Loading...
170516_ChanhassenAUAR_FINAL-FullVersionC h a s k aCh a n h a s s e n ¬«212 Lyman Boulevard BluffCreekDr i v e P io neer TrailAudubonRoad Pio ne e r T r a i l E a s tPowers BoulevardSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community [0 500 1,000250 Feet Chanhassen 2016 Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Update Adopted May 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 3 What is an AUAR? ........................................................................................................................... 3 Why an AUAR for this Project? ........................................................................................................ 3 How is an AUAR used?.................................................................................................................... 3 Overview of the Chanhassen AUAR Process .................................................................................. 4 Summary of Natural, Cultural, and Physical Resources Inventoried ............................................... 4 Description of the Development Scenarios ...................................................................................... 5 Identification of Potential Impacts Resulting from the Development Scenario ................................ 6 Mitigation Initiatives .......................................................................................................................... 7 ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) WORKSHEET FORM ........................ 8 AUAR Guidance as Revised by EQB staff 10-2-00 ......................................................................... 8 General AUAR Guidance ................................................................................................................. 8 1. Project Title .................................................................................................................................. 8 2. Proposer ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3. Responsible Governmental Unit .................................................................................................. 9 4. Reason for EAW (AUAR) preparation.......................................................................................... 9 5. Project Location and Maps. ......................................................................................................... 9 6. Description. ................................................................................................................................ 10 7. Project magnitude data. ............................................................................................................. 15 8. Permits and approvals required. ................................................................................................ 17 9. Land use. ................................................................................................................................... 18 10. Cover types. ............................................................................................................................. 19 11. Fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources. (This section of the AUAR remains largely unchanged from the original 2005 AUAR with the exception of the section on wetlands) ............ 20 12. Physical impacts on water resources. ...................................................................................... 23 13. Water Use. ............................................................................................................................... 24 14. Water-related Land Use Management Districts. ...................................................................... 24 15. Water surface use. ................................................................................................................... 24 16. Erosion and sedimentation. ..................................................................................................... 24 17. Water Quality-stormwater runoff. ............................................................................................. 25 18. Water Quality-Wastewater. ...................................................................................................... 26 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. ..................................................................................... 26 20. (a) Solid wastes; (b) hazardous wastes; (c) storage tanks. ..................................................... 27 21. Traffic. ...................................................................................................................................... 28 22. Vehicle-related air emissions. .................................................................................................. 36 23. Stationary source air emissions. .............................................................................................. 36 24. Dust, odors, noise. ................................................................................................................... 37 25. Sensitive resources: ................................................................................................................. 37 26. Adverse visual impacts. ........................................................................................................... 39 27. Compatibility with Plans. .......................................................................................................... 40 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. .......................................................................... 40 29. Cumulative impacts. ................................................................................................................. 41 30. Other potential environmental impacts. ................................................................................... 41 31. Summary of Issues. ................................................................................................................. 41 MITIGATION INITIATIVES .......................................................................................................42 Intent of Mitigation Plan.................................................................................................................. 42 General Mitigation Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 43 Focused Mitigation Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 43 Monitoring of Development in the AUAR Area and Future Updates to the AUAR ........................ 46 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................48 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 2 Figure 1—Project Location Figure 2—AUAR Project Boundary Figure 3—USGS Map Figure 4—Primary Habitat Areas Figure 5 – Significant Ecological Areas and Sites of Biodiversity Figure 6—NWI Wetlands by Type and Delineated (updated map) Figure 7—City Wetland Classification Figure 8—Surface Water Features Figure 9—Geologic Inventory Figure 10—Soils Figure 11—Cultural and Historical Resource Information Figure 12—Existing Land Use (updated map) Figure 13—Zoning Map (updated map) Figure 14—Land Use Plan (updated map) Figure 15—AUAR Development Scenarios (updated maps) Figure 16—Existing and Proposed Sanitary Sewer Figure 17—Existing and Proposed Watermain Figure 18—Surface Water Management Plan Figure 19—Existing and Future Roadway Network Figure 20—Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 21—Concept A Site Generated Traffic Assignments Figure 22—Concept B Site Generated Traffic Assignments Figure 23—2022 Build-Out Traffic Volumes (Concept A) Figure 24—2022 Build-Out Traffic Volumes (Concept B) Figure 25—Existing and Proposed Lane Use and Traffic Control APPENDIX 1—RESOLUTIONS APPENDIX 2—WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION: AVIENDA APPENDIX 3—CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT (INCLUDING AVIENDA PHASE 1 ARCHEAOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY) APPENDIX 4—AVIENDA CONCEPT STAFF REPORT APPENDIX 5—TRAFFIC ANALYSIS APPENDIX 6—SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS (SEE FIGURE 10) LIST OF TABLES Table 7.1 – Project Magnitude Data – “No Build” Concept Gross Acreage ................................................ 16 Table 7.2 – Project Magnitdue Data – Concept A Net Developable Acreage ............................................ 16 Table 7.3 – Project Magnitude Data – Concept B Net Developable Acreage ............................................ 16 Table 8.1 – Permits And Regulatory Review/Approvals ............................................................................. 17 Table 9.1 – Existing Land Use Calculations ............................................................................................... 19 Table 11.1 – Natural Rare Features Database –Sites Within A Mile Of The Project Area ......................... 23 Table 20.1 – Summary Of Current And Future Residential Waste Generation .......................................... 27 Table 20.2 – Summary Of Current And Future Commercial Waste Generation ........................................ 27 Table 21.1 – Trip Generation Estimates (Concept A) ................................................................................. 29 Table 21.2 – Trip Generation Estimates (Concept B) ................................................................................. 31 Table 21.3 – Traffic Analysis Scenarios ...................................................................................................... 31 Table 21.4 – Unsignalized Intersection Level Of Service ........................................................................... 33 Table 21.4 (Cont.) – Unsignalized Intersection Level Of Service ............................................................... 34 Table 21.5 – Signalized Intersection Level Of Service ............................................................................... 34 Table 25.1 – Archaeological Sites Within Study Area ................................................................................ 38 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 3 Table 25.2 – Archaeological Sites Within One Mile Of Study Area ............................................................ 38 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY What is an AUAR? An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is authorized under Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3610 as an alternative form of environmental review. Generally, the AUAR consists of a hypothetical development scenario or scenarios, an inventory of environmental and cultural resources, an assessment of the “cumulative” impacts that the development scenario may have on these resources as well as public infrastructure services, and a set of mitigation measures that reduce or eliminate the potential impacts generated by the development. The AUAR is intended to address the “cumulative” impacts resulting from a sequence of related development projects as opposed to an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which simply looks at a single project’s impacts. Why an AUAR for this Project? This study area was originally guided by the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR, which utilized the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and a proposal by Town and Country Homes as a basis for land use decisions. The 2005 AUAR anticipated the project area to be built out by 2010; however, the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants remain undeveloped to date. This AUAR will act as an update to the previous version, and incorporate the City’s updated comprehensive plan as well as the portions of the study area that are already constructed. Since 2005, Highway 212 has been constructed, four subdivisions have been platted throughout the project area, and Bluff Creek Boulevard, a major collector, has been partially constructed along the route depicted in the 2005 AUAR. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan The City of Chanhassen adopted its plan for 2030 in November of 2008. The comprehensive plan evaluates land supply and projects growth of the community over a 20 year period. The plan identifies future land use patterns and suggests that the City of Chanhassen will be fully built out by the year 2030. This update identified the desire for a regional/lifestyle center within the AUAR study area, and has changed the guided land uses to include commercial uses. The area intended for this type of use is the undeveloped property in the northeast corner of the project area. A proposal called Avienda is a principal subject for this AUAR update. Avienda Proposal A Concept PUD (called Avienda) for Regional Commercial zoning was approved by Planning Commission and the City Council in 2015. The proposal includes approximately 118 acres of regional commercial, office, and medium/high density residential development. This proposal called for the City to update the 2005 AUAR to ensure the development is in compliance with Minnesota rules and to identify and better understand any development issues for the project. How is an AUAR used? An AUAR is used as a tool to help parties interested in development within the project area understand the existing environmental and cultural resources present on a site prior to initiating detailed planning and design. It is also used to identify key initiatives that must or should be undertaken to minimize negative impacts generated by proposed development. Any proposed development in the project area would need to be reviewed for consistency with the AUAR and Mitigation Plan. If a development plan is not consistent with these documents or Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 4 other statutory requirements, the developer may need to conduct additional environmental documentation or review or request an amendment to the AUAR. Natural and cultural inventory information in the AUAR and the Mitigation Plan will be used to guide development. Design and construction would proceed only after all approvals and appropriate agreements are complete. Overview of the Chanhassen AUAR Process 2005 AUAR City staff began exploring the concept of performing an AUAR for the project area originally in September and October of 2002 in response to heightened developer interest in the project area. The City hired a consulting team to assist with the preparation and assembled a task force to provide community input into the process. As part of the process, two meetings were held with the task force and a general open house was held prior to a planning commission public hearing. The process followed the statutory requirements for completion of an AUAR. 2016 AUAR Update As part of the entitlement process for the Avienda development proposal, the update of the 2005 AUAR was authorized by Chanhassen’s City Council in November of 2016. The process to update the AUAR included presentations to the City Council and Planning Commission, a public open house held on February 28, 2017 and a public hearing on March 7, 2017. The Draft AUAR was made available for review during the months of March and April. Summary of Natural, Cultural, and Physical Resources Inventoried As part of the original inventory work completed in 2002/2003, field research was conducted on portions of the site that were identified for immediate development. Local and regional data sources were collected and analyzed for the remaining portions of the project area. For the update, additional field work was completed on the proposed Avienda project site and regional data sources were updated for the remaining areas. The area that was subject to the more detailed field review for the original AUAR was the Bernardi property or Town and Country Homes proposal in the southwest portion of the project area. Wetlands on this site were physically delineated and documented as part of the original AUAR. The project has been fully constructed and the wetlands were managed according to the development plan and AUAR mitigation plan. For the updated AUAR, a field delineation of the wetlands on the proposed Avienda Project area site has been completed and is included as part of Appendix 2. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) was consulted for the remainder of the project area. A Historical and Cultural Resource inventory was also conducted for the project area in 2002. This inventory included a search of local, regional, and state historic and cultural resource data bases. The report is included as Appendix 3 of the AUAR. The findings of the Historical and Cultural Resource inventory included two pre-recorded archeological sites within the project area and seven others within a mile of the project area. Based on the overall lack of disturbance of these sites, their proximity to significant water sources, and previously reported sites, and their topographic prominence, the sites are considered to have high potential for intact pre-contact archaeological resources. For the Avienda proposal site, a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey was conducted due to the presence of previously documented cultural resource sites within and near the perimeter of the defined Project boundary, in compliance with the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (MN 138.31-42). This study concluded that there would be no adverse impacts to these sites. Both sites are located in the primary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay. The inventory also evaluated various farmsteads for architectural history. Most farmsteads exhibit building types commonly constructed during the 1910s and 1920s. Only one was found to maintain a complement of outbuildings consistent with farmsteads of this period. In some cases, the historical integrity of the primary buildings, such as the house or barn, have Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 5 been significantly compromised. As a result, the farmsteads do not sufficiently convey their association with late nineteenth and early twentieth-century farming practices. Although several of the individual buildings retain good historical integrity, their styles are typical of the period and do not appear to be significant representations of architectural styles. Since 2005, no natural or cultural resources have significantly changed with the development that has occurred. Description of the Development Scenarios Land Use For the AUAR update, two new hypothetical development scenarios were generated incorporating existing developed areas with the remaining undeveloped land within the project area. The scenarios are based on the directions established within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan approved in November of 2008, which included dual land use guidance on a number of key parcels and two alternatives for the Avienda proposal. Both scenarios are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan would permit land uses such as medium and high density residential, regional commercial, office, industrial and park and open space. The development scenarios assumed for this project would generate development projections of 400 to 600 units of new medium and high density housing, approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of office industrial, and 250,000 to 460,500 square feet of commercial (retail/service) space. Concept A replaces an existing 3+ acre wetland complex with development and has the most retail space. Concept B preserves the wetland complex and as a result has a lower amount of retail land area. A small area of remnant right-of-way from the construction of Highway 212 (near Pioneer Trail) was assumed as medium density residential in concept A. The assumption is based on the concentration of commercial intensity on the Avienda site. In concept B, this area is assumed as office following the assumption that less concentration of commercial space on the Avienda site would allow for more office absorption in other areas. Differences between the 2005 AUAR and the 2016 AUAR Update The primary difference in land use between the 2005 AUAR and 2016 AUAR update is summarized in two key areas. First, the 2005 AUAR assumed a new high school facility would be located within the NW quadrant of the project area. The High School was ultimately built outside of the project area. The land use assumption for where the high school would have been located was reverted to office/industrial for the 2016 AUAR update. Second, the 2005 AUAR assumed the area subject to the Avienda proposal as predominantly low density residential. The 2016 AUAR update assumes the Avienda proposal area as a mix of commercial, office, and medium to high density residential. The resultant change in these two key assumptions include roughly 250 to 400 fewer housing units and 500,000 to 600,000 more square feet of non-residential development in the 2016 AUAR update than what was originally assumed in the 2005 AUAR. Municipal Infrastructure Municipal sewer and water facilities have been planned to serve this area consistent with the projections of the original and proposed development scenarios. Sanitary sewer service is provided through Lift Station #24 located at Lyman Boulevard and Audubon Road except for the portion of the project area lying east of TH 212/312. An inactive trunk sanitary sewer has been constructed to serve this area. Construction of a future lift station and force main will be required to provide active service to this area. No future wells are anticipated in the project area as a result of the development scenarios. A trunk water distribution system has been constructed to serve new development within the area. Storm sewer improvements have been, and will be built in conjunction with other infrastructure systems. The City’s Surface Water Management Plan was adopted in 2006. The plan, along with watershed district rules, provide the framework for the management of storm water runoff quantity Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 6 and quality and improvements that would need to be constructed to serve the project area. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II requirements also regulate individual site development requirements. Roadways Since the completion of the 2005 AUAR study, there have been significant infrastructure investments made in the study area. These include the construction of Trunk Highway 212 as a four-lane limited access freeway, extension of Powers Boulevard from Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer Trail, and the widening of Lyman Boulevard from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard. As the remaining AUAR development moves forward, there are still a few roadways to be constructed. As part of the development of the NW quadrant of the study area, a collector roadway will be constructed and connect to the intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North and Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive. As part of the development of the NE quadrant, Bluff Creek Boulevard will be extended to the east and connect with the intersection of Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp (North). Also, a north-south roadway will be constructed through the development that will connect Bluff Creek Boulevard to the south and the intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail to the north. As part of the SE quadrant development, three cul-de-sac roadways will be constructed; one connecting to Powers Boulevard, one connecting to Pioneer Trail, and the third connecting to Bluff Creek Drive. Identification of Potential Impacts Resulting from the Development Scenario Environmental Impacts Environmental impacts would normally result from construction activities and elements associated with development such as impervious surface coverages, lawns, and other urban treatments. However, the current use of the site as agriculture creates an impact on these features that when new development occurs, could be enhanced with proper environmental design. The City has existing tools in place with the Bluff Creek Ordinance and other provisions to ensure future development pays high respect to natural and cultural features. Traffic Related Impacts A traffic analysis was conducted to determine the impact of existing and future traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway network, with and without the remaining AUAR undeveloped parcels. Results of the analysis of existing traffic showed that all study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except for Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North and Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail, where the SB left-turn movements are operating at LOS E during the weekday AM peak hour. Area traffic forecasts were also computed for full development conditions, which project that Concept A will generate +/- 23,000 average daily trips and that Concept B will generate +/- 17,350 average daily trips. Analysis of future traffic levels indicate that the following intersections should be monitored for potential to be signalized prior to full build-out of the AUAR: • Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant Access • Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access • Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 7 Mitigation Initiatives Mitigation initiatives are designed to minimize or negate the negative impacts that urban development will have on the physical environment. These initiatives include a combination of existing regulatory processes (such as wetland permitting), physical capital improvements (such as roadway signalization or striping), and best management practices (such as low impact development). With the exception of traffic/transportation system, mitigation initiatives identified in the 2005 AUAR remain largely relevant for the project area. Mitigation initiatives for the project area are outlined in the following topic areas: • General Mitigation Initiatives • Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources • Water Resources (wetlands, creeks, lakes) and Surface Water Management • Erosion and Sedimentation • Wastewater • Water Supply • Traffic/Transportation Mitigation Initiatives • Land Use Management Initiatives Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 8 ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR ) WORKSHEET FORM This section consists of the Environmental Assessment W orksheet (EAW) form and response to questions as modified by Environmental Quality Board (EQB) AUAR Guidance. The EAW question is shown in bold text, AUAR guidance is shown in faded italicized text, and the response to the question is shown as regular text. AUAR Guidance as Revised by EQB staff 10-2-00 This guidance has been prepared by the EQB to assist in the preparation of AUAR documents. It is based on the directive of 4410.3610, subp. 4 that “the content and format [of an AUAR document] must be similar to that of an EAW, but must provide for a level of analysis comparable to that of an EIS for impacts typical of urban residential, commercial warehousing, and light industrial development and associated infrastructure.” General AUAR Guidance This guidance is based on the items of the standard EAW form; the numbers listed below refer to the item numbers of that form. Except where stated otherwise, the information requested here is intended to augment (or clarify) the information asked for on the EAW form; therefore, the EAW form and the guidance booklet “EAW Guidelines” must be read along with this guidance. The information requested must be supplied for each of the major development scenarios being analyzed, and it is important to clearly explain the differences in impacts between the various scenarios. If this guidance indicates that an EAW item is not applicable to the AUAR, the item # and its title (the text in bold print on the EAW form) should be included with an indication that the EQB guidance indicates that no response is necessary in an AUAR (as opposed to just skipping reference to that item at all). One general rule to keep in mind throughout the preparation of the AUAR document is that whenever a certain impact may or may not occur, depending on the exact design of future developments, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” analysis or else prevent the impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan. Failure to cover possible impacts by one of these means risks the invalidation of the environmental review exemption for specific development projects. 1. Project Title Chanhassen 2005 Metropolitan Urban Service Area AUAR Update area is the approximately 625 acres bounded by Lyman Boulevard (CR 18) on the north, Audobon Road (CR 15) on the west, Pioneer Trail (CR 14) on the south, and Powers Boulevard (CR 17) on the east. 2. Proposer City of Chanhassen Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1139 phone Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 9 (952) 227-1110 fax kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us 3. Responsible Governmental Unit City of Chanhassen Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1139 phone (952) 227-1110 fax kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us 4. Reason for EAW (AUAR) preparation. The City completed the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR in 2003 for this 625 acre project area. MN Environmental Rules require that AUARs be updated every 5 years. The AUAR has not been updated by the City since the initial development occurred consistent with the AUAR document. When the City updated the Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City identified property within this project area as a significant development opportunity due in part to the residential development potential in the western portion of the City and the need to provide regional commercial for Chanhassen residents. While the AUAR was not updated with the Comprehensive Plan, the City did discuss land use changes from the residential land uses shown in the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR to the regional/ lifestyle mixed use shown in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. An updated AUAR would also reflect the land use and infrastructure changes that have occurred since the original AUAR was developed. 5. Project Location and Maps. a. The country map is not needed for an AUAR. b. The USGS map should be included. c. Instead of a site plan, include: (1) a map clearly depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis; (2) land use and planning and zoning maps as required in conjunction with items 9 and 27; and (3) a cover type map as required for item 10. Additional maps may be included throughout the document wherever maps are useful for displaying relevant information. The projects general location is southwestern Chanhassen bounded by Lyman Boulevard on the north, Audubon Road on the west, Pioneer Trail on the south and Powers Boulevard on the east. The western boundary of the project area is the corporate limits between the cities of Chanhassen and Chaska. For project location maps see Figures 1 and 2. County: Carver City: Chanhassen Sections: SE ¼ of Section 22, SW ¼ of Section 23, NW ¼ of Section 26 and NE ¼ of Section 27 Township: 116 Range: 23 The following figures are included within this AUAR. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 10 • Figure 1—Project Location • Figure 2—AUAR Project Boundary • Figure 3—USGS Map • Figure 4—Primary Habitat Areas • Figure 5—Significant Ecological Areas and Sites of Biodiversity • Figure 6—NWI Wetlands by Type and Delineated (updated map) • Figure 7—City Wetland Classification • Figure 8—Surface Water Features • Figure 9—Geologic Inventory • Figure 10—Soils • Figure 11—Cultural and Historical Resource Information • Figure 12—Existing Land Use (updated map) • Figure 13—Zoning Map (updated map) • Figure 14—Land Use Plan (updated map) • Figure 15—AUAR Development Scenarios (updated map) • Figure 16—Existing and Proposed Sanitary Sewer • Figure 17—Existing and Proposed Watermain • Figure 18—Surface Water Management Plan • Figure 19—Existing and Future Roadway Network • Figure 20—Existing Traffic Volumes • Figure 21—Concept A Site Generated Traffic Assignments • Figure 22—Concept B Site Generated Traffic Assignments • Figure 23—2022 Build-Out Traffic Volumes (Concept A) • Figure 24—2022 Build-Out Traffic Volumes (Concept B) • Figure 25—Existing and Proposed Lane Use and Traffic Control 6. Description. Instead of the information called for on the form, the description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included: -anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light industrial development throughout the AUAR area; -infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.) Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways that would cross an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary; -information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule. The original Chanhassen AUAR was prepared to address the cumulative impacts of development in a planned growth area of the City. This area contained significant environmental features primarily along the Bluff Creek corridor and the (at the time) proposed US Highway 212 expansion. The Bluff Creek Corridor is identified as a significant natural resource area. To protect its natural resources, the city completed the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan (adopted in 1996) and subsequently adopted an ordinance to implement the plan. The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan adopted in November of 2008 provides the basis for this updated AUAR. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 11 The Comprehensive Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan establishes the future growth plans for the community over an approximate 20 year period. The plan acknowledges the city’s dominant single-family residential character and establishes goals and policies that seek to achieve a balance of uses. The plan includes polices that: • Strive for a mixture of development that will work towards financial well being; • Preservation and enhancement of significant natural features; • Encourage development through a PUD process to enable flexibility in design in order to achieve community objectives; • Encourage a diversity of housing types by designating areas for medium and high density housing; • Encourage commercial development to focus within or adjacent to the downtown area unless they are mixed use developments or PUDs while discouraging the arrangement of commercial facilities in a strip mall orientation; • Minimize environmental and traffic impacts on neighborhoods; • Make the most efficient use of the regional highway system; • Phase future development based on the City’s ability to provide adequate public services; and • Promote coordination with other entities for the adequate and efficient provision of public services such as transit, recreation and education. The plan establishes a future land use map that identifies the location of various types of anticipated future development. The comprehensive land use plan is illustrated in Figure 14. Since the original AUAR, the land use changed to a dual Office and Regional Commercial District as a part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and was based on the city' s vision for a lifestyle center. The Comprehensive Plan states: Definition/ Vision: A mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive, comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors and is designed to serve trail users and mass transit as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity and mix of retail and service uses within their boundaries. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading, parking of automobiles, lighting and trash collection and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan The Project Area is in the lower-middle reach of the Bluff Creek watershed where the natural resources are primarily lowland plant communities. The natural resource goal for this section of the creek “...is to restore and expand where possible the natural areas to their pre-settlement condition while still providing recreational opportunities and hydrologic control of stormwater.” Development recommendations are to incorporate Watershed Based Zoning, Cluster/Open Space Zoning or other tools intended to protect the primary and secondary zones. Land use recommendations are provided in this section as shown in the land use plan. The book, Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection, is referenced. To provide continuity of natural features, primary and secondary corridors are mapped and generally described as follows (see Figure 13): The Primary Zone The Primary Zone is a buffer zone for direct impacts that would affect the creek. This area is intended to be preserved in its natural state to the greatest extent possible. First choice is City ownership of this area. A number of flexible land use techniques such as conservation zoning, Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 12 conservation easements, public purchase, cluster development, transfer of development rights and public dedication are noted as appropriate tools to achieve community objectives. Where essential services are needed in this area, low impact development techniques should be used to minimize development impacts. The Secondary Zone The Secondary Zone is a management zone where limited development is recommended and would be achieved through conservation measures to balance the ecosystem. Conservation areas, impervious surface reductions and land stewardship are high priorities in this zone. The plan cites Tom Schueler’s book, Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection, as a model for appropriate development guidelines to use in the Bluff Creek Watershed. The plan “suggests” that the average impervious cover in undeveloped areas should not exceed 20%. This is also the percent of the watershed that was developed in 1996. The plan responds to this by identifying subwatersheds that should be managed based on their impervious cover as follows: • Sensitive Subwatershed (1-10 percent impervious cover) • Degrading Subwatershed (11-25 percent impervious cover) • Non-supporting Subwatershed (26-100 percent impervious cover) Design and location of creek crossings need to be sensitive to significant habitat areas and preservation of corridors for wildlife movement. The Development Scenarios Three development scenarios have been created to address the remaining undeveloped land within the original 625 acre project area, and provide a more detailed view of land uses than illustrated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan identifies multiple land uses that overlap one another. For example, a site may be identified as either low density residential or medium density residential. Where land use categories are shown as overlapping in the land use plan, one land use pattern that would generate the greatest impact while maintaining consistency with the comprehensive plan was selected. These scenarios represent the greatest impact or “worst case” development scenario. There is a large property in the northwest corner of the project area that is currently used for agriculture and is guided for office industrial use by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In the southern portion of the project area, multiple open space and agricultural parcels exist both east and west of Highway 212 that are dual guided for either medium density residential or office uses by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The northeast corner of the project area contains the largest area of undeveloped land currently utilized for agriculture and dual guided for office and/or commercial use by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This area is where Avienda has proposed a development project containing a mix of medium and high density residential, office, and commercial uses. Concepts A and B involve the development of a regional commercial center, the Avienda Development, in the northeast corner of the project area. The two concepts represent different residential and commercial development magnitudes that are dependent on the amount of existing wetland that is maintained; Concept A prioritizes commercial square footage while Concept B maintains the wetland area and has lower development magnitudes. Other undeveloped areas in the project area would develop in accordance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan planned land use. Outside of the Avienda Development, the only difference between the two concepts involves the development of a remnant portion of right of way near Highway 212 and Pioneer Trail into either office or medium density residential. The development scenario assessed in this AUAR reflects land uses in more detail than illustrated in the land use plan of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan identifies multiple land uses that overlap one another. For example, a site may be identified as either low density residential or medium density residential. Where land use categories are shown as overlapping in the land use plan, one land use pattern that would generate the greatest impact Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 13 while maintaining consistency with the comprehensive plan was selected. This scenario represents the “worst case” development scenario. One area to specifically note is the school designation for the site at the intersection of Lyman and Audubon. This site is guided as Office/Industrial Park/Open Space in the comprehensive plan. As described earlier, a school facility is a possibility for the site but not certain. For purposes of the AUAR, a school facility is being used due to the higher traffic impacts. Details of the school site are described below in the School section and in question #21 - Traffic. The Development Scenarios are illustrated in Figure 15. Types and Intensity of Development anticipated within the AUAR Project Area Within the project area the Comprehensive Plan anticipates a mix of residential, office, office/industrial uses, commercial, and park land uses at varying densities or intensity levels. The types and intensity levels expressed in the comprehensive plan are defined as follows: Medium Density Residential – The medium density designation is intended to accommodate multiple units including duplexes, townhouses, and lower density apartments with net density of about 8.5 units per acre. High Density Residential – The high density designation is intended for multiple units within stacked apartment-style buildings. The net density is assumed to be 27.0 units per acre. Commercial – Commercial uses include retail, restaurant, and hospitality uses generally in one or two-story arrangements. Floor area rations are assumed at 0.30. Office – Office uses include professional trade and service uses generally in one or two-story arrangements. Floor area ratios are assumed at 0.30. Office/Industrial – Office/Industrial includes larger scale light industrial, warehouse, and manufacturing uses. Floor area ratios are assumed at 0.20. Park/Open Space –This category includes natural areas primarily along Bluff Creek intended predominantly for passive park activities and open space protection. However, some active community park like facilities may be appropriately located within this land use designation. Park and open space opportunities are directed towards the Bluff Creek Overlay districts. Development Staging It is expected that the Avienda project will be completed within the next five years. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the City will achieve full build out before 2030. Transportation Improvements There have been significant roadway infrastructure improvements made in the project study area in the last ten years, including the construction of TH 212 as a limited access facility, extension of Powers Boulevard from Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer Trail as a four-lane divided roadway (with an interchange at TH 212), and the widening of Lyman Boulevard from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard. These improvements have served the area traffic needs well as the area has developed. Future roadway improvements will be made as the AUAR area continues to develop. As part of the development of the NE quadrant, Bluff Creek Boulevard will be extended east from its current terminus to Powers Boulevard, and connect at the existing Powers Boulevard & TH 212 North intersection. To serve the NW quadrant development, a roadway will be constructed through the site that will connect to the intersections of Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive and Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North. The SE quadrant is broken into three areas due to roadway and drainage constraints. These development areas will be served by cul-de-sac roadways connecting to Powers Boulevard, Pioneer Trail, and Bluff Creek Drive. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 14 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Chanhassen Lift Station #24 is located on Lyman Boulevard at Audubon Road. Lift Station #24 routes flows north to the Lake Ann Interceptor MSB-7138. Capacity exists within this system to handle the growth anticipated in the project area. Since the original AUAR, trunk sanitary sewer has been constructed through much of the project area principally along existing and planned roadway corridors wherever possible to minimize additional vegetative disturbances. Additional sewer will need to be constructed to serve the proposed development scenarios. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan illustrates two sewer sub-districts that comprise the project area. They are a large portion of BC-9 and the western portion of LB-5. Flows from the BC-9 sub-district are routed north through Lift Station #24 to the Lake Ann Interceptor, while flows from the LB-5 sub-district are routed to the east along Pioneer Trail through existing and future trunk sewer. Servicing the LB-5 sub-district will require construction of a lift station and force main to the Shorewood II Interceptor MSB-7017. See Figure 16 for the location of existing and proposed sanitary sewer in the project area. Public Water Supply Improvements The Comprehensive Plan identifies a future elevated water tower storage site near Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard and future trunk water main systems generally following the major roadway corridors of Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road, Pioneer Trail and the extension of Powers Boulevard. The City is currently working on an update to the comprehensive water supply and distribution plan. The draft plans anticipate that the project area may be served by the Central Water Treatment Plant (site 10). If this is the case, the future elevated water tower may be eliminated. See Figures 16 for location of the existing and proposed watermain in the project area. Storm Sewer Improvements The current Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) was adopted in August 2006. The project area is located within the Bluff Creek and Lake Susan Storm Drainage Sub- Districts of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD). Figure 18 shows the existing drainage sub-districts and flow directions in the AUAR area. Existing storm water improvements constructed within the project area since the original AUAR generally utilize wet storm water ponds to improve water quality and control the rate of runoff. Future storm water improvements to serve the proposed development scenarios will need to be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the SWMP, RPBCWD rules, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II storm water requirements. Any portions of the proposed development scenarios that will drain to the TH 212/312 right-of- way will need to be reviewed and approved by MnDOT. Note: the RGU must assure that the development described complies with the requirements of 4410.3610, subpart 3 (and also that it properly orders the AUAR and sets the description in that order as required by 4410.3610, subpart 3). City of Chanhassen Resolution # 2003-70 ordered the preparation of the original AUAR. The Order for Review was passed by the Chanhassen City Council on Monday, August 11, 2003 consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Rules Section 4410.3610, subpart 3. City of Chanhassen Resolution #2016-xx ordering the update to the 2005 AUAR is included as Appendix 1 and was passed by the Chanhassen City Council on November 28, 2016 consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Rules Section 4410.3610, subpart 3. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 15 7. Project magnitude data. The cumulative totals of the parameters called for should be given for each major development scenario, except that information on “manufacturing,” “other industrial,” “institutional,” and “agricultural.” The following data represents the anticipated types and intensity/density of residential, office, office/industrial, and commercial development throughout the AUAR area based on the development scenarios described in question 6 and updated as part of the 2016 AUAR update. Developable land inventory is that land area that is unconstrained by wetlands as defined by the National Wetland Inventory (or specific wetland delineation), the Bluff Creek Overlay District’s Primary Zone, floodways, and areas of land that are already platted. Key assumptions made to arrive at a net land area for development include the following: • Medium Density Residential/Low Density Residential (MDR/LDR) land use will consist predominantly of single family detached homes and attached townhome type structures. • Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use will consist of all attached homes • Office (O) uses will generally consist of one or two story office buildings. • Office/Industry (O/I) uses are typically warehouse or manufacturing uses with a limited area (less than 30%) used for office space. • Commercial/Retail uses include commercial goods and services including hotel Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 16 TABLE 7.1 – PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA – “NO BUILD” CONCEPT GROSS ACREAGE Land Use Types Total Acres % of Total Units Business S.F. Retail S.F. Agriculture 215.01 34.4% Parks 8.70 1.4% Passive Open Space 135.65 21.7% Public Semi Public 0.35 0.1% Residential Low Density 27.01 4.3% 328 Residential Medium Density 92.12 14.7% 436 Right of Way 146.52 23.4% Total 625.35 100% 764 TABLE 7.2 – PROJECT MAGNITDUE DATA – CONCEPT A NET DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE Land Use Type Net Developable Acres % of Total Units Business S.F. Retail S.F. Commercial (Avienda) 46.93 29% 460,500 Office 18.41 11% 240,544 Office (Avienda) 13.33 8% 150,000 Office Industrial 50.52 31% 440,128 Residential Medium Density 18.42 11% 157 Residential Medium Density (Avienda) 8.50 5% 38 Residential High Density (Avienda) 7.11 4% 407 Total 163.22 100% 602 830,671 460,500 TABLE 7.3 – PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA – CONCEPT B NET DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE Land Use Type Net Developable Acres % of Total Units Business S.F. Retail S.F. Commercial (Avienda) 28.74 17% 250,000 Office 32.80 20% 428,675 Office (Avienda) 13.86 8% 150,000 Office Industrial 50.52 31% 440,128 Passive Open Space 9.07 5% Residential Medium Density 4.02 2% 34 Residential Medium Density (Avienda) 17.09 10% 80 Residential High Density (Avienda) 9.43 6% 280 Total 165.53 100% 394 1,018,802 250,000 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 17 8. Permits and approvals required. A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments and zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by the anticipated types of development projects should be given. This list will help orient reviewers to framework that will protect environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR. Table 8.1 presents a list of known local, state, and federal permits and approvals. Table 2-8 provides a list of known infrastructure and public financial assistance. TABLE 8.1 – PERMITS AND REGULATORY REVIEW/APPROVALS Unit of Government Type of Permit/review or approval Regulatory Citation (as may be noted) City of Chanhassen Subdivision Approval City Code Chapter 18 Planned Unit Development Approval City Code Chapter 20, Article VIII Rezoning City Code Chapter 20, Article II, Div. 2 Bluff Creek Overlay City Code Chapter 20 Article XXXI Conditional Use Permit Approval City Code Chapter 20, Article IV Grading Permit City Code Chapter 7, Article III Site Plan Review Approval City Code Chapter 20, Article II, Div. 6 Wetland Alteration Permit City Code Chapter 20, Article VI Comprehensive Plan Amendments Zoning Ordinance Amendments City Code Chapter 20, Article II, Div. 2 Carver County Roadway Access Permit Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Utility Crossings Permit MN Statute 103G, MN Rules 6115.0810 Natural Heritage Program Coordination Federal Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1973, as amended in 1978, 1982, and 1988; MN Statutes Chapter 84.0895; MN Rules Chapter 6134 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404/10 Wetland Permits Section 404 Of The Clean Water Act Title 33CFR26 - Water Pollution Prevention and Control Subchapter IV - Permits and Licenses Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Plan Review MN Rules 4720 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Permit MN Statute 115, MN Rules 7002 Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit 401 Water Quality Certificate Surface Water Discharge Permit Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 18 Unit of Government Type of Permit/review or approval Regulatory Citation (as may be noted) Wastewater Permit Indirect Source Permit (ISP) Riley, Purgatory, Bluff Creek Watershed District Grading Permit Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sanitary Sewer Plan Approval Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Cultural Resource Coordination Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act, Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), MN Statutes 138.31-.42, MN Private Cemeteries Act- MN Statute 307.08 Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment Metropolitan Land Planning Act Minnesota Statutes Section ____ Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Environmental Assessments (AUAR) Minnesota Rules 4410 9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. • Discuss past and current land use at the project’s site. • Generally, “proximity” means within a mile or so of the project; however, the distance can be greater in specific instances. • If a site assessment for past contamination has been done, include a brief summary of the results. • Discuss what is adjacent to the site (all directions). • Note any nearby features of concern, including areas where vulnerable populations live or visit such as nursing homes, schools, day care centers, water resources, parks, etc. • Indicate the distance and direction to the nearest residential receptor. Since air and water contamination can potentially travel in any direction, please include all residential areas surrounding the site. You may need to contact the city or county in which the project is located for information. Past land use in the project area has been agricultural based uses, mostly row crops. Since the 2005 AUAR, much of the project area has developed to include low and medium density residential uses consistent with the assumptions established in the original AUAR. Included in the gross acreage calculations are 77 acres of wetland, 79 acres of floodway, and 168 acres of primary Bluff Creek Overlay District. The following table provides a breakdown of existing land use in the project area. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 19 TABLE 9.1 – EXISTING LAND USE CALCULATIONS Land Use Gross Acreage Net Developable Acreage* Agriculture 215.01 160.85 Commercial Office Office Industrial Parks 8.70 Passive Open Space 135.65 14.26 Public Semi Public 0.35 Residential Low Density 27.01 Residential Medium Density 92.12 1.69 Residential High Density Right of Way 146.52 Total 625.35 176.80 Adjacent land uses consist of a combination of suburban and rural residential land uses and industrial park uses. To the northwest is Chanhassen High School, which the Chaska School District was originally looking to place within the AUAR project area. Directly north of the project area are several large lot residential home sites that access local streets such as Sunset Trail, Sunridge Court and Oak Side Circle and some that directly access Lyman Boulevard. The Bluff Creek Corridor also continues to extend north of the project area following Bluff Creek. To the east of the project area is TH 212/312 right of way and adjacent environmental features that again are part of the Bluff Creek Corridor. A rural residential subdivision is located adjacent to the southeast portion of the site. This subdivision accesses the regional roadway system at Pioneer Trail. Also southeast of the site is the Bluff Creek Golf Course. The more pristine environmental features near the project area can be found to the south of the site within the Bluff Creek Corridor. More suburban residential uses are found to the southwest and west of the project area in Chaska. Directly to the west is Lake Hazeltine and the Hazeltine Country Club and Golf Course. This area includes many suburban residential developments. Future land use guided for adjacent land uses includes a continued pattern of development with municipal services. Future patterns are generally low density residential with the exception of roughly 5 acres in Chaska at the northwest quadrant of Autumn W oods Drive which is designated for High Density Residential. 10. Cover types. The following information should be provided instead: a) cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting: -wetlands – identified by type (Circular 39) -watercourses – rivers, streams, creeks, ditches -lakes – identify protected waters status and shoreland management classification -woodlands – breakdown by classes where possible -grassland – identify native and old field -cropland -current development b) an “overlay” map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types; this map should also depict any “protection areas,” existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should generally be provided. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 20 The following cover types are illustrated in their respective figures including Figure 15 illustrating the development scenario in relation to the natural features: • Figure 4 Primary Habitat Areas as identified by Peterson Environmental Consulting • Figure 5 Significant Ecological Areas and Sites of Biodiversity • Figure 6 NWI Wetlands by Type (and delineated wetlands) (updated map) • Figure 7 The City of Chanhassen Wetland Inventory. • Figure 8 Surface Water Features (including shoreland management districts and flood plain) • Figure 12 Existing Land Use Pattern (updated map) • Figure 15 Development Scenario with natural features overlay (updated map) 11. Fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources. (This section of the AUAR remains largely unchanged from the original 2005 AUAR with the exception of the section on wetlands) a) The description of wildlife and fish resources should be related to the habitat types depicted on the cover types maps (of item 10). Any differences in impacts between development scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion. b) For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include the reference numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response letter. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a result Although the AUAR project area consists primarily of actively cultivated crop land, other cover types are present. The site is utilized by a variety of wildlife species typical of streams, wetlands, cropland, and fragmented woodlands. The primary areas of wildlife habitat on the project site fall within the Bluff Creek Corridor and are: (1) a portion of Bluff Creek (tributary to the Minnesota River) flowing north to south through the heart of the AUAR examination area, (2) a riparian wetland along Bluff Creek with one distinct lobe projecting west from the creek, including a forested wetland, (3) an isolated wetland surrounded by upland maple-basswood forest which is the highest quality wetland on the site, (4) three upland woodlands (see Figure 4) that are dominated by mature maple, basswood, elm, red and white oaks and hop hornbeam, but none having a developed shrub or herbaceous layer because of past agricultural use (i.e., grazing), (5) eighteen flow through type wetlands located along agricultural drainage paths, (6) eight isolated wetlands that are currently cultivated, and (7) currently cultivated cropland wetlands (corn, soybeans and hayland) comprising the majority of the site. No significant ecological areas or sites of biodiversity are located within the project area. However, there is an occurrence of high biodiversity and high ecological significance located south of the project area, and other sites of ecological significance within a one mile radius of the project area (as shown in Figure 5). As future urban development occurs within the AUAR project area, the downstream areas will be impacted primarily by changing runoff patterns and conversion of agricultural fields to urban development affecting habitat movement patterns. Efforts to minimize impacts to ecological and biodiversity significant areas have included the Bluff Creek Overlay Ordinance and implementation of best management practices during development reviews. Preservation of the primary district corridor of Bluff Creek provides a corridor to enable habitat movements through an urbanizing area. This is further discussed in the mitigation section of the AUAR. The plant communities and wildlife habitat characteristics of communities within the project area are as follows: Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 21 Stream/Riparian Bluff Creek is a small, first-order (headwater) tributary of the Minnesota River system. It primarily receives drainage from agricultural land, so nutrient loading, turbidity, sedimentation, and fecal coliform bacteria are ongoing concerns for the river system. The portion of Bluff Creek on the project property receives drainage from Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road, Pioneer Trail, numerous residential streets, a large area of cropland, and receives its main channel flow from the upstream reach via a culvert under Lyman Boulevard. Primarily mature boxelder trees, elms and green ash with moderately developed understory shrubs and herbaceous plants inhabit the corridor, although the community consists largely of species that are invasive and/or indicative of disturbance, such as common buckthorn and stinging nettle. Streambanks are relatively steep and muddy, suggesting variability in stage height. Some reaches of the creek and associated drainage swales exhibit signs of excessive erosion. The creek bottom consists of sand and silt with a relatively small cobble component, providing relatively poor invertebrate habitat and suggesting substantial siltation impacts. The stream is relatively low-gradient, and at the time of site visit in July, 2003, flow was slow to moderate, the channel was shallow (<1' to 3') and narrow (~10'), and was at least 2 ft. below bank-full stage height. The City has developed the Bluff Creek Overlay Zoning District to assist in management and preservation of the Bluff Creek habitat. The Minnesota River system lies downstream from the assessment area and supports a warm water fishery. Fishes known to inhabit the river include channel catfish, flathead catfish, black crappie, northern pike, walleye, sauger, largemouth and rock bass, sunfishes, and a variety of "rough" and "forage" fish such as bullhead, carp, chubs, suckers, sheepshead, redhorse, and various species of dace, minnow, and shiner. Erosion and nutrient contributions from industries further upstream have degraded the status of the system and limits the habitat quality for many fish species. No construction or landscaping is planned in or directly adjacent to Bluff Creek (as preserved through the Primary District of the Bluff Creek Overlay), or in the riparian zone or the wooded corridor with the exception of a bridge and potential utility crossings near the southeast corner of the Bernardi site to facilitate the development of the east west collector roadway. Temporary construction-related siltation would affect Bluff Creek and the river, temporarily increasing siltation and nutrients to downstream habitats, but appropriate management practices would minimize this impact. Wetlands The original AUAR identified 27 wetlands within the project area. Existing wetlands are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The proposed Avienda development has identified ten wetlands within the development area as described in the Wetland Permit Application prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. in Appendix 2. These wetlands are of various types and have been disturbed/degraded by either excavation, drainage, and/or farming. Of the ten wetlands, only Wetland 10 was rated high for amphibian habitat. The other nine wetlands were rated low to moderate for wildlife habitat, amphibian habitat, and vegetative diversity. In the long run, the agricultural wetlands would provide greater functions and values than they do at present, because they would no longer be impacted by cultivation and most of the runoff contribution would be treated in on-site detention ponds or other surface water management practices. They could continue to receive nutrient inputs, depending on development densities, but it is likely that inputs would be lower than those occurring under intensive cultivation of the site. Other wetlands that were not as highly impacted by agricultural practices would be protected by the Bluff Creek Corridor management area. In a full development scenario, numerous wetlands could receive increased road pollutants, but it is likely that these inputs would not increase as a pollution source to Bluff Creek. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 22 Wooded/Forest Three mature wooded areas exist within the assessment area (see Figure 4), combined with the stream riparian area and several wooded fence rows, supports wildlife species that are well adapted to fragmented forest and forest edges in agricultural areas. This includes mammals such as white-tailed deer, eastern chipmunks, raccoons, gray squirrels, cottontail rabbits, woodchucks, and red foxes. Bird species include American crows, red-tailed hawks, downy woodpeckers, blue jays, black-capped chickadees, mourning doves, great horned owls, American robins, eastern wood-pewees, eastern phoebes, great crested flycatchers, chimney swifts, white breasted nuthatches, house wrens, gray catbirds, brown thrashers, cedar waxwings, northern cardinals, Baltimore orioles, warbling and red-eyed vireos, indigo buntings, chipping sparrows, song sparrows and American goldfinches. Reptiles and amphibians occurring in this portion of the site probably include garter snakes, ring-necked snakes, spring peepers, leopard frogs and gray treefrogs. The wooded areas show signs of previous disturbance, so the plant community composition is not consistent with a native climax community. This undoubtedly has had some effect on animal communities as well, but the area provides considerable habitat resources nonetheless, including some protection for wetlands and Bluff creek. With the application of proper land use management strategies that are largely already in place, future development within the project is not likely to adversely affect the three major wooded areas, and may create long-term benefits because cultivation will no longer occur at the forest margins, surrounding land will be continuously vegetated. Cropland The majority of the undeveloped AUAR project area is cropland, including portions of existing wetland areas. With the exception of the previously mentioned wooded areas the bulk of the remaining land cover is in existing cultivated fields. The cropland on the site is generally planted in corn and soybean monocultures, so habitat value is very limited. Relatively few wildlife species use such areas as habitat, and none of these species exclusively use cropland as habitat. However, cropland, and especially the more diverse margins, can provide substantial foraging opportunities for many raptors, songbirds, small mammals, and snakes. The cropland area of the site would ultimately be altered in its entirety. All structures, impervious surfaces, and associated building improvements would be constructed on land that is presently under cultivation. The area would be excavated and graded, creating a potential short-term sedimentation risk to wetlands, and any wildlife habitat values presently occurring in this area would be indefinitely lost. The cultivated areas have the poorest wildlife habitat quality on the site, but they would be replaced with a constructed environment that would have minimal wildlife habitat value. c) For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Natural Heritage program for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a result. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Rare Features Database was obtained from the DNR during the original 2005 AUAR. At that time, phone conversations were held with DNR staff members Sarah Hoffman (Data Delivery Specialist / End. Spp. Env. Rev. Coordinator) and Shannon Flynn (GIS Specialist) regarding the project area and associated natural resource information. No coordination letter (Sarah Hoffman personal communication) was sent. There were no occurrences of rare features or species identified in the AUAR Project Area. In the DNR comment letter dated April 17, 2017, it is recommended that an updated review of the Minnesota Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program be completed. The DNR reviewed an approximate one-mile radius of the project area and found no new known occurrences of rare features. However, there were numerous sites identified within a mile or so to Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 23 the south of the project area and within the downstream stretches of Bluff Creek. Species that were identified are illustrated in Table 11.1. TABLE 11.1 – NATURAL RARE FEATURES DATABASE –SITES WITHIN A MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Common Name (Common Name Accepted By The Natural Heritage & Nongame Research Program) Element Occurrence Records American brook lamprey 1 American ginseng 1 Beaked spike-rush 1 Calcareous seepage fen (central) prairie subtype 2 Dry prairie (central) hill subtype 1 Hair-like beak-rush 1 Lowland hardwood forest 1 Maple-basswood forest (big woods) 3 Oak forest (big woods) mesic subtype 1 Small white lady's-slipper 1 Sterile sedge 2 Twig-rush 1 Valerian 1 Wet meadow 1 Whorled nut-rush 1 The Environmental Impact Statement for the TH 212/312 expansion project contains additional information on these resources. 12. Physical impacts on water resources. The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan. The original AUAR identified 27 wetlands covering 54 acres. Some of these wetlands have been impacted by development that has occurred since. The proposed Avienda development has identified ten wetlands within the project area as described within the Wetland Permit Application in Appendix 2. The ten identified wetlands comprise isolated basins or waterways that ultimately drain into Bluff Creek or Lake Susan. As illustrated in Figure 4 of Appendix 2 (Avienda Wetland Permit Application) wetlands 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 drain to Bluff Creek, while wetlands 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 drain to Lake Susan. Nine of these wetlands are highly affected by agricultural practices, such as plowing, draining or tilling and most have plant communities indicative of high levels of nutrient inputs, sedimentation or effective drainage. Concept A of the proposed Avienda development would impact nine of the ten wetlands. Wetland 10 is located in the woodland area of the site and would be preserved. The other nine wetlands are proposed to be impacted by 4.6462 acres of jurisdictional wetland fill and 0.3499 acres of jurisdictional wetland excavation. The development also includes 714.5 linear feet of USACE regulated waterway impacts. Concept B of the proposed Avienda development would impact five wetlands with 1.33 acres of jurisdictional wetland fill. Additional detail on the proposed wetland impacts and mitigation measures are provided in Appendix 2. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 24 13. Water Use. If the area requires new water supply wells specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed. New water supply wells are not planned or needed to provide water supply specifically to the AUAR area. Water supply is provided thru existing wells, the East Water Treatment Plant and a series of trunk watermains that have been constructed in recent years. A new 12” trunk watermain will need to be extended through the Avienda development to complete the trunk watermain system within the AUAR area. Water supply to individual properties or developments within the Avienda project will extend from the trunk system. Figure 17 shows proposed water supply line sizes and locations. 14. Water-related Land Use Management Districts. Such districts should be delineated on appropriate maps and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed. The project area includes two shoreland designations. The Bluff Creek is a protected stream that falls under the regulations of the shoreland district for property within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Hazeltine Lake in Chaska is also covered by the shoreland ordinance within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Other land use restrictions include the FEMA flood plain district regulations. These districts are mapped on Figure 8—Surface Water Features. 15. Water surface use. This item need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies. There are no recreational water bodies in the AUAR project area. 16. Erosion and sedimentation. The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. The development scenarios described in question 6 include development of roadway systems and municipal utility systems to accommodate development of roughly 1,366 housing units, park facilities, and approximately 1.3 million square feet of industrial/office development. While it is premature to determine the detailed earthmoving requirements for the general development pattern described above and in question 6, typical earthwork recommendations are that the topsoil and soft alluvial soils within the study area be removed prior to construction of the buildings. More removal of existing soils and placement of engineered soils may be required in areas near wetlands. A detailed site grading plan will be required as part of the plan submittals for City approval of specific development proposals in the AUAR area. Also, a detailed erosion control mitigation plan will be prepared and approved prior to the City’s issuance of site grading permits. Preparation of preliminary site development plans will include consultation with an urban forester to identify important specimens that should be preserved and/or existing trees that could be relocated within the development, using a tree spade. The details of the transplanting as well as an overall tree/landscape plan will be completed and reviewed by City staff for conformance to Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 25 the City’s tree ordinance as part of the preliminary and final site review. Similarly, City and watershed district regulations require maintenance of a minimum width of natural vegetation buffer around all wetlands. This buffer area promotes protection of natural vegetative cover to minimize erosion and sedimentation as part of site development plans. The Bluff Creek Overlay District zoning overlay places restrictions on grading and site preparation activities in order to minimize erosion and sedimentation. The potential for erosion of soils exposed during development of the AUAR study area will be minimized by using Best Management Practices (BMPs) during and after construction. Examples of possible BMPs include: • Installation of erosion control measures prior to grading operations and maintaining them until all areas disturbed have been restored. • Construction of detention ponds prior to site mass grading, to contain construction-related runoff/sediment. • Sweeping streets as necessary where construction sediment has been deposited. • After construction, paving or vegetating all disturbed areas to eliminate exposed soil surfaces. • Delaying removal of erosion control measures until all disturbed areas have been stabilized. • Preservation of existing vegetation adjacent to wetlands and the Bluff Creek. Specific erosion control practices will be identified in final grading and construction plans for each proposed development project as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit the City of Chanhassen and the Regional Watershed Management Districts erosion/sedimentation control standards. 17. Water Quality-stormwater runoff. For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be followed in addition to that in “EAW Guidelines”: -it is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues; -a map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided; -the description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed. -if present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special analyses: -lakes: within the Twin Cities metro area a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs; -trout streams: if stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) City and watershed district regulations as well as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulations (administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)), establish the standard for surface water conveyance, detention, and mitigation for any development proposed in the AUAR study area. Mitigation requirements include: • Abstracting the first 1.1-inch of runoff from new impervious surfaces. • Maintaining discharge rates at or below current levels. • Providing water quality treatment of runoff prior to discharge from the site or into onsite wetlands. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 26 • Conform to NURP standards. • Remove 60% of phosphorous and 90% of total suspended solids on an annual basis. • Discharge to Lake Susan shall not impair water quality. • Discharge to Bluff Creek shall improve water quality. • Providing pre-treatment of runoff for infiltration or filtration practices. • Developing storm water quality and quantity treatment by site or development. • Preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for each development or site. In August 2006, the City developed and adopted a “Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan” (SWMP) to guide the development and implementation of a storm water collection and treatment system within the City. Figure 18 shows the existing drainage sub- districts and flow directions in the AUAR area. As development plans are refined, developer and City/watershed staff will work together to refine the storm water management plan, including sizing and location of ponds, the identification of potential additional abstraction areas, and the implementation of the proposed storm water management BMP’s. This plan will include a detailed storm water analysis for water quality discharges, including demonstration of conformance to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulations and City/watershed storm water treatment standards for total system discharges. The storm water plan will also review wetland ‘bounce’ effects from storm water discharges as well as assessment of potential storm water impacts on wetland quality. 18. Water Quality-Wastewater. Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR: -only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—industrial wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review through an AUAR process; -wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the AUAR area; the basis of flow estimates should be explained; -the major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows should be identified; -if not explained under item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction should be described; -the relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU’s comprehensive sewer plan and (for metro area AUARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans, including MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area AUARs, the AUAR must discuss the capacity of the RGU’s wastewater treatment system compared to the flows from the AUAR area; any necessary improvements should be described; -if on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR the guidance in “EAW Guidelines” (pages 16-17) should be followed. The City has reviewed the estimated sewer needs for the AUAR development and determined that the impact of additional flow on the existing municipal sewer system infrastructure is acceptable due to available or planned capacity. The estimated wastewater generation for the original AUAR study area is approximately 640,000 gallons per day which is consistent with the projected daily flow identified for this area (in the 2030 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan which forms the sanitary sewer component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan). Existing development within the AUAR area combined with the proposed development scenario result in daily flow rates equal to or less than the original projected flow rates. Any major wastewater flow changes for this area will need to be updated to reflect the additional sewer needs for the AUAR study area in the City’s Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Policy System plan and in coordination with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified. A standard soils map for the area should be included. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 27 The County Well Index (CWI) was searched data regarding water-well contractors’ logs of geologic materials encountered during drilling by quarter section in the project area. Records indicate that the deepest well in the project area is 278 feet and did not experience bedrock during drilling. The Geologic Inventory map illustrating bedrock and surficial geologic information is included as Figure 9. A map illustrating soil types is included as Figure 10. Appendix 7 contains a code to the soil types identified on the map. 20. (a) Solid wastes; (b) hazardous wastes; (c) storage tanks. For a, generally only the estimated total quantity of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included. No response is necessary for b. For c, potential locations of storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service stations). (A) Solid Wastes The project area will develop with residential, office/industrial, and commercial uses that will generate municipal solid waste (MSW), recycling products, and hazardous waste. Carver County Environmental Services logs the amount of waste generated within the County on an annual basis. The City of Chanhassen licenses 8 collection companies to collect and transport waste and recyclables to landfill sites at various locations in the metropolitan area. Residents and businesses contract with collection companies from those licensed to operate in the city. Waste is either stored at those landfill locations or transported to other locations in Minnesota or to facilities located in Wisconsin and Iowa. According to data from Carver County, the City of Chanhassen, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the average person in Chanhassen generated 1.098 tons of MSW and .026 tons of recycling. TABLE 20.1. – SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION Residential Waste Generation Rates Current Population Estimate Current Estimate tons/Year Future Population Estimate Future Estimate Tons/Year at full buildout 1.098 tons of MSW/person/year 2,032 2231 3,632 3988 0.026 tons of recycling/person/year 2,032 53 3,632 94 Notes: 1) MSW generation based on data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Report on 2013 SCORE Programs. 2) Recycling materials generation based on 2015 county-wide data. 3) 2030 Chanhassen population forecast – 31,700; household forecast – 11,900; 2.66 persons/household (Metropolitan Council). TABLE 20.2. – SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND FUTURE COMMERCIAL WASTE GENERATION Commercial Waste Generation Rates Current Employment Estimate Current Estimate Of tons/Year Future Employment Estimate Future Estimate Of tons/Year 1.59 tons of MSW/employee/year 0 0 tons 3,945 6,272 1.1 tons of recycling/employee/year 0 0 tons 3,945 4,339 Notes: 1) MSW generation based on 2015 data for the City of Chanhassen from Carver County Environmental Services. 2) Recycling materials generation based on 2015 county-wide data. 3) Assumes office employment @ 4 employees/1000 square feet and office/industrial employment @ 2 employees/1000 square feet and Commercial Areas @3 employees/1000 square feet. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 28 (B) Hazardous Wastes No response necessary for this section. (C) Storage Tanks The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency maintains a database of all identified leaking under/above ground storage tanks. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program database was searched for leaking tanks within the project area. No sites within the project area were identified. Farming operations within the project area do however create the potential for petroleum soil contamination in and around farmsteads. The land use plan does not anticipate commercial development in the project area that might utilize underground storage tanks as part of operations. Office businesses would likely not need tanks. A future middle/high school facility would not likely have fueling facilities on-site. Bus refueling would occur elsewhere off-site. However, should one develop, it would be required to apply with MPCA and other applicable standards. 21. Traffic. For most AUAR reviews a relatively detailed traffic analysis will be needed, especially if there is to be much commercial development in the AUAR area or if there are major congested roadways in the vicinity. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to item 22 and to the noise aspect of item 24. A traffic analysis was completed for the AUAR study area. The complete traffic study for the AUAR study area is included in Appendix 5. This section presents a summary of key findings and focuses on traffic impacts and measures to mitigate impacts for the remaining AUAR development based on two future development scenarios. Study Intersections and Roadways Since the completion of the 2005 AUAR study, there have been significant infrastructure investments made in the study area. These include the construction of Trunk Highway 212 as a four-lane limited access freeway, extension of Powers Boulevard from Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer Trail, and the widening of Lyman Boulevard from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard. As the remaining AUAR development moves forward, there are still a few roadways to be constructed. As part of the development of the NW quadrant of the study area, a collector roadway will be constructed and connect to the intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North and Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive. As part of the development of the NE quadrant, Bluff Creek Boulevard will be extended to the east and connect with the intersection of Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp (North). Also, a north-south roadway will be constructed through the development that will connect to Bluff Creek Boulevard to the south and the intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail to the north. As part of the SE quadrant development, three cul-de-sac roadways will be constructed; one connecting to Powers Boulevard, one connecting to Pioneer Trail, and the third connecting to Bluff Creek Drive. Figure18 shows the existing and future network in the AUAR development study area. This figure shows the existing roadway network, including roadway improvements identified in the 2005 AUAR study that has been completed, as well as the remaining future roadway connections to serve the development area. The study area includes existing intersections that are expected to be impacted by the AUAR development. These intersections include: • Audubon Road & Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 29 • Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive • Audubon Road & Bluff Creek Boulevard/Butternut Drive • Audubon Road & Pioneer Trail • Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek Drive • Pioneer Trail & Powers Boulevard • Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp (South) • Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp (North) • Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard • Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail • Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road (North) In addition to the existing intersections, connections to the existing roadway network will be made to serve the remaining AUAR development. Development-related connections include: • Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive/NW Quadrant Access • Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road (North)/NW Quadrant Access • Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access • Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp (North)/NE Quadrant Access • Powers Boulevard & SE Quadrant Access • Pioneer Trail & SE Quadrant Access • Bluff Creek Drive & SE Quadrant Access Trip Generation As part of the AUAR update, two future development concepts were considered. The NE quadrant has considered two different development concepts; one that assumes the existing wetlands will be mitigated (Concept A), and one that preserves the wetlands (Concept B). The SE quadrant has also considered two different development concepts, both containing a mix of residential and office: more residential land use is assumed as part of Concept A to support the more intense use on the NE quadrant, whereas Concept B for the SE quadrant assumes more office development as the NE quadrant would have a smaller development intensity. The NW quadrant remains the same for both Concept A and Concept B and will provide general light industrial uses. Trip generation for daily and the AM and PM peak hour was calculated for the remaining development based on trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, 9th Edition. The assumed AUAR development’s land uses and corresponding trip generation for Concept A is shown in Table 21.1, whereas the assumed AUAR development’s land uses and corresponding trip generation for Concept B is shown in Table 21.2. TABLE 21.1 – TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES (CONCEPT A) Property Land Use Intensity Trip Generation Values Daily AM Total (In/Out) PM Total (In/Out) NE Quadrant Day Care Center 16,000 SF 1,185 195 (105/90) 195 (90/105) Retail 393,000 SF 16,780 375 (235/140) 1,460 (700/760) Restaurant 26,500 SF 3,370 285 (155/130) 260 (155/105) Office 150,000 SF 1,655 235 (205/30) 225 (40/185) Residential-Attached (Apartments) 407 DU 2,590 205 (40/165) 240 (155/85) Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 30 Property Land Use Intensity Trip Generation Values Daily AM Total (In/Out) PM Total (In/Out) Residential-Attached (Townhomes) 38 DU 125 10 (0/10) 10 (5/5) Hotel 100 Rooms 520 55 (30/25) 60 (30/30) Total Site Generated Trips 26,225 1,360 (770/590) 2,450 (1,175/1,275) Internal Capture Reduction 6,448 295 (150/145) 660 (330/330) Total Driveway Trips 19,777 1,065 (620/445) 1,790 (845/945) Pass-By Reduction 5,512 -- 460 (230/230) Total Net New Trips 14,265 1,065 (620/445) 1,330 (615/715) NW Quadrant General Light Industrial 440,100 SF 3,065 405 (355/50) 425 (50/375) Total Net New Trips 3,065 405 (355/50) 425 (50/375) SE Quadrant Office 240,600 SF 2,655 375 (330/45) 360 (60/300) Residential-Attached (Apartments) 157 Units 1,075 80 (15/65) 105 (70/35) Total Site Generated Trips 3,730 455 (345/110) 465 (130/335) Internal Capture Reduction 54 0 (0/0) 10 (5/5) Total Net New Trips 3,676 455 (345/110) 455 (125/330) Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 31 TABLE 21.2 – TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES (CONCEPT B) Property Land Use Intensity Trip Generation Values Daily AM Total (In/Out) PM Total (In/Out) NE Quadrant Day Care Center 6,000 SF 445 75 (40/35) 75 (35/40) Retail 224,000 SF 9,565 215 (135/80) 830 (400/430) Restaurant 7,000 SF 890 75 (40/35) 70 (40/30) Office 150,000 SF 1,655 235 (205/30) 225 (40/185) Residential-Attached (Apartments) 280 DU 1,820 140 (30/110) 170 (110/60) Residential-Attached (Townhomes) 80 DU 265 20 (5/15) 25 915/10) Hotel 150 Rooms 970 80 (45/35) 90 (45/45) Total Site Generated Trips 15,610 840 (500/40) 1,485 (685/800) Internal Capture Reduction 3,206 160 (80/80) 380 (190/190) Total Driveway Trips 12,404 680 (420/260) 1,105 (495/6100 Pass-By Reduction 2,958 -- 240 (120/120) Total Net New Trips 9,446 680 (420/260) 865 (375/490) NW Quadrant General Light Industrial 440,100 SF 3,065 405 (355/50) 425 (50/375) Total Net New Trips 3,065 405 (355/50) 425 (50/375) SE Quadrant Office (West) 287,600 SF 3,170 450 (395/55) 430 (75/355) Office (East) 141,000 SF 1,555 220 (195/25) 210 (35/175) Residential-Attached (Townhomes) 34 Units 115 10 (0/10) 10 (5/5) Total Site Generated Trips 4,840 680 (590/90) 650 (115/535) Traffic Analysis A traffic analysis was completed for Existing conditions and Build conditions (2022 horizon year), with and without the proposed AUAR development. Background traffic volumes for 2022 were developed by applying a 1.5% annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes throughout the study area. Scenarios included in this analysis are shown in Table 21.3. Figure 20 provides Existing traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway segments and intersections. TABLE 21.3 – TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SCENARIOS SCENARIO ANALYSIS PERIOD WITHOUT UNDEVELOPED AUAR PARCELS E-1 Existing Traffic; Existing Network F-1 2022 Projected Background Traffic WITH UNDEVELOPED AUAR PARCELS F-2 2022 Projected Traffic, Concept A Land Uses; includes all internal roads F-3 2022 Projected Traffic, Concept B Land Uses; includes all internal roads Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 32 Traffic generated for the proposed development (Table 21.1 and Table 21.2) was assigned to existing and future roadway networks. From this traffic assignment that included background traffic growth, potential future traffic impacts were determined. Figure 21 and Figure 22 provide the site traffic assignment for Concept A and Concept B, respectively. Figure 23 and Figure 24 provide the 2022 total traffic volumes for Concept A and Concept B, respectively. Scenarios F-1, F-2, and F-3 demonstrate future conditions (include 1.5% background traffic growth) with and without the AUAR development. These were used to demonstrate the combined impact of background traffic growth and the proposed AUAR development. Level of Service Analysis Level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted for the AM (7 to 9 AM) and PM (4 to 6 PM) peak hours at each study intersection. LOS is a qualitative measure used by traffic engineers to describe the operations of an intersection. It ranges from A to F, with A being the best and F being the worst level of operation. LOS A conditions are characterized by minimal vehicle delay and free-flow conditions, while LOS F is characterized by long vehicle delay—usually when demand exceeds available roadway capacity. Although LOS E is defined as at-capacity, LOS D is generally the minimum acceptable level of operation at an intersection. Each study intersection was analyzed for each analysis scenario based on the Highway Capacity Manual. For comparison purposes, analysis results of unsignalized and signalized intersections for each scenario are shown in Table 21.4 and Table 21.5, respectively. For unsignalized intersections, LOS was reported for the stop-controlled movements and major road left-turn movements. This is because major street through movement vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay and it can disproportionately skew the weighted average of all movements, which can mask important LOS deficiencies. For signalized intersection, the overall intersection LOS is reported. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 33 TABLE 21.4 – UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North AM – Scenario E-1 E A A -- -- -- PM – Scenario E-1 B A A -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-1 F A B -- -- -- PM – Scenario F-1 B A A -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-2 D F A F F F B -- -- A -- -- PM – Scenario F-2 C D B D D A A -- -- A -- -- AM – Scenario F-3 F C A F F F B -- -- A -- -- PM – Scenario F-3 C D B C C A A -- -- A -- -- Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/ NE Quadrant Access AM – Scenario E-1 A A A -- -- -- PM – Scenario E-1 B A A -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-1 B A A -- -- -- PM – Scenario F-1 B A A -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-2 C A A C A A A -- -- A -- -- PM – Scenario F-2 F A F D A A A -- -- A -- -- AM – Scenario F-3 C A A C A A A -- -- A -- -- PM – Scenario F-3 F A B D A A A -- -- A -- -- Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail AM – Scenario E-1 E A A -- -- -- PM – Scenario E-1 B A A -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-1 F A B -- -- -- PM – Scenario F-1 F C B -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-2 F D B -- -- -- PM – Scenario F-2 F F B -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-3 F A B -- -- -- PM – Scenario F-3 F F B -- -- -- Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive/NW Quadrant Access AM – Scenario E-1 A -- -- -- B A PM – Scenario E-1 A -- -- -- A A AM – Scenario F-1 A -- -- -- B A PM – Scenario F-1 A -- -- -- B A AM – Scenario F-2 A -- -- A -- -- C A A C A A PM – Scenario F-2 A -- -- A -- -- C A B C A A AM – Scenario F-3 A -- -- A -- -- C A A C A A PM – Scenario F-3 A -- -- A -- -- C A B C A A Powers Boulevard & SE Quadrant Access AM – Scenario E-1 PM – Scenario E-1 AM – Scenario F-1 PM – Scenario F-1 AM – Scenario F-2 A -- -- A -- -- B A C A A A PM – Scenario F-2 B -- -- A -- -- F A F A A A AM – Scenario F-3 A -- -- A -- -- A A C A A A PM – Scenario F-3 A -- -- A -- -- F A F A A A (1) “--“ = Not applicable (2) Darkened boxes = movement not available Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 34 TABLE 21.4 (CONT.) – UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Pioneer Trail & SE Quadrant Access AM – Scenario E-1 -- -- -- PM – Scenario E-1 -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-1 -- -- -- PM – Scenario F-1 -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-2 C A A -- -- -- PM – Scenario F-2 D C A -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-3 C A A -- -- -- PM – Scenario F-3 D C A -- -- -- Bluff Creek Drive & SE Quadrant Access AM – Scenario E-1 -- -- -- PM – Scenario E-1 -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-1 -- -- -- PM – Scenario F-1 -- -- -- AM – Scenario F-2 -- -- A -- A A PM – Scenario F-2 -- -- A -- A A AM – Scenario F-3 -- -- A -- A A PM – Scenario F-3 -- -- A -- A A (1) “--“ = Not applicable (2) Darkened boxes = movement not available TABLE 21.5 – SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Scenario E-1 Scenario F-1 Scenario F-2 Scenario F-3 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road B B B B B B B B Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard B B B B B C B C Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (North) B B B B C C C C Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (South) B A B A B B B B Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek Drive B B B B C B C B Audubon Road & Pioneer Trail B B B C B C B C Audubon Road & Bluff Creek Boulevard B A B A B B B B Bluff Creek Boulevard & Bluff Creek Drive (RAB) A A A A A A A A Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant (1) B B B B Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant (1) A B A A Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail (1) B B A B (1) Analyzed as a potential signal for Scenario F-2 and F-3 due to results of unsignalized intersection analysis (2) Darkened boxes = movement not available Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 35 Existing Conditions Level of Service Analysis This analysis was completed to determine the impact of existing traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. This includes the built-out of portions of the AUAR development. Based on the Existing conditions (Scenario E-1) capacity analysis, all signalized study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS. For unsignalzied intersections, all movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the exception of the following: • Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North – The southbound left-turn movement is reported as operating at LOS E during the AM peak hour. • Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail – The southbound left-turn movement is reported as operating at LOS E during the AM peak hour. Based on field observations, the capacity analysis is likely overestimating vehicle delay for the southbound left-turn movement. 2022 Buildout Conditions Level of Service Analysis In addition to the Existing analysis, an analysis of Year 2022 conditions was completed. This was completed to determine the impact of future traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway network, with and without the remaining AUAR undeveloped parcels. Area traffic forecasts were computed for full development conditions. Two concepts were considered for full development; Concept A and Concept B. Results of the traffic analysis are as follows: Based on the Future Background conditions (Scenario F-1) capacity analysis, all signalized study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS. For unsignalized intersections, all movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the exception of the following: • Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North – The southbound left-turn movement is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. • Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail – The southbound left-turn movement is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the Future conditions (Scenario F-2 and F-3) capacity analyses, all signalized study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS. For unsignalized intersections, all movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the exception of the following: • Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North – The northbound and southbound left-turn movements are anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. • Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail – The southbound left-turn movement is reported as operating at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. • Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access – The northbound left-turn movement is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour for both Scenario F-2 and Scenario F-3. • Powers Boulevard & SE Quadrant Access – The eastbound left-turn movement is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour for both Scenario F-2 and Scenario F-3. Based on the capacity analysis for Scenario F-2 and F-3, the following intersections should be monitored for potential signalization (if volumes warrants are met) as the area develops: • Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant Access • Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access • Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail Figure 25 provides the Existing and Build-Out intersection control and lane assignments at the study intersections. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 36 The interchange with TH 212 is anticipated to accommodate the future growth of the area, including the Buildout of the entire AUAR development. The interchange has already been constructed with signals and with dedicated turn lanes for all turning movements. At the intersection of Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive/NW Quadrant Access, the northbound and southbound approaches are recommended to be restriped to provide a dedicated left-turn lane and shared through-right lane. 22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Although the Pollution Control Agency no longer issues Indirect Source Permits, traffic-related air quality may still be an issue if the analysis in item 21 indicates that development would cause or worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance for item 22 in EAW 4 Guidelines should still be followed. Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be directed to the MPCA staff. Typical of most developments, the proposed development will generate air pollution because of increased motor vehicle activity. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. The primary pollutant of concern is CO, which is a byproduct of the combustion process of motor vehicles. CO concentrations are highest where vehicles idle for extended periods of time. For this reason, CO concentrations are generally highest near signalized intersections where vehicles are delayed and emitting CO. Generally, concentrations approaching state air quality standards are found within about 100 feet of a roadway source. Further from the road, the CO in the air is dispersed by the wind such that concentrations rapidly decrease. The Indirect Source Permit (ISP) rule 7023.9010 was terminated in 2001; therefore, an ISP is not required for the proposed development. A hot spot air quality screening was conducted and is described below. The EPA has approved a screening method to determine which intersections need analysis for potential hot spot air quality impacts. The screening analysis consists of two criteria. If either criterion is met, then an intersection analysis would be required. The first criterion is to determine whether the total daily approach volume of the AUAR study area exceeds 79,400 AADT. If it does, then an analysis would be required. The highest AADT on signalized roadways is approximately 19,200 on Powers Boulevard south of Lyman Boulevard, resulting in approach volumes at all of the signalized intersections near the AUAR study area that are well below 79,400 AADT. Therefore, the first criterion is not met. The second criterion compares the AUAR study area to the locations of 10 intersections that the MPCA has identified as having the highest volumes in the metro area. If any of these 10 intersections were affected by either development scenario, analysis would be required. The nearest of these intersections is over five miles away, at the intersection of TH 101 and CR 101 in Minnetonka, and would not be impacted by the development; therefore, the second criterion is not met. Thus, no hot spot analysis is needed, and no measurable change in air quality is anticipated under either of the development scenarios. 23. Stationary source air emissions. This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 37 24. Dust, odors, noise. Dust, odors, and construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust control or construction noise ordinances in effect. If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of item 21. As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is some unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified that would necessitate a detailed noise analysis. It should also be noted that all county roads are exempt from State noise standards. A sound increase of 3 dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be heard as twice as loud. Traffic levels attributable to the project are well below the amount that would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable. Residential areas exist within the westerly portion of the AUAR area, in the area immediately west of the project, along the north side of Lyman Boulevard, and in the northeast quadrant of Powers Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. In the vicinity of these residential areas, the greatest increase in traffic volume between existing and 2022 Build is approximately 65%, which would result in noise level changes of less than 3 dBA. The AUAR study area will be developed such that any land use activities that are sensitive to noise will have sufficient setbacks from existing noise sources to thereby reduce the potential for noise impact. These details will be determined as the project development proceeds. Construction within the AUAR study area will result in increases in traffic noise of less than 3.0 dBA. A change in sound levels of three dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear. Therefore, the change in traffic noise levels is not anticipated to be readily perceptible. To the extent possible, construction activities will be conducted in a way such that noise levels are minimized, and that nighttime construction activities are kept to a minimum. 25. Sensitive resources: Archeological, historic, and architectural resources. For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified. On May 21, 2003, The 106 Group Ltd. (The 106 Group) conducted a cultural resources assessment for the Chanhassen AUAR. The report provides preliminary cultural resources information for completion of the AUAR and to assist in future compliance requirements under federal and state law. If the regulatory review for this project is at the state or local level, consultation with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is appropriate. If there will be any federal involvement in the future (for example, through funding or permitting), consultation with the applicable federal agency and SHPO is required. The purpose of this cultural resources assessment was to identify any historic properties within the study area of the Chanhassen AUAR that require further investigation in order to determine their potential eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to eliminate those properties that are clearly not eligible. In addition, the survey assessed the project area's potential for containing previously unidentified archaeological resources. Should Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 38 the boundaries of the Chanhassen AUAR be altered from their current configuration, the study area for architecture-history and archaeological resources will need to be adjusted as appropriate. The cultural resources assessment for the AUAR included background research, a visual reconnaissance of the entire study area, assessment of archaeological potentials within the study area, and photographic documentation of buildings and structures 50 years of age or older within the study area. The study area for archaeological and architecture-history resources was approximately 650 acres (263 hectares). The full report is included in Appendix 3. Two reported (not field checked) archaeological sites (21CRaj, 21CRak) are located within the study area for the Chanhassen AUAR (Table 25.1; see Figure 11 and Appendix 3). There are seven additional previously recorded (confirmed) archaeological sites (21CR14, 21CR15, 21CR97, 21CR103, 21CR104, 21CR108, 21CR109) within a one-mile (1.6-km) radius of the study area (Table 25.2). TABLE 25.1. – ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN STUDY AREA Site No. Site Name T R S ¼ Sec. Description NRHP Status 21CRaj unnamed 116N 23W 23 SE-SW -SW -SW Reported mound group Not evaluated 21CRak unnamed 116N 23W 23 SE-SE-SE-SW Reported burial Not evaluated TABLE 25.2. – ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN ONE MILE OF STUDY AREA Site No. Site Name T R S ¼ Sec. Description NRHP Status 21CR14 unnamed 116N 23W 22 N-SW -SW -SW Artifact scatter Not evaluated 21CR15 unnamed 116N 23W 22 W-NE-SE-SW Lithic scatter Not evaluated 21CR97 unnamed 116N 23W 21 NW -NW -NE-SE Single flake Not evaluated 21CR103 unnamed 116N 23W 27 SE-NW -SE Lithic scatter Determined not eligible 21CR104 unnamed 116N 23W 27 SW -NE-NE-SE Lithic scatter Not evaluated 21CR108 Lake Susan- Riley Creek 116N 23W 14 N-NW -NE-SE and S-SW -SE- NE Lithic scatter Not evaluated 21CR109 Lake Susan SW Shore 116N 23W 14/ 23 C-S-S-SE/ NE-NW -NE Lithic scatter and possible mound group Not evaluated No properties have been previously inventoried within the study area. A total of three farmsteads/houses have been inventoried within one mile (1.6 km) of the project area. These farmsteads, located just north of the project area on Audubon R oad, are indicative of the types of properties that may be considered to be significant within the study area. Each of the farmsteads (CR-CHC-004, CR-CHC-005, and CR-CHC-006) has a house made of Chaska brick and constructed circa 1890. Chaska brick is a locally manufactured brick known for its cream color. The Albertine and Fred Heck House (CR-CHC-006) is listed on the NRHP under Criterion A “as a well-preserved example of a building constructed of Chaska brick” (Albertine and Fred Heck House NRHP nomination, on file at the Minnesota SHPO, St. Paul). It is located adjacent to the project area. The 106 Group inventoried eight properties within the study area that contained buildings 50 years of age or older. All of the properties are associated with farmsteads in this agricultural region. Building types include frame houses, barns, silos, granaries, chicken houses, and other outbuildings dating to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. House styles include a Queen Anne, a Craftsman-style bungalow, and American Foursquares. Due to its proximity to Chaska, this area is known for its houses constructed of Chaska brick, a distinctive cream-colored brick associated with the region. Three previously recorded properties constructed in the 1890s, located just north of the project area, are examples of the use of Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 39 Chaska brick. None of the properties located within the study area utilized this building material. Most farmsteads exhibit building types commonly constructed during the 1910s and 1920s. One exception is 1600 Pioneer Trail, which features a Queen Anne style house, more typical of the late nineteenth century. None of the farmsteads retain a complete complement of agricultural outbuildings typical of farms from this period, such as a granary, a chicken house, and other sheds. Some only retain the original house and barn. In some cases, the historical integrity of the primary buildings, such as the house or barn, have been significantly compromised. As a result, the farmsteads do not sufficiently convey their association with late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century farming practices. Although several of the individual buildings retain good historical integrity, their styles are typical of the period and do not appear to be significant representations of architectural styles. One property listed on the NRHP is located adjacent to the project area (CR-CHC-006; the Albertine and Fred Heck House). Should the Chanhassen AUAR project involve a federal agency in the future, this house should be considered when assessing effects to historical properties. In October of 2016 Merjent, Inc. conducted a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of “Avienda” development project area consisting of a pedestrian and subsurface archaeological investigation. During the field survey Merjent confirmed location of and delineated one previously documented site. No previously undocumented archaeological sites were identified. The full study from Merjent is included within Appendix 3 and appended to the original inventory conducted by 106 Group. Prime or unique farmlands. The extent of conversion of existing farmlands anticipated in the AUAR should be described. If any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this should be discussed. It is not anticipated that existing farmlands will be protected through special programs, deed restrictions, conservation easements, or other means. It is expected that the project area will fully develop. Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails. If development of the AUAR will interfere or change the use of any existing such resource, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also want to discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to be developed in conjunction with development of the AUAR area. One neighborhood park and one preserve were developed as part of the developments within the project area. Neither area will be impacted by future development within the AUAR area. Trail connections constructed as part of future development will provide linkages to recreational areas generally following roadway corridors and the Bluff Creek corridor. Scenic views and vistas. Any impacts on such resources present in the AUAR should be addressed. This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. “EAW Guidelines: contains a list of possible scenic resources (page 20). It is a goal of the community to protect the physical and visual resources of the Bluff Creek Corridor as identified in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. This will be accomplished through land use management practices and strategies that protect key areas within the Primary and Secondary Districts of the Bluff Creek Corridor. 26. Adverse visual impacts. If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation. Edge conditions to the commercial aspects of the Avienda project or other office/industrial developments can be screened from adjacent residential neighborhoods Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 40 through landscaping or berming established as part of the PUD or site plan approval processes. This screening shall be done to manage glare and noise emanating from the site during and after project construction. Building height and placement will be reviewed as part of the development process in a manner that preserves high quality views and vistas. 27. Compatibility with Plans. The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at 4410.3610, subpart 1. The AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to items 6, 9, 18, 21, and others, it must be addressed here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be noted. If there are any management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenarios studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements. The City of Chanhassen maintains an updated Comprehensive Plan that is consistent with regional policy. The current comprehensive plan was updated in 2008. The plan contains the following elements: • Land use • Housing • Natural resources • Park and open space • Transportation • Sewer and Water • Capital Investment Program The City has a Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that was adopted in 2006 and provides guidance on surface water management issues. A Natural Resource Management Plan for the Bluff Creek Watershed was prepared in 1996 that provides a thorough inventory of natural resources along the Bluff Creek Corridor. This plan formed the basis for development of the Bluff Creek Overlay district, which helps implement the Management Plan and general goals/policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The development scenario described in Question #6 is based on the general directions outlined in the above mentioned official plans and studies. 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. This item should first of all summarize information on physical infrastructure presented under items (such 6, 17, 18 and 21). Other major infrastructure or public services not covered under other items should be discussed as well — this includes major social services such as schools, police, fire, etc. The RGU must be careful to include project-associated infrastructure as an explicit part of the AUAR review if it is to exempt from project-specific review in the future. Physical infrastructure systems that will be impacted include municipal sanitary sewer, municipal water supply, storm sewer, and transportation facilities including transit facilities. Municipal Infrastructure Systems Impacts on sanitary sewer systems, storm sewer systems, and public water supply systems because of the projected development outlined in question 6 will be significant but consistent with City planning. The City has identified in its planning efforts improvements to its municipal infrastructure associated with anticipated development of the AUAR area per the 2030 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 41 Comprehensive Plan. Trunk sanitary sewer will be extended to serve the Avienda project. A new lift station, force main, and additional trunk sewer will be required to serve the portion of the project area east of TH 212/312. The water distribution system will be expanded to serve the Avienda project with water supply from the East Water Treatment Plant. No new wells are anticipated. The City’s Second Generation SWMP, watershed district rules, and the NPDES Phase II Program outline requirements for managing storm water. A strong position on environmental site design is outlined by existing City polices and ordinances. Transit Facilities The City of Chanhassen is served by SouthWest Transit. Two park -and-ride facilities are located in the City, one at Highway 212 and Highway 101, and one at the Chanhassen Transit Station on Market Street in downtown Chanhassen. Since 2003 a number of park and ride facilities have been built near the project area. Future transit facilities and service will be evaluated as growth continues and service becomes more feasible. Fire and Police Police services in Chanhassen are provided by the Carver County Sheriff. This would not change. Fire services are located north of the project area. Development of the project area will place a greater demand on improved emergency response times to this area; however, services are adequate for the level of development in the project area. Completion of Bluff Creek Boulevard will provide greater connectivity and enhanced emergency services. 29. Cumulative impacts. Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the responses to all items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated developments within the AUAR area. However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item. No response required. 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If applicable, this item should be answered as requested by the EAW form. The projected development described in question 6 will not generate any environmental impacts beyond those described in this AUAR. 31. Summary of Issues. The RGU may answer this question as asked by the form, or instead may choose to provide an Executive Summary to the document that basically covers the same information. Either way, the major emphasis should be on: potentially significant impacts, the differences in impacts between major development scenarios, and the proposed mitigation. See Executive Summary Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 42 MITIGATION INITIATIVES Mitigation Plan. The final AUAR document must include an explicit mitigation plan. At the RGU’s option, a draft plan may be include in the draft AUAR document; of course, whether or not there is a separate item for a draft mitigation plan, proposed mitigation must be addressed through the document. It must be understood that the mitigation plan in the final document takes on the nature of a commitment by the RGU to prevent potentially significant impacts from occurring from specific projects. It is more than just a list of ways to reduce impacts—it must include information about how the mitigation will be applied and assurance that it will. Otherwise, the AUAR may not be adequate and/or specific projects may lose their exemption from the individual review. The RGU’s final action on the AUAR must specifically adopt the mitigation plan; therefore, the plan has a “political” as well as a technical dimension. This Mitigation Plan identifies initiatives that address potential impacts resulting from future development within the AUAR Project area. This mitigation plan specifies the controls, procedures, and other steps that may be implemented to protect or minimize potential negative impacts. In order to mitigate the potential environmental impacts identified in the Chanhassen AUAR, The City of Chanhassen will commit to implementing the mitigation initiatives identified in this plan. Intent of Mitigation Plan New development generates impacts on the environment and on existing development. These impacts result from construction activities associated with new development (i.e. erosion, dust, noise) as well as post construction associated with the activities and design of the development (i.e. traffic, runoff, pollution, infrastructure demand). This plan identifies existing tools and policies that the City of Chanhassen has in place to address the types of impacts that may result through development of the Chanhassen AUAR project area. The plan also identifies additional initiatives that will need to be implemented to mitigate potential environmental impacts resulting from projected development of the project area. There are multiple ways in which Mitigation Initiatives may be implemented such as: o Enforcing existing zoning and subdivision ordinances and other development regulations at the time of development concept submittals, preliminary and final platting, and during construction monitoring activities; o Referencing and implementing policy directions during the review and approvals of development projects; o Facilitating additional study as regional transportation planning initiatives become more finalized or as other regional developments alter travel patterns/behaviors. o Planning and building public infrastructure (local roads, parks, trunk sewer systems and water systems) in conjunction with private development initiatives; o Maintaining and updating of existing plans and studies for the community; o Requiring additional field work/investigations as part of pre development planning where potential environmental or cultural resources may exist but have not been verified. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 43 General Mitigation Initiatives This section identifies a series of mitigation initiatives that are general in nature and apply to all public and private development within the AUAR. 1. All permits identified in the AUAR (See question #8) as well as other necessary permits that may be required will be secured by the City, or private parties as appropriate, for all development activities within the project area. 2. The City will follow its own regulations, ordinances, plans, and policies currently in place in the review and approval of all development activities within the project area. These items include The 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the official zoning and subdivision ordinances and the Bluff Creek Overlay ordinance. In addition, the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management Plan, the Surface Water Management Plan, the Comprehensive Water Supply Plan, and the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Plan will be used as technical resources in reviewing development activities and developing associated public infrastructure. 3. The City will extend public sewer and water services in a manner consistent with existing plans and policies for delivering trunk sanitary sewer service and water main systems. Abandonment and closure of individual well and septic systems will follow existing local and state regulations. 