PM To: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Galpin Property - In Opposition to the PUD Dear Council Members & My Fellow Chanhassen Citizens, Thank you for your efforts to gather public opinion regarding the proposed development of the Galpin property. I would like the city to preserve the Galpin property and I oppose the PUD. My husband and I have called Chanhassen home for 11 years. We are raising our little girl here. I grew up swimming and fishing at Lake Ann during summers while visiting my grandmother long before this was my home. This land needs to stay pristine to preserve our city's treasure, Lake Ann, for my child, your children, and future generations. Prince was a fan of Joni Mitchell. When I think about the land being developed, I think of her song lyrics "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got 'til it's gone". Let's not pave paradise. We can do the right thing and preserve this land for us and for generations to come. Thank you, Danlye Jones 7026 Pima Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Galpin Property PUD - Oppose Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:31:18 AM From: Becca Brandt <becca.brandt@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 8:25 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Galpin Property PUD - Oppose ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Becca Brandt <becca.brandt@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:23 AM Subject: Galpin Property PUD - Oppose To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us <council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>, kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.is <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.is> Hello - Me and my family recently moved to Chanhassen (7601 Walnut Curve) from Minneapolis. The appeal of the area and the community was and is the trees, open land, park space, and nature that surrounds us. Please reject the PUD plan. The high density in this community would instantaneously and permanently eliminate the appeal that brought us here. Becca Swanson -- Becca Brandt -- Becca Brandt From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Galpin Site Preliminary Plat & Rezone PUD Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:08:33 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png From: matthew.myers@mchsi.com <matthew.myers@mchsi.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 9:04 PM To: Ryan, Elise <ERyan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Coleman, Julia <JColeman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Campion, Dan <DCampion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; McDonald, Jerry <JMcDonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Tjornhom, Bethany <BTjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Galpin Site Preliminary Plat & Rezone PUD Dear Mayor Ryan and the Chanhassen City Council, I urge the council to reject the current PUD and density transfer. The PRN Galpin property is unique piece of land. It is the only remaining virtually untouched land of hills and wetlands left in the City of Chanhassen. There are many more acres of farmland that could be developed into housing subdivisions. The topography has been changed and the trees stripped from the farm land The PRN Galpin property was never farmed because of its topography and wetlands. These features also make the land less than ideal for a housing sub division on the scale of the current proposal. I am not opposed to the development because of the proximity to my house. I oppose it on behalf of the future citizens of Chanhassen. I want people in 2069 to look back and praise the foresight of the City of Chanhassen for saving the entire piece of land and thus keeping Lake Ann clear. I worry about the wildlife that survive in the wetlands and woods. While the PUD saves the wetlands down by the lake, it destroys the wetlands and the trees on the south hill. The Lennar plan clearly shows streets laid right on top of a wetland. The property has been a de facto nature preserve for more than a decade. There is an abundance of wildlife on the site that would be displaced or wiped out. There are deer, coyotes, turkeys, opossums, and at least 5 different types of woodpeckers There is a pair of pheasants that have nested on the south hill for at least the last 3 years. The decision before you on Monday will affect Chanhassen for decades. I know the PRN Estate and Lennar have timelines, however, that does not mean the citizens and elected officials of Chanhassen have to meet those deadlines. I urge the council to reexamine the Comprehensive Plan and find a better use of the land. Be creative and innovative. Reach out to other governmental bodies and create a partnership for the purchase and long- term preservation of the land. Please put a referendum to the vote of the citizens of Chanhassen, the people you were elected to serve. No future City council will be able to make a decision like this one. This type of land will not exist any more in Chanhassen for the City to step in and save for future generations. I respectfully ask you to do your duty to serve and preserve Chanhassen. Sincerely, Matthew Myers 7421 Windmill Drive Chanhassen MN From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Galpin Site PUD Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:08:51 AM Attachments:8581.910000182688 From: Daly Myers <daly.myers@mchsi.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 8:44 PM To: Ryan, Elise <ERyan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Coleman, Julia <JColeman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Campion, Dan <DCampion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; McDonald, Jerry <JMcDonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Tjornhom, Bethany <BTjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Galpin Site PUD My favorite book is "The Lorax" by Dr Seuss. I wanted my mother to read it to me every night. The final message of the book is: "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." I urge each city council member to read this book prior to voting on the destruction of the tress and land on Galpin Blvd. Daly S. Myers Chanhassen MN From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Galpin/Lennar development Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:32:59 AM From: Hoffman, Todd <thoffman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 8:32 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Steckling, Jean <jsteckling@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: FW: Galpin/Lennar development From: Lynne PILGRIM <lpilg@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 8:26 PM To: Hoffman, Todd <thoffman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Galpin/Lennar development Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Lynne PILGRIM <lpilg@msn.