9. AUAR for Steiner Development, Gateway Business Park PUD.CITY OF q
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE: June 23, 1997
SUBJ: Alternate Urban Areawide Review, Gateway Business Park
BACKGROUND
The City of Chanhassen has authorized the distribution of the Alternative Urban Areawide
Review documents (AUAR) for Steiner Development, Inc. for proposed Gateway Business Park
Planned Unit Development located south of Highway 5, east of Highway 41 and north of West
82 °d Street in the City of Chanhassen. The project consists of approximately 1.2 million square
feet of building in a mix of office, industrial, commercial, and park and open space uses on
approximately 150 acres. The comment period for the Gateway Business Park AUAR will be
open until June 6, 1997.
Because this project exceeds 500,000 gross square feet of new office /industrial development, an
Environmental Impact Statement is mandatory. The city will be the Responsible Governmental
Unit. Instead of completing an EIS, the city has requested that an Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) be completed. The same issues are studied under an EIS and the AUAR but the
time frame is shorter. The AUAR will provide an opportunity to develop detailed information
about the project and potential impacts. The city will adopt the mitigation plan specifying the
mitigation measures that will be imposed upon the future development of the area within the
AUAR in order to avoid or mitigate specific impacts. The plan shall contain a description of how
each mitigation measure will be implemented, including the involvement of other agencies, if
appropriate
It should be noted that the AUAR originally included up to 120 units of residential development,
which was noted within the framework of the AUAR. However, the residential component was
eliminated after the conceptual PUD review and the use was revised to office /industrial. Staff
estimates that this represents a maximum of 160,000 square feet of building area. Due to the fact
that the city required that the analysis be performed on a worst case scenario, this change should
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 2
not invalidate the investigation. In addition, additional land is proposed to be preserved as part
of the park land/open space within the development.
The proposed development is planned to develop with the following areas, uses, and building
square footage:
LOT/USE ACRES I Building Size/FAR I PARKING
(square feet)
82" Street Dedication 1.80
Coulter Boulevard 2.0
North/South Street 5.37
Interior Roadwav 3.17
Upland
16.6
131,006
30
Wetland
28.7
71,218
142
Ponds
3.01
57,688
115
Lot 3, Block 1
10.02
131,006
262
Lot 4, Block 1
5.45
71,218
142
Lot 5, Block 1
4.41
57,688
115
Lot 1, Block 4
4.38
57,199
114
Lot 2, Block 4
5.40
70,597
141
Lot 3, Block 4
8.98
117,371
235
Lot 1, Block 2
12.23
159,822
320
Lot 5, Block 4
Cornni c � . �a.
Lot 1, Block 1
23.20
z`
14 5
1.80
(A FAR) 404,279
15 FAR 0 FAR Alice
11,746 / 23,520
(3/1000) 1,213
s
.
(5 /1000) 59
Lot 2, Block
2.32
15,180 / 30,320
(4/1000) 61
Lot 4, Block 4 Office/Hotel
4.06
26,536 / 53
(511000) 133
Lotl, Block 3
Restaurant /Office
6.41
(.1OFAR) 27,937 /
83,770
(16/1000) 447
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 3
ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
In reviewing the potential impacts of the proposed development, the following environmental
impacts were addressed:
Habitat: Wildlife such as white tailed deer, beaver, muskrat, waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds,
turtles, frogs and other amphibians are present or near the site. Approximately 68 percent of the
site is proposed for development. There are nearly 13 acres of woodland located in the southeast
corner of the site and an additional 2 acres of fencerow type vegetation. Approximately 2.93 of a
total of 30.13 acres of wetland on site are proposed to be filled as part of the development.
Woodlands: There are nearly 13 acres of woodland located in the southeast corner of the site and
an additional 2 acres of fencerow type vegetation. The proposed development will remove all of
the fencerow type vegetation and approximately 1.5 acres of woodland in the southeast corner of
the site.
Wetlands: The development will fill approximately 2.93 of a total of 30.13 acres of wetland on
site.
Wells: There are wells serving the farmstead in the northeast corner of the site and also the
Wrase home.
Utilities: Water service and sanitary sewer for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, shall be provided by the
City of Chaska through mains in West 82 Street. The maximum permitted sewage flow into
the Chaska system is 20,000 gallons per day (gpd). The balance of the site shall be served by the
City of Chanhassen through the extension of utilities which are currently in Coulter Boulevard
east of the project site. Estimated maximum water usage is 134,654 gpd. Estimated maximum
sewage flow is 144,654 gpd. (The difference between water usage and sewage flow is for
irrigation.)
Surface Water Management, Erosion Control: Approximately 68 percent of the site is proposed
for development which will be graded for roadways, utilities, building pads, and stormwater
ponds.
Traffic: The development will contain approximately 3,300 parking spaces and generate an
estimated 31,000 average daily traffic (ADT) with estimated peak hour traffic of 2,900 a.m. and
2,700 p.m. A Traffic Study was prepared for the development by SRF, Consulting Group, Inc.
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 4
The City has received a revised Traffic Study for the gateway development dated June 13, 1997.
The revisions to the study are as follows:
Page 7, Existing Conditions. Add: (These peak hour levels of service describe the
overall intersection operations. The level of service for individual approaches can be
different than the overall LOS. For TH 41/82" d Street intersection, the eastbound
approach exhibits the greatest delay, operating at LOS D during the a.m. peak and LOS F
during the p.m. peak.)
Page 8, Year 2003 Scenario #1. Add: (the eastbound approach operates at LOS F during
both peak periods)
Page 8, Table 3, TH 41 and 82 St. Year 2003 Scenario 1 and Year 2012 Scenario 1
change to: A/E and A/F, respectively.
