The URL can be used to link to this page

5 AUAR FinalAdoption/Mitig Plan CIT¥0F ~700 Msxet Bou!eva,~ PO Box 147 0 a¢iassen, MN 55317 Administration PI,ms: 952 227~ %x 952 22~ ~110 Building Inspections Engineering Finance PkrP: 9522771140 Fax 952 22X 1110 Park & ~ecrealion Prxa~,, 952 22~i Fax 952 22~!110 2310 06 J~er Boulevard Pr~o~e 952 2271400 tax 952 227 ~404 Planning Natural ~esources hor~c: 952 227 1130 %x 952 227 ~ i0 Public ~orks 159~ Park P ~c,~( 952227 1300 Fax 95222/1310 P ~(;,~( 95222/~125 Fa~ 952227!110 Web Site MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Director DATE: December 2, 2003 {; ~' SUB J: AUAR Final Adoption and Mitigation Plan Insert the attached updated A UAR information into your binder; and discard the old copy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the final action required for the adoption of the AUAR. The last two months of work on the document have been spent responding to comments on the document. The most significant issue to resolve has been MnDOT's request to have double northbound left tums and double southbound left tums onto Powers Boulevard. The city's consultant did not believe that these changes were necessary, but an agreement was reached. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval of the "Resolution Adopting a Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan for the 2005 Metropolitan Urban Services (MUSA)" requires a simple majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 19 and September 2, 2003, to review the proposed document. The Planning Commission recommend approval of the document by a vote of 4-3. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. Resolution Adopting a Final AUAR & Mitigation Plan AUAR Responses to Comments AUAR Comments Planning Commission Minutes dated September 2, 2003 Updated AUAR The City et Chanhassen. A gro¢,sq ,-')lr'}!UUl[V 3 '" 5 , 8ua;, ;'~ ;:; ' ':, CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: December 8, 2003 RESOLUTION NO: 2003- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE 2005 METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICES AREA (MUSA) WHEREAS, on August 11, 2003, the City of Chanhassen, acting as the official Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) approved Resolution 2003-70, an Order for Review requesting the initiation of an AUAR for the 2005 MUSA; and, WHEREAS, on August 19, 2003 the City of Chanhassen held a public informational meeting to obtain public comments on the August 13, 2003 Draft AUAR environmental analysis document; and, WHEREAS, on August 19, 2003 and September 2, 2003, the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission reviewed the August 13, 2003 Draft AUAR environmental analysis document; and, WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen prepared the September 1 i, 2003 Draft AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan for the 2005 MUSA based on input received from the public and Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the September 11, 2003 Draft AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan was distributed in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures and published in the EQB Monitor on September 15, 2003 for review and comment; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the Draft AUAR environmental analysis document was published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 11, 2003; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of the 30 day review period, as prescribed by Minnesota Rules, ending October 15, 2003, a revised AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan was prepared based on comments received; and, WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen distributed the revised AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan for the 2005 MUSA in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures; and, WHEREAS, no objections to the revised AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan were filed with the City of Chanhassen within the 10 day objection period as prescribed by Minnesota Rules. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen hereby adopts the Final AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan for the 2005 MUSA. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, this 8th day of December, 2003. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager YES Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor NO ABSENT CITYOF ?0 ~o~ 147 ~on~ gsz 227 F~X q ~ ~ Building Inspe~ions Engineering ~ ~r~ 952 ~27 F~ 952 227A170 Phone 952 2271140 ~ & Re~alion Fax 952 227 li!O P~o~e 952 227 Fa, 952 227 1404 ialuBI Resoumes Phorle 952227.! 1~ Fax 952 22T !~10 Publl~ Wo~ Senio~ Center Fax 952 227 1! ~0 Web Site To Whom It May Concern: From: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, City of Chanhassen Date: November 17, 2003 Subject: Chanhassen Alternate Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) 2005 Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) The City of Chanhassen appreciates your comments on the Draft AUAR document. A response document that addresses comments received during the 30 day review period is attached for your review. The response document includes a summary of the specific questions/comments received from reviewing bodies and a response that either clarifies the information in the document or identifies how the document has been revised to address any particular question or comment. The Chanhassen City Council will review the Final AUAR document at its December 8, 2003 meeting. If you should have any additional comments or questions, please contact me. Ms. Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317. kaanenson @ci.chanhassen.mn.us CHANHASSEN 2005 ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) COMMENT RESPONSES: This is summary document of agency and individual comments/questions regarding the September ! 1, 2003 Draft A UAR. Metropolitan Council 1. Item 6- Description. crossings. Combine the east-west connector and pedestrian Bluff Creek Response: Minimizing bridge crossings is a goal of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan to reduce impacts on lands within the primary zone. Although this project cannot influence T.H. 212/312 roadway scenarios, it does consider land use, transportation, and ecological issues in recommending a single roadway and pedestrian crossing. The City was under the impression that the existing crossing over the west arm of Bluff Creek would be utilized. The City will continue to work with Mn/DOT and Carver County to evaluate the feasibility of minimizing bridge crossings. The east-west collector connecting Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard is a necessity to help alleviate traffic congestion at the Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard intersection as well as roadways on the periphery of the project area. The pedestrian bridge will link a potential future school building to a joint school/city ballfield/park. By linking the two areas, there are greater opportunities to reduce the need to build additional parking areas to serve the ballfield/park, reduce impervious surface and reduce surface water runoff. Item 11 - Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. The south tributary of Bluff Creek merits protection similar to that of the main creek. The final AUAR should provide estimates of the existing wooded/forest areas and estimate the amount after the project is fully developed. Detailed information should be provided as to where the wooded/forest will be removed and any proposed mitigation areas. Response: The south tributary is protected by the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone to the same extent as the main branch of the creek (see Figure 12 - Zoning Map). There are approximately 53 acres of mature woodlands, all of which, except for 3 acres, are included in the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone. A number of less significant wooded areas are located in the project area, the large majority of which are located within the Primary Zone. The City would anticipate protection of lands within the Primary Zone through tools such as conservation zoning, conservation easements, public purchase, cluster development, transfer of development rights and public dedication. Item 12 - Physical Impacts on Water Resources. We request that the final document clarify what specific functions and values differentiate the five wetland types presented on Figure 17. Council staff suggests that the final document provide a clearer presentation of basins that will be constructed to pre-treat storm water, and differing quality natural wetlands that either will or will not receive flow-regulated and pre-treated storm water. Chanhassen 2005 A UAR - Comment Responses Page I ofll Response: The current Surface Water Management Plan identifies the functions and values attributed to the wetlands within the AUAR are defined in Chapter IV of the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP classification scheme compared existing conditions to those contained in a reference standard wetland (MnRAM 2.0, as defined by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)). The City's classification criteria are as follows: Wetlands, Natural Natural wetlands are still in their natural state and typically show little sign of impact from surrounding land usage. The vegetative community(ies) of these wetlands are characterized by a diversity of plant species with mixed dominance of species. Other key factors include: presence of natural indicator species, good wildlife habitat, and (is) sic aesthetically pleasing. Wetlands, Pristine Wetland that exist in a natural state and have special and unusual qualities worth protecting at a high level are called Pristine. These qualities include: outstanding vegetative community, native species populations, rare or unusual species present, and habitat for rare wildlife species. Agricultural/Urban Wetland that have been influenced by agricultural or urban (residential, commercial, or industrial) land usage are called Agricultural/Urban. Influences include: excessive nutrient loading, soil erosion and sedimentation, and water quality degredation. As a result of these influences, there is a loss of plant species diversity, overcrowding and domination by invasive species such as reed canary grass, and reduction in wildlife habitat. Utilized Utilized water bodies created for the specific purpose of surface water runoff retention and/or water quality improvements. These water bodies are not to be classified as wetlands even if they take on wetland characteristics. Wetland alteration permits shall not be required to undertake work on these waterbodies. Figure 17 was included in the document to represent the current surface water management strategy for the AUAR area as represented in the City of Chanhassen "Surface Water Management Plan" dated February 1994. The City acknowledges that the plan is not consistent with current statutes and requirements identified and represented by Figure 17. Figure 17 does not necessarily represent current surface water management techniques but may be used as a basis to address pre-treatment in future updates. Chanhassen 2005 A UAR- Comment Responses Page 2 ofl 1 The City of Chanhassen intends to update their surface water management plan as soon as reasonable to comply with appropriate governing agency requirements. Specific development proposals will be reviewed by the City when submitted, and compliance with current Mn/PCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) requirements for storm water quantity control, quality treatment, and wetland protection will be required. In the interim, the Mitigation Plan will provide the basis for addressing surface water issues. 4. Item 16 - Erosion and Sedimentation. Specify a natural vegetation buffer width around all wetlands. Response: The required wetland buffers are specified in section 20-406 of the Chanhassen City Code. Widths based on the City's classification of the wetland (utilized, agricultural/urban, natural and pristine) are identified in the following table: Wetland Type Pristine Natural Ag/Urban !Utilized Principal and Accessory 100' 40' measured from the outside40' measured from the outside0' Structure Setback edge of the buffer strip edge of the buffer strip Buffer Strip 20--100' 10--30' 0--20' 0' Buffer Strip Minimum Average50' 20' 10' 0' Width % of Native Vegetation in Entire Entire Optional Optional Buffer Strip o Flexibility is also given to buffer widths to respond to the quality of the wetland, local topographic conditions, and the type and design of development being proposed. Item 17 - Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff. The Council recommends that as the storm water runoff plan for the AUAR site is developed, that it incorporate low-impact development storm water retention techniques wherever possible, to maximize on-site infiltration of storm water and minimize the size of necessary storm water treatment basins. Response: The City will further investigate standards for implementation of these best management practices. The AUAR Mitigation Plan provides additional information to address this question. Item 25 - Sensitive Resources. Suggest that local trails be provided to connect to the Carver County Regional Trail (along Hwy. 101). Response: The City's Trail Plan shows future Lyman Boulevard and Pioneer Road trail connections to the Carver County Regional Trail. Chanhassen 2005 A UAR - Comment Responses Page 3 of 11 Mitch Anderson, Chaska Resident 1. Traffic and Noise Related Concerns. Scenarios E-I and E-2 show Butternut intersection at LOS E and F. Concerned about affects on cut-through traffic on Autumn Woods and Ironwood Drive as a result of long intersection delays. Response: The Level of Service (LOS) concerns for scenario E-I at Audubon/Butternut represents existing conditions and is not an outcome of new development in the AUAR area. The Level of Service (LOS) concerns for scenario E-2 representing partial development in TAZ 2 and 3 for the Audubon/Butternut intersection, are not specific to all intersection movements. The directional movements of specific concern for delay are: i. Westbound on the east-west collector attempting to proceed either southbound (left-turn) on Audubon, or continue through the intersection and on to Butternut Drive. ii. Eastbound on Butternut Drive approaching Audubon and attempting to proceed either northbound (left-turn) on Audubon, or continue through the intersection and on to the east-west collector. The AUAR describes four proposed mitigation strategies that are responsive to LOS concerns at the Audubon/Butternut intersection. The concern regarding cut-through traffic is a concern generated as a result of queuing from the Audubon/Pioneer intersection. Traffic proceeding south or west at Pioneer from Audubon experiences delay making a potential cut-through at Autumn Woods or Butternut/Ironwood Drive a consideration. We do not expect the amount of cut-through traffic to increase significantly as a result of trips generated from the AUAR area due to the discontinuous nature of the route through the neighborhoods. A mitigation measure to be considered is to review the signal timing and optimization of the phasing at the Pioneer Trail/Audubon Road intersection as described in the AUAR mitigation plan. 2. Traffic Generation Estimates. Believes the Town and Country proposal understates the traffic impacts by 1700 trips. Response: The AUAR question #21 - Traffic, and the complete Traffic Analysis report contained in Appendix 5 have been updated and revised. The traffic trip generation tables, and associated figures in the September 11, 2003 Draft assumed 389 units. Revisions have been made to reflect the approved Town and Country Homes Concept Plan which include 540 attached housing units in TAZ 2 and 3. The difference between the September and revised drafts would be 152 housing units. Project Magnitude Data (Table 7.1) and Table 21.1 reflect these new assumptions. There are also very minor rounding adjustments that are reflected in the Project Magnitude Data. 3. Noise Impact. Believes the AUAR should address noise impacts and mitigation measures on existing neighborhoods. Chanhassen 2005 A UAR - Comment Responses Page 4 of 11 Response: City recognizes that noise is a concern for existing development. However, the AUAR is not required to nor can it address all potential concerns. The City may not require mitigation measures outside its jurisdiction. City notes that AUAR contains noise contour distances that show the extent of potential traffic noise impacts based on the best available information at the time the AUAR was published. This information addresses a portion of this comment. City believes it is more appropriate to evaluate impacts and mitigation as each development inside the project area progresses through the planning and approval process. In accordance with MN Rules Chapter 7030.0030, and as stated above, City may require a traffic noise analysis for each development proposed for the AUAR project area. Such noise analyses will benefit from project-specific traffic details that do not exist at this time. Traffic Mitigation. Proposes the following strategies for traffic mitigation on Audubon. · Delay the Town and Country development until more of the internal street infrastructure is in place including the east-west collector and the extension to Powers. · Relocate the Town and County development to a parcel on the northeast side of the MUSA area, which will have far better access to TH 212/312, Highway 5, Downtown Chanhassen and SW Metro Transit. · Update TAZ 2 and 3 traffic estimates to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Development Scenario. · Create additional development scenarios that provide at least "minimum acceptable" level of service for intersections within and adjacent tot the development area. Response: Comments are so noted. Environmental Concerns · Secondary School site - A school siting at this location in the Bluff Creek Overlay District is not consistent with the goals of the Secondary Zone. Response: The Land Use section of the City's Comprehensive Plan (page 10), states, "District 112 is seeking three additional school sites. The following sites have been identified as potential school sites 1) the Eckankar site, 2) northwest corner of Hwys. 5 and 41, and 3) south of Lyman and east of Bluff Creek." Further input from District 112 identifies the Degler property in the study area as a potential site. Although the land use designation is Office Industrial/Park and Open Space, it is prudent for this study to consider the possibility of a school facility. A school facility is likely to have similar building and hardcover impacts as an office industrial development and, as identified in question #21 - Traffic, would have higher traffic impacts. Low-impact development practices, such as density clustering, infiltration techniques and storm water "treatment trains", will help to mitigate the effects of increased localized impervious surface percentages. In addition, ancillary land uses will be sited to optimize the use of space away from the Bluff Creek corridor. Chanhassen 2005 A UAR - Comment Responses Page 5 ofll Larkin Hoffman 1. The property located at the southeast corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard is better suited to a neighborhood commercial designation. 