Loading...
5 Rezoning Planning Case 04-18CITYOF CHANHASSEN 7;%) b!ar,,e~ Bou!ev~r:! PO R,x 147 Administration Building inspections r, !' :F' ~7 Engineering Fi, ) /,'? Finance r?: ;27'11:; Park & Recreation P~7 '252227 Planning & Natural Resources ~ r : 5~22711~) Public Works 15nI P,~rk B:,dd Fax 9~2 ?Z7 ,¢1~" Senior Center F~ 7222,z !I,j Web Site MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: DATE: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner June 23, 2004 SUB J: Request For A Rezoning Of Property From Residential Single Family To Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use Located On The Southeast Intersection of The Future Alignment Of Highways 212/101 And North of Lyman Boulevard, SouthWest Metro Transit, Planning Case No. 04-18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on June 1, 2004. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a 2/3 vote of City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 1, 2004, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed development. The summary and verbatim minutes are item attached to the staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use incorporating the design standards as specified in the staff report dated June 1, 2004. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Dated June 1, 2004. Planning Commission minutes and summary minutes dated June 1, 2004. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-18 - sw metro transit rezoning-212 & 101 intersection\executive summary.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: June 1, 2004 CC DATE: June 28, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 29, 2004 CASE #: 04-18 SouthWest Metro Transit BY: A1-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use Southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. SouthWest Metro Transit 13500 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 974-3101 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family - RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use ACREAGE: 8.5+ Acres DENSITY: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use and approval of Planned Unit Development Standards. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners beyond 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the request. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone property located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. There is no site plan attached to this application and development of the site is not intended to take place until the realignment of 212/101 is complete. As each element is ready to develop, a site plan will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. Several meetings have taken place with surrounding neighbors to gather feed back and address concerns. The rezoning and PUD Ordinance is a result of this meetings. The purpose of the meeting tonight is to rezone the property and establish a PUD ordinance. BACKGROUND: LOCATION/SITE DATA The site is located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard. The site has an area of approximately 8.5 acres and is currently zoned residential single family, RSF. Lyman Blvd Subject Site SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 3 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT In 1986, Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie adopted a joint powers agreement establishing the SouthWest Metro Transit Commission (SMTC). The agreement granted the Commission the authority to develop and oversee the local public transit services serving the three cities. The park and ride facility was presented as an opportunity to mitigate congestion and pollution in 1989 as part of the Highway 212 Environmental Impact Statement. In 1990 the SMTC adopted a park and ride study which listed the proposed site as a future park and ride location. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan designates areas around the proposed TH 101/TH 212 interchange as mixed use. This category has been established to accommodate either commercial or high density residential developments. The high density category, which includes units with a maximum net density of 16.0 units per acre, accommodates apartments and higher density condominium units. The commercial use is intended to support or complement high density development. The commercial uses involve convenience grocery stores, day care facilities, etc., or those uses that meet the daily needs of the residents. The Land Use Plan also identifies a park and ride at the future TH101/TH 212 interchange. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 4 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS On February 18, 2004, the City of Chanhassen and SouthWest Metro Transit began a series of three neighborhood meetings. The intent of the Planning Process was to arrive upon a park and ride layout design and a planned unit development that meets the functional needs of transit patrons and compliments the community within the area's limitations. The February 18th Neighborhood Meeting focused on the Project Background and Intent; March 31st dealt with Alternative Design Concepts and Land Use Schemes; and the April 21st meeting focused on a preferred layout concept, Land Use, and a draft PUD ordinance. Each meeting resulted in a list of questions and suggestions. The questions and concerns were addressed and posted on the City's web site. The suggestions (to the extent feasible) were incorporated into a draft PUD ordinance. The final draft layout that was arrived at reflected a park and ride facility along the north portion of the site, a commercial component in the center and a residential development along the south portion of the site. Transit Station Parking Deck 800 cars max~ 100'Buffer Commercial/Retail 16,000 sq, ft, Housing 16 units/acre max. Enhanced Landscapin! SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 5 Access to the site was a concern to the neighbors. Numerous meetings took place with Minnesota Department of Transportation. These meetings resulted in permitting a right-in/out access off of Highway 101 and allowing the full access off of Lyman Boulevard to maintain a 100-foot setback from the easterly property line. This setback will allow for adequate buffer between the subject site and the residential neighborhood to the east. MNDOT also agreed to a bus slip lane off of Highway 212. AM BUS MOVEMENT PM BUS MOVEMENT SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 6 A number of studies were requested by the residents. SouthWest Metro Transit hired consultants to conduct these studies and present them to the neighborhood. They included: PHASE I ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PARK & RIDE DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 101 AND THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 212 ON EXISTING RESDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN CHANHASSEN, by Shenehon Company. The study concluded that the development could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the site, and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - NOISE AND AIR QUALITY, by David Braslau associates, Inc. The study concluded: The proposed Park and Ride facility is planned to serve a maximum of eight buses per hour with parking for 800 motor vehicles. During the AM period buses will enter and depart along the north access to the facility and will therefore have minimal impact on both noise and air quality. During the PM period, buses will enter at the north from TH 101 and circle the parking ramp to return to TH 101 to reach the TH 212 westbound on-ramp. These buses will travel along the east roadway of the facility and between the parking ramp and the new residential structures to be constructed as part of the project. These buses will have somewhat more impact on noise and air quality, although the impacts will be limited. Noise levels during 6-7 AM, which fall under the nighttime period, are expected to exceed the Minnesota noise standards primarily due to traffic on the new TH 212, its ramps, and TH 101. Appropriate construction of the new housing proposed for the site can permit higher noise limits to be applied and therefore can comply with noise standards. Noise levels during the PM Peak Hour are generally under the state noise standards except for the apartments that face the access roadway carrying departing buses. However, the 2 dBA exceedance is within modeling error and may not be a problem if no outdoor uses are planned for the north side of these buildings. The buses alone are not sufficient to cause the noise standards to be exceeded. Contributions from the other roadways are sufficient for this small exceedance of the standards. Predicted air quality (carbon monoxide concentrations) is well below both the l-hour and the 8- hour standard and no air quality problems are anticipated with operation of the facility. As new diesel engine and diesel fuel regulations are implemented, the potential for odor associated with the facility will also decrease. Appropriate equipment will be able to operate at the facility with little or no odor impacts. 3. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT-ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. Levels of service are classified as follows: SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 7 LOS A - free flow LOS B - stable flow, with high degree of freedom LOS C - stable flow, with restricted freedom LOS D - high-density flow with restricted speed and freedom LOS I5 - unstable flow; at or near capacity LOS F - forced flow; volume exceeds capacity The study concluded that the area surrounding the site will operate as follows: MAY-26-2004 09:12 LYMAN BLVD, D~ -J' BENSHOOF & ASSOC. 952 238 1671 P.02×03 D~ LAtA SOUTH ~ -/B R4N/R-OUT 2011 NO-BUILD NA ~ NA ~ SOUTHWEST I TRAFFIC STUDY FOR METRO TRANSrr -I PROPOSED TRANSIT- 'L. NA <.--- A/A ~ N^ EKDAY A.M. / K HOUR / EVEL~ OF SERVICEJ SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 8 MAY-26-2004 09:12 Ds---t! SL BENSHOOF 8, ASSOC. II uJ NOI~'H Pdt. MPg qIF' "L ~/A ~ C/C TH 952 238 1671 P.03/03 N o~c ._t t .... 2011 NO-BUILD [~ 2011 BUILD 'L._ A/A <--- A/A '-ltF REZONING SouthWest Metro Transit is requesting to rezone the property from RSF, Residential Single Family, to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use. Future Highway 212 will run along the north edge of the site. Realigned Highway 101 will run along the west portion of the site. A residential neighborhood zoned Residential Single family is located east of the site and Lyman Boulevard and a residential neighborhood zoned Planned Unit Development is located south of the site. All properties located at the intersection of future Highway 212/101 are guided mixed use which permits high density residential and neighborhood oriented commercial. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 9 The 2020 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Mixed Use Development. Appropriate zoning for this land use is PUD-Mixed Use, Neighborhood Commercial, and High Density Residential. Staff has prepared a Planned Unit Development Ordinance that will regulate and set standards for the development of this site including permitted uses, landscaping, setbacks, signage, building materials, architectural standards, parking, etc. The Land Use Plan also identifies a park and ride at the future TH101/TH 212 interchange. This site is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to PUD-Mixed Use. PUD FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The proposed Planned Unit Development has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the land use plan and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. It complies with providing mixed use (residential and neighborhood commercial) and a transit facility at the intersection of realigned Highway 101 and future Highway 212. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The proposed uses are and will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area through the implementation of the design standards, landscaping buffers, architecture, etc. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed uses will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance such as design standards, signage, durable materials, uses, etc. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Finding: A study conducted by Shenehon Company found that the proposed uses will have no measurable negative impact on the property values of the nearby residences. It could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the site and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 10 e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Finding: The site is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Based upon studies conducted by Benshoof and Associates, traffic generation by the proposed uses is within capabilities of streets serving the property. LANDSCAPING The landscape plan for the SouthWest Metro Park and Ride will need to use landscape to accomplish the following: improve the appearance of the site, buffer between proposed development and neighboring properties, and reduce noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. Specifically, landscaping will be required for screening of any trash storage areas, loading areas or large, unadorned building walls. Parking lots will also have landscaping requirements. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, should be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells should be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. The City anticipates undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101. These areas shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. The City would like to see native landscaping incorporated into the design wherever possible. One issue that needs to be pointed out deals with the existing evergreens on the site. The intent is to save these trees. The slopes along the north portion of the site are steep (not a bluff) and will require a retaining wall. In order to minimize impact on the existing evergreens, the applicant requested reducing the building setback along Highway 101 to 35 feet (PUD Ordinance requires 50 feet) and increasing the building setback along the easterly property line to 115 feet (PUD Ordinance requires 100 feet). Staff supports this request and the PUD ordinance drafted by staff reflects this request. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 11 View from North Property Line Showing Existing Vegetation Along the Easterly Property Line TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS Maintaining and creating new pedestrian/bicycle routes to the proposed SouthWest Metro Transit Station is very important. The construction of new Highway 101 south will include the installation of a ten-foot trail adjacent to the subject property. The Transit Station project must install a trail/sidewalk adjacent to Lyman Boulevard from Highway 101 east to a street crossing at Summerfield Drive. Appropriate and adequate internal sidewalk connections must also be planned to allow convenient and safe non-vehicular traffic throughout the site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: The Planning Co,w'~ission recommends approval of City Council approves rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 12 b. Permitted Uses · The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. · Small to medium-sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) · Office · Day care · Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint · Convenience store without gas pumps · Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) · Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self-Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). · Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. · Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). c. Prohibited Ancillary Uses · Drive-thru Windows · Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 13 Boundary Building and Parking Setback Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70 % Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft 25 or 3 stories, and stair well whichever is less Non Residential Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 14 f. go 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. Residential Standards Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber-cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public fights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 15 Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; Preserve and protect property values; Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 16 iol. io2. io3. io4. which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. Project Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. Wall Signs: ao The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 17 io5o i.6 i°7° e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. Building Directory a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. Directional Signs On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public fights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. bo Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. Prohibited Signs: · Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. · Pylon signs are prohibited. · Back lit awnings are prohibited. · Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area * Menu Signs are prohibited. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 18 i.8. jo Sign Design and permit requirements: The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. Lighting Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. o Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 - Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). Mod*l CP 12/18-CA/B~ 12 Ft ltl IO Im:h B~ ~ 3~ - Clnmlm~n righting Unit D~tgn 41 All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 19 ko Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. Non Residential Parking Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Application. 3. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 4. Property value and impact study by Shenehon Company. 5. Traffic Study for proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in the City of Chanhassen. 6. Environmental Assessment-Noise and Air Quality. g:\plank2004 planning cases\04-18 - sw metro transit rezoning-212 & 101 intersectionkstaff report. 1 .doc IN RE: CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEP1N COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. Applicant:. Application of Southwest Metro Transit Planned Unit Development On June 1, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of SouthWest Metro Tranist for Planned Unit Development property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is currently zoned Residential Single Family. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Mixed Use. The description of the property is: the area bounded by Highway 212 to the north, Highway 101 to the west, Lyman Boulevard to the south, and residential neighborhood to the east. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The planning report #04-18 dated June 1, 2004, prepared by Sharmin Al-Jaff, et al is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this Ist day of June 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANN1NG COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 3 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT APPLICANT: Southwest Metro Transit Commission ADDRESS: 13500 Technoloqy Drive Eden Prairie, MN TELEPHONE (Day time) 952-974-3101 OWNER: Minnesota Department of Transportation ADDRESS: 1500 County Road B2 Roseville, MN TELEPHONE: 651-296-3000 __ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit __ Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning __ Sign Permits __ Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit __ Zoning Appeal __ Zoning Ordinance Amendment __ Notification Sign X __ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNARNVAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTALFEE$ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME Southwest Villaqe LOCATION NE corner of new Hiqhway 101 and Lyman Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A portion of the highway right of way easement according to official map of MnDOT SP 1017 (TH212) TOTAL ACREAGE 8.5 +/- WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING RSF YES NO x-To be verified REQUESTED ZONING PUD - Mixed Use PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Transit Oriented Development This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. S'gna, t~ e o Ap-~i~t ' Date / Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on May 20, 2004) CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 20, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Rezoning or property from RSF to PUD-Mixed (Southwest Metro Transit) - Planning Case No. 04-18 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by sending a notice addressed to such owner, and depositing the notices addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. K~en J. i~eli~r~t~ Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me day of l']d~gct/ ,2004. / '~ ~-~~1; 1'l/~---~'~ Notary ~/'}% "' Publi' ----... - g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-18 - sw metro transit rezoning-212 & 101 intersection\04-1 $ affidavit.doc Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in vadous city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracldng or any other purpose requiring exaCting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiCtion of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disblairner is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Highways 212/101 Intersection Rezoning from RSF to PUD-Mixed Use Public Heanng Notification Area Tuesday, June 1,2004 LaKe susan Lyma ? / Subject Site Properties Within 500 Feet of Subject Site Notified Properties ABBA J TREGOBOV & SUSANA P MACHADO-TREGOBOV 8714 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 ALEKSANDR SHTEYMAN 9148 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 ALOYSIUS R & MARY A CHENEY 9079 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 AMIT & MARY RATHOD 920 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 AMY J SCHUETTE ETAL 899O QUINN RD PO BOX 68 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0068 ANDREW C & KIMBERLY J DAHLGREN 8631 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ANDRE'W G & PAMELA J JOE 563 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ANDREW RICHARDSON 8665 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ANTHONY T & SHELLY A DENUCCI 287 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 ARLETTA L BRAGG & VIOLA R AUPPERLE 8628 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 ARTHUR J & KATHLEEN L DORDEL 1030 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 BARRY L & KATHY RIUTTA 8621 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 BENJAMIN R K & DONNA M JOHNSON 8521 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 BOBBLE D MORLOCK 5020 PAGE AVE NE ST MICHAEL MN 55376-8951 BRADLEY A & JENNIFER K HIBBS 364 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 BRIAN & ALYSSA M CARLSON 408 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 BRIAN & APRIL DEWOLF 9150 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 BRIAN & STACEY DOUVILLE 616 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 