Page 9, Year 2012 Scenario #1. Add: (the eastbound approach operates at LOS F during
both peak periods)
Air Quality: An estimate of vehicle - related air emissions is required.
Dust, Odors, or Noise: Dust and noise will be generated during site construction.
Archeological, Historical, or Architectural Resources: No properties listed in or determined to be
eligible for nomination to the National Register are present within the project boundaries. A
search of the Minnesota Historic Preservation Office (MnSHPO) statewide inventory for
archeological sites and historic buildings found no previously recorded cultural resources within
the project boundary. The eastern portion of the site has some potential for unrecorded, intact
archeological sites because of its proximity to water and woodlands. With regard to the
farmsteads on site, the house located on the Wrase property warrants consideration because of its
potentially significant historical associations and Queen Anne Revival style influence design
characteristics.
MITIGATION PLAN
Habitat: As part of the development approval, the City is acquiring though dedication and
purchase approximately 48 acres to be retained in its natural state and to incorporate a trail
system. This will encompass all the major wetlands in Outlots A and B and the proposed on,site
wetland mitigation, approximately 16.5 acres of upland and 3.01 acres of stormwater pond. The
City currently owns approximately 60 acres of land east of this development.
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 5
Woodlands: The City is acquiring through dedication and acquisition, the majority of the
woodlands in the southeast corner of the site. In order to reduce additional tree removal, the City
has also required that the developer redesign the stormwater pond in the southern portion of the
site and we are requiring that the developer not encroach into the tree line on Lot 1, Block 2 until
a final development plan for the site is reviewed by the City. The development is required to
provide landscaping as part of the subdivision and site landscaping with the development of the
individual lots.
Wetlands: This site plan proposal has 2.93 acres of wetland impacts requiring 5.83 acres of
mitigation. Of the 5.86 acres of wetland mitigation required, 2.27 acres of new wetlands are
proposed to be created on site. At this time, the remaining mitigation will come from new
wetland credits created by the Arboretum and in -kind mitigation including upland buffers. The
developer shall apply to Bluff Creek Watershed District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
City of Chanhassen for appropriate permits. The development must comply with the 1996
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and the Federal Clean Water Act.
This site originally included a 30 acre parcel on the west side of Highway 41. This area was sold
to the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum as part of a extensive 10.5 acre wetland
restoration project, to be undertaken by the Arboretum. In selling this property to the University,
Steiner Development, Inc. included a condition of sale that would require the University to bank
enough wetland credits to meet the mitigation needs of the remaining developable area. At that
time the wetland impacts were calculated to be 1.8 acres. City staff has met with the Arboretum
and the developer, and acting as the LGU, will credit the applicant 1.8 acres of new wetland
credits for this project. The Arboretum will either transfer bank credits to this project or they
will make a cash contribution to the City's wetland fund for the restoration or creation of 1.8
acres of new wetlands.
The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag /urban wetland located on the
property if the wetland is not impacted. The buffer strip width required for an ag /urban wetland
is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for
these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer
areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City
will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant
$20 per sign.
Wells: The well in the northeast corner of the site shall be abandoned according to State
Department of Health regulations as part of this development. The Wrase well shall be
abandoned according to State Department of Health regulations when it is no longer used or
necessary.
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 6
Utilities: Water service and sanitary sewer for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, shall be provided by the
City of Chaska through mains in West 82 Street. The maximum permitted sewage flow into
the Chaska system is 20,000 gallons per day (gpd). The balance of the site shall be served by the
City of Chanhassen through the extension of utilities which are currently in Coulter Boulevard
east of the project site. The City Council on April 28, 1997 authorized preparation of the
feasibility study to start the process of extension of utility services. Sufficient capacity exists
within the utility systems to accommodate this development. The applicant shall apply to Bluff
Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, and the City of Chanhassen for
appropriate permits.
Surface Water Management, Erosion Control: This project is proposed to be developed and
graded in multiple phases. Phase I consists of the southwesterly and central portions of the site
which includes Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, part of the north/south street and Coulter Boulevard, as
well as storm drainage ponds. This approach of grading is feasible in an effort to minimize erosion
on the site. However, staff is concerned that the earthwork will balance upon arriving at the final
phase of construction so that additional material is not needed to be imported to or exported from
the site. The applicant should provide to the city an overall grading plan which stages construction.
The plan should include the amount of earthwork involved in each phase to ensure that the
earthwork on site balances. Overall, the grading appears acceptable except for the following areas:
1. The parcel lying north of Lot 1, Block 1 will be approximately 6 to 8 feet higher than Lot 1
after grading. The City has directed the applicant provide access from 82 Street West to
this parcel for future access needs. Based on the grading plan, this will be fairly difficult to
achieve without modifying the grading plan on Lot 1, Block 1. Staff has requested a 40 -foot
wide easement assuming a 20 -foot wide private driveway to access the site from 82 Street
West. The grading plan will need to be revised to address this.
2. A storm water quality pond is proposed at the northeast corner of 82 Street West and the
north/south street. This ponding basin will essentially be developed in an existing ravine
area. Staff has reviewed the pond configuration and recommends the pond be reconfigured
to a more north/south configuration to minimize tree loss and preserve the natural slopes
adjacent to Wetland C.
3. Site grading will involve filling portions of wetlands throughout the site. There are fingers
of wetlands that extend out from the main wetland basin. Staff believes that by realigning a
portion of the north/south street between Coulter Boulevard and the cul -de -sac westerly
within the right -of -way to reduce wetland impacts. In addition, this would give some slope
relief along the east side of the north/south street adjacent to the wetland and park lands.