4. The City will work with Mn/DOT and Carver County to periodically monitor traffic as generated from development within the project area as well as regional development initiatives that will affect the project area. Performing traffic counts and monitoring traffic movements will help in facilitating future local roadway improvements. 5. The City will provide for adequate regional and local stormwater ponds and trunk facilities to protect water resources and water quality as guided by the Surface Water Management Plan and the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management Plan. 6. The City will to monitor development within the AUAR Project Area and its conformance with the development scenarios assumed in the AUAR. 7. The City will enforce its parkland dedication practices consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management Plan and the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. 8. The City will follow existing zoning regulations including Floodplain Overlay (Article V), Wetland Protection (Article VI), Shoreland Management (Article VII), Bluff Protection (Article XXVIII) and Bluff Creek Overlay (Article XXXI) to protect natural and environmental resources from potential impacts resulting from the Development Scenario. The City will reference policies and strategies outlined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Surface Water Management Plan and the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management Plan as technical resources during the review of specific development projects. Focused Mitigation Initiatives Mitigation initiatives that are explicitly intended to mitigate or minimize impacts on a particular resource or action are outlined by topic in this section. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources The Bluff Creek Overlay zoning ordinance contains provisions that require a detailed analysis of habitat conditions prior to development. This analysis is provided as part of the preparation of development plans. Staff will verify the findings of the work and will work with developers to design projects in a manner that protects and preserves these habitat areas. Implementation of the Bluff Creek Overlay zoning ordinance will protect resources within the Bluff Creek corridor (See Figure 4 Significant Habitat Areas of the AUAR Document.) Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 44 Other areas within the project area maintain significant wildlife or ecologically sensitive resources. The most prominent resources are identified in Figure 4. The identification of these areas provides advance notice to developers to plan developments in a manner that protects their ecological function. The City’s 20 30 Comprehensive Plan, the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, the Bluff Creek Overlay zoning ordinance and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning mechanism (Article VIII) provide the City with the necessary tools to be flexible with subdivision design in order to preserve these areas. A cooperative approach to planning and design will be implemented to protect other wildlife and sensitive resources. In addition to implementing existing plans, policies and regulations, the City will actively work with non-profit groups focused on preserving quality open spaces and environmental resources that are identified with this AUAR and future more detailed development planning initiatives. While there are no instances of high biodiversity or ecological significance directly within the project area, there are sensitive areas surrounding the site (primarily south of the site and south of Highway 212) that should be protected from indirect effects (as shown in Figure 5). Initiatives being implemented within the development area in pursuance with the Bluff Creek Overlay zoning ordinance are established to prevent or mitigate potential impacts to surrounding environmentally sensitive sites. In addition, best management practices for site design and storm water management will be encouraged through the site planning and planned unit development process. Water Resources (wetlands, creeks, lakes) and Surface Water Management Increased stormwater runoff will result from future development in the project area. The Surface Water Management Plan and watershed regulations establish standards for surface water runoff. Key policy directives relative to the protection of water resources and the management of surface water runoff include: • Abstracting the first 1.1-inch of runoff from new impervious surfaces. • Maintaining peak discharge rates at or below current levels. • Providing water quality treatment of runoff prior to discharge from the site or into onsite wetlands. • Conform to NURP standards. • Remove 60% of phosphorous and 90% of total suspended solids on an annual basis. • Discharge to Lake Susan shall not impair water quality. • Discharge to Bluff Creek shall improve water quality. • Providing pre-treatment for infiltration or filtration practices. • Developing storm water quality and quantity treatment by site or development. • Preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for each development or site. • Conformance to NPDES Phase II requirements as outlined in the EPA Clean Water Act. Additional strategies and policies that direct development in a manner that minimizes impervious surface coverage are outlined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, The Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management Plan, the Wetland Conservation Act and the City's Wetland Protection Ordinance. Projects within the AUAR that impact wetlands will be subject to regulation under the City of Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance, Wetland Conservation Act, Chapter 103G Waters of the State (i.e. Department of Natural Resources), and possibly Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (i.e. the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers). Should wetland impacts be part of a project within the AUAR these regulatory programs have sequencing requirements which require applicants to demonstrate that wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and if impacts cannot be avoided these programs require replacement of wetlands impacted by fill or excavation. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 45 Erosion and Sedimentation The City of Chanhassen utilizes “Best Management Practices” as outlined in various resources and by the Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). During construction activities and prior to the maturing of vegetative cover over disturbed ground, proper techniques will be used to control erosion and sedimentation. The City’s existing code provides the regulatory tools for this initiative. Land use management and zoning tools (PUD, density transfers, Bluff Creek Overlay) will be implemented to direct development to less erosion prone areas of the site. Wastewater The development scenarios identified in this AUAR are consistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Plan. The City of Chanhassen through its site development plan review process will monitor and verify estimated wastewater flows for general conformance to the Plan. In addition, each development will be responsible for the following: • Conformance to the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Plan. • Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit(s) • Sewer Access Charges (SAC) related to their proposed development. • The proportional share of the costs of Trunk Sanitary Sewer Mains. • Construction of local sewer mains to serve the development. Water Supply Public water supply has been provided to the study area by the extension of trunk water lines. The Avienda project will need to install a 12-inch trunk water line from the existing end of Bluff Creek Boulevard to Powers Boulevard to complete the trunk system. These trunk water lines will supply water to the development area through a local system of water lines to be constructed as development occurs. Each development will be responsible for the following: • Conformance to the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. • Minnesota Department of Health permit(s) for the extension of water supply systems. • Water Access Charges (WAC) related to their development. • The proportional share of the costs of Trunk Water Supply lines. • Construction of local water supply lines to serve the development. Traffic/Transportation Mitigation Initiatives There are a number of specific traffic/transportation initiatives already constructed to adequately address potential development impacts. As discussed in the AUAR Question 21-Traffic and Appendix 5-Traffic Analysis, the mitigation approaches outlined below depend on the remaining AUAR development growth.. 1. Proposed improvements to accommodate the remaining AUAR development traffic include the following: a. With the improvements already constructed, the TH 212 interchange at the east end of the AUAR Development will be able to accommodate project traffic at acceptable levels of service. b. Improvements to Audubon Road include adding left-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound (Audubon Road) approaches to the intersection with Lakeview Drive. c. Based on the capacity analysis for Scenario F-2 and F-3, the following intersections should be monitored for potential signalization (if volumes warrants are met) as the area develops: a) Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant Access b) Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access c) Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 46 3. When plans for reconstruction of existing roads or construction of new roads are developed, incorporate design considerations that will mitigate noise impacts. These design considerations would include landscaping, berming and speed limit controls. 4. Coordinate development of perimeter road connections (such as where a collector roadway within the project area connects to Audubon, Lyman or Pioneer Trail) with Carver County, the City of Chaska and adjacent neighborhoods. 5. Ensure subdivisions include plans for Pedestrian and Bicycle movement in and through the project area as well as linkages to the greater community. Roadway designs will meet the City’s current design standards for on-street and off-street trail connections. The City will work with Carver County to preserve Right-of-Way (ROW) for off road trails. Land Use Management Initiatives The project area is unique because of its topographical features and the Bluff Creek corridor. This uniqueness poses challenges to development. Efforts to minimize impacts on the Bluff Creek corridor and to maintain as much of the pristine environmental presence of the site will have to come from combined public and private actions. The City of Chanhassen is well positioned from a regulatory position to guide development in a manner that achieves the objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management Plan. Specific strategies that enable the City to achieve these objectives include: o Transfer of density—this approach to development would enable a developer to move units within a development project from areas that are desired to be preserved to areas that are less sensitive. The developer would not loose density in the project by interjecting a broader mix of units and lot sizes. o Clustering of housing units—this is a conservation development approach used to minimize development impacts on adjacent resource areas. Although it is more widely used in rural developments, it can be used in urban settings to obtain the same resource protection results. Clustering in an urban setting will also reduce infrastructure thereby reducing up front and longer term maintenance costs. In general terms, clustering requires smaller lot sizes, reduced street widths to balance increased protection areas. This would likely be used in conjunction with a transfer of density when properties have environmental protection areas and involve a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. As the project area develops, there will be a need for park improvements. The City will use its existing park dedication policies to help fund these improvements. Monitoring of Development in the AUAR Area and Future Updates to the AUAR The AUAR assumes a hypothetical development scenario. Because it is based on assumptions, it is important that actual development be monitored and compared to the development that was assumed in the development scenario. Tracking of this development will be done through the City’s existing GIS system. The developer as part of the final plat process will submit electronic plats consistent with city development requirements in a compatible form to the City’s GIS system. This data will enable the City to maintain an ongoing inventory of platted lots and the ability to directly tie building permits to the lots so that occupied housing units could be tracked in the development area. The City’s existing GIS system has the capacity to perform this task. As required by Minnesota Rule 4410.3610 Subpart 7, to remain valid, the AUAR must be updated if any of the following events should occur: o Five years have passed since the AUAR and mitigation plan were adopted and all development within the project area has not been given final approval. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 47 o A comprehensive plan amendment is proposed that would allow an increase in development than what was assumed in the development scenario. o Total development within the area would exceed the maximum levels assumed in the environmental analysis document. o Development within any subarea delineated in the AUAR would exceed the maximum levels assumed for that subarea in the document or is of a different land use type. o A substantial change is proposed in public facilities intended to service development in the area that may result in increased adverse impacts on the environment. o Development or construction of public facilities will occur differently than assumed in the development scenario such that it will postpone or alter mitigation plans or increase the development magnitude. o New information demonstrates that important assumptions or background conditions used in the analysis presented in the AUAR are substantially in error and that environmental impacts have consequently been substantially underestimated. o The RGU determines that other substantial changes have occurred that may affect the potential for, or magnitude of, adverse environmental impacts. Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1—Project Location Figure 2—AUAR Project Boundary Figure 3—USGS Map Figure 4—Primary Habitat Areas Figure 5 – Significant Ecological Areas and Sites of Biodiversity Figure 6—NWI Wetlands by Type and Delineated (updated map) Figure 7—City Wetland Classification Figure 8—Surface Water Features Figure 9—Geologic Inventory Figure 10—Soils Figure 11—Cultural and Historical Resource Information Figure 12—Existing Land Use (updated map) Figure 13—Zoning Map (updated map) Figure 14—Land Use Plan (updated map) Figure 15—AUAR Development Scenarios (updated maps) Figure 16—Existing and Proposed Sanitary Sewer Figure 17—Existing and Proposed Watermain Figure 18—Surface Water Management Plan Figure 19—Existing and Future Roadway Network Figure 20—Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 21—Concept A Site Generated Traffic Assignments Figure 22—Concept B Site Generated Traffic Assignments Figure 23—2022 Build-Out Traffic Volumes (Concept A) Figure 24—2022 Build-Out Traffic Volumes (Concept B) Figure 25—Existing and Proposed Lane Use and Traffic Control C h a s k a E d e n P r a i r i e J a c k s o n To w n s h i p C h a n h a s s e n ¬«101 ¬«5 ¬«212 Lyman BoulevardGalpin BoulevardWest 78th Str e et Cro s st o w n B ou le vard Flying Clou d D r i v e La ke DriveEast Hero n DriveCenturyBoulevard Engler BoulevardHundertmarkRoadEast Pioneer Trail Chaska BoulevardLake Drive PioneerTrailEastWest82ndStreet BluffCreek D riv e Great Pl ainsBoulevardPowersBoulevardHazeltine BoulevardChestnutStreetNorthArboretum Boulevard Chanhassen RoadAudubonRoadHi g h w a y 1 0 1MarketBoulevard Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community [0 0.5 10.25 Miles Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Figure 1 - Project Location Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota C h a s k aC h a n h a s s e n ¬«212 Lyman Boulevard BluffCreekDr i v e P io neer TrailAudubonRoad Pio nee r T r a i l E a s tPowers BoulevardSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community [0 500 1,000250 Feet Figure 2 - auar Project Boundary Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota August, 2003 'KCarroll@CI.FARMINGTON.MN.US' USGS Topographic Map - July 1, 1984 Project Location Hoisington KoeglerGroup Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Figure 3 - uSgS MaP Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Bl u f f C r e e k Proposed T.H. 212/312C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a LYMAN B L V D AUDUBON RD PIONEER T R L POWERS BLVDSUNSET TRL BLUFF C R E E K D R UTICA LNPRIVATE RD SUN RI D G E C T L A K E V I EW D R FOREST RDG SIMONS D RIRONWOOD BLVD BUTTERNUT D R AUTUMN W O O D S D R OAK SIDE CIR SHADOW W O O D C T WAGNER DRSHADOW LNAUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVD August, 2003 Legend T.H. 212/312 Right-Of-Way Property Boundaries Primary Habitat Areas Project boundary outline in white 0 500 1,000250 Feet Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. High Quality Woodlands Bluff Creek Primary District Corridor Stream Bl u f f C r e e k Proposed T.H. 212/312C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a LYMAN B L V D AUDUBON RD PIONEER T R L POWERS BLVDSUNSET TRL BLUFF C R E E K D RUTICA LNPRIVATE RD SUNRIDGE C T L A K E V I EW D R FOREST RDG SIMONS D RIRONWOOD BLVD BUTTERNUT D R AUTUMN W O O D S D R OAK SIDE CIR SHADOW W O O D C T WAGNER DRSHADOW LNAUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVD August, 2003 Legend T.H. 212/312 Right-Of-Way Property Boundaries Primary Habitat Areas Project boundary outline in white 0 500 1,000250 Feet Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. High Quality Woodlands Bluff Creek Primary District Corridor Stream Figure 4 - PriMary HaBitat areaS Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Ch a s k aCh a n h a s s e n ¬«5 ¬«101 ¬«212 Arboretum Boulevard Lyman BoulevardGalpinBoulevard F lyi ng Cloud D r i v e Wes t 78 t h Street Hero n Drive Engler Boulevard Pioneer Trail ChaskaBoulevardLake Drive PioneerTrail E ast BluffCreek D riv eCenturyBoulevard Grea t PlainsBoulevardPowers BoulevardAudubonRoadHi g h w a y 1 0 1MarketBoulevard Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community [0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Project One Mile Project Buffer Municipal DNR Rregionally Significant Ecological Areas Moderate Ecological High Ecological Outstanding Ecological MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance High Outstanding Figure 5 - SigniFicant ecoLogicaL areaS and SiteS oF BiodiverSity Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota C h a s k aC h a n h a s s e n Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community [0 500 1,000250 Feet Project Boundary Municipal Boundaries National Wetland Inventory Scrub Shrub Floodplain Forest Seasonally Flooded Basin Shallow Marsh Wet Meadow Wooded Swamp Deep Marsh Open Water Figure 6 - nWi WetLandS By tyPe Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Bl u f f C r e e k Proposed T.H. 212/312C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a LYMAN B L V D AUDUBON RD PIONEER T R L POWERS BLVDSUNSET TRL BLUFF C R E E K D R UTICA LNPRIVATE RD SUNRIDGE C T L A K E V I EW D R FOREST RDG SIMONS D RIRONWOOD BLVD BUTTERNUT D R AUTUMN W O O D S D R OAK SIDE CIR SHADOW W O O D C T WAGNER DRSHADOW LNPOWERS BLVDAUDUBON RD August, 2003 Legend T.H. 212/312 Right-Of-Way Property Boundaries Project boundary outline in white 0 500 1,000250 Feet Chanhassen Wetland Classification Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Agricultural/Urban Natural Utilized Stream Bl u f f C r e e k Proposed T.H. 212/312C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a LYMAN B L V D AUDUBON RD PIONEER T R L POWERS BLVDSUNSET TRL BLUFF C R E E K D RUTICA LNPRIVATE RD SUNRIDGE C T L A K E V I EW D R FOREST RDG SIMONS D RIRONWOOD BLVD BUTTERNUT D R AUTUMN W O O D S D R OAK SIDE CIR SHADOW W O O D C T WAGNER DRSHADOW LNPOWERS BLVDAUDUBON RD August, 2003 Legend T.H. 212/312 Right-Of-Way Property Boundaries Project boundary outline in white 0 500 1,000250 Feet Chanhassen Wetland Classification Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Agricultural/Urban Natural Utilized Stream Figure 7 - cHanHaSSen WetLand cLaSSiFication Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Bl u f f C r e e k Bluff Creek DistrictBluff Creek DistrictLake Susan DistrictLake Susan District Lake R i l ey D i s t r i c t Lake R i l ey D i s t r i c t Lower M i n n e s o t a D i s t r i c t Lower M i n n e s o t a D i s t r i c tBluff Creek DistrictBluff Creek DistrictLake Hazeltine DistrictLake Hazeltine DistrictProposed T.H. 212/312C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a LYMAN B L V D PIONEER T R LAUDUBON RD B L U F F C R E E K D R POWERS BLVDGALPIN BLVDSUNSET TRLUTICA LNPRIVATE RD LAKE S U S A N D R HOMESTEAD L N W E S T F A R M R D F LAM INGO D R OSPREY L N SUNRIDGE C T VALLEY R I D G E T R L S L A K E V I EW D R LYMAN C T FOREST RDG SIMONS D R LAKE H A Z E L T I N E D R LAKE S U S A N H I L L S D RALISA LNIRONWOOD BLVDVALLEY RIDGE TRL NFLINTLOCK TRL BUTTERNUT D R OAK S I D E C I R SHADOW W O O D C T VALLEY R I D G E P L POWERS PL VALLEY VIEW PL SWAGNER DR BARBARA C T THRUSH C T SHADOW LNAUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVD August, 2003 Legend T.H. 212/312 Right-Of-Way Property Boundaries Project boundary outline in white 0 600 1,200300 Feet Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Bluff Creek 300 feet Shoreland Buffer Chanhassen Wetlands Lake Hazeltine 1000 feet Shoreland Buffer Watershed Boundary 100 Year Floodplain Stream Bl u f f C r e e kBluff Creek DistrictBluff Creek DistrictLake Susan DistrictLake Susan District Lake R i l e y D i s t r i c t Lake R i l e y D i s t r i c t Lower M i n n e s o t a D i s t r i c t Lower M i n n e s o t a D i s t r i c tBluff Creek DistrictBluff Creek DistrictLake Hazeltine DistrictLake Hazeltine DistrictProposed T.H. 212/312C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a LYMAN B L V D PIONEER T R LAUDUBON RD B L U F F C R E E K D R POWERS BLVDGALPIN BLVDSUNSET TRLUTICA LNPRIVATE RD LAKE S U S A N D R HOMESTEAD L N W E S T F A R M R D F LAM INGO D R OSPREY L N SUNRIDGE C T VALLEY R I D G E T R L S L A K E V I EW D R LYMAN C T FOREST RDG SIMONS D R LAKE H A Z E L T I N E D R LAKE S U S A N H I L L S D RALISA LNIRONWOOD BLVDVALLEY RIDGE TRL NFLINTLOCK TRL BUTTERNUT D R OAK S I D E C I R SHADOW W O O D C T VALLEY R I D G E P L POWERS PL VALLEY VIEW PL SWAGNER DR BARBARA C T THRUSH C T SHADOW LNAUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVD August, 2003 Legend T.H. 212/312 Right-Of-Way Property Boundaries Project boundary outline in white 0 600 1,200300 Feet Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Bluff Creek 300 feet Shoreland Buffer Chanhassen Wetlands Lake Hazeltine 1000 feet Shoreland Buffer Watershed Boundary 100 Year Floodplain Stream Figure 8 - SurFace Water Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Bluf f C r e e k C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a LYMAN BLVD PIONEER TRLAUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVDSUNSET TRLBLUFF CREEK DR HOMESTEAD LNLAKE SUSAN DRUTICA LNGALPIN BLVDPRIVATE RDSUNRIDGE CT FLINTLOCK TRLLA K E V I E W D R LYMAN CT FOREST RDGSIMONS DR LAKE HAZELTINE DR AUT U M N W O O D S D R IRONWOOD BLVDBUTTERNUT DR OAK SIDE CIRSHADOW WOOD CT WAGNER DRSHADOW LNAUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVDCity of Chanhassen, Minnesota Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review August, 2003 ±Figure #8 - Geologic Inventory Legend T.H. 212/312 Right-Of-Way Property Boundaries !!Project boundary outline in white Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Prairie du Chien Group (Lower Ordovician)-—Dominantly dolostone interlayered with lesser amounts of quartz sandstone. The group is divided into two formations (Shakopee Formation and Oneota Dolomite) that are not separated on this map. The Shakopee Formation is light-brown to pale-yellow-brown, thin- to medium-bedded dolostone interlayered with thin beds of fine- to medium-grained quartz sandstone and greengray shale. The dolostone contains stromatolite layers and locally fossiliferous chert nodules. The Shakopee Formation is separated from the underlying Oneota Dolomite by a disconformity. The Oneota Dolomite is light-brown to grayish-orange, medium- to thick-bedded dolostone. Commonly oolitic or sandy in the lower 12–13 feet, although this basal sandy layer is missing in some places of eastern Washington County and northeastern Dakota County. The upper part of the Prairie du Chien where exposed at the bedrock surface is rubbly and contains karst solution features. In eastern Dakota and southern Washington Counties, Prairie du Chien dolostone is exposed along river bluffs, in quarries, and in many flat, low outcrops where bedrock is near the land surface. The Prairie du Chien also is exposed along low bedrock terraces of the Minnesota River in northeastern Scott County. It is as thick as 308 feet in southeastern Dakota County but thinner in the northwestern part of Hennepin County, where it was removed before deposition of overlying St. Peter Sandstone. The Prairie du Chien also thins significantly beneath the St. Peter Sandstone in northern Washington County. Jordan Sandstone (Late Cambrian)—Dominantly light-gray sandstone; includes numerous coarsening-upward sequences consisting of two interlayered facies. The two facies are not portrayed separately on the map. They are (1) medium- to coarse-grained, cross-bedded, generally friable quartz sandstone and (2) very fine grained, structureless, commonly bioturbated feldspathic sandstone and lenses of siltstone and shale. Some calcite, mostly as nodular concretions, is present near the top of the formation. The Jordan is 66–125 feet thick in the metropolitan area. Jordan Sandstone is exposed along the Mississippi River in Washington and northeastern Dakota Counties, along the St. Croix River in Washington County, and along the Minnesota River in northwestern Scott County. St. Lawrence Formation and Franconia Formation, undivided (Upper Cam brian)—Variably colored red-brown to gray-green or light-gray dolomitic shale, siltstone, and dolostone that overlie fine- to coarse-grained quartz sandstone, very fine grained to fine-grained glauconitic sandstone, and fine-grained nonglauconitic sandstone, dolostone, siltstone, and shale. The St. Lawrence Formation is composed of silty, very finely crystalline, generally thin bedded, tan to pink dolostone interlayered with thin intervals of siltstone or, rarely, beds of very fine grained glauconitic sandstone or maroon to green shale. The formation is fossiliferous and contains trilobites and graptolites. In Scott and Carver Counties, the St. Lawrence is as much as 75 feet thick; thickness decreases to 34–59 feet in Ramsey and Washington Counties. It is exposed along steep tributary valleys in the St. Croix va lley, mainly by waterfalls. A few small outcrops are present in St. Lawrence Township (T. 114 N., R. 24 W.) in west-central Scott County. The upper 40–50 feet of the Franconia Formation north of Stillwater in northern Washington County, Anoka County, and in northern Hennepin County is light-gray, thin-bedded and crossbedded (ripple cross-laminated), fine- to coarse-grained, dolomite-cemented quartz sandstone. The quartz sandstone overlies and interfingers with greenish-gray, medium-bedded, very fine grained to fine-grained, dolomite-cemented, glauconitic and feldspathic sandstone. In the southern and central parts of the map area, where the quartz sandstone is absent, the glauconitic and feldspathic sandstone is as thick as 100 feet. The lower part of the formation consists of greengray to light-green interbedded shale, siltstone, and lesser amounts of very fine grained feldspathic sandstone as thick as 30 feet, which overlie dark-green, very fine grained to fine-grained, medium to thick beds of highly glauconitic sandstone interlayered with thin beds of gray-orange to pink sandy glauconitic dolostone, also as thick as 30 feet. The quartz sandstone beds in the upper part of the Franconia Formation crop out extensively along bedrock terraces of the St. Croix River in northern Washington County—for example, Boom hollow north of Stillwater and around Marine on St. Croix. The lower glauconitic beds rarely crop out in the map area, although some formerly did near Afton in Washington County. The contact with the underlying Ironton Sandstone is sharply defined but apparently conformable. The Franconia Formation is as thick as 165 feet and is generally thickest in the northeastern part of the map area. The St. Lawrence and Franconia Formations have a combined thickness of 180–240 feet. PALUSTRINE DEPOSITSOrganic deposits (Holocene)—Palustrine sediments consisting of darkbrown to black, drained and undrained peat and muck. Commonly found in depressions between hills, in collapsed channels, and in the floodplain. In the floodplain this unit consists partly of overbank and slackwater sediments. Where mapped on alluvialfans (secs. 34 and 35, T. 116 N., R. 23 W.), this unit includes material deposited in a calcareous seepage fen. SLOPEWASH DEPOSITS Colluvial deposits (Holocene)—Reworked sediments consisting of a friable mixture of sand, silt, clay, and pebbles; resembles till and buried sand and gravel from which it is derived; may containdisseminated organic debris. Unit includes the till that forms steep bluffs, sediment that accumulates at the base of steep slopes, and alluvial sedim ent that is deposited along small streams. High-relief deposits—Till as above; forms poorly developed circularflat-topped hills; hummocky; overall relief about 100 feet (30 meters); many collapsed channels. GLACIAL DEPOSITS[Sediment deposited by the northwest-source Des Moines lobe. Deposits contain abundant shale fragments. Color of till is variable but is typically yellow-brown to gray-brown where oxidized.] Low-relief deposits—Till as above; level to rolling surface topography; overall relief about 10 ft (3 meters); steep gullies are as deep as 180 feet (55 meters); underlain in many places by thick deposits of sand and gravel. Bedrock Geology and Structure Geologic data source information provided by the Minnesota Geologic Survey "Bedrock Geology and Structgure of the Seven-County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, John h. Mossler and Robert G. Tipping, 2000. Description of Map Units Surficial Geologic Map Geologic data source information provided by the Minnesota Geologic Survey "Surficial Geologic Map of the Shakopee Quadrangle, Carver, Scott, and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota, Barbara A. Lusardi, 1997. Description of Map Units Legend Generalized Project Boundary Location Scarp—Hachures point down scarp; dashed where discontinuous or obscure. Marks flank of former fluvial channel. Sample location—Includes soil borings 3–26 feet (1–8 meters) deep, outcrops, and excavations (construction sites, gravel pits). Pits (sand and gravel or crushed rock)—Active, inactive. Areal extent indicated by outline. Figure 9 - geoLogic inventory Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Bl u f f C r e e k Proposed T.H. 212/312C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a Hm Hm Ge HaC2/LaC2 HaC2/LaC2 HaE2 Pd Hm Pd HaF Ge HaB2/LaB2 Pd Cd HaD2 HcC3 Cw HaF Pm TeB Pd HaB/LaB HaB/LaB HcC3 HaF HaB2/LaB2 Pd TeB Hm Ge HaD2 HaF HaC/LaC HaF HaE2 HcC3 TeB HaF HaB2/LaB2 Hm HaD HcE3 HaB/LaB HaC2/LaC2 Pm HaF HcE3 HaF TeB TeB HaB/LaB HaF Hm HaD HaB2/LaB2 HaE2 HaB2/LaB2 HaD2 Hm HaB/LaB Hm Ge HaB2/LaB2 TeC HaD HaC2/LaC2 TeB HaB2/LaB2 Ge HaD2 HaC2/LaC2 HaB2/LaB2 Hm HaC2/LaC2 HaC2/LaC2 HaD2 HaE2 HcC3 HaB/LaB HaD HcE3 HaC2/LaC2 Hm TeB HaE2 Ge HaC2/LaC2 HaC/LaC HaC2/LaC2HaE2 Hm Pm HcE3 HaE2 Pm Hm HaC2/LaC2 HaB2/LaB2 Pd HaE2 Hm Hm HaC2/LaC2 HaB2/LaB2 HaD2 HaD2 HaB2/LaB2 HaC/LaC HaD2 HaD2 HcE3 HaB/LaB TeB HaD2 HaD2 HaC2/LaC2 HaE2 HaE2 HaB2/LaB2 Ge HaB/LaB HaB/LaB HaB2/LaB2 HaB2/LaB2 TeB Ge HaF HaC/LaC Hm HcE3 Ge HaB/LaB HaC2/LaC2 HcC3 HaC2/LaC2 HaB/LaB HaC2/LaC2 HaE2 Hm HaD HaE2 HaD2 HaF HaC/LaC HaE2 HaC/LaC HaC/LaC Hm TeB HaC2/LaC2 HaC/LaC HaD2 Hm TeB HaF HaC2/LaC2 LYMAN B L V D AUDUBON RD PIONEER T R L POWERS BLVDSUNSET TRL BLUFF C R E E K D R UTICA LNPRIVATE RD SUNRIDGE C T L A K E V I EW D R FOREST RDG SIMONS D RIRONWOOD BLVD BUTTERNUT D R AUTUMN W O O D S D R OAK SIDE CIR SHADOW W O O D C T WAGNER DRSHADOW LNAUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVD August, 2003 Legend Project boundary 0 500 1,000250 Feet Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Soil classifications are detailed in the Appendix Stream Bl u f f C r e e k Proposed T.H. 212/312C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a Hm Hm GeHaC2/LaC2 HaC2/LaC2 HaE2 Pd Hm Pd HaF Ge HaB2/LaB2 Pd Cd HaD2 HcC3 Cw HaF Pm TeB Pd HaB/LaB HaB/LaB HcC3 HaF HaB2/LaB2 Pd TeB Hm Ge HaD2 HaF HaC/LaC HaF HaE2 HcC3 TeB HaF HaB2/LaB2 Hm HaD HcE3 HaB/LaB HaC2/LaC2 Pm HaF HcE3 HaF TeB TeB HaB/LaB HaF Hm HaD HaB2/LaB2 HaE2 HaB2/LaB2 HaD2 Hm HaB/LaB Hm Ge HaB2/LaB2 TeC HaD HaC2/LaC2 TeB HaB2/LaB2 Ge HaD2 HaC2/LaC2 HaB2/LaB2 Hm HaC2/LaC2 HaC2/LaC2 HaD2 HaE2 HcC3 HaB/LaB HaD HcE3 HaC2/LaC2 Hm TeB HaE2 Ge HaC2/LaC2 HaC/LaC HaC2/LaC2HaE2 Hm Pm HcE3 HaE2 Pm Hm HaC2/LaC2 HaB2/LaB2 Pd HaE2 Hm Hm HaC2/LaC2 HaB2/LaB2 HaD2 HaD2 HaB2/LaB2 HaC/LaC HaD2 HaD2 HcE3 HaB/LaB TeB HaD2 HaD2 HaC2/LaC2 HaE2 HaE2 HaB2/LaB2 Ge HaB/LaB HaB/LaB HaB2/LaB2 HaB2/LaB2 TeB Ge HaF HaC/LaC Hm HcE3 Ge HaB/LaB HaC2/LaC2 HcC3 HaC2/LaC2 HaB/LaB HaC2/LaC2 HaE2 Hm HaD HaE2 HaD2 HaF HaC/LaC HaE2 HaC/LaC HaC/LaC Hm TeB HaC2/LaC2 HaC/LaC HaD2 Hm TeB HaF HaC2/LaC2 LYMAN B L V D AUDUBON RD PIONEER T R L POWERS BLVDSUNSET TRL BLUFF C R E E K D RUTICA LNPRIVATE RD SUNRIDGE C T L A K E V I EW D R FOREST RDG SIMONS D RIRONWOOD BLVD BUTTERNUT D R AUTUMN W O O D S D R OAK SIDE CIR SHADOW W O O D C T WAGNER DRSHADOW LNAUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVD August, 2003 Legend Project boundary 0 500 1,000250 Feet Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Soil classifications are detailed in the Appendix Stream Figure 10 - SoiLS Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Proposed T.H. 212/312 BluffCreek C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a LYMAN B L V D PIONEER TRLAUDUBON RD B L U F F C R E E K D RGALPIN BLVDLAKE D R W HERON D RSTONE CREEK DRPOWERS BLVD HESSE F A R M R D WE S T F A R M R D HEIDI LN BOU L D E R R D LAKE S U S A N D R GREAT PLAINS BLVDLAKE SUSAN HILLS DRPOWERS PL HOMESTEAD L NSUNSET TRL F L AM I N GO D R UTICA LNOSPREY LNPRIVATE RDDRAKE CTIBIS CT VALLEY R I D G E T R L N WEST LAKE DR SUNRIDGE C T CREEKWOOD S TFLINTLOCK TRLALISA CT VALLEY R I D G E T R L S L A K E V I EW D R LYMAN C T FOREST RDG CHA N H A S S E N HI L L S D R S CHANHASSEN H I L L S D R N SIMONS D R LAKE H A Z E L T I N E D R AU T U M N W O O D S D R SUFFOLK DR H E S S E F A R M C I RALISA LNCOMMERCE DRSWAN CT DOVE C T IRONWOOD BLVDBITTERN CTEGRET CTBLUFF CIRTIMBERWOOD DR BUTTERNUT D R ROSEWOOD DRBLUEBILL TRLOAK SIDE CIR STONE C R E E K L N W SHADOW W O O D C T PELI C A N C T VALLEY R I D G E P LSTONE CREEK RDVALLEY VIEW PL SMARY JANE CIRWAGNER DR BARBARA C T LAK E S USAN C T MALLARD CT THRUSH C T BURLWOOD DRSHADOW LN V A L L EY V I EW C T TERN C T KINGFISHER CT SUGERBUSH T R LSTONE CREEK CTSPOONBILL CIR MERG A N S E R C T LYMAN BLVD AUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVD August, 2003 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Legend Project boundary Archaeological Site 0 590 1,180295 Feet Historical Site Property Boundaries Outline in White (Source Data from State Historic Preservation Office)Proposed T.H. 212/312 BluffCreek C h a n h a s s e nC h a n h a s s e nC h a s k aC h a s k a LYMAN B L V D PIONEER TRLAUDUBON RD B L U F F C R E E K D RGALPIN BLVDLAKE D R W HERON D RSTONE CREEK DRPOWERS BLVD HESSE FARM RD WE S T F A R M R D HEIDI LN BOU L D E R R D LAKE S U S A N D R GREAT PLAINS BLVDLAKE SUSAN HILLS DRPOWERS PL HOMESTEAD L NSUNSET TRL F LAM INGO D R UTICA LNOSPREY LNPRIVATE RDDRAKE CTIBIS CT VALLEY R I D G E T R L N WEST LAKE DR SUNRIDGE C T CREEKWOOD S TFLINTLOCK TRLALISA CT VALLEY R I D G E T R L S L A K E V I EW D R LYMAN C T FOREST RDG CHA N H A S S E N HI L L S D R S CHANHASSEN HILLS DR N SIMONS D R LAKE H A Z E L T I N E D R AU T U M N W O O D S D R SUFFOLK DR H E S S E F A R M C I RALISA LNCOMMERCE DRSWAN CT DOVE CT IRONWOOD BLVDBITTERN CTEGRET CTBLUFF CIRTIMBERWOOD DR BUTTERNUT D R ROSEWOOD DRBLUEBILL TRLOAK SIDE CIR STONE CREEK LN W SHADOW W O O D C T PELIC A N C T VALLEY R I D G E P LSTONE CREEK RDVALLEY VIEW PL SMARY JANE CIRWAGNER DR BARBARA CT LA KE SU S A N C T MALLARD CT THRUSH C T BURLWOOD DRSHADOW LN VA L L E Y V I EW C T TERN C T KINGFISHER CT SUGERBUSH TRLSTONE CREEK CTSPOONBILL CIR MERG A N S E R C T LYMAN B L V D AUDUBON RDPOWERS BLVD August, 2003 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Kimley Horn and Associates Peterson Environmental Consulting 106 Group Ltd. Legend Project boundary Archaeological Site 0 590 1,180295 Feet Historical Site Property Boundaries Outline in White (Source Data from State Historic Preservation Office) Figure 11 - cuLturaL & HiStoric reSourceS Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota C h a s k aC h a n h a s s e n ¬«212 Lyman Boulevard BluffCreekDr i v e P io neer TrailAudubonRoad Pio ne e r T r a i l E a s tPowers BoulevardSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES PROJECT BOUNDARY AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL MIXED OFFICE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARKS PASSIVE OPEN SPACE PUBLIC SEMI PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RIGHT OF WAY[0 500 1,000250 Feet Figure 12 - exiSting Land uSe Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota C h a s k aC h a n h a s s e n Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community [0 500 1,000250 Feet Project Boundary Municipal Boundaries Primary Bluff Creek Overlay District Secondary Bluff Creek Overlay District Rural Residential District Single Family Residential District Residential Low and Medium Density District Mixed Medium Density District Planned Unit Devel./Residential District Agricultural Estate District Office & Institutional District Figure 13 - Zoning Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota C h a s k aC h a n h a s s e n Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES PROJECT BOUNDARY AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL MIXED OFFICE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARKS PASSIVE OPEN SPACE PUBLIC SEMI PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RIGHT OF WAY[0 500 1,000250 Feet Figure 14a - Land uSe PLan (concePt a) Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota C h a s k aC h a n h a s s e n Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES PROJECT BOUNDARY AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL MIXED OFFICE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARKS PASSIVE OPEN SPACE PUBLIC SEMI PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RIGHT OF WAY[0 500 1,000250 Feet Figure 14B - Land uSe PLan (concePt B) Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota C h a s k aC h a n h a s s e n ¬«212 Lyman Boulevard BluffCreekDr i v e P io neer TrailAudubonRoad Pione e r T r a i l E a s tPowers BoulevardSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES PROJECT BOUNDARY AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL MIXED OFFICE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARKS PASSIVE OPEN SPACE PUBLIC SEMI PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RIGHT OF WAY[0 525 1,050262.5 Feet Central wetland impacted by development will be mitigated elsewhere on the site Figure 15a - auar deveLoPMent PLan (concePt a) Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota C h a s k aC h a n h a s s e n Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES PROJECT BOUNDARY AGRICULTURE COMMERCIAL MIXED OFFICE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARKS PASSIVE OPEN SPACE PUBLIC SEMI PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RIGHT OF WAY[0 500 1,000250 Feet Figure 15B - auar deveLoPMent PLan (concePt B) Chanhassen alternative Urban areawide review Update City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 NOT TO SCALe Lyman Blvd Audubon RoadPowers BlvdPioneer Trail212 La k e v i e w D r i v e Audubon RoadBl u f f C r e e k D r i v eSunset TrailFigure 18 EXISTING AND FUTURE AUAR DEVELOPMENT AREAS LEGEND undeveloped Area Developed Area Future roadway existing Site Access Proposed Site Access Figure 19 NOT TO SCALe Lyman Blvd Audubon RoadPowers Blvd212 Pioneer Trail LEGEND existing intersection Site Location undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes AADT Volumes XX (XX) X,XXX 208 (599) 139 (273) 11 (5) 263 (80)425 (166)203 (167)243 (532) 52 (219) 104 (340) 329 (259)10 (9)456 (238)108 (63)170 (429) 62 (74) 184 (156) 20 (55) 72 (60)44 (24)406 (169)335 (304) 72 (83) 150 (249) 105 (267)5 (5)5 (5) 693 (383) 5 (5) 5 (5) 322 (594)168 (472)51 (132) 75 (223) 77 (64) 551 (269) 209 (120)3 (10)23 (48) 165 (66) 191 (538)8 (27)44 (130)21 (23)76 (87)50 (22) 8 (12)574 (300)69 (137)48 (21)56 (23) 74 (72) 23 (68) 14 (41) 103 (90)72 (201)103 (295) 91 (109) 128 (304) 75 (262) 67 (69)298 (128)156 (126)321 (117) 106 (75) 262 (212) 84 (146)0 (6)185 (484) 45 (124) 0 (2) 33 (19) 155 (61)24 (50)3 (5)467 (180) 12 (7) 8 (0) 0 (0)155 (216)82 (93)585 (233) 113 (155) 155 (41) 245 (506)13 (0)20 (6) 7 (2) 633 (217) 68 (222) 39 (10)190 (90)401 (166)42 (7) 8 (2) 203 (455) 149 (373)52 (52)185 (549) 21 (21)581 (211) 52 (52) 21 (21)8,6008,1009,200 9,60038,00010,5002,200 1 2 , 1 0 0 14,600 13,6009,8009,6004,900 46,0009,700 3,200 1,600 Figure 19 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 20 NOT TO SCALe Lyman Blvd Audubon RoadPowers Blvd212 Pioneer Trail Figure 20 FUTURE YEAR (2022) NET NEW SITE TRIP ASSIGNMENT - CONCEPT A279 (227)145 (323)18 (7) 49 (34)30 (97)176 (225)63 (62)110 (168)3 (19)185 (183) 102 (39) 108 (15)5 (17)144 (143)76 (99)45 (72) 22 (35) 212 (343)98 (52)99 (66)0 (0)32 (16) 34 (23) 0 (0)19 (35)159 (47)51 (104)41 (110) 13 (37) 43 (160)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)227 (54) 62 (61) 0 (0)45 (72)77 (123)0 (0) 0 (0) 52 (235) 106 (106)170 (32)127 (202)17 (4)185 (178)21 (144) 6 (36)82 (129)51 (109)28 (11) 105 (70) 97 (112) 9 (34)10 (62)8 (58) 59 (131) 51 (9) 92 (15) 98 (88)20 (12)0 (0)42 (23) 43 (112)16 (31)10 (50)27 (20)11 (2)0 (0) 5 (20)118 (60)2 (11)44 (70)0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0) 60 (60) 0 (0)39 (91)38 (92)23 (33)24 (53) 23 (52) 27 (21)51 (29)0 (0)82 (51)82 (51) 51 (29) 0 (0)0 (0)56 (146)0 (0)0 (0) 44 (70) 0 (0)60 (60)0 (0)131 (63) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)1 (1)7 (1)18 (13) 75 (129) 219 (29) 10 (19)29 (227)3 (19)1 (8)1 (3) 111 (101) 18 (3)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)55 (111) 24 (38) 0 (0)32 (35)9 (33)0 (0) 0 (0) 98 (72) 36 (9)0 (0)42 (44)18 (3)0 (0) 14 (102) 3 (19)93 (14)0 (0)38 (49) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)65 (35) 0 (0)15 (70)0 (0)LEGEND existing intersection Site Access Site Location undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)2,0003,2002,100 2,1001,1002,4001,200 2, 1 0 0 2,400 4,1004,1005,3001,100 5,4004,000 2,100 1,200 Figure 21 NOT TO SCALe Lyman Blvd Audubon RoadPowers Blvd212 Pioneer Trail Figure 21 FUTURE YEAR (2022) NET NEW SITE TRIP ASSIGNMENT - CONCEPT B404 (177)91 (255)28 (6) 39 (22)20 (159)133 (244)43 (38)193 (165)3 (19)126 (110) 176 (33) 107 (15)5 (27)98 (88)69 (151)26 (50) 13 (24) 126 (234)83 (34)120 (45)0 (0)27 (10) 61 (16) 0 (0)11 (40)158 (59)33 (117)27 (93) 8 (32) 58 (161)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)227 (66) 41 (37) 0 (0)26 (50)45 (84)0 (0) 0 (0) 67 (236) 72 (66)219 (38)213 (145)12 (4)128 (233)25 (170) 6 (43)187 (98)32 (90)40 (10) 80 (46) 60 (191) 8 (51)13 (75)8 (68) 174 (96) 53 (12) 114 (21) 60 (174)12 (52)0 (0)23 (128) 38 (111)11 (31)138 (29)30 (12)11 (2)0 (0) 57 (11)121 (55)2 (11)44 (48)0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0) 60 (36) 0 (0)39 (75)38 (74)23 (33)24 (66) 23 (67) 27 (32)51 (22)0 (0)82 (33)82 (33) 51 (22) 0 (0)0 (0)62 (134)0 (0)0 (0) 24 (48) 0 (0)40 (36)0 (0)121 (62) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)4 (1)7 (1)16 (11)46 (105) 219 (29) 7 (16)29 (227)3 (19)1 (8)1 (4) 94 (64) 18 (3)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)35 (99) 18 (26) 0 (0)23 (24)8 (43)0 (0) 0 (0) 90 (47) 48 (9)0 (0)48 (32)18 (3)0 (0) 14 (102) 3 (19)93 (14)0 (0)28 (48) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)65 (180) 0 (0)15 (40)0 (0)LEGEND existing intersection Site Access Site Location undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)1,8002,5001,800 1,8009002,200800 1, 8 0 0 1,800 3,9002,6005,100900 5,1003,500 1,800 800 Figure 22 NOT TO SCALe Lyman Blvd Audubon RoadPowers Blvd212 Pioneer Trail 503 (872) 295 (617) 30 (13) 332 (120)488 (275)395 (405)63 (112)372 (691) 58 (254) 185 (240) 214 (377) 462 (265)15 (27)144 (162)568 (336) 45 (120) 22 (35) 212 (421)215 (120)282 (528) 67 (80) 230 (183) 55 (82) 78 (64)67 (61)596 (229)412 (431) 119 (200) 175 (305) 156 (447)5 (5)0 (0)5 (5) 974 (424) 62 (103) 5 (5)45 (134)77 (165)0 (0) 5 (5) 400 (813) 106 (168)170 (32)363 (853) 17 (4)862 (536) 21 (144) 6 (36)263 (637)106 (252) 109 (251) 188 (139) 691 (401) 233 (163)10 (62)8 (58) 321 (879) 51 (9) 92 (15) 916 (506)205 (134) 0 (0)65 (35) 0 (0)15 (70)110 (176)23 (23)24 (52) 223 (94) 248 (691)25 (60)58 (190)49 (44)93 (95)54 (23) 13 (33)736 (383)76 (159)96 (92)60 (24) 80 (78) 24 (73) 76 (104) 111 (97)117 (307)149 (409) 121 (151) 161 (380) 104 (334) 99 (95)371 (167)168 (135)428 (178) 196 (132) 333 (257) 91 (158)0 (7)256 (668) 49 (133) 0 (2) 80 (90) 166 (62)86 (114)3 (6)634 (257) 13 (8) 9 (0) 0 (0)167 (234)7 (1) 107 (113) 705 (380) 219 (29) 132 (185)29 (227)3 (19)1 (8) 167 (47) 375 (646) 18 (3)14 (0)21 (7) 8 (2) 736 (345) 97 (277) 42 (11)235 (131)441 (212)46 (8) 9 (2) 317 (563) 197 (411)55 (55)242 (637)18 (3) 0 (0) 14 (102) 3 (19)93 (14)22 (22)664 (277) 55 (55) 0 (0) 22 (22) LEGEND Study intersection Site Location undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)11,50012,20012,300 12,80043,30014,1003,600 1 5 , 5 0 0 18,620 19,20015,00016,0006,500 56,50014,800 5,700 3,000 Figure 22 FUTURE YEAR (2022) PEAK HOUR TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES - CONCEPT A Figure 23 NOT TO SCALe Lyman Blvd Audubon RoadPowers Blvd212 Pioneer Trail 628 (822) 241 (549) 40 (12) 322 (108)478 (337)352 (424)43 (64)455 (712) 58 (254) 126 (140) 288 (384) 461 (279)15 (37)98 (98)561 (397) 26 (75) 13 (24) 126 (275)200 (102)303 (507) 67 (80) 225 (177) 82 (75) 78 (64)59 (66)595 (241)394 (444) 105 (183) 170 (300) 171 (448)5 (5)0 (0)5 (5) 974 (456) 41 (59) 5 (5)26 (82)45 (106)0 (0) 5 (5) 415 (844) 76 (98)219 (38)449 (796) 12 (4)805 (591) 25 (170) 6 (43)368 (606)87 (233) 121 (250) 163 (115) 654 (480) 232 (180)13 (75)8 (68) 436 (844) 53 (12) 114 (21) 878 (592)205 (134) 0 (0)35 (180) 0 (0)195 (40)110 (176)15 (63)24 (52) 201 (199) 248 (690)20 (60)186 (169)52 (36)93 (95)54 (23) 65 (24)739 (378)76 (159)76 (70)60 (24) 80 (78) 24 (73) 56 (80) 111 (97)102 (291)135 (391) 136 (151)154 (393) 98 (349) 99 (106)391 (160)168 (135)413 (160) 181 (114) 353 (250) 91 (158)0 (7)262 (656) 49 (133) 0 (2) 60 (68) 166 (65)66 (90)3 (6)624 (256) 13 (8) 9 (0) 0 (0)170 (234)7 (1) 105 (111) 676 (356) 219 (29) 129 (182)29 (227)3 (19)1 (8) 167 (48) 358 (609) 18 (3)14 (0)21 (7) 8 (2) 716 (333) 91 (265) 42 (11)226 (120)440 (222)46 (8) 9 (2) 309 (538) 209 (411)55 (55)248 (625)18 (3) 0 (0) 14 (102) 3 (19)93 (14)22 (22)654 (276) 55 (55) 0 (0) 22 (22) LEGEND Study intersection Site Location undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX)11,30011,50012,000 12,50043,10013,9003,200 1 5 , 2 0 0 18,000 19,00013,50015,8006,300 56,20014,300 5,400 2,600 Figure 23 FUTURE YEAR (2022) PEAK HOUR TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES - CONCEPT B Figure 24 FIGURE 24 FUTURE INTERSECTION CONTROL AND LANE ASSIGNMENTS NOT TO SCALe Figure 25 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update APPENDIX 1—RESOLUTIONS • RESOLUTION ORDERING THE AUAR # 016-85 • RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AUAR # 017-033 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES,MINNESOTA DATE: May 8,2017 RESOLUTION NO: 2017-33 MOTION BY: Ryan SECONDED BY: McDonald RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL UPDATED ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW(AUAR) AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE 2005 METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICES AREA(MUSA) WHEREAS, on November 28, 2016,the City of Chanhassen, acting as the official Responsible Governmental Unit(RGU), approved Resolution 2016-85, an Order for Updating the Alternative Urban Area Wide REVIEW(AUAR) for the 2005 MUSA; and, WHEREAS,on February 28, 2017,the City of Chanhassen held an Open house to review the Update of the AUAR environmental analysis document; and, WHEREAS, on March 7, 2017,the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission reviewed the Update to the AUAR environmental analysis document; and Notice of Availability of the Update to AUAR environmental analysis document was made know; and, WHEREAS,the April 3, 2017,the Update to the AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan was distributed in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures and published in the EQB Monitor on April 3rd, 2017 for review and comment; and, WHEREAS,upon completion of the 10 day review period, as prescribed by Minnesota Rules, ending April 17, 2017, an updated AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan was prepared based on comments received; and, WHEREAS,the City of Chanhassen, distributed the revised AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan for the 2005 MUSA in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures; and, WHEREAS,no objections to the revised AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan were filed with the City of Chanhassen within the 10 day objection period as prescribed by Minnesota Rules. WHEREAS, on May 8, 2017,the City of Chanhassen reviewed a Final AUAR Environmental Analysis Document and Mitigation Plan for the 2005 MUSA NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen hereby adopts the Update to the AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan for the 2005 MUSA. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, this 8t'' day of May, 2017. ATTEST: C/YUA/./...4%•aeir--odd Gerhardt, City Manager Dennynburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT Laufenburger None Tjornhom McDonald Campion Elise Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update APPENDIX 2—WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION: AVIENDA REPORT IS AVAILABLE AND WILL BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST Avienda A Healthy Way of Life Village City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application Prepared for Level 7 Development, LLC by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2015-130) January 12, 2017 Avienda City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT SUMMARY................................................................................................1  2. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................1  2.1 Applicant’s Stated Project Purpose and Need ......................................................1  2.2 Mixed Use Lifestyle Centers Defined ..................................................................1  2.3 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Need ........................2  2.4 Geographic Area of Review .................................................................................3  3. ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS ..........................................................................3  3.1 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Requirements ..........3  3.2 Alternative Sites Selection Criteria for Practicability Determination ..................5  3.3 Alternative Sites Practicability Determination .....................................................6  3.4 Environmental Factors for Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination ..................8  3.5 Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination ...........................................................10  4. SITE LOCATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, & EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................11  4.1 Land Cover, Site Topography, and Drainage Areas ..........................................12  4.2 Wetland Delineation and Wetland Characteristics .............................................12  4.3 MnRAM Analysis and Applied Buffer Widths ..................................................14  5. SEQUENCING DISCUSSION/ONSITE ALTERNATIVES LEDPA DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................15  5.1 Project Goals and Requirements ........................................................................15  5.2 No-Build Alternative ..........................................................................................17  5.3 Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative ............................................................17  5.4 Minimization Alternative ...................................................................................20  5.5 Proposed Alternative/Proposed Project ..............................................................21  5.6 Proposed Project Impacts ...................................................................................23  5.7 Wetland Impact Minimization ...........................................................................24  5.8 Wetland Impact Rectification .............................................................................24  5.9 Wetland Impact Reduction or Elimination Over Time ......................................24  5.10 Sequencing Flexibility ......................................................................................24  6. WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN ......................................................................25  6.1 Compliance Framework and Required Replacement .........................................25  6.2 Replacement Plan Overview ..............................................................................26  6.4 Actions Eligible for Credit .................................................................................27  7. RARE SPECIES CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................28  7. CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................29  FIGURES 1. Site Location and Property Boundary 2. Existing Land Cover 3. Topographic Elevations 4. Minor Watershed Boundaries 5. Existing Drainage Areas 6. Delineated Wetlands 7. Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative 8. Wetland Minimization Alternative 9. Proposed Alternative 10. Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas 11. Tree Removal Areas TABLES 1. Project Required Components with Component Minimum Acreage 2. Alternative Sites Comparison Matrix for Practicability Determination 3. Environmental Factor Matrix for LEDPA Determination 4. Summary of Delineated Wetlands 5. MnRAM Summary 6. Pre- and Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas for Alternatives Considered 7. Net Developable Area, Wetland Impacts, and LEDPA Determination for Alternatives Considered 8. Wetland Impact Summary 9. WCA and USACE Required Replacement APPENDICES A. Joint Application for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Alternative Sites Analysis Figures C. Wetland Delineation Notice of Decision D. Wetland Delineation Addendum E. Historic Photos and Topographic Maps F. MnRAM Analysis Output Results G. Onsite Alternatives Concept Plans H. Grading Plan I. Rare Species Information 1 Avienda City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application 1. PROJECT SUMMARY Level 7 Development, LLC is proposing to develop a 119.88-acre site in the City of Chanhassen as Avienda, a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) that will include a retail hub of specialty shops and restaurants, anchor retail, local supporting retail, hospitality, medical and professional offices, and townhomes and apartments to service an existing trade area population of more than 400,000 residents within and surrounding the City of Chanhassen. As proposed, the project will require 4.6462-acres of jurisdictional wetland fill and 0.3499-acre of jurisdictional wetland excavation. Approximately 714.5 linear feet (1,429 square feet) of USACE regulated waterway will also be impacted with project grading. Permanent wetland impacts are proposed to be replaced through the purchase of wetland bank credits from a Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) certified wetland bank located within the same Bank Service Area as the proposed project. The following narrative describes the Project Purpose and Need and provides an alternatives analysis addressing practicability, and LEDPA identification including an assessment of site alternatives, a description of the proposed project, a wetland sequencing discussion, and a proposed wetland replacement plan. Figures and appendices referenced are attached. The Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota is included as Appendix A. 2. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 2.1 Applicant’s Stated Project Purpose and Need To provide a viable mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center within the City of Chanhassen that will meet local and regional demand and need for the provided uses and implement the City’s vision and intent for property based on the current land use guidance plan. 2.2 Mixed Use Lifestyle Centers Defined Mixed use lifestyle centers are developed as a single cohesive project that provide a variety of uses/services to the local and regional population within a thoughtfully designed and meaningful layout that is largely walkable. A well thought out, integrated plan with complementary and Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 2 supporting uses that meets local and regional market demands is the driving factor for project viability. A project is typically considered mixed use if it has two or more uses that are both meaningful in scale and well thought out as independent parts. A viable project must have a centrally located retail hub (specialty shopping and restaurants) that creates consumer draw with immediately surrounding uses of anchor retail, support retail, office, and residential. The mix of complementing uses and users is critical to create the synergy for sustained activity (i.e., businesses to support daytime use, residential to support evening use; destination shopping and hospitality to support weekend/seasonal use) for project viability. The formula for percentages allocated to each use always includes retail as the anchor in a mixed use development as it creates the overall energy of the project and attracts outside visitors. The percentages/acreages of each use within the proposed project are dictated by local demand factors. With the exception of larger format retail and offices on the periphery where the user is more likely to drive, all other multiple uses/components must be in an inviting, walkable environment so as to contribute to the overall diversity and viability of the project. This includes communities where residents of an apartment building are able to walk to the retail and restaurant components. 2.3 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Need The City of Chanhassen (Carver County, Minnesota) is located in a rapid growth area of the southwest Twin Cities Metro Area (Figure A – Appendix B). By the year 2008, the City was 65% developed, and is expected to be fully developed by 2030. With the aging of the baby boomer generation, and the influx of younger and middle-aged individuals and families, the City will experience steady growth in the coming years resulting in continued demand for housing for all stages of life as well as support services such as retail, restaurants, office, medical, and hospitality. The City completed the “Chanhassen Retail, Office, and Residential Market Analysis and Development Potential” dated June 2006 to evaluate the effect of new retail commercial development within the City and found that the existing Central Business District (i.e., “Downtown Chanhassen”) (Figure A) would “remain healthy even with the additional commercial and office opportunities provided outside of the downtown core, including a lifestyle center”. The need for a mixed-use Regional/Lifestyle Center (i.e., a mixed-use development) project within the City of Chanhassen was first identified with the adoption of the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, which included updated development information, including the new Trunk Highway 212 (TH 212) corridor. Market studies were also initiated by the City and others to verify consumer support for the identified need. Market studies conducted by McComb Group, Ltd. in 2006 for the City and in 2014 for Level 7 Development detail existing unmet demand for the proposed development services and further support the need for the proposed development as the population of the City Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 3 of Chanhassen and neighboring rural areas continues to grow. Specific to supporting the need for a mixed-use development, the studies found that “the existing trade area economic attributes, population, and upper income households would provide support for retail stores, restaurants, and key services and that the need for these services will only grow as the population within the City and surrounding area grows”. 2.4 Geographic Area of Review The City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for a mixed-use regional lifestyle center within the City limits to service the existing and rapidly increasing population within this overall rapid growth, yet underserved, area of the southwest Twin Cities Metro. Undeveloped sites outside the City of Chanhassen were not explored for project feasibility or practicability as they failed to meet the stated Project Purpose and Need. Cities to the north and east are already highly developed with little to no large-tracts of appropriate, undeveloped land remaining. Cities to the west and south have yet to demonstrate the need or market support for the proposed project. The defined geographic area of the City of Chanhassen for a mixed-use regional lifestyle center is therefore appropriate and consistent with local planning and need. 3. ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS Alternative sites within the City of Chanhassen were explored for their potential practicability to meet project goals and requirements, and to verify that the Proposed Site and design represent the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) as required for permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 3.1 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Requirements According to Section 2.7.4 of the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the definition/vision for the “Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial” is as follows: “A mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors and is designed to serve trail users and mass transit as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity and mix of retail and service uses within their boundaries. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading, parking of automobiles, lighting and trash collection and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system.” Specific standards and guidelines identified by the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance drive the need for services/uses, project scale, and end layout of the proposed project. These guidelines require: Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 4  Inclusion of medium and high-density residential components of which the location should provide a visual transition from adjacent offsite single-family homes to onsite commercial uses. Onsite housing density will help the City achieve its goal of providing a variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle and is a PUD requirement.  Inclusion of retail/medical/professional/entertainment/hospitality space to provide a self-sustaining pattern of land use (i.e., businesses to support daytime commercial/use, residential to support evening commercial/use; destination entertainment to support weekend/seasonal commercial/use). Inclusion of the proposed range of services will help the City achieve its goal of providing regional shopping/medical/etc. options for existing and new residents in an underserved area of the City and southwest Twin Cities metro area while complementing existing Chanhassen businesses.  A site design/layout that includes a pattern of buildings orientated around a centrally located promenade that connects to existing intersections (i.e., a retail hub) and includes a comprehensive traffic circulation system. A centrally located retail hub that is immediately adjacent to, and within walking distances from housing, medical/professional, and entertainment/hospitality will provide project synergy and will be the key factor for project viability.  Property/project that is under single ownership and developed under a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Single ownership will allow the project to be designed with one theme/architectural style and a coordinated landscaping plan, which will result in a timeless character and enhance the pedestrian experience. A thoughtfully planned, cohesive development is required to meet both the City’s and the developer’s visions for the site. In order to meet the City’s vision for the site and generate a viable project, the selected site must include a minimum of 90 acres of contiguous buildable area based on the following use acreages detailed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Project Required Components with Component Minimum Acreage Required Component (Service/Use) Minimum Acres Retail Hub (Specialty Shops and Restaurants) 25 Office (Medical/Professional) 13 Anchor Retail & Entertainment/Hospitality 11 Supporting Local Retail/Daycare/etc. 10 High Density Residential (approximately 300 units) 12 Medium Density Residential (approximately 55 units) 6 Stormwater Treatment Varies with site Roadways (circulating traffic system plus collector streets) 13 Total 90 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 5 Lifestyle center retail hubs are commonly 25+ acres in size. Acreages provided for high and medium density units are based on standard product sizes to meet PUD density requirements. The remaining required acreages for anchor retail/hospitality, support retail, and office uses are based on market analysis calculations of supporting services that are needed to provide project synergy and viability. 3.2 Alternative Sites Selection Criteria for Practicability Determination In order to evaluate alternative sites (offsite locations) for practicability, project specific site selection screening criteria that would meet the stated Project Purpose and Need for a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center in Chanhassen that meets the City’s vision were first defined and are listed below.  Final site boundary comprised of a single parcel or conglomeration of available parcels that are wholly or partially within the City of Chanhassen and that is/are: (1) primarily undeveloped, or (2) shown on the City of Chanhassen Available Land Inventory Map. Mixed-use projects require large, open (undeveloped) land to lessen site restrictions and allow for a cohesive project to be carefully designed. Undeveloped land within the City Chanhassen zoned for public/semi-public use (e.g., Minnesota Landscape Arboretum) was excluded from the analysis. Undeveloped land located primarily within a shoreland zone (e.g., land surrounding Lake Ann and Lake Lucy) was excluded from the analysis due to shoreland restrictions on site density and impervious surface coverage which are not compatible with the proposed high density uses.  Tract of contiguous land 90+ acres in size. As described previously, in order to provide the City-required services/uses and generate a viable project, the selected site needs to include a minimum of 90 acres of contiguous buildable area.  Located within one-half mile of the intersection of a 4-lane highway/freeway and an existing arterial road. To allow services to be conveniently accessed the project must be located near a highway/freeway interchange. A distance of one-half mile from an interchange to the site is the maximum allowable distance for a viable project: (1) meeting traffic requirements, and (2) creating project visibility.  Accessible from at least two locations via existing arterial roads, and with potential for internal connections to existing (or potential future) collector streets. Arterial road connections allow for adequate site service/capacity from the surrounding area, while collector streets supplement internal flow. Per the City’s Comprehensive Plan: “Principal arterials are the highest roadway classification and are considered part of the metropolitan highway system. These roads are intended to connect the central business districts of the two central cities with each other and with other regional business concentrations in the metropolitan area. These roads also connect the Twin Cities with important locations outside the metropolitan area.” Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 6 “Collector streets are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city and to provide access from neighborhoods to the arterial system. These roads supplement the arterial system in the sense that they emphasize mobility over land access, but they are expected, because of their locations, to carry less traffic than arterial roads.”  Consistent with City planning and zoning efforts (or with the ability to be rezoned), and compatible with density/impervious restrictions. Land use designations are fixed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and are rarely revised on a project by project basis. Rezoning requires City Council approval followed by an update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable environmental documents (e.g., AUAR). Because of the high density and high impervious cover associated with mixed-use regional lifestyle center developments, the site should lack significant shoreland area which restricts site density and impervious surface coverage. A project area that is generally square/rectangular in shape. A rectangular/square shaped boundary is required for providing a viably designed plan that flows between uses and amenities within walkable distances. Odd shaped parcels divide/segregate the project, isolate uses, and discourage or impede site walkability due to transportation or other barriers, and lengthened walking distances. 3.3 Alternative Sites Practicability Determination Potential alternative sites within the City of Chanhassen were identified by reviewing aerial photography, a city basemap, the city Land Use Plan map, the City of Chanhassen Available Land Inventory map, and the City Road Classification map. Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) were evaluated for practicability using the project specific site selection screening criteria described previously. The following paragraphs provide a summary of each site’s ability to meet the site screening criteria. Table 2 on the following page provides a condensed summary of the practicability determination, and for reference:  Figure B – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on an aerial photograph.  Figure C – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on a map of the City of Chanhassen.  Figure D – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on the City of Chanhassen Land Use map.  Figure E – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on the City Available Land Inventory map.  Figure F – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on the City of Chanhassen City Road Classification map. Alternative Site 1 (Figure G) is 58 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to but cannot be accessed from Trunk Highway (TH) 5 (arterial road), but has the potential for site access via two collector streets (Audubon Road and Coulter Blvd). The site is Practica- bility CategoryFactor / Screen Alternative Site 1 (Figure G) Alternative Site 2 (Figure H) Alternative Site 3 (Figure I) Alternative Site 4 (Figure J) Alternative Site 5 (Figure K) Alternative Site 6 (Figure L) Proposed Site (Applicant's Preferred Project Site) - Figure MYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesOwners 1 Business Partners & 1 charity landowner1 private landowner 3 private landowners 2 private landowners 1 private landowner 1 Association landowner (private developed land, with potential for redevelopment)1 private landownerNo No No No Yes Yes YesTotal parcel Parcel = 58 ac Parcel = 50 ac Parcel = 70 ac Parcel = 40 ac Parcel = 117 ac Parcel = 226.5 ac Parcel = 116 acWetlands and Other WatersWetlands = 2.15 ac; Waterways 1 = 1,525 ftWetlands = 2.35 ac; Waterways = 1,770 ftWetlands = 13.84; Waterways = 1,100 ftWetlands = 11.75 ac; DNR Watercourse 1 = 830 ftWetlands = 37.23 ac Wetlands = 3.31; DNR Watercourse = 3,565 ftWetlands = 5.65; Waterways = 383.5-ft & 331-ftYes No No No Yes Yes YesInterchange distance, roadway connections, visibility.Adjacent to Trunk Highway (TH) 5 interchange, but no direct access via arterial road. Site access via two collector roads. Visible.1 mile to TH 5, 1.75 miles to TH 212. One potential site access point via arterial intersection, no collector street connections. Not visible.1 mile to TH 212, 1.5 miles to TH 5. Site access via two arterial roads, and one collector street connection. Not visible.Adjacent to TH 212 interchange. Site access via two arterial roads, no collector street connections. Visible.Adjacent to TH 212 interchange. Site access via two arterial roads. Low potential for future collector street connection. Minimally visible.~0.5 mile to TH 212 interchange. Site access via on arterial road. Low potential for future collector street connections. Minimally visible.Adjacent to TH 212 interchange. Site access via two arterial roads, and two future collector streets. Visible.No (lacks commercial/ residential); Yes (lacks shoreland)No (lacks commercial/ residential); No (shoreland is present)No (lacks commercial/ residential); No (shoreland is present)No (lacks commercial/ residential); No (shoreland is present)Yes 3 (No - but has low potential to be changed); Yes (lacks shoreland)Yes 3 (No - but has low potential to be changed); Yes (sufficient buildable area even with significant shoreland)Yes; Yes (lacks shoreland)Office, Industrial Office, Industrial. Not compatible w.r.t. shoreland.Office, Industrial. Not compatible w.r.t. shoreland.Office. Not compatible w.r.t. shoreland.Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Dual guided for Office or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle CenterYes No Yes No Yes Yes YesRectangular shape. Triangular shape One square north area, and one square south area.Irregular shape. Rectangular shape. Rectangular shape. One rectangular north area, and one square south area.Not Practicable Not Practicable Not Practicable Not Practicable Potentially Practicable Potentially Practicable Potentially PracticableFailed size and access screens. Zoning is partially appropriate (lacking commercial, residential). Also, site is bisected by a tributary to Bluff Creek bordered by steep slopes limiting use in the west third of the site.Failed size, access, visibility, zoning, impervious, and shape screens. South half of site subject to shoreland 5 impervious restrictions. Peat soils ~25 acres and requiring correction; financial impediment. Failed size, visibility, zoning, and impervious screens. Land along the southwest property boundary subject to shoreland impervious restrictions.Failed size, access, zoning, impervious and shape screens. Also, site is bisected by Bluff Creek floodplain, separating the site into two smaller and separate parcels.Site in Chanhassen, of sufficient size, with site access, potential visibility, lacking shoreland, and rectangular. Potential for re-zoning and collector connection low but potentially feasible.Site in Chanhassen, of sufficient size, with site access, potential visibility, compatible shoreland limits, and rectangular. Potential for re-zoning and collector connection low but potentially feasible.Site in Chanhassen, of sufficient size, with site access, visible, appropriate zoning, lacking shoreland, and generally square.1 Waterway = USACE jurisdictional waterway/drainageway/ditch (flow > intermittent). DNR Watercourse = per DNR PWI data. Waterways and Watercourses are not wetland, but are regulated as aquatic resources by USACE.2 Shoreland extends 1000-ft from DNR PWI OHWL (ordinary high water level).3 Low potential to be rezoned, but considered feasible for practicability analysis.Location, Accessible, and VisibleLayout Relatively Square / RectangularPracticable Site (and other considerations)Appropriate Zoning/ Land Use; Compatible with Density/Impervious Restrictions (i.e., lacks significant shoreland 2)Table 2. Alternative Sites Comparison Matrix for Practicability Determination - Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center Project, Chanhassen, MNAvailable for Acquisition in the City of ChanhassenLogistics (Parcel Size = 90+ac) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 7 visible from TH 5. The site is zoned for Office Industrial use, lacks shoreland, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map is rectangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 1 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable alternative site. The site also fails zoning, access, and layout screens. Furthermore, the site is bisected by a tributary to Bluff Creek and bordered by steep slopes, isolating and limiting use in the western third of the site. Alternative Site 2 (Figure H) is 50 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is within 1 mile of TH 5, has only one potential site access point at the intersection of two arterial roads (Galpin Blvd and Lyman Blvd intersection), but cannot connect with existing/future collector streets. The site is not visible from a freeway/highway. The site is zoned for Office Industrial use, and the south half of the site is within the shoreland of Lake Hazeltine and would be subject to impervious surface restrictions. The site is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is triangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 2 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable alternative site. The site also fails zoning, access, visibility, impervious, and shape screens. Futhermore, the site is comprised of approximately 25 acres of mapped peat soil which would require correction (i.e., removal and replacement) prior to site use and is a financial impediment to developing the entire site. Alternative Site 3 (Figure I) is 70 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is within 0.5-mile of TH 212, has the potential for site access via two arterial roads (Lyman Blvd and Audubon Road), and connection with one existing collector street (Audubon Road). The site is not visible from a freeway/highway. The site is zoned for Office Industrial use, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is comprised of two generally square sections. The southwest portion of the site is within the shoreland of Lake Hazeltine and would be subject to impervious surface restrictions. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 3 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable alternative site. The site also fails zoning, visibility and impervious screens. Alternative Site 4 (Figure J) is 40 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to a TH 212 interchange, has the potential for site access via two arterial roads (Powers Blvd and Pioneer Trail), but cannot connect with existing/future collector streets, and is visible from TH 212. The site is zoned for Office use, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is irregular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 4 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable site. The site also fails Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 8 zoning, access, impervious, and shape screens. Furthermore, the site is bisected by Bluff Creek, its floodplain/wetlands, and adjacent steeply sloping topography which divides the site into two smaller and separate development parcels. Alternative Site 5 (Figure K) is 117 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to a TH 212 interchange, has the potential for site access via two arterial roads (Powers Blvd and Great Plains Blvd), with a low potential for connection to a future collector street. The western portion of the site is potentially visible from TH 212. The site is zoned for Low Density Residential use, lacks shoreland, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is rectangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. The site meets size, location, visibility, and access screens. The site lacks shoreland and is generally rectangular in shape. While the potential for rezoning and future collector street connections are low but feasible, Alternative Site 5 was considered to be a potentially practicable site for the proposed project for the purpose of this analysis. Alternative Site 6 (Figure L) is 226.5 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is within 0.5 mile of a TH 212 interchange, is accessible via one arterial road (Pioneer Trail), with a low potential for connection to future collector streets. The northwest corner of the site is potentially visible from TH 212. The site is zoned for Low Density Residential use, is not shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is rectangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. The site meets size, location, visibility, and access screens. Although the site contains significant shoreland area, the remaining portion of land outside of shoreland meets size requirements. While the potential for rezoning and future collector street connections are low, Alternative Site 6 was considered to be a potentially practicable site for the proposed project for the purpose of this analysis. The Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) (Figure M) is 116 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to a TH 212 interchange, and site access can be provided by two existing arterial roads (Powers Blvd and Lyman Blvd), one existing collector street (Bluff Creek Blvd), and one future internal collector street (see Figure F). The site is visible from TH 212. The site is dual-guided for Office or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center use, is shown as available land on the City Available Land Inventory map, lacks shoreland, and is generally square. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. The Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) meets size, access, visibility, zoning, impervious, and shape screens and was therefore considered to be a potentially practicable alternative site for the proposed project. 3.4 Environmental Factors for Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination The potential for impacts on aquatic resources and other environmental impacts that would result from construction of the proposed project on a No Action Site, the two identified potentially Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 9 practicable alternative sites, and the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) were evaluated using the environmental factors defined below.  Waterway/Watercourse Impacts and Changes in Waterway/Watercourse Function – Waterways/Watercourses provide drainage for connected water features (e.g., adjacent wetlands), adjacent upland, and the upstream watershed. Filling or removing a waterway represents a decrease in function; no change to a waterway represent no change in function, and improving a waterway (e.g., deepening or widening) represents an increase in function.  Wetland Impacts and Loss in Wetland Function – Natural/intact, non-degraded (e.g., not excavated, not drained) wetlands surrounded by undisturbed upland represent wetland functions at their highest level, so impact to non-degraded wetland represents a high loss in wetland function. Wetlands that are annually farmed, excavated, or drained/partially drained and/or are surrounded by annually managed or disturbed upland represent wetland functions at the lowest level, so impact to degraded wetland represents a low loss in wetland function.  City of Chanhassen Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Impacts and BCOD Gain or Loss in Function –The BCOD is a contiguous conservancy zone for preservation and enhancement of the natural resources of Bluff Creek. Disturbance or alteration to onsite BCOD is considered to be a loss in function, avoidance without log-term protection of onsite BCOD is considered to maintain the function, and preservation (i.e., avoidance with permanent protection) of onsite BCOD is considered a gain in function.  Cultural Resources – The known presence/absence or the potential for cultural resources to be impacted by the proposed project is stated as Yes, No, or Unknown based on available information and experience on similar sites.  Potential to Negatively Impact Downstream Water Quality/Impaired Waters – The potential to negatively impact downstream water quality with site development is High when impaired waters are closer and/or when treated stormwater discharge is direct, and Low when impaired waters are further away and/or treated stormwater discharge is indirect.  Viewshed Impacts – The Bluff Creek corridor (BCOD), the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and the Minnesota River are all significant visual, environmental, and recreational amenities within the City of Chanhassen. A project that is highly visible from any of these resources has a high (i.e., negative) impact on these resources. Projects that are screened from these resources have a Low impact on these resources.  Impacts to Existing, Perennial Vegetation Cover – Disturbance of land that is under permanent/perennial vegetation cover has a higher potential for increasing negative impacts (untreated runoff, erosion and sediments) to onsite and downstream water resources. Disturbance of land that is bare or planted annually has a lower potential for increasing negative impacts to downstream water resources. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 10  Project Area Size and/or Configuration Meets Project Goals – The applicant has determined that the minimum buildable area for the proposed project is ≥ 90 contiguous acres in a square or nearly square/rectangular configuration. The ability of the site to meet this requirement is stated as Yes or No. 3.5 Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination Table 3 on the following page summarizes the assessment of the environmental factors defined above for each previously identified potentially practicable alternative site. Reference figures are provided as Figures N, O, and P – Appendix B. Development of Alternative Site 5 would likely result in at least 7.07 acres of non-degraded wetland impacts, with a corresponding high loss in wetland function. Additionally, development of this alternative site requires at least 14.50 acres of direct impact to the BCOD (79% of the onsite BCOD) with a corresponding high loss in BCOD function, has moderate potential to negatively impact downstream water quality/impaired waters, results in high impact to existing, perennial vegetation cover, and is minimally visible from a principle highway. Although the external site boundary is generally rectangular, internal buildable area is irregular resulting in a non-walkable layout that lacks synergy. There are no waterways or Watercourses onsite, the potential for cultural resources to be present onsite is unknown (but possible), and impacts to the local viewshed would be minimal. As shown on Figure N, the draft layout is short over 13 acres of medical/professional/support retail area and short 5 acres of housing. To meet Project Purpose and Need, a significant amount of additional wetland impacts to non-degraded wetlands plus impact to the entire area of the BCOD would be required. Impacts to the large wetland in the east portion of the property are unlikely to be approved, as this is a DNR Public Wetland. After a more detailed review of site conditions, and limitations described above, it has been determined that Alternative Site 5 is not a practicable site for the proposed project. Development of Alternative Site 6 would likely result in at least 2.77 acres of degraded onsite wetland impacts, and 1.35 acres of offsite non-degraded wetland impacts for roadway upgrading, with a corresponding medium loss in wetland function. Additionally, development of this alternative site has high potential to negatively impact nearby downstream water quality/impaired waters, results in high impact to the local viewshed, high impact to existing, perennial vegetation cover, and is not visible from a principle highway. There are no direct impacts to onsite BCOD with a corresponding maintenance in function as the area is too large for permanent preservation by the developer. The potential for cultural resources to be present onsite is unknown (but possible). As shown on Figure O, the draft layout is disconnected, and is short 5 acres of medical/professional/support retail area and short 5 acres of housing to meet Project Purpose and Need due to topographic changes and irregular internal development boundaries. Additionally, it is unlikely that the potential future collector streets would be approved by the City due to FactorsNo Action AlternativeAlternative Site 5CommentsAlternative Site 6CommentsProposed Site (Applicant's Preferred)CommentsQuantitative Waterway/Watercourse 1 Impacts (linear feet)None NANo waterways/Watercourses within project limits or the site boundary.NANo waterways/Watercourses within project limits or the site boundary.383.5-ft Waterway impacted by development of site.Qualitative Changes in Waterway/ Watercourse Function (onsite aquatic resource)None NANo waterways/Watercourses within project limits or the site boundary.NANo waterways/Watercourses within project limits or the site boundary.NAWaterway is currently providing wetland drainage/outlet. If upstream wetlands are filled with development, waterway function no longer needed.Quantitative Wetland Impacts (acres) None 7.07-ac7.07 ac non-degraded wetland impacts. Wetlands not drained or farmed, undisturbed upland.4.12-ac2.77-ac onsite degraded (excavated wetland with managed upland) wetland impacts; 1.35 offsite non-degraded (undrained wetland with undisturbed upland) wetlands impacts.4.00-ac4.00-ac degraded wetland impacts. Wetlands are partially- drained, farmed, and surrounded by disturbed upland.Qualitative Loss in Wetland Functions (onsite aquatic resource)None HighImpacted wetlands are generally non-graded by nursery/haying and are surrounded by natural vegetation.MediumImpacted wetlands are degraded due to excavation/frequent mowing, and are surrounded by maintained golf course or roadway.LowImpacted wetlands area generally degraded due to excavation, drainage, and/or farming and are surrounded by agricultural fields.Quantitative Impacts (acres) to Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD 2)None 14.50-ac 14.50-ac impacted, 3.75-ac preserved 0 0-ac impacted; 100-ac avoided 2.64-ac 2.64-ac impacted, 19.36-ac avoided and preserved.Qualitative Gain or Loss in BCOD FunctionNoneLoss79% onsite BCOD impacted; 21% preserved. Minimal preservation.MaintainedPermanent preservation by applicant not feasible due to size (100-ac).Gain12% BCOD impacted; 88% preserved. Significant permanent preservation.Cultural ResourcesN/AUnknownProximity to DNR/open water wetlands, views from BCOD and knoll woodland indicates the potential for cultural resources.UnknownProximity to DNR Watercourse, presence of BCOD with woodland and bluff areas indicates the potential for cultural resources.No2016 survey indicates no resources within project area.Potential to Negatively Impact Downstream Water Quality/Impaired Waters (offsite aquatic resources)N/AModerateIndirect treated stormwater discharge to downstream Bluff Creek (impaired natural stream) via pipe and wetland (1000-ft distance). Indirect discharge to downstream Lake Riley (impaired water) via wetland (2000-ft distance).HighDirect treated stormwater discharge to Bluff Creek via steep topographic flow paths (500 to 1000-ft distance), plus direct discharge to Bluff Creek via pipe (1100-ft distance).LowIndirect treated stormwater discharge to Lake Susan (impaired lake) via existing treatment pond and wetland complexes (5,400-ft distance). Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek (impaired stream) via wetland 1200-ft.Viewshed Impacts N/A LowSite is slightly lower than adjacent BCOD and is therefore screened from its viewshed. The site is not visible fromMN river valley to south.HighSite is highly visible from onsite BCOD and distant locations, specifically the MN River National Wildlife Refuge/Minnesota River bluffs.LowWoodland on high topography screens view from primary BCOD.Disturbance to Existing, Perennial Vegetation CoverN/A HighEntire site has permanent vegetation cover; site development would cause disturbance to perennial vegetated areas.HighEntire site has permanent vegetation cover; site development would cause disturbance to perennial vegetated areas.LowNearly 60% of site is currently bare ground/cropland/non-perennial vegetation. Site development would disturb 20% of perennial vegetated areas.Project Area Size and/or Configuration (meets project dimensions/goals)N/A NoAlthough external boundary is generally rectangular, internal developable area is irregular, and developable area does not meet project purpose and need.NoAlthough external boundary is generally rectangular, internal developable area is irregular, and developable area does not meet project purpose and need.YesProject area is generally square and developable area meets project purpose and need.LEDPANo - Does not meet project needNoSite has greatest projected wetland impacts and does not meet purpose and need.NoSite has greater projected wetland impacts than the Proposed Site and cannot meet purpose and need due to other factors.YesSite has the least projected wetland impacts compared to alternative sites and meets project purpose and need.2 Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). A contiguous conservancy zone for preservation and enhancement of the natural resources of Bluff Creek.1 Waterway = USACE jurisdictional waterway/drainageway/ditch (flow > intermittent). DNR Watercourse = per DNR PWI data. Waterways and Watercourses are not wetland, but are regulated as aquatic resources by USACE.Environmental FactorsOther Qualitative FactorsTable 3. Environmental Factor Matrix for LEDPA Determination - Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center Project, Chanhassen, MN Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 11 alignment and adjacent land use (single-family residential). After a more detailed review of site conditions, and limitations described above, it has been determined that Alternative Site 6 is not a practicable site for the proposed project. Development of the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) would likely result in 4.00 acres of degraded onsite wetland impacts, with a corresponding low loss in wetland function. Although approximately 384 linear feet of waterway impacts would occur, waterway function (drainage of upstream wetlands) would no longer be required. Development of the site has a low potential to negatively impact downstream water quality, low impacts to the viewshed, and low impacts to perennial vegetation cover. The site and its components are visible from a principle highway. Although development of this alternative site may require 2.64 acres of direct impact to the BCOD, there is a corresponding gain in function due to 19.36 acres of permanently preserved and protected BCOD. There are no cultural resources within the project area. As shown on Figure P, the draft layout provides sufficient services to meet the Project Purpose and Need. This alternative site also results in less direct impacts to wetlands than Alternative 5 or Alternative 6, and results in less direct/indirect impacts to other environmental factors than Alternative 5 or Alternative 6. The City of Chanhassen has established its goal for a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center within the City based on the described need and demand. The developer conducted a thorough search to identify the most appropriate location for a viable mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center that meets City requirements and ensures project viability by providing all required project components. Based on Table 3 and the above alternative site summaries, locating the project on the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) according to the design described in more detail below that includes wetland avoidance and minimization considerations is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) that will meet the Applicant’s stated Project Purpose and Need. There are no alternative sites where a viable project could be located that do not affect special aquatic sites, and locating the project on other potentially practicable alternative sites would have more adverse impact on aquatic ecosystems and other environmental factors. 4. SITE LOCATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, & EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed Avienda mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project is located on 119.88-acres in Section 23, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. More specifically, the site is primarily located southwest of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (Figure 1) and west of the trunk Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard intersection. The property corresponds to Carver County PIDs 250230500, 250230420, 250230430, 250230410, and 250230300. Currently, no development is proposed on the small, 1.66-acre parcel that is part of PID 250230500 located east of Powers Boulevard (Figure 1). Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 12 The project is located in an area of the City of Chanhassen which is in transition from what was once primarily agricultural uses to residential, commercial, and office uses. The property is currently bordered by MnDOT ROW (Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way) to the east and southeast, and single-family residential development to the north, west, and southwest (Figure 1). 4.1 Land Cover, Site Topography, and Drainage Areas Land cover on the site consists of approximately: 68.53 acres of cropland, 22.78 acres of woodland, 9.02 acres of non-cropped grassland, 5.12 acres of former farmstead area, 3.20-acres of shelterbelt, and 5.65 acres of wetlands scattered throughout the site. Approximately 1.70 acres of recently upgraded Lyman Boulevard right of way (ROW) is within the property boundary (Figure 2). Specific to the City of Chanhassen land use requirements, approximately 20 acres in the southwest portion of the site falls within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) boundary (Figure 2). The very northwest corner of the property boundary also contains a very small area of mapped BCOD. The Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) covers the Bluff Creek watershed area with the intent of protecting the resource through guided development by: preserving natural conditions, establishing a primary protection zone, requiring structure setbacks and buffers, connecting open areas, and providing public access and education. More information can be found at (http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/323). Land cover on the site is largely a function of existing topography. Topography throughout cropped portions of the site is moderately undulating, while meadows and woodland are generally moderate to steeply sloping, and wetlands are located at the base of localized depressions, swales, or confluences. Figure 3 shows site topography and highlights the main topographic changes present throughout the site. The site is located within the Lower Minnesota River major watershed (Watershed #33), and also within two minor watersheds. The west/southwest part of the site drains to west/southwest and eventually to Bluff Creek; the northeast part of the site drains to the north/northeast and eventually to Lake Susan and Riley Creek. Figure 4 illustrates the minor watershed divide. Figure 5 illustrates existing onsite drainage areas based on LiDAR contours and site observations. 4.2 Wetland Delineation and Wetland Characteristics Ten wetlands have been identified and delineated on the property as illustrated on Figure 6 and as summarized in Table 4 on the following page. Eight of the wetlands (Wetlands 1 through 8) were reviewed and approved in 2015 by the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) (City of Chanhassen) (Appendix C) when the site was under contract by a different developer and was known as “The District at Vincent Ridge”. Previous delineation reports/memos describe the 2015 approved delineation in more detail and included National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and soil survey mapping. Copies of the reports/memos are available upon request. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 13 Wetland 9 and Wetland 10 were both identified during a fall 2016 site visit by Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES) and Appendix D includes an addendum to the 2015 approved delineation for documentation of these wetlands. The addendum also discusses historic Wetland 9 versus 2016 delineated Wetland 9. Also during the fall 2016 KES site visit, the boundary of the MnDOT wetland located along the southeast site boundary was located with a Trimble T41 GPS unit (Figure 6) for application of City and Watershed District required buffer. Table 4. Summary of Delineated Wetlands Wetland ID Size (sf) Size (ac) Circular 39 Cowardin Classification Eggers & Reed Wetland Plant Community Wetland 1 47,922 1.1001 Type 3/1 PEMCd/PEMAd Partially-drained shallow marsh and fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 1/2 8,102 0.1860 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 2 98,310 2.2569 Type 5/2/1 PUBGx/ PEMBd/PEMAd Excavated shallow, open water and partially-drained fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 3 29,169 0.6696 Type 1 PEMA Fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 4 5,456 0.1253 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 5 15,172 0.3483 Type 1 PEMAfd Partially-drained, farmed, seasonally flooded basin Wetland 6 34,045 0.7816 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 7 654 0.0150 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 8 3,677 0.0844 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 9 4,291 0.0985 Type 1 PEMAfd Partially-drained, farmed, seasonally flooded basin Wetland 10 3,223 0.0740 Type 1 PFO1A Seasonally Flooded Basin Total 250,021 5.7397 1 Circular 39, Cowardin Classification, and Wetland Plant Community verified and approved as part of RPBCWD review of MnRAM results. All wetlands, except for Wetland 10 which is 0.0740 acres, on the site have been disturbed/degraded by either excavation, drainage, and/or farming. Except for Wetland 10, wetlands not dominated by crops or annual agricultural weeds are dominated by invasive species (e.g., reed canary grass). Except for the central portion of Wetland 2 where the water table has been exposed through deep excavation, all wetlands onsite are hydrologically supported by surface runoff, which under existing conditions is largely untreated agricultural runoff. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 14 A number of drainage features are present onsite which affect wetland characteristics.  Wetlands 1,1/2, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are drained by defined waterways/ditches located within the wetland boundary and extending downstream of the wetland boundary.  Wetland 1/2 appears to be comprised of a sediment plume from upslope agricultural erosion, or material from the excavation of Wetland 2.  Wetland 5 appears to be drained by agricultural tile as evidenced by field observation of a tile outlet discharging to Wetland 4 from the slopes in which Wetland 5 is located (Figure 6). Additional agricultural tile may be located onsite.  Wetland 8 is a sloping roadway ditch.  Wetland 9 is drained by an incised and back-cutting gully. Wetlands 3 and 10 are the least altered wetlands onsite. Although an outlet was installed on the west end of Wetland 3 when single-family development to the west occurred, the outlet does not appear to drain the wetland. Wetland 10 has a natural outlet and is located within the southwest woodland. The center of Wetland 2 was excavated sometime between 1980 and 1984 (Appendix E). Prior to excavation, Wetland 2 appeared to be managed as a hayfield, with wetland hydrology/wetland signatures (e.g., inundation, saturated soil) rarely observed other than altered pattern. A January 4, 2017 site visit was completed to assess the water depths in the excavated portion of the Wetland 2 using an ice auger and staff gauge. At the time of the site visit, the wetland was completely frozen over, as was the entire length of the waterway that drains the wetland. No flowing water or open water areas were observed. It appears that cattail has not been able to colonize the center of the wetland due to water level depths in excess of 4 feet (maximum water depth = 5.5-ft). Open water in the center of the wetland is a function of water table exposure due to deep excavation conducted by a previous landowner. 4.3 MnRAM Analysis and Applied Buffer Widths For the purposes of applying City and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) wetland buffer rules, a MnRAM 3.4 analysis was completed for each wetland on the site as well as the offsite MnDOT mitigation wetland located along the southeast site boundary. Full MnRAM output results are included in Appendix F. With project development, Wetland Management Classification and applied buffer widths for the City of Chanhassen should follow those outlined in Section 20-411 (https://www.municode.com/library/mn/chanhassen/ codes/code_of_ordinances) of the City Code. Wetland Rating and applied buffer widths for Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) should follow Rule D (http://rpbcwd.org/files/2114/1687/3382/Rule_D_-_Final_- _5_Nov_2014.pdf) of watershed rules. City and RPBCWD wetland management classification/rating and applied buffer widths are summarized in Table 5 on the following page. Table 5. MnRAM Summary - Avienda, Chanhassen, MNWetland ID Wetland Management Classification (City Rating)MnRAM Critical/Highest Rated FunctionCity Applied Minimum Buffer Width (feet)RPBCWD 1 Wetland RatingRule D - Critical / Highest Rated FunctionRPBCWD Applied Buffer Width (feet)MnDOT Wetland Manage 2 Moderate for Wildlife Habitat20 Medium Moderate for Vegetative Diversity and other functions40 average; 20 minimumWetland 1 Manage 2 Low for Amphibian Habitat20 Medium Moderate for Stormwater Sensitivity40 average; 20 minimumWetland 2 Manage 2 Low for Amphibian Habitat20 Medium Moderate for Stormwater Sensitivity40 average; 20 minimumWetland 3 Manage 2 Moderate for Wildlife Habitat20 Medium Moderate for Wildlife Habitat and Stormwater Sensitivity40 average; 20 minimumWetland 4 Manage 1 Moderate for Amphibian Habitat25 Medium Moderate for Wildlife Habitat and Stormwater Sensitivity40 average; 20 minimumWetland 5 Manage 3 Low for Vegetative Diversity16.5 Medium Stormwater Sensitivity (RPBCWD determination)40 average; 20 minimumWetland 6 Manage 2 Moderate for Aesthetics AND Low for Wildlife Habitat20 Medium Moderate for Aesthetics AND Low for Wildlife Habitat40 average; 20 minimumWetland 7 and 8 Manage 3 Low for Vegetative Diversity16.5 Medium Moderate for Stormwater Sensitivity40 average; 20 minimumWetland 9 Manage3 Low for Vegetative Diversity16.5 Medium Stormwater Sensitivity (RPBCWD determination)40 average; 20 minimumWetland 10 Preserve High for Amphibian Habitat40 Exceptional Exceptional for Stormwater Sensitivity and Medium for Vegetative Diversity80 average; 40 minimum1 RPBCWD - Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 15 5. SEQUENCING DISCUSSION/ONSITE ALTERNATIVES LEDPA DETERMINATION Alternative project designs were evaluated in an attempt to completely avoid or minimize wetland impacts to the extent possible in compliance with WCA and Section 404 requirements, while satisfying the above goals and requirements. The following discussion addresses wetland avoidance, wetland impact minimization, and wetland impact reduction over time. The following onsite alternatives analysis demonstrates that there are no feasible and prudent alternative project designs available that would completely avoid or further minimize wetland impacts while meeting the Project Purpose and Need, goals, and requirements. 5.1 Project Goals and Requirements Creating a viable project that will meet Project Purpose and Need requires that the project design be driven by project scope and City vision considerations while meeting other applicable environmental regulations. The Avienda project plan must meet all of the following goals and requirements to be considered feasible and prudent, and well as reasonable and practicable. 1. Provide a mixed use development within the City of Chanhassen of community and regional scale integrated with retail and business uses to serve local residents and a regional market; 2. Provide housing alternatives for all stages of life; 3. Create a pattern of land uses that are compatible and supportive by providing a mix of cultural, employment, entertainment, housing, shopping, and social components; 4. Provide a development design that serves pedestrian/walking use, mass transit use, and automobile traffic with vehicle and pedestrian access that is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system including a pedestrian promenade; 5. Create a layout design that is planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between uses of commercial and residential and to share parking; 6. Connect all structures and spaces with compatible pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, and trails and provide connections to existing pedestrian walkways and corridors; 7. Provide effective drainage for the overall site while capturing and treating stormwater runoff in a manner consistent with local, state, and federal standards (see Stormwater Requirements description on the following page); 8. Be consistent with the updated AUAR. The City is currently updating the AUAR, which will reflect the proposed development plan. The AUAR update is expected to be completed in early 2017. 9. Be sensitive to environmental features (topography, vegetation, wetlands, scenic views); 10. Avoid and minimize alteration to the Bluff Creek Overlay District bluff area, high quality woodland, and cultural resources; 11. Avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts on wetlands and water resources to the extent practicable; 12. Maintain the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetlands (see City Code Requirements on the following page); Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 16 13. Replace unavoidable wetland impacts with compensatory wetland mitigation that has wetland functions equal to or exceeding those of the impacted wetlands; and 14. Designate/establish buffers adjacent to avoided wetlands, and establish easements over the remaining wetlands, wetland buffers, and avoided/preserved areas of the Bluff Creek Overlay District to ensure their long-term viability and protection. Stormwater Requirements In order to meet the requirements of the RPBCWD, the proposed development must abstract the first 1.1-inches of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces for every rainfall event. Approximately 1.27-inches of rainfall on an impervious surface will yield 1.1-inches of runoff. Therefore, impervious runoff from every storm that is 1.27-inches or less (the most commonly occurring rainfall events) will need to be completely captured (abstracted). Using historical annual rainfall data from April 15, 1998 to October 15, 2016, the engineer calculated that of the 3,496 total days, 1,181 days had rainfall. Of those 1,181 days, only 69 days had over 1.27-inches of rainfall. By this estimation, 5.8% of rain days will result in some discharge from stormwater features, while 94.2% of rain days would never result in discharge to downstream wetlands or other water resources. City Code Requirements City Chanhassen Code Section 20-410(b) states that when a wetland alteration permit is issued, the alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetlands. In addition to direct impact to wetlands from fill or excavation, potential decreases in the hydrological characteristics of avoided wetlands were assessed in accordance with local rules. Per the requirements of City of Chanhassen Code Section 20-409(b)(3), Table 6 below provides pre-development wetland drainage areas with post-development drainage areas for the alternative designs considered. Table 6. Pre- and Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas for Alternatives Considered Wetland ID Pre- development Wetland Drainage Areas (ac) 1 Avoidance Alternative Wetland Drainage Areas (ac) 2 Percent Reduction in Drainage Area Mini- mization Alternative Drainage Area (ac) 3 Percent Reduction in Drainage Area Proposed Alternative Wetland Drainage Areas (Ac) 4 Percent Reduction in Drainage Area Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2 31.12 9.98 68% 9.95 68% Impacted NA Wetland 3 7.14 3.83 46% 5.1 29% 3.84 86% Wetland 4 1.14 1.14 5% increase 1.02 11% Impacted NA Wetland 5 5.55 3.23 42% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 6 17.48 5.4 69% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 7 4.81 1.59 67% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 8 3.85 0.69 82% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 9 3.36 1.57 53% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 10 0.55 0.55 0% 0.55 0% 0.55 0% 1 - See Figure 5, 2 - See Figure 7, 3 - See Figure 8, 4 - See Figure 9 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 17 The drainage areas in Table 6 on the previous page encompass the wetland and its undeveloped surrounding landscape and represent supporting wetland hydrology available from untreated surface runoff post-development. The indicated reduction in drainage area would correspond to a similar reduction in drainage volume/supporting wetland hydrology. Because less than 6% of rainfall events result in stomwater discharge as described previously, treated stormwater discharge is not available to contribute to, or fully support, wetland hydrology post-development. 5.2 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative was considered as a way to eliminate all wetland impacts associated with the project, both direct and indirect. Although the no-build alternative would directly avoid all wetland impacts, it would not meet the Project Purpose and Need, goals, and requirements, and would not be inconsistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which dual-guides the project area for Office or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center. The No-Build Alternative is the only alternative that would completely avoid direct and indirect impacts to all onsite wetlands. Any development plan that meets the guided use (which includes large areas of impervious surfaces requiring abstraction) will result in secondary impacts to at least some onsite wetlands in order to meet stormwater management requirements. Because the No-Build Alternative will not meet the guided use for the site it was rejected as an approach to completely avoiding wetland impacts. 5.3 Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative An alternative project design that would completely avoid directly impacting wetlands was considered (Figure 7 and Appendix G - Concept C). This direct avoidance design includes three site access points via two arterial roads and a collector street, provides housing for all stages of life, and utilizes medium density housing to transition from existing single-family residential to the west to onsite commercial uses. Under this scenario the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) would be avoided, as would all onsite wetlands and wetland buffers. Due to elevation changes between avoided wetlands and their buffers, adjacent developed areas, and roadway connections, additional land surface must remain undeveloped to reconcile grade differences (i.e., the plan results in poorly accessible and undevelopable upland area throughout the site). Therefore, the Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative results in a net developable area of 58.33 acres, and a gross area of roadway/ROW of 14.92 acres. Preserved BCOD totals 20.25 acres (this number excludes wetland area and does not include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd). Multiple factors render this alternative not practicable, feasible, or prudent and result in a non- viable project: 1. The layout lacks a contiguous, flowing traffic system in which to circulate traffic as required by the City. 2. Office uses are physically separated and visually distanced from retail uses by the avoidance of Wetlands 1 and 2. Anchor retail/entertainment/hospitality is visually distanced from specialty retail by avoidance of Wetland 5. Avoidance of Wetland 9 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 18 physically separates retail uses. Disconnected and isolated uses eliminates project synergy. 3. Disconnected and isolated uses do not provide an inviting and comfortable “walking” environment as required by the City and necessary for project viability. 4. The avoidance design lacks sufficient component area as detailed in Table 7 below. Specifically, the site does not provide sufficient components of retail hub, anchor retail/hospitality, or residential services/uses as required to meet Project Purpose and Need. 5. This alternative does not meet the use diversity/make-up requirements of the proposed PUD. Table 7. Developable Area, Wetland Impacts, and LEDPA Determination for Alternatives Considered Project Required Components Minimum Required Acres Avoidance Alternative NDA 1 (ac) Minimization Alternative NDA (ac) Proposed Alternative NDA (ac) Retail Hub (Specialty Shops and Restaurants) 25 0.00 0.00 25.67 Office (Medical/Professional) 13 14.70 13.81 12.61 2 Anchor Retail & Entertainment/Hospitality 11 8.22 10.54 11.05 Supporting Local Retail/Daycare/etc. 10 23.60 17.64 12.87 Residential 18 11.81 28.75 13.98 3 Roadways 13 14.92 14.48 16.60 Total NDA 90 73.25 85.22 92.78 Wetlands Impacts 0.00 1.33 5.00 Remaining Wetlands 5.65 4.32 0.65 Preserved BCOD (excludes wetlands) 20.25 15.48 14.40 Preserved NE Parcel 1.66 1.66 1.66 Total Other Areas 27.56 22.79 21.71 Total NDA and Other Areas 100.81 108.01 114.49 Total Property Boundary/Gross Area 119.88 119.88 119.88 Poorly Accessible/Undeveloped Area 19.07 11.87 5.39 LEDPA Determination Does not meet Project Purpose and Need Does not meet Project Purpose and Need Meets Project Purpose and Need 1 NDA = Net Developable Area. All uses measured using NDA except for ROW which is measured as Gross Area. 2 Office component is met/exceeded by utilization of two-story office space. 3 Residential component is met by apartment design and size. In addition, for the purposes of assessing water resource impacts of an alternative for identifying the LEDPA, it is important to note that even the Complete Direct avoidance alternative would have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of some avoided wetlands bordered or completely surrounded by intense development (i.e., high impervious uses) because: Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 19 a) For Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2, while the center of the Wetland 2 would potentially maintain hydrology characteristics via water table support, wet meadow portions of Wetland 1, 1/2, and 2 (~60% of the Wetland 1, 1/2, 2 complex area) would see a significant decrease in supporting wetland hydrology due to the elimination of agricultural runoff post- development in combination with an absence of replacement hydrology due to stormwater abstraction rules. As shown in Table 6, the Complete Avoidance Alternative would reduce the drainage area of supporting wetland hydrology to Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2 by 68%, and the wetland to watershed ratio would decrease from roughly 9:1 to 3:1. In addition, post-development the wetland would be surrounded by high intensity components, that would diminish its ecological value and use as wildlife habitat. Although the buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural/un-manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center commercial setting. b) Wetland 3 is an isolated depression that would be largely surrounded by low intensity post-development components, and would be unlikely to suffer adverse effects to ecological and hydrological characteristics with the avoidance plan. c) Wetland 4 is a slightly depressional, sloping wetland that would be largely surrounded by low intensity post-development components, and would be unlikely to suffer adverse effects to ecological and hydrological characteristics with the avoidance plan. d) Wetlands 5 and 9 are both slightly depressional, slightly sloping wetlands (farmed swales) that would likely maintain seasonally flooded basin hydrologic characteristics post-development. However, their ecological value when completely isolated by high intensity components would be minimal. Although buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural/un-manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center setting. e) Wetlands 6, 7, and 8 are all flow-through/swale wetlands that would likely maintain their hydrologic characteristics. Their ecological value would be minimal as a result of surrounding development and their location adjacent to major roadways. Although buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural or un-manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center setting. In summary, the avoidance design (and any other project design on the site consistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan) will result in some impact/adverse hydrological effect to onsite wetlands when in compliance with the requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District stormwater rules because the project design must include a system that Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 20 retains (i.e., “abstracts”) the majority of impervious runoff onsite through infiltration, evapotranspiration, or capture and reuse. This alternative is inconsistent with the City’s overall vision for the site as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and construction of this alternative would not meet existing or future demand for services, or result in a viable, mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project. Lastly, proposed land alterations and the stormwater management plan would result in a net adverse effect on the ecological and/or hydrological characteristics of avoided Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. For the above reasons, the complete avoidance alternative was rejected. 5.4 Minimization Alternative An alternative project design that would minimize total wetland impacts was also considered (Figure 8 and Appendix G - Concept B). The minimization design includes three site access points via two arterial roads and a collector street, provides housing for all stages of life, and utilizes medium and high density housing to transition from existing single-family residential to commercial uses. Under this scenario the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) would be partially-impacted so as to avoid Wetland 1/2 and meet residential development requirements. As with the Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative, due to elevation changes between avoided wetlands and their buffers, adjacent developed areas, and roadway connections, additional land surface must remain undeveloped to reconcile grade differences (i.e., the plan results in inaccessible and undevelopable upland area throughout the site). Therefore, the Minimization Alternative resulting in a net developable area of 70.74 acres, and a gross area of roadway/ROW of 14.48 acres. Impacts to Wetlands 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 total 1.33 acres. Preserved BCOD totals 15.48 acres (this number excludes wetland area and does not include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd) (Table 7 page 18). The design would also require that 383.5-linear feet of waterway be relocated around developed area. Multiple factors render this alternative not practicable, feasible, or prudent and result in a non- viable project: 1. The layout lacks a contiguous, flowing traffic system in which to circulate traffic as required by the City. 2. Office uses are physically separated and visually distanced from retail uses by the avoidance of Wetlands 1 and 2. Anchor retail/entertainment/hospitality is visually distanced from specialty retail by avoidance of Wetland 5. Avoidance of Wetland 9 physically separates retail uses. Disconnected and isolated uses negatively impact project synergy. 3. Disconnected and isolated uses do not provide a comfortable walkable environment as required by the City and necessary for project viability. 4. The avoidance design lacks sufficient component area as detailed in Table 7 on page 18. Specifically, the site does not provide sufficient retail hub, office, or anchor retail/hospitality services as required to meet Project Purpose and Need. 5. With the inclusion of apartment housing in Section M, the design meets PUD housing density requirements; however, this significantly reduces the available space for retail uses which is the driving component of the Regional/Lifestyle Center. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 21 Post-development, Wetlands 3 and 4 would be largely surrounded by low intensity components, and the preservation of surrounding space in relation to their wetland size (i.e., ~0.5-ac or less) and supporting hydrology (i.e., seasonal flooding) would maintain their ecological and hydrological characteristics. For Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2, while the center of the Wetland 2 would potentially maintain hydrology characteristics via water table support, wet meadow portions of Wetland 1, 1/2, and 2 (~60% of the Wetland 1, 1/2, 2 complex area) would see a significant decrease in supporting wetland hydrology due to the elimination of agricultural runoff post-development in combination with an absence of replacement hydrology due to stormwater abstraction rules. As shown in Table 6, the Minimization Alternative would reduce the drainage area of supporting wetland hydrology to Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2 by 68%, and the wetland to watershed ratio would decrease from roughly 9:1 to 3:1. In addition, post-development the wetland would be surrounded by high intensity components, that would diminish its ecological value and use as wildlife habitat. Although the buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural/un- manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center commercial setting. In summary, the minimization design (and any other project design on the site consistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan) will result in some impact/adverse hydrological effect to onsite wetlands when in compliance with the requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District stormwater rules because the project design must include a system that retains (i.e., “abstracts”) the majority of impervious runoff onsite through infiltration, evapotranspiration, or capture and reuse. This alternative is inconsistent with the City’s overall vision for the site as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and construction of this alternative would not meet existing or future demand for services, or result in a viable, mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project. Avoidance of Wetland 1, 1/2, and 2 results in a non-contiguous project, in a non-walkable environment, that lacks a comprehensive circulation system as well as sufficient component areas to service the existing and future market. Lastly, proposed land alterations and the stormwater management plan would result in a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of avoided Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2. For the above reasons, the Minimization Alternative was rejected. 5.5 Proposed Alternative/Proposed Project Level 7 Development, LLC is proposing to develop a 119.88-acre property in the City of Chanhassen to Avienda, a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center that will include a retail hub of specialty shops and restaurants, anchor retail, local supporting retail, hospitality, medical and professional offices, and townhomes and apartments with associated streets, utilities, stormwater management features, and buffers on avoided wetlands as illustrated in Figure 10. The grading plan is provided in Appendix H. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 22 Project construction is expected to start in summer of 2017. The Avienda project will be mass graded in one phase. Streets and infrastructure such as storms sewers will be installed during the early stages of construction. Earthwork and seeding for wetland buffers and landscaping is expected to be completed by summer of 2018. Completion of the project is expected to require 3 years. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan anticipates development of this site as “Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial”. The Comprehensive Plan also notes that a new zoning district regional Commercial (RC) will be created in the City Code to implement this land use. However, the City Zoning Ordinance adopted in 2009 notes that the City wishes to see it zoned as a Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial PUD (Planned Unit Development). With the restriction of “one owner/one PUD” the City’s expectations for the completed project are that it will be of higher quality, create a regional sense of place/identity for the community, provide regional retail/commercial services that will complement existing uses within the City yet of a scale so as to provide shopping opportunities not currently located in the community, be sensitive to environmental features (topography, vegetation, wetlands, scenic views), and provide appropriate transition between uses. Lifestyle center retail hubs are commonly 25+ acres in size. Acreages provided for high and medium density units are based on standard product sizes to meet PUD density requirements. The remaining required acreages for anchor retail/hospitality, support retail, and office uses are based on market analysis calculations of supporting services that are needed to provide project synergy and viability. The Proposed Project (Proposed Alternative) is shown on Figure 9 (Appendix G - Concept A). Wetland impact types and areas overlaid on the proposed grading plan are shown on Figure 10. The proposed project design includes: 1. A retail hub and retail anchor/hospitality, supporting retail, and office components of sufficient acreage of contiguous buildable area (98.33 acres) to create a viable, mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center; 2. Three site access points via two arterial roads and a collect street and an internal contiguous, flowing traffic system in which to circulate traffic as required by the City; 3. Housing components for all stages of life that meets PUD density requirements and that will provide project viability; 4. Utilizes housing to transition from existing single-family residential to commercial uses provides a visual buffer between the development and natural features/woodland; and 5. Due to the nature of the site’s soils (clays) the proposed development is unable to infiltrate the abstraction volume. Therefore, the project will use onsite irrigation of all landscape areas to meet abstraction requirements. Per same requirements, none of the irrigation water will run off into the wetlands. With the proposed project the resulting net developable area is 81.73 acres and the gross area of roadway/ROW is 16.60 acres. Impacts to Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 total 4.9961 acres. Preserved BCOD totals 14.40 acres (this number excludes wetland area and does not Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 23 include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd) (Table 7, page18). The design also results in 714.5 linear feet of waterway impact. The proposed project design meets the project purpose, need, goals, and requirements as described previously and implements the future land use envisioned by the City of Chanhassen. The proposed project represents an orderly and logistical use of the subject property and is consistent with applicable land use and policy plans. The Proposed Project represent a balanced effort to accommodate the project purpose, goals, and requirements, while minimizing impact to the BCOD, and avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts to the extent practical. Based on Table 7 and the above avoidance and minimization alternatives summaries, construction of the Proposed Project is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) that will meet the overall Project Purpose and Need. There are no practicable or reasonable alternative project designs that would meet the Project Purpose and Need of the Avienda mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center. 5.6 Proposed Project Impacts As proposed, the project will require 4.6462-acres of jurisdictional wetland fill and 0.3499-acre of jurisdictional wetland excavation. Unavoidable wetland impacts for the Avienda project are summarized in Table 8 below. The table documents wetland impact amount, impact type (fill versus excavation), and a general description of the justification for impact. Table 8. Wetland Impact Summary Impact Wetland Impact Size (ac) Type of Impact Impact Justification Wetlands 1 1.1001 Fill Located within the footprint of the retail hub and circulating traffic system. Wetland 1/2 0.1860 Fill Wetland 2 2.2569 Fill Wetland 4 0.1253 Fill Grading reconciliation between the apartment construction pad and sloping woodland. Wetland 5 0.3483 Fill Located within the footprint of retail space and associated parking. Wetland 6 0.5302 Fill Excavation and fill to construct stormwater treatment feature. 0.2514 Excavate Wetland 7 0.0150 Fill Located within the footprint of retail space, associated parking, and stormwater treatment feature. Wetland 8 0.0844 Fill Wetland 9 0.0985 Excavation Located within the footprint of retail space and associated parking. Totals 4.9961 The project plan also includes 714.5 linear feet (1,429 square feet) of USACE regulated waterway impacts (Figure 10). The northern waterway (383.5-ft) is currently located within an Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 24 area of the project that will be filled to construct retail and parking space and a stormwater basin. The southern waterway (331-ft) is located within an area of the project that will be filled for apartment and retaining wall construction. With development, the southern waterway will be relocated to the east so as to maintain the surface water flow paths from the woodland. 5.7 Wetland Impact Minimization There are no practicable or feasible alternative plan designs that would partially impact wetlands thereby minimizing wetland impacts. Because the entire area of each wetland proposed for impact will be impacted, minimization of impacts on individual wetlands is not possible. 5.8 Wetland Impact Rectification No temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed. Impact rectification does not apply. 5.9 Wetland Impact Reduction or Elimination Over Time Practices that will be implemented to help reduce or eliminate wetland impacts over time, include: (1) providing vegetated buffers along avoided Wetland 3 and 10 to protect against ecological impacts and to provide wildlife habitat; and (2) implementation of a stormwater management plan manage that reduces or eliminates potential effects of stormwater runoff to remaining onsite wetlands as well as offsite water resources. The City of Chanhassen, the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, and Minnesota Department of Transportation have review jurisdiction over storm water runoff from proposed redevelopment at this site. The MPCA has jurisdiction under the State Construction Stormwater NPDES General Permit. Because site soils have very low infiltration capacity, preferred methods to achieve stormwater management requirements will consist of BMPs including detention ponds, filtration, and water reuse for irrigation. Because the drainage area of Wetland 3 will be reduced by 86% with a corresponding decrease in watershed to wetland ratio from 11:1 to 6:1, the Applicant proposes to monitor Wetland 3 for secondary impacts to wetland hydrology. 5.10 Sequencing Flexibility Sequencing flexibility offers a process for approving proposed wetland impacts when the proposed replacement wetland is certain to provide equal or greater public value as determined based on a functional assessment reviewed by the technical evaluation panel using a methodology approved by the board (Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0520, Subp. 7a.). The local government unit may allow sequencing flexibility if any of the following apply: 1. the wetland to be impacted has been degraded to the point where replacement of it would result in a certain gain in function and public value; 2. avoidance of wetlands would result in severe degradation of the wetland's ability to function and provide public value, for example, because of surrounding land uses, and the wetland's ability to function and provide public value cannot reasonably be maintained Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 25 through implementation of best management practices, land use controls, or other mechanisms; 3. the only feasible and prudent upland site available for the project or replacement has greater ecosystem function and public value than the wetlands. This may be appropriate only if the applicant: a. demonstrates impact minimization to the wetland; b. agrees to perpetually preserve the designated upland site; and c. completely replaces the impacted wetland's functions and public value; or 4. the wetland is a site where human health and safety is a factor. Item 1 applies to proposed impacts to Wetlands 5 and 9, and Wetlands 7 and 8. Wetlands 5 and 9 are both partially-drained, annually farmed wetlands surrounded by cropland that have limited wetland functions and values. Wetland 7 and 8 are both partially-drained swales, dominated by invasive vegetation and bordered by cropland that have limited wetland functions and values. Replacement of these wetlands with the proposed replacement plan is sure to provide an increase in wetland functions and values. Item 2 applies to proposed impacts to Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2. As previously discussed, post- development these wetlands will be surrounded by intense components and significant impervious area. Due to the large size of the wetland complex in relation adjacent preserved space in combination with a significant change to supporting wetland hydrology (i.e., the elimination of agricultural runoff in combination with the absence of supporting replacement hydrology), any project plan showing avoidance of these wetlands would result in severe degradation of the wetland's ability to function and provide public value. The Applicant requests that sequencing flexibility be invoked for impacts to Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 once the replacement plan is finalized, and after MnRAM results confirm that the replacement wetland results in increased wetland functions and values. 6. WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN 6.1 Compliance Framework and Required Replacement State Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0017, Subp. 1, states that Carver County is in an area with less than 50% of the presettlement wetlands remaining. Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0522, Subp. 4, states that the minimum replacement ratio for impacts to wetland on nonagricultural land in a less than 50% area is 2:1. Federal Total wetland impacts are greater than 3 acres; therefore, the Avienda project will require a Standard Individual Permit (IP) from the USACE with a likely wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 26 Waterway replacement is usually accomplished by providing assurance that the capacity and flow of the impacted resource is maintained, and that upstream and downstream resources are not negatively impacted. The function of the existing northern waterway (383.5-ft) is to provide an outlet for Wetlands 1 and 2. With the proposed project, Wetlands 1 and 2 will be impacted and the function of the waterway will no longer be needed. Upstream resources will no longer exist, and downstream resources will benefit from the reduction in untreated agricultural runoff. The function of the existing southern waterway (331-ft) is to provide an outlet for agricultural drain tile, and a path for surface runoff from the southwest woodland. With the proposed project, tile drainage will no longer pass through Wetland 4. Woodland runoff will be routed offsite by the construction of a 617-ft swale feature (Figure 11, Waterway Relocation) south of the apartment building. For these reasons, waterway impacts should not require replacement under Section 404. Table 9 below summarizes required wetland replacement for the Avienda mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project. Table 9. WCA and USACE Required Replacement Total WCA/USACE Wetland Impacts Total Required Replacement 4.9961 acres 9.9922 acres Total USACE Waterway Impacts Total Required Replacement 714.5-linear feet (1,429 sf) None 6.2 Replacement Plan Overview Permanent wetland impacts are proposed to be replaced through the purchase of wetland bank credits from a Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) certified wetland bank located within the same Bank Service Area as the proposed project. However, other actions eligible for credit, or a combination of actions, are potentially available for meeting project replacement requirements. The final implemented Avienda Replacement Plan will be based on City, Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), and USACE feedback and suggestions. After wetland impacts and the proposed project have been preliminarily approved by the TEP and USACE, a finalized replacement plan will be submitted that will meet BWSR, USACE, and local replacement requirements. Specific to the City of Chanhassen, the replacement plan will: 1. Include a Wetland Buffer Strip Plan for avoided onsite wetlands (City Code Section 20- 412(h)). 2. Demonstrate that the replacement action/s result in an improvement in wetland functions and values, and addresses water quality improvement, maintenance of preexisting hydrological balance, and wildlife habitat improvement (City Code Section 20-146(a)). Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 27 The following paragraphs provide a summary of actions eligible for credit for the proposed project. At this time, the Applicant is only proposing replacement via banking; however, the Applicant is willing to investigate other potential replacement options based on TEP/USACE comments/feedback. 6.4 Actions Eligible for Credit Wetland Banking Wetland banking is the currently proposed wetland replacement plan. At the time of this application, there are no wetland banks in Major Watershed #33 and Bank Service Area 9 (BSA 9) that are: (1) available to the public, (2) have sufficient credit balance, and (3) are USACE certified. Therefore, if banking is chosen as the replacement plan or a component of the replacement plan, the applicant proposes to purchase USACE certified credits from an available wetland bank (or banks) within BSA 9, which is an area with less than 50% of presettlement wetland remaining. Wetland bank/s, total credit amount, and credit types used would be based on TEP and USACE comments/requirements. At a minimum, 9.9922-acres of credit would be purchased to meet compensatory mitigation requirements. Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural Resource Value (ENRV) Restoration and protection of important resources are eligible for replacement credit when the action improves or directly contributes to the function and sustainability of an exceptional natural resource. The determination of an exceptional resource can be based on the resource’s value relative to other resources in the watershed. Implementing this action could provide partial onsite replacement within the Bluff Creek minor watershed. An eligible resource exists onsite. Post-development, 14.40-acres of the site will be avoided and preserved oak woodland located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). As it is a local priority to protect and improve the function of the BCOD, utilization of ENRV is appropriate. Granting replacement credit under ENRV provisions would protect the long-term function and sustainability of the resource. According to BWSR guidance, preservation of upland in combination with a qualifying restoration activity is eligible for up to 12.5% credit of the total area permanently protected. With the proposed plan, 14.40-acres of BCOD could be restored and preserved thereby generating 1.8-acres of replacement credit. It may be possible to generate up to 10% replacement credit for Section 404/USACE permitting via upland buffer credit. Project-Specific Wetland Restoration/Creation The Applicant could explore wetland restoration/creation opportunities on other sites within the City of Chanhassen, with priority given to sites within, or with a tributary to, the BCOD. Sites would be identified by review of City documents (e.g., Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites from the City of Chanhassen 2nd Generation: Surface Water Management Plan), aerial review of primarily undeveloped sites, and City knowledge/feedback. Sites identified would be assessed for ecological suitability and sustainability, actions eligible for credit, total potential generated credits, construction feasibility, and landowner cooperation/authorization. The Applicant is willing to consider this option for fulfilling part, or potentially all, of the required replacement. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 28 7. RARE SPECIES CONSIDERATIONS State and federal wetland rules require that endangered and threatened species be considered in wetland permitting. Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0515 specifies that endangered and threatened species must be considered when submitting a wetland replacement plan. Approval of wetland impacts under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act must comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The federally-threatened northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is the principle species of concern for this review. The NLEB hibernates in caves during winter and establishes maternity roosting colonies under the loose bark of trees during the summer. There are no known NLEB hibernacula or roosting colonies in the vicinity of the development site or in Carver County, Minnesota (Appendix H). KES reviewed the site in the field on September 28, 2016 to assess tree species, size, and condition, and to establish a base for quantifying tree removal and potential effects on NLEB habitat. Based on the field visit, KES determined that woodland consisted of three distinct cover types within the development parcel (Figure 2). The parcel east of Powers Boulevard is not proposed for development and is not included in this discussion.  Woodland Cover A (approximately 1.48 acres) was located along the northern edges of Wetlands 1 and 2. The woodland was dominated by green ash and boxelder ranging from 2 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of American elm, black willow, and black cherry ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>30-inch DBH) cottonwoods were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn, gray dogwood, chokecherry, and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover B (approximately 3.20 acres) was a shelterbelt in the center of the site. The woodland was dominated by green ash ranging from <4 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of boxelder, black cherry, black walnut, and American elm ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>15-inch DBH) bur oaks were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover C (approximately 21.00-acres) was located in the southwest portion of the development parcel. The woodland was dominated by red and bur oak ranging from 6 to 25 inches DBH and sugar maple ranging from <4 to 16 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of basswood, American elm, and black cherry (all 4 to 10 inches DBH) were present. Understory buckthorn shrubs were observed mainly along the outer edges of the woodland. Development of the Avienda project will require approximately 10.98 acres of tree removal (1.48 acres of Woodland Cover A, 3.20-acres of Woodland Cover B, and 6.30-acres of Woodland Cover C). Development tree removal areas are shown on Figure 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidance on the NLEB 4(d) Rule eliminates the need for detailed USFWS review because the project area is not located within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree or within 0.25 mile of a known hibernaculum (Appendix I). Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 29 Under the 4(d) Rule, the USFWS created a framework that streamlines Section 7 Consultations under the Endangered Species Act when federal actions may affect the NLEB, but will not cause prohibited take of this threatened species. Federal agencies have the option to rely on the finding of the programmatic biological opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule to fulfill their project-specific Section 7 responsibilities by using this framework. Nevertheless, the project team understands that a federal interagency agreement requires the USACE to provide the USFWS with notice of proposed tree removal and allow the USFWS 30 days to comment. USFWS Guidance for federalized projects under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) Rule states that incidental take from “tree removal activities is not prohibited” because the project will not result in: 1. removing a known occupied maternity roost tree, 2. tree removal activities within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through July 31, or 3. tree removal activities within 0.25 mile of a hibernaculum at any time. 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological surveys have been completed on the site. There are no cultural resources within the project area. Copies of the surveys are available upon request. Avienda Wetland Permit Application FIGURES 1. Site Location and Property Boundary 2. Existing Land Cover 3. Topographic Elevations 4. Minor Watershed Boundaries 5. Existing Drainage Areas 6. Delineated Wetlands 7. Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative 8. Minimization Alternative 9. Proposed Alternative 10. Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas 11. Tree Removal Areas Figure 1 - Site Location & Property Boundary Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Property Boundary MnDOT ROW (adjacent to site) Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Residential Development Residential Development Residential Development Trunk Highway 212Lyman Boulevard Powers BoulevardParcel within property boundary (1.66-ac). Not proposed for development at this time. Figure 2 - Existing Land Cover (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Bluff Creek Overlay District Wetlands (5.65-ac) Not Cropped/Grass (9.02-ac) Former Farmstead (5.12-ac) Shelterbelt (3.20-ac) Woodland (22.78-ac) Cropland (68.53-ac) Roadway (1.70-ac) Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap No developmentproposed for thisparcel.WoodlandCover A1.48-ac WoodlandCover B3.20-ac WoodlandCover C21.00-ac WoodlandCover D0.30-ac Powers BlvdTH 212 916914 912 918920 910908906 9 0 4 902 900898 896894 892890888 886884 922924926928930882932880934936946 878 938 940 876 942 944 874 872 870948 950952954956958 890 89492 8 916 944 920898934 9428789 0 0946924 950 902 938934936 914 930910884 916926936 912932 916954 920932 952 9308749069 2 4 922 918 950 938 934 908892 932 916 914 886 876936 896 934 906942 930 918940 912 904946 926 930 940 874 9 2 4 918938 910 900910906 938 948 914 872 936898 9 0 6 928 9049149149 2 6940 902924928 934874934952948 918914 954 930916896 920946 944 896912900888 936908 9108 8 4924938 8929 2 2 944 912 91 6 902894 928926 904 902932 898922 938 920870Figure 3 - Topographic Elevations (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Ag Tile Carver Co 2-ft Lidar Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 950-ft 924-ft 908-ft 912-ft 938-ft 932-ft932-ft894-ft886-ft926-ft 930-ft910-ft906-ft906-ft 900-ft892-ft924-ft 914-ft936-ft 8 8 6 - f t 876-ft 916-ft9 0 0 - f t 902-ft946-ft912-ft930-ft946-ft 936-ft 902-ft Figure 4 - Minor Watershed Boundaries (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Minor Watershed Divide Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL3 2016 WL9 WL5 WL4 WL2 WL1 WL1/2 WL7 WL8 WL10 Lake Susan & Riley Creek Watershed Bluff Creek Watershed Source: www.mngeo.state.mn.us Figure 5 - Existing Drainage Areas (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Drainage Areas (DA) Sub Drainage Area (SDA) Surface Drainage Direction Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 DA 17.48-ac WL1/2 DA 31.12-ac WL8 DA 3.85-ac WL7 DA 4.81-ac DA 2.56-ac WL3 DA 7.14-ac WL5 DA 5.55-ac DA 12.61-ac DA 28.83-ac DA 3.62-ac DA 2.36-ac WL9 SDA 3.36-ac WL10 SDA 0.55-ac WL4 SDA 1.14-ac Figure 6 - Delineated Wetlands (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Historic Wetland 9 Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Ag Tile Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 0.7816-ac WL3 0.6696-ac Historic WL9 2016 WL9 0.0985-ac WL5 0.3483-ac WL4 0.1253-ac WL2 2.2569-ac WL1 1.001-ac WL1/2 0.1860-ac WL7 0.0150-ac WL8 0.0844-ac WL10 0.0740-ac Buildings shown here no longer present Figure 7 - Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative With Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Property Boundary Waterway Retaining Wall Drainage Areas Sub Drainage Areas Bluff Creek Overlay District WL1/2 WL5 WL4 WL10 WL3 WL9 WL6 WL7 WL8 Figure 8 - Minimization Alternative With Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Property Boundary Relocated Waterway Waterway Retaining Wall Drainage Areas Sub Drainage Areas Bluff Creek Overlay District WL3 WL10 WL4 WL1/2 Figure 9 - Proposed Alternative With Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet WL3 WL10 Legend Property Boundary Relocated Waterway Retaining Wall Drainage Areas Sub Drainage Areas Bluff Creek Overlay District Figure 10 - Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Property Boundary Waterway Fill Waterway Relocation Wetland Fill Wetland Excavation Wetlands WL6 WL1 WL9 WL5 WL4 WL8 WL7 WL1/2 WL2 WL10 WL3 383.5-ft 331-ft617-ft Figure 11 - Tree Removal Areas (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Tree Removal6.3-acres Powers BlvdTH 212Tree Removal3.20-acres Tree Removal0.27-acres Tree Removal1.21-acres ThisParcelNotDeveloped Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX A Joint Application for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 12   Project Name and/or Number:  Avienda, Chanhassen, MN  PART ONE: Applicant Information  If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified.  If the  applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent’s  contact information must also be provided.  Applicant/Landowner Name: Level 7 Development, LLC (contact Mark Nordland) Mailing Address: 8315 Cascade Drive, Suite 165, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: (612) 812‐7020  E‐mail Address: mnordland@launchproperties.com   Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above):Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services  Mailing Address: 105 5th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612‐252‐9070  E‐mail Address: Darren B. Lazan, RLA <dlazan@landform.net>   Agent Name: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Mailing Address: 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: 952‐401‐8757  E‐mail Address: Melissa@kjolhaugenv.com    PART TWO: Site Location Information  County: Carver City/Township:Chanhassen Parcel ID and/or Address: 250230500, 250230420, 250230430, 250230410, and 250230300 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): Sec23, T116, R23 Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 44°50’15” N; 93°33”27” W Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet):Site = 119.88‐acres   If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the  names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site.  This information may be provided by attaching a list to  your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at:   http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf  PART THREE: General Project/Site Information  If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other  correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number.  Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The  project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements  that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings  showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts.    See Sections 1, 2, and 5.5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application.    Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 12   Project Name and/or Number:  Avienda, Chanhassen, MN  PART FOUR:  Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary  If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each  impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map,  aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts.  Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table.  Aquatic  Resource ID (as  noted on  overhead view)  Aquatic  Resource Type  (wetland, lake,  tributary etc.)  Type of Impact  (fill, excavate,  drain, or  remove  vegetation)  Duration of  Impact  Permanent (P)  or Temporary  (T)1  Size of  Impact2  Overall Size  of Aquatic  Resource 3  Existing Plant  Community Type(s) in  Impact Area4  County, Major  Watershed #,  and Bank  Service Area #  of Impact Area5 Wetland 1 Wetland Fill P 1.001 1.001 Shallow marsh/wet  meadow  Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 1/2 Wetland Fill P 0.1860 0.1860 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 2 Wetland Fill P 2.2569 2.2569 Open water/ shallow  marsh/ wet meadow  Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 4 Wetland Fill P 0.1253 0.1253 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 5 Wetland Fill P 0.3483 0.3483 Seas fl basin Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 6 Wetland Fill P 0.5302 0.5302 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 6 Wetland Excavate P 0.2514 0.2514 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 7 Wetland Fill P 0.0150 0.0150 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 8 Wetland Fill P 0.0844 0.0844 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 9 Wetland Excavate P 0.0985 0.9850 Seas fl basin Carver, 33, 9 North  Waterway  Waterway Fill P 383.5‐ft  (767 sf) sf) 383.5‐ft  (767 sf) sf) Open water Carver, 33, 9 South  Waterway  Waterway Fill P 331‐ft (662  sf)  331‐ft (662  sf)  None/Water Carver, 33, 9 1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”.  For example, a project with a temporary access fill that  would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”.  2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet.  Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the  nearest 0.01 acre.  Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact  along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses).  For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6  feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet).  3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”.  4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2.  5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7.  If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated  with each:          1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify  activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies.  For purposes of this form it is not meant to  indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement.      Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 6 of 12  Attachment A  Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or  Jurisdictional Determination  By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District  (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply):    Wetland Type Confirmation    Delineation Concurrence.  Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU  concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation  concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not address  the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area  (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.).   Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non‐binding written indication  from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of  computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all  waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S.  PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be  appealed.   Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that  jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the  affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process.   In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987  Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for  Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013).  http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx      Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 8 of 12   Project Name and/or Number:  Avienda, Chanhassen, MN  Attachment C  Avoidance and Minimization  Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project.  Also include a  description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management,  and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings,  roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management  plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary:  See Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application.  Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist.   Clearly describe all on‐site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives  that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or  not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged  to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis:  See Section 5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application.  Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest  extent practicable.  Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water  resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4):  See Section 5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application.  Off‐Site Alternatives.  An off‐site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications.  If you know that your proposal  will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be  required to provide an off‐site alternatives analysis.  The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must  be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final  decision.  Applicants with questions about when an off‐site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project  Manager.        See Section 3 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application.   Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 12   Project Name and/or Number:  Avienda, Chanhassen, MN  Attachment D  Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation  Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation not associated with the local road  wetland replacement program. Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements.  Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an  existing wetland bank (with an account number in the State wetland banking system) for all or part of your  replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements.  Wetland Bank  Account # County Major  Watershed #  Bank  Service  Area #  Credit Type  (if applicable) Number of Credits  TBD TBD TBD 9 TBD 9.9922                                                             Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at  least a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project. This documentation could be a signed purchase  agreement, signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the  applicant and the bank owner.  However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the  mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU.  Project‐Specific Replacement/Permittee Responsible Mitigation. Complete this section if you are proposing to pursue actions  (restoration, creation, preservation, etc.) to generate wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation credits for this proposed  project.  WCA Action Eligible  for Credit1  Corps Mitigation  Compensation  Technique2  Acres Credit %  Requested  Credits  Anticipated3 County Major  Watershed #  Bank  Service  Area #                                                                                    1Refer to the name and subpart number in MN Rule 8420.0526.  2Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota.  3If WCA and Corps crediting differs, then enter both numbers and distinguish which is Corps and which is WCA.  Explain how each proposed action or technique will be completed (e.g. wetland hydrology will be restored by breaking the tile……)  and how the proposal meets the crediting criteria associated with it. Applicants should refer to the Corps mitigation policy  language, WCA rule language, and all associated Corps and WCA guidance related to the action or technique:  NA  Attach a site location map, soils map, recent aerial photograph, and any other maps to show the location and other relevant  features of each wetland replacement/mitigation site. Discuss in detail existing vegetation, existing landscape features, land use  (on and surrounding the site), existing soils, drainage systems (if present), and water sources and movement. Include a  topographic map showing key features related to hydrology and water flow (inlets, outlets, ditches, pumps, etc.):  NA  Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX B Alternative Sites Analysis Figures © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure A - West Metro Twin Cities and City of Chanhassen Location Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5 Miles Legend City of Chanhassen Proposed Site Retail/Comerical/Mixed-Use Commerical Burnsville Center Eden Prairie Center Canterbury Downs Arbor Lakes Shops at West End Ridgedale Center Downtown Chanhassen Minneapolis Southdale Center Blu f f C ree k Minnesot a Ri v er Riley C r e e k Chas ka C ree k Purgatory Creek Unnamed to Minnesota RiverAssumptio n C r e e k U n n a m e d T r i b u t a r y Bluff CreekUnnamed to Minnesota RiverRile y C r e e k Ri l e y C r e e kRiley Creek Figure B - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (Aerial Photo) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 1 3 4 5 Legend City of Chanhassen Proposed Site Alternative Sites Public Waters Public Watercourse MN Landscape Arboretum (MnLA) Temple of Eckankar MN Valley National Wildlife RefugeTH 212TH 5 TH 416 Seminary Fen Inter-change Inter-change Camp Tanadoona MnLA TH = Trunk Highway Figure C - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (City Basemap) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/1527 1 3 4 5 Legend City of Chanhassen Alternative Sites Proposed Site 6 Figure D - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (Land Use) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 1 3 4 5 6 City of Chanhassen Alternative Sites Proposed Site (Dual Guided for Office Campus or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center) Figure E - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (City of Chahassen Available Land Inventory) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet UnderDevelopment1 2 3 4 5 6 Legend Proposed Site Alternative Sites Figure F - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (City Road Classification) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 1 3 4 5 6 Legend Alternative Sites Proposed Site Bluff CreekRiley Creek Figure G - Alternative Site 1 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Offsite Waterway Determination Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Alternative Site 1 = 58-acresCharity and Business LandownersGuided for Office Industrial Use General MillsProperty ExistingDaycare General MillsOffice/Factory 0.90-ac 0.28-ac Coulter Blvd (collector) TH 5 (arterial)Audubon Road (collector)0.10-ac 0.10-ac 0.28-ac 0.31-ac 0.18-acSteep Slopes Hazeltine (10-14 P) Hazeltine (10-14 P) Figure H - Alternative Site 2 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Soil Survey Mapped Peat Soil Offsite Waterway Determination Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Alternative Site 2 = 50-acres1 Private LandownerGuided for Office Industrial Use~25 acres mapped with peat soils requiring correction before useSouthwest half of site within shoreland (impervious surface restrictions) Railroad Tracks Lyman Blvd (arterial)Galpin Blvd (arterial)0.56-ac 0.34-ac 0.15-ac 1.30-ac Hazeltine (10-14 P)Bluff CreekFigure I - Alternative Site 3 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Offsite Waterway Determination Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver NWI Wetland 4.0-acres NWI & Offsite Wetland Total (soils; topo) 9.6-acres Alternative Site 3 = 70-acres3 Private LandownersGuided for Office Industrial UseBluff Creek Overlay District south half siteShoreland on southwest and northeast site boundaries Existing OfficeIndustrial Lyman Blvd (arterial)Audubon Road (arterial)NWI Wetland 0.11-acres 0.13-acres Audubon Road (collector) Bluff Creek Figure J - Alternative Site 4 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Wetland Complex 11.75-acres Alternative Site 4 = 40-acres2 Private LandownersGuided for Office UseBluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD)Shoreland extends past BCOD limts Pioneer Trail (arterial)TH 212 (principle arterial)Powers Blvd (arterial)MN DOTLandMN DOTLand Unnamed (10-214 W) Unnamed (10-215 W) Figure K - Alternative Site 5 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Wetland Complex 18.25-acresWetland Complex 6.50-acres Wetland Complex 4.2-acresCity ParkPreserveWetland 0.48-acresWetland 2.0-acres Wetland 0.62-acres Wetland 0.84-acres Wetland 1.61-acres Wetland 0.38-acres Alternative Site 5 = 117-acres1 Private LandownerGuided for Residential Low DensityBluff Creek Overlay DistrictWilson Tree Farmrecently permittedresidential projectcurrenlty underconstruction.TH 212 (principle arterial)Powers Blvd (arterial)Great Plains Blvd(arterial)Alternative Site 6 Alt Site 4 Created Pond Present 2015 2 Parcels to be added to Wilson Tree Farm Pioneer Trail (arterial) Potential future collector street Wetland 2.35-acres Bluff Creek Figure L - Alternative Site 6 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Road Upgrade ROW Ravine Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Alternative Site 6 = 226.5-acres(of which 100 acres is within BCOD)1 Association LandownerGuided for Residential Low DensityBluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD)Shoreland does not extend past BCODTH 212(principlearterial)Powers Blvd(arterial)Alternative Site 5 Alt Site 4 Pioneer T r a i l ( a r t e r i a l ) 0.89-ac 0.23-ac 0.10-ac 0.09-ac 0.06-ac 0.09-ac 0.97-ac 0.18-ac 0.41-ac 0.13-ac 0.12-ac 0.04-ac Potential Future Collector Future Collector B l u f f C r e e k Figure M - Proposed Site (Applicant's Preferred) with Delineated Wetlands (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet 0.13-ac 0.10-ac 0.35-ac 0.67-ac 0.78-ac 2.26-ac 0.19-ac 1.00-ac 0.02-ac 0.08-ac Proposed Site = 116-acres1 Private/Applicant LandownerDual Zoned/Guided for Office or Regional CommercialBluff Creek Overlay District / Woodland Powers Blvd (arterial)Lyman Blvd (arterial)TH 212(principle arterial)Bluff Creek Blvd(collector)Legend Proposed Site Waterway Intermittent Surface Flow Ag Tile Delineated Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver 0.07-ac Unnamed (10-215 W) Unnamed (10-214 W) Riley (10-2 P) Figure N - Alternative Site 5 Reference Figure (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Collector Street Wetlands (green shading) Retail Hub (25-acres) Circulating Traffic System (10-acres) Housing (12.5-acres) Anchor & Entert/Hospitality (11-acres) Medical Professional Retail (9.3-acres) Stormwater (3.5-acres) Bluff Creek Primary Corridor (BCOD) Public Watercourse Public Waters Bluff CreekWetland impacts identified in white 0.67-ac 0.48-ac1.61-ac0.73-ac 0.36-ac 2.0-ac0.84-ac0.38-ac Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1000-ft Indirect discharge to Lake Riley(impaired water)2000-ft Wetland Impact = 7.07-acres. Additional impact to wetlands and BCOD required to meet project purpose and need. Layout is short: 13+ acres of retail etc.; 5 acres of housing.TH 212Powers BlvdGreat Plains BLvd Bluff Creek Figure O - Alternative Site 6 Reference Figure (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Collector Street Road Upgrade Road Upgrade ROW Wetlands (green shading) Retail Hub (25-ac) Circulating Traffic System (10-ac) Housing (13-ac) Anchor & Entert/Hosp (11-ac) Medical Professional Retail(18-ac) Stormwater (3.4-ac) Bluff Creek Primary Corridor (BCOD) Ravine Public Watercourse Carver Co 10ft Contours 0.04-ac 0.89-ac 0.18-ac 0.97-ac 0.23-ac 0.10-ac 0.09-ac 0.06-ac 0.09-ac 0.28-ac 0.22-ac 1.01-ac (all three) Direct discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1100-ft Direct discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1000-ft Direct discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)500-ft Site is less than 0.5-mi from Minnesota River and MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge (directly south) Wetland impacts identified in white0.12-ac 0.10-ac 0.02-ac 50-ft gra d e c h a n g e80-f t grade change Wetland Impact = 4.12-acres, including offiste impacts for roadway upgrades. Layout is disconnected and short: 5 acres of retail etc., 5 acres of housing to meet project purpose andneed. Collector streets not likley approved by City.TH 212Pioneer Trail Bl u f f C r e e k Figure P - Proposed Site (Applicant's Preferred) Reference Figure (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Indirect discharge to Lake Susan(impaired water)5400-ft Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1200-ft 0.10-ac 3.45-ac(all three) 0.35-ac 0.02-ac 0.08-acWetland impacts identified in white Legend Proposed Site Alternative Sites - Copy Collector Street Wetlands (green shading) Waterway Retail Hub Circulating Traffic System Housing (18-acres) Anchor & Entert/Hosp (11.5-acres) Medical Professional Retail (23-acres) Stormwater (3.5-acres) Bluff Creek Primary Corridor (BCOD) Public Watercourse Alternative Site 3 Alt Site 4 TH 212Powers BlvdWetland Impact = 4.00-acres. Waterway impact = 383.5-ft. Layout is connected and meets project purpose and need. Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX C Wetland Delineation Notice of Decision Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX D Wetland Delineation Addendum 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952-401-8757, Fax: 952-401-8798 Memorandum Date: January 9, 2017 To: Terry Jeffery, City of Chanhassen Ryan Malterud, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cc: Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services, LLC From: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company Re: Delineation Addendum AVIENDA, CHANHASSEN, MN (formerly The District at Vincent Ridge) This memo provides an addendum to the 2015 City approved wetland delineation for the Avienda site in Chanhassen, MN (Figure 1). Background Information Eight wetlands were originally identified and delineated on the Avienda site as illustrated on Figure 2. These wetlands (Wetlands 1 through 8) were reviewed and approved in November 2015 by the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) (City of Chanhassen) (Appendix C) when the site was under contract by a different developer and was known as “The District at Vincent Ridge”. Previous delineation reports/memos describe the 2015 approved delineation in more detail and included National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and soil survey mapping. Copies of those reports/memos are available upon request. In 2016, the new developer for the site contracted with Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES) for wetland permitting services. As part of the wetland permit application, MnRAM analyses based on wetland characteristics is required to determine wetland buffer widths. As such, KES visited the site on September 28, 2016 to document wetlands and their adjacent upland characteristics for completing the MnRAM analyses. During that visit, two additional wetlands were identified and delineated. Wetland 9 Wetland 9 was a 0.10-acre, Type 1 (PEMAfd) partially-drained, farmed, seasonally flooded basin that was drained by an incised and back cutting gully. Page 2 of 2 Wetland 9 was historically an approximately 0.69-acre Type 2 wetland. On April 6, 2007 the City of Chanhassen approved a WCA agricultural exemption allowing the landowner (Fox Properties, LP) to impact Wetland 9 (Attachment A). The WCA exemption expires after 10 years (i.e., expiration date of April 6, 2017). Any impact within the area of historic Wetland 9 prior to the expiration date would require replacement. After April 6, 2017, any required replacement would be based on wetland that currently exits. Therefore, wetland that currently exists in or near the area of historic Wetland 9 was delineated during the September 2016 site visit (Figure 2). A data sheet documenting the 2016 boundary for Wetland 9 is included in Attachment B. A review of all available FSA photos (198o’s to present) was not completed for the area of Wetland 9 since they are not all representative of post-exemption site conditions. Instead, available FSA photos from post-2007 (2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2015) were reviewed for wetland signatures in and around the area of Wetland 9. The delineated boundary of Wetland 9 corresponds to saturated soil signatures observed in 2013 and 2015 (Attachment C). Wetland Signature Observations for 2016 Delineated Wetland 9 Year Climatic Condition Wetland Signature 2008 Normal None 2009 Dry None 2010 Normal None 2013 Wet Saturated Soil 2015 Normal Saturated Soil Wetland 10 Wetland 10 was a 0.07-acre, Type 1 (PFO1A) primarily unvegetated, seasonally flooded basin located in the southwest woodland. During the September 2016 site visit, KES observed surface runoff flowing into the northwest edge of Wetland 4 from upslope. After following a shallow and mostly dry drainageway/swale to the top of the woodland, Wetland 10 was discovered (Figure 2). Based on wetland type, Wetland 10 would have water only during the springtime in normal years and could easily be missed. It is likely that the hydrology observed during the site visit was a function of the wetter than normal fall precipitation conditions of the 2016 growing season (Attachment C). A data sheet documenting the 2016 boundary for Wetland 10 is included in Attachment B. Wetlands 1 Through 8 Wetlands 1 through 8 were observed to be as originally delineated (Figure 2) during the September 28, 2016 site visit. With submission of this delineation addendum we request that the wetland boundary and type for Wetlands 9 and 10 be approved by the LGU. We are requesting delineation concurrence and a PJD from the USACE. Attachment A of the Joint Application Form is included within Appendix A of the Avienda Wetland Permit Application. © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 916914 912918 920 910908 906 9 0 4 902 900898 896894 892890 888 8868849229249269289 3 0 882 932 880934 936946 878 938 940 876 942 944 874 872870948950 952 954 956958 934 928 938924 932 936 914 950 942890892 878910888 88 4 926 908912898948 934 894896912936 944 9 2 2 932 920952 954 874906924 918 950 916 934872 902 932 9 2 6884 946876904928 9349 4 4 942 9309 2 4 94092 0 920946 9 0 6 930 914916 926 910916 910 900920906 938904 916936 898 902904930 918914940 930 924928 9 0 0 874 916896 934952 9489189149309 3 8 936 946 912896 900874900886 908 910916924938 892944 9 1 6 91 4 894 928926 90690293289892 2 938918870Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2016 7-County Photo) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Legend Proposed Site Historic Wetland 9 Transect Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Ag Tile Carver County Lidar Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 0.7816-ac WL3 0.6696-ac Historic WL9 2016 WL9 0.0985-ac WL5 0.3483-ac WL4 0.1253-ac WL2 2.2569-ac WL1 1.001-ac WL1/2 0.1860-ac WL7 0.0150-ac WL8 0.0844-ac WL10 0.0740-ac Buildings shown here no longer present SP9 SP10 Avienda Delineation Addendum ATTACHMENT A WCA Notice of Decision Avienda Delineation Addendum ATTACHMENT B Wetland Determination Data Forms 1/9/2017 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database http://climate.umn.edu/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=456391&passYutm83=4965441&passcounty=Carver&passcounty_number=10…1/1 Minnesota Climatology Working Group   State Climatology Office ‐ DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources     University of Minnesota home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | contact  us  | search |   Precipitation  Worksheet  Using  Gridded  Database Precipitation  data for  target  wetland  location: county: Carver township number: 116N township name: Lake Minnewashta range number: 23W nearest community: Chanhassen section number: 23 Aerial  photograph  or  site visit  date:   Thursday, September  01, 2016 Score using  1981-2010 normal  period   values are in inches  A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: August 2016 second prior month:  July  2016 third prior month: June 2016 estimated precipitation  total  for  this location:10.01 5.49 3.80 there is a 30% chance this location  will  have less than:3.11 2.94 3.27 there is a 30% chance this location  will  have more than:5.25 4.23 5.27 type of month:   dry  normal   wet wet wet normal monthly  score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 2 = 2   multi-month score:  6 to 9 (dry)    10 to 14 (normal)    15 to 18 (wet)17 (Wet) Other  Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 1/9/2017 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database http://climate.umn.edu/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=456391&passYutm83=4965441&passcounty=Carver&passcounty_number=10…1/1 Minnesota Climatology Working Group   State Climatology Office ‐ DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources     University of Minnesota home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | contact  us  | search |   Precipitation  Worksheet  Using  Gridded  Database Precipitation  data for  target  wetland  location: county: Carver township number: 116N township name: Lake Minnewashta range number: 23W nearest community: Chanhassen section number: 23 Aerial  photograph  or  site visit  date:   Saturday, October  01, 2016 Score using  1981-2010 normal  period   values are in  inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates  a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: September 2016 second prior month: August 2016 third prior month: July  2016 estimated  precipitation  total  for this location:5.60 10.01 5.49 there is a 30% chance this location  will  have less than:2.48 3.11 2.94 there is a 30% chance this location will  have more than:4.35 5.25 4.23 type of month:   dry  normal   wet wet wet wet monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 3 = 3   multi-month  score: 6 to 9 (dry)    10 to 14 (normal)    15 to 18 (wet)18 (Wet) Other  Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Stunted soybeans, low overall percent cover. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP9-wetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat to slight concave Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 25 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 00 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 0 00 0.00% Y 0 Glycine Max 25 Y UPL (Plot size: 5 0 5.00 25 125 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 25 125 00 00 Absolute % Cover30 Wetland 9f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). Farmed = not normal circumstances. Vegetation = disturbed. Y Dominant Species Indicator Status X Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Lester-Kilkenny NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: swale Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers  Midwest Region         Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Surface soil was saturated from recent rain, pockets of standing water present on surface. D2 may not apply due to drainage by gully. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Sampling Point:SP9-wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region             Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: flat farm field Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N Lester-Kilkenny NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). Farmed = not normal circumstances. Vegetation = disturbed. N Dominant Species Indicator Status 00 00 0 5.00 50 250 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 50 250 Glycine Max 50 Y UPL (Plot size: 5 N 0 Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 50 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 00 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 00 0.00% Healthy soybeans, normal overall percent cover. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP9-uplMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat/linear Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers  Midwest Region         Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP9-upl Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X Surface soil was wet from recent rain, no pockets of standing water present on surface. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region             Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Some sedge present in wetland. Green ash not in wetland, but overhanging edges. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP10-wetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 0 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 25 50 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 00 100.00% Y 0 (Plot size: 5 0 2.00 25 50 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 00 00 00 Absolute % Cover30 Wetland 10f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). Y Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Y FACW Dominant Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes N Kilkenny-Lester NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: slight depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers  Midwest Region         Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X X Aquatic Fauna (B13) X True Aquatic Plants (B14) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Water table = apparent water table. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) 2Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2+ 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) X Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Sampling Point:SP10-wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region             Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: flat woodland Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N Kilkenny-Lester NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). N Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Y FACW Dominant Species Indicator Status Quercus rubra 15 Y FACU 00 00 0 2.75 40 110 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 00 (Plot size: 5 N 0 Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 0 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 25 50 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 15 60 50.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP10-uplMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat/linear Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers  Midwest Region         Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP10-upl Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region             Avienda Delineation Addendum ATTACHMENT C FSA Photos   2008 FSA Photo (Normal Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2009 FSA Photo (Dry Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2010 FSA Photo (Normal Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2013 FSA Photo (Wet Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2015 FSA Photo (Normal Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX E Historic Photos, Topographic Maps 1940 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1947 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1951 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1957 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1963 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1966 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1970 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1980 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1984 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1991 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1997 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 2003 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1905 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1907 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1958 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1958 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1972 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1993 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 2013 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX F MnRAM Analysis Output Results Wetland Community Summary Avienda Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community * PEMA Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL3 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL4 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL6 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL7/8 Low Low Low100 PFO1A Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.510-116-23-23-001Avienda WL10 Moderate Moderate Moderate100 PEMF Type 4 Deep Marsh 60 0.510-116-23-23-001Avienda MnDOT WL PSS1B Type 6 Shrub Carr 20 0.5 PEM1A Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 20 0.5 Moderate Moderate Moderate100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 80 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL1 PEMCd Type 3 Shallow Marsh 20 0.5 Moderate Low Low100 PUBG Type 5 Shallow, Open Water Communities 0 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL2 PEMBd Type 2 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 2 * Denotes incomplete calculation data. Wetland Community Summary Avienda Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community * Low Low Not Applicable PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL5 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL9 Low Low Low100 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 2 of 2 * Denotes incomplete calculation data. Wetland Name Maint. of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maint. of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline Protection Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Avienda HydrogeomorphologyLocationWSSA Moderate High High Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL3 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) Avienda WL4 10-116-23-23-001933 Moderate Moderate High Moderate Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL6 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL7/8 10-116-23-23-001933 High Moderate High High Not ApplicableDepressional/Isolated (no discernable inlets or outlets)Avienda WL10 10-116-23-23-001933 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda MnDOT WL 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) Avienda WL1 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL2 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL5 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL9 10-116-23-23-001933 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maint. of Char. of Wildlife Habitat Maint.of Char. Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Avienda Maint. of Char. Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Develop.Location RechargeModerateNot Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowLowAvienda WL3 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeModerateNot Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowModerateAvienda WL4 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateModerateNot ApplicabAvienda WL6 10-116-23-23-001 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowNot ApplicabAvienda WL7/8 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeHighNot Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ExceptionalHighHighAvienda WL10 10-116-23-23-001 Combination Discharge, Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateModerateLowAvienda MnDOT WL 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowLowAvienda WL1 10-116-23-23-001 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowLowAvienda WL2 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Low Low Moderate ExceptionalLowNot ApplicabAvienda WL5 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Low Low Moderate ExceptionalLowNot ApplicabAvienda WL9 10-116-23-23-001 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) 0.33 0.66 0.55 0.30 0.00Avienda WL1 Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowLow 0.30 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.300.17Avienda WL1 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 80 0.1 0.50 0.30 0.18 Moderate Low Low Avienda WL1 10-116-23-23-001 PEMCd Type 3 Shallow Marsh 20 0.5 0.50 0.30 0.18 Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low1000.50 0.30 0.18 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 16Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL1 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/FlowThru 8-1 6 inches 8-2 50% 9 40 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 C 14 C 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 C 23 20 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEMCd Type 3 Plant Community:Shallow Marsh Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 C 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 C 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 C 55 A 56 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Discharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 1.03 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.20 0.51 0.42 0.20 0.00Avienda WL2 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowLow 0.28 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.200.23Avienda WL2 PUBG Type 5 Shallow, Open Water Communities 0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.00 Low Low Not Applicable Avienda WL2 10-116-23-23-001 PEMBd Type 2 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.00 Low Low Not Applicable PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.00 Low Low Not Applicable Low Low Not Applicable0.10 0.10 0.00 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 17Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL2 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 60 inche 8-2 60% 9 40 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 B 14 C 15 C 16 80% 17 NA 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PUBG Type 5 Plant Community:Shallow, Open Water C Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEMBd Type 2 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% 26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 B 38 C 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 B 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 C Native Mixed Sparse Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 55 A 56 C 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Discharge 62 Discharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 2.33 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Moderate High High Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.55 0.77 0.68 0.33 0.00Avienda WL3 Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowLow 0.36 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.330.15Avienda WL3 PEMA Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL3 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Page 1 of 1 8Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL3 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 6 inches 8-2 5% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 A 14 C 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 A 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMA Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 100% 26-B 0% 26-C 0% 27 A 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 B 50 Yes 51 C 52 B 53 B 54 C 55 B 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.58 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/13/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) 0.33 0.58 0.52 0.30 0.00Avienda WL4 Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowModerate 0.38 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.300.37Avienda WL4 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL4 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 9Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL4 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/FlowThru 8-1 6 inches 8-2 50% 9 40 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 C 23 50 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 A 42 Adequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 B 55 A 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.13 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.10 0.49 0.39 0.18 0.00Avienda WL5 Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Low Moderate Exceptional LowNot Applicable 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.53 0.10 0.180.00Avienda WL5 PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL5 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Page 1 of 1 18Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL5 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 1 inches 8-2 100% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 C 16 50% 17 C 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 C 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 C 40 B 41 B 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56 C 57 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 Yes 65 A 66 0.36 0 0 67 30 feet 68 A 69 Drain Tiles, Lowere d Outlet 70 1 71 C 72 A Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/13/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Moderate Moderate High Moderate Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.43 0.56 0.70 0.35 0.00Avienda WL6 Recharge Low Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate ModerateNot Applicable 0.27 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.350.00Avienda WL6 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL6 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 12Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL6 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 0 inches 8-2 0% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 B 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 A 19 B 20 A 21 C 22 B 23 50 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 25% 26-C 75% 27 A 28 C 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 C 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 B 50 Yes 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 C 55 B 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.78 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.20 0.53 0.45 0.23 0.00Avienda WL7/8 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowNot Applicable 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.230.00Avienda WL7/8 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL7/8 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 13Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL7/8 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 0 inches 8-2 0% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 B 16 100% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 C 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 C 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Discharge 63 Discharge 64 No 65 66 0.08 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.10 0.49 0.39 0.18 0.00Avienda WL9 Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Low Moderate Exceptional LowNot Applicable 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.38 0.10 0.180.00Avienda WL9 PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL9 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Page 1 of 1 19Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL9 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 1 inches 8-2 100% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 C 16 50% 17 C 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 C 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 C 40 B 41 B 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56 C 57 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 Yes 65 A 66 0.1 0 0 67 30 feet 68 C 69 Lowere d Outlet 70 1 71 C 72 A Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/13/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. High Moderate High High Not Applicable Depressional/Isolated (no discernable inlets or outlets)1.00 0.55 0.70 0.83 0.00Avienda WL10 Recharge High Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Exceptional HighHigh 0.74 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.830.67Avienda WL10 PFO1A Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Avienda WL10 10-116-23-23-001 Moderate Moderate Moderate1000.50 0.50 0.50 Saturday, December 10, 2016 Page 1 of 1 14Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL10 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Isolated 8-1 12 inche 8-2 100% 9 15 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 A 14 A 15 A 16 30% 17 NA 18 A 19 B 20 C 21 B 22 A 23 50 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 75% 25-B 25% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PFO1A Type 1 Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 100% 26-B 0% 26-C 0% 27 A 28 A 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 C 40 A 41 A 42 Adequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 A 54 A 55 A 56 B 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.07 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 Exceptional 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/10/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.52 0.63 0.58 0.45 0.00Avienda MnDOT WL Combination Discharge, Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate ModerateLow 0.51 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.450.30Avienda MnDOT WL PEMF Type 4 Deep Marsh 60 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Avienda MnDOT WL 10-116-23-23-001 PSS1B Type 6 Shrub Carr 20 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate PEM1A Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 20 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate1000.50 0.50 0.50 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 15Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda MnDOT WL Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 48 inche 8-2 60% 9 60 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 B 14 B 15 A 16 75% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 40 feet 24-A 70% 24-B 0% 24-C 30% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMF Type 4 Plant Community:Deep Marsh Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PSS1B Type 6 Plant Community:Shrub Carr Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEM1A Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 25-A 25% 25-B 50% 25-C 25% 26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 B 39 B 40 A 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 B 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 B 50 Yes 51 A 52 C 53 A 54 C Native Mixed Sparse Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 55 C 56 B 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Discharge 62 Discharge 63 Discharge 64 No 65 66 11.5 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 A 72 C Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX G Onsite Alternatives Concept Plans Lyman BoulevardPowers BoulevardAvienda ParkwayU S H w y 2 1 2 Bluff Creek Boulevard Bethesda CircleLyman BoulvevardJersey WayMills DriveRiver Rock Drive N Degler CircleRIVER ROCK DR SJeurissen Lane Sunset TrailPowers BoulevardBluff Creek Boulevard25,000 S.F. x 2 STORIESRETAILRETAILRETAILRETAILRETAIL25,000 S.F. x 2 STORIESRETAIL ANCHOR8,000 S.F.8,000 S.F.8,000 S.F.8,000 S.F.6,000 S.F.RETAIL6,000 S.F.8,000 S.F.10,000 S.F.10,000 S.F.25,000 S.F.OFFICE C18,000 S.F.18,000 S.F.REST C90,000 S.F.REST D20,000 S.F.20,000 S.F.20,000 S.F.60,000 S.F.REST A25,000 S.F. x 2 STORIES6,500 S.F.6,500 S.F.6,500 S.F.7,000 S.F.APARTMENTS8,000 S.F.115,000 S.F.16,000 S.F.40,000 S.F.RETAIL20,000 S.F.12,000 S.F.76,000 S.F.15,000 S.F.20,000 S.F.OFFICE AOFFICE BRETAILRETAILRETAILRETAILRETAILHOTEL A RETAILRETAILRETAILRETAILREST BAPARTMENTSDAYCARE RETAILRETAILRETAILRETAILTWIN HOME35337185178369537103115336101111379466306114539187NABLOFGIJKEDCPR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WHMR/WPRPRR/WR/WRegional MapLegendStallFuture Traffic SignalExisting Traffic SignalStall CountPublic Right Of WayRegional CommercialOfficeHigh Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialPreservationPondingNotesDevelopment plan shown forschematic purposes only andsubject to change.CONCEPT AWetland Impact Exhibit- Preferred Alternative -NORTH0 150 300AVIENDALandform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.RRin collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENTRSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND COLLIERSAVIENDA xChanhassen, MNWetland and BufferPRR/W12494103941695169556210062MISSISSIPPI RIVERBLOOMINGTONMINNEAPOLIS35WSITE949469435W35W3535E494494949435W21216916910012MINNESOTA RIVERCHANHASSENMAPLE GROVEArea DataGross Area:Net Areas:R.O.W: Wetland:Preservation (excludes wetlands):Wetland Buffer/SetbackStorm Water/Inaccessible119.88 Acres16.60 Acres0.75 Acres16.06 Acres1.41 Acres6.30 AcresNet Developable Area:78.76 AcresArea Of Wetland Impact:5.00 AcresDevelopment DataSection GrossArea(Acres)NetDevelopableArea(Acres)BuildingArea (S.F.)ParkingStallsUnits/BedsParkingRatio(Stalls per1,000 S.F.or per Unit)8.29 8.29 90,000 4665.21.79 1.79 10,000 11511.510.517.5493,000 539 315 1.79.28 6.44 76,000n/a385.29 4.10 50,000 3066.11.58 1.58 16,000 352.24.30 4.30 50,000 3366.74.21 4.21 50,000 3376.71.50 1.32 6,500 11117.11.58 1.20 6,500 11417.52.05 1.65 6,500 10115.51.84 1.84 7,000 10314.725.67 25.67 257,000 12855.03.49 3.49 36,000 1875.22.76 2.76 25,000 185 100 1.92.58 2.58 40,000 178 92 1.916.600.00n/a n/a16.560.00n/a n/aTotal119.88 78.76819,500 4,398545n/aABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPPRR/W OFFICE C25,000 S.F.x 2 STORIESDAYCARE6,000 S.F.RETAIL ANCHOR90,000 S.F.RETAIL18,000 S.F.OFFICE C25,000 S.F.x 2 STORIESOFFICE B25,000 S.F. x 2 STORIESRETAIL18,000 S.F.APARTMENTS40,000 S.F.REST A7,000 S.F.RETAIL20,000 S.F.LYMAN BOULEVARDSUNSET TRAILAVIENDA PARKWAYBLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD POWERS BOULEVARDMILLS DR.U S HW Y . 2 1 2 JERSEY WAYDEGLER CIRBETHESDA CIRRIVER ROCK DR N POWERS BOULEVARDRIVER ROCK DR SLYMAN BOULEVARDJEURISSEN LN RETAIL32,000 S.F.RETAIL18,000 S.F.RETAIL10,000 S.F.HOTEL13,000 S.F.RETAIL18,000 S.F.4501035037015016040044361363261327R/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WR/WABCDEFGGMLKJIHHKKLGPRPRR/WR/WRegional MapDevelopment DataSection GrossArea(Acres)NetDevelopableArea(Acres)Building Area(S.F.)ParkingStallsUnits/BedsParkingRatio(Stalls per1,000 S.F.or per Unit)7.88 7.88 90,000 4505.01.80 1.80 7,000 10314.71.22 1.22 10,000 505.07.69 7.22 74,000 3705.02.66 2.66 13,000 150 150 1.02.75 2.61 40,000 160 80 2.022.34 19.12 160,000801.95 1.36 6,000447.35.51 5.51 50,000 3617.24.79 4.79 50,000 3637.313.93 3.51 50,000 2615.27.50 6.04 50,000 3276.57.02 7.02 75,000 400 200 2.014.48 0.00n/a n/a18.360.00n/a n/aTotal119.88 70.74675,000 3,039510n/aLegendStallFuture Traffic SignalExisting Traffic SignalStall CountPublic Right Of WayABCDEFGHIJKLMRegional CommercialOfficeHigh Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialPreservationPondingNotesDevelopment plan shown forschematic purposes only andsubject to change.CONCEPT BWetland Impact Exhibit- Partial Impact -NORTH0 150 300AVIENDALandform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.RRin collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENTRSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND COLLIERSAVIENDA xChanhassen, MNWetland and Buffer/SetbackPRR/WPRR/W12494103941695169556210062MISSISSIPPI RIVERBLOOMINGTONMINNEAPOLIS35WSITE949469435W35W3535E494494949435W21216916910012MINNESOTA RIVERCHANHASSENMAPLE GROVEArea DataGross Area:Net Areas:R.O.W: Wetland:Preservation (excludes wetlands):Wetland Buffer/Setback:Storm Water/Inaccessible119.88 Acres14.48 Acres4.42 Acres17.14 Acres5.00 Acres8.10 AcresNet Developable Area:70.74 AcresArea Of Wetland Impact:1.33 Acres BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD AVIENDA PARKWAYMILLS DR.U S HW Y . 2 1 2 DEGLER CIRSUNSET TRAILRIVER ROCK DR N JERSEY WAYBETHESDA CIRPOWERS BOULEVARDRETAIL18,000 S.F.RIVER ROCK DR SOFFICE B25,000 S.F. x 2 STORIESRETAIL26,300 S.F.RE T A I L 10,0 0 0 S . F . RETAIL13,000 S.F.RETAIL ANCHOR90,000 S.F.REST A7,000 S.F.RETAIL10,000 S.F.OFFICE A12,500HOTEL A 13,000 S.F. DAYCARE6,000 S.F. O F F I C E C 25 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E SRETAIL7,000 S.F.JEURISSEN LN LYMAN BOULEVARDPOWERS BOULEVARDRETAIL5,000 S.F.LYMAN BOULEVARDTWN. HM.76,000 S.F.OFFICE C25,000 S.F.x 2 STORIES3533414535912521331314477LAJFGICR/WDR/WR/WR/WHR/W117270104357ER/WBMR/WK51IIFLPRPRR/WR/WRegional MapDevelopment DataSection GrossArea(Acres)NetDevelopableArea(Acres)Building Area(S.F.)ParkingStallsUnits/BedsParkingRatio(Stalls per1,000 S.F.or per Unit)6.67 6.67 90,000 3574.01.55 1.55 13,000 51 148 0.45.63 5.43 25,000 77 75 1.79.29 6.38 76,000n/a385.29 2.40 12,500 14411.51.65 1.06 6,000 355.84.72 4.72 50,000 3597.24.14 4.14 50,000 3346.714.25 3.44 50,000 2134.31.93 1.93 7,000 10414.914.19 12.72 58,300 58310.08.29 4.31 18,000 27015.04.23 3.58 13,000 1179.014.92 0.00n/a n/a23.13 0.00n/a n/aTotal119.88 58.33468,800 2,644261n/aLegendStallFuture Traffic SignalExisting Traffic SignalStall CountPublic Right Of WayABCDEFGHIJKLMRegional CommercialOfficeHigh Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialPreservationPondingNotesDevelopment plan shown forschematic purposes only andsubject to change.CONCEPT CWetland Impact Exhibit-Avoidance-NORTH0 150 300AVIENDALandform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.RRin collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENTRSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND COLLIERSAVIENDA xChanhassen, MNWetland and BufferPRR/WPRR/W12494103941695169556210062MISSISSIPPI RIVERBLOOMINGTONMINNEAPOLIS35WSITE949469435W35W3535E494494949435W21216916910012MINNESOTA RIVERCHANHASSENMAPLE GROVEArea DataGross Area:Net Areas:R.O.W: Wetland:Preservation (excludes wetlands):Wetland Buffer/SetbackStorm Water/Inaccessible119.88 Acres14.92 Acres5.71 Acres21.91 Acres9.49 Acres9.52 AcresNet Developable Area:58.33 AcresArea Of Wetland Impact:0 Acres Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX H Grading Plan Lyman BoulevardPowers BoulevardAvienda ParkwayU S H w y 2 1 2 Bluff Creek Boulevard Degler CircleBethesda CircleLyman BoulvevardJersey WayMills DriveRiver Rock Drive NRIVER ROCK DR SJeurissen Lane Sunset TrailPowers BoulevardBluff Creek Boulevard01.06.2017NORTH0 150 300AVIENDALandform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.RRin collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENTRSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND COLLIERSAVIENDA xChanhassen, MNPROPOSEDGRADE Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX I Rare Species Information White-Nose Syndrome Zone Around WNS/Pd Positive Counties/Districts Northern Long-Eared Bat Final 4(d) RuleU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Map Created January 29, 2016 Northern Long-Eared Bat range and WNS Zone subject to change as new data are collected. WNS = White-Nose Syndrome Pd = Pseudogymnoascus destructans ; the fungus that causes WNS Counties/Districts with WNS/Pd Infected Hibernacula White-Nose Syndrome Zone Per Final 4(d) Rule U.S. counties within 150 miles of positive counties/districts (Data as of 01/26/16; additional updates expected) Northern Long-Eared Bat Range (As of 04/30/2015) 0 150 300 450 600 Miles Coordinate System: North America Equidistant Conic Datum: North American 1983 WNS Counties/Districts Data Provided By: Pennsylvania Game Commission Basemap Data: USGS TOWNSHIPS CONTAINING NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT ROOST TREES AND/OR HIBERNACULA Minnesota DNR/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 6, 2015  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules restrict activity around northern long-eared bat roost trees and hibernacula. See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html for more information on the northern long-eared bat and its protection.  The townships listed below contain one or more northern long-eared bat roost trees and/or hibernacula  A roost tree may be identified to a specific tree or to a general location (e.g. within ½ mile)  If a project involving tree removal is not within a listed township, no further action is required  If a project involving tree removal is planned within an identified township, you may: o Submit a data request to the DNR for a printed copy of precise locational information (see http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/nhnrp/nhis.html#datarequest) o Apply to the DNR for a data license to obtain a digital copy of precise locational information (see http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/nhnrp/nhis.html#datarequest) o Contact the USFWS to obtain detailed information and advice on how to proceed with your project (see contact information at the bottom) o Also contact USFWS if your project involves federal funding, a federal permit, or federal lands  These data are current as of June 6, 2015. Updates of this information will be released twice annually on April 1 and October 1  As of this date, there are 25 known hibernacula and 163 known roost trees in Minnesota County Township Contains one or more Hibernaculum Contains one or more Roost Tree Aitkin T139N R25W X Aitkin T48N R23W X Aitkin T48N R24W X Aitkin T48N R25W X Aitkin T49N R24W X Aitkin T49N R25W X Aitkin T49N R26W X Aitkin T50N R26W X Aitkin T51N R27W X Carlton T47N R18W X Carlton T47N R19W X Carlton T47N R20W X Carlton T47N R21W X Carlton T48N R17W X Carlton T48N R18W X Carlton T48N R19W X Carlton T48N R20W X Carlton T48N R21W X Cass T133N R29W X Cass T139N R25W X Cass T139N R26W X Cass T139N R27W X Cass T139N R28W X Cass T51N R27W X Chisago T32N R19W X Crow Wing T138N R29W X Fillmore T102N R12W X Fillmore T103N R13W X Fillmore T104N R10W X Fillmore T104N R12W X Goodhue T112N R15W X Goodhue T113N R14W X Hubbard T144N R35W X Lake T56N R7W X Lake T60N R9W X Lake T62N R11W X Lake T63N R11W X Morrison T130N R30W X Morrison T131N R30W X Morrison T133N R29W X Morrison T133N R30W X Nicollet T110N R26W X Pine T42N R20W X Ramsey T28N R22W X Ramsey T28N R23W X Stearns T124N R28W X St. Louis T62N R12W X St. Louis T62N R15W X Winona T106N R7W X Winona T107N R9W X For more information, contact: Lisa Mandell, Deputy Field Supervisor Rich Baker, Endangered Species Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office Division of Ecological and Water Resources 4101 American Blvd E., Bloomington, MN 55425 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155 lisa_mandell@fws.gov richard.baker@state.mn.us 612-725-3548 651-259-5073 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update APPENDIX 3—CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT (INCLUDING AVIENDA PHASE 1 ARCHEAOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY) CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE CHANHASSEN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR), CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Submitted to: Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Submitted by: The 106 Group Ltd. May 2003 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE CHANHASSEN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR), CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA SHPO File No. Pending The 106 Group Project No. 03-12 Submitted to: Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North Third Street Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Submitted by: The 106 Group Ltd. The Dacotah Building 370 Selby Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 Report Authors: William E. Stark, M.A. Andrea C. Vermeer, M.A., RPA May 2003 Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................................i LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................................i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................................................3 2.1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH METHODS.......................................................................................................3 2.2 A RCHAEOLOGY STUDY A REA...................................................................................................................3 2.3 A RCHAEOLOGY FIELD METHODS .............................................................................................................3 2.4 A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY STUDY A REA..................................................................................................4 2.5 A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY FIELD METHODS............................................................................................4 3.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ..............................................................................................................5 3.1 A RCHAEOLOGY............................................................................................................................................5 3.2 A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY..........................................................................................................................5 4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................7 4.1 A RCHAEOLOGY............................................................................................................................................7 4.1 A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY..........................................................................................................................8 REFERENCES CITED ..............................................................................................................................................12 APPENDIX A: PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX B: LIST OF PERSONNEL LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. ST UDY A REA AND A RCHAEOLOGY RESULTS...........................................................................................2 FIGURE 2. A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY RESULTS...........................................................................................................9 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. A RCHAEOLOGICAL SITES W ITHIN STUDY A REA.......................................................................................5 TABLE 2. A RCHAEOLOGICAL SITES W ITHIN ONE MILE OF STUDY A REA..............................................................5 TABLE 3. A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY PROPERTIES.....................................................................................................10 Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 21, 2003, The 106 Group Ltd. (The 106 Group) conducted a cultural resources assessment for the Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The assessment was conducted under contract with Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. for the City of Chanhassen. The study area is located in Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27, T116N, R23W (Figure 1). This report is intended to provide preliminary cultural resour ces information for completion of the AUAR and to assist in future compliance requirements under federal and state law. If the regulatory review for this project is at the state or local level, consultation with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is appropriate. If there will be any federal involvement in the future (for example, through funding or permitting), consultation with the applicable federal agency and SHPO is required. The purpose of this cultural resources assessment was to identify any historic properties within the study area of the Chanhassen AUAR that require further investigation in order to determine their potential eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to eliminate those properties that are clearly not eligible. In addition, the survey assessed the project area's potential for containing previously unidentified archaeological resources. Should the boundaries of the Chanhassen AUAR be altered from their current configuration, the study area for architecture-history and archaeological resources will need to be adjusted as appropriate. The cultural resources assessment for the AUAR included background research, a visual reconnaissance of the entire study area, assessment of a rchaeological potentials within the study area, and photographic documentation of buildings and structures 50 years of age or older within the study area. The study area for archaeological and architecture-history resources was approximately 650 acres (263 hectares). Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 3 2.0 METHODS 2.1 BACKGROUND R ESEARCH M ETHODS On May 16, 2003, prior to fieldwork, background research was conducted using the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) site files for information on previously identified archaeological sites and architecture-history properties within one mile (1.6 kilometer [km]) of the study area and on cultural resources surveys previously conducted within the study area. In addition, researchers examined historical maps and aerial photographs of the study area. 2.2 ARCHAEOLOGY STUDY AREA The study area for archaeology included all areas where construction or other ground - disturbing activities related to the project might take place. Based on construction plans available in May of 2003, the Chanhassen AUAR study area is approximately 27,878,400 square feet (ft.) (2,589,903 square meters [m]). The total survey area for archaeology is approximately 650 acres (263 hectares). 2.3 ARCHAEOLOGY FIELD M ETHODS The project archaeologist conducted an assessment (windshield survey) of the study area to identify areas with moderate or high archaeological potential. Such areas were defined as the undisturbed portions of the study area: · within 500 ft. (150 m) of an existing or former water source of 40 acres (19 hectares) or greater in extent, or within 500 ft. (150 m) of a former or existing perennial stream; · located on topographically prominent landscape features; · located within 300 ft. (100 m) of a previo usly reported site; or · located within 300 ft. (100 m) of a former or existing historic structure or feature (such as a building foundation or cellar depression). In addition, archaeologists compared historical documentation, such as plat maps and aerial photographs, with current field conditions to assess the potential within the survey area for intact historical archaeological sites. Areas defined as having a relatively low potential for containing intact archaeological resources included inundated areas, former or existing wetland areas, poorly drained areas, and areas with a 20 percent or greater slope. Low potential areas and areas in which Holocene (less than 10,000 years old) deposits have been significantly disturbed are defined as having little or no potential for containing intact archaeological resources. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 4 2.4 ARCHITECTURE-H ISTORY S TUDY AREA The study area for architecture-history took into account potential effects to historic resources, including physical alterations to buildings, increases in levels of noise or pollution, changes in visual or aesthetic qualities, or changes in traffic densities or patterns. The study area for architecture-history resources comprised the entire area of the Chanhassen AUAR, which is approximately 650 acres (263 hectares). 2.5 ARCHITECTURE-H ISTORY FIELD M ETHODS During the field survey, the project historian completed an inventory of the buildings and structures within the study area in order to identify properties that appeared to be 50 years of age or older. Those resour ces were photographed and assessed for historical integrity. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 5 3.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATI ONS 3.1 ARCHAEOLOGY No archaeological surveys have been previously conducted within the Chanhassen AUAR study area. Two reported (not field checked) archaeological sites (21CRaj, 21CRak) are located within the study area for the Chanhassen AUAR (Table 1; see Figure 1). There are seven additional previously recorded (confirmed) archaeological sites (21CR14, 21CR15, 21CR97, 21CR103, 21CR104, 21CR108, 21CR109) within a one -mile (1.6-km) radius of the study area (Table 2). 3.2 ARCHITECTURE-H ISTORY No previous surveys have been conducted within the project area, although two county- wide surveys help to establish the historical context for architecture-history resources. Carver County was surveyed in 1977 as part of a comprehensive county-by-county survey of the state for all cultural resource types. This survey provided a baseline inventory for the county’s historical resources. As a follow-up to that survey, the Minnesota Historical Society published Carver County: A Guide to Its Historic and TABLE 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL S ITES WITHIN STUDY AREA Site No. Site Name T R S ¼ Sec. Description NRHP Status 21CRaj unnamed 116N 23W 23 SE-SW -SW -SW Reported mound group Not evaluated 21CRak unnamed 116N 23W 23 SE-SE-SE-SW Reported burial Not evaluated TABLE 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL S ITES WITHIN ONE M ILE OF STUDY AREA Site No. Site Name T R S ¼ Sec. Description NRHP Status 21CR14 unnamed 116N 23W 22 N-SW -SW -SW Artifact scatter Not evaluated 21CR15 unnamed 116N 23W 22 W -NE-SE-SW Lithic scatter Not evaluated 21CR97 unnamed 116N 23W 21 NW-NW-NE-SE Single flake Not evaluated 21CR103 unnamed 116N 23W 27 SE-NW-SE Lithic scatter Determined not eligible 21CR104 unnamed 116N 23W 27 SW -NE-NE-SE Lithic scatter Not evaluated 21CR108 Lake Susan- Riley Creek 116N 23W 14 N-NW-NE-SE and S-SW -SE- NE Lithic scatter Not evaluated 21CR109 Lake Susan SW Shore 116N 23W 14/ 23 C-S-S-SE/ NE-NW-NE Lithic scatter and possib le mound group Not evaluated Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 6 Prehistoric Places (Lofstrom and Spaeth n.d.). This document provides a guide “to the landscape of the county, to its prehistoric settlers, to the European immigrants who settled the county in the nineteenth century and to the residents of Carver County since that time” (Lofstrom and Spaeth n.d.:i). No properties have been previously inventoried within the study area. A total of three farmsteads/houses have been inventoried within one mile (1.6 km) of the project area. These farmsteads, located just north of the project area on Audubon Rd., are indicative of the types of properties that may be considered to be significant within the study area. Each of the farmsteads (CR-CHC -004, CR-CHC-005, and CR-CHC -006) has a house made of Chaska brick and constructed circa 1890. Chaska brick is a locally manufactured brick known for its cream color. The Albertine and Fred Heck House (CR- CHC -006) is listed on the NRHP under Criterion A “as a well-preserved example of a building const ructed of Chaska brick” (Albertine and Fred Heck House NRHP nomination, on file at the Minnesota SHPO, St. Paul). It is located adjacent to the project area. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 7 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 ARCHAEOLOGY The topography of the Chanhassen AUAR study area is comprised of several high ridges and knolls surrounding the lower-lying Bluff Creek and associated wetlands. Most of these high ridges and knolls are situated within cultivated fields or are wooded, and they have undergone minimal or no disturbance. A few of the more eleva ted portions of the study area, however, have been heavily disturbed through the previous establishment of farmsteads, including houses, outbuildings, and graded driveways. The areas directly adjacent to Audubon Road, Lyman Boulevard, and Pioneer Trail ha ve been disturbed through the construction of those roads, and an area just south of Lyman Boulevard in the northwest portion of the project area has been disturbed by the previous construction of a city building. In addition, a low-lying location within the southeastern portion of the study area has been disturbed through the excavation of a sand or gravel pit, and a few of the areas adjacent to the creek are steeply sloped and/or eroded. In general, those portions of the study area that are steeply sloped, eroded, or heavily disturbed are considered to have low potential for intact archaeological resources (see Figure 1). The remaining portions of the study area consist of locations in proximity to Bluff Creek, to Hazeltine Lake to the west, and to wetlands connected to Lake Susan to the northeast by a stream, most of which are topographically prominent. These portions of the study area include the locations of two previously reported (not field checked) sites. Based, therefore, on their overall lack o f disturbance, their proximity to significant water sources and previously reported sites, and their topographic prominence, the remaining portions of the study area are considered to have high potential for intact precontact archaeological resources (see Figure 1). 4.1.1 Historical Maps Historical plat maps (Northwest Publishing Co. 1898; Hudson Map Company c. 1925) of the study area indicate that most of the early farmsteads within the study area remain standing. These farmsteads are addressed in the architect ure-history section of this report. Two residential buildings that are no longer extant, however, were present as early as 1898 in the central portion of the study area, and the former Chanhassen Town Hall had also been constructed in the northeast corner of the study area by that year (Northwest Publishing Co. 1898). Due to the apparent lack of disturbance in the locations of these structures, these locations, which fall within areas considered to have high potential for precontact archaeological resources, are considered to have moderate to high potential for intact post-contact archaeological resources. The potential significance, however, of any post-contact archaeological resources that might exist within the study area is not known at this stage. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 8 4.2 ARCHITECTURE-H ISTORY The 106 Group inventoried eight properties within the study area that contained buildings 50 years of age or older (Figure 2; Table 3). All of the properties are associated with farmsteads in this agricultural region. Building types include frame houses, barns, silos, granaries, chicken houses, and other outbuildings dating to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. House styles include a Queen Anne, a Craftsman-style bungalow, and American Foursquares. Photos of the properties are located in Appendix A. Due to its proximity to Chaska, this area is known for its houses constructed of Chaska brick, a distinctive cream-colored brick associated with the region. Three previously recorded properties constructed in the 1890s, lo cated just north of the project area (see Figure 2), are examples of the use of Chaska brick. None of the properties located within the study area utilized this building material. Most farmsteads exhibit building types commonly constructed during the 1910s and 1920s. One exception is Property 6 (1600 Pioneer Trail), which features a Queen Anne style house, more typical of the late nineteenth century. None of the farmsteads retain a complete complement of agricultural outbuildings typical of farms from this period, such as a granary, a chicken house, and other sheds. Some only retain the original house and barn. In some cases, the historical integrity of the primary buildings, such as the house or barn, have been significantly compromised. As a result, the farmsteads do not sufficiently convey their association with late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century farming practices. Although several of the individual buildings retain good historical integrity, their styles are typical of the period and do not appear to be significant representations of architectural styles. One property listed on the NRHP is located adjacent to the project area (CR-CHC -006; the Albertine and Fred Heck House). Should the Chanhassen AUAR project involve a federal agency in the future, this house should be considered when assessing effects to historical properties. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 10 TABLE 3. ARCHITECTURE-HISTORY PROPERTIES Field Number Address Property Type Building Types Date (Estimate) Description/Integrity 1 1630 Lyman Rd. Farmstead House, Dairy Barn, Granary, Garage c. 1900 The house has been significantly altered with vinyl siding, replacement windows, and additions. The central bay barn has board and batten siding and retains good integrity. The granary, with drop siding, is partially demolished and in a dilapidated state. 2 9111 Audubon Rd. Farmstead House (c. 1950), Barn, Granary/Corncrib, Chicken House, Silo, Pole Barns c. 1910 The house wa s constructed circa 1950. The gambrel roof dairy barn has board and batten siding and retains good integrity. The granary and corncrib also retain good integrity. The addition of pole barns and the house compromise the overall integrity of the farmstead. 3 9201 Audubon Rd. House House, Pole Barn c. 1940 This small, side-gabled house has replacement windows and fair integrity. It is adjacent to Property 4 and includes a large, metal-sided pole barn. 4 9231 Audubon Rd. Farmstead House, Dairy Barn, Garages c. 1920 The Craftsman-style bungalow retains most of the original architectural features and has a rear addition. The jerkinhead, gambrel dairy barn has board and batten siding, and a concrete block foundation has good integrity. A modern garage and a c. 1920 garage are also included with this property. 5 9715 Audubon Farmstead House, Barn (converted to house), Garage, Pole Barn c. 1910 The one-and-a-half story, front-gabled house retains good integrity. Another house on the property appears to have been converted from a concrete block barn. Other buildings include a garage and a metal pole barn. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 11 TABLE 3. ARCHITECTURE-HISTORY PROPERTIES Field Number Address Property Type Building Types Date (Estimate) Description/Integrity 6 1600 Pioneer Trail Farmstead House, Granary/Corncrib, Silos, Corncrib, Trailer Offices, Spring House (?) c. 1890 The two -story house features massing and detailing of the Queen Anne style. Although some alterations have been made, it retains good integrity despite its dilapidated state. Other outbuildings, such as the garage, chicken house, granary, and corncrib retain good-to-fair integrity but are als o dilapidated. The original barn has been demolished, with only the foundation and two adjacent silos remaining. A concrete block structure is believed to have been a springhouse. Modern trailer offices have been added to the site. The farmstead as a whole does not retain integrity. 7 1500 Pioneer Trail Farmstead House, Quonset Barn, Pole Barns, Butler Bins, Harvestore c. 1910 The foursquare house has been clad with aluminum siding and has had other alterations, resulting in poor integrity. The origin al barn appears to have been replaced with the addition of a Quonset shed on the original foundations. Other metal pole barns, Butler bins, Harvestore silo have been added to the farmstead, resulting in poor overall historical integrity. 8 1370 Pioneer T rail Farmstead House, Dairy Barn, Granary, Pole Barn c. 1910 The foursquare house has wooden clapboard siding and retains good integrity. The gambrel-roof dairy barn has board and batten siding and retains good integrity. Other buildings include a partia lly demolished granary and a metal pole barn. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 12 REFERENCES CITED Hudson Map Company c. 1925 Plat Book of Carver County, Minnesota. Hudson Map Company, Minneapolis. Lofstrom, T. and L. V. Spaeth n.d. Carver County: A Guide to Its Historic Places and Prehistoric Places. Minnesota Historical Society. Northwest Publishing Co. 1898 Plat Book of Carver County, Minnesota. Northwest Publishing Co., Minneapolis. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 1, House Property 1, Barn Property 1, Granary Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 2, House Property 2, Barn Property 2, Granary/Corncrib Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 3, House Property 4, House Property 4, Barn Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 5, House Property 5, Barn/House Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 6, House Property 6, Granary/Corncrib Property 6, Corncrib Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 7, House Property 7, Barn Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 8, House Property 8, Barn Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment APPENDIX B LIST OF PERSONNEL Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment LIST OF PERSONNEL Project Manager Anne Ketz, M.A., RPA Principal Investigators Archaeology Andrea C. Vermee r, M.A., RPA Architecture-History William E. Stark, M.A. Graphics Matt Schillerberg Avienda Development Project Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Level 7 Development/Landform “Avienda” Development Project, Carver County , Minnesota PREPARED BY Merjent, Inc. 800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 315 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Dean T. Sather, M.A., R.P.A, Principal Investigator Under Contract to Level 7 Development November 2016 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 2 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 2 3.1 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................. 2 3.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 2 4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................. 3 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 3 4.2 PRE-CONTACT OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 3 4.2.1 Early Paleo-Indian Period (11200 to 10500 BC) ...................................... 4 4.2.2 Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic (10500 to 7500 BC) ................. 4 4.2.3 Middle Archaic (7500 to 3000 BC) ........................................................... 4 4.2.4 Late Archaic (3000 to 500 BC) ................................................................ 5 4.2.5 Woodland: Initial, Terminal (500 BC to AD 1200) .................................... 5 4.2.6 Oneota Tradition (AD 1200 to 1650) ........................................................ 6 4.3 CONTACT AND POST-CONTACT OVERVIEW ................................................. 7 4.3.1 Contact Period (1650 to 1837 CE) ........................................................... 7 4.3.2 Eastern Dakota........................................................................................ 7 4.3.3 British ...................................................................................................... 7 4.3.4 Initial United States ................................................................................. 7 4.3.5 Post-contact Period (1837 to 1960 CE) ................................................... 7 4.3.6 Early Agriculture & River Settlement (1840 to 1870) ................................ 8 4.3.7 Railroads & Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) ............................. 8 4.4 BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 9 4.4.1 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites ............................................... 9 4.4.2 Previously Recorded Standing Historic Structures ..................................10 5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ...............................................................................................11 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................12 7.0 REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................................13 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: TOWNSHIP, RANGE, AND SECTION OF LANDS INCLUDED IN AVIENDA PROJECT .................. 2 TABLE 2: PRE-CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIODS IN SOUTHERN MINNESOTA ............................. 3 TABLE 3: PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT . 9 TABLE 4: PREVIOUSLY RECORDED HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL SITES WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA ....................................................................................................................10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Avienda Project Area – Topographic Overview Figure 2 Avienda Project Area – Survey Coverage Figure 3 21CRaj Site Map 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY In October of 2016 Merjent, Inc. (Merjent) conducted a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the route for the Level 7 Development/Landform “Avienda” development Project (Project). The archaeological survey consisted of the pedestrian and subsurface archaeological investigation of an approximately 113 acre parcel of land located within the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, proposed to be developed for commercial use. During the field survey Merjent relocated and delineated one previously documented site. No previously undocumented archaeological sites were identified. 2 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Level 7 Development is proposing to develop the “Avienda” commercial center in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The proposed Project is located on approximately 113 acres of land located on previously undeveloped agricultural fields (Figure 1). A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Project was conducted due to the presence of previously documented cultural resource sites within and near the perimeter of the defined Project boundary, in compliance with the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (MN 138.31-42). Merjent was contacted in October of 2016 by Landform to conduct the Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey. Project activities will occur in the legal locations shown in Table 1, which served as the basis for the Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey area. Table 1: Township, Range, and Section of Lands Included in Avienda Project County Township Range Sections Carver 116N 23W NE 23 Between October 24th and October 26th, 2016, Merjent cultural resource staff conducted a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Project. The Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey relocated and delineated one previously documented archaeological site. 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 SCOPE OF WORK The Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey was conducted to determine if archaeological resources were present within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE for this segment included all surface and subsurface locations that would potentially experience direct physical disturbance as a result of the construction within the defined Project area segment (Figure 2). Subsurface testing was limited to the wooded area in the southwestern portion of the Project area. 3.2 METHODOLOGY Field investigations for the current Phase I Survey were conducted according to guidelines prepared by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (Anfinson, 2005). A literature review was conducted to determine the scope and results of previous archaeological and historic property inventories conducted in the region. Data files maintained by both the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) provided information regarding recorded cultural resources and previous survey activities within the Project area. Previously published synthesis reports provided a majority of the background information regarding regional cultural contexts and environmental history. The environmental background and historic contexts were examined to assess the probability of sites and what types of sites might be identified. Field investigations executed during a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance provide a means of determining if cultural deposits exist within a defined Project area and to assess the vertical and horizontal boundaries of any discovered deposits. Investigative techniques for Phase I survey may include pedestrian survey, shovel testing, and deep testing. 3 Pedestrian survey consists of controlled visual inspection of the ground surface. Visual inspection is conducted on ground surfaces exhibiting exposed soils such as cultivated fields. Field personnel conducting pedestrian surveys are spaced 5 meters (m) apart and traverse the field in parallel transects inspecting the exposed surface for evidence of cultural deposits. Positive findings consist of historic or prehistoric artifact concentrations and/or evidence of larger, intact cultural features such as structural remains or earthworks. Generally, pedestrian survey is not recommended for areas where surface visibility is less than 25 percent. Shovel testing, when required, consists of a hand dug excavation unit between 30 and 40 centimeters (cm) in diameter at 15 meter intervals. The depth of the excavated shovel test varies, depending on the depth of subsurface deposits and the presence or absence of intact cultural material. Shovel tests are generally excavated to a depth where intact subsoil horizons are exposed. In locations where subsurface deposits extend beyond the capabilities of hand excavated shovel tests, deep testing may be conducted. All materials excavated from shovel tests or deep tests are screened through one-quarter inch hardware mesh. Detailed field notes are recorded during field investigations for both positive and negative results. With regard to potentially deeply buried sites, a desktop review is first conducted to identify the landforms and soils present in a Project area. If there is the potential for deeply buried living surfaces that might contain archaeological materials, field testing such as auger coring or mechanical trenching is done. 4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The Project is located in the Eastern Broadleaf Forest ecological province of central Minnesota. Historic vegetation in the area consisted of oak woodland and maple-basswood forests. Large game animals were dominated by white-tailed deer, while small game resources were also abundant. The environmental survey corridor traverses Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) sub-region Central Lakes Deciduous South, 4S. The following discussion of pre-contact archaeological periods follows Gibbon 2012 unless otherwise noted. 4.2 PRE-CONTACT OVERVIEW Pre-contact cultural traditions and development are defined primarily by the material culture present at a site and the subsistence patterns being utilized at that time. Material culture includes artifacts and features, and subsistence patterns include hunting/gathering and horticulture. Further, within pre-contact periods there are often subdivisions based on geographical location, projectile point typologies, and ceramic typologies. Gibbon divides Pre-contact cultures in southern Minnesota into six cultural periods as shown in Table 2. Table 2: Pre-Contact Archaeological Periods in Southern Minnesota Periods Year Early Paleo-Indian 11200 to 10500 BC Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic 10500 to 7500 BC Middle Archaic 7500 to 3000 BC Late Archaic 3000 to 500 BC Woodland: Initial, Terminal 500 BC to AD 1200 Oneota Tradition AD 1200 to AD 1650 4 4.2.1 Early Paleo-Indian Period (11200 to 10500 BC) Paleo-Indians were likely the first people to populate the North American continent. Communities were comprised of small bands of highly nomadic hunter-gathers, primarily focused on the exploitation of mega-fauna, including mammoths and mastodons. Paleo-Indian sites tend to be small and are commonly identified by the recovery of large, distinctive lanceolate projectile points. 4.2.2 Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic (10500 to 7500 BC) The transition from the Early Paleo-Indian to Late Paleo-Indian in the central Minnesota is evidenced in the archaeological record by the replacement of fluted points with stemmed points and some heavy stone tool construction. Tool types of Late Paleo-Indian/Early Eastern Archaic peoples occur in much greater numbers than those of their predecessors, the Early Paleo-Indians. Tool characteristic of this period show a high quality of workmanship and include projectile points with a lanceolate shape, lack of fluting, ground and thin edges, and fine oblique or collateral flaking across the blade face. Types of Late Paleo-Indians identified in Minnesota include Agate Basin, Alberta, Angostura, Browns Valley, Eden, Frederick, Hell Gap, Midland, Plainview, and Scottsbluff. Early Eastern Archaic points are notched or stemmed forms, often constructed of heavily reworked lanceolate points with a concave base, basal ears, and fluting on some specimens. Although the point types differ from those of Late Paleo-Indians, the Early Eastern Archaic was contemporary in part with the Late Paleo-Indian period, sharing a nomadic, animal hunting lifeway. The majority of identified Late Paleo-Indian Sites in Minnesota occur along lake edges and rivers, with most lake edge sites located along smaller, non-glacial lakes. Sites identified from this period are typically find spots of points, lithic workshops, and temporary camps. Long term habitation sites, burial locations, and kill sites are rare and underrepresented in the archaeological record. 4.2.3 Middle Archaic (7500 to 3000 BC) Middle Archaic projectile points typically are smaller and less well made than during the preceding phases and suggest a general decline in high quality stone working outside of the Paleo-Indian tradition. Characteristics of Archaic points that separate themselves from Paleo-Indian projectile points include smaller size and beveled and resharpened edges designed for cutting and penetration. An expansion of tool technology begins to appear during the late Middle Archaic with a new suite of ground stone tools including banner stones, plummets, and grooved axes. The utilization of copper artifacts also appears for the first time. Known Middle Archaic sites in central Minnesota remain sparse, typically consisting of surface scatters of stone artifacts in small, shallow components with minimal midden buildup. Site types include short term camps, kill sites, lithic workshops, quarries, and burials. The features and minimal number of artifacts suggest a small population of highly mobile hunters and foragers with single use to short term habitation sites. 