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 8:32:16 PM EDT Subject: Fwd: Galpin/Lennar development Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: LPILG@msn.com Date: March 10, 2019 at 8:15:57 PM EDT To: eryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: dcampion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, jcoleman@cichanhassen.mn.us, jmcdonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, btjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Galpin/Lennar development Good evening Mayor Ryan and Chanhassen City council members, Tomorrow night is a major council meeting for many Chanhassen residents. It is always difficult to face the reality that the area you moved your family to and now call home will greatly change in the near future. Those of us who moved here years ago bought our homes that were surrounded by farms, woods, lakes and other scenic views. Our children played in these areas. We loved the silence and the peace these areas offered us. We walked the paths through the woods and around the water. We appreciated the beauty of the land. However, we were always aware that those areas could and would be developed some day. That was the future for Chanhassen. Our one hope was that we could help to choose the best type of development. As you are aware, Chanhassen Estates fought the first ideas on the land to the west. We did not want a Mobil home park or slab homes. What was finally approved was a neighborhood of single family homes. Likewise our neighborhood joined with Eden Prairie to fight the Hennepin County idea for a garbage dump on what is now the Wynfield neighborhood, just off Dell Road. That area instead became a lovely area of family homes. Our voices were heard but we always accepted the fact that our voices could only express dislike to a point and that development would happen. We just wanted the best for our area and for Chanhassen in general. The Chanhassen city council has a purchase agreement with an opportunity to gain a great addition of 54 acres to our park land. The builder can do as its chooses without the city picking a plan that helps all residents of the city. It is very narrow minded of a neighborhood to think it can choose what is best for everyone in our town. We are a great community with people from all areas and economic backgrounds. We need to look for what is best for everyone, not just one special area. The city is not buying the land. A private party is not buying the land. The neighborhood is not buying the land. A developer has a purchase agreement on the land. Let’s work with the developer and accept what is best for everyone In Chanhassen. Let’s support the plan that includes 54 lovely areas for everyone to share and enjoy. Lynne and Ron Pilgrim 8026 Dakota Ave 612-202-1632 Sent from my iPad From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Please reject the PUD and density transfer Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:08:12 AM From: Christine Butterfield <cmcbutterfield@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 9:06 PM To: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Please reject the PUD and density transfer Mayor Ryan and Chanhassen City Council, We are urging you to reject the current PUD you are scheduled to vote on tomorrow. This is not what the residents of Chanhassen want. There are so many more options beside the few that Lennar is providing. We realize they are trying to negotiate with gifting a portion of the land to the City. The exchange is dense housing, clearing beautiful big woods, rolling hills, and displacing more wildlife. In the short 6 years we have lived in Chanhassen, we have watched this same thing happen in our back yard with the development on Lakeway Dr and Anthem in the Park on the north side of Lake Lucy. We moved here from Eden Prairie and while we loved coming to this community, we feel it lacks walking trails that don't run along a road and housing developments. We lived near Starring Lake and the trails around that lake are amazing and highly used. We are now facing a once in a lifetime opportunity to potentially capture a similar setting as Starring Lake. I believe many citizens would agree. Has there been discussions about the City potentially buying a portion of this land around the lakes? Has the City talked to a spokesperson from Prince's estate regarding a discount on the land in exchange for an added memorial for Prince on the property? Another place the Prince fans from all over the world can go and enjoy while they also visit Paisley Park? They not only see the inside of his home, but also can see the beauty of the landscaping where Prince called his home? What are the options on voting for a referendum, or applying for a loan? This would allow for a developer to pay less for their portion of land and could comply with the 2040 Comprehensive plan. Please don't allow Lennar to turn our beautiful land into another cookie-cutter dense housing subdivision. The City just approved a large apartment building in the middle of downtown. We don't need more dense housing, we need less. We appreciate all the work you do and know it's not an easy job. We urge you to please work a little harder to make this development great. Thank you, Christine and Jason Butterfield 6626 Pointe Lake Lucy From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Prince"s property on Galpin Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:06:35 AM From: K B <kabl1@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 8:38 PM To: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Prince's property on Galpin Hi, I live in Chanhassen and have lived in Chanhassen for 23 yrs. I am concerned about the developement of Prince's property on Galpin Blvd. I reviewed both proposed options, PUD and Concept plan. The Propsed PUD is better than the concept plan but neither is acceptable. We need to leave areas such as this for wildlife. All pieces of land do not need to be developed. I moved to Chanhassen originally because of more open spaces and now that is becoming less and less. Prince owned this land for many years possibly to keep it as is, not to be developed. Think of what he would have liked. Develop a park for everyone to enjoy as a wild area. Please make the right decision in this and hear what the community is saying. Do not develop this land because someone wants their profit. Think of what is right. Think about/research what developing this land will do to the lakes, such as runoff from fertilizer, chemicals, etc. We need green areas, trees, especially old growth forests for future generations to come and enjoy. I seen to much of this destroyed over the years, beautiful areas, old oak trees, replaced with a housing community, one example housing development on Lyman Blvd years ago to the current development around the lake off Lyman and 101, and many more. Thank You, Karen Blenker From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: PRN Galpin Property Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:07:37 AM -----Original Message----- From: Dake Chatfield <dake.chatfield@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 7:34 AM To: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: PRN Galpin Property Dear Mayor Ryan and City Council members, My name is Dake Chatfield and I live at 2200 Majestic Way in Chanhassen. I border the south side of the proposed development property in the Royal Oaks neighborhood. My family and I have lived there for 18 years. I am located at ground zero between this property development and the Galpin boulevard reconstruction. I have attended every city planning and council meeting on this topic. I recognize the difficulty and importance of this decision. I have thought long and hard about this and tried to determine what I would do if this were my decision. I’ve always wondered what would become of this land when he was gone. I’ve imagined many things from a golf course, a park land, some sort of memorial space with an amphitheater, or something like Matt Myers has been envisioning in his comments. The worst possible scenario I can imagine is clear cutting all of that old growth forest, leveling those rolling hill acres, and putting in a high density housing subdivision. Therefore, I