Currently there is a 2:1 slope and a retaining wall proposed.
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 7
4. Two storm water basins are proposed adjacent to Coulter Boulevard lying east of the
north/south street. These two storm water basins will take approximately 70% of the site
runoff. Based on their size, it appears they may need to be increased to accommodate storm
water runoff and provide the necessary water quality treatment prior to discharging into
wetlands. The applicant should provide the city with the necessary storm water calculations
to document the pond sizing that will meet the City's Surface Water Management water
quality /quantity requirements prior to final plat consideration.
5. Based on the applicant's narrative, it appears that Trunk Highways 5 and 41 future upgrades
have been taken into account in the proposed site grading. As of today, staff has not
received comments back from MnDOT with regards to this proposal. Therefore, staff is
recommending that any additional changes in site grades as a result of MnDOT's review
shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for preliminary and final plat.
6. Upon preliminary review it appears that storm water currently draining to Wetland "C" may
be reduced with the proposed site grading. The developer's engineer shall provide the City
with documentation that Wetland C will receive the same amount of runoff as with
predevelopment conditions to ensure recharging of the wetland. Storm water discharge
points in the ponds should be consolidated wherever feasible to reduce maintenance and
improve water quality by keeping the outlet pipe as far away from the inlet pipe as possible.
The plans propose a series of storm sewers to convey surface water runoff from the individual lots
to regional storm water ponds for treatment prior to discharging into the wetlands. A storm sewer
system will also need to be extended along the north/south street to address storm water runoff from
Lot 1, Block 3. The development's storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10 -year, 24 -hour
storm event. Ponding calculations including pre and post- development conditions for a 10 -year and
100 -year storm event will also be required for City staff review prior to final plat consideration.
The applicant should also consider oversizing the storm sewer system and ponding facilities to
accommodate runoff from Trunk Highway 5. This should be worked out between MnDOT, the
applicant and the city prior to final plat consideration.
Erosion control measures are proposed throughout the site. Due to the terrain, additional erosion
control fence may be necessary at the toe of steep slopes and adjacent to storm water ponds after
grading is completed. Type III erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the wetlands. The
storm water ponds or temporary detention ponds should be constructed in the initial grading phase
to minimize erosion to the wetlands. Erosion control blankets will also be required on slopes
greater than 3:1. Revegetation of the exposed slopes should occur immediately after grading is
completed. The applicant shall incorporate Erosion Control and Sediment Control/Best
Management Practices for erosion control.
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 8
The City of Chanhassen has developed a surface water management plan (SWMP) to protect water
quality and manage water quantity within the City's watershed. The plan identifies, from a regional
perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future
development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the
water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year
design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William
Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies.
The developer shall apply for and receive permits from Bluff Creek Watershed District, MnDOT,
and the City of Chanhassen.
Traffic: As a part of the feasibility study for utility extension, the report will also analyze
construction of the north/south street from 82 Street West to Trunk Highway 5 and Coulter
Boulevard. Although the north/south street will be constructed in two phases with Phase I
concentrating on the portion of street adjacent to Lot 3, Block 1, a subsequent phase would
complete the northern portion of the north/south road and associated utilities to Trunk Highway 5.
The timing of this phase will be driven by two factors: development pressure and/or the upgrade of
Trunk Highway 5 by the year 2000. The extension of Coulter Boulevard west to the north/south
street may be delayed until development levels warrant construction.
The proposed street system is fairly well - designed from a traffic circulation standpoint. Street
grades appear to range from I% to 6% which are in compliance with design standards for this land
use. The streets are proposed to be constructed to the City's standard for commercial /industrial
roadways (36 feet wide face to face of curb within an 80 -foot wide right -of -way). Additional right -
of -way may be needed on the north/south street adjacent to Lot 4, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 to
accommodate turn lanes. Based on MnDOT's preliminary plans for Trunk Highway 5, this area
will require a 100 -foot wide right -of -way. The City's Comprehensive Plan proposes Coulter
Boulevard to be extended west from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41 through this site.
This road corridor has been previously designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) street.
Currently, Coulter Boulevard has been constructed up to 650 feet east of this development with
the subdivision of Autumn Ridge. The City has plans on extending Coulter Boulevard in the
future depending on development pressure and overall transportation system needs. The access
points onto Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 have been reviewed and approved by
MnDOT. The east /west street will be restricted to a right - in/right -out only at Trunk Highway 41.
MnDOT has programmed the upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 adjacent to this site sometime in
1999/2000. The developer should work with MnDOT in preparing their construction plans with
regards to site grading, drainage and street improvements adjacent to Trunk Highways 5 and 41
for compatibility.
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 9
The streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standard specification and
detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for those streets and utilities
constructed by the developer will be required in conjunction with final platting for staff review
and City Council approval. The developer will also be required to enter into a development
contract with the City and provide a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash
escrow to guarantee site improvements. Preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent
upon the City Council ordering public improvement project 97 -1 for the extension of utilities and
street to service this development. Without the extension of municipal utilities, this development
would be considered premature.
The development of this property will require traffic signals at the intersection of 82 Street West
and Trunk Highway 41 and at Trunk Highway 5 and the north/south street. Recommendations
from the traffic study (SRF dated 4/25/97) reveal a traffic signal is warranted at 82 Street West
and Trunk Highway 41 with the first phase. Based on the status of Trunk Highway 41, a temporary
traffic signal would likely be installed until a permanent light is constructed with the upgrade. It
should be noted that the Trunk Highway 41 upgrade is not in MnDOT's 20 -year plan. Auxiliary
turn lanes may also be warranted on 82" Street West at Trunk Highway 41 as a result of this
development of which the developer would be responsible for constructing and/or financing. It is
recommended that the developer escrow with the City a financial guarantee for the share of the
local cost participation for the auxiliary turn lanes and traffic signals at 82 Street West and also
the future traffic signal at Trunk Highway 5 and the north/south street. The cost required local
participation of these intersection improvements is not known at this time. However, preliminary
estimates from MnDOT will be used for the escrow provision. A condition to address this will be
placed in the PUD Agreement/Development Contract.