2. The property located west of the TH 212/312 interchange with Lyman Boulevard is better suited for neighborhood commercial, medical or general office use. 3. Request that the east-west collector street be funded with a number of financing sources and not a heavy reliance on special assessments. Response: The AUAR process is structured to model adopted plans and policies. Changes to plans and policies are at the discretion of the City through other processes, but not the AUAR. Minnesota Department of Transportation 1. Mn/DOT will be acquiring additional right-of-way for floodplain mitigation on the north side of Pioneer Trail and the west side of Powers Boulevard extension. Response: Right of Way known as being acquired by Mn/DOT as depicted in mapping provided by Mn/DOT is shown on all relevant exhibits. This area was also removed from all developable land area calculations. If Mn/DOT is pursuing additional land for flood mitigation not represented on current exhibits, it would further reduce available developable land and therefore reduce development impacts. 2. Detailed hydraulic computations for development proposals will be needed as they relate to TH 212/312. Drainage permits may also be required. Response: The City will require conformance to all Mn/DOT permit requirements and submittals for any development impacting Mn/DOT Right of Way as specific development plans are received. Direct connections to the TH 212/312 Powers ramp terminals need special treatment and criteria approved by Mn/DOT. Local street connections will be prohibited within 660 feet from the Powers intersections. Response: As noted in the Mn/DOT comments, the east-west collector is intended and shown to meet Mn/DOT's requirements for access at Powers Blvd. The cul de sac on the south side of TH 212 at Powers Blvd serving TAZ 5 does not meet Mn/DOT's criteria as noted. It is proposed to relocate this cul de sac entrance to TAZ 5 south 660 feet to meet Mn/DOT's criteria. This is illustrated on Figure 19 in the AUAR report. The Powers Boulevard bridge over TH 212/312 should be sized to provide dual turn lanes for southbound Powers Boulevard to eastbound TH 212/312 traffic. This would require an additional turn lane from the original traffic analysis. Response: The Highway Capacity Manual recommends that dual left-turn lanes be installed when volumes exceed 300 vehicles per hour. The projected traffic at this intersection for the full build out scenario (Scenario F-2) indicates left-turn volumes Chanhassen 2005 A UAR - Comment Responses Page 6 of I 1 exceed the 300 vehicles per hour threshold; however, the installation of dual left-turn lanes is not always the optimal situation and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Although it may be typical for Mn/DOT to require that dual left- turn lanes be provided when left-turn volumes exceed 300 vehicles per hour, proposed operational conditions at the Powers Boulevard/TH212/312 ramp do not necessitate this provision. Based on the proposed configuration of this intersection combined with the low volume of opposing and side street traffic volumes, the southbound left-turn volumes can be served by a single lane and signalized timing. Signals will likely be needed at the TH 212/312 Powers ramp soon after development occurs and should be planned for and installed at the same time as TH 212/312 construction. Response: It is generally agreed that signals will be needed at some future date for both TH 212/312-Powers Blvd ramp termini. We concur that Mn/DOT should plan for the installation of these signals in their project planning efforts for TH 212/312. This could include the installation of signal system conduit to avoid future roadway construction disruption. As noted in the draft mitigation plan for Scenario F-2 (full AUAR build out) we recommend that the installation and activation of the signal system occur dependent upon the timing of the development, and meeting signal warrants as outlined in the Minnesota Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MMUTCD). The east-west collector should be coordinated by the City so it opens concurrently with TH 212/312. Congestion issues on Lyman and Powers Boulevard will result if it doesn't open concurrently. Response: As noted in the AUAR, the un-signalized intersection at existing Powers/Lyman will operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) for both the existing (Scenario E-l) and initial development (Scenario E-2). The mitigation plan for Scenario E-2 recommends that prior to construction of any additional TAZ's adjacent to the east- west collector road, it is recommended that the Collector Road be extended to Powers Blvd. The AUAR recommends that new Powers Blvd between Lyman Blvd and Pioneer Trail will require a four lane section with right and left turn lanes at the intersection with Lyman Blvd. The AUAR further recommends that when signal warrants are met, the Powers Blvd/Lyman Blvd intersection will need to be signalized prior to the full build out of the proposed AUAR development. 7. Any use of or work within the Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Response: All appropriate permits will be required of development. Chanhasse. 2005 A UAR- Comment Responses Page 7 of l l Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1. Encourage the incorporation of vegetated swales and rain gardens into the storm water management plan. Response: Consideration will be made during development reviews. Town and Country Homes 1. Generally - Concerned about the timing of proposed public improvements, costs associated with future assessments, the parcel breakdown of housing units and access to the Jeurissen property. Response: It is not appropriate to address assessment policy within the AUAR Report. The City will use its assessment policy to determine breakdown of improvement costs. Further questions should be directed to the City. Timing and access concerns are addressed in items #3 and 8 below. 2. Development Scenario, page 13 second paragraph - Provide basis for determining the greatest impact land use category when over lapping designations occur. Response: The Land Use Plan identifies overlapping designations for medium and low density residential land uses and medium density residential and office uses. The AUAR assumes modeling of the "worst case" development scenario (i.e. - traffic impacts, density/intensity). When an overlapping low/medium density is identified, medium density is used. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies a 50/50 split of medium density and office industrial uses in the southwestern portion of the project area. The AUAR modeling acknowledges this split, showing the Town and Country Homes concept plan adjacent to Audubon Road and office industrial for the remainder of this land use area. 3. How will infrastructure improvements be scheduled? Response: Infrastructure improvements are, generally, development driven. This area becomes eligible for urban services in 2005. Property owners may undertake infrastructure improvements as part of their development, or may petition for a public improvement. Trunk sewer and water service will require construction of major facilities. Specifically, water main extensions along Lyman Boulevard and Audubon Road would need to be constructed to serve the Town and Country Homes proposal. Sanitary sewer service would be provided from trunk extensions from Lift Station #24 into the project area. The city's subdivision ordinance states that development is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of dedicated and improved public streets. Chanhassen 2005 A UAR - Comment Responses Page 8 of l I c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems and not ISTS (individual sewer treatment system). d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Feasibility studies to determine the scope, schedule, costs, and funding sources of these projects will need to be undertaken. The AUAR report is not equipped to address the manner by which the City will undertake a feasibility study or construct improvements. Given that development within the AUAR project area may want to begin in the southern portion of the developable area, away from utilities, the City will need to be more proactive in planning for these public utility and roadway projects than if development were to commence along Lyman Boulevard or more proximate to public infrastructure. 4. How is the MDR/LDR category accommodated in the development acres in Table 7.1 ? Response: The AUAR assumes the maximum density of the medium density residential (MDR) category (8.0 units per acre) when there is the opportunity for land to develop at low or medium residential densities. 5. Reference to need for EAW/EIS in Table 8.1 could be misleading. Response: Reference to EAW/EIS in Table 8.1 will be removed. 6. Does Wetland A have ecological integrity (p. 22) or is it substantially impacted by cultivation and siltation (p. 25)? Response: Wetland A was impacted by agricultural land uses and exhibits evidence of accumulated soil erosion, nutrient loading and is dominated by invasive or pioneering plant species. Only two wetlands on the Town and Country site exhibit any degree of ecological integrity. Wetland C is a high quality wetland surrounded by upland maple/basswood forest. Wetland B is located along the Bluff Creek Floodplain and does exhibit a high quality plant community along portions of the basin. Page 22 should be revised to read: "Wetland C also exhibits abundant ecological integrity with several different wetland types including a closed-canopy forested and shrub/scrub wetland with considerable habitat value for forest and swamp wildlife species." Page 25 is correct, wetland A is degraded. 7. How does the traffic report data for TAZ 2 and 3 showing a housing unit count of 389 relate to the approved concept plan of 540 units? Response: The revised traffic study includes the 540 housing units identified in the approved Town and Country Homes Concept Plan which are located in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) 2 and 3. Chanhassen 2005 A UAR - Comment Responses Page 9 of l l 8. There are no transportation connections to the Jeurissen property which may leave it land-locked. Response: The AUAR Development Scenario identifies an east-west collector as a possible internal roadway alignment to connect Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard. External roadway connections were determined by Carver County, which required an alignment with an existing roadway on Audubon Road, and Mn/DOT, which required alignment with the north TH 212/312 ramp at Powers Boulevard. The AUAR also made general assessments about environmental and physical impacts of a Bluff Creek bridge crossing. Connections of the east-west collector to any individual property were considered but were not specifically addressed in the AUAR as individual property holdings and development scenarios are difficult to hypothesize within the scope of this report. The City will need to review and coordinate access and circulation issues as development proposals are submitted. Mn/DOT, as the lead agency for the TH 212/312 project, is also obligated to address property severances and access issues as property for right-of-way is purchased for roadway purposes. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1. Noise - City should review the noise impact analysis to see if complies with Minnesota Rule 7030.0030. Response: Comment noted. The City will review the referenced chapter of the state rules. The City may require a traffic noise analysis for each development proposed in the AUAR project area on a case-by-case basis based on applicable Minnesota Rules as such development occurs. 2. Sanitary Sewer - Sanitary sewer extension permits will be required from MPCA and MCES. So noted. All required permits will be required of development. 3. Storm Sewer - A construction storm water permit would also be required under NPDES Phase II regulations. So noted. All required permits will be required of development. Air Quality - Air quality modeling is based on a repealed Minnesota Rule and this section is incomplete. AUAR will need to provide an analysis on applicability to the Federal Transportation Conformity rules. Response: The air quality screening procedure used was developed by Mn/DOT in accordance with federal Transportation Conformity rules. The validity of this screening procedure does not depend on the existence or non-existence of Minnesota's ISP rules. Furthermore, if a screening or modeling procedure is technically or scientifically valid, it does not become technically invalid due to a change in laws or rules. Chanhassen 2005 A UAR - Comment Responses Page 10 ofll The project will not receive federal funding, is not subject to federal Transportation Conformity rules, and therefore, does not require any analysis pursuant to these rules. clarifying statement to this effect will be inserted into the AUAR. A Chanhassen 2005 A UAR - Comment Responses Page 11 r~fll AUAR Comments Metropolitan Council Building communities that work November 26, 2003 Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Re: City of Chanhassen - AUAR Metropolitan Urban Service Area Response to Comments Metropolitan Council District 4 Review File No. 19028-1 Dear Ms. Aanenson: Metropolitan Council staff reviewed the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) dated September 11, 2003, and found that the AUAR is complete and accurate within the meaning of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The Metropolitan Council received the City of Chanhassen 2005 Metropolitan Urban Service Area AUAR on September 15, 2003. The project consists of approximately 624 acres, and will develop in a variety of land uses including low and medium density residential, office, office/industrial, park/open space, and institutional. Total developable land within this area is slightly more than 350 acres, and will accommodate nearly 1,500 residential units, and about 700,000 square feet of office and industrial uses. Council staff conducted a review of this AUAR to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns and its potential for significant environmental impact. Comments were offered concerning specific items in the AUAR. On November 19, 2003 the Council received the City's response to comments received on the AUAR. Council staff have reviewed the responses, and have no additional comments on the document. Thank you for providing an additional opportunity to comment on the AUAR prior to the City acting on the Final AUAR. If we can be of assistance to the City, or if you have questions regarding this review, please contact Tom Caswell, Sector Representative at 651-602-1319. Sincerely, Phyllis l~/'anson, Manager Planning and Technical Assistance Cc: Julius Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4 Ann Beckman, Acting Director of Planning and Growth Management Tom Caswell, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Cheryl Olsen, Rel'errals Coordinator Mi'lro II,lo I,ilt(' {302 1888 230 [d;tst I-'ifth Str~'¢'l · SI. P~ml. Mimlcso(;~ 55101 1(¢26 · {651} 602 1000 · P';~x {;()2 1550 ° rrl~ 291 0904 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edeco 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 551 ~5 November 25, 2003 Ms. Kate Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Chanhassen AUAR Mn/DOT Review # AUAR #03-007 Northwest of Pioneer Trail (County Road 14) and proposed TH 212/312 Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section NA Dear Ms. Aanenson: Thank you for providing the Mn/DOT Metro District with the City of Chanhassen AUAR 2005 Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) Response Document dated November 17, 2003. We concur with all of the City's responses except for Response Number Four (4.). The comments that follow all pertain to Response Number 4.: Mn/DOT Metro District Traffic staff have reviewed the Kimley-Hom traffic model "runs" and Mn/DOT staff modeled again the tbrecast data using SYNCHRO. The Mn/DOT analysis demonstrated the need for Double Left Turn Lanes, providing for movements from northbound Powers Boulevard to the westbound east-west collector (the collector which is to be constructed). In addition, the Mn/DOT analysis also demonstrated that double left turn lanes are also needed on southbound Powers Boulevard, providing lbr movements onto eastbound Trunk Highway (TH) 212/312. The westbound TH 212/312 off-ramp lane geometry should include two (2) through lanes, which is consistent with the Mn/DOT model "runs" demonstrating a need for double left turn lanes on north bound Powers Boulevard to the east west collector. Mn/DOT Metro District will apply the Mn/DOT Cost Participation Policy for the geometric changes needed to the Powers Boulevard ramp terminal. To summarize this policy, we propose to pay the cost of the Powers Boulevard bridge over TH 212/312, including the extra width needed for the Double Left Turn Lanes. The City will be responsible ibr funding the roadway approach construction on Powers Boulevard and on the ramps where additional width is needed for the additional lanes. If you have questions on any of these points, or would like to discuss this further, please contact me at (651) 582-1340. An oquai o~39ortunity employe~* Ms. Kate Aanenson Page 2 November 25, 2003 As a reminder, for new development activity, such as plats and site plans located elsewhere in the City, please send those documents to: Development Review Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Jon ~'higlo / TH~ 212 Desil~ Mn/DOT Metro District Build Project Manager Enclosures: - Map showing current geometric layout for TH 212 Design - Build - City of Chanhassen Draft AUAR Response Document dated Nov. 17, 2003, Cover Page, and pages 6 of 11, and 7 of 11, of that document. Copy: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Brad Scheib, Hoisington Koelger Group, Inc. Gary Ehret, Kimley Horn and Associates November 4, 2003 Ms. Kate Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Draft Chanhassen AUAR Chanhassen, Carver County SHPO Number: 2003-3868 Dear Ms. Aanenson: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the draft AUAR document for the above referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given to the Minne- sota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act and through the process outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1600. We appreciate the discussion of cultural resource issues under question 25a, and the accompanying study report. We concur with the recommendation that further archaeological survey of the development parcel is needed, and we look forward to reviewing the results of such survey. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. Contact us at 651-296-5462 with questions or concerns. Sincerely, Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs & Compliance Officer cc: Anne Ketz, The 106 Group Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Via Facsimile October l 5, 2003 Ms. Kate Aanenson 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Comments on the September 11, 2003, Draft Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Dear Ms. Aanenson: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has conducted a revmw of the September 11, 2003, Draft Chanhassen AUAR prepared by the City of Chanhassen (City). The MPCA is providing the following comments regarding the AUAR and the proposed project: Noise A review of the nose section of the AUAR (page 38 and Appendix 6) includes a discussion of the potential noise impacts to receptors in light of the proposed development and land use changes. The MPCA urges the City to review the following provision of state law: Minn. R. 7030.0030 Noise Control Requirement Any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in any location where the standards established in part 7030.0040 will be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use. This section pertains to the development of land, specifically the development of land from an area with no noise limit or a less restrictive noise limit. The purpose of this section is to discourage the practice of developing land that has a high existing noise level to a use that is sensitive to noise. For example, re-zoning cropland next to a highway to a residential land use would likely fall into this category as this activity could expose residential receptors to noise levels that exceed the State of Minnesota noise rules. The City should review the noise impact analysis for this project in light of the existing state noise regulations. 520 Lafayette Rd. N,; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY) St. Paul · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar; www. pca.state.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer · Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Ms. Kate Aanenson Page 3 October 15, 2003 The AUAR should provide an analysis on the applicability of the Transportation Conformity rules and take the appropriate action if it is determined that the rules apply to the project. Conversely, if the federal Transportation Conformity rules do not apply, the discussion should be included in the AUAR. Please feel free to contact Innocent Eyoh, MPCA Saint Paul Office, at (651) 296-7739 to discuss the applicable regulations and guidance to complete the air quality analysis for this project. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (651) 297-1788. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Chanhassen AUAR. Sincerely, ~/~ ~~s E. Sullivan Project Manager Environmental Review Unit Regional Environmental Management Division JES:mln TOWN & d RY HOMES Minnesota Division October 15, 2003 Ms. Kate Aanenson 7700 Market Bivd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Comments regarding 2005 MUSA Area AUAR Dear Ms. Aanenson: Town & Country Homes, and our consultant, Westwood Professional Services, reviewed the draft AUAR for the 2005 MUSA area. The attachment represents a combination of our comments. We agree with the validity of the study methods used to determine the development scenario, which follows the current land use plan. Our overall concems are not with the inventory of issues discussed, but with the timing of proposed public improvements, costs associated with future assessments (division between city and private costs), the parcel breakdown of housing units, and access to the Jeurissen property. Westwood expressed some concern for lack o[ information pe,'taining to typical questions posed in an EAW not included with this document. This may be due to the comprehensive Bluff Creek Overlay Plan that addresses many environmental issues as well. Please contact me at 952-253-0448 if you have any questions. Sincerely, '-(~..,r_.~¢.~ ~ L4.,,'~'~~ KriSta R. Flemming Projed Manager- Land Development 7()15 qlI1CI;./I1A I ~tllC, qltilC 1¢0 ~' [:_dCIl Prairie, MN 55 )44 t052) c)44 1455 · I:0. x (t)52) t}44 ~,4~7 bin I:htildcr I iccnsc ¢91~7 Page 2 October 15, 2003 Comments regarding the Chanhassen 2005 MUSA area AUAR: o ° o o Page 13. Second paragraph of the Development Scenario. It states that where land use categories are shown to overlap in the land use plan, the one generating the greatest impact was used. There needs to be additional infom~ation somewhere suggesting support for this development scenario as the future development scenario, if it is indeed supported. It appears that the Bemardi concept approval and school site location are impacting the land use designation on the Peterson property, not the greatest traffic impact land use, as suggested. The scenario seems valid, but may need more clarification and/or endorsement. Page 14. Development Staging indicates the anticipation of development starting in the southwesterly portion of the MUSA expansion area. How does this affect the city's infrastructure development schedule with unknown development timing on private land? Table 7.1, Page 17, identifies total net developable acres associated with each land use. The Medium Density Residential is limited to 66 acres, which seems low in comparison to the areas of designation including the Bemardi, Jeurissen, and a small comer of Peterson. It may accommodate for these numbers in the MDR/LDR category, but this isn't clear. It is also confusing to note a maximum intensity of development of 8 du/acre for the MDR/LDR category? Table 8.1, page 19, should delete the reference to an EAW/EIS review. This may imply that an EAW or EIS will need to be part of the AUAR. Page 22 & 25. The last sentence on page 22 states that Wetland A exhibits ecological integrity. Page 25 states that Wetland A has been substantially affected by cultivation and siltation. These two comments seem to contradict each other. Section 2.2 of the Kimley-Hom traffic report. Table 1 - Land Use identifies Town and Country in TAZ 2&3 having a total unit count of 389 units. The approved concept plan was for 540 units. After applying zoning issues to a detailed site plan, it may not reach 540 units originally proposed, but 389 seems low considering the land use plan. Neither TAZ 4 or 6 seem to address any MFDU for the Jeurissen property, as it is guided. Kimley-Hom traffic report - Figure 2. There are no indications of transportation connections proposed or suggested to the Jeurissen property. It appears there could be an eventual connection to the east-west collector, but the current configuration leaves the parcel "land-locked" until other property develops, which isn't the case with any other parcels in the study area. October 15, 2003 Ms. Kate Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Kate, Herein you will find my comments regarding the Draft AUAR for the 2005 MUSA. Thank you for addressing these comments in the final publication of the document. Traffic and Noise Related Concerns Audubon/Butternut Intersection Increased traffic on Audubon is a primary concern of the residents of the Autumn Woods and Shadow Wood neighborhoods. The AUAR points out the deficiencies along Audubon, particularly at the Butternut intersection. The impact of the Town & Country PUD is clearly more than a "minor inconvenience" as the quality of service associated with that intersection goes from F/E (Scenario E-l, table 21.4) to F/F (Scenario E-2). From the study itself, Level of Service (LOS) F is "characterized by long vehicle delay". It is interesting to note that LOS D, considered the minimum acceptable LOS at an intersection, is not anticipated in any Scenario. In effect, the AUAR predicts failure in all Scenarios without providing any real mitigation, other than the possibility for signalization in the future. Further, the consultant with Kimley-Horn, in his remarks to the Chanhassen Planning Commission, indicated that a stoplight may not be a good solution as it could create additional congestion problems along Audubon. That congestion may well drive increased cut-through traffic on Autumn Woods Drive and Ironwood Drive. This is a problem today and a primary safety concern of all residents. Trip Generation Estimates I believe the impact of the T&C PUD is understated in the AUAR, perhaps significantly. Table 21.1 (Trip Generation Estimates) identifies Traffic Analysis Zones 2 & 3 as being mixed Single-Family and Light Industrial when in fact the land uses guided by the City's Comprehensive Plan and the T&C PUD call for Medium Density housing and Office Industrial in those zones. There are no overlapping single-family uses guided by the Comp Plan in either TAZ 2 or 3. If the T&C PUD (540 units) were modeled correctly in TAZ 2 & 3, the number of daily trips would be -5400. When compared to the 3700 daily trips used in the study, the result is that daily traffic is understated by 1700 trips. That is a significant difference and by itself warrants further investigation of the actual traffic impacts. Noise Impact The AUAR predicts noise levels exceeding MPCA maximums for residences along Audubon between Pioneer Trail and Butternut in both daytime and nighttime hours. While mitigation is possible for new development in the MUSA area (berms, etc.), the AUAR does not address mitigation of impacts to existing neighborhoods. While not required, I believe the AUAR should address these concerns and impacts to neighboring communities and propose appropriate mitigations. These mitigations could include modeling a change in the speed limit on Audubon, reduction in traffic volumes, changes to road surfaces, etc. Traffic Mitigation The Town & Country PUD is a medium density development and will generate more than 20% of all traffic estimated in the AUAR. I strongly believe Chanhassen should address the traffic generated by the development prior to approval of the PUD. I would like to suggest that several strategies could be employed to achieve this objective and reduce the strain on Audubon: 1. Delay the T&C development until more of the internal street infrastructure is in place, including the E/W collector and the extension to Powers. 2. Relocate the T&C development to a parcel on the North East side of the MUSA area, which will have far better access to TH 212/312, Highway 5, Downtown Chanhassen and SW Metro Transit. 3. Update TAZ 2 & 3 traffic estimates to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Development Scenario. 4. Create additional development scenarios that provide at least "minimum acceptable" level of service for intersections within and adjacent to the development area. Environmental Concerns Secondary School Site The property for the proposed Middle/High School is entirely within the Secondary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District (ref Figure 12 - Zoning Map and Fig 14 AUAR Development Scenario). From the AUAR, the Secondary Zone "is a management zone where limited development is recommended and would be achieved through conservation measures to balance the ecosystem. Conservation areas, impervious surface reductions and land stewardship are high priorities in this zone." Schools are large and require significant parking capacity. This kind of land use, with a high percentage of hard cover, is not consistent with the goals of the Secondary zone. The demands for athletic fields would also necessitate extensive grading in the Primary as well as Secondary Bluff Creek Overlay District zones. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding these concerns or proposed mitigations. Very best regards, Mitch Anderson 2853 Timberview Trail Chaska, MN 55318 952 368-9585 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 RosevJlle, MN 55113 October 14, 2003 Ms. Kate Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Chanhassen AUAR - Mn/DOT Review # AUAR #03-007 Northwest of Pioneer Trail (County Road 14) and proposed TH 212/312 Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section NA Dear Ms. Aanenson: Thank you for submitting the Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) dated September 12, 2003 for Mn/DOT Metro District review. We offer the following comments with respect to the draft AUAR: Mn/DOT will be acquiring additional Right of Way from this property for flood plain mitigation on the north side of Pioneer Trail, and the west side of the new Powers Boulevard extension. For questions on this point, please contact Harold Larson, Mn/DOT Metro District Right of Way Office, at (651) 582-1267. Detailed hydraulic computations will be needed to support specific development proposals for this area, including narratives, and schematic drawings that depict how proposed projects relate to Trunk Highway (TH) 212/312. Drainage permits may be required; determinations on drainage permit needs will await Mn/DOT Metro District's receipt and review of specific development plans. For questions on these points, please call Don Berre, Mn/DOT Metro District Water Resource Engineering, at (651) 634-2406. Direct connections to the TH 212/312 Powers ramp terminals need special treatment and must meet certain criteria in order to be approved by Mn/DOT. The roadway must provide good connections to the local street system such that through trips can be accommodated at reasonable speeds. Accesses should be prohibited on local streets within 660 (six hundred and sixty) feet of the Powers intersections. The East - West Collector (across from the Powers ramps) appears to meet this criteria, while the roadway connection to the south Powers ramps does not. The roadway connection to the south Powers ramp would not be permitted, as depicted in the draft AUAR. For questions on the following traffic comments, please contact Lynn Clarkowski, Mn/DOT Metro District South Area Engineer, at (651 ) 634-2103. We believe that the Powers Boulevard bridge over TH 212/312 should be sized to provide necessary turn lanes. It appears the south ramp will require dual left turn lanes for southbound to eastbound traffic (this will require a wider bridge). An equal opportunity employer Ms. Kate Aanenson Page 2 October 14, 2003 The original traffic analysis performed for TH 312 identified a need for only one (1) single left turn lane southbound. Mn/DOT recommends that the additional left turn be included in the mitigation plan in the final AUAR, as the site-generated traffic forces the need for a second left turn lane. It appears that signals will be needed at both of the TH 212/312 Powers ramp termini. The original traffic analysis performed for TH 312 did not support signals at these locations. We believe that signals will be needed soon after development in this area occurs, and should be planned for, and constructed, at the same time as TH 312 construction (signal costs to be determined in accordance with Mn/DOT's cost participation policy). The construction schedule for the east - west collector roadway should be coordinated by the City so that the collector roadway opens concurrently with TH 312. Construction is currently scheduled to start on the TH 212/312 Design - Build project in the Spring of 2005. If the collector roadway is not constructed concurrently with TH 312, there will be congestion issues with Lyman Boulevard, and Powers Boulevard. Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Please direct questions regarding permit applications to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443) of Mn/DOT' s Permits section. It is important that the City of Chanhassen coordinate with Mn/DOT Metro District regarding the final turn lane geometrics at each of the TH 212/312 Powers Boulevard ramp terminals as soon as possible, as the TH 212/312 Design - Build geometric layout is being finalized. As a reminder, for new development activity, such as plats and site plans located elsewhere in the City, please send those documents to: Tod Sherman Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Sincerely, Marv McNeff Transportation planner Copy: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council Brad Scheib, Hoisington Koelger Group, Inc. Gary Ehret, Kimley Horn and Associates Metropolitan Council Building communities that work October 13, 2003 Kate Aanenson, Colnmunity Development Director 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Cbanhasscn MN 55317 Se~ City ofChanhassen- AUAR Metropolitan Urban Ncrvicc Area Metropolitan Council District 4 Review File No. 19028-1 Dear ~ ~ xvxs. AaileIisori: Metropolitan Council staff reviewed the Alternative I lrban Arc:lxx i cto Rex i oxx (Al JAR)datcd September 11,2003, and lbund that the AUAR is complete and aCCtlralc wilhin thc meaning of thc lmvironmcntal Quality Board (EQB) rules. The Metropolitan Council received the City of (q~anhasscn 2005 Metropolitan I h-ban Service Area AUAR on September 15, 2003. The project consists o1' approximately 624 acres, and will develop iln a variety of land uses including low and n]edium density residential, office, office/industrial, park/open space, and institutional. Total developable land wilhin this zu-ca is sliglltly more than 350 acres, and will accommodate nearly 1,500 residential units, and about 71)0,01)0 square l'cct el'of rico and industrial uses. Council staff has conducted a review o£tlnis AUAR to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns and its potential lbr significant OlqX'~ro~,qncnt~l impacl. '1 Iic lk)Iloxving comments arc offered concerning specific items m tho A[IAP,. Item 6 - Dexcription Page 12 of the AUAR document states "Design and localion of crock crossings need to bc sensitive to significant habitat areas and preservation of corridors for xxilcllifc." Two creek bridge crossings arc proposed tbr Bluff Creek. They are the east-west road comqcctor and a pedestrian crossing to accommodate the proposed school. Combining tlnem into one crossing if'possible may lessen ilnpacts on the creek. There are significant remaining natural areas along tine south trilmlary of lgluff ('rook. ('(mncil staff suggest that this tributary be given the same preservalion consideration as lhc main creek. Thc proposed realignment of Pioneer Trail appears to suggest a realigned bridge crossing, l'his crossing, plus two additional crossings proposed down stream would result in throe bridge crossings within 1000 tDct. There will be tbur crossings if one counts the bridges lbr nol-th and south bound traffic on tiao new lhvy. ~312. These other bridge crossings are outside of the Al JAR ;t~'ca. but evaluated logcthcr they will all impact thc creek. One less bridge would reduce tine impacts on tine c~'cck and wiktlilL' corridor and could result m s~gnificant cost savings. Item 11 - Fixh, Wi/d/if'e, and Ecologicall. r Se, xitive Rp.¥ottrce.¥ In the Stream/Riparian section of the document, thc south IriJ~utal'y of P, lul'l'('rcck mcrils protection similar to that given the mare creek. www.metrocouncil.org Metro Inlo Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 · 1651) 602-1000 * Fax 602-1550 · TTY 291-0904 All EqlmI OpportulHty Etnplo)'el Kate Aanenson October 13, 2003 Page 2 Page 23 of the AUAR document provides infbrmation about the lbrested areas and suggests lhat application of the existing proper land use strategies will protect the wooded/forest areas. A tree/vegetation inventory was not provided with the A~ IAR. I1' one is done it could pros ldo infi)rlnation on the types and quality of wooded areas as well as olhcr existing natural x egetation in thc Al lAP, area. The final AUAR should provide estimates of thc existing xvoodcd/forcst areas and estimate the anlount after the project is fully developed. Detailed in lbrlnalion 5hottld bc presided as wooded/lbrest will be removed and any proposed mitigation at'cas. Item 12 - Physical Impacts on Water Resources it is unclear from Figure~' ', (Conceptual Surface sa/,, .,,, ...... ~'~..,,.. ............... =~ .~,,~' Plan) .... ~,,,~.~ Ikmctions existing wetland basins and watercourses on the site will pmvictc, in linc movomonl and Ircalmolqt of st()r~qn water flows on tine site. Cu~ently, this figure indicates thal I3[ut'f('rcck and ils associalcd riparian wetlands will be utilized as storm water nrta'lent traps. This conflicts xxith thc shorcland bul'/Dr prolcclion ofibred or implied m the text and on Figure 7. We request that thc final document elto'il? what spccilSc fkmctions and values differentiate the five wetland types presented on l:igurc 17. Fo~-example, xvlml thc dil'lUrencc in basins proposed to lkmction as nntrient traps, sedimcm traps, and storm walCl- quality ponds. Most nutrient trapping basins function as sediment traps because nulricnts arc commonly adsorbed onto sediment particles. Council staff suggests that the final document provide a clearer presentation o~' basins that will be constructed to pre-treat storm water, and dil't~ring quality natural wetlands that either will or will not receive flow-regulated and pre-treated storm xvalor. Item 16 - Erosion and Sedimentation Page 27 of the AUAR document states that the city and walcrshcd require maintenance ol'a mininmm width of natural vegetation bufibr around all wetlands. Thc xx idth is not specified. Thc Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has a publication that helps ctclcrminc bufl~r widlh based on thc desired protection. It can be seen at: http?xS'_Ww:t!ca.5[at%m!¥i>, xx;Sc!~t!~bs_swm:~l~4.!?dL Ecological resloralion with native plant materials in the buflbr areas will pmx'idc additional environmental bcnci'its. Item 17 - Water Quality - Surfitce Water Runqff Council staff is pleased to read in the draft documen! lhat both ('/tv and Watershed ()r~anization guidelines promote the use of infiltration lhcilitics (as well :tx lhc usc of slamtard Best Management Practices) m new development areas, to decrease runol]' volumes and increase ground water recharge. This prqject's housing, institutional and office/industt'ial development will rcsul! iii a substantial increase in impervious surface which will generate increased volumes of runolT. Thc soils in lhc areas where mos| development is proposed to occur have been characterized as being in cilhcr thc I laden or l~estel- Series. Both of these loams are identified as being well drained and moderately permeable, making lhcm excellent candidates for incorporation of infiltration tcclmiqucs. We encourage thc ('ity and Watershed to set goals in the mitigation plan tbr incorporation of low impacl dcvolopmonl lechniques like porous pavement, and bio-infiltration and rainwater garden areas inlo thc development area Io furtlaer diminish ultmnate site runoff: The Council recommends that as the storm water l*unol'l' plan Ibr the Al IAI{ site is developed, tha! it incorporate lmv-impact development (LID) storm water retention techniques wherever possible, to maximize on-site infiltration of storm water and nmaimizc lhc size of necessary storm water lreatment Kate Aanenson October 13, 2003 Page 3 basins. LID and surthce water best managemen! pracliccs infi)rmation is axailable on thc £'otmcil's Item 25 - Setlsitive Resottrces The proposed Carver County Regional Trail (along l lx~ v. 1()1 ) connecting linc north and south branches o1' the SW Hennepin LRT trails is to be located to the easl el'thc project area. 11 is suggested that the local trails be provided to connect to the regional trail, Page 42 of the AUAR document states that" A pedestrian connection/trail xxould also bc necessary crossing Bluff ('reck to connect school ihcilitics xvcsl o J' ilac cJ-c:k wi~h i-ccrcaliona] open space areas on the east side of B l uff Creek." As stated previously, combining and limiting of creek crossing will likely better preserve the creek corridor. Thc (~ouncil will take no Ibrmal action on this AUAR. ('ouncil staff' recommends that thc City evaluate and respond to the comments contained herein and incorporalc necessary revisions inlo lhc Final Al J,51~, and mitigation plan. If we can be of assistance to the (_;ity, or if you have qucslions regarding lhis review, please contact Ton] Caswell, Sector Representative at 651-602-1319. Smcerely, / d~t~.' , / ,.~ ~,./")---~ Phyllis:Hanson, Manager Planning and Technical Assistance C c: Julius Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4 Ann Beckman, Acting Director of Planning and (h-owth Management Tom Caswell, Sector Representative/Principal P, cvicwcr Cheryl Olsen, Referrals Coordinator Minnesota Departmen! of Natural Resources '~()() I ;Ihl;~'Ilc Road ]FACSIMILE] ]Original to follow by U.S. Maill October 13, 2003 Ms. Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Chanhassen 2005 Metropolitan Urban Services Area Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Dear Ms. Aanenson: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Chanhassen 2005 Metropolitan Urban Services Area Draft AUAR. The Draft AUAR appears complete and accurate. We offer the following comments for your consideration. The Primary and Secondary Zones depicted in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan (page 12) is a positive step towards protection of Bluff Creek and provides opportunities for public enjoyment of the Creek areas. The maps provided show that the East-West Collector and Highway 212/312 will cross Bluff'Creek. The DNR understands that total avoidance of fragmentation effects of the roadways to the Bluff Creek corridor and existing high quality woodlands would be nearly impossible. The City will be minimizing the disruption of these natural systems by planning local streets with cul-de-sacs. The DNR encourages the incorporation of vegetated swales and rain gardens into the storm water management plan to reduce the reliance on storm sewers as described on page 6 under "Municipal Infrastructure," and storm water ponds. We are pleased that vegetated swales and rain gardens are mentioned as being promoted by the City and watershed guidelines in Item 17, "Water Quality - Stormwater runoff." DNR Information: 651-296-6157 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity 1-888-646-6367 ° TTY: 651-296-5484 ° 1-800-65%3929 Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste Ms. Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director October 13, 2003 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft AUAR. We look forward to receiving the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan at a later date. Please contact me at 651-296-1548 with any questions about this letter. Sincerely, ,_~2 ,~.~----- . , Diane K. Anderson, Environmental Planner Environmental Policy & Review Section Office of Management & Budget Services (651) 296-1548 C: Kathleen Wallace Wayne Barstad Julie Ekman Tom Balcom Dan P. Stinnett, USFWS Jon Larsen, EQB (#20040196) Chanhassen_DraftAUAR_dka.doc Larkin Hoffm, October 8, 2003 Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194 952-835-3800 952-896-3333 www. larkinhoffrnan .corn Kate Aanenson Director of Community Development City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard '-" ' - ,'~r l-L/1 ~- / VIA FACSIMILE (952) 227-1110 AND UNITED STATES MAIL RE: Chanhassen AUAR - Fox Family Partnership and JefiOFox Dear Kate: This letter is offered on behalf of the Fox Family Partnership and Jeff Fox (the "Property Owners"), the owners of approximately 78 acres (the "Property"), all of which is included in the Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review process ("AUAR"). The purpose of this letter is to address a couple areas of concem for the record. Land Use Designation - Southeast Comer of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard The property boundaried by Powers Boulevard on the west and Lyman Boulevard on the north is one that is ideally suited to neighborhood commercial land use designation (the "Commercial Comer"). The Commercial Comer has a topography generally sloping from the west to the east and from the north to the south. The Commercial Comer has a site area of approximately 1.8 buildable acres and is boundaried on the south and east by a large wetland. The Commercial Comer is boundaried by two arterial county state aid highways, CSAH No. 17 and CSAH No. 18. The pattern of land uses surrounding the Commercial Comer support a designation of neighborhood or convenience commercial. The proximity of the Commercial Comer to surrounding higher density residential designations make the Commercial Comer ideally located and suited to the retail convenience needs of the nearby residential land use patterns. Land Use Designation - West Side of Lyman Boulevard and TH 312 Interchange The property west of the TH 312/Lyman Boulevard interchange creates an excellent siting opportunity for neighborhood commercial, medical or general office use. Due to the high volume of traffic and the anticipated noise from accelerating vehicles, including trucks, render this site inappropriate for a residential use designation. This comer will provide commercial tax base opportunities due to excellent visibility and traffic volumes. Again, the same site characteristics make this a most undesirable location for residential uses. Kate Aanenson October 8, 2003 Page 2 Funding for Collector Streets Jeff Fox, owner of 24 acres, supports the broadest funding possible for the financing of the new city collector street. Specifically, since these thoroughfares will be serving a large area, we request that the funding not place heavy reliance on special assessments based solely upon frontage to nearby properties as a primary funding source since the Property in question abuts County Roads 17 and 18. As state aid highways, it seems appropriate that the primary source of funding be county and municipal state aid funds. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and we look forward to fully participating throughout the AUAR process. Sincerely, e, for Larkin I-I'offman Daly & Lindgren Ltd. CC: Elizabeth Fox Frank Fox Jeff Fox Larry D. Martin, Esq. 888361.1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Claybaugh, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, Uli Sacchet, Bethany Tjornhom, Kurt Papke and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Kristen Wentzlaff, Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN HAS AUTHORIZED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW DOCUMENTS (AUAR) FOR THE 2005 METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD~ EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ WEST OF FUTURE TH 212~ AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN~ MN. THE PRO~IECT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 650 ACRES OF LAND INCLUDING PARKS AND OPEN SPACE~ RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENS1TY~ RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY~ OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE USES. Public Present: Name Address Rosemary Biersdorf Tallis Blake Sever Peterson Char Jeurissen Kara Strazzanti Bart Blinstrup Mitch & Jill Anderson Eric S. Theship-Rosales 2907 Butternut Drive, Chaska 2907 Butternut Drive, Chaska 15900 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie 9715 Audubon Road 2901 Forest Ridge, Chaska 18736 The Pines, Eden Prairie 2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska 9201 Audubon Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mark Koegler: Thank you Kate. Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I've got a few words and then we've got a brief presentation to cover tonight. As Kate alluded to, the focus of the meeting this evening really is more on the air and noise. We spent a considerable amount of time last time talking about land use and transportation issues, some of which were responded to on the spot and some of which we have begun to respond to in the form of the early mitigation information that I think you received in the packet. There's another generation of that that's already been prepared that addresses more of these points and we will address all of these as we move forward. We did get the verbatim copy of the minutes from that meeting on the 19th so that we can ensure that we cover all of the bases that were brought up. Tonight with me are other members of our project team. Gary Ehret on the far end with Kimley Horn and then Tim Casey who with HDR who is working with Kimley and Horn on the noise and air quality portions of this. Gary is Kimley Horn's project manager on this and they are the agency that's doing really all of the transportation, civil and overseeing the noise and air quality work as part of the AUAR so Gary and I are certainly available for questions that may arise. Just briefly taking up on some of the things that Kate said in terms of timing. Tonight it is our intent to hopefully find our way through some of these air and noise quality questions, concerns and issues and then be in a position to have a draft that we can wrap up for the purposes of publication in the EQB Monitor on the 15t~ of this month. It would be available at that point in time for broader public review. By the rules that govern AUAR's, we're looking at a 30 to a 45 day comment period. At that point in time comments not only from the general public but as Kate alluded to, Planning Commission and other entities within the city, interested parties, residents, property owners and then the various agencies. We've begun to get some very preliminary comments from agencies but we get more definitive views from them as well. All of that kind of gets rolled together to make sure that what we bring back in the final, final form so to speak is a mitigation plan that addresses the issues that have been raised by all those parties, so we've still got a bit of work to do. I'm kind of crossing the T's and dotting the l's but that comes together relatively quickly at this point in time. So without any further comment I think it's my sense to turn it over to Tim and he will be able to kind of wind through a brief presentation on the air and the noise components of this, and then we certainly collectively can field any questions or comments or directions that the commission would like to go. Tim Casey: Thanks very much. I'm Tim Casey. I'm with HDR Engineering, it's Environmental Acoustics Program Manager. We're working for Kimley Horn and HDR performed an air quality and a traffic noise analysis for the proposed project. I believe our report was distributed to the city already so I'll just go through a brief summary presentation. HDR's goals were to perform noise and air quality analysis commensurate with AUAR guidelines and project budget. Focus on noise and air quality issues for the project and provide support for the Planning Commission here in the City of Chanhassen. For the noise analysis, HDR staff went out and measured ambient noise levels for one hour at 3 locations in the private area. Our analysis used Minnesota DOT traffic noise models called MINNOISE to evaluate future noise levels and all our tasks were performed within the guidelines of the noise regulation portions of the Minnesota Rules. The results of our noise monitoring activities indicated that existing traffic noise levels at the 3 levels we measured exceeded State maximum allowable noise levels for residential land uses for both daytime and night time periods. We measured noise approximately 50 to 80 feet off the center line of the existing roadways. When we did our modeling analysis our evaluation predicted future noise levels. We assumed that noise in the project area would be dominated by traffic noise on local roadways, so we modeled traffic on proposed roads. We modeled road traffic on the existing roadways. We used a traffic volume mix and speed projected for the year 2025. And finally on the proposed 212/312 corridor was not included in this analysis because an environmental review had already been completed on that project. Our traffic noise modeling results predicted it exceeded the state daytime and night time standards at the 3 locations where we did traffic noise monitoring. More importantly we plotted contours, noise level contours associated with roadways proposed to be built in the project area, and the contours showed the distance from those roadways at which traffic noise impact no longer occurred. And finally where predicted traffic noise impacts are indicated on our figures and our analysis but future traffic noise levels can be reduced through things such as berms and noise walls, or combinations of the two. As development proceeds in the project area, the developers will likely be required to evaluate noise impacts for their proposed development, and the city will be required to comply with provisions of Rule 7030.0030 which essentially requires cities with jurisdictions over new and developing land uses to insure that when those land uses are put into their new use, that existing noise levels comply with the state rules immediately upon that new land use being implemented. In other words, as soon as a developer finishes building homes and those homes become occupied, the city has to have taken steps to insure that noise levels will comply with the state noise rules. The air quality analysis that HDR performed focused on two pollutants that are of primary concern in transportation projects, CO, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter 10 microns or less or PM10. There was no monitoring or air quality monitoring data for Carver County so we looked at monitoring data for Hennepin County where traffic volumes are higher, and we were getting more of a worse case depiction of ambient air quality, and monitoring data shows that ambient air quality in Hennepin County complies with the national ambient air quality standards. When we looked at the potential for performing any of the detailed air quality analysis we looked at the MnDot analysis procedures. They had three screening procedures that determined that a more detailed analysis is necessary. The first threshold for MnDot screening procedures is a vehicle volume of 77,200 vehicles per day. Average daily traffic associated with the AUAR is less than 30,000 vehicles per day so we didn't meet that threshold. And the other two MnDot screening thresholds are associated with traffic at 10 specific intersections in the metro area. This project does not affect any of those 10, therefore no detailed modeling analysis was considered necessary, and because ambient air quality in Carver County is considered to be better than it is in Hennepin County and we know that Hennepin County it complies with the national ambient air quality standards, we concluded that the air quality here will also comply with the ambient air quality standards and that the traffic would not cause and exceed those national ambient air quality standards. In summary, conclusion of our noise analysis were that existing traffic noise levels are high along the main roads on the west and northern perimeters of the corridor. Future traffic noise levels along those corridors will also be high if the project proceeds. And the finally each development should conduct it's own independent noise analysis to help the city comply with the State rules. Finally the conclusions of the air quality analysis are that the project does not trigger any of the analysis thresholds and that there are no air quality effects predicted for the project. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions to this so far? Papke: I'll start. Couple questions. First of all, you didn't do any measurements or analysis of Pioneer Trail and there was also no contour on the future Powers Boulevard. Could you comment on why neither of those two roadways were? Tim Casey: We felt that our focus on more project related roadways compared to roadways that were likely to be dominated by traffic from the 212/312 corridor, and were therefore most likely...in the environmental review process associated with that. We thought it was better to focus on roadways that were not more intimately associated with that proposed highway corridor. And so we focused on the western and northern roads and then the roadway that's supposed to go through. Papke: Okay. And that brings up a second question. When we In:st started down the whole process here of the AUAR, it was my understanding that the whole intent of this is to take kind of a holistic look at everything going on within the 650 acres, yet from what you just said and from the fact that the study specifically says you know for 212 information go see this other document, you know I don't know that we're getting the whole picture here. Do you kind of, do you follow what I'm saying? I feel like, okay we took a look at the things that 212 isn't going to affect, yet one gets the impression that 212 is likely to dominate any noise and air quality issues within the AUAR district, and so I'm kind of missing you know what this study truly got us to. Can you shed some light on that? Tim Casey: I can. I can. You know one of our goals includes balancing resources and that includes money and time. Knowing that the 212/312 corridor had been studied and that that environmental review document had been approved, that made our decision making process a little bit more focused. We had limited money. We had limited resources. This work has already been done. Are we serving the city best by spending money to spend more time to look at that and incorporate it and do our modeling analysis or would it be a better use of the city's money and time to kind of look at things that had not been looked at. Papke: I hear where you're going with this is certainly data that should be looked at, but at the end of the day I believe the result of this process is to put forth a certain number of mitigation proposals, and I would think that the 212/312 data would have to be taken into account in those proposals, is that a tree statement? Tim Casey: I support your instincts, yes. 212/312 should be taken into account. Papke: So if we are to then look at those mitigation proposals in light of all the data, it would seem from my naive perspective, not being a traffic engineer, that you would want to look at the 212 data. Gary Ehret: The caution that I would offer is, what we are trying to address are the impacts specific to this development as compared to 212/312, number one. Papke: By this development you mean the whole AUAR? Gary Ehret: Excuse me, the whole AUAR. Papke: Okay. Gary Ehret: And secondly, that we assess reasonable and due diligence impacts associated with this development as compared to 212 so that's the only caution I would offer is how we make sure to not be mixing and matching impacts, assessment and mitigation associated with 212 in this development, and that was our judgment is that the impacts of, to noise and air and the mitigation associated with that had been addressed in the 212 study and need not be duplicated here. Sacchet: So them is a separate study for the highway, that's what we're saying? Tim Casey: The Environmental Impact Statement for the 212/312 was done and completed and approved. Papke: I'm kind of a newby here on the Planning Commission so perhaps I wasn't present during, as the Planning Commission looked at that in a previous time? Aanenson: No. Maybe that's something that we want to talk about is what we want to include on, what's already been in place for the mitigation for tools, I think that would be helpful. Second, I think what you heard tonight is the direction that we need to hear and that is each development as it comes in is going to have to do a noise study. That's the direction we're looking for and that's what the consultant's saying is that each project needs to come in with their own noise study. Whether it's on Pioneer Trail or Powers, they're going to have to demonstrate that they're mitigating, because they've said that it exceeds. So they'll have to demonstrate. Papke: So we've kind of gotten the answer that we were looking for from a guidance perspective that each development will have to look at. Aanenson: That's my understanding. Papke: The noise quality. Aanenson: In what they stated. And the second one is that it's not exceeding the air quality based on the trip generations on a broader scale. Now there is mitigation that we've asked for in detail on the 212 and I think that's something we need to show you so that's, and we can do that as part of this mitigation as it comes back for final plans so you can see what noise walls and berming is being put in place with that. So I think kind of what Gary was trying to say is there's kind of some macro issues here and then micro, specific to this. Papke: So the 212 study looks at Powers Boulevard. Looks at Pioneer Trail. I just want to make sure there's nothing that's falling through the cracks. Aanenson: Yes. We'll make sure that that's included in your mitigation. Papke: Okay. Okay. Last question before. Aanenson: Let me just add one more thing, just to be clear. If there's existing development, there's some, MnDot has different rules as far as what they're going to put in place so it's still probably just to be clear, a lot of this is still going to be development driven to mitigate and I think that's the point I heard. Is whether it's along 212 or someone's building next to that, they're going to have to provide the mitigation. MnDot probably won't so there will be a process in place that they need to demonstrate that noise study. Papke: Okay. Just one last kind of going from the macro to the micro level here. Within your data and so on, there's statistics for both an L10 and an L50 decibel reading. Could you tell me what the L10 and L50 stands for? What does that mean? Tim Casey: Sure. Those are time descriptors and they represent the noise level exceeded 50 percent of the time and the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time. Papke: Okay, so it's kind of a duty factor kind of. Tim Casey: It has a time domain built in. So if you think about, these are hourly, we're dealing with hourly time increments so 50 percent of the time... Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Tjornhom: Touching on what Kurt said, this study has been done and there have been obviously things have been monitored and calculated and written down on graphs and so when a developer comes in like Town and Country or the school district or anyone else comes in, will they have to do it once again, this same test? Aanenson: What they'll have to do is do a plan that shows they meet the standards, and how they can achieve that whether for example when we did Pulte Homes, we made it a condition that they put air conditioning units in. That's a way to mitigate noise. There's berms. There's noise wails but what they'll have to do is show us what they're going to do to mitigate the noise, and there's different techniques which the consultant alluded to. Tjornhom: But they'll be using this information? Aanenson: Correct. Tjomhom: Okay. Tim Casey: Likely in addition to whatever study they have done. Tjornhom: Okay. Tim Casey: If I just could make one other comment. One additional value of the report HDR provided is in the contours and there's a table that shows the contour distances. When future development comes in along the roads that we modeled, you can refer back to the HDR report that predicted you know traffic noise level impacts at that fixed distances from the roadway and you can look at the development plan, the plat plan and say well you're putting homes in, you know in this distance. What the state rules does is it regulates outdoor noise levels, so anywhere on your property it's required to be compliance with state noise levels. I guess I wanted to encourage the City to keep in mind that it is outdoor noise levels. While air conditioning is often offered as a mitigation technique, it doesn't do anything for outside and that's what the rules are actually formed to do. Slagle: So you're suggesting we have 81 foot setbacks from all roads. Tim Casey: There is no, well that's a good point though. Slagle: A couple questions. Sacchet: Go ahead. Slagle: You mentioned, are you done Bethany? Tjornhom: I'm done. Slagle: You mentioned 312 and 212 falling under that environmental study. Do you have any recollection as to what, there's a comparison to noise levels that called for or anticipated? I mean just trying to compare your study with 81 feet from 212. Tim Casey: I don't. I didn't do those. Slagle: Okay. And the reason I ask is because the question was asked earlier of not including Audubon as an example because it was, or would be affected by 212. Powers or Audubon. I mean I think the question was. Papke: It was Powers and Pioneer. Slagle: Okay, I'm sorry. My question is, yeah Powers was that if that indeed would be included in a study, say you were able to do that, to me that seems like that is going to be a major area. Tim Casey: You should be able to look at either the draft of the final EIS for the 212/312 project and pull out a figure that shows noise contours. They'll represent the same thing that was represented in the HDR contours. This is the distance from the roadway at which traffic noise levels will no longer exceed state rules, and so where there's going to be development inside those contours in the right-of-way, there has to be some consideration for noise. Slagle: And if I can ask Kate, is this where, if you read the