would ask that you vote No to this PUD proposal and reject these development plans. I respect and appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this plan by the developer, Kate, and city staff. I think the concept of preserving a park land west of Lake Ann is enticing. I am an avid outdoorsman, and nobody would benefit more from that space more then me and my family. But it is not worth the cost of building a high density development on the remaining space. My comments and feedback so far on this development have been to minimize the impact on the environment, minimize the loss of old growth forest, and to preserve a buffer between the existing neighborhoods and the development. None of that has been addressed with this proposal. Nobody has reached out to me to seek my opinion in this manner, short of the city council meetings. My recommendation is that we try to preserve the property as-is as much as possible. And if we cannot do that, only develop the open land with low density and do not cut down all the trees and grade the land. The last thought I will leave you with is to ask that you think about what he would have wanted for this property. Surely his importance to the community and the impact he’s had across the world should have some weight on his legacy. I have to think that there is no way a high density housing development would have been his choice. Let’s find another option for this property and pay him respect. Dake Chatfield From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Statement opposing the Galpin Project Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:07:48 AM -----Original Message----- From: Kristen <kjkelroy@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 10:32 PM To: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Statement opposing the Galpin Project Dear City Council, I’m writing to let you know that I oppose the proposed PUD for the Galpin project. I by no means have a “not in my backyard” mentality...because growth and development is bound to happen. However I do believe that the builder/buyer of the land can and should do better to preserve the beauty of Chanhassen. I would like to see minimal tree removal and something that better addresses the increased traffic that is bound to come from dropping in a new development. I feel as though Mayor Elise Ryan has been thoughtful in hearing people out and am confident she has the best interest for keeping Chanhassen unique and beautiful. I encourage you press for better as well and do not pass the PUD. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Kristen Nordberg 2126 Majestic Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sent from my iPhone From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Citizen Letter - PUD Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 6:31:03 PM Attachments:Citizen Letter_PUD_Christian Myers.docx ATT00001.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Christian Myers" <christian.myers@mchsi.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 6:22:46 PM CDT To: <'eryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'>, <'dcampion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'>, <'jcoleman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'>, <btjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'>, <'jmcdonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'> Cc: <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Citizen Letter - PUD Please see the attached letter for my concerns about the recently proposed development. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Christian Myers 612.964.9061 From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Developing Prince’s property Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 4:53:57 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Linda W <lindawilkes@live.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 4:52:00 PM CDT To: "kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Developing Prince’s property Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Linda Wilkes <lindawilkes@live.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 4:49:50 PM CDT To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Developing Prince’s property To our Mayor and City Council, This is such a bad idea! It will destroy the lakes and park. We do not need more housing especially in that beautiful little oasis in the middle of Chanhassen. Why can’t it just stay a park that all can enjoy instead of polluting the whole area. The city should buy it and I for one think that our exorbitantly high taxes be used for what residents want. Especially when it comes to preserving our dwindling natural areas. Please find an alternative option to this disastrous plan. We the people want a say in this endeavor. Start a go fund me with residents and see what happens. Linda Wilkes Sent from my iPad From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Email RE: Galpin Development Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 8:11:52 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Sit <richardsit32@gmail.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 8:10:29 PM CDT To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, eryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, Andrea Sit <andrea.i.h.sit@gmail.com> Subject: Email RE: Galpin Development March 10, 2019 Dear Mayor Ryan and the Chanhassen City Council, We urge the Chanhassen City Council to reject the current PUD and density transfer development plans proposed by Lennar. The Galpin Development property is a unique piece of land and offers a rare opportunity to preserve and enhance the Lake Ann area and nearby Chanhassen neighborhoods for current and future generations. The Galpin Development property is the only remaining virtually untouched land of hills and wetlands left in the City of Chanhassen. There are other less unique pieces of land that could be developed into housing subdivisions. For example, there are many more acres of farmland already stripped of trees and of which the topography has already been changed. The Galpin Development property was never farmed and retains its original topography, wetlands, and Big Woods. These features also make the land less than ideal for a housing subdivision on the scale of the current proposal. We oppose this development on behalf of the current and future citizens of Chanhassen. This plan is contrary to Chanhassen’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan which calls for the protection of significant wooded areas. We and our children cherish the wildlife, wetlands, and trees that make up this land, and we strongly urge you to preserve this pristine area of land and wetlands for current and future generations. This plan strongly resembles the destruction of a beautiful forest and wildlife habitat in the movie, The Lorax. It is beyond heartbreaking to imagine this beautiful land torn up, filled in, and bulldozed. Also, Lennar’s plans for preserving existing trees and wetlands and the proposed tree buffers along the North and South borders of the Galpin Development property are grossly inadequate to meet the goals of Chanhassen’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and to maintain the existing character of the nearby neighborhoods. We moved here in 2016 from Shorewood because of the open spaces, woods, and natural beauty, and if this plan goes through, we will be forced to move again to remove ourselves from the heartbreak of seeing this land desecrated. We are also concerned about the ever-increasing traffic volume on Galpin Boulevard between Highways 5 and 7. In addition, it is already hazardous to turn right (Eastward) onto Highway 7 with cars crossing two lanes of traffic to get to Excelsior and holding up the line of traffic waiting behind them to get onto Highway 7. People take chances pulling onto Highway 7 when there are cars lined up behind them. We have both witnessed near- accidents occurring here. Thank you for hearing our concerns. We hope that you make the correct decision. Sincerely, Andrea and Richard Sit 1957 Topaz Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 andreaihsit@gmail.com richardsit32@gmail.com From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Galpin Property Development Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 4:16:59 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Jennifer Smolka <jenlynnsmolka@gmail.