The City and developer shall request that MnDot design and construct dual left turn lanes on all
approaches to the TH 5 /Th 41 intersection, that the westbound approach to the TH 51 north access
intersection be designed with dual left -turn lanes as an alternative to Coulter Boulevard, that TH 41
be upgraded to a four -lane facility south of TH 5, and that Highway 212 be constructed. The
developer and site users shall promote and encourage Traffic Demand Management Strategies.
Air Quality: An estimate of vehicle - related air emissions was prepared as part of an air quality
analysis. An indirect source permit must be applied for from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
Dust, Odors, or Noise: Dust shall be controlled by the application of water. Dust levels shall be
monitored throughout construction. Revegetation of the exposed slopes should occur immediately
after grading is completed. The applicant shall incorporate Erosion Control and Sediment
Control/Best Management Practice.
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 10
Construction activity shall be limited to daylight hours as prescribed by City of Chanhassen
Ordinance.
Archeological, Historical, or Architectural Resources: The following course of action is
recommended:
Every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid impacting the Queen Anne Revival style
house on the Wrase parcel.
2. Notify MnSHPO (as well as the appropriate state and federal permitting agencies) of the
developer's intent to submit the project plans for review and comment.
3. Conduct a phase I archeological reconnaissance survey of Outlots A and B, and those parts of
the development below the 950 foot contour with walk -over inspection of plowed ground
coupled with shovel test excavations in densely vegetated areas, paying special attention to
the locations of future roadways, trails, building sites, and stormwater ponds.
4. Document all standing structures within the project boundaries and prepare a MnSHPO
historic property inventory form for the farmstead in Lots, Block 3 and on the Wrase parcel.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The City has not received any comments to the AUAR that require response.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 4, 1997 to review the AUAR for
Gateway Business Park. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the
AUAR be revised to incorporate the summary of issues and mitigation plan contained in the staff
report and that the revised AUAR be adopted by the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves a Resolution that the AUAR be revised to incorporate the summary
of issues and mitigation plan contained in this staff report, that the revisions to the Traffic Study
prepared by SRF outlined in the staff report be incorporated into the study, and that the revised
AUAR be adopted by the City."
Don Ashworth
Gateway AUAR
June 23, 1997
Page 11
ATTACHMENTS
1. Alternate Urban Areawide Review, Gateway Business Park
2. Letter from Mary Hoffman Lynn, MPCA, to Fred Richter and Kate Aanenson dated 5/19/97
3. Letter from Ben A Wopat, Department of the Army, to Fred Richter dated 6/3/97
4. Letter from Helen Boyer, Metropolitan Council, to Bob Generous dated 6/2/97
5. Planning Commission Minutes of June 4, 1997
6. Resolution Adopting the AUAR and Mitigation Plan
Y Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
' , "DO7
May 19, 1997
Mr. Fred Richter
Steiner Development, Inc.
3610 South Highway 101
Wa Minnesota 55391
Ms. Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
City Hall, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 -0147
RE: Gateway Business Park
Dear Mr. Richter and Ms. Aanenson:
The staff of the Air Quality Division (AQD) of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) has finished its completeness review of the Indirect Source Permit (ISP) application for
the Gateway Business Park project located in Chanhassen, Minnesota.
The air quality analysis submitted in support of the request for an ISP shows that both the one-
hour and eight -hour maximum carbon monoxide concentrations are well below the state ambient
air quality standards. Therefore, the staff finds the application to be complete and has agreed that
the ISP request be granted. The MPCA wishes to note, however, that the city of Chanhassen
should consider implementing some of the improvements recommended on pages nine and ten of
the traffic study prepared by SR[{ Lonsuiting Group, t it uiYVia�.... T :es: ^:provP::�ents should
improve traffic operations in and around the proposed project site.
No public notice is required for this project; however, the MPCA staff or MPCA Citizens' Board
can elect to require a public notice period or to bring the permit issue to the MPCA Citizens'
Board if there is significant public interest. Either action would result in a delay in processing.
The anticipated date for completion of the fact sheet and draft ISP is June 2, 1997. A Negative
Declaration on the Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Gateway Business Park project
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194; (612) 296 -6300 (Voice); (612) 282 -5332 (TTY)
Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers.
Mr. Richter and Ms. Aanenson
May 19, 1997
Page 2
will be needed prior to issuance of the final ISP. I will be the lead person for this application. If
you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (612)297 -2331.
Sincerely,
J
Mary Hoffman Lynn
Mobile Source Unit
Air Quality Division
MHL:jmd
cc: John Crawford, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
J. David Thornton/Barbara Jackson, AQD
Innocent Eyoh/Susanne Spitzer, AQD
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
1 ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE
FIFTH STREET EAST
�
ST. PAUL, MN 55101•1636
June 3, 1997
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Construction- Operations
Regulatory (97- 04193- GP -GAE)
Mr. Fred Richter
Steiner Development, Inc.
3610 Highway 101 South
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Dear Mr. Richter:
We have reviewed information about a project proposed by
Steiner Development, Inc. to grade and fill 2.93 acres of
wetland adjacent to a tributary of Bluff Creek to facilitate
commercial and residential development (Gateway West). The
project will also include the creation of 3.05 acres of wetland
on -site and off -site as mitigation for this project. The project
site is in the N 1/2 of Section 16, T. 116 N., R. 23 W., of
Carver County, in Chanhassen, Minnesota.