5 4.2.4 Late Archaic (3000 to 500 BC) The expansion of tool technology that starts to appear in the Middle Archaic period flourishes in the Late Archaic. New sets of side stemmed and side-notched projectile points, ground stone tools, and the first clearly identifiable fishing implements in the archaeological record of Minnesota originate in the Late Archaic. Utilization of raw materials like native copper and marine shell and creation of unusual artifacts like birdstones, gorgets, and Turkey Tail bifaces are defining characteristics of the period, as well as communal burial sites and the continuing absence of pottery from the archaeological record. Late Archaic sites in Minnesota are mostly characterized by the presence of hammered copper artifacts, as well as ground and polished stone artifacts. The lithic tool assemblage located at the Fish Lake West site near Duluth consists mostly of choppers, adzes, and bifaces; tools adapted to working in an environment dominated by timber. The lithic styles and hammered copper artifacts found at the Fish Lake West site are also present in Late Archaic sites farther south at sites such as the Petaga Point site near Lake Mille Lacs. 4.2.5 Woodland: Initial, Terminal (500 BC to AD 1200) Gibbon (2012) separates the archaeological record of Initial Woodland period in South Eastern Minnesota (a resource region that coincides with the portion of the state located south and east of the City of Saint Cloud) into three periods: the Early Woodland (500 to 200 BC), Middle Woodland (200 BC to AD 200), and Late Middle Woodland (AD 200 to 500). Pottery remains are the most representative artifacts from the Initial Woodland tradition. Pottery styles from the period are usually typified by a thick walled jar with cordage markings on both the exterior and interior faces of the pottery. The construction and shape of the pottery typically consist of strait rims, slightly constricted necks, somewhat rounded shoulders, and subconoidal bottoms resembling varieties of pottery from the Havana-Hopewell complexes in Illinois. Lithic assemblages show continuity with earlier Archaic and Woodland assemblages typical of highly mobile groups of hunters and foragers. The greatest artifact concentration in the region appears in the rivers, lakes, wetlands, and wet prairies of southern Minnesota. In addition to the presence of pottery in the archaeological record, Woodland sites from this period are also exemplified by the presence of conical shaped burial mounds (Gibbon 2012). By the Late Middle Woodland phase of the Initial Woodland tradition, cultural practices of the Late Middle Woodland people seem less elaborate than during the previous phases. Burial mounds became simpler, often lacking diagnostic grave goods. Pottery styles at this later stage are described by more globular bodies, thinner walls, and finer temper with more complex rim profiles. The transformation from Initial Woodland complexes to Terminal Woodland complexes after AD 500 remains poorly understood (Gibbon, 2012). What is clear is that the Terminal Woodland period represents a time of technological and cultural change. The bow and arrow replaced the atlatl, earlier pottery traits disappeared, and elaborate mortuary rituals associated with large earthwork construction began. Long distance acquisition of materials, ritual pipe smoking, and possibly the presence of socially ranked societies were descriptive of cultures with a great reliance on domesticated plants and larger populations within groups. Known Late Woodland sites, while evident in some areas of southwestern Wisconsin and eastern Iowa, are sparse in southeastern Minnesota. One reason may be that the lack of real sites as large scale surveys in the region have failed to identify a strong Late Woodland presence, suggesting a population density much lower than those areas farther south and east 6 (Gibbon 2012). Because of sparse number of Late Woodland sites in the region, examples must be borrowed from the surrounding states of Iowa and Wisconsin. Initial Late Woodland (AD 500 to 700) in southwestern Wisconsin and northeastern Iowa consist of components most recognized by the presence of Lane Farm Cord-Impressed pottery, a jar with a somewhat rounded base and constricted neck. The small and corner notched projectile points of the period may represent the first arrow head points in the region. Small conical and elongated linear mounds containing limited grave goods and primary flexed burials are evident. Defined by Gibbon (2012) as the Mature Late (Terminal) Woodland period in the Upper Mississippi River Valley, AD 700 to 1000 represents the time period defined by the Effigy Mound Complex. Effigy Mound people constructed earthen conical and linear mounds similar to previous cultural phases as well as mounds designed in the shape of wildlife, including avian, mammalian, and reptile. Grave goods are typically utilitarian objects such as ceramic vessels and projectile points. Material culture of the Effigy culture includes the near absence on non- utilitarian “luxury” items intended for the elite, simple unnotched triangular points, thinner and finer tempered ceramics with more complex shapes, and a shared cultural identity that covered a large geographic region for over 600 years. Mound building would disappear from the archaeological record during the Final Late (Terminal) Woodland period from AD 100 to 1200. Pure Late Woodland sites become rare and are replaced with stockade sites exhibiting both Late Woodland and Middle Mississippian characteristics. Ceramics from this period belong to the Grant Series with design features including grit tempering, cord roughened jars that may have squared orifices, prominent castellations, and special rim treatment that raises the height of the rim. Decorations, when present, generally consist of single cord impressions forming zigzag and chevrons over plain or cord roughened rim surfaces. Lithic technology from this period includes simple unnotched Maddison triangular arrow points and Cahokia Site Notched cluster points. 4.2.6 Oneota Tradition (AD 1200 to 1650) The transition from the Woodland-dominated cultural landscape to the Upper Mississippian contexts in southern Minnesota saw a shift from long established lifeways of Woodland peoples to the appearance of societies with new material cultures, settlement patterns, social organization, and ideology. Groups of people were less mobile and more dependent on the cultivation of maize, living within more permanent and often fortified settlements. The construction and artistic techniques used to produce ceramics evolved to vessels with shoulder decorated rims, smoothed rather than cordmarked exterior surfaces, shell temper rather than grit temper, and handles in place of collars or castellations. Oneota Sites are distributed throughout the forests and prairie of southern Minnesota with regional variations of Oneota pottery identified in the northeastern prairie region and in the north woods. Oneota village sites are located along several rivers within southern Minnesota, specifically the Mississippi River near Red Wing, along the St. Croix north of Stillwater, the Blue Earth River and along the Upper Minnesota River. Oneota Pottery is also present in the upper layer of many sites as far west as the South Dakota border. Ceramics are shell tempered, round bottomed globular jars with high straight to slightly curving rims ranging in size from 0.5 to 5 gallons. Stone tools identified at Oneota village sites consist of unnotched triangular points, scrapers, knives, drills, wedges, choppers, and expedient flake tools. 7 4.3 CONTACT AND POST-CONTACT OVERVIEW 4.3.1 Contact Period (1650 to 1837 CE) The Contact Period (1650 to 1837) includes American Indian and Euro-American contexts. The Minnesota OSA (MN OSA) subdivides the American Indian context into “Indeterminate” or “Eastern Dakota”, and the Euro-American context into “Indeterminate”, “French”, “British”, and “Initial US” (MN OSA, 2009). 4.3.2 Eastern Dakota The Eastern Dakota, along with the Western Dakota and the Lakota, comprise the ethnic group of the Sioux people. The Eastern Dakota lived in “village-centered tribal world societies” throughout Minnesota during the 17th century and were in an alliance with French fur traders and merchants (Gibbon, 2012). The Dakota War of 1862 resulted in numerous attacks on settlements and trading posts along the Minnesota River and culminated in the mass hanging of 38 Eastern Dakota (MNHS, 2015). After the war, many families relocated to the western territories and Canada. There are currently four reservations in Minnesota inhabited by descendants of the Eastern Dakota people. 4.3.3 British After the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the British quickly set up fur trading posts throughout Minnesota. The British fur trading economy was centered at Grand Portage, where traders would bring their furs and leave with other valuable trade goods. After the Revolutionary War of 1776, competition between the United States and British companies intensified throughout Minnesota. In 1803, the Louisiana land purchase established United States lands extending from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains. The War of 1812 saw a demise in the British fur traders due to the United States denying business licenses to British traders. 4.3.4 Initial United States Early Americans conducted the first fully documented land survey of Minnesota in the mid-18th century and early 19th century. Jonathan Carver explored the upper Mississippi River in the 1760s, and by 1806 Zebulon Pike had explored portions of the river. Missionaries began to arrive in the early 19th century, primarily along the Minnesota River. The American Fur Company was founded by John Jacob Astor in 1811, after which numerous fur trading posts were quickly established throughout the state. At the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, Fort Snelling was constructed in 1819 to protect the new United States investments in the area. Large-scale fur trade resulted in a major decline in native beaver populations, and by 1842 the fur trade in Minnesota had come to an end (Dobbs, 1989). After the passing of the fur trading industry, land was opened up to Euro-American settlers. 4.3.5 Post-contact Period (1837 to 1960 CE) MN OSA subdivides the post-contact period into eight categories based on social and economic issues pertaining to different geographical locations and time frames (MN OSA, 2009): • Indian Communities & Reservations (1837 to 1934) • Early Agriculture & River Settlement (1840 to 1870) • Northern MN Lumbering (1870 to 1930s) 8 • Tourism & Recreation (1870 to 1945) • St. Croix Triangle Lumbering (1830s to 1900s) • Railroads & Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) • Iron Ore Industry (1880s to 1945) • Urban Centers (1870 to 1940) Additionally, Euro-American Farms in Minnesota (1820 to 1960) have been divided into eight development periods (Terrell, 2006): • Early Settlement (1820 to 1870) • Development of a Wheat Monoculture (1860 to 1885) • Diversification and the Rise of Dairying (1875 to 1900) • Industrialization and Prosperity (1900 to 1920) • Developing the Cutover (1900 to 1940) • Development of Livestock Industries (1900 to 1940) • Depression and the Interwar Period (1920 to 1940) • World War II and the Postwar Period (1940 to 1960) 4.3.6 Early Agriculture & River Settlement (1840 to 1870) This category is defined by subsistence farming and the transition to wheat monoculture. It is primarily focused on the southeastern portion of the state. Farmsteads within this context are represented by farm buildings and other types of structures, such as, dugouts, soddies, and “claim shacks” (Terrell, 2006). The Preemption Act of 1854 and the Homestead Act of 1862 brought many settlers to Minnesota and the railroads quickly followed. Many towns arose along major transportation routes and along important rivers. The large influx of settlers created ethnic communities that were centered on churches and schools. As the farms and towns grew, so did industries associated with agricultural activities (Terrell, 2006). This, in turn, gave rise to the next historical context: Railroads & Agricultural Development. 4.3.7 Railroads & Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) This category is characterized by larger and more diverse farms, primarily in the southern and western portions of the state. Farmsteads within this context also include subsistence farming and large scale bonanza farms (Terrell, 2006). As the earlier, smaller communities continued to grow, railroads were expanding to accommodate full-scale agricultural commerce. Towns located along railroad lines quickly became important to the local economies for the ease of transporting agricultural goods, as well as bringing in needed goods for the local populations. As the modern industrial era continued to expand and change, so did the local historical landscapes of the railroad towns. Urban sprawl, along with new technologies, industries, and railroads all led to changes within these communities that can still be seen today (Terrell, 2006). 9 4.4 BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW In October 2016, Merjent Senior Cultural Resource Specialist Dean T. Sather examined site files maintained at the OSA and the SHPO in St. Paul to update and supplement the Phase IA Background Literature Review conducted the previous year. The objective in reviewing cultural resources background literature is to identify previously recorded cultural resource sites and assess the potential for unrecorded sites to be located within the Project Area. The standard for considering a cultural property significant is whether it meets the criteria for listing on the NRHP. The initial criterion for such listing is an age of 50 or more years. Beyond age, a property must retain integrity and be associated with significant historic trends, historic persons, building styles and craftsmanship, or the property must have the potential to provide significant information about the past. Merjent staff inventoried previously executed cultural resource investigations for the townships included in the Project area and the greater Carver County region. A total of 8 previously documented archaeological site and two inventoried standing structures were located within one-mile of the Project. 4.4.1 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Prior to conducting archaeological field investigations for the Project, Merjent retrieved information from the Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) regarding previously documented archaeological site locations within a 1-mile-wide (1.6 km) study area including and surrounding the Project area. Merjent’s review of the information obtained at MNHS identified seven previously reported archaeological sites within one mile (mi) (1.6 kilometers [km]) of the proposed Project area and one archaeological sites within the Project Area (Figure 1, Table 3). Table 3: Previously Documented Archaeological Sites within One-Mile of the Project Site Number/Site Name/Site Type County, Location (TRS) Site Significance Location to Project Area 21CR 014/unnamed/Pre- contact artifact scatter Carver, 116N/23W /22 Unevaluated West of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 015/unnamed/ Pre- contact Lithic Scatter Carver, 116N/23W /22 Unevaluated West of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 103/unnamed/ Pre- contact Lithic Scatter Carver, 116N/23W/27 Unevaluated South and West of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 104/unnamed/ Pre- contact Lithic Scatter Carver, 116N/23W/27 Unevaluated South and West of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 109/Lake Susan SW Shore/Pre-contact Lithic Scatter Cass, 116N/32W/14 Unevaluated North and East of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 140/unnamed/Historic artifact scatter Cass, 116N/23W /27 Unknown South and West of Project – external to Project boundary 10 21CR aj/unnamed/Pre-contact mounds Cass, 116N/23W /23 Unknown Within Project 21CR aj/unnamed/Historic Burial Cass, 116N/23W/23 Unknown East of Project – external to Project Boundary As mentioned above, seven of the sites were located within the one-mile buffer surrounding the boundary of the Project Area (21CR014, 21CR015, 21CR103, 21CR104, 21CR109, 21CR140, and 21CRak). As these sites are situated external to the boundary of the proposed Project area, they will not be impacted by proposed construction activities associated with the Project. The remaining site, 21CRaj, is an informant documented pre-contact burial site comprised of two low conical mounds situated in a wooded area in the southern portion of the Project Area (Figure 1 & 3). These features were relocated and delineated during field investigations. Physical testing of the features was not undertaken at the time of the field survey as the current development plans indicate that this area will be maintained as green space and no construction activities will be occurring in this area. Therefore, while located within the proposed Project Area site 21CRaj is situated external to construction area and will not be impacted by proposed construction activities. 4.4.2 Previously Recorded Standing Historic Structures A review of records at the MN SHPO indicated that no historic/architectural resources have been previously inventoried in the Project boundary. Two historic/architectural resources have been previously inventoried within one-mile of the Project area (Figure 1). One of these resources has been listed on the NRHP. The other resource has not been evaluated. The list of previously documented historic/architectural resources is summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Previously Recorded Historic/Architectural Sites within One-Mile of the Project Area Site Number/Site Name/Site Type County, Location (TRS) Site Significance Location to Project Area CR-CHC-004/Farmstead Cass, 116N/23W /22 Unevaluated North and East of Project – External to Project boundary - No Impact CR-CHC-006/Albertine and Fred Heck House Cass, 116N/23W/22 Evaluated – Listed on NRHP North and East of Project – External to Project boundary - No Impact Structure CR-CHC-004 an unnamed farmstead located on the west side of County Road 17 approximately 0.5 miles north and west of the Project Area. This structure was inventoried during a 1980 survey. Its current status is unevaluated for National Register. As the structure is external to the Project Area it will not be impacted. Structure CR-CHC-006 is the National Register listed Albertine and Fred Heck home. The historic property is located approximately 0.2 miles north and west of the Project Area, near the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Audubon Road in Chanhassen. The listing includes one contributing structure and one non-contributing structure. The contributing structure is a well preserved single residence constructed in 1895 of locally produced Chaska-brick. The non- 11 contributing structure is an unattached garage constructed of concrete block. The structures were originally part of a 105 acre farm settled by a German immigrant family. The listed structures are located external to the proposed Project Area and will not be impacted by the proposed construction. 5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Field work was conducted between October 24th and October 26th, 2016. Merjent Cultural Resource Specialist Matthew Terry served as Field Director. The Project was considered of moderate to high potential for prehistoric archaeological deposits due to the proximity to both permanent water resources and the presence of previously documented cultural resources within one mile of the Project (Figure 2). The Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey was conducted to determine if unrecorded cultural resources were present within the Project’s APE. Cultural resources could include archaeological sites or historic/architectural resources. Field reconnaissance consisted of a combination of pedestrian survey and shovel test excavations with a focus on culturally viable landforms. Shovel testing consisted of hand dug excavation units between 30 and 40 centimeters in diameter. The depth of the excavated shovel test varied depending on the depth of subsurface deposits and the presence or absence of intact cultural material. Shovel tests were generally excavated to a depth where intact subsoil horizons were exposed. All materials excavated from shovel tests or deep tests were screened through ¼” hardware mesh. Detailed field notes were recorded during field investigations along the individual landforms that were pedestrian surveyed, as well as the shovel tested areas. Pedestrian survey involved controlled visual inspection of the ground surface. Field personnel conducting pedestrian surveys were spaced a maximum of 5 m apart and traversed the segment in parallel transects inspecting the exposed surface for evidence of cultural deposits. The majority of the land surface investigated had excellent ground surface visibility. All shovel tests excavated within the Project area were negative for cultural materials. No intact deposits containing cultural materials relating to the historic or prehistoric period were identified within the Project boundaries. The Project will have no adverse impact on any recorded, known, or suspected cultural resources. 12 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Merjent recommends that there will be no adverse impact on known or suspected cultural resources as a result of this Project and that no additional cultural resource investigations are needed. Merjent recommends that if construction plans are altered to affect areas that were not previously surveyed or disturbed, these locations should be examined for cultural resources. In the event that additional archaeological materials are identified during construction activities, Merjent recommends that construction in proximity to the discovery immediately cease and procedures be followed to notify the MN SHPO and other agencies, as required. Further, if human remains are encountered during construction activities, all ground disturbing activity must cease and local law enforcement must be notified. MS 307.08, the Private Cemeteries Act, prohibits the intentional disturbance of human burials. Work should not resume until all issues are resolved. 13 7.0 REFERENCES CITED Anfinson, Scott. 2005. SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Minnesota Historical Society of Minnesota. State Historic Preservation Office. Dobbs, C.A. 1989. Historic Context Outlines: The Contact Period Contexts (ca. 1630 A.D. – 1820 A.D.). Draft. Reports of Investigations No. 39. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology. Submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society. Gibbon, Guy. 2012. Archaeology of Minnesota, the Prehistory of the Upper Mississippi River Region. University of Minnesota Press. Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS). 2015. U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Electronic Document. http://www.historicfortsnelling.org/history/us-dakota-war. Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist (“MN OSA”). 2009. Minnesota Archaeological Site Form. Terrell, Michelle. 2006. Historical Archaeology of Minnesota Farmsteads: Volume 4, Historic Context Study of Minnesota Farmsteads, 1820-1960. Two Pines Resource Group, LLC, Shafer, Minnesota. E E E E E E E E × × 21CR0014 21CR0015 21CR0103 21CR0104 21CR0109 21CRaj 21CRak 21CR0140 21CRaj T116R23WSec. 16 T116R23WSec. 15 T116 R23WSec. 14 T116R23WSec. 13 T116 R23WSec. 21 T116 R23WSec. 22 T116 R23WSec. 23 T116 R23WSec. 24 T116 R23WSec. 28 T116 R23WSec. 27 T116 R23WSec. 26 T116 R23WSec. 25 T116 R23WSec. 33 T116 R23WSec. 34 T116R23WSec. 35 T116 R23WSec. 36 CR-CHC-004 CR-CHC-006 Canada WISD ND MI IANE Minnesota Date: (11/14/2016) Source: Z:\Clients\I_L\Level_7_Development\Aveinda\Field_Data\Cultural\Reports\SHPO\Figure_1_Avienda_Topographic_Overview.mxdFigure 1 Avienda Chanhassen Project Topographic Overview Carver County, Minnesota p01,000 2,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,000 feet × Previously Identified Architectural/Historic Resource E Previously Identified Archaeological Site Field Verified Archaeological Site Project Area Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 300 600 Meters USGS 7.5' Shakopee Quad, 1973 For Environmental Review Purposes Only !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( 21CRaj 21CRak 21CRaj T116R23WSec. 22 T116R23WSec. 23 T116 R23WSec. 27 T116R23WSec. 26Bl u f fCr e e k PowersBlvdRiverRockDr M-10 USTH 2125922 591959195917Sunset T r Powers BlvdJerse y Way Mills Dr 5917 5912 BluffCreekBlvdRiver RockDrBethesda CirUSTH 212Lyman Blvd Canada WISD ND MI IANE Minnesota Date: (11/14/2016) Source: Z:\Clients\I_L\Level_7_Development\Aveinda\Field_Data\Cultural\Reports\SHPO\Figure_2_Avienda_Survey_Coverage.mxdFigure 2 Avienda Chanhassen Project Archaeological Survey Coverage Carver County, Minnesota p0200400 Feet 1 inch = 400 feet Project Area E Previously Identified Archaeological Site !( !( !(Shovel Test Transect Field Verified Archaeological Site Survey Coverage Field Verified - Disturbed Shovel Tested Surface Collection Service Layer Credits: 0 60 120 Meters For Environmental Review Purposes Only !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(Bluff Creek BlvdBluff Creek BlvdRiver R o c k D r Canada WISD ND MI IANE Minnesota Date: (11/14/2016) Source: Z:\Clients\I_L\Level_7_Development\Aveinda\Field_Data\Cultural\Reports\SHPO\Figure_3_21CRaj_Field_Site_Map.mxdFigure 3 Avienda Chanhassen Project 21CRaj Updated Site Map Carver County, Minnesota p0100200 Feet 1 inch = 200 feet Project Area E Previously Identified Archaeological Site !( !( !( Negative Shovel Test Transect Mound Location Field Verified Archaeological Site Survey Coverage Shovel Tested Surface Collection Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 0 30 60 Meters Wooded 0% Visibility Datum #584 metersFor Environmental Review Purposes Only Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update APPENDIX 4—AVIENDA CONCEPT STAFF REPORT Y , e> w CITY OF ClIANIIASSEN S Chanhassen isa Community for Life-Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow H AS MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhart FROM: Kate Aanenson AICP,Community Development Director SUBJ: Avienda CASE#2016-25 D18 DATE: November 28,2016 BACKGROUND PROPOSSED ACTION: The City Council provide observations and feedback to the developer on the Concept Planned Unit Development including the observations in the attached November 1st Staff Report. The PUD ordinance states, "in order to receive guidance in the design of a PUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the Planning Commission and City Council. Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission, the City Council shall consider and comment on the concept plan". ANALYSIS On November 1st a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission (verbatim minutes are included in the November 28th packet). Following is a generalized list of issues and concerns raised: Density on two of the residential parcels are 26-34 units an acre exceeding city density limits Loss of wetlands—would like to see a plan that saves the wetlands and the overall impact to the wetlands after the development is completed Tree loss Over grading of the site—ignoring the terrain Can they meet the storm water requirements? Walkability of the proposal PH 952.227.1100• www.ci.chanhassen.nln.us• FX 952.227.1110 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA 55317 Traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard Amount of commercial development—with the expectation the uses would be different/complementary to what exists in the current down-town area with emphasis on specialty/high-end retail Screening or loading on the back of buildings/access management Light and noise pollution Sustainability of big boxes Lack of charm/should be quaint/ what makes it unique Too much asphalt Lack of parks and open space—gathering places Acting Chair Steven Weick summarized the comments at the November 1'meeting as he felt fell into 4 buckets: 1. "There's aesthetics that I think people are very concerned about moving forward. Whether it be site grading which then probably leads to the charm of what you actually create there as far as the buildings. There's noise and light pollution that I would consider aesthetics. Park space and open space. 2. There's a traffic bucket that you know we'll look at but obviously that was a primary concern that came out of the meeting this evening. Specifically the access points for Bluff Creek on both sides. Not just going into the neighborhood but entering the site from 212 as well as the proposed entrance, I think it's at Mill is the name of the, so I think those 3 points are specific traffic concerns. 3. I think there was some good density questions that came up just regarding, and obviously this is preliminary but we need to keep that into consideration and we will as these things move forward but that is a very valid concern that was raised, and finally I think 4. The wetland preservation and how we do that moving forward so I think those, a lot of the comments fell into those 4 buckets so if we can certainly be sure in addition to everything that's noted by staff in the packet, if we can specifically make note of those items that came out this evening I think we'll be moving in a good direction." RECOMMENDATION The City Council provide observations and feedback to the developer on the Concept Planned Unit Development including the observations in the attached November 1st Staff Report. Attachments 1. Email from Jennifer Swanson 2. Email from Geetha Bhatraj 3. Email Bhanu Thota 4. Email from Pramod Putta 5. Email from Lori and Corey Hothan 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 1, 2016 g:\plan\2016 planning cases\2016-25 avienda-chan retail site\cc cvr memo 11-28-16.docx Aanenson, Kate From: Jennifer Swanson <swanjls@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:21 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Proposed Developmetn Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Completed Kate, I had the opportunity to view the planning meeting earlier this week regarding the proposed development at Lyman and Powers Blvd. You had indicated that one of the goals of the project was to have a housing component as part of the project. When the previous study was conducted there was not to my knowledge a housing component identified for the site. I am curious when that change took place. You had also indicated that the southwest building was to be designated as senior housing. In the McComb study there was a conclusion that the site could support 825k- 1M+of retail and would be a regional draw. The concern that I have is that because a significant portion of the project is being developed as housing there will not be the appropriate square footage available for retail to make this a regional draw. If the PUD approves the proposed layout toward the acreage designated for High Density housing what guarantee will there be that it is senior housing vs Market Rate apartments. I feel that the location of this project gives significant retail advantages over other locations in Chanhassen. The close proximity to Highway 212 gives the potential for retail development and will utilize existing infrastructure. Eric Swanson 1440 Bethesda Cir Chanhassen, MN 1 Aanenson, Kate From: geetha bhatraj <gbhatraj22@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:18 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject:Avienda Development Hi Kate, This is Geetha.I live in the neighborhood on the preserve.I attended the discussion the last week or before in regards to the Avienda development. Looks to be a great development initiative.It was brought to our notice that there could be a possible road connection from the Mills drive into the new development for School bus and public Safety. Ours is a young neighborhood with lot of infants and toddlers.So having that road extension is not a great value addition for the community as it might increase thru traffic and increase safety concerns.This is due to the fact that once we have a road we really cannot restrict the traffic. By having dead end will restrict the traffic.During the meeting same concerns were raised by other members in the neighborhood. Please consider this as a sincere request from our neighborhood not to have a road extension on Mills drive.Hope council takes decision considering preserve residents opinion. Thanks Geetha 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Bhanu Thota <bhanuprashant.t@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:58 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Avienda Development - Mills Drive resident - Concerns Hi, I am Bhanu Thota,resident of 1495 Mills Dr of Preserve. I would like to raise my concern regarding the proposed Avienda Development in our area. Myspecific concern is regarding the road connection from Mills Drive to the new development. Our community has a lot of infants and toddlers and connecting the Mills Drive to the new development will increase the traffic. This is a serious issue for the young kids. Please consider this as a sincere request from our neighborhood not to have a road extension on Mills drive. Hope council considers our concerns in making the decision. Sincerely, Bhanu Thota 1495 Mills Dr 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Pramod Putta <pramod.putta@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:39 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Avienda Development - Mills Drive Concerns Hi, Good afternoon, this is Pramod and Kavitha living at 1502 Mills Dr of Preserve. We are writing to voice our concern about possible proposed road connection from Mills drive into the new development for School bus and public Safety. We are very concerned about safety of little kids with possible increased traffic that new connection may bring into the neighborhood. Please consider this as a sincere request from our neighborhood not to have a road extension on Mills drive. Hope council considers our concerns in making the decision. Sincerely, Pramod Putta and Kavitha Vimmigari 1502 Mills Dr 1 November 3, 2016 Dear City Council, We are Lori and Corey Hothan; we live at 1941 Commonwealth Blvd.,#5, Chanhassen, MN 55317. Our e-mail address is LHothan0l@hotmail.com. The purpose of our letter/e-mail is in regards to the New Development "of Avienda." We do have some key concerns we would like to share with you as our City Council, pertaining to this new development. Please see our key concerns listed below: Traffic Over-Flow: We have a huge concern with where the connection of our existing development,which is off of Bluff Creek Blvd., where this would be connected to the New Development for Avienda. If this connection was actually to take place,this would bring way too much over-flow of traffic into our existing development.This is totally unnecessary to connect this street (Bluff Creek Blvd.) into the New Development of Avienda. If there is a law that this actually and physically has to take place, then we as homeowner's have the right to see actual documentation supporting this connection. However, if there technically is not a law or something backing this connection,then this truly should not take place for the reasons listed above.The City Council and the Builder need to take this into serious consideration as to what this would actually do to the existing developments and/or homeowner's. The other concern pertaining to the Traffic Over-Flow, would be for the homeowner's who live right off of Hwy 212, Pioneer Trail and Lyman Blvd. where you are building this New Proposed Development for Avienda,that when the current homeowner's come home from work the traffic from the new development is going to create a huge traffic mess. How can this really be addressed if this New Development takes place right off of the on and off ramp of Hwy 212?That is one of the key questions of the day. Noise Buffers and Pollution: I know the builder from what we understand from our neighbor, had briefly mentioned or touched on two of the things that are highly important to those homeowner's, such as our selves who currently live in the existing developments which are right off of Bluff Creek Blvd.. I know for both of us that when you are putting in this type of new development (Avienda), right off of Powers Blvd. that as homeowner's we want to know that we can still enjoy living in our existing development and not have the noise and pollution become an enormous factor. Current homeowner's who have lived here now for about 8 to 10 years, do not want to have to stress about possibly having to deal with Noise and Pollution issues. Aesthetics' For the New Development of Avienda: In regards to aesthetically what is currently being proposed for how the new Avienda development looks,we feel that it would be better if they could make it look a little more eye catching or appealing so it doesn't look like every other new development that has already been built within the twin cities. We think maybe some stone or metal is ok for this new development, but try and find a balance. We would suggest that maybe have the developer come back and have a couple of ideas from an aesthetic outside perspective on how this New Development for Avienda could look. Please don't make this like every other development that has already been done to death. Page 2 Lori and Corey Hothan Concerns for the New Development of Avienda Aesthetics' For the New Development of Avienda (continued) In regards to the some of the trees within this new development for Avienda, as a couple we know that some of these trees would need to be taken down. Now with that being said, it would really be nice if the developer could preserve some of the existing trees, because we really do have some gorgeous beautiful maples, etc... currently existing within this new development that is looking to be built. In any area there needs to be a balance between trees, mother nature and buildings so-to-speak. Retail, Restaurants, Commercial and Offices: We also have a definite concern in regards to what is going to truly support all of the retail businesses that you are looking at putting in for this New Development for Avienda. If you look around the city of Chanhassen, you certainly can see and tell that there have been businesses that have come and gone over the years that ihey have been here. When deciding on how many businesses, restaurants, etc... it might be wise for you as a City Council to take a step back and seriously think about what is realistic in regards to how many retailers, restaurants, etc... that really should be built and put in this new development. In this day and age, our economy truly just does not support new retailers and businesses.The proof is truly in the pudding, if you truly just look around and see how many businesses in our community just are not making it that should tell you something. As a City Council you have got to be honest with yourself and suggest what is realistic and what is not. In regards to the Restaurants that the City Council and the Builder are looking at putting in at this new development for Avienda, we would strongly suggest that you look at actual restaurants, and not fast food chains. We have more than enough fast food chains within our Chanhassen community. Please look at some of the key,top restaurants that would make our new development of Avienda a little different and even more so updated. As I mentioned we have enough McDonalds' and fast food places within our Chanhassen community, so please do not add those to the new development of Avienda. The other thing pertaining to Apartments/Condo's or Business Buildings, is that we somewhat have a concern in regards to how high these buildings might end up being. We would definitely prefer these buildings to stay on the definite lower side of things, and not where we have buildings which might be say 6 to 20 stories high. Again, when putting the specs in for this new development of Avienda,you need to always keep the current homeowner's or developments in mind. We don't need sky scrapper buildings put within this new development, keep in mind in the end, how is it going to affect the existing developments and/or homeowner's. Kate,we would greatly appreciate it if you would please pass on our current thoughts and concerns to the rest of the City Council members for this new proposed development for Avienda. We hope that the City Council takes our thoughts and concerns into serious consideration, especially since we live right by this new proposed development for Avienda. We would love to attend any of the upcoming meetings for this new proposed development. I have provided our names and phone number listed below. Thank you ^' Best regards, Lori and Corey Hothan 952.368.0559 Y PC DATE: November 1, 2016 0 e- 1011 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CC DATE: November 28, 2016 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 29, 2016 9 g p S CASE #2016-25 BY: KA PROPOSED ACTION: The Planning Commission provide observations and feedback to the City Council on the Concept Planned Unit Development. PROPOSAL: Conceptual Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development(PUD)of 6 parcels on approximately 118 acres of land. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard APPLICANT: Landform Professional Services LLC 105 South Fifth Ave Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55330 PRESENT ZONING: A-2 Agricultural Estate 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office, Regional Commercial, and Medium Density Residential ACREAGE: Approximately 118 acres DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting conceptual review to consider rezoning from Agricultural Estate to Planned Unit Development Regional Commercial. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The Planning Commission is providing the City Council with comments and direction on the Concept Planned Unit Development. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan review for a Planned Unit Development PUD). The site is currently zoned Agricultural Estate(A-2). With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the property west of Powers Boulevard for either Office or Commercial. With the update of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the city considered two land use options for the subject properties: Office or Regional Commercial. The dual guiding allows the City Council to review the application for Regional Commercial to ensure it furthers the city's vision as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The 1.66-acre parcel located east of Powers Boulevard is zoned Agricultural Estate and is guided Medium Density Residential. The applicant has not proposed development plans for this parcel at this time. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary for any action to change the land use. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 2 of 37 The use of the PUD zoning also allows for greater specificity in the types,location and sizes of uses. The city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would be the case with the other,more standard zoning districts. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectations are to be realized as evaluated by the city's goals and policies(see Attachment#11 —2007 Community Survey questions asked regarding a regional mall). HISTORY OF THE SITE A Concept PUD for a Regional Commercial zoning was approved by Planning Commission and the City Council in 2015. That application included 70 acres,this application is for 118 acres. The City Council did authorize the update of the AUAR(Alternative urban Areawide Review). The update was never executed. The development of the 118 acres in now under a new LLC and will be included in the AUAR. 31N M1 j I` yah Ct Lyman,B r , , -75:' ' ii,, , - I); - 1 A 0...,- ,...._ _ v it - is ,'7. a t o ' - Ai V* ' F 4 ,,.ger t Subject',. qq4n,YM!/,fit SIf.i;<.a 1V1ltirr w.rlh I r I l/itir” Site V fie ` r rte 1 4lis,, Al, ''....../t' S R j, it Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 3 of 37 Parcel and Site Information Parcel ID Taxpayer Acreage Land Use Current Zoning 250230500 Level Development Inc. 22.89 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate 1.66 Medium Density A-2 Agricultural Estate 250230300 Level 7 Development Inc. 54.07 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate 250230410 Level 7 Development Inc. 20 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate 250230430 Level 7 Development Inc. 16 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate 250230420 Level 7 Development Inc. 4 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate Total 118.62 Concept Provided by Level 7 Development, LLC I LiY`—' JOAN 9OULCVAeaI r i J t, LS—-—..— LS---- UA lMare Z7f Q_ aAa_c _r.`-7- .4 `I 9 enaea Ly/ c Av Hw vuxvwv 222111 ti cal raiz 1 C C L I • l L 11'.a RI s, ; t ' a 7 T 1 00C., 4,46 —J o i l--- J—_.- 4 C C aw,C !"_ r .IOW oorI I c Ask oma . 1 ( } II e/ no L[ i c Q tie 1 u I L Y -7 U ,, o c7 _— r_r---J-, J new E 11 A eW4\ i]c_G _— a j p Q II 1 i 0•;\,--,--:-.7_,ic-,9 ',J. iJ 1 rz—,, I s I IItLL- --—- 1 L' i Site plan is for illustrative purposes only and is subject to L_ change. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development-Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 4 of 37 Development Data Gross Net Section Area Developable Building Area Parking Units! Acres) Area S.F.) Stalls Beds Acres) 0 9.93 9.55 108,000 573 0 1.33 1.33 7,000 99 Legend 9.01 8.57 93,000 128 312 9.56 6.32 68,000 n!a 72 5.33 2.97 50,000 197 1,51 Fuhre Traffic Signal L c 2.58 2.58 30,000 191 AExisting Traffic Signa' 0 3.38 3.38 33,000 249 C.% 3.27 3.27 60,000 259 C) Stall Count C) 1.86 1.63 6,500 115 J 1 RAI c Right Of Way 0 1.57 1.20 6,500 96 0 Pondng C 2.04 1.64 6,500 119 I 1.83 1.83 7,000 104 Preservation 0C) 26.70 26.70 254,500 1364 177 Wetland and Buffer G 2.45 2.45 25,000 138 150 I I Regional Commercial 0 2.58 1.91 25,000 115 100 Office G 3.45 3.02 40,000 108 92 0 11.04 0.00 rite n/a High Density Residential 0 15.88 0.00 nia n/a n Medium Density Resident al Total 113.79 78.35 820,000 3,855 726 The development plans describe the land use designations, but has not identified any specific uses. Staff has commented on this in the Market Study section. BACKGROUND 2030 Comprehensive Plan (verbatim language) VISION The land use change to either Office or Regional Commercial District as a part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was based on the city's vision for a lifestyle center. The Comprehensive Plan states: Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 5 of 37 2.7.4 Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial Definition/Vision: A mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive, comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors and is designed to serve trail users and mass transit as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity and mix of retail and service uses within their boundaries. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading,parking of automobiles, lighting and trash collection and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. Goods and Services Examples Entertainment Department Store Comparison Shopping Specialty Retail/Boutique Restaurants Hotels Residential A new zoning district Regional Commercial (RC) will be created in the City Code to implement this land use. The city has given a dual land use of the 118 acres at the southeast corner of Powers and Lyman Boulevards to accommodate this use." ANALYSIS OF APPLICATION FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL In 2009 the city adopted standards and guidelines for a regional/lifestyle center commercial planned unit development. ZONING DISTRICT The RC Zoning District is found in the PUD District. Sec. 20-509. - Standards and guidelines for regional/lifestyle center commercial planned unit developments. a) Intent. 1) The use of planned unit developments for regional/lifestyle center commercial purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 6 of 37 and the developer. This district is intended to provide for the development of regional and community scale integrated retail, office, business services,personal services and services to the traveling public near freeway interchanges. It shall strive to create a self-sustaining pattern of land uses with cultural, employment, entertainment, housing, shopping and social components. 2) The regional/lifestyle center commercial district is a mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive, comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors. It shall be designed to serve pedestrian and mass transit users as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type, generally,have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity of mixed retail and service uses. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. 3) Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading,parking of automobiles, lighting and trash collection and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme,but shall avoid monotony in design and visual appearance. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. b) Minimum lot size: 10,000 square feet c) Minimum lot width at building setback: 100 feet. d) Minimum lot depth: 100 feet. e) Minimum setbacks: Building setbacks are also a function of the building height. As a building's height increases above 35 feet, the front, rear and project perimeter setback shall increase on a one-to-one basis. The increased setback shall only apply to that portion of the building that exceeds 35 feet, e.g., a 40-foot tall building would be set back ten feet(front or rear) at that point where the building height equals 40 feet. A building height may step back, providing the setback/building height ratio is maintained. 1) PUD exterior: 30 feet. The 30-foot PUD exterior setback may be changed, increased or decreased,by the city council as part of the approval process when it is demonstrated that environmental protection or development design will be enhanced. Building setbacks adjacent to exterior development lot lines abutting an area designated for residential use in the comprehensive plan shall be 50 feet, unless unique circumstances are found which would allow the city to reduce the setback requirement. 2) Front yard: 5 feet. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development–Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 7 of 37 3) Rear yard: 5 feet. 4) Side yard: 0. 5) Parking: 6) Setbacks (feet): Front: 10 Side: 10 Rear: 10 7) Parking setback exemptions: a. There is no minimum parking setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. b. Parking along public streets shall provide an appropriate transition, which shall incorporate such elements as landscaping, decorative fencing,public art,berming, etc. c. Parking setbacks adjacent to exterior development lot lines abutting an area designated for residential use in the comprehensive plan shall be 50 feet unless unique circumstances are found which would allow the city to reduce the setback requirement. Unique circumstances include site elevation, separation by natural features such as wetlands or stands of mature trees or substantial visual screening through berming and landscaping. 8) Parking standards shall comply with City Code for type and location. f) Maximum building height: Commercial—retail 2 stories Commercial—services 3 stories Office 5 stories Residential 5 stories g) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. h) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 8 of 37 1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yards shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and less intensive land uses. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative blocks retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2) Exterior landscaping and double fronted lots. Landscaped beans shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and less intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double-fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. 3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget or plan for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget or prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. i) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments; 2) Streetscape requirements: a. Every building shall incorporate a streetscape,public realm space between the building and the roadway. The use of canopies, awnings or arcades is encouraged in these interfaces. b. Outdoor seating areas must be in a controlled or cordoned area with at least one access to an acceptable pedestrian walk. Seating areas may be shared by multiple uses. When a liquor license is involved, an enclosure is required around the outdoor seating area and the enclosure shall not be interrupted; access to such seating area must be through the principle building. Outdoor seating areas must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. c. Streetscape elements shall include: Landscaping, lighting and street furniture such as benches, bus shelters, kiosks, planters,public art, tables and chairs, etc. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 9 of 37 To receive the Regional Commercial PUD zoning, the ordinance requires that the property be under one owner control and be developed under a PUD. The developer is required to demonstrate that they are meeting the vision of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as well as the intent of the zoning district. (Section 20-505) Concept PUD—What is required? Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article VIII.—Planned Unit Development District, Division 2.— Procedures Sec. 20-517.- General concept plan. a) In order to receive guidance in the design of a PUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended for large PUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following information appropriate to the type of development, e.g., commercial, industrial or residential: 1) Approximate building areas,pedestrian ways and road locations; 2) Height,bulk and square footage of buildings; 3) Type, number or square footage or intensities of specific land uses; 4) Number of dwelling units; 5) Generalized development plan showing areas to be developed or preserved; and 6) Staging and timing of the development. b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: 1) The developer meets with city staff to discuss the proposed developments. 2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 10of37 3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing. Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten days prior thereto to owners of land within 500 feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. 4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider and comment on the concept plan. The PUD process provides an opportunity to receive clear direction from Planning Commission, City Council and residents of Chanhassen. The city's expectation is that the proposed development will be of higher quality and create a sense of place and identity for the community. The development shall provide regional and community scale including retail, office, and service uses that complement existing commercial uses in the downtown and provide shopping opportunities not currently located in the community. The development must also be sensitive to environmental features on site including topography, vegetation, wetlands and scenic views. Finally, the project should have appropriate transitions between uses. One of the comments of the Concept PUD review will be an update to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) which was done in 2003. The traffic component will be one of the most critical elements that needs to be updated. The amount of traffic being generated and the impacts to the surrounding transportation system will need to be examined. The traffic study and its impacts may affect the land use recommendations. In order to best determine the intensity of development for the AUAR, staff is recommending that the applicant proceed to the PUD development stage(per City Code Section 20-508). This stage requires submittal of a preliminary plat and fees. After review of the development stage, a condition of final approval will be completion of the update to the AUAR. RETAIL MARKET STUDY In June 2014,the McComb Group, Ltd. completed a Trade Area Demographic, Characteristic and Sales Potential for the Chan-212 area. The executive summary comments include, "Chan-212 trade area's many economic attributes,population, and upper income households provide support for retail stores,restaurants and key services." The developer had not disclosed his specific uses with this application,but based on the marketing study it is apparent a grocery store/supermarket is a potential use. In a previous meeting with staff, the developer indicated that: The Shopping Goods Store Type—categorized as clothing and accessories, furniture,home furnishings, electronics, sporting goods,hobby and music is significantly underrepresented in the project's primary trade area and the sales of this merchandise category from the primary trade area are being captured in other distant trade areas. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 11 of 37 The Chanhassen trade area is growing and creating additional sales potential for grocery stores. In addition,the Chanhassen"outflow grocery sales"are higher than normal. This suggests that trade area residents may be dissatisfied with existing grocery shopping options. The study indicated the ability of the trade area to support a new grocery store in excess of 90,000 square feet without creating hardship for existing grocery retailers. In addition,other potential uses include warehouse clubs and supercenters,building supply and home centers. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 12 of 37 The Convenience Goods trade area, shown on Map 5, includes Chanhassen, Chaska, and portions of Eden Prairie, Shakopee, Carver, Victoria, Shorewood, Minnetonka, and Excelsior, along with portions of Jackson, Louisville, Dahlgren, and Laketown Townships. This trade area extends north to Lake Minnetonka, east to Highway 212 and I-494, south to Highway 41 in Shakopee, and west to Laketown Road in Laketown Township. The Convenience Goods trade area covers approximately 88 square miles centered on Chanhassen. Map 5 CHAN-212 CONVENIENCE GOODS TRADE AREA W Irhf.ni 1 Irl..a ly.: t . r alitsrR.elwh •1J--. ry1 I r-• 6tiA r' r 1 ,a, r" i 'f 5 7fj r :34,: i tAh r,Wf r4.1xrh oar, Lt 1 ill'IJ 11'. P tib R, pr a4 uwn1 • i 1 U 47 0 e ,• - tlelit.tilaori tirSim eti j UVd 71?5ti r r . Source: ScaniUS,Inc. and McComb Group,Ltd. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 13 of 37 The Shopping Goods trade area covers the southwest Metropolitan Area, as shown on Map 6, extending 60 miles west and encompassing over 2,100 square miles. General boundaries are six miles north of Highway 7, east to Highway 100 in Bloomington/Edina, south to Highway 22 just south of LeSueur, and west five miles from Highway 4 in Hector. Map 6 CHAN-212 SHOPPING GOODS TRADE AREA ST N.{v. C1 :. o rr,•,1f1 tItAfitial P's Cckac errs# f 1rrP a: +t,` 06 (.47,PIrI•: GPrqa,x,y',a • 1'n tblchlnVal gki gigot P" VP? SYAGfIN) 1 t,t 5410; Chai14 I Lianotri i crot Ftat) Cebpnc ifYQr Dee` hk-li7r '. ar-t=:r ikc.•WIl a, It.m t,,ryM WAIN; 1., Colla J010111 to Fcrrt•IncnT.1 usingt n Via' 110Lr itarlob I r e Po her Nlrker tieneffscr t Frill AInyeur tti' F'taii •1z: Thad'fin. lele C9tK'fY tc+tFliat RicemM _ Source: ScanJUS,Inc.and McComb Group, Ltd. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development-Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 14 of 37 Table 28 CHAN-212 POTENTIAL GROSS LEASABLE AREA Gross Leasable Area Store Category Low High Convenience Goods 105,000 135,000 Shopping Goods Anchor Stores 120,000 220,000 Junior Anchors 220,000 315,000 Inline Stores 110,000 180,000 Subtotal 450,000 715,000 Food Service Restaurants 20,000 30,000 Fast Food 15,000 20,000 Subtotal 35,000 50,000 Services 20,000 30,000 Destination Stores Health Club 50,000 60,000 Home Center 115,000 115,000 Cinema 50,000 60,000 Subtotal 215,000 235,000 TOTAL 825,000 1,165,000 Source: McComb Group,Ltd Shopping goods retailers are stores where comparison shopping is a common part of the shopping trip. Department stores typically anchor these shopping centers. Potential anchor store GLA ranges from 120,000 square feet to 220,000 square feet (This would be in total square feet not building foot print). Junior anchor retailers are various size stores, ranging in size from 10,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet, also adding to the center's drawing power. Junior anchor GLA could range from 220,000 square feet to 315,000 square feet. Inline, small store tenants could range from 110,000 square feet to 180,000 square feet. Total shopping goods stores could range from 450,000 square feet to 715,000 square feet. Food service establishments are expected to range from 35,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet. Services of various types could range from 20,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 15 of 37 Destination retailers like health clubs,home centers, and cinemas, could total 215,000 square feet to 235,000 square feet if all three are located at Chan-212. It is possible that not all the anticipated potential tenants will locate at Chan-212 indicating that the shopping center is likely to be between 800,000 square feet and 1,000,000 square feet. Source: McComb Group, Ltd. See Attachment#7—"Sales Potential and Supportable GLA" for more specifics on uses and square footage. Planning Departments Comments When the city was considering the land use change on the site in 2006-07,there was much discussion about this area having uses different from the downtown. The downtown area is intended to be the uses that meet the daily needs of residents,and the regional mall site was envisioned to be those uses that would be more of a comparison shopping that would serve a regional market including: Goods and Services Examples Entertainment Department Store Comparison Shopping Specialty Retail/Boutique Restaurants Hotels Residential In lieu of any descriptions of this information, staff has the following comments based on a Commercial/Regional Retail Development Diagram (see Attachment#13) showing building areas, type, number, square footage or intensities of specific land uses. 1. A pattern of buildings and uses that might be oriented around a central public promenade, street, or public space of some sort, and when looked at together form a"regional" commercial destination. Given the land area available in Chanhassen(100+acres), and in understanding the market, this concept would not necessarily be seen as a"dale"type of shopping center,but possibly more like a"Shoppes at Arbor Lake,"or the new outlet center in Eagan(paragon outlets/Eagan outlets) offof 77 and 13, or the Woodbury Lakes Development. 2. Such a center might include a collection of buildings with footprints ranging from as small as a 3,000 to 5,000 square-foot restaurant to a 100,000 square-foot multi-tenant building. Anchors might be more in the 35,000 to 75,000 square-foot range (i.e. JC Penney, Kohl's, Sears, Dick's Sporting Goods, Gander Mountain, Cabela's etc.). A more likely scenario would be the smaller restaurant users or supporting commercial users in the 3,000 to 10,000 Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 16 of 37 square-foot range with individual spaces within a larger building,but maintaining individual entrances facing the public space,promenade,plaza, or street. 3. Mixing in entertainment, hotel, and to a degree some residential uses could allow for shared parking. This assumes that people come to this area for the experience and that they park once and visit many locations; as opposed to more convenience retail where people are only coming to this store for a quick shopping visit( i.e. discount retailers, pharmacy, grocery, hardware,building materials etc.). Based on the lack of specificity in the types and sizes of uses, staff is recommending a list of permitted and prohibited uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan(see recommendation for use and square footage below). The applicant will be required to create a PUD district with a list of specific uses. Staff is has provided recommendations for uses base on the in intent of the RC Zoning District Sec. 20-509. Again the intent of this district: The use of planned unit developments for regional/lifestyle center commercial purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. This district is intended to provide for the development of regional and community scale integrated retail, office, business services, personal services and services to the traveling public near freeway interchanges. The regional/lifestyle center commercial district is a mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 17 of 37 Recommendation for Use and Square Footage Square Footage Square Footage USE Merchandise Category SIC Code Tenant(minimum) Tenant(maximum) Convenience Goods Specialty Food Stores: bakeries,candy, dairy, 542, 543, deli, fruits&vegetables,meat&fish,nut& 544, 545, confectionary 546 and 549 700 18,000 Food Service: restaurants, eating and drinking,no drive thru 581 and 582 200 10,000 Other: drug,florist, liquor,miscellaneous, 5912, 5921, newsstand, optical and tobacco 599 700 Specialty Grocery 541 10,000 25,000 Shopping Goods General department store 5311 90,000 150,000 Apparel&Accessories: clothing and shoes 56 900 28,000 Furniture&Home Furnishings 571 1,200 37,000 Electronics&Appliances 572 &573 900 26,000 5941, 5942, 5943, 5944, Other: art,book,camera, cosmetic, game, gift, 5945, 5946, hobby,jewelry, leather, luggage,novelty,pet, 5947, 5948, photography, sewing, souvenir,sporting goods 5949 and and stationary 5999 600 45,000 Services Personal: adult care,miscellaneous,photography, 722, 729 tax preparation,veterinary and 835 900 8,000 Personal: salons and spas 723 and 724 900 8,000 Recreation: clubs and spas 7991 1,400 33,000 801, 802, 803, 804 Health care: clinics and offices and 809 900 60,000 61, 62, 63, 651, 653, 654, 67,73, 87 (not Offices: professional services 8734) 200 60,000 Theater: motion and theatrical 783 and 792 1,300 50,000 Hotel(250 rooms) 701 5,000 65,000 Bank and financial institutions 60 900 20,000 Residential To be determined with PUD, assume 550 units of high and medium density TOTAL 116,700 643,000 Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 18 of 37 Prohibited Uses SIC Code Automobile, Boat, Recreational Vehicles, Motorcycle and Truck, Mobile Home dealers and Suppilies 527, 55, 751 Automotive Repair and Services 76 521, 523, 525, Building Materials 526 Car wash 754 Convenience store with gas 5411, 5541 Day Care 835 Discount Store 533 Dry cleaning 721 Elementary and secondary schools, public or private 82 Fast Food Restaurant with drive thru 5812 Gas Station 5541 Grocery Stores 5411 Hardware 5251 Hospitals 805, 806 Liquor Store 592 Membership organizations 86 Motor vehicle repair and parts 76 Nursing Homes 805 Residential Care facilities 805, 836 Supermarkets 5411 Theater Warehouse Club 533 Wholesalers 51 Engineering Comments The concept plan includes the extension of Bluff Creek Boulevard from its current terminus to Powers Boulevard. Bluff Creek Boulevard is a Municipal State Aid Route therefore the design is subject to review and approval ofMNDOT's State Aid Office. The roadways should be aligned to encourage traffic to use Bluff Creek Boulevard for the development. The roadway however should be designed to discourage cut-through traffic to Audubon Road or Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 19 of 37 Pioneer Trail. The plan shall include a connection to the existing stub street on the northwest corner of the area to the single-family development to the west(Mills Drive) and a connection to the existing emergency exit within the Camden Ridge single-family development to the south. An internal public road that loops through the development is proposed. The plan includes a roundabout on Bluff Creek Boulevard just west of Powers Boulevard. A public loop road-Avienda Parkway- is proposed on the north side of the Bluff Creek Boulevard extension to provide access to the retail, office and medium-density residential uses. Another roundabout or some other traffic calming feature on Bluff Creek Boulevard should be considered at the western intersection of Bluff Creek Boulevard and Avienda Parkway as a demarcation between the Avienda mixed use development and the existing residential uses to the west. A full access is proposed at Lyman Boulevard and aligns with Sunset Trail to the north. The AUAR update will examine this intersection and include recommendations evaluate if the intersection meets signal warrants. The AUAR will also look at pedestrian movements at this intersection to see if an enhanced pedestrian crossing is warranted if a signal is not. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development-Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 20 of 37 Public street t J iL connection to _ I11.Wi ECM EVAxr a, Mills Drive tN required. to_ e(,. F ' , R1Y 0• :``-1'Ai 111110 F I 1 v - - e ( r 1 - C} I i as ee a. 04 1 ®I i 1 I o I I I. 1 . I ea. 07, t: 1 R1\' ® 4'' RI' Iiy,..: s J c' t rSI o1f1oA -° 1 IA. 1 1 —i-- 1.--j1_ ;{ R51 Via. P R1r p• C 1 L_1 O C 711 II I W.X.MY" b Raso6l IIT sf` GOC. II z1J obi J Possible roundabout to demarcate between the proposed mixed use development from the existing Connect to 1, residential uses to the west. existing fire lane to the south. i As part of the AUAR update the developer shall complete a traffic study based on the proposed land uses. The study shall include the following: Updated current and 20-year projected traffic volumes Analysis of turning movements Level of service analysis, including recommendations for improvements should the projected level of service fall below the acceptable level Analysis of existing and proposed turn lanes to the development and recommendations for stacking lengths and signalization warrants Analysis of potential cut-through traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard/Bluff Creek Drive to the west of the site. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 21 of 37 Based on the existing elevations where the development improvements connect to Powers Boulevard, Lyman Boulevard, Bluff Creek Boulevard and Mills Drive the developer will have unique opportunities to utilize the grade differences to enhance the development, such as walkout medium density units and preservation of the majority of the wetland complex at Powers Boulevard/Bluff Creek Boulevard intersection. The water main proposed for the developed shall be modeled to confirm the sizing is adequate for peak use and fire flows. Water Resources Comments Wetland Protection The final updated delineation reveals eight(8)wetland basins covering 6.15 acres of land. One wetland, WL9 received an agricultural exemption. Wetland 1 and 2 were found by the Technical Evaluation Panel to be hydrologically connected and,therefore,the applicant's consultant was required to revise the boundary as shown in purple on the following exhibit from Kjolhaug Environmental Services. The city is still awaiting the GIS compatible, georeferenced shapefiles for final approval of the delineated boundary. Chanhassen City Code enumerates ten purposes for the Wetland Protection ordinance. Among these ten is the restriction and mitigation of the harmful effects of development on wetlands. All activities within the city shall be governed by the MN Wetland Conservation Act. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Under Minnesota State Law and Chanhassen City Code §20-402 through 20-421 wetland impacts should be avoided were feasible to do so. This proposal makes little effort to avoid wetland impacts on the site. As shown in the conceptual plan for the site, all but one of the basins will be filled in their entirety for a total direct wetland impact of 5.57 acres. The remaining wetland, a low quality Type 1 basin, dominated entirely by reed canary grass, would have a high probability of secondary impact as the concept plan routes surface water runoff away from the remaining wetland. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act was passed in 1991 (MN Statute 103A and MN Rule Chapter 8420)with the purpose of; achieving"no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands"; increasing"the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished wetlands"; avoiding " direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands;" and replacing "wetland values where avoidance is not feasible and prudent." Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 22 of 37 It is very important to note that MN Rules part 8420.520. Subpart 3.0 (2) clearly defines what is feasible and prudent"as follows. An alternative is considered feasible and prudent if it meets all of the following requirements: a) it is capable of being done from an engineering point of view; b) it is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices; c) it is consistent with reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare; d) it is an environmentally preferable alternative based upon a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts; and e) it would create no truly unusual problems." That subpart goes on to describe the city's obligations under when reviewing avoidance alternatives. 3) The local government unit must consider the following in avoidance alternatives as applicable: a) whether the basic project purpose can be reasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in the same general area that would avoid wetland impacts.... b) The general suitability of the project site and alternate sites considered by the applicant to achieve the purpose of the project; c) Whether reasonable modification of the size, scope,configuration or density of the project would avoid impacts to wetlands; d) Efforts by the applicant to accommodate or remove constraints on alternatives imposed by zoning standards or infrastructure, including requests for conditional use permits,variances, or planned unit developments; e) The physical, economic, and demographic requirements of the project. Economics alone do not make an alternative not feasible and prudent; and f) The amount,distribution,condition,and public value of wetlands and associated resources to be affected by the project and the potential for direct and indirect effects over time. 4) If the local government unit determines that a feasible and prudent alternative exists that would avoid impacts to wetlands, it must deny the replacement plan. If it is determined that there is no feasible and prudent alternative that would avoid impacts as described above, then Chanhassen must determine if the applicant has demonstrated that they have minimized impacts to the wetlands. The minimization follows the same basic rigor and review as described for avoidance. Further augmenting the "feasible and prudent alternatives" case is that the original AUAR showed three concepts that significantly minimized wetland impacts on the site. (See page 3 of the Avienda Concept Submittal packet.) The two higher quality wetlands were, in particular, saved from impacts. A memorandum from Ben Meyer of the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources, dated 10/19/16 and attached, echoes these concerns. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 23 of 37 Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will likely have authority over some of the wetland on the subject properties. While the Joint Notification Application allows for concurrent review processes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues their own permit with their own criteria. Approval from the City as the LGU responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act does not translate directly into federal approval. Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency must review and determine that any fill placement is compliant with the state water quality standards. The wetland on the subject property drain to either Lake Susan or into Bluff Creek. Both of these water bodies are impaired. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 24 of 37 MM!.4-;*, T L6 F 0.74 ac I t t' 1' r MI r. 414' trl 0.69 act, x. I r „ 1 ` • --J Previously,Dralned;, . -f 4WL2i/f 1 t, 14- Not Present ' s *2.33 act,3 tWL8 1- ji1— , WL112' .~~,i 0.08 ac .. , _ . 11,1 0719 ac .•-. ;- 1 V 3 • 441;00• VVL7 `1, -- ill° - 0.65 ac WI-1 0.02 acAl' 1.03ac e y p/ W//L— WL5 0.36 ac , t WL4 0.13 ac Y ll 1 t 1 Legend 4' r l•- O Project Boundary r I •: 7 1a Ej 2015 KES Wetland Revisions 2014 Sambatek Wetland Boundary 2014 Boundary Wetland 6 I ii 0 Drainageway t i •:' Calvert tt 44. fir, Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2013 Carve Photograph) N 0 500 The District at Vincent Ridge( KES 2015-013) II Feet Chanhassen,Minnesota r Note:Boundaries indicated KJOLHAUC on this figure are approximate F VVIRONMENTAI.SERVICES COMPANY and do not constitute an official sur eyproduct. v Sou me:MnGeo,SSRI Imagery Basenap Figure 1 -Updated wetland delineation including additional areas in purple. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 25 of 37 Mitigation for Approved Wetland Impacts Just as there are sequencing requirements for wetland impacts, there are also sequencing requirements for wetland replacement(mitigation). Section 20-416 (b) (3) of Chanhassen City Code describes where mitigation can occur. These are, in descending order of preference; 1. On-site 2. Locally within the same sub-watershed elsewhere in the city; 3. Off-site within the same major watershed or through the purchase of wetland credits. Minnesota Rules 8420.0522 sets out the replacement standards if it is determined that the impacts are unavoidable or cannot be restored over time. The replacement wetland(s)must replace the public value of wetlands lost. One of the functions some of the wetlands serve on the subject property have to do with flow augmentation and/or amelioration within Bluff Creek. It will be important that any impacts deemed unavoidable are mitigated for within the Bluff Creek watershed. The minimum replacement ratio will be 2:1 if the replacement is "in-kind" and within the same watershed or 2.5:1 if the replacement is "out-of-kind" or outside the watershed. Given the impaired status of the downstream receiving waters, any approved unavoidable wetland impacts should be mitigated in the same minor watershed. Subpart 7 of the same section of Minnesota Rules sets requirements for the siting of replacement wetlands as follows in descending order of preference: 1. In the same minor watershed as the impacted wetland; 2. In the same major watershed as the impacted wetland; 3. In the same county as the impacted wetland; 4. If replaced through banking, then in the same wetland bank service area; or 5. In an adjacent bank service area provided it is also a less than 50%wetlands remaining bank service area. The Federal Clean Water Act also has mitigation requirements. Generally, replacement wetland meeting the above will satisfy the Section 404 requirements although this is not always the case. It will be the applicant's responsibility to assure that they meet the Section 404 requirements. The applicant needs to show an adequate sequencing argument for the extent of the proposed impacts. Water Quality Protection This site drains to one of two water bodies (see figure 2). Generally, the northeast portion flows to Lake Susan which has an impairment for excessive nutrients. The remainder of the site drains to Bluff Creek which has a turbidity impairment and an impairment for indices of biological integrity. Any stormwater management plan must consider these impairments as both are within one-mile of the site. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 26 of 37 NPDES Construction Permit This development will be subject to the rules of the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program (NPDES Construction Permit) issued August 1, 2013. This permit requires that the permittee manages the stormwater such that during project construction and upon completion there is no violation of state water quality standards. Part III.D states: Where a project's ultimate development replaces vegetation and/or other pervious surfaces with one (1) or more acres of cumulative impervious surface, the Permittee(s) must design the project so that the water quality volume of one (1) inch of runofffrom the new impervious surfaces created by the project is retained on site (i.e. infiltration or other volume reduction practices) and not discharged to a surface water. For purposes of this part, surface waters does not include man-made drainage systems that convey stormwater to a compliant permanent stormwater management system. For those projects where infiltration is prohibited(see Part 111.D.1.1), the Permittee(s)shall consider other methods of volume reduction and the water quality volume (or remainder of the water quality volume if some volume reduction is achieved) must be treated by a wet sedimentation basin,filtration system, regionalponding or equivalent methods prior to the discharge of stormwater to surface waters. NPDES MS4 Permit Chanhassen is permitted to discharge stormwater under the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Small Municipal Storm Sewer Systems Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program (MS4) issued August 1, 2013. The MS4 permit requires Chanhassen, as a permittee, to develop a post- construction stormwater management program. This program must give the highest preference to "Green Infrastructure"practices such as conservation design, infiltration and reuse. New development must result in no net increase from pre-project conditions of stormwater volume, stormwater discharge of total suspended solids and total phosphorus. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Rule J Rule J requires that the 1. 1 inches of runoff from impervious surface of a parcel must be abstracted on-site. In addition, the stormwater management must achieve 60%removal of total phosphorus and 90%removal of TSS on an annual basis. These removals are consistent with the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) recommendations and the volume is consistent with the NPDES permit requirements. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 27 of 37 Planned Unit Development District Section 20-501 lists 9 elements which are to be included in a planned unit development. These elements are consistent with low impact design (LID) and better site design practices. The preservation of significant ecological resources and open space is a primary reason for allowing the use of PUD. The first three speak directly to this goal: 1)Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space andprotection of sensitive environmental features,induding steep slopes, mature trees,creeks,wetlands,lakes and scenic views. 2)More efficient and effective use of land,open space and public facilities through mixing ofland uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. 3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses,induding both existing andplanned.Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. This would lend to preservation of wetlands, woodlands and topographic features through thoughtful consideration during site layout and through the use of practices such as terrain- adaptive architecture. Bluff Creek Overlay District The woodland area lies within the boundaries of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. In addition, wetland 4 lies entirely within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and feeds the large mitigation area to the south. This overlay district is intended to protect Bluff Creek,preserve natural conditions and to establish a corridor of"interconnected open space"throughout the entire system for ecological, recreational and educational benefit. Section 20-1561 (a) stipulates that" natural habitat areas within the primary zone shall be preserved as permanent open space." This would be consistent with the intent of the PUD and could very possibly be used as mitigation for wetland impacts although that must be determined in context of wetland preservation as a whole. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 28 of 37 A 4 r Subject Site rrr j I ate•' R rr` A ' c f' 016r4V- ''' E rrrrf '{ - - MO Landscaping Comments Existing natural features on the site include a tree windrow in the center of the property, landscaping around the existing homes, natural vegetation around the wetlands and a large native woodland in the southwest corner. The developer is proposing to preserve some of the wooded area in the southeast corner. This woodlot falls entirely within the Bluff Creek Corridor Primary Zone and is intended for preservation. The woodlot is of high quality and consists of native species of trees and shrubs with minimal invasive species present. Landscaping requirements for Commercial/Office areas: Parking lot landscaping requirements o Use less individual islands and more extended planting spaces and areas o Use extended planting areas for both landscaping requirements and stormwater management infiltration basins o Incorporate landscape materials and design that requires minimal irrigation Bufferyard landscape requirements o Bufferyards will be required around perimeter as well as differing uses within the development Foundation plantings Boulevard trees along public streets Landscape area/green space requirements Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 29 of 37 o Preferable to have minimum mowed turf areas. Use prairie or no mow mixes in low use areas o Employ capture-and-use irrigation systems for development In Residential areas: Tree Preservation/Canopy Coverage requirements Use a diverse mix of species for planting Bufferyard requirements Foundation plantings Boulevard trees along public streets Landscape area/green space requirements Preferable to have minimum mowed turf areas. Use prairie or no mow mixes in low use areas Employ capture-and-use irrigation systems for development Bluff Creek Overlay District Entire wooded area in southwest corner within Primary Corridor therefore should be identified for preservation Conservation area should remain undisturbed and the feature should be worked around to signify a higher quality of development standards for the site. Carver County Comments (from 201 S) This development was studied to some extent during the Lyman Boulevard Project development process. The owners (Dorsey and Fox) were very involved. They requested Lyman Boulevard be designed to accept a 100%retail development on the property even though the comprehensive plan guides the lifestyle center. We had SRF Consulting perform a traffic study of the AUAR option, the comprehensive plan option and the 100%retail option to determine impacts to our project. There are severe impacts to Powers Boulevard dependent on the land use and some to Lyman Boulevard. Obviously the development will require a full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), but the SRF study is a good place to start. Other comments we have at this point are: Future right-of-way needs for Lyman and Powers Boulevards will need to be addressed, especially in the areas of the intersections. Walk and trail locations need to be determined and accommodated along the roadways, adequate right-of-way or easements need to be preserved. Utilities will need to be addressed during design. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development–Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 30 of 37 Park Comments The proposed Lifestyle Center(PUD) is located within the city's 2005 Metropolitan Urban Service Area. This region of the city is currently in transition from primarily agricultural uses to residential, commercial, industrial, and office uses. In concert with this change in land use, the city's Community Development Department implemented two key planning processes—the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan(Bluff Creek Overlay) and the Alternative Urban Area Wide Review (AUAR). Comprehensive Park Plan The city's comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one-half mile of every residence in the city and a community park/public school facility to be located within one to two miles of each residence. The proposed lifestyle center site is situated within the community park service area of Bandimere Community Park and the Chanhassen High School campus. However, the proposed residential housing within the concept is outside the one-half mile service area of any existing neighborhood parks in the area. Neighborhood Parks Provide opportunities for informal recreation close to home. Developed primarily for unstructured active recreation such as field games, court games,play equipment and trail opportunities. Must be easily accessible to residential areas with safe walking and biking access on trail networks. Sites need well-draining soils and flat terrain to accommodate active play features. To fulfill the comprehensive plan guidance for providing neighborhood park services, the application needs to include a public neighborhood park component. The proposed recreational site would be best associated with the existing woodlands situated in the southwest corner of the PUD. The park space needs to be of sufficient size to accommodate traditional park attractions including an open play field, playground and hard surface sport court. The site should seek to be accessible to the residential units in a barrier-free pedestrian manner. A park dedication requirement either in the form of land dedication or the payment of park fees or a combination of both will be a component of any agreed upon conditions of approval for the proposal. Park fee credit is not granted for the inclusion and/or construction of private recreation amenities. Comprehensive Trail Plan The city's comprehensive trail plan includes existing trails located to the north, east and southwest of the proposed Lifestyle Center PUD. All proposed structures and spaces within the PUD need to be connected by a combination of pedestrian walkways, sidewalks and trails to Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 31 of 37 these existing pedestrian trail corridors. Existing trail improvements include the Lyman Boulevard Trail, the Powers Boulevard trails and the Bluff Creek Boulevard trails. Consideration should be given to providing a pedestrian connection through the preserved woodlands to the Camden Ridge development via Miranda Way. Park and Recreation Commission Review On Tuesday, October 25, 2016,the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission took public comment and discussed desired park, open space, recreation, and trail components for the proposed Avienda concept planned unit development(PUD). Commissioners focused on making the development a highly desirable and livable environment for future residents and how best to integrate the site into the existing neighborhoods and landforms. Below is the Park and Recreation Commission's list of recommendations at the concept level: Incorporate meaningful park-like places, including the provision of appropriate recreation equipment, site furnishings, and landscaping adjacent to both the townhome and apartment neighborhoods. Preserve the woodlands identified in the Bluff Creek Overlay District to the greatest extent possible. The Commission envisions nature trails within a portion of the woodlands. Significantly increase the walkability of the core retail space to encourage pedestrian interaction by providing wide sidewalks, numerous gathering locations, interesting site furnishing, landscaping, and hardscapes. Provide well-designed sidewalks and pedestrian connections to all buildings and locations. Incorporate traffic calming into all pedestrian crossing locations. Design, incorporate, and construct a comprehensive on-site system of trails, including: 1. A trail running west to east from Bluff Creek Boulevard through the upper portions of the woodlands continuing east along the southern border of the property, then turning north adjacent to Powers Boulevard. 2. An internal trail positioned north to south within the townhome neighborhood allowing residents to gain access as pedestrians to adjacent destinations. 3. A thoughtfully designed, formal access that welcomes pedestrians from the intersection of Lyman and Powers Boulevard directly into the proposed development. 4. Completion of the emergency roadway connection with Miranda Way to be utilized as a trail way except in the event that north/south emergency vehicle access is needed. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 32 of 37 Building Official Comments 1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Soil evaluation(geo-technical)report required. 4. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. BIG BOX RETAIL/MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Consideration for a lifestyle center was what was contimplated with the 1st Comprehensive Plan. pain recommenditon for the potentail Regional Commerical land use. A lifestyle center is a shopping center or mixed-used commercial development that combines the traditional retail functions of a shopping mall with leisure amenities oriented towards upscale consumers as well as residential uses in a walkable environment. The plan for this development must be consistent with the vision for the site. There are numerous examples of regional commercial developments int the metro area. Examples of Mixed Use Development The Villages at Arbor Lakes PUD Concept Plan, while having big box uses in close proximity, provides a comparison of distribution of uses by type. This example is for illustrative comparison only. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 33 of 37 f Skye at Arbor Laker7s[[Oa J - preweiv,, r4 .2st",.. 9,-,, z4 _. I---- AS.s'' lir ' iii;41,....,....1 , or' nr 0 z 7`.sif, I •ttom,;_ O ive Garden. v t is r Ll1 EIrp-C Dlv t Maple Grove,MN 55369 Reniha 1 i(,I,r(;ovp Na(li d ke5 z Cost o wnoe Davc F:fluster i Rd(0 Lakes° , . .. 40.000s„ we.ShopFr,:_th Si + y sem• w '.-• pi,- :•. eAMCArborEek3fy„•' — 40 ,,1: 5000q 35,00041-1 y 0 ntainsAt Arbil Iv .p 4 ..Wholey h 1 tainsiDrr L ' Foo &: x& Dick ;.u,u4.9 a,as Summary of Uses Avienda Arbor Lakes Apartments 404 units 752 units Townhouses 72 units 0 Hotel 250 rooms 206 rooms Office 173,000 sq.ft. 64,000 sq.ft. Restaurants 33,500 sq.ft. 40,000 sq.ft. Retail 362,500 sq. ft. 383,000 sq. ft. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 34 of 37 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 1. What is the city's vision for this area: Is it big box retail,mixed-use development or lifestyle area? The Comprehensive Plan gives specific goods and services examples: a. Entertainment, department stores, comparison shopping, specialty retail/boutique, restaurants,hotels and residential. 2. Design considerations a. Design internal circulation to encourage pedestrian interaction and activity by providing sidewalks, gathering place; and interesting landscaping. b. Establish gateway at the boundaries of the district. c. Create a distinct identity through the use of consistent signage, street graphics, lighting and landscaping. d. Encourage sidewalk activity by developing amenities into all major pedestrian areas. Amenities should include coordinated street furniture trash and recycling containers,bus shelters, paving, landscaping and lighting. e. Provide architectural elements, such as sculpture, public art and unique signage into the development including streetscapes to establish a strong district identity. 3. Outcomes from the 2040 Visioning exercise(April 2016) a. Why we choose to live & work here: Small town feel Within easy striking distance of big city amenities Parks, lakes & trails Open space;recreational opportunities Community values Family-friendly; healthy; engaged; close knit Kid-friendly Strong schools; beautiful parks; safe;neighborly Great downtown Attractive;walkable Safe Low crime Strong city services Community amenities; can get almost everything here Affordable Housing; low taxes Special attractions Chanhassen Dinner Theatres; library; fishing; 4th ofJuly! Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 35 of 37 b. Why Chanhassen? Great community People care about each other; we are good neighbors; people are engaged, helpful, friendly (13 responses) Small town feel in an urban area: Everything we need is here yet we are close to big city amenities (6 responses) Family oriented Great place to raise a family(4 responses) Beautiful Clean, safe and beautiful(4 responses) Excellent schools Choice, quality (2 responses) Prince He lives here/is my neighbor (2 responses) c. Lifestyle Center Priority Medium for 3 groups; high for 2 groups Positives Helps bring new residents attracted to vibrant lifestyle and services Helps retain current residents who appreciate amenities/quality of life Job growth Considerations - Potential negative impact on downtown; should be planned to complement downtown Environmental impact Traffic impact on Highway 5 Suggestions Must be welcoming for seniors Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 36 of 37 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission provides observations and feedback on the Concept Planned Unit Development along with the following comments: 1. To receive Regional Commercial zoning, the ordinance requires that the property be under one owner and be developed under a Planned Unit Development. The developer is required to demonstrate that they are meeting the vision of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as well as the intent of the zoning district. 2. In order to best determine the intensity of development for the AUAR, staff is recommending that the applicant proceed to the PUD development stage (per City Code Section 20-508). This stage requires submittal of a preliminary plat and fees. After review of the development stage, a condition of final approval will be completion of the update to the AUAR. 3. As part of the AUAR update, the developer shall provide a full Traffic Impact Analysis TIA)based on the proposed land uses. The study shall include the following: Updated current and 20-year projected traffic volumes Analysis of turning movements Level of service analysis, including recommendations for improvements should the projected level of service fall below the acceptable level Analysis of existing and proposed turn lanes to the development and recommendations for stacking lengths 4. With the Preliminary PUD, the developer shall address the comments in the staff report from a. City Engineering b. Water Resources Coordinator c. Environmental Resources Specialist d. Parks and Recreation e. Building f. Planning- including list of permitted and prohibited uses. g. Carver County Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 37 of 37 ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application. September 30, 2016 2. Application for Concept Plan Review September 30, 2016 3. Concept Submittal Exhibit dated September 30,2016 4. Email John Thomas Transportation Manager Eastern Carver County Schools dated 10-6-16 5. Email form Center Point Energy dated 10-10- 16 6. Email from MN Board of Water and Soil Resources datedl0-19- 16 7. 2007 Community Survey questions asked regarding a regional mall. 8. Chapter VI-Sales Potential and Supportable GLA excerpt from Trade Area Demographic, Characteristic and Sales Potential for the Chan-212 Area,prepared by the McComb Group,Ltd. 9. Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Hearing G:\PLAN\2016 Planning Cases\2016-25 Avienda-Chan Retail Site\PC Staff Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division—7700 Market Boulevard Or CITY OF C}IANIIASSNMailingAddress—P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300/ Fax: (952)227-1110 7, ,2, ' APPLICATION1FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date: 6/'`-'/I V PC Date: I y I ( \!Ii' CC Date: t 1 L Ji(#7 60-Day Review Date: I I '3i I Section 1: Application Type(check all that apply) Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 600 Subdivision(SUB) Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300 Create over 3 lots 600+$15 per lot Conditional Use Permit(CUP)lots) Single-Family Residence 325 Metes& Bounds(2 lots)300 All Others 425 Consolidate Lots 150 Interim Use Permit(IUP) Lot Line Adjustment 150 In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 Final Plat 700 Includes$ 450 escrow for attorney costs)*All Others 425 Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Rezoning(REZ) Planned Unit Development(PUD) 750 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way(VAC) $300 Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Additional recording fees may apply) All Others 500 Variance(VAR) 200 Sign Plan Review 150 Wetland Alteration Permit(WAP) Site Plan Review(SPR) 0 Single-Family Residence 150 Administrative 100 All Others 275 Commercial/Industrial Districts*500 Plus$10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: Zoning Appeal 100 thousand square feet) Zoning Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) 500 Include number of existing employees: Include number of new employees: Residential Districts 500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Plus$5 per dwelling unit( units) 1 Notification Sign (City to install and remove) 200 Property Owners' List within 500'(City to generate after pre-application meeting) 3 per address addresses) i Escrow for Recording Documents(check all that apply) 50 per document Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Site Plan Agreement i Vacation Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Metes&Bounds Subdivision(3 docs.) Easements( easements) TOTAL FEE: $950.00 j Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: See Attached Narrative Property Address or Location:SW corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard Parcel#: See Attached Legal Description:See Attached Total Acreage: 118.00 Wetlands Present? 0 Yes No Present Zoning: Agricultural Estate District(A2) Requested Zoning: Planned Unit Development(PUD) Present Land Use Designation: Commercial Requested Land Use Designation: Commercial Existing Use of Property: single family home and vacant, agriculture land 0 Check box is separate narrative is attached. i Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application.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 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. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Landform Professional Services, LLC Contact: Kendra Lindahl Address: 105 South Fifth Avenue,Suite 513 Phone: 612)638-0225 City/State/Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55330 Cell: 612)290-8102 Email: klindahl@landform.net Fax: 612) 252-9077 Signature:Kendra Lindahl, AICP Digitally YKendra Undahl,A Date2016.0.2217:19:51-05'00' ACP Date: PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees,feasibility studies, etc.with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Level 7 Development Contact: Bahram Akradi Address: 4600 SYR0 Kings Point Road Phone: QSZ_ ZZ ....71.7t7-7 City/State/Zip: Minnetrista, MN 55331 Cell: yr 12.— 8 l 2 - I2 t' Email: 6«tiraw10. I0Li t i' ,fS•C-12r* Fax: Signature: L--aDate: 9— 24- •z.t) This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER(if applicable) Name:Landform Professsional Services, LLC Contact: Steven Sabraski Address: 105 South Fifth Avenue,Suite 513 Phone: 612)638-0243 City/State/Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55401 Cell: Email:ssabraski@landform.net Fax: 612)252-9077 Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? Other Contact Information: Property Owner Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Name: Applicant Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Address: Engineer Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: 0 Other* Via: 0 Email 0 Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields,then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing(required).SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM Level 7 Development, LLC AVIENDA Chanhassen, MN D...., . u 4 AVI)+;Nl)A 7..'' Z.'"`• '_,. 7, „ mow ' 1%'IENDA 14fir,+ 4. n a,64 0 Y.._a APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW September 30, 2016 LANDFORM From Site to Finish INTRODUCTION On behalf of Level 7 Development, Landform is pleased to submit this application for concept plan review for"Avienda", a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center at the southwest corner of intersection of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. The property is dual guided Office or Regional Commercial and zoned Agriculture Estate west of Powers Boulevard and is guided Medium Density Residential and zoned Agriculture Estate for the 1.66 acres east of Powers Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates development of this site as"Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial". The plan notes that the vision for the site is: A mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive, comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors and is designed to serve trail users and mass transit as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity and mix of retail and service uses within their boundaries. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading, parking of automobiles, lighting and trash collection and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials and a coordinated landscaping theme. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. Goods and Services Examples Entertainment Department Store Comparison Shopping Specialty Retail/Boutique Restaurants Hotels Residential A new zoning district Regional Commercial(RC) will be created in the City Code to implement this land use. The city has given a dual land use of the 118 acres at the southeast corner of Powers and Lyman Boulevards to accommodate this use." SCD14001.LEV L A NDF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 2 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW In 2015, the City reviewed a similar concept plan from Carlston Development for a portion of this site. The City provided feedback on the concept plan and ordered an AUAR update. Before the AUAR could begin, Level 7 Development acquired the property and decided to pause and take a fresh look at the site. The new development team completed the site analysis and reviewed the feedback that was received during that process. The design team has also reviewed a number of City documents before beginning development of our concept, including: Chanhassen 2005 AUAR(dated December 8, 2003) prepared for the City by HKGi The"Chanhassen Retail, Office and Residential Market Analysis and Development Potential" report(dated June 2006) prepared for the City by McComb Group, Ltd. The 2007 City Survey The 2010 City Survey The 2013 City Survey The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance The Chanhassen Subdivision Ordinance The 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 10, 2008) The comments provided during the 2015 review of the Carlston Development proposal Level 7 Development has been working to refine the plans for a mixed-use development concept that is market-ready and consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. We are excited to provide a concept with a mix of potential uses that may include townhomes, apartments, office, medical and professional services, retail, entertainment and hospitality. The proposed mixed-use development will help the City achieve its goals of providing a variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle, providing a mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market, preserving natural resources through the protection of the Bluff Overlay district, and providing regional shopping options for existing residents and new residents as anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. This plan incorporates a mix of office, retail and residential space in an underserved area of the City. The project will be designed with one theme,with a similar high-end architectural style, similar exterior building materials and a coordinated landscaping theme as directed by the Comprehensive Plan. While we have not yet defined all of these details, our submittal package includes a schematic concept plan to give some idea of the concepts we are currently evaluating. SCD14001.LEV L ANDF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 3 Design Concept The provided concept plan meets your Comprehensive Plan goals and includes approximately: 50 acres of Regional Commercial (approximately 435,000 square feet) 15 acres of Office(approximately 40,000 square feet) 12 acres of higher density housing including with a potential for Market Rate Apartments(300 units)and Senior Living (100 units) 6 acres of Hospitality/Hotel uses(250 rooms) 4 acres of Stormwater ponding 16 acres of Conservation land 1.6 acres of land at the southeast corner of Powers and Lyman Boulevard that is not proposed for development, but could be used in conjunction with the adjacent city land for regional or local stormwater/wetland improvements. The design vision for the Avienda development will be an integration of both traditional and contemporary elements that will ultimately establish a"timeless" character. Both visually and physically, architecture will play a major role in the overall design character for the development. High-quality materials including authentic stone, brick and masonry, architectural metal panels, and glass will be key elements that will establish this character. The pedestrian experience will establish the overall scale of the buildings and spaces, with interesting facades and carefully designed architectural elements, lighting, awnings and other unique features. Ample landscaping will be incorporated to create an inviting environment. We have worked to preserve the trees in the buffer area in the southwest portion of the site to provide a buffer between the proposed development and the existing homes on the south and west. We have also designed a plan that locates the medium and high density housing in these areas to provide a transition between the existing homes and the planned commercial uses. A comprehensive landscape plan will be developed to supplement the existing trees and support the design theme throughout the development. We expect different land uses in the development to have different landscape and architecture details, but many of the core design concepts will be threaded throughout the development. The landscaping plans will likely also include private amenities and street furniture that helps activate the streetscape and enhances the pedestrian experience by providing places to relax, rest, or meet friends. The streetscapes will be designed to reflect the different street characteristics within the development from local residential streets to collector streets intended to move traffic through the project. The concept plan shows construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard, a key east-west road connection between the existing neighborhood and Highway 212. Internal connections are provided within the development, SCD14001.LEV L A ND F OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 4 including a connection to Lyman Boulevard on the north. Access points on Lyman Boulevard have been designed based on County plans. The road alignments may be modified slightly as we continue to develop the design and determine specific user requirements for this regional destination center. Market Study The concept plan was developed based on a 2014 market study prepared by McComb Group, Ltd, a consultant that the City has used in the past. The study reinforced the need for this development and the findings to support the Regional/Lifestyle Center anticipated by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The 2014 study showed that this area could support 825,000 square feet to 1,120,000 square feet of new retail/commercial. Key takeaways from the June 2014 McComb study are described by the following highlights from the executive summary: Trade area population of 407,361 in 2014, which is expected to increase to 438,533 in 2019, an annual growth rate of 1.49 percent. Trade area households grew at an annual rate of 1.94 percent between 2000 and 2010. During a slow growth period caused by the great recession, household growth averaged 1.0 percent annually. Households are expected to increase at an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent from 157,810 in 2014 to 169,997 in 2019. The trade area includes Carver and Scott counties, the two fastest growing counties in Minnesota. Between 2010 and 2013, population in Carver and Scott counties grew at annual rates of 1.6 and 1.8 percent, respectively. Trade area average household income of$103,006 in 2014 is 20 percent above the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA average household income of$85,611 and 41 percent above the United States average of$72,869. Trade area median household income of$83,841 in 2014 is 55 percent above the national median household income of$53,958. Trade area average household income is expected to increase to$110,603 in 2019, while median household income is expected to rise to$91, 761. In 2014, 60,100 households (38.1 percent) are estimated to have household income above $100,000 and is expected to increase to 71,000 (41. 8 percent) in 2019. One- quarter of the households (42,113) are expected to have incomes above$150,000 in 2019. SCD14001. LEV L ANDF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 5 Families comprise 70 percent of all households in 2014 compared to 64.7 percent in the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA and 66.6 percent in the United States. Trade area population age 25 plus is well educated with 30.4 and 13.1 percent that hold college and graduate degrees, respectively. This is well above the United States rates of 20.8 and 12.2 percent, respectively. Trade area population in 2014 is 89.9 percent Caucasian followed by Asian/Pacific Islander(4.0 percent), African American (2.3 percent), Native American (0.4 percent) and Other(3.4 percent). Hispanic(any race) is 4.3 percent. The trade area's many economic attributes, population, and upper income households provide support for retail stores, restaurants and services. This market study supports the need for this mixed use development on this property and details the unmet demand in the City. Our project will help the City of Chanhassen capture dollars that are currently leaving the City and provide services and amenities needed to support the existing and new residential development in this area. Our regional center will serve an unmet need in the community and will complement existing Chanhassen businesses. AUAR(Alternative Urban Areawide Review) The City completed the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR in 2003 for 624 acres, including this 114 acre site. MN Environmental Rules require that AUARs be updated every 5 years, but the AUAR has not been updated by the City despite the fact that much of the AUAR area have been developed since 2005. When the City updated the Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City identified this property as a significant development opportunity within the City due in part to the residential development potential in the western portion of the City and the need to provide regional commercial for Chanhassen residents. While the AUAR was not updated with the Comprehensive Plan, the City did discuss land use changes from the residential land uses shown in the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR to the regional/lifestyle mixed use shown in the Comprehensive Plan. We ask that the City order an update to the 2005 AUAR(dated December 2003)for this area. The AUAR project area includes an area of approximately 624 acres, much of which has already been developed. We understand that the AUAR area encompasses far more area that the regional/lifestyle mixed use area designated in the Comprehensive Plan or the area of our concept plan application, but we have agreed to fund the cost of the City's AUAR update. We believe the AUAR is important for the City to update in compliance with the Minnesota environmental rules and for us to better understand the development issues for our project. SCD14001.LEV L ANDF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 6 We request that the City initiate this AUAR update to reflect the land use and infrastructure changes since the original AUAR was developed.We believe this will reflect the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and will support the develop concept we have prepared. We look forward to working with the City to prepare the update and incorporating any findings into our development proposal. We request that the City Council re-order the AUAR as soon as possible. It is our understanding that a different developer approached the City in 2012 to discuss a potential mixed use development on this site and the City contracted with HKGi, at the developer's expense, to begin looking at development scenarios for an AUAR update. While the development did not proceed, and the AUAR was not updated, there were several development concepts prepared by HGKi for consideration. We have evaluated these alternatives as part of site analysis. We believe that our concept plan shares many of the same concepts developed by HKGi and responds to current market realities. In 2015, the City Council ordered an update to the AUAR, but it was not started. We now request that the City begin that work to update the 2003 AUAR to reflect the land use and infrastructure changes since the AUAR was developed. We believe that the AUAR will reflect the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and will support the develop concept we have prepared. We look forward to working with the City to prepare the AUAR update and incorporating any findings into our development proposal. SUMMARY We respectfully request review of our concept plan for this regional destination, lifestyle and mixed use center and we request that the City initiate the update of the AUAR. We look forward to the City Council work session on October 19, 2016, Planning Commission review on November 1, 2016 and City Council review on November 14, 2016. CONTACT INFORMATION This document was prepared by: Kendra Lindahl, AICP Landform 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Kendra Lindahl at klindahllandform.net or 612.638.0225. SCD14001.LEV L A N DF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 7 Diotlitiolit .._ sg Is. 8 aiiii. 1. 40 a ill k .30. td 1J ff `'E't''k#4,°S t. p T w _ f rkv ? yK a rr tili! ILv ta'i...-r\ ' a-i ; t iil•t : . 7 •C'i` Ar F S43f •I *( { `i f c'7/i,7 ty i,j7',t moi.`` y`• tom, ? ,r rya :.g 4111.1.y9 f'}. ,.? , 9'u'S.Y , ' ^l -;_ ),I\ if i 3,cLA a4 .kY. 1':' c.'R v`? t..:, t i0-T41' h ; x 5, ` 11 lZ, 9x_ '.1 X,{` af r'' til x;71"` .,.i'e: ?P.O.C:it•'. .r' A ,'„,4%1:1.4,,,, f.*• p. •i s- r S a ... / j._ t 1: f r 9- 7 i Y f •€ - > , t - t :. . } iP' •.-.•` •••• 11- 91•t•,., _r ' R -"-; Irk }• "aFi s'i , Y4 2 zf' 'e t ,fes t, a f t. y e ,y 1, Y! •- C'' • AA IvrIEN DAo:::41.-_, , , IENDA tip% j t: r rte ! t F ib...t.s:`c1 { is i6•. ,., II-.. r' -• 1., ,F. tr s- re f M r t x r t ,S I '•_: i, tI Y i spa Cj5" `+ t_/' y. y.s..s- a-_'. . is• 176 a-j t- f;- • J' ,• , _ tom. .'•if11 r=iii i iII IM MIL Al Concept Submitta' Exhibit Contents: 1 . Regional Context 2. Site Analysis 3. Proposed Land Use 4. Development Plan 3.5 5. Concept Plan Options for Center Village in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA LANDFORM RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL AVIENDA• Chanhassen, MN 09.30.2016 t, •' ••;.7.t. 4,, , 1..•-*' 11111, Pk. r,= •''''''rc 1 E t . A_' .1;•::•:•;iji.41e,•-t/5:' 'I*'''1''''''--;. .*. ._-_,•0.,.,-. ' -":%. 1....i.-• ''' )-4 1--t.' s E,-.-.7----11 f•1.7:-._•--,. „...1 • • ., * .'.. t - 7:-.' •al F , , 1 b.SS./.. , '- 1Alli ''110kr__ ii4kic.,,_. -../-11„- t ` :" 1 4.,,:....,‘ _ _...,_*''' , Lake Ann, :' - -*"`'''''':'.*' VP',V ' 2411" e• 4‘•tt•'.' '"'' Downtown Chanhassen inneapol is4...;.. sl 4.7 ,-4•-_, I ;,-..,y,7 --Chanhassen Arboretum .,,--. t, 1:4-mi: 4 • ••- ,...• - 4 -i '1,-'••••tt.., emarli5. 1.11111141 q•—•1--*.• .- - " 4,,--1--- , '', - : ,- ,. c cic • „:-.-• aur"--- k 5 E4-,i; 1I,'. 1 A - '. I,' '.'.‘'.......„, II f' • 1 in,-* 74. l• e'" 1e`,,. te -• • II'• 1-- m114agt..,-i '0),',-•- 1_,,4, vi- 1, 4i;,, c;' ''..,• i,.,".‘.,..',..?,1•.:,:f' I.t-. •. i..'",.,. f;r'.;.,;:,-':.'' 0e-.' t.,.%•---',.I-n.•_-f-i.i.„ 1,-1-_,) 11TP0( 0.- 1, 0v44 , 1 Project Site 4. 7 .• C II1V4 A i.lis i 1, ,,,,a'' ,,ik.-..; , • - •:;:,.=_......-'• 7, , 1 P ' 4 . ',,,' -' • • I'' - 4"1 s . .. 1 ' '-'11!itC... 1,::. i t .. )\--.7-4,' 4 ,' . 11§".. '4 r t'• 4 1,;!,,,, ik.' I.1. lAt. 2 S..l''... '11)44411 ...' ...'.: '. 1'.f : '.: .I:' ( N '., ,'4: If;„t. ,.:,*. , li"L, 4,' ly ,, ,i. -_,•1'10441 ,.„ ., 440 _.• • t t1:••.'"t. ' , e- • , J.-t- ,v, 4...• - ' • a I- ._.- , ev.• .-",,., ,,,<,,- _it .. -•.,.., r." I',, . .11. It.... -0.,,,,Ar...f. r.,-;--• 1-•.: 14k-.7....., 41 • I • oh : a I* 410) 141 •' 41, 1iii 1 , --,:-: ......,, Chanhassen High School ..,Rice Mar ' 1, • ,.. iii,,,ja =-,)„, i! 1-1-,, L4',---• I.),- ,,.. .... P.a.,441-212 - • . -,;.-b.. 1 e-1,,,,;icip... , •• - •_ . •....y! to...f,, <,...., ,/:te.'",,,,..- .... --c,- .•••.- , , , T , •• c_ 1 •, 7.'± 'Pls.'. • 1 r '41e -- ' I, ' k ^ • - • ,' "' lir. - ,t,,, '' ' -' :.- df„,.‘•.:••'- • „ _, .&,..,.. t:air ;i7 V _. ,,,.., -.; .,- ,, 4.. • , . 4A-- - -'‘ ' ,• ' :• _---- e;OW''''' S. - 4..t ..... ,.,,. -...‘,„•... •'4,..... 1 ^x' P"1.44 .'.. ' - .. .• N. r.A,g,sI;1b.,4. . " .• , .,. 114. 1i.,i,•'• t 1t•. ; tr1 *. 1.^.- . ,, • - t Project 4, Site 'H-....-.I..,'-""•--,k.:'irg..l.i. ,, 4-„,,k1.-.%,' t„'., 21. j-i., 4,:•'...•.;:; I•.'-.,—• 4;4, z„,',,;(,),., 6•.'...,'”', .. 4-',.- .7'. • ..,.'.-,.-M; .V.:-.,... 4.: 4-,.i•._.:. r„ s... 7,. 1,•,,,,\-•.,,,,-.. 4,,,c,,:•.. 1 4 -1'4 - 1 t- i',' ; .,,, ; , - r -ei,, - u.A t-1. ''' - ' t. r - 7.-A-1-•• i Ak 1-41"'-',i . ,r1,v,..i•-•,,lib.;,,.., -,--:;.,--,,L, "X.- # -• •# ' •,.‘ •,;,, - '144`'''S '41.414*,...1 ,..; '''' '' ' r. -`.•1".: / ,„_tay; I ill! , 1. . • , :F •`... '2' ' • i le,.,4.': yr , _... - _;.:'..._:3'1,.,:_*,r:t -, ;A 1,-...,;•••••,„.* 1..-••.. 1.„,z,- .... FAA - 11.1111_1 sk, % 07...s;• ••10.11",.,. !4014i t • 1 4' i "-e vcIpoik1 .fr i,.1,,,Ii.,,,,,,„,„ k. - - 1-- i t., -J..-,.. ' ............ ...k.,......-• 4 LAP $(1 Flt, ._ . t„,....„1 1 " I 1 , OfIr ', 1• .: a.:-10,— . - F fq.o'Cilv4'...;$4„.0.Lake Bavaria t • , ,.... :e ,', • iv," i .,.. Hazeltine Lake 41.I.P".4v -I' v*,.. li 4'1...e."'• ••.,le,Flying CLoud Airport - -.., r 'V Lake Riley I. ,',,, _-_ - - 11, 7* ' p If 44,01.•:: 4 k . .`Q ,,,;. .f so PO' a , r. x, ..,k Itt 1,1111= : . • ff•it-r-.s . .. \,. ', v ,-; I w 14-4-•'••"""•••,, '-- ••••• 11 ..„---...rh ft ‘. n .' Iai- b.,ir-,--r.r.;, ...4 i;•• ••_,,,.:" : _-' 4,-.7‘..,••,,-,‘tv-sr ,t I r -....,.. 4 OI, r._';//.,. ik'„,':....•..,:, Chaska- High-•School ': j\ay•, v:. -.', 1.. s', rsi.., ...,' St,: Y" 4..;-.,• ' ,.!.:-, I,• TA.' • V,,. r-m._-. .' , ..'..../ Ili',?.'. 1%„,.--• 0r147.,.'• nrW. IPi. P.M•- 4-•.‘'*:.4 -t•..:: 6-',••-.• 441•,"_.1'•.•.'.',,,''... 0", e-., b,,,.,.. I,..''-;,`,., 4"-,.../ s'''t.! 6.' l!• 4'.'/ y.,':..-., s` T..•. ff...,.*.• s.'•.'•.•.•,..., 1-`. v'-'"t', j.,...--1' Z,:.-:-' Z.:',":‘' r2• r.• t.I••, 4• 1. i14•!,,:'k-, i1. i1i's1. 7/.{'. o1C0k3%•:%./', l.i.si' i-.- 1„ v't. •••. Y. 4.- 4. i1•!.. 4-.1.,!, . '., Li 1;4., ti...t.. t... - • . . ,.... i..... .,„.....;..;.!... , :,. .. .'''..._:.,.,, ).., ,,..., r • '. , .. ,,1 El.'Do, ..if:i.: rt: ' 1,0 I -,ON`: k..:.212 Medical Center --,,••i'lli- 4.1- ., ),,,• . v Available Land i: •-1 'I' Ai' • . ',1 „ 1 ', sr="-„ * ' „ ' ... . ' ../,:..4.i...7.1,1.' .47,...1,:',... 1 itt:4104: 1; t: Elo1,....'H L.,,...i.,;•, z,, ‘ ii*.. ...t 'z?,-,.•., ' ,-;',,,',./...' 44:.,•., 4212,., .4, M. .„:1;., ,....,,,,,?„-4 4-*Vwle ••••-• ‘ iii ti;..I 10 *.”AL,. 40.,t, %Sz,• L.., 1 -•' t.$•."; ..... -A . s..1,+. 54.7::,,,kray, IV.,. Existing Trail / Sidewalk 41.•,,,--. 44. - .- ' . ,,,.• ' ' i,-, .. .,- -,-:•;; • -,-,.. .--,,.. . ,. •-- i i' r.:- ,. .1..4,4.- f.--.-it. ,4„.,•' tig ,• grew- „ Apk ,/V :- ?_, '. '. ;-..• **y. ;•-: -•',;(- ':t.. 14, t.---- ..,_ .- .." '- s''. -4''' • ; '••-.-;:f‘i 4 I -411‘, 1"; - ' ...:- -:---_1 ,:.to I C t .c.ad'.A4. 1,,4 l ••• Rice Lakeip.-...*C..C..' 'N -...- • :...:.,-..7.1,:-,... ,t- .,,1,,,.,..,44:2,_-_,„..-, 1 148rc-,,i;-P11-.4*:::-.41" ',-.-. 4,– t 6 41e,,1,,,,c,..e-. - - :- ...• „, 15,•,,,,,,, e' 4 \.. ,.. ... sc. er.,-. t. -,... e 4,Iil ; ., - 4>•', %!* 4; , - .,, • • - ilb' 11k 4:' •• . $ • 4 11,!'•4: i )..,;• 17,1-; - .k t • - ..... :,..- .,.. - .,-••• •."' i • '4Iiit 4-It 1',":011'&'*". s . ro, ' r• c. ..._ .':?' '..•'' -Ile . -_, 212 . ' '.-, , „ ) 4., .., s,, ,. s a*-1.', a, A ,... ,,,,, •- er ... i. .; ,,,,, At_, .. ,, -111r;4411111 t '. 1,- ' '•-.'••• 4.-, -- - ..,, I; _ .1 ., ',., Arv- 2‘-- t?' ..•,,,.- . -.'.1.; .. • ' 1 t. 4 — .3 v irt A14•-'...... ,_ PAP'.- 't,..,-.-,...4-- ...:Y i - 1 Li ,41 t;,,,,--, ',; r-f-',111 '4 ' .' .'" 'IL i '' 4-. ;IS-.'.1.. .''''4.- 4,, 1.. .. , ,... , . .,....,..., 4.4....:,,,,,,, AL.... 014., 4411,., .,..,_ :‘,.. ;,,..,-,..1,v, . boa r 'I it. _. 4_,.,„., -: -- _N, ,,c„--3,-..,.•• ,...., -_e.,: --,,,t, , . .,R• IL., • fil —16,-,,..- it.,.... , v 1. 4 1 ••• co''') - ••..„71.4r,.'fr.......''''•-•.....4:. ' ;•"`•2 . 1.4 . ..\-•:-...,,.... eat, IPi1-)„.44.• • -I...k,„.. ...• /„,,_-.4„/.....,,, , . , "sp.-, ,_ lia.." - • , itit.k.„.1„ 4 t i 1k• —41 416 ff ' a 4,g,:;..,1--••y• ., • .,••. , • -..-;•,.. •-. ... • A' f.,'-`4"•.'-:- .•-IP 71:',.- _•i„N'tt-.. •,-. ; REGIONAL CONTEXT in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA -1:: A N D F 0 R M RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL AVIENDA•Chanhassen, MN Concept Submittal.09.302016 krY y ebi ,` t Y' •+'_€+' moi/ 1. e .fie ., v., i r J- a- qr, il 4•1 • •-'4.:‘ \\ ------_______ ,;,,,.,.. r,...,4--, 1 s :: iiri.1r .. ..)i 4. 9w 4-,444INN __ MIN an ouievar J• • rte! '1 t_ Edges sensitive to adjacent use a- += i s %i' f r 1\.____\-----_______._ l \" Access to Lyman Blvd l' W ands l Existing etl ii t• 4I h P.r.Potential Connection'` 4 ,h, r.l ti a I Signaled Access I/ i Existing Residenal ./ F 1 R r e 4 a kliet2 A•f•--74..4411441PL..ta.I '''. . •-‘'-7t:• "1r, 4e4ieNeighborhoodAccessg ' roltit ,, r 1 I , - 7 7 / II 4,-,a f 4. -e ! f 1 , rt. ' l ,J ( r n. F /• r N. 0 ft.. i. ,Densely Wooded Knoll t ate+.1'---- f L. fil7F. ' : 46( , A'6 * 1'. ' \ s\\\\\\\''‘11‘ ' ' . . ____-_, 7' 7.-•-,„--- \._,,,,',‘ii,;,41t._,.,.---.-.-i,•. .'.jk\l' .,, , or-.'- 1 •,Emergency Access 4. 010....r.--„ 4,-.., .. _ ..,.. ' , ,,,,, 7- . , ../ 1110 ,-. 74. r.- r.' _%, '. i ce--- L . - - -1• N j` c J y: i ,"'i k 'L ice - A•.•R0,:... .fr y r SITE ANALYSIS in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA L ANDF OR M RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL AVIENDA•Chanhassen, MN Concept Submittal•09.30.2016 Lz....,rEz....i..Fr-. z, -r.a....... .,..<.z c.-.F.-......e...-r..L:C Land Uses from 2012 HKGi AUAR U SAN BO 'Concepts (constrained to project site) rOMINIMMEMMIENnimmimmEmmommomminimic.." I I CONCEPT 1 (Acres)5.33 Ac 2.58 Ac 3.38 Ac 3trj7nt4 r i, x 30.3 Regional Commercial W MDR AVIENDA PARKWAY --- c K - ' 17.4 Office 3.27 Ac 444... J 6 13.5 High Density Res. I° 7t419.8 Medium Density Res.lam"Stormwater Conservation l j 1.86 Ac hillaW7- Ti 9.56 Ac 26.70 Ac Land Uses 2016 1.57 Ac Proposed Concept CONCEPT 2 (Acres) J i Acres) s:t'n"' i . R 18.2 Regional Commercial 2.04 Ac M'R 3 33.6 Office 50.21 Regional Commercial k 5.8 Mixed Use OBLUFFCREEKBOULEVARD 1.83 Ac 14. 56 Office 4.1 High Density Res. Q1.33 Ac 16 Medium Density Res.12.46 High Density Residential ik3. 5gli Stormwater 9.01 Ac 2.58 Ac 1-- Conservation 9.93 Ac 9.56 Medium Density Residential CONCEPT 3 (acres) 3.45 Ac Alternative BMPs may be 65.2 Regional Commercial implemented in plan L44 Y 1 .4 Office 15.88 Conservation 0 High Density Res.K t_ 15.88 Ac 11 .04 Right-of-Way13.5 Medium Density Res. g y Stormwater Site plan is for illustrative 113.79 Total Development Conservation purposes only and isj Acres) i . subject to change. PROPOSED LAND USE in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA L A N D F0 R M RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL AVIENDA•Chanhassen, MN Concept Submittal•09.30.2016 Legend Regional Map h Future Traffic Signal rri-U LLYMANBOULEVARD t:::: 5I CP I OFFICES 0 OFFICE E Public Right Of Way n 25,000 S.F.x 2 STORIES OFFICE C 0 u..wII r- SITEJ15000S.F.x2STORIES o = 16500SF.x2 STORIES 0 1111 = I O Q m Ponding AVIENDA PARKWAY --- --- le ° ` O r Preservation Ca D[ZED /IIII I I I IIII I LEPI O D III z:iaib i, MT J Q0 0 19 i; NII I[LI I i/L 1I- --- - - II _ LI Iu,ll. r. l U f 5ol:h..l .(mel. ,(cl 1:.l oci l:.l I.Office C: Development Data 111111111111111._. R c o o n - o 0 01i - C u o o High Density Residential NetI LJ as ) 0 l O Gross Developable Building Area Parking Units/l'-'21 J y Q 0 I MI Medium Density Residential Section Area Area S.F.) Stalls BedsAcres)Acres)I t I k C O 0-'o O o J O o o C Riii: 1. 19 QBIM O 9.93 9.55 108,000 573 0 0 F N___`-' co , -.) O O J O 1.33 1.33 7,000 996 0 t) O '1 S C '\ C rfimp o 0 r,oval! 9.01 8.57 93,000 128 312 f'' •I •0 0 9.56 6.32 68,000 n/a 72 IA' - o od ` 5.33 2,97 50,000 197ia' '0: 0 2.58 2.58 30,000 191 r li T; O 3.38 3.38 33,000 249 rC G 02,1:1:: ' . . REs F 3.27 3.27 60,000 259 B UFF CREEK BOULEVARD Q p w s F Q 1.86 1.63 6,500 115 0 G' C 0 1.57 1.20 6,500 96 i. O RE9TE 0 x n 7 . o 0 1.0009.F. c Q O 2.04 1.64 6,500 119APARTMENTSr0., 50 „ , , 33. r„O SF O y I o 1 1.83 1.83 7,000 104 Ej 0 26.70 26.70 254,500 1364T$ I Di\ 2.45 2.45 25,000 138 150 v " o1, 0, o II_ 7 ` 0 2.58 1.91 25,000 115 100 U r O 3.45 3,02 40,000 108 92 APARTMENTS ttop40000S { t RETAIL RETAIL ANCHOR \ ® O 11.04 0.00 n/a n/ a l- t- 1SCCOSF• 90,000 S.F tee F 61-CD-,0 ` O 15.88 0.00 n/a n/ axN' Jae 61- I G o o Total 113.79 78.35 820,000 3,855 728, t• O 0‘i iii .Site plan is for moi, illustrative purposes S.• r p p 1 only and is subject to iei`y change. i. 4044 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3. 5 in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA L A N D FO R M RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL 1 IENDA•Chanhassen, MN Concept Submittal•09.30.2016