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 4:09:17 PM CDT To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Galpin Property Development To whom it may concern, I am a resident of Chanhassen who is writing to you today to oppose the new housing development around Lake Lucy and Lake Ann, as this area is vital for wetlands and wildlife, and once it is developed, it cannot be restored. Wetlands and the lands surrounding them work together to provide ecological benefits for our community - benefits that are undermined when land is razed for development, obliterating wildlife corridors and interrupting habitats and food chains necessary to preserve the ecosystem as a whole. Wetlands provide flood and erosion protection, water quality improvement, and climate stability. Wetlands are also the breeding ground for dragonflies, which provide us with a natural form of mosquito control. I work with and am a board member of the Frankfurt Zoological Society, an international NGO based in Germany and Washington DC with over 30 conservation projects in 18 countries around the world, whose mission is to preserve critical ecosystems and biodiversity. But conservation must begin in our own backyards. Because if we allow ourselves to destroy our resources - one area at a time - eventually the benefits provided to us by these irreplaceable natural habitats will be gone. Minnesota leads the nation in conservation stewardship. It is my hope that the City of Chanhassen will safeguard the future of our community's environment by choosing be a leader in conservation now. Sincerely, Jennifer Smolka 500 Trap Line Lane Chanhassen From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Galpin property PUD Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 3:21:57 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Vanessa Martin <Vanessa_Martin@jjtaylor.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 3:11:26 PM CDT To: "council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: "kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Galpin property PUD Hello, my name is vanessa martin. We live at 2325 hunter drive Chanhassen mn. I strongly oppose the PUD, please take into consideration those who have purchased for the beauty and quality of life that is in jeopardy. Vanessa Get Outlook for Android Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Galpin Property Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 5:56:22 PM Attachments:image001.png Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: <michelle.myers@mchsi.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 5:54:59 PM CDT To: "'Councilman Jerry McDonald'" <'jmcdonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'>, "'Councilwoman Bethany Tjornhom'" <'btjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'>, "'Councilwoman Julia Coleman'" <'jcoleman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'>, "'Councilman Dan Campion'" <'dcampion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'>, "'Mayor Elise Ryan'" <'eryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'> Cc: <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Galpin Property The beauty of nature’s bounty…. And we are about to lose it all. That’s is unless, you as our Chanhassen City Council preserve it for future generations. So many people think this is an either/or with the Lennar plans. They don’t seem to understand we can choose not to succumb to big builders and we can choose to ask for more. The quality of life in Chanhassen will change for the worse if we have to contend with 181 more homes confined to such a small space. The lakes and habitats will be adversely affected by the destruction of the land. Water quality will diminish and wildlife will be permanently displaced. There must be other options to leave hope for the future. Require more of builders looking to build in Chanhassen. Innovation and compassion are not mutually exclusive. Please consider rejecting Lennar’s proposals as they are now. Thank you, Michelle Myers 7421 Windmill Drive Chanhassen, MN From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: I oppose the Galpin PUD Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 5:55:14 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Tami Gottschalk <tamig66@gmail.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 5:24:54 PM CDT To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: I oppose the Galpin PUD Dear Chanhassen City Council, I respectfully urge the council to reject the current PUD and density transfer. The PRN Galpin property is unique piece of land. My husband and I built our home facing the property 20 years ago. We truly enjoy the beauty of the minimally touched property. It is the virtually the only untouched land of hills and wetlands left in the City of Chanhassen. There are many more acres of farmland that could be developed into housing subdivisions if the housing need is so great. I worry about the wildlife that live in those wetlands and woods within this property. While the PUD saves the wetlands down by the lake, it destroys the wetlands and the trees on the south hill. The property has been a de facto nature preserve for more than a decade. There is an abundance of wildlife on the site that would only be displaced or wiped out. There are deer, coyotes, turkeys, ducks and opossums. The scale of the current proposal scares me. Along with the apartments going in downtown, I am concerned about the strain on the schools. I also worry about the increased traffic this proposed development will bring; understanding the new and improved roadway. Still too much traffic going at unreasonable speeds. I know the PRN Estate and Lennar have timelines but that does not mean the citizens and elected officials of Chanhassen have to meet those deadlines. Please consider what is before you on behalf of me, my family and my neighbors. No future City council will be able to make a decision like this one. This type of land will not exist any more in Chanhassen. Please put a referendum to the vote of the citizens of Chanhassen, the people you were elected to serve. Thank you, Tami Gottschalk 2197 Majestic Way Chanhassen MN From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: I oppose the PUD on Galpin Rd Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:52:55 AM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Jacqueline Tyson <jactyson03@me.com> Date: March 11, 2019 at 8:41:08 AM CDT To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: Chanhassen City Planner <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: I oppose the PUD on Galpin Rd As a long time resident of the Longacres community in Chanhassen, I just want to share with you that I oppose the current PUD for the former property owned by Prince. As it is proposed, in the very least, this PUD will increase traffic through my neighborhood and along Galpin Road. However I feel it will have a larger negative impact on the city of Chanhassen at large. I’m not convinced the city has explored all the ways this PUD will impact our community. Please take the time to evaluate, and let developers know we demand more from them - access to Lake Ann, less density and perhaps most importantly less destruction of our beautiful landscape - we don’t want all the trees removed & land flattened for more homes!!! Concerned residents, Jacqueline & George Tyson 7414 Moccasin Trail Chanhassen Sent from my iPhone From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Oppose the PUD! Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 3:08:37 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: C Jerdee <cjerdee@gmail.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 2:49:14 PM CDT To: "council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>, "kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>, "mayor@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <mayor@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Oppose the PUD! Craig Jerdee, 6621 Chestnut Ln 55317 here I oppose the PUD and urge you to do the same. Make Lennar or whomever stands to develop and profit from the development work harder to come up with a better plan. I’d love to see a non-development option, and sell bonds to fund the city the purchasing the land for all to enjoy. We’ll never have another opportunity to do this! Now is the time! If you vote for the PUD, we, the voters, will make sure to remember that come election time. From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Oppose Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 3:08:20 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Natalia Sander <nataliasander@me.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 2:54:28 PM CDT To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Oppose The proposed PUD is NOT the right thing for the residents of Chanhassen Please vote No Natalia Sander 6671 Amberwood Lane Thank you. Natalia N. Sander- Realtor Edina Realty- Minnetonka (612) 850-7737 Http://nataliasanderhomes.com Your referral is the best compliment I can earn! From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Prince / Lennar Proposed Development Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 3:07:55 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Mark Seefeldt <maseefeldt@gmail.com> Date: March 9, 2019 at 1:06:40 PM CST To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Prince / Lennar Proposed Development Dear Chanhassen Council, Will the plans impact me? A little with increased traffic and infrastructure usage, but my yard doesn’t touch the proposed development property. I live a block south of the proposed development. I have a line of tall spruce trees in my backyard separating my backyard from the neighbors. That was one of the reasons we bought our house. If those trees were not there, we would not have purchased. Am I strongly against either plan? No. Will we all get over it? Yes. Time heals all wounds. Which plan is the right choice? Neither in my opinion. This shouldn’t be a quid pro quo. If Lennar wants to only develop the western half of the property, then the density should fall in line with the master plan and zoning requirements that the city has set. If Lennar is a good developer and wants to keep developing in Chanhassen, then they’ll recognize the voice of the community and not develop the eastern half close to Lake Ann. There is better plans and options out there that haven’t been brought to the table yet. I urge you to vote no to Lennar’s density transfer plan. Put the decision about developing the full property (while meeting density requirements) back on to them. They’ll find a better solution or someone else will. Thank you, Mark & Jennifer Seefeldt 7470 Tulip Court 952-297-2645 From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Prince Property - Vote NO on Lennar Development Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 3:08:10 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Rebecca Nay <nay.rebecca@gmail.com> Date: March 9, 2019 at 1:37:29 PM CST To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Prince Property - Vote NO on Lennar Development I am one of the area residents who have enjoyed the beautiful Prince property around Lake Ann and Lake Lucy for many years, I am thankful to Prince who allowed the public to enjoy his land. I beg the city to say no to the Lennar development and allow the area residents to continue to enjoy one of the last remaining nature areas in the city. It would take away trees, pollute the lakes, increase noise and traffic congestion, and overall will ruin a once peaceful and beautiful oasis. -Rebecca Nay From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Prince Property proposal Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:52:42 AM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Abby Ellis <abby.ellis11@gmail.com> Date: March 11, 2019 at 8:33:29 AM CDT To: btjornhom@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, "council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>, dcampion@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, eryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, jcoleman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, jmcdonald@ci.chanhassen.mn.us, "kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us" <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Neil Ellis <neil.ellis4@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Prince Property proposal Hello all! I am not opposed to A development, but AM opposed to Lennars scare tactics to get the city to do what they want. I am IN FAVOR of the city exploring more responsible and thorough propsals that have full transparency into the end result. There are way too many unknowns in this proposal that Lennar has simply ignored, despite many requests by council to research and provide details. The city owes it to the current residents of Chanhassen and the Comprehensive Plan to uphold the higher standards Mayor Ryan mentions and require detailed information of ANY development proposed here. I hope you do the right thing and insist on this by voting ‘NO’ tonight. Thank you! Abby and Neil Ellis 7284 Bent Bow Trail On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:42 PM Abby Ellis <abby.ellis11@gmail.com> wrote: Good evening, I was one of many Chanhassen residents who attended the city planning session tonight. It is great to see so many people engaged in this process and voice their opinions respectfully. I was excited to hear an update on the inevitable development. Boy did Lennar disappoint! Still 181 homes, still only the Concept Plan and the same PUD Plan that was proposed last time, only very slight variations were made. If I were Mayor and Council, I would be extremely frustrated with the amount of time and resources spent by city and staff without the results that were asked for on several occasions. Many of the residents who spoke tonight were in support of the proposed PUD. The vast majority of them did so with the position of 'but what would the alternative be' and 'we don't want to risk losing the opportunity to have the area west of Lake Ann'. The many nature-lovers stated that the current proposal would preserve the land around the lake for the wildlife that inhabits the area currently. I