We have determined that this work is authorized by
Department of the Army General Permit GP- 17 -MN. This permit
authorizes activities that are regulated and approved by the
Local Government Unit (LGU) pursuant to the provisions of the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and is not valid until
your project receives authorization from the LGU responsible for
implementing the WCA.
This Corps authorization requires that you comply with all
conditions of the enclosed permit and that you satisfy any limits
and conditions, including compensatory wetland replacement,
required by the LGU. For your information, prior to approving
the project, the LGU may receive comments from other agencies,
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota
Historical Society regarding endangered species and cultural
resources. Concerns expressed by these agencies would need to be
resolved prior to commencing the project.
If you have any questions, call Gary Elftmann of this office
at (612) 290 -5355.
Sinc 1
YC�
Ben A. opat
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy furnished:
Mr. Phillip Elkin, City of Chanhassen
Mr. Marshal Braman, Schoell and Madson, Inc.
PIfea on M RecvUea Paoer
Minnesota Department of Natural sources, St. Paul Office
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
June 2, 1997
Bob Generous, Planner
City of Chanhassen .!
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: AUAR Review -- Chanhassen -- Gateway Business Park
Metropolitan Council District 4
Referral File No. -- 16515 -1
Dear Mr. Generous:
Council staff has conducted a review of this Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) to determine its adequacy
and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The staff review has concluded that the AUAR is complete and accurate
with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff
provides the following comments for your consideration:
Item 6 - Project Description
There is a significant inconsistency between the text description (also found on page 15, Item 19) and PUD plan for
Gateway (Figure 4) and Phasing Plan (Figure 5). The text suggests that the 20.85 acre parcel identified in Figure 5 will
be developed either as entirely residential (120 units of multi- family at 5.75 units per acre) or alternatively that the city
may purchase 13.1 acres for park, in which case the remainder (7.75 acres) would be developed as industrial/office.
Figure 4 appears to show the alternative with the 13.1 acre park parcel identified but shows the remainder of the parcel
as "20.85 acres and as "multi- family housing."
If the city decides to go along with the 20.85 acre residential development of the parcel, it will need to submit a
comprehensive plan amendment to the Council for review. The plan amendment should indicate how the proposal fits
into the city's Livable Community goal of having 34 percent of its new housing units meet life cycle housing needs of
the community and a housing density for multi - family housing of 9 -10 units per acre.
Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Required
The Metropolitan Council should also be listed for possible comprehensive plan amendment (if needed, see above).
Item II- Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
The text on page 8 indicates that wetland replacement, public value credit (PVC), and storm water basins proposed in
this document will increase the area of wetlands, which were present on or near the site prior to construction by nearly
4.97 acres. Text in the page 9, Item 12 discussion indicates that "upon project completion approximately 6.65 acres of
new wetland will be present ". Council staff requests that the final AUAR document clarify the draft discussion on
wetlands by identifying the size (in acres) of each new wetland area proposed to be constructed in mitigation for
impacted wetlands, proposed PVC wetland areas and locations, and the areas of proposed stormwater treatment basins
that will be included in the Wetland Conservation Act 2:1 replacement calculations.
Rein 18 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
The text on page 14 refers to the three proposed stormwater management plan basins as "agricultural /urban wetlands.
The final AUAR document should revise the text to more accurately describe the three constructed basins as surface
runoff treatment basins which discharge into existing wetlands: Figure 7 presents a tree inventory of the proposed site.
230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1634 (612) 291 -6359 Fax 291 -6550 TDD /TTY 291 -0904 Metro Info Line 229 -3780
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Bob Generous, Planner
June 2, 1997
Page 2
The south water quality basin is proposed to be constructed in a significant tree stand area. Council staff recommends
pursuit of an alternative location for that basin, in order to preserve the existing tree stand.
22. Traffic
The traffic analysis for this project seems reasonable and is based on conservative or "worst case" assumptions, as is
required of AUARs. This development will ultimately generate 31,000 daily trips with 2,900 to 2,700 trips expected
during the a.m. and p.m. peaks, respectively. The study assumed TH 212 would not be built within the build out time
frame (2012).
The study concludes that a number of improvements are needed in order for the key intersections to operate at
acceptable levels of service in the future Among these recommendatinns are improvements to the "A" minor arterial
system (upgrade TH 41 to a four -lane roadway by the year 2003 and upgrade TH 5 to a six -lane facility east of TH 41
by the build out year, 2012.)
The report does not describe the extent of the upgrading on either road. Also, neither of these significant capacity
improvements are included in the region's transportation improvement program. MnDOT's programming policy does
not include funding capacity improvements to the minor arterials. It will be the responsibility of the city to ensure
these projects are constructed.
Item 28 - Compatibility Will: Comprehensive Plan
Figure 2 indicates that the city's comprehensive plan has planned for the entire site to be developed with
Office /Industrial uses. The proposed residential use on the site is inconsistent with the existing comprehensive plan,
and will require an amendment to the city's plan.
This will conclude the Council's review of the AUAR. No formal action on the AUAR will be taken by the Council. If
you have any questions or need further information, please contact Jim Uttley, principal reviewer, at 602 -1361.