BRIAN D & SUSAN L HART 8670 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 BRIAN R WALETSKI & ELLEN M NIPP 8644 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 BRIAN SCOTT BALDWIN 980 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 BRIAN W & KELLY L AUDETTE 510 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 BRIAN W & KRISTIN A HOULE 880 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9648 BRUCE & MICHELLE L REINHART 294 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7608 BRUCE A & SHEILA M TANQUIST 8569 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 BRUCE C & LINDA P THALACKER 367 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 BRYAN D & NICOLE C EDWARDS 89O5 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 BRYAN J & LISA C VAN NINGEN 8686 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CERESE M KNUDTSON 8589 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHARLES E & LISA L PEDERSON 8841 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 CHRISTIAN F & AMY C CASPERSEN 580 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHRISTINE L HAUSKINS 1111 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9342 CHRISTOPHER & ANN DUPPLER 9174 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 CHRISTOPHER & DEBORA K HOL 8687 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHRISTOPHER DESCHNEAU & ELIZABETH DESCHNEAU 901 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9654 CHRISTOPHER J PATKA & CHRISTINE A PATKA 444 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 CHRISTOPHER T & AIMEE J ADAMS 8690 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CORY M & PAMELA S WATKINS 595 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CRAIG JAY & ELAINE C HEITZ 1011 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 CRAIG L & PATRICIA A MULLEN 611 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 CURT A & LINDA K KOBILARCSIK 9149 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 CURTIS A & SUSAN M SPERLING 8525 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CYNTHIA ANN MILLER 891 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9161 DANG VAN & FONG-YUN NGUYEN 9185 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 DANIEL J & BOBBLE J POTHIER 500 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7622 DANIEL J & CYNTHIA M RYAN 8666 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 DANIEL M & MELISSA L HERZOG 8790 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 DANIEL P & MARTHA J NEWELL 900 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 DANIEL P & MARY F JOHNSON 9101 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 DANIEL R & RUTH A SHERRED 525 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 DANIEL S & JENNIFER K RUBIN 9140 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 DANIEL W RYAN LIVING TRUST C/O DANIEL W & SALLY ARYAN 9025 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 DARRELL D & PATTI BARNETT 9131 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 DARRIN M & TANYA M JUVE 539 GREENFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 DAVID & ROCHELLE ALBERTI 1071 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 DAVID & THERESA ANDREWS C/O S SURI-PRICEWATERHOUSE 650 3RD AVE S SUITE 13OO MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-4333 DAVID A & LISA M HAPPE 604 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 DAVID A PEER 8861 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 DAVID G & C RUTH SOMMERS 396 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7628 DAVID G & NANCY A SOLIDAY 291 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7608 DAVID HADDEN 8649 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 DAVID I & JENNIFER A WILLIAMS 500 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 DAVID L & TERESA L BLOOMQUIST 960 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 DAVID L ANDERSON & HEATHER M BERGERUD 290 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 DAVID M SMITH & PATRICE N LUNDGREN-SMITH 8568 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 DAVID S & JANICE A LUNDQUIST 8705 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 DAVID W & LAURA L BEISE 9171 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 DAVID W & SUSAN M RETTERATH 1010 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 DENNIS A & STEPHANIE A UNZE 1080 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 DENNIS H & RUTH L LAUFENBURGER 8673 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 DENNIS J & CHARLENE P HANSEN 8658 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 DENNIS P & CAROLYN T MCGRATH 628 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7544 DIZA P BRAKSMAYER 472 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 DOST NIAZ 8581 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 DOUGLAS J & LYNETTE M WHOOLEY 9100 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 DOUGLAS J KOCH & MEGAN M DAWSON KOCH 9136 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 DOUGLAS M & CORAE R KRUSE 549 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7642 DOUGLAS S & DOMINICA B BERNARD 515 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 DOYLE L & BARBARA A VOSS 8646 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 DUANE J & DEBORAH A WEIDENDORF 8760 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 DYLAN C & MAGGIE A NISKA 574 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 DZUNG H & HONG T NGUYEN 1081 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 EARL S & TINA M STRAIT 8624 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 EDWARD S & NANCY J COUGHLIN 587 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ERIC C & DANA R HUSEMOEN 1091 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 ERIC G & DEBRA A RAYMOND 355 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 ERIC S & JULIE A OYEN 615 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 ERIC S & LISA M HAMBORG 9108 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 FRANK J & JENNIFER SISSER 8702 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 FRANK T & MARY L©U WHALEY 851 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9161 FREDERICK C RIESE & VALAIRE P RIESE 9154 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 GANG WANG & LIHUA QIN 9128 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 GARRY & TRACI DOLLERSCHELL 600 LYMAN BLVD PO BOX 88 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0088 GARY A SKALBERG 510 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7622 GARY D & DANISE L MCMILLEN 9151 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 GARY F & PHYLLIS H HABERMAN 9036 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 GEORGE J JR & LISA A CEASER 1091 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 GERAINT D POWELL & JULIE L WICK-POWELL 548 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 GLEN M & JOAN M GERADS 1071 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 GORDON E & ARLENE M SCHULZ 1100 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 GORDON S & PAMELA J JENSEN 356 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 GRANT & KELLY MORRISON 1060 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 GREG ALLAN MILLER 8801 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 GREGG D GUTSCHOW & BARBARA J CLAYTON 8691 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 GREGG R & GERALDINE BARETTE 8695 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 GREGORY J & SUSAN L HENKEL 8699 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 GREGORY J DEBENEDETTO & KELLY E DEBENEDETTO 8593 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 GREGORY L & LORI A PHELPS 1031 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 GREGORY M BAGLEY 8573 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 GREGORY R RENBERG 282 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 HAESEOK CHO & JIEUN CHUNG 9170 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 HARLAN C LEOPOLD 8553 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 HEATHER L ODDEN 1121 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9342 HUBERT H & VICKY L MCKENZIE 1021 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 HUSSAM HASSOUN 8537 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JACK J & KRISTIN A RAYMAKERS 640 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 JACK J & LAUREL A SCHNABEL 9167 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 JAIME W & LISA H LAUGHLIN 376 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7628 JAMES & ANDREA SWEENEY 296 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL 291 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 JAMES A CURRY 6105 EDEN PRAIRIE RD #17 EDINA MN 55436-1250 JAMES ALAN SUBAK 1060 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 JAMES C & CHRISTINE ERICKSON 8691 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 JAMES G & KRISTI S ST MARTIN 9082 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 JAMES JONATHON SOMMERS & KAREN D ROGGE 8683 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 JAMES L & JOANNE M WOLF 8585 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JAMES M & CHERYL DOUGLAS 8650 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 JAMI D WALKER 8517 CHANHASSEN HLLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JANET T WISDORF 8639 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 JASON J GILBERTSON & KATJA JEANNERET 583 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 JAY K & KELLY S SELTUN 1040 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 JAY P & SHERI A WEISSER 8541 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JEFFREY A & LISA J SCZUBLEWSKI 432 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 JEFFREY A & MICHELLE M REITAN 89OO QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 JEFFREY A & TANYA L SCHNEIDER 8702 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 JEFFREY C OLMSCHEID & BARBARA L OLMSCHEID 990 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 JEFFREY M & PATRICIA J YEAGER 1120 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 JEFFREY S & KRISTEN J COOK 8750 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 JEREMY M & SARAH E SINDELAR 921 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9654 JEREMY R & SHEILA K CARTER 1081 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 JOHN A & ANNETTE R WALTERS 622 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 JOHN A & BARBARA H DAHL 586 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 JOHN C & NANCY A BLOOD 575 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 JOHN D & CHRISTINE LOVE-JENSEN 1050 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 JOHN F MILLER 1071 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 JOHN G & KAREN LWEDIN 9101 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 JOHN H MEYERS & JACQUELINE C PRESCOTT MEYERS 1011 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 JOHN K & LESLIE G CADLE 301 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7633 JOHN K & TRACIE L ROSSMAN 351 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 JOHN M & MARY ANN MANUEL 463 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 JOHN P & KAREN J ENGELHARDT 8645 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 JOHN P & KRISTEN L SANDERS 559 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7642 JOHN P & MARIE M DEVINS 486 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 JOHN P & SANDRA R THOMPSON 8635 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 JOHN R & JODI A ANFINRUD 295 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7608 JOHN T JENSEN II 3815 39TH ST W MINNEAPOLIS MN 55410-1057 JOHN W & JOANE K ANDERSON 8654 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 JONATHAN D & SARA E WORRE 300 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7633 JOSEPH W & BRENDA N NEVE 9137 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 JOSHUA & TAMARA REDING 419 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 JOSHUA E & CORA L CONKLIN 8990 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 JUDSON E & JILL C SNELL 8694 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 KAREN L VANDERBOSCH 483 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7636 KEITH A & JULIE C MENZEL 9116 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 KEITH E & LISA L SCHWEGLER 619 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 KEITH M & JENNIFER L MELES 9117 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 KENT B & LORI BETH WARNBERG 1111 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 KEVIN P & MOLLY K MCORMICK 9054 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 KEVIN R & LYNN CARNAL 8661 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 KEVIN W & DEANNA J HANSON 9163 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 KEVIN W & QI LI LINDERMAN 610 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 KHANH & KHIEM LE 631 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 KLAY C & LESLIE A AHRENS 9108 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 KRISTIN PETERSON LEBRE 477 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 KURTA & SARAH J FERDERER 1090 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 KYUNG-SHIK PARK 1080 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 LARRY S & LISA MARIE EYRE 1100 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 LAWRENCE C & ELIZABETH KLEIN 9170 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8606 LESLIE E TIDSTROM 8679 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 LISA K MOORE 8682 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 LONG DINH NGUYEN & ELIZABETH CHI PHAM 1000 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 LONG LI & YING ZWANG 8557 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391-1899 MANATH LENGSAVATH & DOUANGCHAY LENGSAVATH 1061 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 MANDALSA D BHIKHAI & RAJUNDRANAUTH BHIKHAI 1051 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 MARK & KRISTINA SCHWENDINGER 8708 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 MARK A & ANNMARIE T SCHULTZ 598 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK A & JODt L BARGMANN 466 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7634 MARK A & KAELIN M SCHOLLE 568 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK A & REBECCA L ERICKSON 1110 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 MARK A & SUSAN E FROMMELT 9162 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 MARK C & LISA A ANDERSON 9111 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 MARK E & JANICE G LAVEN 8641 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 MARK E & JOANN M REICHOW 8653 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 MARK E GEMPLER & JULIE A WOLTER 8620 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 MARK J & CONNIE C KELLER 8831 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 MARK M & MICHELLE K GARRISON 592 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK R & JODI L SOTEBEER 8565 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MARK R & STACEY G LAKOSKY 8533 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MARK S & TRACY L KURVERS 8560 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MATTHEW C & STACEY M B HUDNUT 420 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 MATTHEW G & ELIZABETH MASON 9198 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 MATTHEW R & JODI L NILSEN 1051 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 MATTHEW W & KELLI M BROWER 8955 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 MATTHIAS H & ANDREA VANDOORN 8674 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 MICHAEL A & SHARRI P ROGERS 540 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MICHAEL B & CATHERINE ANDERSON 8709 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 MICHAEL C GRASSEL & RENEE M WALDBURGER 9125 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 MICHAEL D & SUSAN M OLSON 8612 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MICHAEL D TIMM 1101 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 MICHAEL G & KAREN L MCNEIL 8695 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 MICHAEL J & DARCI L GUANELLA 8821 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 MICHAEL J & MICHELLE M KELLOGG 9124 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 MICHAEL L & KELLY D AUER 910 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 MICHAEL P & SUSAN E DEEGAN 9162 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 MICHAEL R & JENNIFER A BRENDON 8811 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 MICHAEL R SMITH & DONNA J GORMAN 409 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 MICHAEL T & JEANINE HARRER 551 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MICHAEL W WEBER 8851 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 NANCY BRYDLE 568 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7642 NANCY FULTS 8913 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 NElL E & SUSAN L ANDERSON 429 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 NORMAN & JACQUELINE ENGEL 8699 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 PATRICIA JOHNSON 8715 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8333 PATRICK A & LAURENE FARRELL 801 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9161 PATRICK F MORLEY & PAMELA WEEKS MORLEY 9143 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 PATRICK L & KlM M MISMASH 591 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 PAUL & TONYA HENDRICKSON 9028 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 PAUL A ANDERSEN 8615 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 PAUL A HARRIS 8640 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 PAUL A LARSON & KATHERYN E POWELL-LARSON 1061 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 PAUL C SCHNETTLER & KATE D WARD SCHNETTLER 599 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 PAUL D & DENISE M ENBERG 8608 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 PAUL E & ANDREA M D STURM 8572 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 PAUL J & MARY A LAUERMAN 9155 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 PAUL J NESBURG & KATHERINE A SCOTT 9093 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 PAUL K & CARLA J HOFFER 8698 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 PAULW & ANA E MORENO 603 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 PETER D & TIFFANY M MCINTOSH 550 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 PHILIP P & NANCY E DENUCCI 9186 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 PHOULITHAT PHANDANOUVONG & VATSANA PHANDANOUVONG 8529 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 R STEVEN & MAURA BARNETT 8709 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8333 RALPH E & STACEY M SPRAINER 501 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 RANDY L & STEPHANIE C WAIBEL 421 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8656 RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR & JULIANNE E ORTMAN 8698 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 RAYMOND J ROOB JR & CHAE SUK ROOB 8584 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RICHARD C & SUSAN M AMBERSON 8549 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RICHARD J CHADWICK 9530 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8681 RICHARD L & LINDA C NELSON 1070 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 RICHARDW JR & LISA L SIMMONS 530 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 RICKI JON DREW ULKU & WENDELYN ELISE ULKU 1020 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 RICKY JOSEPH BARTHEL & KAREN ANN BARTHEL 1090 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 ROBERT & JILL SKUBIC 8619 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ROBERT A & KATHRYN M STEWART 8545 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT B & WENDY A DUFF 520 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ROBERT B MARTINOVICH & PATRICIA A MARTINOVICH 8592 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT C & SUSAN J DAHLIN 535 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ROBERT F & KAREN L ANDERSON 8561 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT G & DIANNE M WICHTERMAN 8629 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ROBERT G & SUSAN L DAUB 9159 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 ROBERT J & BEVERLY M AMICO 9061 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7632 ROBERT J & KATHY J BEERY 9132 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 ROBERT R & TAMELA J MERRILL 8662 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 ROBERT W SMITHBURG & MARCIA R ELAND 8657 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ROBIN J & DEANNE J ANDERSON 562 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 RODERICK W & ROBIN K FRANKS 8694 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 ROGER F & DENISE K KIEFER 1030 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 ROGER K & JOYCE L SCHONE 1010 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 RONALD A & GAlL D ISKIERKA 569 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 RONALD G & JOYCE L HORR 8513 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RONALD P LILEK & MARY M BENNETT-LILEK 9155 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 RONALD S & DEBBIE L WRENHOLT 991 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9655 RUDOLFO A & ELIZABETH A GOMEZ 350 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 RUSSELL G BAHENSKY 8552 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 SAUMIL R BRAHMBHATT & FALGUNI S BRAHMBHATT 1130 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 SCOT T & NICOLE J JOYNT 9113 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 SCOTT A & MICHELE M WALKER 9031 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 SCOTT R & LAURIE J SIMONSON 1051 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 SCOTT T & KRISTEN M LINEHAN 513 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 SCOTT W & BERNADETTE M PAULSON 634 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317~7644 SCOTT W & CINDEE M WALZ 9117 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 SEONGWOO PARK & MIN JEONG HAN 8580 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 SHANNON G & MICHELLE A KERN 607 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 SHAWN P & TAMARA J AUSTIN 1101 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9342 SO VAN LY & SUSAN YKUN UNG 8509 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 SPRINGFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSN C/O CONCIERGE ENTERPRISES 7100 MADISON AVE W MINNEAPOLIS MN 55427-3602 STACEY L JOHNSON 930 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 STATE OF MINNESOTA-DOT 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD MAILSTOP 631 ST PAUL MN 55155-1899 STEPHEN C & JUDITH A SLACK 8675 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 STEVE J & MARY A PANENO 8564 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 STEVEN A & COLLEEN M SAPP 8669 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 STEVEN D & CHRISTY A POPPEN 505 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 STEVEN D & DEBORAH L FUHRMAN 1031 