paper yesterday the folks in Eden Prairie talking about trying to get MnDot to. Aanenson: That was today's. Slagle: Today's? Lower the 212, okay that would be one way to mitigate? Aanenson: Right, and that is one of the things that, the design is to have a recessed contour to help for noise mitigation. Slagle: Next question, and Kate maybe this is your's. Before we get that information, or as you forward it on or you get it to us, is that past us in the process? Is that now at the City Council where they're mitigating? So will not come before this commission. Aanenson: No, but we'll give it to you for your edification if you want to make comments on it but yeah, you don't at this point. Slagle: Alright. Last question I had was with respect with, on page 7, you state or this report states despite population growth in most metropolitan areas of the country, the reduction in per vehicle CO emissions has more than offset the increase number of vehicles traveling the highways. And I follow that ! guess but then I ask, would you feel comfortable saying that out here in more the rural sort of outer ring suburbs, because I mean more cars are coming here. It should mean more emissions. Tim Casey: Keep in mind that the, one of the determining factors in the evaluation of future compliance with ambient air quality standards was kind of a look towards counties with existing traffic. More existing traffic than the county has, and HDR's logic was, if Hennepin County is in compliance with national ambient air quality standards, and the planning window for this AUAR is reasonable, and based on the traffic volumes that are projected for 2025, which is the end of the planning window for the AUAR. Knowing both of those pieces of information, it's reasonable and still conservative to conclude that future air quality in the project area will comply with the national ambient air quality standards. Slagle: Or said another way, would be similar perhaps to Hennepin County. As far as meeting the, falling under the. Tim Casey: Yeah, ! guess I would caution you that Hennepin County probably has more cars than Carver but. Slagle: Understand. I'm just trying to draw a comparison, if I'm a resident here, you know in my mind, based upon this argument, that the guideline, the baseline is Hennepin County. And wow, we'll be okay to be Hennepin County. My guess is most people have moved out here didn't want to be in Hennepin County. You know. Tim Casey: I'm not sure ambient air quality standards... Slagle: Well I don't know if I would be as specific as that but I would say the environment certainly would have played a part in people deciding to move out here. Mark Koegler: One thing I would interject if I may is that, you know bear in mind the standard that we measure against is not Hennepin County as was talked about. It is these national and state standards so those are the bar so to speak and the comparison was only that obviously if the neighbor next door is more intensive doesn't begin to meet that, we don't meet that either. That doesn't really say anything...smell and odor or not smell and odor. It really is the letter of the law that all of this that the city and the developers have to work with. Slagle: Well absolutely, but I'm hoping, my desire as a commission is that the city hopes and plans to be better than the Hennepin's or the LA's or the Detroit's or you can go on. Mark Koegler: Fortunately we're not talking LA or Detroit. Slagle: Exactly. Sacchet: Is that it Rich? Craig. Claybaugh: Yes, going back to your table on page 4 of 8. They noted the traffic levels. Peak Hourly Traffic volumes. On the current study I was a little perplexed. What scenario would have to take place where currently the current existing road study would pass? My question is, what is the primary determining factor? I would have thought right now that the level of road noise would have certainly complied and we're entertaining more intensive development in the future. I'm a little perplexed that we didn't ask at this time what's...what kind of things contributed to it? Why do you think we didn't pass at this time and what does that mean to increased volume of 10, 20 fold down the line? Tim Casey: It didn't surprise me that daytime and night time noise levels measured for the project exceeded the state standards. It didn't surprise me at all. I'm a city boy and when I've been out here in God's country I notice that when you get out in these rural roads, you tend to go a little bit faster than the speed limit sometimes. And then more importantly speed limits are higher than they are in developed areas like the city neighborhoods are where I grew up I should say. Where my point is that, when we performed traffic noise monitoring, one thing I noted, and the engineers did it for, he noticed a lot of fast moving traffic. Fast moving, free flowing traffic on the roadways. Traffic noise is highly dependent on speed. A relatively large volume of heavy trucks like semi's will affect it significantly, but ! don't think he noticed a large volume of heavy traffic. Claybaugh: He noted 2 percent I believe. Tim Casey: Which is low. Something higher. Claybaugh: He didn't address the volume at all through that, the current study. Do you have any figures available on that? Tim Casey: We don't, no. So I guess to address your question, traffic noise levels are high because what you have is, long stretches of road with fairly high speed limits. There's not many breaks in the corridor for traffic to enter which would perhaps slow down the flow of traffic on the roadway, so it's a lot of free flowing movement. A lot of fast moving vehicles. And that's really what affects traffic noise levels the most. So maybe in the ultimate build-out there'd be more intersections. Speed limits would be reduced because of residential density and I don't know. Claybaugh: There's a section of road on 94 just outside of St. Cloud that when you drive it you can't even hear your radio from the road surface. From the tire noise. What kind of consideration with respect to that, what kind of criteria presumptions are made in calculating the report? How did something like that happen on that section of roadway outside of St. Cloud? How do we see that it doesn't happen here? Obviously that's a contributing factor. Are those things provided for? Tim Casey: MnDot performed traffic pavement noise studies. Pavement wear studies on a variety of pavement related studies...DOT's across the nation. And in fact I did a presentation with people from MnDot Central Environmental Services office where they presented their tire pavement study. With different types of pavements, they finished where concrete with different surfaces for traction so you would try a quiet pavement. Claybaugh: Is that part of our pavement, as a part of our study? Tim Casey: Not part of the noise study, no. We didn't take that into account. The MnDot noise model does not have the capability with the different pavement types. There are models out there that do and they're in use in just about every other state, but the Minnesota models does not have the capability. Claybaugh: Certainly a valid consideration? Tim Casey: It is. Claybaugh: Just to come back with what some of the fellow commissioners, I just want to be clear myself about the 212/312 environmental study. Two studies done with base line isolation, the way it sounds, but with some overlap of each, so there is no open area inbetween? Tim Casey: If you were to take a transparency and overlay our contours on a transparency of 212/312 contours, you'd see a little of your AUAR project area not affected by any of those contours. Claybaugh: Alright, that's all the questions. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Bruce. Feik: Help me out here a little bit. Going forward we have the new regulations that will be going forward for a development, or will need to submit the projected noise and then work it in, and then they're going to have to pass the hurdle. When did that take effect? Tim Casey: In my experience we have been hired by developers to do noise studies for them, and the results of our noise study helps them get approval from municipalities... Feik: Officially when is that rule enforced I guess is where I'm going with this. Tim Casey: Compliance has to be, the compliant point is the day the first resident moves in. Feik: But it's in force today? Tim Casey: Yes it is. Feik: Okay, okay. Does it, so if I'm a developer inside this parcel and I've already got sites along Audubon and Lyman that do not conform, correct? There's three sites on your map that you chose that exceed the noise, the night time and daytime noise modeling requirements. What is the requirement of the developer as it relates to the noise outside of their specific subject property, i.e. down the block and around the comer? Are they required in their noise abatement or their noise plan to deal with what's downstream, you know if it's 100 yards past their property? Tim Casey: Well they do not really have the authority or the right to do anything outside their property. Feik: No, no, but are they responsible for the increase in noise that's 300 yards away from their property? That their residents or whatever developments they did generated. Or is it just within the confines of the development? See where I'm going with this? Tim Casey: The rule doesn't get to that level of detail and I'm inclined to say it's subject to the whim of the municipalities. Feik: So what I'm seeing, or what I'm, if we already exceed the noise now, and we're going to have a compounding factor that we're going to exceed it more and more and more as this development, or as this area develops down stream, outside of the boundaries of the AUAR, specifically up and down Lyman. Up and down Audubon. Up and down Powers, is that correct? And a developer would have no ability to mitigate the noise outside of the parcel they're working on. So what's the point? Tim Casey: Well through land use planning, as each subdivision is developed, you make your incremental affects to noise levels. You make your incremental changes or. Feik: Right, but at some point the noise becomes over bearing. It's too much. And so it gets to be a little bit, from what I'm hearing, a first come first serve kind of a deal. If you're the first developer in here and you can throw a thousand cars on and it only exceeds by another 20 percent, but boy if you're the last developer and we've exceeded ~11 the monitoring stations out there, you're just stuck holding the bag. Aanenson: Let me address that a little bit. Feik: I'm missing something here. Aanenson: Yeah you are because you're making the assumption that they're mitigating the traffic that they're generating. They're not doing that. They're mitigating all traffic on their project. So whether you're the first in or last in, you're mitigating the ultimate impact of the entire project. Not just what they're generating. Feik: Within the parcel that they're working on, no? Aanenson: No. No. The whole study. They have to mitigate for their project the background noise. 10 Feik: That's half a mile away? Aanenson: Correct. Feik: How do they do that? Aanenson: That's what they have to use a consultant to provide whether it's a berm or a noise wall. I mean we do that all the time. Developments will come in and show us what the noise is at certain points and what I heard is that, flat it's 81 feet setback, at a minimum. If they want to go closer they have to provide some other type of berming or landscaping, or noise wall. Feik: But this berming or landscaping might not necessarily be on their property. Aanenson: It would have to be. Feik: Well that's what I'm getting to. I'm missing, we're missing here a little bit. My thought, I'm going to hold this up. We exceed in these three areas. Now if I'm building down here and the impact of my building up here dramatically affects what goes on up here, as a builder, as a developer, am ! going to have to put a berm on somebody else's property? How am I going to mitigate that? Aanenson: You're mitigating your piece. You're mitigating on your property to protect your property, not somebody else's down the road. It's site specific, just like any other development that we've done with the business park. They do it around the perimeter of that business park, that subdivision, that site plan, it's around the perimeter of that, mitigating that individual parcel. Now there might be pieces that are done in phases or bigger and that's, we'll have to look at it incrementally as each comes in so we're measuring against the whole, and that's the purpose of this study, is that you've got the outside parameters to say what is the noise, to mitigate each little piece. Now this is some of the crux of the argument that we've had with 212 is that they're trying to push some of the burden back on the city to say you know you need to provide some of this mitigation...development costs and kind of what you're going through, and aesthetics and some of those sort of things that we're trying to work through and those might be some of the things that we want to think about aesthetically if you're driving 312 it has a lot of berms. Do we want that look? And that's something that actually Mark and I were just talking about before this meeting, that kind of might be an evolution that we might want to talk about is what type of treatments do we want to have so we don't have just big walls around the entire perimeter of this project. What aesthetically works? So I think that might be something we want to discuss. Feik: But that protects the noise within the project. It doesn't protect the noise that spills to the other side of the road. Aanenson: Well there's going to be noise on Audubon. There's nobody in Chanhassen's side right now that there's noise on Audubon that we're not contributing to. What the goal is to mitigate the people that are going in and mitigate the noise that they're being affected by. Slagle: How about minimize? Aanenson: Minimize? Slagle: The numbers. 11 Aanenson: Sure, yep. Sacchet: Bruce, is that it for you? Feik: That's it for me. Muddling through this. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: And I kind of have the same questions. So you're indicating that each development will do it's own analysis. What parameters are they going to have different when they do their analysis that you weren't using now, and to elaborate on that a little, kind of what Bruce is saying, is say one portion of the development is done year 1 and the other end is done year 10. Where the traffic levels may have increased by you know dramatically incrementally. And I'm just not quite getting the fact that Bruce lives on the north side of Audubon. You're not doing anything to mitigate the increase volume for that development up there. And that's, MnDot's addressing it by lowering their road for the existing developments and for the proposed, whereas this plan is doing nothing for the existing neighborhoods. Did I have a question there? Sacchet: Isn't the impact zone what you defined as the noise impact portion? Tim Casey: hi the contours. I mean that's what the contours do. They kind of show you where you're going to have traffic noise impacts. If that land is developed as residential, as an environmental acoustician, one of my recommendations is don't develop that land as residential. Not a good land use planning strategy. Don't put homes where it's going to be noisy. You have a highway coming through your community, don't put homes next to it. Put your strip malls. Put your cormnercial and industrial. Put everything else where people don't sleep. And then you get rid of that one first hurdle, the traffic noise impacts and the contours. Well, they're no longer an issue because it's not residential anymore. And anywhere there's traffic on the streets that run the 600 and some acre parcel, and all the streets that will be developed by each individual development as they come in, well speed limits on those streets are going to be much lower than they are on the existing perimeters. And there's going to be a lot more stop and go's. So traffic noise level will be lower, and if you look at traffic restrictions like no semi's on local streets, that's an even better land use planning strategy to reduce traffic related noise levels. So the primary difference between what we did for the AUAR and what your developers are going to do when they come in for any...development is they'll have a much more focused, specific analysis of individual parcels along new roadways, existing roadways, rather than our kind of broad brush stroke, and as the city looks at each planned development, you can say well it kind of makes sense not to have homes right there. Kind of makes sense to put our commercial properties in there. Those kinds of things so it's both city and developers that participate in building the community, a quiet community. Lillehaug: So the city will require the developers to expand on what's already been done, rather than just... Aanenson: Yep, and that's part of the strategy that will be a mitigation strategy, is each development will have to do a noise study. I'm pretty confident that will come out Mark. Sacchet: Did you have something Kurt? 12 Papke: Let me take a stab at it and make sure I understand where some of my fellow commissioners were going. If I understand it, you have table number 5 on page 4 here that states at full build out in 2025 we're going to have a certain number of peak cars per hour going down these various highways, and you built your contour lines around this peak volume. So that from the perspective, if the developers were to follow Rich's lead and have all their setbacks according to Table 7, they're home free. Doesn't make any difference if they're the first one or the last one within this AUAR area. Is that a correct statement? Am I correctly interpreting it so far? Tim Casey: Yes, assuming this traffic volume occurs in 2025, and this vehicle mix occurs in 2025, using the speed limits that were shown. I mean this is what you can easily. Papke: Okay. So from that perspective it doesn't really make too much difference what order people end up developing, because they have to meet whatever's here on Table 5, providing they do nothing. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: Okay. Now if they want to not follow that setback, then they have to do some other mitigation process, berms, whatever it may be, to be able to push closer to the roadway to meet the standards you're proposing here? Aanenson: Yes. Papke: Okay. I think I've got it now. Sacchet: Okay. I have a few more questions. So we looked at noise. We found there is an issue. We set a framework. We have contours. We look at air. We found there is not an issue. When we look at air that includes dust and odors? Because like in the overall report we were, at somewhere it says air quality, dust and odors. That's three separate things. Tim Casey: Air quality analysis focused on the two pollutants of concern for traffic, which are carbon monoxide and particulate matter. Dust and odors really are not transportation related pollutants or pollutants of concern when you're focused on transportation. Sacchet: So are those items that we still need to address at some point within this AUAR study? Tim Casey: They would be addressed with a simple statement, and that's it. They really are not pollutants of concern in the study. If it were a feedlot, then we'd have an odor issue, and perhaps even a noise issue. Mark Koegler: But for example one of the mitigation strategies will be for on site construction practices, and dealing with control, dust particularly during construction activities because that obviously is a major contributor in a residential area. Sacchet: So since we're focusing on mitigation aspects, I mean the good news about this air thing is that there can be berms. There can be trees. There can be this things. There can be shuffle around's so that is actually mitigatible. When we discussed this last time we found another very delicate area in the study which is the traffic, and there we don't really have, do we have a mitigation plan or is that something that's still coming or are we planning to have some mitigation ideas on what we can do about the traffic issues? 13 Mark Koegler: Yes, most certainly. And some of that has been alluded to in the past with regard to some of the intersection lane configurations and segment improvements that Gary has noted. We are responding though continually to traffic issues that were brought up at our meeting on the 19th and we'll incorporate that in the draft. Sacchet: So that's still ongoing in other words. Mark Koegler: A portion of that is still ongoing. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, another area that was in the previous draft report for an area that would need to be looked at is historic archeological architectural. We decided that is not an issue? Just want to confirm that aspect. Mark Koegler: I would not say it's not an issue, but it is an issue to the degree that there are some recognized sites within the project area, the peripheral area which will need in some cases to have some subsequent field investigation. If you recall one of them I think was within MnDot's right-of-way on Powers Boulevard. For example when they get more serious about building that road, they will have to do some on-site review of that area to insure that there is or isn't something present. The information that we have available at this point, and that kind of throws up a red flag as much as it does anything quite honestly, it says when you get to a certain point you're going to have to look more closely right here so we're flagging those again. Sacchet: Yeah, that's what I'm trying to understand a little clear, in terms of what the flow is. I mean I understand from our role at the Planning Commission, we're more facilitating getting this complete and there are things that are still being completed as this goes on. I mean I'm trying to get a little bit of a sense what some of the items that still need to be addressed before this is considered complete and can be published, like when you made your list of mitigation plan initiatives, you mentioned roadway and traffic initiatives. We touched on that. Mentioned identification and utilization of Best Management Practices. That's an area that you would still go into further as well? Updating storm water management plans. Same thing. Land use management tools. Park and open space acquisition. Development strategies. But those things are still being worked on or what's the status there? Mark Koegler: Yes, they are. However I just want to throw out a cautionary. In some cases it may be sufficient to simply reference BMP techniques that are already in place. And so we want to make sure you know serve up as a reminder so to speak that those kind of techniques are part of a standard package of what you might call mitigation anyway. In some cases it may go beyond that. Sacchet: So what we're really doing is we're laying the foundation framework for when developers come in with specific proposals we can measure these proposals against this study and see where are areas that need to be further mitigated, is that about where we're at? Mark Koegler: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, I think I took enough time. I do want to head for our continuation of public hearing. Rich. Slagle: I still wanted to throw out, if ! may Mr. Chair, the question and Mark you refer to it as being incorporated, addressing some of the concerns that we had on the 19th. I guess my question about the traffic, correct me if I'm wrong fellow commissioners but I thought that there was a bringing up if you will of actually having on site traffic study, similar to what we did with noise. It looks like it was on two different dates. Did we incorporate on site, whether it be Audubon, Pioneer, Lyman, or are we still going with the sort of statistical numbers from the country or whatever it comes from? Mark Koegler: That question last time was posed with Jim Renshaw and his response was that we, in the instance of you putting this together, we'll be going with the statistical approach that's based on kind of what I would call is a non-engineering engineering manuals kind of thing. He did allude to the fact that some circumstances you can do more on site counts in order to draw a correlation to what's going on. But the basis of this thus far is indeed kind of standards, and Gary might want to elaborate further. Gary Ehret: I would answer that by saying, I wasn't at the meeting but I got debriefed and there were a number of issues raised such as Lyman and Audubon. Audubon and Butternut, Pioneer and Audubon, etc. Although the normal process is the process we followed, I want to answer your question by saying, we did specifically go out and do some field counts and field measurements at those three specific locations. So we did go out and look at some p.m. peak hour impacts at those three and we're formulating and working with staff on what the response should be to those concerns. Slagle: If I can, last comment, respond to that, and I appreciate if indeed you did, and I trust you did. We hear often from traffic, applicants and their consultants, whether it be on traffic, in some cases noise, that there's way to mitigate, if you will, so that the development goes through. Not once in 2 ¥2 years have I actually heard a consultant come up and say noise is too loud. Don't recommend that this project go forward or the traffic count is too high, this won't work. It's always a way to make it work and I'm going to say if that's the way it is, that's the way it is but boy I tell you. It just seems to me that the credibility of this would be further increased by coming back and saying we measured on 5 different days, X number of hours, and here's the traffic count and guess what folks, it's actually lower than we thought. Now as a betting may I'm going to wager that most people in this room would think it's probably higher than the numbers, that either you're calculating or projecting. I'm just telling you from just an average person, it seems like there's going to be a lot of traffic. And we're sort of saying well it's going to be in the report that finally makes it to the City Council. I hope it is. I really do. Mark Koegler: There will be mitigation strategies certainly as a part of that. Slagle: Okay but Mark, if I can ask you though, your predecessor on the 19th claimed on a couple intersections that were ranked E or F, that were bad news like you want to avoid those intersections. That the mitigating factor would only potentially bring it up to a C or a D. I don't want to put words in his mouth but something to that effect. So folks, even if we try and fix it, it's going to be bad. Or it's going to be not very good. However you want to define it. So I'm just sitting here going, why do we keep going towards not very good and bad and not figure out a way to make it really good? And maybe it's just so idealistic Kate that you know, who knows. You can't do it. But boy I tell you, people are going to see a lot of traffic in the next 10-15 years. Mark Koegler: That is I'm sure that's a tree statement, just as the people who have seen a lot of traffic in the last 10 or 15 years. When I first started as Chanhassen's Planning Director, I think there were about 5,900 people in this town, and I'm sure the intersections performed a little better at that point in time in many cases than they did today so you're right, there's been an incremental growth of everybody, of the thousands that have moved out here and that will continue until the issue becomes one from a traffic, a noise and air quality perspective, is 15 managing those within acceptable guidelines. Just as basically has had to be done within the last 10 or 15 years with all the homes that have been built to date. It is a challenge. It's a balance and a challenge to make that work and that's why this AUAR looks at the big picture issues and tries to take those into account. Slagle: The only thing I would add Mark is, with your hindsight of being a planning director so many years ago, you know, not for tonight but what would you have done differently? You know. Mark Koegler: I'd like to think you've built a pretty swell community here, and are continuing to do so but we could certainly pursue that sometime outside of these... Sacchet: Is that it Rich? Slagle: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. Yes Steve, go quick. Lillehaug: Are we done with questions at this point? Sacchet: I was going to continue the public hearing, yes. We can still ask more questions. Lillehaug: Questions on, you know I went back and stewed on a few of these things that we talked about last time. Are we done asking questions on that stuff?. Do we do a comment period after public hearing here or is it a written comment? Aanenson: You're certainly welcome. The comment period's open til they close the EQB. You can forward comments at any time. Sacchet: Are they questions that you would want to have in the public record Steve? Lillehaug: Sure, definitely. Sacchet: Why don't you give them to stab then. Lillehaug: You recommended an east/west connector road that's been shown since the get go here on the AUAR. It doesn't appear to me, traveling from east to west on that east/west road that runs right through the middle, that the very westerly end is really a destination point. With that said, is there really, are there other alternatives that should and could be looked at as far as a road going through or maybe even around the development? And Kate, if you could put up that first sketch that you had under the, on the screen with the whole picture, and maybe it's sitting up there right now. Aanenson: No, I put it away. Lillehaug: But if I could give an example. Paralleling 212 on the south, there is a, it appears to be a frontage road that comes off of Pioneer. No, and then there's one that goes further to the east and north, right there. 16 Aanenson: That was put in, and maybe Gary can comment a little bit more on that but that road was put in to service a specific piece of property. That property has been bought. It may not to be, that was to provide access to that specific piece of property. Lillehaug: Okay but I guess let me just continue. As an alternative to maybe lessen the impacts on Bluff Creek, it appears to me that a destination point is more to the southwest rather than right to the middle of the development on the west, where maybe that frontage road could be connected up to the existing east connection point of that middle road. And what I'm saying here is, we're seeing one alternate here, or we're seeing one plan and we're not looking at any other routes or any other options and I think we'd be good to look at a couple different options and I have a couple suggestions for options, and maybe it'd be better if I sketched them out and showed you them. But is it appropriate to look at other options? Sacchet: It's my understanding that what's presented was not necessarily fixed very specific location of this road. It's more like a general pattern. Are you saying you would have alternatives to the pattern or the specific location? Lillehaug: Both. Sacchet: Both, okay. Because I think the location, it's not necessarily a fixed thing totally at this point. Aanenson: Well there is two fixed points that MnDot and Carver County's agreed to. Sacchet: Where we have... Aanenson: are fixed. Steve. Right, the touch down point at Butternut, and the touch down point at Powers. Those Agreed by the County and MnDot who have jurisdiction on both those roads, so what Lillehaug: So they are fixed? Aanenson: They are fixed points and I thought we made that clear last time. What the variability is, is the curving of the road between trying to minimize the creek crossing, but those points were met, we had several meetings. Gary, the City Engineer, Carver County and MnDot trying to reconcile. That was the first thing we tried to get concurrence on before we did a lot of this other study. And providing access to all properties and that sort of thing so that was kind of the first thing we tried to get some agreement on. Lillehaug: And when they gave these fixed points, did they indicate that it has to be a road that connects east to west? Aanenson: Maybe that might be a discussion you want to have with, but yes. I don't know if you want to comment on that Gary but. Gary Ehret: Well basically in order to balance all the issues. I don't want to imply that the roadway alignment that you see on the map is the only alignment. That's not true, but the access points were fixed. The other issue we're trying to address in the AUAR is land access. Maximizing development potential, and you may not go there but that was the basis. Avoiding or minimizing environmental constraints. 17 Aanenson: Topography. Gary Ehret: Topography and conveying the traffic, or the estimated potential traffic. So the general road alignment was intended to do that. To suggest that is the only thing that works would be false. I think that there could be some other modifications to that, for example in an couple of those task force meetings, one of the concerns that was expressed was speed and cut through, and we've talked about the fact that there are potential mitigation measures, traffic calming, etc that could be employed. Sacchet: If I may add a question for you Kate. Are we within this study to this point of detail where we're actually locking in to specific road alignments, or is that something that's going to shift and be revisited in the context of development proposals that come in front of us? Aanenson: Again I'll go back to the touch down point. I believe Butternut is pretty fixed. I mean you can just as the development that's adjacent to Audubon come out and drop the rest of it down onto Pioneer, ultimately comes out onto Audubon because people are going to want to make that movement, and that was part of the background traffic, looking at the directional east/west movement. Sacchet: And we need to have an east/west connector, I think is part of Steve's question is why do we even have it go all the way across. Lillehaug: And the basis of that is, if you look at your traffic volumes, you start at the east. You have 11,600 vehicles and you get to your westerly data point there, or connection point and you only have 4,500 vehicles. So it looks like a lot of the vehicles are dispersing even before it gets across the creek. So that's where I'm generating my comments from is, is that connection really necessary because it doesn't look like those cars, the destination point goes across the creek. And I'm looking at minimizing environmental impacts strictly by eliminating that road if possible. And shifting it down to that south, where that frontage road appeared to be because it looked like it was already being impacted there. So it'd be one less river crossing. And I guess that's really all I had. Sacchet: Alright. Are you taking a deep breath Bruce? Feik: I'm not sure. Is this our final comment timeframe on this for the Planning Commission? Sacchet: Well before we do comments let's do the hearing. Feik: I'm just trying to see where we're at in the process. Aanenson: Yes, you certainly have a right to comment. We'll give you the mitigation all the way up to the EQB is closed as part of the publication and comment period during that. Slagle: But in a public setting, this is it. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Okay? But then we get the proposals, the development proposals to look at and that's where we come into play. We're not reviewing this like we would a development proposal. We're facilitating the creation of this more than reviewing it. 18 Claybaugh: But it'd be helpful as part of the EQB process we're allowed as citizens to just submit comments to that process? Aanenson: Right. And what I said at the beginning of the meeting is that you'll be getting a copy of the mitigation and as a group you want to, as a part of your agenda item, discuss those and have those as part of the record and forwarded, that' s fine too. Feik: I think I should just make a couple quick comments. Sacchet: Okay, go ahead. Or can we wait with comments until after the public. Feik: Sure, absolutely. Sacchet: We get comments. We will get a chance to get comments, alright. Alright. With that I would like to continue the public hearing that we opened last time. I appreciate your patience listening to everything we have to say up here and looks like we'll have to say more still about all this. But we opened the public hearing last time inviting you all to comment and express your concerns. If you have questions to bring them up. I would like to ask you to consider that we want to focus on the new information that's in front of us. I mentioned that last time, that hearing the same thing multiple times does not necessarily add more weight to it. I mean if somebody has a good point, that's why I asked last time if there is any spokesperson for the neighborhoods, and there was actually one. So with that framework I'd like to invite you to come up to the podium. State your name and address for the record and let us know if you have comments, concerns, aspects you'd like to share with us here tonight in the continuation of this public hearing. It's all your's. Mitch Anderson: Good evening again. Mitch Anderson, 2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska. Good information tonight and again I think reinforces some of the concerns that our neighborhood had originally that the impact of the traffic is not just the traffic itself, but also the noise. In Autumn Woods we do have a number of homes that back up to Audubon and they already I guess would validate what you said, that the level of noise is unacceptable today, and likely to get worse as the traffic increases so certainly appreciate your weighing those concerns as you look at this plan and look at your future development proposals. I think a couple of excellent points have been made tonight, that it seems like very often we allow things to happen and then worry about not to mitigate. And it would be wonderful if we could get a little bit ahead of that steamroller and try and figure out how to lessen the impacts on the front end rather than on the back end. ! mean we can always build walls and fences and high berms and things, but if we can lower speed limits or reduce traffic and doing other things, that's I think a proactive way to address traffic and noise and I'm sure on behalf of the residents of Autumn Woods we'd really appreciate that kind of thought process as we continue this, so thank you very much and appreciate the time. Sacchet: Thank you. Who else wants to comment to this study of the AUAR? Anybody else? Seems like a pretty brief continuation of public hearing. Nobody else wants to address this item? I will close this hearing. Yeah, there's somebody itching there. Are you? No? Yeah. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I just have a question about your traffic study. Was that done with school was going? Or was it done in the summer? Of the local traffic that you did at certain streets. Tim Casey: The noise monitoring was performed just a week or two ago. 19 Janet Paulsen: Well, it's very busy when school's going on. Sacchet: Good point Janet, thank you. Anybody else? If not I am closing this public hearing. Thank you for all your comments tonight, and also last time. Very good comments. Always better to do it right in the first place than try to fix it later. Appreciate that. We're certainly trying to do the best with that we can. Now we can have a round of some comments here. Why don't we start over here. Feik: Sure. I just have three, more or less sort of global comments regarding the process and where we are to date and the...so far. We started this process, at least internally here about a year ago and part of the underlying concerns that we had just, at least most of us who were here, at the time had was the underlying zoning and uses, which was never addressed. I really thought we were going to be doing that during this process, so I think I'm pretty disappointed that we didn't go back and. Am I off? Sacchet: I think you're off. Feik: Oh sorry. I'm pretty disappointed we did not go back and address some of the underlying zoning uses. I thought we were going to do that. Second of all, the sound and traffic concerns outside of the subject property were really not addressed. I would have liked to have seen a bubble, something larger than the property so we could really identify what the impact of this is. Though since it was city funded, for the betterment of the city not just this parcel, I'm very disappointed were didn't analysis how this affects a larger piece, not just what's in the confines of the parcels. And then lastly, I thought we were really going to, the reason we were doing the large comprehensive AUAR was that we would be able to get a better study than if this had come in as a dozen or a 15 separate studies over the next course of 2, 3, 4 years and I'd have to say fellow commissioners, the only thing I see that's coordinated out of here is the intersection of the roadways. I don't see a whole lot of higher and better analysis out of this project as it relates to impacting the city, than if this had come in piecemeal. That's my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Craig, you want to jump in? Claybaugh: 1 don't have anything new to add. Sacchet: Okay, Steve. Lillehaug: I think I will address my comments written. I think I've hit on my concern here. Sacchet: Okay. Kurt. Bethany? Tjornhom: I'm fine too. Sacchet: Rich. Slagle: I just have to say a couple of things. I want to thank Kate and her staff and these folks, in all seriousness they've put a lot of time and energy into this. I will tell you though as more of a citizen than a commissioner. I do think that we do have the cart before the horse, and what I mean by that is, is when I hear the discussions of, we've designed the roads for maximum density, and again we get this whole worst case scenario thing again. I would have loved to have had the city, that's all of us, approach this as how do we want 650 acres to be developed, looking at the current comp plan. Can it be changed? Because I think if you ask the average citizen out 20 there do you want 1,500-2,000 townhomes in that 650 acres, majority of them would say no. They like Chanhassen the way it is. They will allow for growth. That's not to say there won't be townhomes. There won't be corporate, won't be retail, but the maximum allowed density or the worst case scenario is really what I've had an issue with from the beginning. And so I'll make this short, if the east/west connector had been built or designed or projected to be very curvy and with limited access points, you would then not be able to have a fully blown developed 650 acres. Now I'm not a legal guy and I can't tell you what that means to landowners there, but if you allow them an opportunity to develop their land, it just won't be 1,000 townhomes or whatever it ends up being, then maybe that's fair. And I'm not well versed on the legal issues but I'm just telling you from a citizen I think that most people would hope that that area does not end up being worst case scenario. I would rather have us plan for medium case scenarios and live within that so with that said. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Steve, you have something? Lillehaug: Kate, as part of this AUAR, we had a land use plan set in place for us. Really was looking at the land use part of the AUAR? Aanenson: No. No. My expectation is that you're going to, as a part of this, give some direction back to staff and to council to examine some of those land uses. I'm anticipating that as one of your things that you want to talk to the council about, to re-examine some of those land uses. Sacchet: I have just a brief comment. It's tricky because we have a classic situation here, is the glass half empty or is it half full? I have to be honest, my expectations of this AUAR process were somewhat different. As I went into it as I see it now, and I think I learned a lot in terms of what this process actually is. I mean ! did not understand it at first. I certainly don't fully understand it now but I understand it a little better, and I've come to understand that the point with the study is, we study the whole area rather than just look at a particular parcel. Now is that sufficient? Like you made a strong point Bruce. Well, shouldn't we look at not just that development area but also the neighboring areas beyond it? Well, we made a big step in that direction but instead of looking at particular development parcels, we look at the whole 2005 MUSA area. Now, could we go further? Of course, we can always go further but we actually made a very significant step in looking at a bigger framework. In terms of mitigation aspects, I expected a little more to be honest, in terms of what can be done. I mean I understand why we're studying the maximum impact because we want to see what is the maximum impact that can have. I mean that's what we're studying, so we can mitigate. And we know what do we need to look forward to deal with carefully. Traffic, noise certainly came out very clearly. But that doesn't mean it has to be that most dense scenario. It gives us a reference point, a stake in the ground and I think that's good. Do we need to have an east/west road going across Bluff Creek? I think Steve brought up a very good point that might deserve to be considered to some extent as we look forward. Is that really necessary? I mean Steve looked at the traffic figures. I mean you have 10,000 on one end and 10,000 on the other, and only a couple thousand in the middle, do you really need that middle part for a couple thousand. I think it's a valid question. I think we found very important aspects through this process, and I do think it's worth it. I do think it's valid. In terms of re-visiting the zoning aspect. We did have a concern as we went into this that we, how does that work? I mean if we have an area that has two land uses designated, does that mean we want to shift it one way or the other? That we maybe need to do a rezoning or up zoning or down zoning? That is not an environmental impact so that's not part of this study but that's certainly something that we can still pursue as appropriate. So I do want to thank you for all your effort that has gone into this. It's a little bit from our side, from the Planning Commission a little frustrating to be involved so early in this process when we'd like to help 21 shape it further, but I sure hope that our contribution up to this point has been helpful and I look forward to see how this process continues from here. Now Kate help me out. I think it's our task at this point to see whether we can pass a motion to move this onto City Council or what's the next step? Or for publication first. Aanenson:., .that we go for publication. Sacchet: For publication? Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: And the idea is that for publication there will be further elements added in. Could you maybe give us an idea of what will be added? I mean if we make a motion that this be published, we should know what is still going to be added. Mark Koegler: Mr. Chairman, the principle piece of the addition to this, and Kate has a copy of everything that is current literally to this afternoon, evolves around mitigation practices and techniques and that will focus on the gamut of issues that have been raised, ranging from land use to transportation to other noise issues that we have talked about tonight, and environmental issues as well, so that's probably the principle piece that's not them today. There are a couple of items, technical items like some depth of bedrock and a couple of others what I would classify as relatively minor additions that are still being plugged in there. Some mapping, some of those kinds of things but by and large it is intact with the exception of kind of flushing out final mitigation strategies. And finally I would put in quotes, because we may learn more from the comment period that causes us to go back if you will once again and re-think strategies...so it is not final until the comment period closes and hopefully it comes back before the city for action. Sacchet: I think that's an important point. I mean we're not talking final. We're talking publication in order to get more feedback. Mark Koegler: Correct. Sacchet: Because I would have a little mixed feelings to make a motion for publication of a final because it's not final. Aanenson: No, it's not. Mark Koegler: If I might elaborate. The only essence of the action tonight is not approval of the AUAR. It's simply is an approval of the ability to take this forward to garner public comment. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. I think that's pretty clear framework. Claybaugh: ...the process on the back end of that. That goes out to the Corps of Engineers, DNR, all the other environmental agencies... That's the primary function of the publishing. Aanenson: Correct. Claybaugh: The best forum for the public is right here actually. Aanenson: Right. 22 Claybaugh: Once that goes back out and that comment period closes, those environmental agencies make their comments, what happens after that from the public's perspective? Mark Koegler: We will certainly be responding to all of those issues that are raised within the context of the...document itself. It will be coming back before the City Council for final action. At that point in time there's another public forum for any of those comments to be re-discussed. Claybaugh: Would it be accurate to say if it went out to the EQB and there was no negative adverse comments, and what was submitted came back reasonably intact, that that could go straight to council without further debate and be voted on? Mark Koegler: I think that would be a theoretical leap because there are always issues that come up and there's always things that we will have to. Claybaugh: Distinguish between the different environmental agencies and the public ...those revisions by the different environmental agencies. And those were incorporated into your report. From a public perspective, will the people here or the Planning Commission get another look at this or do they in fact not get another look at it? It goes straight to the council. Mark Koegler: No, as I alluded to, the council will be the forum for that to occur but indeed we will be responding not only to the public agencies comments that are received, but the...and comments that are received as well. So all of it will...to City Council for final action. Claybaugh: So that will be the public's next opportunity to comment on it is in advance of the City Council casting their votes. Sacchet: So we're making. Claybaugh: So there's more happening on our level here. Our only recourse in terms of submitting our comments as part of this EQB, we may not get another look at this. Another open comment period like this. Sacchet: Correct. And the way I understand it, we're being asked to make a motion to publish this document for further public comment and the comments from the agencies that need to see it, okay. Anybody want to make a motion like that so we can move forward? Lillehaug: I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends the AUAR be published in the September 15, 2003 Environmental Quality Board Monitor. Sacchet: There's a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. Liilehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the AUAR be published in the September 15, 2003 Environmental Quality Board Monitor. All voted in favor, except Feik, Slagle and Claybaugh who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Sacchet: We have 3 opposed and 4 ayes, is that correct? Is that enough to pass this? Aanenson: Yes. 23 Sacchet: Comments for the nays. Feik: I made my comments earlier. I don't think it's complete. Complete in scope. Excuse me. Claybaugh: I'm not sure that we fully understand everything that's in front of us is my concern, and that's an individual concern. My vote wasn't cast in anything beyond that. Sacchet: Okay. Rich. Slagle: I think with all respect just the initial baseline of worst case scenario versus medium case scenario. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, with that we move on. 24