Sincerely,
ki lo� & - �
Helen Boyer, Director J"
Environmental Services Division
c: Julius Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4
Keith Buttleman, Director, Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department
Thomas C. McElveen, Deputy Director, Community Development Division
Lynda Voge, Referrals Coordinator
James Larsen, Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department
Debra Sorenson Nelles, Transportation Division
Audrey Dougherty, Office of Local Assistance
Carl Schenk, Sector Representative, Office of Local Assistance
Jim Uttley, Office of Local Assistance
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 4,1997
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce,
Bob Skubic and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW
DOCUMENTS (AUAR) FOR STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC. PROPOSED
GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH
OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF HIGHWAY 41 AND NORTH OF WEST 82 STREET.
THE MIX OF OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND PARK AND OPEN
SPACE USES ON APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
(There were some audio problems at the beginning of the meeting. Taping of the discussion
began at this point.)
Brooks: There's not a lot there. It doesn't look like it's a fairly major site but because it wasn't
fully evaluated it probably should be preserved and it, I was just saying to Kate, small sites like
this too are really nice to keep because if you want the school system to go out and do small
summer digs or excavations, it's not like a big site that's so significant that we want to keep it in
perpetuity, yet it makes a really nice school project for kids to get out and dig. And if it's going
to be preserved anyway on a part that's not going to be developed, let the children get something
out of it. It's a way to teach Chanhassen great history. The only thing about history, I mean we
don't really teach a lot of pre- history so that's what I'd like to see the site used for eventually.
Peterson: Okay, good. Other questions of staff?
Skubic: Yes. The parcel in the southeast section of 13 acres, the City is purchasing those.
How's that proceeding? What's the likelihood that the City will purchase those? Is that
dependent upon the referendum by any chance?
Generous: No. It looks like it's moving forward... preliminary development plan.
Skubic: You feel that's likely that will happen?
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Aanenson: There seems to be concurrence on the terms.
Brooks: Did the traffic study, was the traffic study altered at all by SRF? I believe when we
were first talking about the traffic study they were talking about six lanes and we had discussed
the fact that six lanes wasn't happening on TH 5 and we talked about having them change that in
the traffic study. Was that done or did they keep that in?
Generous: Well it hasn't been modified because that was, it was just a recommended
improvement. It's actually the mitigation plan, and that's a lot beyond our control. We have
done one of the mitigations...
Brooks: I guess I am concerned, and I've discussed this before about the impact of, what is it,
3113, how many trips? 31,000 trips a day and you know we talk about having them possibly or
probably when the traffic at non -peak hours but I'll tell you, last Friday I tried to get off of
Audubon Road onto TH 5 in the middle of the afternoon and I was having a hard time doing that
so I presume all the traffic was going to try to make it 494 to get out to the United States
somewhere. I don't know if you have any response to what kind of impacts or how you're
thinking of managing that.
Generous: We're promoting and encouraging that, providing alternate routes. MnDOT and
Carver County, Chaska and...
Aanenson: And we're still hoping to work with TH 41 being upgraded too. Partnership.
Brooks: You mean by adding lanes or just.
Aanenson: Widening it.
Brooks: Widening it, yeah.
Aanenson: The ultimate design. Having it lowered and widened.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman, real briefly. Tell me ... the site at...
Generous: You'll come off 82 Street will be the first access.
Conrad: And is that, okay. And nothing off of TH 5?
Generous: Nothing off of TH 5. The access to TH 5 would be ... once TH 5 is upgraded. Then it
becomes a question of.
Conrad: And there won't be a right turn, right out of?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Generous: No, it will be a full median opening.
Aanenson: At TH 5.
Generous: At TH 5.
Conrad: A median.
Aanenson: With a signal.
Conrad: ...As soon as there's a project on this site we have the 82 Street access. And we don't
have anything off of TH 5 or we do? Nothing.
Generous: Not in the first.
Conrad: Okay.
Generous: And the question is... Then the final access would be the right - in/right -out on TH 41
itself. On that west local street.
Conrad: Will it be a full intersection?
Generous: It will never be a full intersection.
Conrad: What is the Council's considering for Coulter extension? Cost?
Aanenson: Yeah. And what it does to the park. Transportation. Last night with Carver County
talking about transportation needs and whether or not TH 5, and if 212 never gets built, do we
have enough east/west, north/south connectors and what do we need to do.
Conrad: And what's our involvement in the decision making to extend that?
Aanenson: Well right now we're saying at a minimum we need to take the right -of -way. The
decision whether or not to build the road's a separate issue, right. But at minimum take the right -
of -way. We still have to extend the sewer and water through that property so we'll take the right -
of -way and we can look at a future date looking at the transportation needs. I mean SRF said 6
lanes. Maybe you need that other alternative to take some pressure off. We want to have that as
an option. Not eliminate it.
Generous: I believe Council wants it brought back so they can see the parks and open space view
point on it. Planning... engineering and traffic.
Conrad: Okay. And that's in their court?
Aanenson: Yes.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission? If so, please come forward.