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 STEVEN H & RUTH M VANCE 8588 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 STEVEN L P & KELLY J SCHWEN 557 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING 281 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 STUART E & JULIE M BODMER 991 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 SUZANNE M LANO 8604 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 TAE KYUN KlM 556 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 TERRELL L & COLLEEN K HELLAND 491 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317~7647 TERRI MARIE HANSON BERG TRUSTEE OF TRUST 8616 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 TERRY LEE & MARl T BERANAK 8576 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 THEODORE J & ANN L SMITH 9166 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 THOMAS A & CARRIE S COLE 528 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 THOMAS B & JENNIFER L BOWMAN 8577 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 THOMAS E & MARY P KELLIN 940 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 THOMAS E & SARAH MARIA LYNN 1050 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 THOMAS H & FELICIA R LINDQUIST 9107 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 THOMAS J & JULIE K PETERSON 881 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9649 THOMAS M & CHERYL A ELENZ 8636 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 THOMAS P & NICOLE M O'BRIEN 449 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 THOMAS P HAGMAN & SUSAN M BARTEN ETTI 625 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 THOMAS S & LEANNE M KELLY 9100 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 TIM & JANE BORNE 9158 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 TIMOTHY D & PATRICIA L BESSER 400 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8655 TIMOTHY J & SHARI D HOEFT 8600 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 TIMOTHY J LOVETT 8052 PARELL AVE NE ELK RIVER MN 55330- TIMOTHY P & HOPE A JACKSON 8632 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 TIMOTHY S & TAMARA S MILLER 579 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE 275 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 TODD E & VERONICA L SCHULZ 1070 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 TODD M & ANNE J HINRICHS 439 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 TONY L & CONNIE S NUSS 9140 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 TRINH D NGUYEN 1001 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 TROY & JENNIFER HOLASEK 8556 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 TROY A & JEANNETTE M RENNER 525 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 UTPAL R VAIDYA & LEENA UTPAL VAIDYA 861 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9649 VINCENT M HOWARD 15643 MESSINA ISLE CT DELRAY BEACH FL 33446-9761 WANDA FAYE DENT 8678 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 WARREN E V & SANDRA H SWEETSER 9132 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 FiLE No.894 04/20 '04 14:57 ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 2 April 20, 2004 Mr, Len Simich, AICP Southwest Metro Transit 13500 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: PHASE I ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PARK & RIDE DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY #101 AND THE PROPOSED }IIGItWAY #212 ON EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN CHANYIASSEN, N[INNESOTA Dear Mr. Simich: As requested, we have prepared a phase I analysis of the potential impact of the proposed park & ride development on property values of res/dent/al properties along the south side of Lyman Boulevard, near Highway #101. As part of our phase I analysis involving the Park & Ride, we have reviewed the existing and historical zoning, the current and historical City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, proposed sire plan of the Park & Ride and the adjacent freeway, and inspected the site and surrounding neighborhood. In addition, we have had conversations with individuals from the planning commission and prominent real estate agents serving the southwest metropolitan area to further understand the proposed development and its potential impact on nearby residential values. After reviewing this information, we also analyzed the appreciation rates of residential properties in like-kind neighborhoods near similar park & ride developments in contrast to the appreciation rates within their corresponding cities to further exaafine the effect of a park & ride c~n value~ if any. The proposed park & ride development shows a common development pattern for an area abutting a major interstate. Similar neighborhoods throughout the state have commercial properties immediately adjacent to major interstates wiih arterial roads, similar to Lyman Boulevard, separating them from residential developments. The residential developments generally begin with high density multi-family residential properties along the arterhl road, gradually transitioning to sing/e-family homes farther away from the arterial road and the interstate. The commercial developments benefit from both the high visibility and serve as buffers to the residential uses from the freeway noise and view. The multi-family further buffers the single-family residential from freeway issues, and from the commercial areas. Furthermore, a 100-foot landscaped buffer between the townhomes and the rest of the neighborhood is part of the site's design to farther alleviate any impacts on the nearby single- family homes. Recognizing the forthcoming development of Highway #212 through the subject neighborhood, the 10-acre parcel on which the park & ride is proposed is a prime site for commercial development. The park & ride development plan follows the typical development pattern, while minimizing the potential negative impacts of commercial use on the nearby single-family homes. ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 3 FILE No.894 04/20 '04 14:58 Mr. Len $imich, AICP April 20, 2004 Page 2 The zoning of the' subject property is currently RSF, or Single-Family Residential District. However, dating back to the 1991 comprehensive p'lan, the site has been guided for mixed-use development. According the Chanhasser~ city planner, mixed-use development areas are primarily designed for neighborhood commercial or high density multi-family residential. The proposed park & ride development includes approximately I0,000 to15,000 square feet of commercial space and a 45 to 50 unit townhouse complex. The proposed townhouses are high end "row homes", and would likely sell for between $200,000 and $250,000. The commercial space would likely be primarily comprised of a daycare facility and a small retail area serving the park & ride users and the neighboring community. Therefore, the proposed park & ride falls well within the bounds of' a mixed-use development and is generally a very Iow impact use. In addition, the park & ride has been designed in such a way that there will be very minimal impact on the traffic counts of' the residential neighborhoods nearby. The buses will have direct access on to Highway//21.2 from the park & ride and will generally have no need to drive through the nearby neighborhoods. To further understand the impact of the proposed de~,elopment, we contacted a number of prominent real estate agents who serve the Southwest metro market and are familiar with the subject neighborhood. Their responses were consistent in that they all believe that, given the alternatives, the proposed development is the most unintrusive for nearby homeowners. Also, the park & ride would provide convenient transportation for the nearby homeowners into the downtown areas and throughout the metropolitan area. One of the agents pointed out that the park & ride would produce higher levels of traffic in :the area only twice a day during the work week, in the morning and in the evening, whereas a retail development would generally increase levels of traffic consistently throughout the entire day including the weekends. It is their general opinion that homes adjacent to park & rides are generally more desirable than homes adjacent to commercial developments. In addition to the research described above, we exam~ed the appreciation rates of properties in like-kind neighborhoods surrounding three similar park & fide facilities. Specifically, we looked at the Apple Valley Transit Station, Palomino Hills Park & Ride (Apple Valley), and the Savage Park & Ride. Using the Multiple Listing Service database, we 1bund sales and resales of residential properties surrounding each of these park & rides and determined the appreciation rates accordingly. We then found the average appreciation rates for the cities in which the properties are located by using the average sale prices over the same time period. To fully understand the impact on property values, we examined the appreciation rates of propcrties before and after the park & ride was developed. We found in all cases that the appreciation rates of properties were actually greater after the park & ride was developed when compared to the city averages. In addition, we looked at individual properties that sold both before and after the park & rides were developed 'and found that they showed similar appreciation rates to the rest of the market. Our findirigs consistently showed that there was no measurable difference between the average appreciation rates of residential properties near park & rides and the average appreciation rates of all r~sidential properties in their respective cities. F~×:612 344 1635 PRGE 4 FILE No.894 04/20 '04 14:58 ID:Shenehon Company 'Mr. Len Simich, AICP April 20, 2004 Page 3 After reviewing all of the pertinent information, interviewing various real estate agents, and analyzing appreciation rates of properties in similar, areas, it is our opinion that the proposed park & ride development will have no measurable negative impact on the property values of the nearby residences. Any diminution in value that could take plac~ in the future is due solely to the construction of Highway #212. In fact., the proposed park & ride development could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to thc interstate, preventing higher impact development on the sight, and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to call us at (612) 33376533. Sincerely, SHENEHON COMPANY Stephen T. Hosch, MAI Senior Vice President FILE No.896 04/21 '04 08:17 ID:Shenehon Company FGX:612 344 1635 PGGE 2 SHENEHON COMPANY I$ A BUSINF.$S AND REAL E,'-;TA'rE VALUATION FIIt. M serving both thc puDlic and private sectors. Our geographic concentration is in thc Midwest, however, out services continue to expend throughout thc country. 1[ The purpose of Shenehon Company is to prepa~'e appraisals and market studies of real estate, businesses and intangible righr~, and to provide our clienu with the specialized knowledge necessary to solve thc many valtmtion problems that arise in the marketplace. I[ Our reputation of quality valuations is a tradkion that began in 19z9, when the late F.E. Shcnehon founded his real estate appraisal firm. In ~946, his sun, Howard. joined ~he firm, and in the mid495o's, assumed man- agement responsibilities. Since that time, the company has expanded to in- clude not only the appraisal of real estate, but also the valuation of business enterprises. ~ Shenehon Company continues that tradition by providing its c~iea~ts with quality work prepared by an experienced staffof appraisers/analysts with a wide variety of e×pertise in the real estate and business valuation fields. This knowledge is achieved by incorporating extensive and contlnuot~s educa- tion with actual field cxpcricncc. I~ The top associates have earned designa- tions from the following oiganizations: Counselors of Real Estate Appraisal Institute (~ttu); Institute of Business Appraisers (c~.); and the Amer- ican Society of Appraisers (^st,). These designations are highly recognized in the appnds~l field. Other staf~'appraisers are candldat~ for membevahip in the above-mentioned organizations as well a~ members of additional board~ and axsociafions. The firm'~ appraisers are licensed in the 5tare of Minnesota as well as other states throughout thc country, Several members of the firm bare e~rned postgraduate master's degrees in clther real estate or busine,~s adminis- tration. ~ In addition to appraisal responsibilities, staff members serve as review appraisers, a. rbitraton, commisslo~ers, special magistrates, medk, mrs, and lecturers at various seminars and courses for a number of educational organizations. Several .~taff n~embcrs have also published articles in local and national trade journals. The company has also earned a highly-respected repu- tation in the area of litigation, with several staff members involved in numer- ous landmark court decisions. FILE No.896 04/21 '04 08:18 ID:Shenehon Company FRX:612 344 1635 PflGE 3 REAL ESTATE Agricultural Facilitie~ Ainplane Amusement Parka Auto Repaft Facilities Auto Dealerships Bank Facilities Bars and Liquor Stores Bowling Alleys Ca~ Washe~ Casinos Cement Plants Ccmeterle-~ Child Care Ce. ntcrs "(.}.t_lAl.l'l'y VAI.(IA2'IONS, F, XCI'ilrFI(,)NA[, SI~P, VICI:,, AND A i..ONG.STANDIN(; I)I~DICA]'I()N T() IN'I"F(;RI'I'Y HAVE BEliN TIlE ('.(')RNERSTONES tJPt)N WI-tICll WE tlAVE BtJIIJI'OUR FIRM.' Churcbe~ Cx~ld Storage Build~nl~ Condominiums Conferencc Centers Contaminated Properdez O~rl~rate Headquarters Department Stores F~.rFns Food Proc~ing Planu Food Storc~ Fo~&ic~ F~neral Hom~ Gasoline Stations Golf Course~ Grain Elevators GravellSand Operations GteenhouscdNurserie~ klealddFitncss Clubs Historical Propertic~ HospirAs Hotels/Morals Industrial Facilities Institutional Buildings Jails FILE No.896 04/21 '04 08:18 ID:Shenehon Company Fnx:612 344 1635 PnGE 4 Laboratorir-~ Landfil~ Lawn and Garden Facilitiea LumberYards Marinas Medical Facilities Mini Self-Storage Properties Mining Properties Museums Mobile Home Parks Nursing Homes Office Buildinss Office/Showrooms Off'ice Condominiums Outdoor Advertising Signs Parking Ramp, and Garages Public Buildings Raceuacks Radio/TV. Station, Rexdy-Mixed Cottcretc Properties Recreational Propertie~lKcsort,~ Rchabilita6on Facilities Restaurant, Right-of-Ways Salvage Schools Seniot Housing Facilities Service Stations Shopping Centers Ski [(esot ts Subdivisions and Land Development Subsidized Housing Theaters Truck Plazas Truck 'Ikrminals V:aeam Land Wetla~tds and Wildlife CONSULTING Condemnation,~ Development of La,xd and Buildings Environmental lssue~ 'l/state Freezes Fe~_qiln[ity Studies Forcch~s~lre I.and Use Stndies Lmsc vs, Buy Analy~i~ Market M,hze. ill Use "()[.ll( I.}NI()..UIi (;('}MI~,IXJA'fI(')N (')F REA1 ANI) lltJNINl:.55 VAl.tJA'l'l(')t,l AI.I.()WS; (JS T()I't((.)VlfDl! INNL)VAT1V~i .5©LUTIt.')NS.' TO I)II:FICt)i.T VAI.tl,YI'IC)N New Construction Sale and Purchase Special A~sessmenr Benefit AnalTsis Tax Appmls Tax Increment Financing Studies BUSINESS ENTERPRISES Advertislng Compan Agricultural Businesses Amusement Parl~.s Apparel Companies Architectural Firms Arenas Auto Dealerships and Fnmckise.q Bakeries Banks Bars and Liquor Stores Boat Manu£a¢.rurcrs FILE No.896 04/21 '04 08:18 [D:Shenehon Company FG×:612 344 1635 PGGE 5 Bowling Centers Brokerage Companies Car Washes Casinos Cement/Graveb'Sand Companies Coal Le~ses and Mines Communic~ation Companies Computer Companies Construction Comp~fiea Construction Machinery Companies Contracts and Compensation Studies Convenience Stores Curtain M-a,xufacturers Day Care Operations Development Companies Distribution Companies Dog Food M~mufacturcr Drug Stores Dry Cle.,mers and Laundries Electric.al Companies Employment Search Companies Engineering Cnmpani¢.~ Equipment Companies Fabrication Companies Feed Milts Food Processors Foorwcnr Companies Franchises Freezer Watehouse~ Gasoline and Auto Repair Cmnpanies Gencral and Limited Partnership interests Go/fCut, rses Grain Ekvators Hair Salons ! Iardware Stores Healch/Fimcss Ck&s Heat Ttmting Operation~ "ADAPTING OLD THEORIES FOrk NEW A I,I,I.I('.ATION S~ Holding Compani~ Home Healda Care Services Hotd.5/Motels Industrial Companies Insurance Compani~ investment Companies Laboratories and Research Comps. hies kamdtills Lm~d Development Companies Lumber Mills Lumberyards Math inery Compa,).ies Management Companies Manufacturers Representatives Manufacturing Companies Marinas Meat Processors Medical Pmctice. s Medical Service Companies Metalworking Machinery Companies Minl.g Companies Mort/~age Companies Moving and Storage Compaoies Music Companies Non-profit C. ompanies Nursing Homes Oprital Store* Outdoor &dvertising Signs Printing Companies Proce~ing Compank~ Produc~ Companies Profe:;skmal P=cti~ and Agencics Publb:hh~g Gompanie~ R.V. Parks . ~o Statlous Radio T~wers ~Ranche~ Rmdy-Mixcd Concrete Companies Real Estate Brokerage and M:mageanent Companies Regtautan~ Retail Shops Retail ~nd Wholesale ~l~re C~ntep3 River/Showboats Sales Representative Companies Sal~,~ge Y~rds S~wmilts Service Companies Shoe Companies Sign Companie~ Ski [ridges Software Companies "f~chmfloSy Companies Tclephtme Service Comp~micx Television Stations Theaters Tool and Die Operations Transportation t.Tx~m panlm~ Travel Agencies Tream~cnt (-lenters Tmcklng Componi~t Utility Companie~ Veterinary Clinic~ Video Stores Warehouaing Companies Waste Disposal Companies Wholesalers FILE No.896 04/21 '04 08:19 ID:Shenehon Company FnX:612 344 1635 PnGE 6 INTANGIBLE PROPE KTY RIGHTS Acc~ Righta Air Rights Contract,'{ Contracts for Deed Customer or Subscription Li~ts Dam~e Analyses Devclopmcnt Agreet~ents Devdopmcnt Rights £asemcnts Forestry Rights Franchises General and Limited Partnership Interesu Going Concern Goodwill I.easehold interests Licenses Lost Profit Analy'si~ Minority Interests Patents Royalties Tax Increment Financing Ag-reemenrs Trademarks Visibility Rights Water Rights Zoning Changes FILE No.896 04/21 '04 08:19 ID:Shenehon Company F~X:612 344 1635 PAGE OUK CLIE;4T$ 3M A.$.B. Capkat Management Alliant Techsy~term American Exprcs~ Financial On,W Amedl'dde 5cr,,ices Inc, Archdlocese o f' gr. Paul and MJ. rmeapolis .Arthur An&rscn LLP Aspen Waste Systems, fnc. Associated Bank of Minne~ot,,. Augsburg College AVR, Inc. Best Buy, Inc. BNC National B;mk of Miane,sota Boise Cascade Corporation Boston 5clentific ficiMed Breck Soho Bremet Ba~k ~riggs and Morgan Brookfield Properties (US) LLC B rely, ning-Fcrris industries Cars;ll, Inc. (3arlmn Corn.pan'es, Inc. Carv:r C~onty Catholic Charities of the .Archdiocese of'Sc Paul and Mi. rmeap~lN Century .Sank, NA Cittt~ank, NA Cit/of' Bloomington City of r;dina Cit/of 1..ino City of tCchhel, d City of (;old Sp ng,, Grnnite (.';ompaw Co,.n age Center ~;ra~k-ri'dhm, C~,pitql. Grouv C:,~w C,~rporat:on £'.,cu,.,;t,' Dorse? & Whitney, LLP E,-nxt & ¥~m~g ['ahcon, Inc Fa-grc & ~enson, LLP Hmcs Inter=ts First Natlnnal Ba~ of W~eca Fi~ta~ Frmtenshuh Comp'mits GE Capitfl Corporation G~C Commercial Mortgage Graco Inc. Grossman De~erships H~lth~st Care System Henacpin County Hillcrcst Development Holiday Companies Hone~cll lntemutional Inc. [ntern~l Revenue Se~ce Jim Lupient O}dmtobile ~ ~chitccts Koch Petroleum Group L.E ~aus-~derson Construction Lend Mast ~al Estate Luchcr~ Brothcrho~xl Milt-O-Meal Marquette Bank McGough Companies Medtrm,ic, Inc, Merrill Lyn~ & Co., Inc. Metropolitan Airports Con~ission Miller & Schroeder [nc Minneapolis Commmfity Development Agency Minneapolis 1 [cmr~ {nstimtc Fou,tdatiol. Minnmpolis Par'.c Rco'mrir, n board Minnctota Department of Iransportttion Mu.'u~,[ ofN-w Y',rk National Pre~t') h,duecrial Nordq, tis, qign Company Northland/Marquette Capital Group Northwest Aj rline~/KI.aV[ Opus Group of Companics Park Nicollet Medical Center l~rudential PCG/PMCC P .J. Steichen & G~. Reliant Energy Minnegasco Richfield Bank & Trust Co, Robins Kaplm'~ Miller & Circsi LLP Ron Clark Constru,:tinn & Design RREEF .Ryan Companies U.S, Inc. Schmitt Music StarTribune SurMockics, Inc, TOLD Development IJ.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. U,S. Bureau of Mines U.S. Department o[Ju~6t:e U.S. Department o~: the Treasury U-S. Fish aad Wildlife Service U.S. Realty Advisors, I.I..C Uaion Labor Life Insurance Co, Wells Fargo Bank Minnexota, N~.. kJ'nlver.dcy of St. Thomas University of Minnmota FILE No.896 04/21 '04 08:19 [D:Shenehon Company Fnx:612 344 1635 PAGE 8 Z ..BIOGRAPHICAL DATA AND EDUCATION Bom and rahed in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and graduate~ from Columbia Hcight~ High School. Attended St. Cloud State University and graduated with a bachelor of scien~ degree in read estate with an emphasiS in appraisal. Successfully completed numerous real estate appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal. Lustitute, and have attended several seminars covering specialLzed appraisal topics, some of which are highlighted below: Legal L~sue~ in Yaluation - March 2003 2nd Annual RERC IndusLr~ Outlook - Ianuar~ 2002 Real E~tate Outlook for Z003 - December 2002 Re~l F_~ta~ Outlook 2002 - D~mb~r 200 l Eminent Domain - Octobe~ 2002 E~r~nt Domain. October 2001 Commercial Real ECrate F-mancin~ - March 2002 PROFESS~O ..N~L QUALIFICATIONS GR..ASSOCIATIONS Certified Gexteral Real Property Appraiser Licensed Appraiser - State of Minnesota, License #4002903, Expires August 31, 2005 Member - Appraisal Institute (MAI) The Appraisal Institute conducts a mandatory program of continuing education for deaignated members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of 0ais program are awarde~ mri~ic educational certification. I am currently co,tiffed uacter the Appraisal Ix~fimtc education program through December 31, 2006, Member - Mina~ota Shopping Center Associatiotl (M$CA) PROFESSIONAL E~PERIENCE Shenchon Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota Senior Vice President - Director of Real Estate, since November 2003; Shareholder Senior Vice President - Co-Director of Real Estate, September 2002-November 2003; Shareholder Vice President - Co-Director of Re. al Estate, April 2001-September 2002; Shareholder Appraiser/Analyst from June ~991 to March 2001 Duties and Re~pons~ilifies: l~epaxe professional valuatio~ and maxket analysis of real e~tate and intang~le property fights, A~sigameats involve numerous types of commercial, multiple family, industrial, and special purlmsa properties, The speeifi~ purpoan of these assignments have included kighest and best use studies, mortgage finanain§, P.,OD.de-mnat~Oll, tt~tX aba.t~Qetlt proceedings, feasibility analysis, investment counseling, potential sales and purcha~.