am concerned that the wildlife would be forced out during the 2+ years construction of the area, excavating the land, altering the entire topography of the landscape, tree removal, noise and air pollution, etc. Perhaps wildlife would return once all is settled, but that is a lot of disruption to a thriving ecosystem. I am unclear on how the density transfer works. If it is literally the transferring of existing trees from the area to be developed to the western edge of the lake and buffer areas, how viable is that? Will the mature trees really survive when transplanted? Our soil is not the greatest here and I have trouble believing that 20'-30' trees that have rooted where they are will sustain if migrated around the property. How about an expert opinion from a horticulturist or an unbiased authority to weigh in on that? Regarding the increase to traffic and the plan for Galpin Blvd...how could this NOT be incorporated in this project? Many residents voiced their concerns about the traffic increase and safety issues that currently exist, let alone with approximately 362 drivers (2 per household) added to the mix. There are already concerns about traffic congestion and visibility. Of the 3 entrances proposed off Galpin, 2 of them feed directly to/from Longacres neighborhood. There will absolutely be an increase of traffic running through our neighborhood for access to 41. What does the city's plan include to address those concerns of our neighborhood's safety? Here's a big unknown...is the land that Lennar is "gifting" to Chanhassen even able to be developed? Do we even have to worry about that if Lennar's proposal is not accepted? There were varying opinions on that tonight, but none of them official. Why don't we have an unbiased analysis on that aspect of this plan? That would answer a lot of questions that residents have. Some of the residents brought up good points about the area that would be a continuation of the park around Lake Ann, that it would mainly serve as a draw to the new development. Unless there is public parking spaces and areas for people to gather, similar to the existing Lake Ann park, it's simply a bonus to the people who purchase homes in the development and not a realistic benefit to the other residents of Chanhassen. So their newly constructed homes reduce the value of homes for currently established residents AND they get the benefit of 54+ acres in their backyard that we have generously persevered for their enjoyment and their property values? That doesn't live up to the commitment to the current residents of Chanhassen that I would hope to be considered. Several speakers provided historical perspectives and are clearly proud Chan residents. I appreciate their wise decisions made decades ago in purchasing and preserving the land in this community that we are so passionate about. Many comments have been made about this shouldn't be an 'either/or' proposition and it isn't! Decisions of this magnitude should not be made under pressure from a company that has their own best interest, AND PROFIT, as the highest priority. The city of Chanhassen doesn't owe Lennar an agreement to one of their two proposals. Lennar owes it to the city of Chanhassen and it's residents to present a responsible, sustainable proposal that supports this community's values. Mayor Ryan - I really appreciated your public letter in response to other council members public appeal for this proposal. I am proud that we have elected officials in place now who are listening to residents and fulfilling the comprehensive plan. Please keep up the commitment and the good work. The right proposal is out there for Chanhassen, but it has not been presented yet or this would be a done deal already. There are too many unanswered questions to make a well-planned decision. See you on March 11th! Abby Ellis On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:16 AM Abby Ellis <abby.ellis11@gmail.com> wrote: Good morning! I appreciate the time council and the planning commission has invested in this proposal. I joined the Facebook group regarding this and provided my comments from the meeting last night. I’d like to share them with you: Mayor Ryan mentioned that, of the feedback she received, the vast majority of residents recognized that the land would be developed (vs left alone), but would like to see a plan that is more “responsible”. I have the impression that she is not pleased that Lennar is coming back with minimum changes in the several revisions to date. It appears that Lennar is getting irritated and was nearly threatening the council regarding the land around Lake Ann. Personally, I think it feels like blackmail. What I don’t understand is why the city is in this position to HAVE to accept a proposal from Lennar or lose the Lake Ann land. Doesn’t the city have final say with permits and zoning to allow/not the land to be developed? How is it that Lennar is coming from an ‘upper hand’ position? Perhaps this is just the way these deals are when developers obtain an agreement to purchase as they have. Excuse my lack of familiarity with the process. But I keep scratching my head like, ‘how did we get here’? I appreciate that Mayor Ryan is clearly listening to residents surrounding the perimeter of the land and voicing their concerns as well as referring to the Comprehensive Plan and keeping that commitment in the forefront. There are more details that need to be addressed: Traffic along Galpin - it was stated that the city has a plan in place already to upgrade Galpin. How does this coincide with plans/changes to the proposals from Lennar? How does the city plan to address the through traffic that will occur on Longacres Drive b/w Galpin and 41? It will become busy like Lake Lucy Rd. vs the quieter neighborhood street it is currently. How do the current residents, who have invested in Chanhassen’s economy and property tax base, deal with the loss in home values when compared to these new homes at the same price point as homes that are 20 years old? Where is the commitment to the existing home owners who have invested in their homes and this community for decades? Soliciting feedback from other residents is great and the right thing to do. However, the residents who are not directly impacted by the process of construction, the drastic change of the quality of life and decrease in home values, may focus on preserving the Lake Ann land without considering how this development will negatively impact those of us who live surrounding the area. I continue to believe that there is still an opportunity for better compromise. The city should not have to be forced to make a decision on Lennar’s timeline with their contract to purchase. If Lennar wants to move ahead, they should have made the adjustments requested by staff and the council previously vs the minimum effort. I’d like to see the city taking a stronger approach to ensure a responsible decision, taking as much time as that requires, in order to uphold Chanhassen’s commitment to the Comp Plan and the current residents. I look forward to the city planning meeting that is on March 5 and the city council meeting on March 11. Thanks!!! Abby Ellis On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:47 AM Abby Ellis <abby.ellis11@gmail.com> wrote: We are current residents of Longacres and I have been a Chanhassen resident for over 15 years. What we appreciate about our city are the green spaces, the sense of community and the commitment our city council has to maintain the integrity of our special place to live. I have involved myself in community events and previous proposals in front of city council, most actively when Wallmart had a proposal in front of our council. I was a member of the Chanhassen First volunteer group who helped organize the residents who were opposed to the proposal. I am proud that my contribution encouraged the city council to make the right decision on this proposal. Our concern about this Lennar proposal is that it does not follow the commitment the city council has made to the residents of Chanhassen. We attended the city planning commission meeting on Jan 15 and were disappointed in the result. It appears that Lennar is attempting to bribe the city to meet their proposal in exchange for the 50 acres around the northwest area of Lake Ann. The developer representing Lennar could not speak to the sustainability efforts that would be made, and that is very concerning for our environment. The extensive loss of a variety of mature trees, wildlife that depends on the ecosystem and the aesthetics of the topography of the land would be catastrophic. We are also very concerned about the increase in traffic through our neighborhood and the decrease in our home values. We are not opposed to development of our area, recognizing that we have a jewel of a city and this is attractive land for development. We ask the city council to stay committed to the current residents who have contributed to the economy and quality of this community. There must be other options to explore that will enable the long-term plan, so carefully developed by our city leaders, to continue to support our values. Thank you, Abby and Neil Ellis 7284 Bent Bow Trail From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Prince Property: proposed development Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 8:11:24 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Stephanie Rutledge <p-s.rutledge@mchsi.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 8:09:06 PM CDT To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Prince Property: proposed development Dear Chanhassen City Council: Is the proposed PUD the right thing for the residents of Chanhassen? We vote NO! Thank you. Sent from Patrick and Stephanie Rutledge 7568 Walnut Curv From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Prince PUD Date:Sunday, March 10, 2019 4:53:34 PM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Tom’s New Gmail <7381tbell@gmail.com> Date: March 10, 2019 at 4:41:49 PM CDT To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Prince PUD Dear Council, As I have emailed most of you about different dimensions of the PUD request by Lennar, I’d like to one more time reiterate that I’m against the proposal. Among my concerns is that though the request has been made several times, Lennar has never definitively shown that the parkland they want to give to the city is, in fact, buildable for 50 single family homes. The density transfer is predicated on that fact. If the PUD is granted, there should be more protections provided for those who are most affected. If the PUD is denied, the city should figure out a way to purchase some of the land as parkland. Tom Bell 7381 Fawn Hill Rd Longacres Sent from my iPhone From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: Proposed Development of Galpin property Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 8:53:31 AM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: mary beth johnson <mbsilbs@me.com> Date: March 11, 2019 at 8:45:35 AM CDT To: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Proposed Development of Galpin property To whom it may concern, my family and I believe the currently proposed Galpin PUD is NOT the thing for the residents of Chanhassen. We are strongly opposed to this plan for Princes property based on the density of proposed new homes and it’s negative impact on our open/green spaces, traffic, school systems and the financial impact it will have on the bordering neighborhoods of similarly priced homes. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Mary Beth Silbernagel 7492 Bent Bow Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-245-9759 From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Galpin Property Development Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 10:05:46 AM From: Ryan Erickson <ryanaerickson@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:55 AM To: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Galpin Property Development To whom it may concern, I am a resident of Chanhassen who is writing to you today to oppose the new housing development around Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. As a recent addition to the Chan community (I moved here 2 years ago), I moved here specifically because of the wetlands and wildlife. Wetlands and the lands surrounding them work together to provide ecological benefits for our community - benefits that are undermined when land is razed for development, obliterating wildlife corridors and interrupting habitats and food chains necessary to preserve the ecosystem as a whole. Wetlands provide flood and erosion protection, water quality improvement, and climate stability. Wetlands are also the breeding ground for dragonflies, which provide us with a natural form of mosquito control. In addition to the science behind the need to protect our wetlands and woodlands, they provide a beauty to the area that prompted me to choose to become a member of Chanhassen instead of so many other spots in the Minneapolis/St Paul area. I would hate to see Chan lose what makes it so great. Sincerely, Ryan Erickson 500 Trap Line Lane Chanhassen From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Galpin Property Letter Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 11:44:39 AM From: Mars Chatfield <mars.chatfield@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:42 AM To: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Galpin Property Letter Dear Mayor Ryan and City Council members, My name is Marsden Chatfield and I live at 2200 Majestic Way in Chanhassen. I border the south side of the proposed development property in the Royal Oaks neighborhood. I have lived at this location for the past 18 years. I am located at ground zero between this property development and the Galpin boulevard reconstruction. I moved into this house when I was one year old and have been living here my entire life. While I may not yet be an experienced member of society with decades of residency under my belt, I feel as though my 19-year-old opinion should still be considered, if not taken with more weight than others’; I am the fruit that Chanhassen has produced. I love this town with all of my heart, and will continue to love it whether or not you develop this property into a neighborhood. So rather than boring you with an emotional memoir telling the experience that this property has allowed me, I write this letter to you in the name of logic and common sense- I hope that you will find this more relevant to your decision. While I am not an economist or city planner, not (yet) a financial analyst or environmentalist, I am still able to recognize the foolishness of your proposal- simply as an observer. It is true that I live at ground zero and that this place means a lot to me, but even if it were not this way I could still see the golden opportunity that is being overlooked; how could I miss it? Chanhassen, MN: a small, developing suburb just outside of Minneapolis is graced by one of the largest icons in all of music history, who personally advocates and shares his love of the town, an ideal situation for a newer suburb who possesses no deep roots in culture, little to no historic value, and lots of open space. After the passing of this beloved star, the town of Chanhassen is swamped by tourists from all across the country who hope to see the place where their idol spent most of his time- tourism which brings in thousands of dollars for local businesses, further promoting Chanhassen’s booming economy. Now, here’s the part that doesn’t make any sense to me. The city of Chanhassen receives the beautiful, sprawling property that Prince himself had purchased and built his private residence on. While the home is now destroyed, the acres of rolling hills and beautiful wildlife still persist, untouched by any industrial development or manmade infractions. Chanhassen is essentially given a ‘Graceland’; an opportunity to dig its feet into national history for decades to come. What boggles my mind is that, rather than milking Prince for as many cultural sites and memorials as possible while simultaneously pleasing the citizens of their town, my city council would rather flatten that gorgeous plot of nature and cover it in concrete; stimulating the local economy briefly and destroying both a natural gem and a potential heritage site forever. This proposed development makes sense, don’t get me wrong- it just makes sense right now. In a growing suburb, you will increase the overall property value, bring in more citizens which in turn inflate the local economy; businesses make more money, you all earn more taxes-- our city will become better, I understand that. I just wish that you could recognize the potential gold mine you have here, if things were handled the right way. Chanhassen could become nationally realized as ‘Prince’s town’; the Motown of Minnesota, the Graceland of the Great Lakes- yet my city is focused on short term gains and development rather than establishing Chanhassen as a city to withstand the test of time, a city to be taught about in schools around the country for years to come. Thirty years from now, what do you expect of this neighborhood? The houses will remain full, the foundations sound, the streets paved- I expect you will do a good job on construction. However after thirty years, the neighborhood will lose its glimmer. Take a look at neighborhoods built in the 1980’s and 1990’s- these neighborhoods are no longer the apple of the homebuyer’s eye, instead they are typically considered options which are safer for buyers’ checkbooks; temporary homes to be lived in until income increases. In the year 2050 a neighborhood on this land will be approaching its demise, whereas a city park will likely only have increased in beauty and value; an oasis of natural delicacy in a city which will presumably be much larger than it is today. All in all, my point is this: in pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental conservation, cultural enhancement, residential happiness, and respect for the deceased and his family, the city of Chanhassen ought not develop a neighborhood on the property adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, nor on any of the properties previously owned by Prince and company. The city should, however, recognize the potential value of these properties and improve them to serve not only as amenities to the townspeople and tourists, but also to honor a great neighbor who we miss dearly. I hope that this letter does not fall on deaf ears, and that my council will act in favor of the city it represents rather than the expansion of its treasury. Marsden Chatfield From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Lennar Development (Prince Property) Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 10:43:13 AM From: Susan Mcallister <smcallister7510@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 10:37 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Lennar Development (Prince Property) Dear Madam Mayor, City Council, I have lived in Chanhassen for 58 years, since 1959, and when we arrived it was just a "hick town" as my mother would refer to it. I have seen almost all the rural areas disappear to development over time. I watched the video for public comment at the Planning Commission Meeting when it popped up on my phone. Because I now reside in Waconia I unfortunately didn't know about it until it was too late which was the day after. I just want to comment on the numerous residents who don't want it abutting their homes. The reality is, they don't "own" their view so if they don't want to look at it, then unfortunately they have to buy their view, because development is inevitable and obviously clustering is the only way to preserve the beautiful greenspace we find in this property and all others going forward. I hope you adopt the plan as shown because it is very sensitive to the site. I think the developer, along with the planning department has done an absolutely wonderful job putting this together. Please make sure though, that every tree in the 54 acres is protected and that it is not to be accessed by car, that the only way to access the 54 acres is by foot. Also, if there is ANY possibility to protect a few of the old growth trees in the clustered section of the plan that would be wonderful. I realize this might not be possible due to the regrading that will happen. Lastly, I would ask the developer to name it Purple Meadows. Sincerely, Susan McAllister 100 West 3rd Street #302 Waconia, MN 55387 952.228.4511 From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Prince Property Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 1:05:36 PM From: Juli Gempler <juliannagem@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 1:04 PM To: City Council <Council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Prince Property We oppose the PUD development. We are at 1877 Topaz Drive. We have lived here for 14 years and feel there needs to be other options for the property that preserves and protects the natural beauty and resouces it provides. Please take into considerstion the people, the residents that call this area home. This is a unique opportunity to do the right thing, step out of the box and vote no. Thank you for all of your efforts and considerstion, Juli and Mark Gempler Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From:Aanenson, Kate To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:FW: Proposed Development Galpin Blvd. Date:Monday, March 11, 2019 10:28:21 AM From: Connie Moore <CMoore@mclindengrp.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 10:14 AM To: Aanenson, Kate <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Proposed Development Galpin Blvd. Begin forwarded message: From: CONNIE MOORE <cmoore@mclindengrp.com> Subject: Proposed Development Galpin Blvd. Date: March 11, 2019 at 9:53:01 AM CDT To: <council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: <kaanerson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Dear Council Members and City Planner, First and foremost, thank you for your service. We have been residents of Chanhassen for 24 years and have experienced tremendous growth and prosperity. We have felt that the leadership of Chanhassen has had it’s residents best interest at heart. We are opposed to the current development under discussion due to the density and the impact it will have on the community. In making your decision, please consider the affect it will have on green space, traffic, schools and community as a whole. Thank you for your consideration. Dave and Connie Moore 7330 Moccasin Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317