Howard Dahlgren: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name's Howard
Dahlgren. I'm one of the partners in the development. I also have with me Fred Richter who is
from Steiner Development, who will be the developers of the land. Just a few brief words about
some of the things you had mentioned tonight with which you are concerned. One, on the
Coulter issue. We are dedicating the right -of -way for Coulter as right -of -way. If you don't ever
build it, then you've got 2 extra acres of park. But I'd suggest that you build Coulter in the sense
that I believe it's an important part of the transportation system in the sense that having a system
of parallel local thoroughfares to a highway like Trunk Highway 5 is very good policy. It allows
the local traffic to stay off of Highway 5. Operate more safely getting from one place to the other
with access at crucial points along Highway 5. That's how a highway like TH 5 will work the
best. But from a traffic standpoint, it would be good to have Coulter built. And that's why one
of the reasons it's on your major thoroughfare plan as an east/west thoroughfare, parallel to
Highway 5. And going over to our north/south road where it then can disperse either to the south
or to the north. But from a traffic standpoint, that's a good idea. The way we left it, we've
dedicated the right -of -way and it will be at the City's option whether they want to build it at
some time in the future. So either way we don't have to have it but I think in general it will make
traffic circulation better in this part of the city of Chanhassen. As far as the overall numbers, this
number 31,000 trips is a big number. That's trips in and out so it's half that number of round
trips. 31,000 is counted as a trip going in and another trip then when you go out you see. But I
can say there's two things about that. Number one is that that was based on the maximum
development at the maximum numbers so that it's very likely that there won't be that 31,000. It
will be something less. But the real solution to the overall traffic problem as far as TH 5 is
concerned, as Kate has mentioned many times and Bob, is that someday when 212 is built, and it
will get built someday. Then there will be considerable relief on this heavy traffic on Highway
5. That will reduce the amount of traffic on TH 5. Now your traffic report makes that point but
it doesn't put a number on it. But it's true, that will happen. As far as timing, we, our plan is to
build the north/south road and connect it to Highway 5 at the time it's improved so they'll open it
up together. We think it's a waste of money to try to go up there and build something before that
on a temporary basis. The time to do it is to have them work well. Build them together and open
them up and then they should function very well for many years. It's also true that the traffic
report suggests that our development might be finished by the year 2003. That might well not be
the case. It might well take longer than that. We want to do this development carefully and well.
We're not in a fire sale situation where we have to sell land quickly. That's not our objective.
We want to sell it well so that it's developed well with good uses. It will be good for us and it
will be good for you so that's our overall objective. In terms of the report that Bob did, it was a
very well done report by the way. I, as a planning consultant in the metropolitan area for the last
40 years, I've written hundreds of reports like that and I can say this was a very good one. He did
a very, both your people did a very thorough job on this whole process and we commend them
for that. I spoke to Bob earlier, there's one little thing we'd like to, we'd suggest that you might
want to keep a little flexible. The report suggests that we might want to move the roadway, the
north/south roadway 50 to 75 feet to the west to avoid a little finger of wetlands. We'd like to
4
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
suggest, and rather than make that decision now, to just suggest that that be kept flexible for two
reasons. One is it's a very small piece of wetlands but if you move the highway west, then the
amount of taxable land goes down and the park gets bigger. The park is already almost 50 acres
now with what the City hopes to acquire, has agreed to acquire and what we're dedicating. So
it's a very large park. So one of the objectives would be to keep the developable land as large as
possible. And this road goes, as you know, goes straight down. Maybe we can get that drawing
just to remind ourselves quickly. I'll just hold it up here if that's all right with you folks. The
moving it like 75 feet this way. There's a little tiny, a little finger of wetlands right here.
Another factor is that we have re- analyzed, we're re- analyzing, re- examining and now surveying
the entire wetlands that's affected by this development. Orr Schelen, not Orr Schelen but Schoell
and Madson have been doing that work this spring. It's nearing completion. I just spoke to Ken
Adolf today from Schoell and Madson. He says it looks like the actual amount of wetlands is
going to be decreasing and not increasing so the problems with mitigation are going to get less
rather than greater. If that's the case, then we should be able to mitigate this more successfully
than putting in a little retaining wall, which is one of the things that Bob was concerned about.
So it looks like that can be successfully solved without moving the roadway further to the west.
So that's the only comment we have on the report is if you would consider maybe recommending
that look at this moving of the road be examined in the future, after the wetlands are finally
determined and keep that flexible as to whether we move it or don't move it or how much we
move it. That we would appreciate. I think that's in all of our interest to approach it that way.
Other than that I think we don't have any problems with the recommendation and the report that
the staff has prepared. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them if we can.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Howard Dahlgren: Again, we appreciate all the time you folks have put on this project. It's been
a long time. You've looked at it many times I know and I want you to know we appreciate all the
time that you've put into it. And for the staff too. It's been, they've been very, very helpful.
Fred, did you want to add anything? Okay. Thank you very much.
Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it for a public
hearing and a second please?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state
your name and address. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a
second.
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Before I get into the comments from the commissioners, Kate. Addressing the issue of
the wetland, is that, how can we articulate that into the recommendation? Is that?
5
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Aanenson: I think that's fine if we put something in there on the final wetland delineation we
can evaluate it. I think Dave's big concern was the ... and what that would do the integrity of the
road. So we'd be willing to study that. We could have some more flexible language in there that
with the wetlands have the final delineation... look at that issue.
Peterson: We'll let Bob draft it and we'll get back to him.
Aanenson: Okay. We'll put something in there. So again, it's the retaining wall that's really
the issue and that's being created by the mitigation.
Generous: Part of...was having...
Skubic: And the mitigation would take place on the Arboretum property across TH 41 ?
Generous: The ... we're getting 1.8 acres of...on the Arboretum property and 1... expanding and
consolidating...
Peterson: All right, thanks. Kevin, your respective thoughts.
Joyce: No, I'm in favor of...City Council, I thought they did have some reservations about
putting Coulter Boulevard through... discussed at the last City Council meeting. And my
feeling... who cares about the traffic. I personally think Coulter Boulevard should go through. I
think it should be considered strongly for this development to make it ... but that's just my
opinion. That's what I'm...
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: I'm in agreement. I support what staff has prepared here. What the conditions that have
been brought up this evening.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: I have nothing new to add.
Peterson: Alison.