~, lease and rental analyses, bankruptcy proceedings, charitable donations, internal management decisions, ~w. eial assessment appeals, gift tax, and allocation of purchase prie~. Cottrt experience involves tcst'ifyhlg at commission h~s and depositiolls, p~l~aratiola of affidavita~ and providing litigatioll snpport. AUTHOR/CO-AUTHORDP, GUEST SPEAKER OF: "Challenging Issues in Commercial and Ladastrial Valuation,' Commercial Real Estate Financing Conference, March 13, 2002 "Market Valuation & AppraiSals,' Minnesota Commercial Association of Realtors, January 22, 2002 "Ftmdamentals of Special Assessments in Appraisal,~ Valuation Viewpoint, Spring 1999 "A Perspective on Subdivision Appraisal,' %luatlon Viewpoint, Winter 1997 PARTIAL_CL.!ENT LIST Allina Hospitals & Carries Anthony Osfltmd & P, aer Assoch~-,d gaak Berm Guzy & Stdfea Best Buy CorporatiOn BI,ese Law Firm Br[ggs & Morgan Builders Der, & Finance Ci~ of Coon Rapi~ City of Eagan City of Min~spoltz City of Minnetonka City of New Hope Cit~ of gos~ville City of Shor~view Crown Bank CSM Corporation Faegre & Fr~hikso~ & Byro~ FLU.D. Homa & Micbalcs Hermepin Coun~ Regional Railway Authority Hinskaw & Culb~rtr, on Internal Rwenue Service Kelly & Faw~tt Kra~-Anderson Leonard, ~ & Dei~ ~ndgr~n Bro~ MonGolian ~H$ Co~6on ~e~r, Wolff & Dozily ~ Group of Cos. ~t~n, F~ & ~r~ Rinke Noonan Robert Muir Co. Robins. Kaphn, Miller & Ciresi U.S. Fish & Wildlif~ Sea'vie~ United States Justh~ D~parmaent U~iversity of Min~sota University of St. Thomas Warchol, l~t & Hajek Wdls Fargo & Co. William~ Pipe Line Company FZLE No.896 04/21 '04 08:20 ID:Shenehon Company F~X:612 344 1635 PRGE 9 9 BIOGRA. PmCAL DATA AND EDUCATION Born ~nd raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Graduated from Marquee UnivcrsRy High Sehoo! in Milwaukee. Relocaled to tl~ Twi~ Cities :md graduated from th~ University of St. Thomas ia St. Paul. Awarded a ba~i~lor of re'ts degree ia tin.ce wire honorable distinctioa. Holds a pcm:~nt mernberslfip in Delta ]~ilon $igma~ a Nafiomd College Honor 5k~i~. Awarded a master of bus~s administration degree from tim Univexsity of Mianesot~ Awa. rd~ distinguishexl ahxmai awaxd by the University 6f St. Thomas for Corpor~ and Commtmity Respo~sibili~. the College of Fellows in the Insfmte of Busine~ Appraisers. Successfully completed numerous appraisal eo~r~es and seminan which have been sponsored by tbe Appraisal Imtitute, the Institute of Business Appraisers, the Mina~ota Association of l~ofessional Appraise.~ (MAPA), the American Society of Real Estate Counse. lors, the Hennepin County Rat Association, NAIOP, the American Institute of CPAs, and other professional groups, pRo~sIONAL QUAL.[FICATIONS OR AssocIATIONS Co~nse3or of Real Estate - Amerie.~a Socie~ of Re~l Estate Counselors (CRC) Member - Appraisal Iasfitute (MAB - Certifi~ through Doce~be.t 31, 2007 Mgmbet - Institute of Business Appraisers (MCBA) CBVAL) (Fellow) ~lustrial Org~i,~on Economist Associate - American Bar Association (ABA) M~nber - Natioml Association of In~ustrial and Office Properties - Minnesota Clx~tex (NMOP) Member - Urban Land Institute (ULI) Member - Building Owners aeA Managers Associ~ion - Greater Minneapolis Cl~pmr (BOM&) Member - Commissioner of Commerce Task Force for Apprai~r Licensing - 1990 NAIOP Ju~s P~a~eI for Building Awax~ Member - Lambda Alpha lntem~tioml - Hoaor~'y Land Economics Society .CERTI.~D AND LICEI~ED APPRAISER Licensed Appraiser -$tate of Minnesota. License #4000882, Expires August 31, 2005 Lice~ed Apprai~r - State of Arizona, License $30727, Expires January 31, 2004 Licensed Appraiser - State of Wisconsin, Liee~;e g585-010. ExpLres December 31, 2005 Li~e~ed Appraiser - State of South Dakota, Lit~as¢ #585CG-2004R, Expires September 30, 2004 Licensed Appraiser - State of Colorado, License #CG40027370, ExpLres December 31, 2005 Licensed Appraiser - Stag of I:lorida, Licen.~ ffRZ0002662, Expires November 30, 2004 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Sheaehon Company, Shareholder, since October 1980: President since 1985, Patchin Appraisals, Inc,, Manager from February 1978 to September 1980, Shenehon-Ooodlund and Associates, Inc., Appraiser from May 1975 to February t978. Duties ;md Responsibilities: Prepare professimud valultions and market ;tn~,sis of r~al es~, business enterprises md intang~le property rights. Assignmems b~ve hvolved n~merous typ~s of real estate properties and businesses. assignmeats have included highest and best use studies, mortgage futancing/recapitalizati0a, condemnation, matriag~ dissolution, economic loss analysis, tax abate~t proceedings, feasibility amtlysis, investment coua~eling, potential sales and purchases, lease and rental analyses, bankr,~ptcy proceedings, charitable donationa, internal ma3aageme, nt 6eciaion~, eascme, nts, special aasessment appeals, allocation of purchase price, going public or private, lost profil~ analyses, estate planning, gift tax, ESOP/ESOT. rights-of-way, valuation of limited and general partaer interest.~ in real estate business partnerships, 'and insurance ir, demnifi{ation. Teaching experi~ax:e baa b~m with the Board of Realtors in the University of Minnesota Exteaaioa and as an adjunct professor and leclln'ex at tim LInivel~ity of St. Thoma~ and University of Minnesota degree programs. Court experience involves testifying at various cemmission hearings, district courts, tax courts, and fe4cral courta throughout the U.S. Writing experience in¢lud~ numerous published articles in various local and national trade journals. Arbi~:ratioi~ and commissioner expexience involve~ acting as a court approwd arbitrator, commissioner or magistrate on nun~;ro~s re, al estate and busine~ val~l~tioll dispute& Inve~tal~lt experience ha3 involved a variety ofbxtsiness and real esta:e assets. Appraisal experience has be~a tln'ougho~t ~ U.S. (over 25 states) and Canada. pARTlnL CLrEhrr L~ST 3M Coq~ra¢on Equ.Rabl~ l~if¢ ln$~t~tee Malt-O-Meal ~M~ A~ ~ - IDS ~ A~n A~aOon M~ L~-Hn~ U~ C~g~ GE C~i~l ~m G~ orca. U~ of M~ Ca~oSc Chart6~ Gcr~ Hi~ lnt~s h~c G~ & ~ U~V~ 0fSt. Ci~ G~C Mo~gag~ P~*I P~ O~ W.R, ~ C~ Ci~ of M~poli$ HUD ~ Malfi~ ~ CSM ~o~ H~ ~ R~ Way~ ~ 0r~ In~ R~ $ervt~ Sau Dido Gas & Dor~ & ~i~ LP. Morg~ ~ S~R M~lc X~l ~mn Co~n ~m A~c~n SciM~ ~fc Sys~ YMCA TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT-ORIENTED FACILITY IN CITY OF CHANHASSEN Prepared for: SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT Prepared by: BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. May 2004 CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................ SUMMARY .................................................................................... PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND Proposed Development Characteristics ............................................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNED FUTURE ROADWAY CHANGES .......................................................... 3 TRAFFIC FORECASTS Trip Generation ........................................................................4 Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................. 4 Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 8 RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC OBJECTIVES Impacts at Subject Intersections (Objective A) .................................... 11 Impacts on Lyman Boulevard East of TH 101 (Objective B) ................... 12 Recommended Access Plan (Objective C) ....................................... 15 Page ii iii Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen -i- May 2004 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 Page PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................... 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR PARK/RIDE ................................... 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR RETAIL/DAYCARE ......................... 6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR RESIDENTIAL ............................... 7 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES .............................. 9 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ............................... 10 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................. 13 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................. 14 RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN .......................................... 16 Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen -ii- May 2004 SUMMARY Benshoof & Associates, Inc. completed a traffic study for the Southwest Metro Transit's proposed transit-oriented facility in Chanhassen. This study is to determine impacts of this development on the surrounding roadways. Based on discussions with City, Mn/DOT, and Southwest Metro staff, the following are the three principal objectives of this traffic study: A) Examine traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections during the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours: TH 101/TH 312 north ramps · TH 101/TH 312 south ramps · TH 101/proposed fight mm access · TH 101/Lyman Boulevard · Lyman Boulevard/proposed full access · Lyman Boulevard/Summerfield Drive B) Examine impacts of the proposed development on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101 for the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. C) Develop a recommended access plan for the proposed development. Traffic forecasts and analyses were completed for the 2011 no-build and the 2011 build conditions during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. Results from the traffic analyses indicated that the proposed development will not cause any significant negative impacts at the subject intersections and on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101. A recommended access plan was developed that would best meet the needs for the proposed development users and other motorists using the surrounding roadway network. Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen -iii- May 2004 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to present the results of the traffic study completed for the proposed transit-oriented facility in the City of Chanhassen. The site for this facility is located north of Lyman Boulevard and east of the future realigned TH 101. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed site. Based on discussions with City, Mn/DOT, and Southwest Metro staff, the following are the three principal objectives of this traff~c study: ^) Examine traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections during the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours: · TH 101/TH 312 north ramps · TH 101/TH 312 south ramps · TH 101/proposedright turn access · TH 101/Lyman Boulevard · Lyman Boulevard/proposed full access · Lyman Boulevard/Summerfield Drive B) Examine impacts of the proposed development on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101 for the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. C) Develop a recommended access plan for the proposed development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed development was initially envisioned to consist of a park/ride facility and other supporting uses such as convenience retail and residential. Based on discussions among neighbors, Southwest Metro Transit, City, and Benshoof & Associates staff, a preferred development concept was developed. This concept was principally based on needs for the area, benefits of multi-use developments, and trip generating characteristics of the various possible uses. The following are the characteristics of the preferred development concept (referred to as proposed development elsewhere in the report), which were used in this traffic study: · Park/fide 800 parking spaces · Daycare 8,000 SF (square feet) · Convenience retail 8,000 SF · Housing 48 dwelling units The proposed site will be served by a total of three access points - a right turn access on TH 101, a full access on Lyman Boulevard, and a "buses only" access on the TH 312 south ramps. The proposed development is expected to be complete by 2010. Consistent with normal practice, traffic analysis were completed for one year after full completion of the development, i.e. 2011. Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen - 1- May 2004 FUTURE TH 101 PROJECT LOCATION I INTERCHANGE APPROXIMATE SCALE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPOFF~ATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT- ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNED FUTURE ROADWAY CHANGES The proposed site presently is undeveloped. South of the proposed site is Lyman Boulevard, a two~lane City street with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Lyman Boulevard west of TH 101 is a County roadway. As shown in Figure 1, TH 101 is a north-south roadway with an offset at Lyman Boulevard. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) currently has plans to realign the north leg (north of Lyman Boulevard) of TH 101 to remove the offset at Lyman Bouelvard. This change will create a four-legged TH 101/Lyman Boulevard intersection. Mn/DOT plans to construct TH 312 in the next few years. With the new TH 312, an interchange wilI be built at TH 101. This interchange will create two ramp intersections on TH 101 north of the site. These planned future changes will result in the following geometrics and traffic controls at intersections on TH 101: TH IO1/TH 312 north ramps. This intersection will provide one eastbound left turn lane and one shared through/fight turn lane on the west approach, two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one fight turn lane on the east approach, and one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one fight turn lane on the north and the south approaches. Traffic signal control will be provided at this intersection. · TH 10I/TH 312 south ramps. This intersection will provide one left turn lane and one fight turn lane on the east approach, one left turn lane and two through lanes on the north approach, and one right turn lane and two through lanes on the south approach. Traffic signal control will be provided at this intersection. · TH 1 O1/Lyman Boulevard. This intersection will provide one eastbound left turn lane, one through lane, and one fight turn lane on the east and the west approaches and one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one fight turn lane on the north and the south approaches. Traffic signal control will be provided at this intersection. Geometr/cs and traffic controls at the subject site access intersections were established through traffic analyses and are presented later in this report. Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen -3- May 2004 TRAFFIC FORECASTS TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates for all proposed uses were developed based on data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. Trips resulting from this process are called gross trips. Due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed development, a significant portion of the development trips are expected to occur internal to the site (e.g., a trip between residential and day care uses). Based on ITE data and experience on other similar projects, a five percent reduction was applied to gross trips to determine net development trips that will use the surrounding roadway network. Trips for retail uses normally are classified into the following two trip types: New Trips - Trips solely to and from the subject development Pass-By Trips - Existing "through" trips on adjacent streets (TH 101 and Lyman Boulevard) that will include a stop at the subject development in future Although the convenience retail will generate a few passby trips, these trips would be very low compared to the total trip generation for the site. Therefore, no reduction was applied for passby trips for the proposed development. Table 1 shows the trip generation estimates. Table 1 Weekday Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use Size Units A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Park/Ride 800 Spaces 637 494 Daycare 8,000 SF 102 106 Convenience Retail 8,000 SF 51 51 Housing 48 DU 27 44 GROSS TOTAL 817 695 NET TOTAL* 776 660 *Net total trips are calculated by reducing the gross total trips by five percent. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution percentages for the proposed development were established based on discussions with City and Southwest Metro Transit staff regarding market areas for the various types of uses. It is expected that traffic patterns for the various proposed uses will be different. Therefore, separate distribution percentages were developed for the different uses. These percentages are presented in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the distribution percentages presented in Figures 2, 3, and 4. This trip assignment resulted in development traffic volumes at the subject intersections. Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen -4- May 2004 FUTURE TH 101 ~ 10%' 15% APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 3000' SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSI% ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN FIGURE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR PARK/RIDE ST. FUTURE TH 101 25% I SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT I'BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSEDTRANSI~ ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN FIGURE 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR RETAIL/DAYCARE L ~4AId ~'~ 6% FUTURE TH 101 45% 10% I APPROXIMATE SCALE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT & ASSOCIATES, INC, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSI% ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN FIGURE 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES As described earlier, traffic forecasts and analyses were completed for one year after full completion of the proposed development, i.e. 2011. To develop background traffic volume projections for 2011 at the subject intersections, Mn/DOT's projections presented in "TH 212 Design-Build Preliminary Engineering Design," September 2003 were obtained. This document presents 2007 and 2025 traffic volume projections at the subject intersections. Using these projections and existing daily volumes in the 2002 Mn/DOT flow maps, a.m. and p.m. peak hour background volumes for 2011 were extrapolated. Development volumes established earlier were added to the 2011 background (2011 no-build) volumes to determine 2011 build volumes. A.M. and p.m. peak hour volumes for the 2011 no-build and the 2011 build conditions at the subject intersections are presented in Figures 5 and 6. In addition to volume projections at the subject intersections, Figures 5 and 6 show two-way volumes on Lyman Boulevard between TH 101 and the proposed access and east of the proposed access. Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen -8- May 2004 I LYMAN BLVD. 391/423 40/93 ,, > 67/67 -'~ · 10/10 10/10 109/139 TH 312 NORTH RAMPS 112/112 11/240 '1' -/125 40/43 39/68 40/83 R-IN/R-OUT TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS I. IJ -/276 238/238 > i NOT TO SCALE 2011 NO-BUILD 2011 BUILD 2/3 i' 227/235 > 9/11 ' uJ '[', 1/1 ~ < 98/122 ~ ,J, 4/4 m SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSI~ ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES J ,L 10/10 10/10 10/10 ~ LYMAN BLVD. J,I,L 329/338 50/70 152/152 '1'. 22/22 < 10/10 ~ 358/380 TH 312 NORTH RAMPS 82/82 10/72 TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS ~ -/268 R-IN/R-OUT ~' 39/42 <,,, 40/107 ,J, 198/290 t - /8 -. 277/277 -/1 . 166/166 > I I I JSL 5/6 t 140/157 > 21/25 ~ U.l N t NOT TO SCALE -- 2011 NO-BUILD 2011 BUILD 2/2 263/267 10/10 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT INC. TRANSPORTATION ENOINEERSAND PLANNERS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSI~ ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN FIGURE 6 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC OBJECTIVES IMPACTS AT SUBJECT INTERSECTIONS (OBJECTIVE A) To determine traffic impacts of the proposed development at the subject intersections, capacity analyses were completed using the Synchro 6 analysis software. These analyses were completed for the 2011 no-build and build conditions during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hour volumes using the planned future geometrics and traffic controls presented earlier. For analysis purposes, exclusive lanes were used for all turn movements at the site access intersections, and stop control was used on the driveway approaches. At the Lyman Boulevard/Summerfield Drive intersection, existing geometrics and traffic control, which include one lane on all approaches and stop signs on the north and the south approaches, were used. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of what each level of service means: Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. For most agencies in the Twin Cities area, level of service D represents the minimal acceptable level of service for regular daily operations. Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include: long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen -11- May 2004 intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. Most agencies in Minnesota consider that LOS D represents the minimal acceptable LOS for normal peak traffic conditions. Results of the capacity analyses are presented in Figures 7 and 8 for the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours, respectively. As shown in these figures, all movements at all the subject intersections will operate at LOS D or better for both the 2011 no-build and the 2011 build conditions during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary in terms of LOS at the subject intersections. IMPACTS ON LYMAN BOULEVARD EAST OF TH 101 (OBJECTIVE B) In addition to capacity analyses at the subject intersections, this traffic study examined impacts of the proposed development on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101. As shown in Figure 5, the two- way a.m. peak hour volume on Lyman Boulevard between TH 101 and the proposed access for the 2011 no-build and build conditions is 357 vehicles and 708 vehicles, respectively. This represents an increase of 351 vehicles in traffic volume on Lyman Boulevard west of the proposed access. However, east of the proposed access, the a.m. peak hour volume for the 2011 build condition is 396 vehicles, which is only 39 vehicles (11 percent) more than the 2011 no- build volume of 357 vehicles. Similarly, with the proposed development, the change in the two- way p.m. peak hour volume on Lyman Boulevard east of the proposed access is only 30 vehicles (7 percent) more than the 2011 no-build volume of 443 vehicles. Although the proposed development would cause a significant increase in traffic volumes on Lyman Boulevard west of the proposed access, there would only be a small increase (1 l percent during the a.m. peak hour and 7 percent during the p.m. peak hour) in traffic volumes on Lyman Boulevard east of the proposed access. Since all homes along Lyman Boulevard are accessed east of the proposed access, where there would only be a small increase in traff~c volumes, the proposed development would not cause any significant negative impacts on these homes. Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen -12- May 2004 LYMAN BLVD. D/D 1' C/C c/c ,1, D/D B/C NA '---.~, 1' B/B < C/C ~ D/D TH 312 NORTH RAMPS o.9.< 1' A/A ,j, D/D TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS NOT TO SCALE I 2011 BUILD XX/XX LU 0 0 -'^ JSL 1' -/B R-IN/R-OUT -/A 1' NA > NA . NA - NA 1' T? B/B DID D/D 1' NA < NA ,l, NA SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNER~ TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSI~ ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN FIGURE 7 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE LYMAN BLVD. D/D C/C c/c ,1, c/c C/C NA NA ' C/C C/C ~'< 1' NA ,1, c/c 1' B/B < C/C ,1, c/c TH 312 NORTH RAMPS R-IN/R-OUT TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS u.J .J -/A NA N NA 1` A/A > uJ NA > t NOT TO SCALE 2011 NO-BUILD 2011 BUILD 1' NA < NA ,J, NA SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT- ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN FIGURE 8 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN (OBJECTIVE C) To provide adequate operations within and around the proposed site, a recommended access plan was developed. The following items were considered in developing an access plan that would best meet the needs of development users and other motorists using the surrounding roadway network: · Traffic volumes on Lyman Boulevard and TH 101 upon completion of the proposed development. · Stacking space to adequately accommodate the 95th percentile queues at the access intersections and at the TH 101 intersections with Lyman Boulevard and TH 312 south ramps. · City's requirement ora 100-foot buffer between the full access on Lyman Boulevard and the adjacent property(s) to the east. · Mn/DOT guidelines for turn lane lengths. The recommended access plan is shown in Figure 9. Principal features of the access plan include location and geometrics for the fight turn access on TH 101 and the full access on Lyman Boulevard. As indicated in Figure 9, the fight turn access can be provided anywhere between the two locations shown. These locations represent a 75-foot "window" in which the fight turn access can be provided without reducing the turn lane lengths for the northbound fight tums on TH 101 at the fight turn access and at the TH 312 south ramps below the minimum lengths that are needed to adequately serve these movements. Traffic Study for Proposed Transit-Oriented Facility in Chanhassen -15- May 2004 O~c wE: ~0 OL 0 uJ WO Orr' 1.1.1 I.-- I.IJ r Chanhassen Park and Ride Chanhassen, Minnesota ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Noise and Air Quality Prepared for the LSA Design, Inc. by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 17 May 2004 Table of Contents Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 1.0 2.0 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 3.0 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 4.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 NOISE IMPACT IMPACTS ............................................................................................ 4 Noise Sources .................................................................................................................. 4 Methodology and Assumptions ....................................................................................... 4 Noise Model Results ........................................................................................................ 6 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 10 Methodology and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 10 Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results ............................................................................. 11 Diesel Engine Emissions for Model Year 2007 and Later ............................................ 12 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 13 David Braslau Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment List of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of the Site Relative to the TH 212/TH 101 Interchange .....................2 Figure 1.2 Schematic of Bus Movements at the Facility ....................................................... 3 Figure 2.1 Roadway Geometries and Receptor Locations ................................................... 5 2.1. Noise Sources .................................................................................................................. 4 David Braslau Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment List of Tables Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Predicted AM (6-7 am) Noise Levels (dBA) ........................................................ 6 Predicted PM (5-6 pm) Noise Levels (dBA) ........................................................ 7 Predicted 1-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) ........................... 11 Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) ........................... 11 David Braslau Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION This environmental assessment addresses potential noise and air quality impacts from the proposed Chanhassen Park and Ride facility to be located in the southeast quadrant of the future TH 12/312 interchange in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The facility will serve eight buses during the AM and the PM peak hours, with a maximum of two buses idling for approximately five minutes as it discharges or picks up passengers. Because of the interchange configuration, buses during the AM period will enter and depart along the northern access serving the facility. During the PM period, buses will circle the parking ramp area to return to TH 101. The two-level parking ramp will accommodate up to 800 vehicles. It is assumed for a worst case scenario that all these vehicles will access TH 101 from Lyman Avenue and use the roadway along the east side of the park and ride to access the parking ramp. In addition to transportation- related land uses, new residential development within the site is proposed. These may include for-sale condominium and rental units. Location of the site relative to the TH 101 interchange and adjacent residential land uses is shown in Figure 1.1. A schematic of bus movements through and around the facility is shown in Figure 1.2. Section 2.0 of the report addresses noise impacts associated with the proposed facility. Section 3.0 of the report addresses air quality impacts (primarily Carbon Monoxide) associated with the facility. Section 4.0 of the report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this assessment. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page I Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 2 LEVEL PARKING DAY PLAY AM BUS LYMAN PM BUS LSA Design, Inc. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIGURE 1.2 Schematic of Bus Movements at the Facility Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 2.0 NOISE IMPACT IMPACTS 2.1. Noise Sources A number of roadways in the area as well as the Park and Ride facility will contribute noise to adjacent land uses. These include the future TH 212 Eastbound and Westbound lanes as well as the on- and off-ramps associated with the highway. Traffic along TH 101 and to a much lesser extent traffic along Lyman Avenue will also contribute to noise. Sources of noise from the Park and Ride facility will include buses entering and leaving the facility. It is assumed that buses will not use the high idle mode when waiting, picking up or discharging passengers, so that bus idling is not anticipated to add significantly to the noise level. In addition to buses, up to 400 vehicles may enter or leave the parking ramp during the peak AM or peak PM hour, traveling along Lyman Avenue and the roadway along the east side of the Park and Ride facility. 2.2. Methodology and Assumptions The assessment compares noise levels with the Minnesota noise standards for residential land uses shown in Table 1.1. The L10 metric represents the noise level not to be exceeded for 10% or six minutes of an hour. The L50 metric represents the level not to be exceeded for 50% or 30 minutes of an hour. Table 2.1 Minnesota State Noise Standards Noise Area Daytime (0700-2200) Nighttime (2200-700) Classification (Sound levels in dBA) (Sound levels in dBA) . Noise Metric L10 I L50 L10 I L50 1 (residential) 65 60 55 50 2 (commercial) 70 65 70 65 3 (industrial) 80 75 80 75 Source: Minnesota Rules 7020.0040 The FHWA highway noise model has been used to estimate noise levels for the AM and PM periods at sensitive locations adjacent to the facility as well as future residential uses that are to be constructed in conjunction with the facility. For the model, a specialized vehicle representing a bus has been used. This source assumes a higher noise level at lower speeds as the bus accelerates and a lower noise level as the bus reaches higher speeds, which is a reasonable representation of noise from buses expected to use the facility. Since these sound levels are based upon extensive data collected from urban transit buses, projected noise levels associated with buses that will actually use the facility may be overstated. The roadway geometries and receptor locations use for the noise analysis is shown in Figure 2.1. AM and PM traffic volumes obtained for a previous study of air quality at interchanges along TH 212 were used in the model. As noted above, for the AM period, buses are assumed to enter the north access directly from TH 101, pick up passengers and then enter the eastbound on ramp to TH 212 directly. For the PM period, buses are assumed to enter the north access from TH 101 but then circle the parking ramp to the south to return to TH 101. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 4 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment An extensive buffer east of the facility is proposed that will provide approximately a 100 foot deep belt of evergreens of different sizes to provide a dense area of vegetation that will reduce sound levels approximately 3 dBA. The bus waiting area and parking ramp will provide some shielding of noise to the south, where a day care facility and residential units are proposed. 2.3. Noise Model Results Predicted noise levels for the AM or 6-7 am period are presented in Table 2.2. It should be noted that these noise levels are due primarily to background traffic, since bus activity during this time period will occur at the northern access roadway only. Table 2.1 Predicted AM (6-7 am) Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor Site I L10 I Standard I LS0 I Standard #1 Bus Waiting Area 69.5 70 60.3 65 #2 Day Care Playground n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. #3 Apt/Condo (north) 62.2 55 59.2 50 #4 Apt/Condo (south) 61.2 55 58.4 50 #5 Home (north) 58.9 55 55.2 50 #6 Home (south) 57.0 55 54.4 50 The bus waiting area, which will be exposed to bus noise, falls under the NAC-2 land use classification and is expected to comply with the noise standard for this type of land use. The Day Care Playground is normally not intended for use from 6 to 7 am. However, all of the residential land uses are expected to exceed the nighttime noise standards because ambient noise from the interchange, TH 101 and motor vehicles accessing the parking ramp. Receptor Site #5 Home (north) which is located inunediately east of the parking ramp will experience only a limited increase in noise from the facility since no buses will be using the east roadway to travel south and back to TH 101, as will occur during the PM period. Throughout the Metropolitan area, residential land uses adjacent to transportation facilities are normally exposed to noise levels over the "nighttime" standards during the 6-7 am period. Exceptions to the Minnesota rules will permit construction of residential land uses at this site providing certain conditions are met as noted below. Under exceptions contained in Minnesota Rules, commercial noise standards (NAC-2) or an L50 of 65 dBA can be applied to a residential land use providing the provision in the rules can be met. The applicable provisions of Minnesota Rule 7030.0050 are presented below. Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a land use may be changed in the following ways if the applicable conditions are met. B. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 2 shall be applied to a building in a noise area classification l if the following conditions are met: (1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least 30 dB(A); David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 6 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment (2) the building has year-round climate control; and (3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities. Any new home or residential unit constructed to comply with the Minnesota energy code will likely comply with the first two conditions listed above. Outdoor areas associated with homes are not normally intended for use between 6-7 am when the highest "nighttime" levels occur. Therefore, it is expected that residential land uses can be constructed on the site that will comply with the Minnesota noise standards. Predicted noise levels for the PM (5-6 pm) period are presented in Table 2.3. Table 2.2 Predicted PM (5-6 pm) Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor Site I L10 I Standard I L50 [ Standard #1 Bus Waiting Area 69.4 70 60.0 65 #2 Day Care Playground 68.7 70 59.6 65 #3 Apt/Condo (north) 67.2 65 59.2 60 #4 Apt/Condo (south) 63.0 65 59.5 60 #5 Home (north) 63.1 65 55.4 60 #6 Home (south) 59.3 65 55.4 60 Both receptor #1 and #2 are classified under NAC-2 and will therefore comply with the noise standards. Only the apartments or condominiums that are located along the access roadway used by buses to return to TH 101 will experience a noise level over 65 dBA. However, with appropriate design, planned outdoor uses that are located south of the buildings, rather than on the access roadway, should ensure compliance with the daytime standards. The contribution of individual roadways was also evaluated for the PM Peak Hour, where buses travel through the facility rather than only on the north access roadway. The relative L10 contributions for individual roadways or roadway groups are presented in Figure 2.2. Only #3 Apt/Condo (north) is estimated to exceed the NAC-1 (residential) daytime standard (Receptors #1 and #2 fall tinder NAC-2). However, it can be seen that this exceedance is not caused directly by passing buses but indirectly by the sum of noise from buses as well as a large number of other sources, especially TH 212 EB and TH 101. Therefore, buses are not the sole reason for this slight exceedance of the noise standard. A comparison of predicted L10 levels at the six receptor sites with the Park and Ride facility and the predicted ambient level (i.e. without the bus facility) in 2025 is shown in Figure 2.3. It can be seen that sites #1, #2, #3 and #5 will experience the greatest increase in level (3 to 5 dBA) since there are closest to buses that will pass through the facility. Sites #4 and #6, as well as areas south of Lyman are expected to experience increases of less than 1 dBA. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 7 (VSP) 0['1 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 3,0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 3.1. Methodology and Assumptions The air quality analysis of Carbon Monoxide, the most common pollutant considered for local impact analysis of transportation systems, is based upon an extended model developed as part of the Environmental Assessment update for the TH 212 corridor. That model, as was done for the noise analysis discussed above, considered the entire interchange and related roadways. The addition of the bus and automobile access roadways (as well as the parking ramp) completed the model used here for analyzing potential air quality impacts of the Park and Ride facility. The roadway system and receptor site locations for the air quality analysis was identical with that shown in Figure 2.1 Since detailed traffic volumes were available for the 2007 projection year, that year was also selected for the analysis of the Park and Ride facility. Buses using the facility as well as automobiles traveling to and from the parking ramp were superimposed on this background traffic to determine overall air quality levels. For the air quality analysis, it was assumed that, during the PM Peak Hour, eight buses entered the facility from TH 101 and circled the parking ramp to reach TH 101, where they traveled north to the westbound on-ramp for TH 212. To ensure a conservative estimate of Carbon Monoxide concentrations and a worst case scenario, it was assumed that the eight buses idled for the entire hour. It was also assumed, as a worst case scenario, that 400 vehicles, or half the parking capacity, depart the parking ramp depart during the PM Peak Hour, exiting to the east roadway, then traveling south to Lyman Avenue and back west to TH 101. Worst case Carbon Monoxide concentrations were estimated at each of the six receptor sites along with the wind direction that yielded these concentrations. In addition to the roadway emissions model, an area-source model was used to estimate emissions and concentrations associated with the parking structure. The EDMS (Emission and Dispersion Modeling System) model developed for the Federal Aviation Administration permits the evaluation of parking lots of this type and was used for this analysis. The wind direction yielding worst case roadway concentrations at each receptor was then used to determine the concentration (with that wind direction) at each of the receptor sites. These two values were then combined and added to an assumed background concentration that was determined from extensive MnDOT monitoring data around the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The analysis was performed for both a 1-hour and an 8-hour period, since the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm is much more critical than the 1-hour standard of 30 ppm. The 8-hour concentration was estimated using an adjustment factor of 0.70 that is the commonly accepted practice for highway air quality studies. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 10 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 3.2. Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results The predicted 1-hour Carbon Monoxide concentrations are presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Predicted 1-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Receptor Site ]RoadwaylParking I Background Total #1 Bus Waiting Area 0.65 0.50 1.13 2.28 #2 Day Care Playground 0.46 2.08 1.13 3.67 ;03 Apt/Condo (north) 0.69 1.47 1.13 3.29 #4 Apt/Condo (south) 0.47 1.14 1.13 2.74 #5 Home (north) 0.48 0.50 1.13 2.11 #6 Home (south) 0.51 1.07 1.13 2.71 MPCA Standard 30.00 Note: ppm = parts per million It can be seen that the maximum Carbon Monoxide concentration is approximately 12% of the 1-hour standard and all concentrations are well below the 1-hour standard of 30 ppm. The predicted 8-hour Carbon Monoxide concentrations are presented in Table 3.2. The 8-hour parking concentrations are considerably lower than the 1-hour, since little activity is assumed for the seven hours prior to the PM Peak Hour. The maximum g-hour concentration is approximately 18% of the 8-hour standard, but all concentrations are also well below the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. Table 3.2 Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Receptor Site I Roadway I Parking I Background I Total #1 Bus Waiting Area 0.46 0.11 0.79 1.35 #2 Day Care Playground 0.32 0.44 0.79 1.55 #3 Apartment (north) 0.48 0.31 0.79 1.59 #4 Apartment (south) 0.33 0.24 0.79 1.36 #5 Home (north) 0.34 0.11 0.79 1.23 #6 Home (south) 0.36 0.23 0.79 1.38 MPCA Standard [ [ [ 9.00 Note: ppm = parts per million Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on Carbon Monoxide concentrations are anticipated from the proposed Park and Ride facility. The issue of potential particulate emissions and odor is discussed below. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 11 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 3.3. Diesel Engine Emissions for Model Year 2007 and Later New emission standards have been adopted for diesel engines manufactured and fuel sold for model years 2004 to 2006. For the Model Year 2007, the standards are more stringent. Actual particulate emissions will depend upon the make and model year of the buses to be used at the Park and Ride facility. Since the facility will be operated in conjunction with the new TH 212, it is anticipated that particular emissions from buses using the facility will be lower that with current equipment. Since odor associated with diesel exhaust is primarily related to particular emissions, it is anticipated that odors associated with bus activity at the Park and Ride facility will be even lower than might occur at existing park and ride facilities. Standards for model year 2007 and later heavy-duty highway engines include two components: (1) emission standards, and (2) diesel fuel regulation. The first component of the regulation introduces new, very stringent emission standards, as follows: · PM-0.01 g/bhp-hr · NOx- 0.20 g/bhp-hr · NMHC- 0.14 g/bhp-hr The PM emission standard will take full effect in the 2007 heavy-duty engine model year. The NO× and NMHC standards will be phased in for diesel engines between 2007 and 2010. The phase-in would be on a percent-of-sales basis: 50% from 2007 to 2009 and 100% in 2010 (gasoline engines are subject to these standards based on a phase-in requiring 50% compliance in 2008 and 100% compliance in 2009). Effective 2007 model year, the regulation also eliminates the earlier crankcase emission control exception for turbocharged heavy-duty diesel engines. Crankcase emissions from these engines are treated the same as (i.e., added to) other exhaust emissions. Manufacturers are expected to control crankcase emissions by routing them back to the engine intake or to the exhaust stream, upstream of the exhaust emission control devices. The diesel fuel regulation limits the sulfur content in on-highway diesel fuel to l 5 ppm (wt.), down from the previous 500 ppm. Refiners will be required to start producing the 15 ppm S fuel beginning June 1, 2006. At the terminal level, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard as of July 15, 2006. For retail stations and wholesale purchasers, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard by September 1, 2006. Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel has been introduced as a "technology enabler" to pave the way for advanced, sulfur-intolerant exhaust emission control technologies, such as catalytic diesel particulate filters and NOx catalysts, which will be necessary to meet the 2007 emission standards. EPA's review in 2003 of industry progress shows that engine manufacturers are on target to introduce new engines in 2007; diesel particulate filters that reduce harmful PM emissions by more than 90% will be used by all manufacturers; NOx control will be accomplished using proven technologies, some of which are in production today; and engine manufacturers will conduct early protoype testing with tracking customers in 2005. In 2007, these new clean engines operating on the 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, reduce PM emissions by more than 90%, will substantially contribute to air quality improvement, help states meet Clean Air Act goals and further protect public health and the environment. (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#progreport2) David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 12 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed Park and Ride facility is planned to serve a maximum of eight buses per hour with parking for 800 motor vehicles. During the AM period buses will enter and depart along the north access to the facility and will therefore have minimal impact on both noise and air quality. During the PM period, buses will enter at the north from TH 101 and circle the parking ramp to return to TH 101 to reach the TH 212 westbound on-ramp. These buses will travel along the east roadway of the facility and between the parking ramp and the new residential structures to be constructed as part of the project. These buses will have somewhat more impact on noise and air quality, although the impacts will be limited. Noise levels during 6-7 AM, which fall under the nighttime period, are expected to exceed the Minnesota noise standards primarily due to traffic on the new TH 212, its ramps, and TH 101. Appropriate construction of the new housing proposed for the site can permit higher noise limits to be applied and therefore can comply with noise standards. Noise levels during the PM Peak Hour are generally under the state noise standards except for the apartments that face the access roadway carrying departing buses. However, the 2 dBA exceedance is within modeling error and may not be a problem if no outdoor uses are planned for the north side of these buildings. The buses alone are not sufficient to cause the noise standards to be exceeded. Contributions from the other roadways are sufficient for this small exceedance of the standards. Predicted air quality (carbon monoxide concentrations) are well below both the 1-hour and the 8-hour standard and no air quality problems are anticipated with operation of the facility. As new diesel engine and diesel fuel regulations are implemented, the potential for odor associated with the facility will also decrease. Appropriate equipment will be able to operate at the facility with little or no odor impacts. y:\jobs\2004jobs\204019\report\chanhassenpark&ride-report-revised.doc David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 13 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JUNE 1, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjornhom, Rich Slagle, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF HIGHWAYS 212/101 AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD~ SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18. Public Present: Name Address Len Simich Aravind Guttemukkula Kyle Williams Bob Worthington Dave Soliday Curt Kobilaresik Craig Mullen Richard Simmons Terry Helland Southwest Metro Transit Benshoof & Associates, Hopkins LSA Design Southwest Metro Transit 291 Shoreview Court 9149 Springfield Drive 611 Summerfield Drive 530 Summerfield Drive 491 Summerfield Drive Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the traffic study as it relates to left turning movements. Aravind Guttemukkula with Benshoof and Associates addressed traffic study questions. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification on the date of 2011 being used by the traffic engineers in their study. Commissioner Tjornhom asked what will be done to Planning Commission Summary - June 1, 2004 mitigate noise. Kyle Williams with LSA Design explained how the noise study was conducted. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification regarding the neighbors concerns, berming and the proximity of the daycare related to noise and air quality. Chairman Sacchet asked about specifics in the plan related to land use and signage. Len Simich, Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit presented the applicant's case. Commissioner Slagle asked Mr. Simich to comment on the diesel engine law that was in the news recently and Southwest Metro Transit's bus fleet. Commissioner Tjornhom asked for clarification on who will control the townhouse and commercial development on the site. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Richard Simmons, 530 Summerfield Drive asked the commission to delay action on the rezoning based on two issues. One, it's premature and two, because it's premature, the findings in the staff report should not be relied upon. He provided reasons why he felt this way. Terry Helland, 491 Summerfield Drive expressed concerns with placing a park and fide on this site and if it was the fight location. Commissioner Slagle asked Len Simich to expand on the issue of this being the right site or if another site would be more suitable for a park and fide. Commissioner Claybaugh asked about the walking and trail system associated with the site. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion, the following motion was made. Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development- Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low 2 Planning Commission Summary - June 1, 2004 intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. Small to medium-sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) · Office · Day care · Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint · Convenience store without gas pumps · Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) · Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self-Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). · Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. · Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). c. Prohibited Ancillary Uses · Drive-thru Windows · Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70 % Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Planning Commission Summary - June 1, 2004 Boundary Building and Parking Setback Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft 25 or 3 stories, and stair well whichever is less Non Residential Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. o All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. Planning Commission Summary - June 1, 2004 L go The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. Residential Standards Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber-cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to Planning Commission Summary - June 1, 2004 screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; 6 Planning Commission Summary - June 1, 2004 Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. i.l. Project Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. i.2o Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. i.3. Wall Signs: ao The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. i.4. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. 7 Planning Commission Summary - June 1, 2004 io5o i.6 io7o d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. Building Directory a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. Directional Signs On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. bo Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. do Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. Prohibited Signs: · Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. · Pylon signs are prohibited. · Back lit awnings are prohibited. Planning Commission Summary - June 1, 2004 i.8. · Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area · Menu Signs are prohibited. Sign Design and permit requirements: The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. Lighting Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 - Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). C~r~l P~c S*ti~ P~ Modal CP 12/18-CA/R~ 12 Pt 10 lach B~m Flgur~ 36 - Chlnhamm ~ Unit DMgn 41 Planning Commission Summary - June 1, 2004 All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. Non Residential Parking Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 17~000 SQUARE FOOT LOT~ ZONED RSF~ LOCATED AT 9217 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD~ GREG & KELLY HASTINGS~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19. Public Present: Name Address Greg & Kelly Hastings Glenn M. Gerads 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 1071 Barbera Court Sharmeen Al~Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification on the side yard setback and if the eaves are included in that calculation. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the amount of encroachment. The applicants, Greg and Kelly Hastings explained their case along with passing out 10 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjomhom, Rich Slagle, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF HIGHWAYS 212/101 AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD~ SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18. Public Present: Name Address Len Simich Aravind Guttemukkula Kyle Williams Bob Worthington Dave Soliday Curt Kobilaresik Craig Mullen Richard Simmons Terry Helland Southwest Metro Transit Benshoof & Associates, Hopkins LSA Design Southwest Metro Transit 291 Shoreview Court 9149 Springfield Drive 611 Summerfield Drive 530 Summerfield Drive 491 Summerfield Drive Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff? No questions from staff? Kurt. Papke: I'll start. In the traffic study it appears that most of the issues are with the left tums. Most of the C's and D's are left tums. Could you explain and most of them are in Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 conjunction with 101. It's the north ramp to 101. You know south ramp to 101. Lyman to 101, etc, etc. Could you just review for the record where there will be left turn arrows on the stop lights? Just so we're all cognizant of how that will be controlled. And what the, you know how will that impact the level D of service that we see here.'? Al-Jaff: May I turn this question over to Aravind? Sacchet: You may. A1-Jaff: It's his area of expertise... You'll get much better answers from him. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Do you want to have him come up right now. Sure. Do you mind pulling the microphone towards you please. Aravind Guttemukkula: My name is Aravind Guttemukkula. I'm from Benshoof and Associates where we are a traffic engineers and planning firm. We did the traffic study for this, as Sharmeen had indicated. And the level of service D talking about the left turns at intersections on 101, specific plans weren't developed by MnDot yet for how the phasing and timing's going to be for analysis purposes we assumed that all of left turns were offered as protected only, meaning a left turn arrow. That's the safest kind of movement, and that is probably the most restrictive type of movement compared to the protected per mass. You know both left turn arrow and a green ball. Papke: Okay, so it will be left turn on green arrow only? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Papke: What most likely... Aravind Guttemukkula: That's correct. Sacchet: Craig? Claybaugh: Yes, I had some additional, if you don't mind stepping back up here. With respect to the study on page 7. I was looking at the assumptions and what I was found was... 100 vehicles, 8 buses per hour. What ! was looking for was a relative time line. Not time of day but date. Is that based on demands for when it opens? Is that based on demands through what, through 2015 or where's that 800 motor vehicles fit, if you can put a date to it, a year to it. Aravind Guttemukkula: For forecasting analysis purposes we assumed that the development will be complete in 2010. So we analyzed, we, it's our normal practice to analyze one year after full completion. Expected full completion. So that's the numbers, the volumes, everything that you see in this report are for 2011. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Claybaugh: Okay. So you're using 2010 basically demands due to population through Chanhassen and the rest of it, is that a fair statement? Aravind Guttemukkula: You mean the trip generation? The number of trips that are expected. Claybaugh: Based on our, what would be our projected population in 2010. Aravind Guttemukkula: Our distribution, our generation is, trip generation is based on the institute of transportation engineer's data that was collected at numerous other similar facilities in the country. Claybaugh: The question I was trying to get at is 2010 obviously, that area isn't going to be developed anywhere near capacity and my question is, as that area develops and population comes to fruition, what does this study look like? Aravind Guttemukkula: Our, that runs traffic volumes without the proposed development accounts for the growth between now and 2011. That is correct. It accounts for. Claybaugh: So 2011 is it? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Claybaugh: And when, if I can direct this to Sharmeen, in terms of city's forecast, do we expect the area that's going to impact this most heavily to be fully developed? Al-Jaff: Majority of the development will begin as soon as, and again you can't force developers to do this but. Claybaugh: No I understand but I mean are we talking that the area from the city's standpoint might be closer fully developed or 90 percent developed by 20177 2020 or are we talking 20147 A1-Jaff: This area is in the MUSA. Therefore 2007 is when 212/101 is proposed to be completed. Probably 2010. Claybaugh: So you feel that the area would be fairly well developed so there'd be a good correlation between the time slot for the study and what the demands would be? A1-Jaff: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all I was after. Sacchet: Since we have you up there, level D. Sharmeen made a comment. Can you explain level D of the traffic. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Aravind Guttemukkula: Level D. Sacchet: Yeah, D like David. Because it's awfully far into the alphabet if F means dead stop. Aravind Guttemukkula: D, most agencies in Minnesota consider D to be acceptable. And at a signalized intersections, a D corresponds to an average of 35 to 55 seconds per vehicle. Sacchet: Is that in addition to when you could go? I mean you have to like wait for one batch to go through the light and then you have to wait another one or how do you? Aravind Guttemukkula: Level of service D represents that all, I mean we cannot look at just level of service and answer the question. We also look at the cuing which is just doing the level of service, from our analysis...clear than one cycle. Sacchet: Okay, so with the level D they should still be able to go through in one cycle'?. Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Sacchet: That was my question. That's a good answer. Okay. We might be able to get back to you. We're still in questions to staff and we'll have the applicant present so we may have more for you. I don't know, does anybody else has a traffic question fight now? Papke: Did your planning assumptions take into account the construction of the new secondary school, which would be what, about a mile west or so of there right off of Lyman. Is that taken into account that people dropping their kids off at school and coming to the parking lot and that kind of scenario. Aravind Guttemukkula: The ones that you, the representative 2011 no built, you know the cover development were projected based on traffic forecasts completed by MnDot for 2025 and 27 for the 312 project. We used their estimates which were based on regional growth, regional traffic land model. Papke: So it was a total basis...no individual antidotal situations taken into account. Aravind Guttemukkula: Right. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Any more questions of staff? Tjornhom: I just have one question Sharmeen. Some of the residents it looks like were having concerns about noise and in the report it shows that the noise level will be exceeded during certain times of the day. What happens with that? Is that just there and I mean what does that mean and what happens to the poor neighbors? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 A1-Jaff: It says noise levels during 6:00 to 7:00 a.m., which falls under the nighttime period are expected to exceed the Minnesota Noise Standards primarily due to traffic on the new 212. So it's not because. Tjomhom: So the freeway, not the bus station. A1-Jaff: Correct. Tjomhom: Okay. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: I'd like to dovetail that question. It's kind of an ambiguous term. Is there any way that they can express that as a percentage that the park and ride would add the additional burden above the noise from 2127 Did they come at it from that direction at all, rather than. I mean there's other transit stations. There must have been some studies available with respect to the additional noise burden that's added by a facility like this when you have Eden Prairie's as an example. A1-Jaff: Okay, if you turn to probably the last 3 pages of your report. The entire staff report. So it would be the third sheet from the end of your staff report. Basically it looks at the site with a bus facility and without a bus facility. The changes are minimal as far as, okay where. As far as the noise. Claybaugh: What would be the extenuating factor on what I'll say vertical column number 5 where there's the significantly differential in the relation to just the 212 noise. Any specific explanation for that? A1-Jaff: The times that we need to be concerned with is. Sacchet: They're locations right? Kyle Williams: I'm not David Brasloff, but I'd Kyle Williams with LSA Design but we did work with David and not only did we have his charts but these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 identify spots on the site. Number 5 was what he is referencing in his summary where he talks about the apartments. It's a misnomer the apartments. These are for sale townhomes, but he talks about the departing buses in the p.m. going by, going around the comer between the commercial and the residential. He was most concerned about those houses there. We're most concerned about the houses just easterly that exist. He was also presuming buses would stop at the comer. The preferred cycling has buses moving so all the stop/start buses are along the northerly part of the site, and further he identifies the p.m. is when that noise would take place and as David describes, the a.m. is always the most concerned because that's the wake up factor. When buses and people are most affected. So the start stopping on the a.m. is always on the north side. There are no buses that come onto the site except on the p.m. on occasion. It's only when buses are going south bound back onto 212. So that is the discrepancy, and just for your reference. The human Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 ear can perceive the difference of 3 db's. 3 decibels. Other than that it's really not perceptible. And so the difference there is what, 58 to 65. So it's a perceptible. There's a perceived increase in noise on the site. On 6 it was the most concerning for us because that was a resident fight at the corner of Lyman and the entrance to the site. And that was our biggest concern. Sacchet: So 5 is actually a residential part within the development, just to be really clear. Kyle Williams: Yes. And if we had the diagram, I think I can. Yeah. 5 is right here. And so buses are coming up here and then cutting through the site, and that's why, they're going around that corner is what he was concerned about. And again he was presuming stopping and starting which we've explained and designed out of that. Sacchet: Does that answer your question Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. It led to a follow-up question and that was with respect to, assuming there's a berm there. The berm that was designed there is functioning to mitigate that noise already. I assume there's been some. Kyle Williams: The berm actually would have some effect. Berms typically, landscape berms typically don't make any difference at all unless they're 100 foot deep and very dense. This is and will be 100 feet, very dense so it will mitigate some of the noise. But I think David was looking really at fight by the buses, not on the other side of the berm. Claybaugh: Thanks. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from staff? Rich. Slagle: I've got a few. Sharmeen, there were 3 meetings I think you mentioned, a chance for the neighbors and so forth to interject. Would it be a fair statement that as time went on the neighbors concerns were addressed and their fears lessened from staff's perspective? AI-Jaff: Yes. That is a fair statement. However, I mean they still prefer to see the site remain similar to what it is today, or have single family detached units. But again, I mean we truly made an effort, be it Southwest Metro. Be it the city. We truly made an effort to work with the residents and take their concerns into consideration and develop a planned unit development that meets or addresses these concerns. Slagle: Okay, thank you. Next question. 100 foot buffer the gentleman just mentioned that if it's 100 feet and it's dense it will mitigate noise. Obviously without conditions on a process that faces us tonight on what we decide, but when those conditions come forward if we approve this, is it your anticipation that that berm and then my second question is on the south side, to the north of Lyman, I don't think that's 100 feet. Maybe 50 feet. Would those be, for lack of a better term, heavily, like I'd like to underline 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 heavily a couple times, treed with evergreens and so forth, or will that be what I would consider sort of a normal berming that we see sometimes with developments? A1-Jaff: The intent is to have a, I'll show you the concept that I did not include with your. Yes, Kyle put up pink houses in Chanhassen. There is an existing row of trees that are approximately 100 feet. The intent is to extend those further out. I believe they stop somewhere in this area. Okay. These are intended to extend, be extended. And then another buffer will be added along the southern portion of the site. Furthermore, and I believe Southwest Metro has met with some of the neighbors and this is something again between Southwest Metro and the neighborhood where they intend to add the vegetation along. Slagle: On the south side? A1-Jaff: Correct. North of the homes. Existing homes out there. Slagle: Okay. And you'll just sort of be an observer of that? A1-Jaff: Sure. Slagle: Okay. Last question. And I understand the premise of having a daycare there, with the idea that obviously people can drop their kids off, go to work, come back, pick them up. Was there ever a discussion centered around whether, what I will call the air quality is healthy, normal enough to have kids, especially small kids who's lungs I would guess are somewhat developing in an environment that is literally surrounded by automobiles. I mean I don't know the answer but. A1-Jaff: You see a lot of daycare facilities within areas that are close to traffic oriented type of developments. However, based upon this study that we received, I mean it does not address daycare or children per se. But it says that the levels are acceptable. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: I have a question or two also Sharmeen. I want to be very clear. This type, in the staff report says that in 1990 there was an adoption of a park and ride study. Does that mean that actually, has been planned for 14 years? And now, what I'm interested to know beyond this is, obviously most of the development that has occurred around that area has happened after 1990 I would expect, or yeah I would expect so. When people would come in to build a house there in that proximity, would that be up to them to do some research and see what's planned? I mean I would expect that a builder would have to disclose there's going to be a highway planned. Would there be a similar element that is going to be a transit component there or would that be their's or how would that be handled? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 A1-Jaff: If somebody would stop at City Hall and ask us that question, we would share the comprehensive plan with them and at that point if you look at the land use plan for instance it's going to show a mixed use type of. Sacchet: A1-Jaff: Sacchet: A1-Jaff: Sacchet: So it's been mixed use all along? Yeah. It's always been mixed use. The question will come up, what is mixed use. What does it mean? Yeah, then you would give them more details. Correct. And ultimately the main impact is the highway, not a bus stop next to it. And I have two really detailed questions. In the proposed language for the PUD standards, I have two really small questions. We don't need to belabor that but it has a list of prohibited signs, and one of the private signs is a menu sign. What's a menu sign? A1-Jaff: If you will find what's the special of the day... Sacchet: So it means menu as menu of a restaurant? Okay, that's what I want to be clear about. And then on the next page, which is on that page 18 in the staff report talks about light fixtures and it gives an example. It says fixtures shall conform with Figure 36 of Chanhassen lighting unit design. Are we actually telling them what kind of a fixture they have to put in there? A1-Jaff: Sacchet: Yes we are. We're actually telling them specifically we want this fixture? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. I just want to be clear about that. Alright, that's all my questions. A1-Jaff: And they agreed to it. Sacchet: And they like it too? all my questions. Well that's, we're lucking out then. That's good. That's Papke: One last follow on question. Why that light fixture? What's that light fixture matching, if anything. Sacchet: We looked at some options and this was the one that was selected. somebody must have liked this fixture very much. Alright. Tjornhom: It's a very nice fixture. Alright, 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: Alright, thank you. We've belabored that one enough I would think. If there are no more questions from staff I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you have anything to add or give us more of an overview. Aspects you want to point out to us. This is your turn. If you want to state your name for the record. Len Simich: My name is Len Simich. I'm Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit. I'm not going to belabor the plan or anything like that. If there's questions, we'd be happy to answer. Just a couple of things, comments from Southwest Metro's perspective. This has been something in the works for a long time. Not only do we see this as a benefit for the city of Chanhassen, but for the area that we serve, and we're an organization that developed out of three cities. Chanhassen being one of those and we know once this highway comes through, population is going to follow. I mean we've seen that happen in other areas, and this is just one element that we think will be very beneficial to the communities we serve at giving folks options other than just driving alone. As we've stated over and over at the public meetings, our intent is to be a very good neighbor here. What we do, we always do first class. We're not looking at coming in, putting something up that we can't be proud of. Majority of my staff lives in the communities that we serve so we're not going to come in and do something that we wouldn't want in our back yard, so that's number one. Number two, we're going to continue to work with the neighbors. Try to work with them. Hopefully overcome any of their fears of what's coming in the site. We see it as a benefit quite frankly. It's going to provide a lot of good buffer between them and the highway that's going to be there. From a noise standpoint, I think it's going to help versus really have any negative impacts because of those townhome design that we put in, and the location, as well as the landscaping. I think it's going to be a benefit to everybody involved. In terms of the uses, I just did want to mention. Daycare is one that has been used at other transit facilities and we're looking at a total transit oriented development and what that means is transit's going to be the focal point but it's really a livable community within that 10 acre plot there. We're really looking at all aspects that are going to really benefit those that live there and those that come into utilize our services, so the type of commercial use, we would gear it both for the neighborhood and the transit users. Daycare is one of those, but we're not locked into daycare. We've just completed a community survey of the three communities that we did by Decision Resources. Daycare did not rank that high. Transit, bringing more transit into this community did rank very high, but other types of services they would like to see ranked higher than daycare. So that's one. We still haven't thrown the daycare idea out. It's one that we think fits well but we'll look at some other things as we go along. With that, I think that concludes my comments but if there's, like I said, any specific questions we could answer. I do have some members of our team here as well. Sacchet: Thanks Len. Questions from the applicant? Rich. Slagle: Thank you very much, by the way. Question on page 12 of the environmental assessment. Referring to the diesel engine law, which I think was in the news a week or two ago. At least the idea that diesel engines would become cleaner, and I note in here that it talks about it will depend, as far as particulate emissions would depend on the 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 make and the model of the year of the buses to be used. I mean is it your hope and intent to have what I'm just going to call, I mean your buses are great now but are they going to be modem fuel savvy, environmental savvy buses when it comes to this year? Len Simich: That is correct. I mean a lot of this is going to come down eventually in terms of law. We're actually getting out in front of it and looking at cleaner fuels and things that are either added to the bus or put on at the time of construction of the bus that will help in terms of the clean air aspect of it. These are already required in certain states like California, so it's not brand new technology but we're going out in advance of this with a lot of our newer purchases. One thing we have going for us is our fleet. We're not that old of a transit agency and we, by the time this opens, all of our older vehicles will have been retired out of the fleet, so what we're dealing with, what you see today in terms of our big coaches, and we're bringing on by the time this opens up, another 22 new vehicles. So our fleet will be very modem. Slagle: Okay. That's it for me. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Any plans for a bank in there? I had to ask. Len Simich: You never know. Sacchet: Never know. Tjomhom: I have a question. I didn't realize that you don't just build the bus stations. You obviously then do, or you control the townhouse development. Is that what's going to be going in or something similar to that also? Len Simich: Yeah, that's a good question. One of the advantages, and we pointed out during the neighborhood meetings with Southwest Metro. From a developer to come in, as long as they meet your code and your ordinances and so forth, you kind of lose some of that control. What we did in Eden Prairie is we retained all that control through our covenants, and we have actually sold a majority of that property off to a developer. But before anything moved forward, it not only had to go through our review process and we were tied very closely with the city. Then it went onto the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. So it really, you know we could really direct the use in there. The type of use, to give you an example. We had one restaurant that wanted to come in that we didn't feel that it met the character of what we were trying to do there and so we politely asked them that no, that's not what we want. So the developer had to go find another one. So we hold a lot of those type of controls. Architecturally, Kyle Williams here, he's the designer of our station. Our parking ramp, but he also had a big hand in designing those buildings that sit over in Eden Prairie. You can travel anywhere, you know Culver's is a fast expanding restaurant across the Midwest. You won't find another one that looks like our facility over in Eden Prairie. For them to go away from their blue roof and things like that was a major undertaking, but they wanted to be there bad enough 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 so they made those changes. The Ruby Tuesdays. While it looks similar to some, it's a one of a kind. Krispy Kreme, same thing. So all of these, we've made them to conform to what we wanted at that site, and we would do the same at this one as well. Tjornhom: What kind of feel is it that you're wanting it to have? Len Simich: Well I think, we still are working that through with the city. Kyle, can you come up? Some of the things that came out of the neighbor was more of a, I don't know if they talked more of a country living or he knows that better than I do. Kyle Williams: Well, this is a different site. This is not Eden Prairie and every site has it's own characteristic. We're in a residential area with a big highway on the other side. So I mean that's the evolution of the site plan is you take the transit towards the highway and bring residential towards the residential. So I would expect the intent and what we talked a little bit about Len, a little bit with the neighborhood, is take some of the materials and character of Southwest, because it's an identify for Southwest Metro and bring it over to the site, not necessarily duplicate the imaging. But duplicate the character and the quality and make it more of a residential character scale building. We did a few sketches for the neighbors, and they seemed to be fairly well received. But the intent is just, I think that simply, and again we haven't designed it yet but not to copy what's at Eden Prairie but really adapt it for this site and make it a character of Southwest Metro but still a Chanhassen project. Sacchet: Just to clarify Sharmeen. We would see those plans. A1-Jaff: Absolutely. They would have to go through. Slagle: Actually can we see the renditions now? Kyle Williams: I can show you, it was just some of the character of the row houses. This would be those facing the homes. The development just to the south. Again, these depict two story homes with all parking below so you walk up half a flight to get to the first floor. It's becoming very popular. It has a mixture of two story walk up's and also single flat home and this can be accommodating this kind of scheme. Again all the parking would go below. This was a quick sketch of just one of the units. We take some of the brick and pre-cast concrete...Southwest Metro with stucco and again of course the picture was that you would go typically residential. This was a very quick sketch of an image of the station. Again some of the building characteristics of the Southwest station. The brick and pre-cast concrete. The parking deck itself would have some brick and pre- cast. A mixture of those materials. Metal roof with some curves. Again we're not duplicating the cascading curves of the Southwest station but again we'd probably take a curved roof rather than a pitched roof on the station, so that's the kind of thing we're thinking about. To take some of the character of the Southwest station without duplicating it. One other sketch looking from the north, looking back. This is the bus going eastbound on 212. The housing just east of the site and housing to the south. This is where the station would be. The buses coming and go, but again kind of a long linear 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 station. More of a train like station because that's what works well in these bus facilities because the buses stack up and people line up to get on the bus so the long linear facility works well. So those were some of the quick sketches we did just to give an idea to the neighbors of what it might be, and again Sharmeen gave me a hard time for my pink buildings but this was shown as a diagram for the neighbors to get an idea of what they might see when we develop this. This was housing here, commercial and at one time we were proposing a 3 level deck, and that evolved into a more refined sketch from the same view, again rather looking at pink boxes, they'd be looking at townhomes. And then you see just one level of the deck beyond and houses would be a medium. The diagram that Sharmeen showed before was just that. It was a diagram with blocks. We've been asked by the neighbors to look at some traffic calming devices. To de-emphasize the attractiveness of using Lyman as the main access point. Encourage people to come on 101 and there's some techniques we can use. We can squiggle the roads a bit and make it a little bit more difficult for people to get into the site off Lyman to encourage them to come up 101, and so those are things that we will develop when we get into the site planning and you will see those items when we come through for approval. Sacchet: More questions from the applicant? Craig, you have questions? Claybaugh: No. Sacchet: I have two quick questions. You mentioned that you might be considering maybe even more than the child care, some other uses. Do you want to specify a little bit what you're envisioning? Len Simich: Well the ones that came through during the survey, coffee ranked number one obviously. Dry cleaning was another one that ranked very high. Those type of service related uses did rank very high. So those are the types of things we would look at, make sure that they fit within the neighborhood use. Acceptable to the neighborhood. Acceptable to the city before we actually move forward. We're not talking a lot of commercial. About 16,000 square feet. If you've been to our Eden Prairie site, it's really basically the same size as those two multiple tenant buildings that have the Bare Rock and the Noodles and Chipotle and so forth. That's what we're really talking about. That's the extent of the commercial on the site so it's not that much that we're going to be able to do a lot. A bank, it might be a good use, so those are some of those type of things. Sacchet: And then I wanted to ask you the draft PUD that staff put together. It puts a pretty good frame around things. Style, use. Even down to the type of light fixture. Everything is fine with you? Do you have any particular aspects that you'd rather not see in there or what's your take there? Len Simich: No. We're perfectly fine with everything that was in there. Our intentions all along were to work very closely with the city. We found that worked very well in Eden Prairie so there's no surprises on either hand so there's certain things that they would like to see in there and we're perfectly fine with that. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: Excellent. Slagle: I have one more. And I apologize for not remembering this but it was brought to my attention that one of the residents had a question on hours and potential commercial use and I think what they were saying without saying it was, what would happen if a restaurant went in there that had liquor and would be able to be open til 11:00, 12:00, 1:007 Any thoughts on that? Len Simich: I would guess the biggest thought would be that's not the type of use we're trying to attract into this site so. You know without tying our hands completely, that's not the direction we'd be going. It'd be very similar to like the one in a sense declined to bring into our Eden Prairie site. While we're going into this, there's a lot of different goals. Of course our number one goal is let's get the transit station in. Provide the transit. Two is, you know we will create another revenue stream with the development aspects of this. But that's not the driving factor so like in the case of Eden Prairie where we could have probably brought in a user that paid more than another user, it didn't fit and that's what we'd be looking at. What fits. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Well this is a public hearing. I'd like to invite anybody who wants to come forward. Address this issue. Tell us what you have to add to the picture. If you want to state your name and address. Is there anybody who would like to speak up about this or have you already said everything there is to say at the neighborhood meetings? Seeing nobody, wow. That's a very quick public hearing. Ah, there's somebody. Alright. If you want to state your name and address for the record please. Richard Simmons: My name is Richard Simmons. I live at 530 Summerfield Drive, and I didn't finish writing up my notes but I'm asking that you delay approval of the rezoning and I think number one. On two grounds. Number one, it's premature. Number two, because it's premature, the findings of the staff report should not be relied upon for your purposes. To put this into context over the scope of the public meeting, the size of the project is, the size or content of the project has changed over time. Originally it, prior to the meeting, prior to the meetings there was no public plan. Or there was no plan for a parking ramp. No plan per se. By the first meeting it was that the park and ride would occupy a small portion of the property on the north corner. By the second meeting it had grown and by the third meeting it had grown even larger as MnDot had moved one of the access points. The, and at the same time I also have to admit that I was at first really opposed to this project. As the project changed and developed over time, and became what's described in the appraisers report as the park and ride facility on the northern portion of the property, a commercial zone in the middle and a residential zone on the southern part, I became less and less opposed and this was to me the best of the, the best of the possible alternatives, if there's going to be something there that's like this, this is probably one of the better, for me at least, one of the better things that could be there, and 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 I'd like to see things like dry cleaning and coffee shops and things that help me on my way to work. But in the final meeting what occurred to me was, in looking at the final document or the draft, rezoning draft, and listening to the presentations was the use of the words might, could, you know possibly. This is what this could possibly look like at this point. And as we stand here today, there's no guarantee that what was presented is one of the possible plans, which is, and it's throughout this document is the description of the broken off essentially into thirds. Is that's actually what's going to be built. And it was pointed out to me that Southwest Metro is a great partner in this and is a great partner in the City of Chanhassen and does a tremendous job and I'm not questioning any of those. But I've also gotten advice from my attorney, from my business attorney, in my business dealings that we have contracts and we have agreements because we're friends and we want to maintain those friendships and we want to make sure that we understand a lot of what's going on and what's going into this process and what's actually going to be built and so there are no surprises in 5 years from now when this is going to be built and the representations that are made today that it will be broken up, you know similar into those thirds. That that's actually what's going to be there because at the third meeting one of the plans that was presented was commercial property in the southwest corner. At the intersection of 101 and Lyman, which is absent from the final report. And when asked is this what's going to be built? You know the answer was, it's going to be whatever the market can bear at that time. So ideally I'd like to see some guarantees or some commitments that this is what's going to be built. That this is what we can look forward to going up, and it will be something that will compliment the surrounding existing properties rather than detract from them. Because in my opinion it's premature, looking at the reports that were prepared and support the staff report. For example the traffic report assumes the best case development of that property, and it assumes a specific mix of the, of residential, of daycare, of park and ride, and if that isn't built, what is the effect at that point? What is the effect of noise at that point? The appraisers report goes to great lengths to say, I was asked to assume the following. Describes this great buffer zone, but if that's not built, then what does that do to the appraisers report and so my concern is that we, at some point very soon here, commit this is what we're going to do. It's going to look very much like this, or very much in keeping with this rather, while the discretion of the city of Chanhassen is at it's greatest. As opposed to here's the general framework of what's going to be built and a lot of things could fit into that. Will it be a restaurant with a liquor license on the corner or will it be a very nice looking row of townhouses? There's about $60 million dollars worth of property that's going to be affected by this and I think to the degree that the city of Chanhassen looks skeptically at variances and looks carefully at what kind of development goes forward, that some care should be taken to say this is what's going to be and commit to going forward on that basis. Sacchet: Thank you. I just want to clarify. I didn't quite catch your reasoning why you think it's premature. Richard Simmons: Oh, it's premature in the sense that there are a lot of, there's a lot of representations made in terms of what is going to be built which, it's my understanding that there is nothing that commits that any of those properties be built. That there's 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 nothing that commits it could be any residential space in that entire district. That it's not all commercial. That it's not a large, that there's nothing like this in the metro area as we stand today. There's very little like this in the Midwest. Where a transit oriented development's being created in a residential area, and so because there's, that's why. Sacchet: I understand because we use the word premature in a very specific context in the planning, but understand how you use it. Richard Simmons: I mean it's just in a colloquial sense, not as a term... Sacchet: Right. Sharmeen, do you want to address just to what extent this concept that is put in front of us, I mean could it just be totally ripped apart and if there's no residential or something. I mean doesn't the PUD specify the percentage that can be commercial and stuff like that.'? A1-Jaff: What I did under permitted uses was, I specified commercial and transit uses. This is on page 12. Under the first paragraph. Tail end of it. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential shall be located south of the 101, Highway 101 access, so we've specifically stated what portions of the site will handle what type of use. This was one of the site plans that was presented at the last Southwest Metro neighborhood and city meeting. This was one of the alternatives that showed a residential component along the southeast corner of the site and a commercial component to the southwest portion of the site, and then you still have the transit component to the north. And the neighborhood in general said we really don't like this. Sacchet: Yeah, and with the PUD part that you just quoted, this would not really be acceptable anymore. A1-Jaff: This would not be an option and again, I mean this was the reason why that line was added into the PUD ordinance was to address this concern that was voiced by the neighborhood. They don't want this. We made sure that it doesn't happen. Sacchet: Now in terms of, so we have a pretty clearly defined framework and in terms of what can be done, obviously will be reviewed once the specifics are carded forward, so at this point we have a general framework that takes these aspects into consideration. A1-Jaff: Yes. And then as far as design standards for instance, what is this building going to look like? We have established standards above and beyond that we also have the city's requirements as far as what do you envision in a building. I mean we do expect relief. High quality materials on the building. That you don't have just large masses of walls with no breaks on them, so all of these things will be taken into consideration. Sacchet: And there was another main concern this resident expressed, is that he has the impression that in terms of traffic study the best case was considered. I'm not exactly sure that's accurate. Is that something that we could clarify? I don't know whether our 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 traffic expert may want to make a statement to that, because that is significant. Thank you. Aravind Guttemukkula: I guess just one example how we've considered the most conservative option with this concept. You know there was commercial, little bit of residential and little bit of. Sacchet: When you say conservative, can you explain what you mean? Aravind Guttemukkula: Conservative high. Sacchet: You mean high not low? So it's not the best possible case. It's actually in some ways the worst possible case then? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. I'm sorry, we looked at scenario that generates a conservatively high number of trips so that we come up with a conservatively high volumes... In one sense we know it's the worst case scenario. For example I mean in terms of the number of spaces, we were told at that time that 800 is the maximum. On the other, we were looking at more like 600 but we want to look at the worst case and what if it's 700 or 800. Sacchet: So you would look at the highest number? You would take the higher one for your calculations, okay. Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. So that answers my question. Thank you. Well this is still a public hearing. Is there anybody else who's like to come forward? This is your chance. If there is nobody. Yes, there is somebody. Got to threaten you guys with closing the public hearing to get you guys to stand up. Terry Helland: We're all excited to come up here. My name is Terry Helland. I live at 491 Summerfield and I'm here because of two reasons. One is, I think we've all heard the phrase perception is reality and one of the things that strikes me, I was at 2 of the 3 meetings. I didn't make the last meeting, but it's interesting that shortly after the first meeting that the house closest to this development went up for sale, and I don't know if that was coincidence or not but it has since been sold. And additionally ! think there were some statements that this development could potentially increase property values. There aren't any assurances of that or any studies saying that specifically, and in addition the noise may be helped or mitigated by this type of use versus another type of mixed use. And while the land use development shows this as a mixed use, it is currently zoned as residential, and I think from my perspective in the neighborhood, there is concerns about safety and there's a lot of kids in the neighborhood and the traffic is going to be impacted on Lyman. There's some bike paths in that area, and there's going to be added development with that, and I think Southwest Metro has done a good job of involving the community and asking the right questions and I do applaud them on the developmental 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 pieces but I guess I'd like to ask this crew to think, is this really the best site for this development. As I look at it, I know there's a matter of convenience and that Southwest Metro owns this site and that helps it. When I drive by and drove by tonight, I still saw a for sale sign at the comer on the other portion of this site, and I do wonder if the site across the way to the west of 101 wouldn't be a better site. It'd be buffered on the north by the freeway. On the east by 101. It wouldn't be directly adjacent to any of the residences to the east. There's a couple residences across Lyman to the south but I guess when you look at rezoning a property, and this is an important aspect for Chanhassen to think about, is it a matter of convenience or is it the best site, and that's what I'd like to make sure that is considered. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good point. I assume you were emphasizing that the house went on sale more than it was actually sold because the fact that it did sell quickly I think actually. Terry Helland: That goes back to the fact that, I'm an architect and I did look and find out, I did a tuciary look and found out that it was zoned residential in that area. ! didn't look and understand there was a land use plan that was out there and so I probably didn't ask all the questions. Sacchet: You were aware of the highway coming through. Terry Helland: I was aware of the highway. Sacchet: But not the transit station. Terry Helland: But not the transit station. So yeah, it's a matter of I touched the topsoil but I didn't get down to the clay so to speak. Now the new owner, did he touch the topsoil or go down to the clay? Sacchet: That's a good question. That's out of our scope though. You know, it's a tricky thing also with, is this the best site. I mean we can't dictate somebody what they can do and not do on their property. We can only look, does it conform with ordinances. I mean a resident has a right of ownership which is held very highly in the United States Constitution for that matter. Terry Helland: Well I agree with that. I think the other aspect through the planning portion was that while the Eden Prairie facility just opened, it is bounded by mostly by mixed use and there's some high density housing that's just going up with it. The Eagan facility was referenced but I think I haven't personally been there but my understanding is it's kind of on the river bluff and there's residential across a highway. There's not a similar, and I know they were challenged in finding a similar situation, let alone in the Midwest or throughout the country of this kind of a use, so I think there are some potential challenges with this and some unknowns. And I agree with Richard that I think personally I'd like to see more conditions placed on this relative to how the land is used in assuring you know that the land is used for this. This intended purpose so that if it 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 was, I mean I personally, my first choice would be like the homeowners before, would be residential or at worst case maybe some mixed residential. Not high. High density. Sacchet: Are you familiar with the framework that we're actually asked to look at here.'? I mean the PUD. The planned unit development framework because it's very specific in terms of what can be done. How it has to be done. It goes into a lot of details to the point of what kind of materials, and I was kind of pulling on what type of light fixture. I mean it goes into quite a bit of detail and Sharmeen pointed out, also in terms of what can be done where. It's not rigid. It's not meant to be rigid. It's meant to be a concept at this point. Terry Helland: I understand that but that's not to say 5 years from now you're not at this same kind of meeting and there's not a discussion about putting in a restaurant that you know could stay open until 1:00 at night, which would be a concern of the local. I mean what this does is starts to open the door, and who's to say that 5 years from now the door doesn't get to be wider. Sacchet: Okay. Terry Helland: And it's a concern. Sacchet: Thank you. Sharmeen. To count one aspect this neighbor brought up is the safety aspect. Can we say anything about safety? Al-Jarl: Traffic safety, it will be a signalized intersection. Sacchet: So we actually would have more signals than we would have otherwise, so we can take that as an assistance to safety. A1-Jaff: As far as access to the site, because this is a transit facility, MnDot agreed to allow a right-in/right-out off of 101 as well as an access for buses only, a ramp for the buses on 212. Sacchet: So they're separated. A1-Jaff: Correct. These are things that we don't believe will be available to us had we stuck to a non-transit oriented development. We believe that the only access would have been a full access off of Lyman Boulevard, and again Justin Miller. Sacchet: Oh if it would be a different development. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: The full access of that whole parcel would be from Lyman only. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Would be entirely off of Lyman Boulevard. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Sacchet: So that'd actually help off load some of that then. A1-Jaff: Justin Miller, the Assistant City Manager was at the meetings with MnDot and that was part of the discussion. To provide access, the tight-in/right-out off of 101. Another thing that I wanted to point out to the Planning Commission is please bear in mind that as each building component comes in for development, they have to go through a site plan approval. You will see those site plans. You still have to approve them. Sacchet: And they will be public hearings? Al-Jaff: There will be public hearings. Typical site plan approval process. Sacchet: Anybody can come. A1-Jaff: People within 500 feet will be notified. Now for the PUD purposes, we went far beyond the 500 feet. I mean we truly covered large neighborhoods. Sacchet: So if you, like the fear that was expressed that 5 years from now some of these standards could be relaxed and all of a sudden there is a liquor shop or a restaurant that's open until 2:00 in the morning with dancing out on the patio, what have you, at that point there would be a public heating where we would look at the PUD framework. At the city's framework and the neighborhood would be invited to come give their comments. A1-Jaff: Absolutely. Within 500 feet. I can guarantee you that neighbors within 500 feet will be. Sacchet: So I'm afraid we're not going to be dancing til 2:00 in the morning out there. Slagle: Mr. Chair, if I can ask a couple of things. One is, Sharmeen I think, given the sensitive nature and the uniqueness of this proposal, if it does get approved I would at least ask for staff's consent to continue to send notification identical to what you did here. Because I know in the past we've sort of blanketed neighborhoods. Collectively thought of them as one area. The other question, and I don't want to open up a hornet's nest but I think this gentleman that was up here asked a fair question and one that has been on my mind since I started reading about this, and Justin I don't know if you want to touch upon it but I mean to be proper planners, is this a case of the applicant owns the property wherein the overall scheme of things the property to the west, which is not bordered by families, so forth, would be a better fit for this? I'm curious to know what your thoughts are. Al-Jaff: That's the question that came up at several of the meetings and one of the options that was expressed to Southwest Metro was, would you consider swapping property with. Slagle: Whomever. With whomever. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 A1-Jaff: It's the property here or the parcel here. And Len Simich, the Director of Southwest Metro did look at this option. Access was an issue and then the fact that funding? Len Simich: Yes. Slagle: I mean I think it's a fair question to ask. Al-Jarl: Absolutely. Sacchet: It's a valid question. Do you want to address that please? Len Simich: Sure. In terms of the site, either site probably would work. Both have advantages, one over the other. The big issue there was the funding, or lack thereof to go in at today's market value to purchase that site. What we always envisioned and wanted from the get go was at the intersection of two major highways. 101 and the new 212. So this site happened to fit within MnDot. What we're doing is getting MnDot excess right- of-way. That's what the site is. I have a payback provision to MnDot on anything we develop. In terms of the housing, I've got to pay fair market value for whatever that property is worth, so in that case it's one versus the other but for our use specific, we would have to purchase that additional properties and the funding it at today's value. I'm assuming it's over $100,000 an acre today versus when they bought it probably at $2.00 a square foot so it's a little bit different. That's the only major disadvantage. In terms of use, both have some advantages. Slagle: So technically MnDot is the owner of the property at this point? Len Simich: Correct. MnDot still owns the property. Will convey it over to us after we go through all the, and we're, I get you we're better than halfway through the process with MnDot. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Thank you, that helps. Did you have something Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah I did. I might be reading too much into it but with respect to the neighbors comments on safety. I don't think it was necessarily restricted to vehicular. I think there's a pedestrian component to it with the adjacent neighborhood there and introducing some commercial convenience stores and such. And if you could just discuss what points perhaps were tackled by the city staff and Southwest Metro. A1-Jaff: Are we looking at potentially theft? 2O Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Claybaugh: No. I'm not looking at potentially theft. I'm looking at kids potentially coming from the adjacent neighborhoods, sure exactly. And just how are they going to address that particular issue because once it comes to fruition, that will be a concern. Sacchet: Are we to that level of concern already or to what extent has that been looked at? Do you want to. Claybaugh: Just in very general terms. You don't need to get into anything specific. Len Simich: I touched on it briefly in my presentation. Part of the whole idea of a transit oriented development is to have a very walkable site and we're going to maintain the trail that's along 101. That will be part of the whole concept, but also the interior park portion of the site. We're doing a number of things to make it from a connectivity standpoint very open and usable for the pedestrian, and Kyle touched upon it in terms of our traffic calming. You know much to the chagrin of our traffic engineers, instead of having just a straight shot through, we're trying to make it as unattractive as possible off of Lyman. Slow up, slow that traffic up. Looking at ways, whether we have it meander through the site, or we've even thrown out the idea of a traffic circle so we haven't gotten down to the complete details but what we're going to do is A, it's going to be very walkable. And B, we're going to slow those speeds down and calm them as much as we can. Sacchet: Thank you. Yes Sharmeen. A1-Jaff: There's another thing that we attempted to do through the design elements within the PUD. For instance the larger signage that lists all the users is going to be located off of 101 as a right-in/right-out only. The access off of Lyman Boulevard is going to be a 24 square foot low profile basically pointing at the residential element of the development, so we've also attempted to put less focus on the full access off of Lyman and encourage traffic to access off of 101. Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Well the public hearing is still open. Do I have to threaten to close it for somebody else more to come up, or are we done? Do we have anybody else who wants to address this item? This is your chance. If I see nobody, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to commissioners for comments, discussion. You want to start Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. I'm personally prepared to support the application. Number one, I believe it's a very necessary component for the community. Number two, it's consistent with the comp plan, and number three, to, at least on some level in general terms, address the residents that spoke concern. It is a measured process so the traffic studies that apply to this particular layout, when they come in for site plan approval, go through the preliminary process. Again, they're going to have to update those studies and they're going to have to make them relative to the design that they're putting in front of us at the time so. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. Kurt. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Papke: I'm very supportive of this proposal. I had the opportunity to attend one of the early public reviews and I've been very impressed with how well Southwest Metro has responded to the concerns. I think you've come miles from where you first started out. The first proposal had the buses coming all the way down to Lyman and it just didn't look real good, but I think you've made tremendous progress. You've listened to the community and I think you've done a great job of designing this. I think we've, I'd really like to commend Southwest Metro for this so I'm very supportive of this proposal. I think it's, this is the best spot for it. The improvements that were made were to a great extent the utilization of the bus slip and that would not be possible, as far as I'm aware, at any other site, and I think that's, you know it's a great design. So I'm very supportive of this. Sacchet: Rich, no comment? Tjornhom: No. Sacchet: No comment. I don't really have much to add. I'm terribly biased about this project. Having grown up in Europe where you have so much public transportation that you may choose not to have a car because you have so many options of getting around with public transportation that you literally don't need your own transportation. I find that increasing the offering of public transportation in this environment here is so sorely needed and I really want to commend the applicant for, as it was expressed, I think the applicant made tremendous efforts to accommodate all the concerns that were brought up by the city, by the neighbors. I understand that there is some apprehensions on the neighbors side, and I want to encourage you to come back as this process goes forward and as we get the specific site plans and building plans and all and give your input because we do listen to you. It's a team effort and I think having an applicant that shows this much willingness to work together is really fantastic. I want to thank you for all that. That's my comment to this so with that I'm willing to take a motion please. Claybaugh: I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of 212 and 101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from residential single family to planned unit development, mixed use incorporating the following design standards. Sacchet: As given in the staff report? Claybaugh: As given in the staff report, yes. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development- Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses · The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. · Small to medium-sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) · Office · Day care · Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint · Convenience store without gas pumps · Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) · Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self-Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). · Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 · Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). c. Prohibited Ancillary Uses · Drive-thru Windows · Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50 % Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70 % Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height I story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft 25 or 3 stories, and stair well whichever is less Non Residential Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 f. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. o All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. o The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. Residential Standards Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber-cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 ge he 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public fight-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 J.g. io3o business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. Project Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. Wall Signs: 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. io4o Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. io5o Building Directory a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. i.6 Directional Signs On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public fights-of-way. No more than four (4) 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 io7o io8o j° signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. bo Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. do Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. Prohibited Signs: · Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. · Pylon signs are prohibited. · Back lit awnings are prohibited. · Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area · Menu Signs are prohibited. Sign Design and permit requirements: ao The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. Lighting 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 - Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). Cmtr~ l~ak ~k~ Po~ M~dei CP 17JIS-CA~BK 12 Pt HI 10 Inch B~ 41 All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. Non Residential Parking Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 2004 the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: Thank you very much for all your comments. Good luck with your project. With that we come to our second item on our agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, ZONED RSF~ LOCATED AT 9217 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, GREG & KELLY HASTINGS~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19. Public Present: Name Address Greg & Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Glenn M. Gerads 1071 Barbera Court Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions. Claybaugh: The overhangs, what are they? Seeing as how the variance goes to the overhangs. Sacchet: It sounds quite a bit. I mean 2 feet is a pretty big overhang. Greg Hastings: I think it's just matching existing. Sacchet: It is currently that much? Greg Hastings: It's right down from the windows so it's just a different design. Claybaugh: But the side yard setback with respect to the variance is measured from the property line to the overhangs? Sharmeen? Al-Jaff: Pardon me, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? Claybaugh: For our purposes, the side yard setback is measured from the property line to the eaves, correct? 31