Blackowiak: I agree with staff. I do disagree with Kevin though about Coulter Boulevard. I've
got to get my bit in. I'm sorry but I just question the need for Coulter Boulevard. I understand
that it is potentially a neighborhood street or could take local traffic through to that area but by
the same token I question how much local traffic will be directed to that industrial office park. I
think it's, that the services, the support services there will primarily serve the people that work
there, and I could be wrong but that's just my gut feeling so I question the need to put Coulter
Boulevard through at this point in time but I do agree with the wisdom of acquiring the right -of-
way.
Al
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Peterson: Okay. Allyson.
Brooks: I don't really have any other comments except, I think I think I talked about the
archeological site. That's my big thing obviously so, but other than that I thought this study
looked good if we can preserve the archeological site, that's great and the recommendations
made by staff look fine.
Peterson: Okay. I have no further comments either. I think it was a good and thorough report.
With that, may I hear a motion and a second please.
Joyce: I'll make a motion. That the planning staff recommends AUAR be revised to incorporate
the summary issues and mitigation plan contained in the staff report. The revised AUAR be
adopted by the City and also to include in the report that the developer and site user will promote
traffic and land management strategy and also to add that after final delineation of the wetlands,
we revisit the north/south street.
Peterson: Second?
Skubic: Second.
Conrad: Discussion?
Peterson: Discussion. Good point.
Conrad: Why is Coulter Boulevard in the City Council's court? We have said we wanted it,
haven't we?
Aanenson: They're the legislative body. They ultimately make the final decision. Traffic,
engineering strongly supports it. Planning supports it. It's the same reason we have the north
side of Highway 5, that east/west connector. I think out of deference to the Park and Rec's
Commission's findings, that they wanted to...
Conrad: So basically they've got our input saying we want it.
Aanenson: Park and Rec, that's.
Conrad: Park and Rec saying no.
Aanenson: Correct. They just want to study it a little bit more, that issue.
Conrad: Okay.
Peterson: Any other discussion?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the AUAR
be revised to incorporate the summary of issues and mitigation plan contained in the staff
report and that the revised AUAR be adopted by the City. Also to include that the
developer and site user will promote traffic and land management strategy and that after
final delineation of the wetlands, the Planning Commission revisit the north /south street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS - REVIEW OF PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
AND STREETSCAPE.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Vernelle Clayton: Thank you. My name is Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Circle here in
Chanhassen. Oh, that's scary. I've not been here since we have that. We have a couple other
folks here with us. Tim O'Brien, who works with Mika Milo, our architect and Kathy Ryan who
is with BRW. Dean Olson whom you have all, most all met is the person in charge of this
project but he had to be out of town tonight. We also have Willy Anderson from the AmericInn
or—and John Siebert is planning to be here, assuming he gets out of the Denver airport in time.
He deplanes here around a little while ago right. I wanted to just briefly go over what we said
our goals were with respect to the landscaping and that was that we would be selecting species
and placing them in such a way that we would reflect and enhance the overall architectural style
of the neotraditional development. We're giving special attention to the materials that were
prevalent at the time of the dominance of this thriving small town in Minnesota's first half
century. ...example that we like to use would be spirea, lilac, hydrangea and so forth. All of
which are still used in modern planting schemes but when placed appropriately will reflect
yesteryears tone. Smaller planting materials will include day lilies, geraniums, tulips, hollyhocks,
and other hardy species from gramma's garden. Larger plant species will focus on materials
naturally occurring in Chanhassen's soils and terrain as well as appropriate decorative material.
Special attention will be given to the edges of parking lots, selecting hedging material that is both
aesthetically pleasing and easily maintained as a screen at an appropriate height. And as with the
architecture that we've chosen, the project will seize upon the benefits of technological advances
in the hybridization and breeding of plant materials with their use and placement within the
landscape of the site will be reminiscent of their earlier youth. I hope that that's what will be
visible once everything is planted and I hope you'll see that it's reflected in what we're going to
be showing you. The ponds are going to be used both as decorative features and as functioning
NURP ponds. Adjacent to each wetland area is a NURP pond. We wanted to dress them up and
use them to our advantage. It's also intended that the plant material be designed so that we have
a limited amount of maintenance. We will be selecting someone who's specializes in wetland
restoration to do both the planting and to provide a maintenance program for the project. There
are some retained trees in and about the ponding area and those, as we mentioned before, will be
cleaned up and groomed so that those that are there can thrive. As you can see now they're kind
of angling in different directions and some kind of spindly. We want to clean them up and make
it so people can walk among them and it will be an added feature. With that I want to show, go
through just a few plans here and you can stop meat any point. Just so you know the scenario
n
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
r
DATE:
MOTION BY:
RESOLUTION NO:
SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ALTERNATE URBAN AREAWIDE
REVIEW FOR GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK AND APPROVING A MITIGATION
PLAN FOR THE GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council authorized the distribution of the Alternate
Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) documents for Steiner Development, Inc. proposed Gateway
Business Park located south of Highway 5, east of Highway 41, and north of West 82n Street;
and
WHEREAS, the project consists of approximately 1.2 million square feet of buildings in
a mix of office, industrial, commercial, and parks and open space on approximately 150 acres;
and
WHEREAS, the AUAR for Gateway Business Park was distributed to all appropriate
review agencies on May 8, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the comment period for the AUAR expired on June 7, 1997 and the city has
received no negative comments; and
WHEREAS, revisions to the AUAR incorporating an issue summary and a specific
mitigation plan were distributed to all appropriate review agencies on June 6, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the city has received no objections to the revised AUAR as of June 18,
1997; and
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 4,
1997 and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the revised AUAR and the mitigation
plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council adopts
the AUAR for Gateway Business Park and approves the mitigation plan for the Gateway
development.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of ,1997.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT