5. 2017_08_01 TEP Meeting Notes REVISEDK:\01694-860\Admin\Docs\2017_07_21 TEP Meeting Notes.docx
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Memorandum
To: TEP Members and Other Interested Parties (list below)
From: Andi Moffatt, WSB
Date: July 21, 2017 – Revised August 1, 2017
Re: TEP Meeting Minute Notes for Avienda Meeting July 11, 2017
WSB Project No. 1694-860
On behalf of the City of Chanhassen as the LGU for W CA, outlined below please the m eeting notes from
the TEP m eeting that was held Jul y 11, 2017 to discuss the Avienda application. These notes have been
reviewed b y City Staff and the TEP. If you have additions or corrections for these notes, please let m e
k now by July 28, 2017.
At tendees
TEP Mem bers:
Andi Moffatt, W SB (on behalf of City of Chanhassen)
Paul Oehm e, Cit y of Chanhassen
Ben Me yer, BW SR
Aaron Fink e, Carver SW CD
Others in Attendance:
Melissa Barret, Kjolhaug
Mark Kjolhaug, Kjolhaug
Karen W old, Barr
Jim McCom b, McCom b Group
Peder Larson, Lark in Hoffman
Mark Norland, Launch Properties
Clare Bleser, RPBCW D
Steve Sabraski, Landform
Darren Lazan, Landform
Kate Aanenson, Cit y of Chanhassen
Others Copied on Mem o: Beck y
Horton, DNR Terry
Jeffery, RPBCW D
Kendra Lindahl, Landform
Todd Gerhardt, Cit y of Chanhassen
Overview of Project
Level 7 Developm ent, LLC, has applied for a W etland Conservation Act (W CA) perm it with the Cit y of
Chanhassen as the Local Governm ent Unit (LGU) for the W CA. The developer provided an overview of
the 115-acre developm ent project (about 80 acres are developable) for a Regional Lifestyle Center . The
developer is proposing to im pact 4.897 acres of W CA regulated wetland, either by fill or excavation for
storm ponds. There is also 1,429 square feet of waterway im pact, but this is not regulated b y W CA as it
is not a W CA wetland. W SB has been reviewing the perm it application on behalf of the City since
February 2017.
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\01694-860\Admin\Docs\2017_07_21 TEP Meeting Notes.docx
Aug 1, 2017
Page 2
1. Applicant subm itted application February 15, 2017 with prelim inary storm water m odeling
inform ation on Februar y 21, 2017.
2. Cit y determ ined application was incom plete on March 10, 2017. This determ ination was reviewed
with the applicant on March 9, 2017.
3. Applicant subm itted revisions on March 14, 2017.
4. Cit y determ ined the application was com plete on March 17, 2017. A W etland Conservation Act
Notice of Application was sent out the Technical Evaluation Panel on March 17, 2017.
5. T he first 60-day tim eline ended May 13, 2017. The LGU extended that tim eline in writing for 60
additional days until July 12, 2017. The LGU indicated that if the applicant wanted to extend the
tim eline again, the Cit y needed this extension in writing. The applicant has supplied this extension
so the third 60-day tim eline ends Septem ber 10, 2017.
6. T he project proposes to im pact the following wetlands:
Table 1. Summary of Proposed Wetland Impacts
W etland
Num ber
W etland
T ype
W etland
Acreage
Im pact
Acreage (fill
and excavate)
Fill or
Excavate
Wetland
Management
Class
W etland 1 1, 3 1.001 1.001 F Manage 2
W etland 1/2 1, 2 0.1860 0.1860 F Manage 2
W etland 2 1, 2, 5 2.2569 2.2569 F Manage 2
W etland 3 1 0.6696 0 NA Manage 2
W etland 4 1 0.1253 0.1253 F Manage 2
W etland 5 1 0.3483 0.3483 F Manage 3
W etland 6 1 0.5302 0.5302 Fill Manage 2
W etland 6
1
0.2514
0.2514 E (for
pond)
Manage 2
W etland 7 1 0.0150 0.0150 F Manage 3
W etland 8 1 0.0844 0.0844 F Manage 3
W etland 9
1
0.0985
0.0985 E (for
pond)
Manage 3
W etland 10 1 0.0740 0 NA Preserve
TOT AL 5.6406 4.897
The applicant and City staff noted that Cit y Council had given conditional approval for the developm ent at
the July 10, 2017 City Council m eeting. This approval is conditional pending approval of the W CA perm it.
Items Discussed by the T EP
1. Wetland Boundary, Type and Classification: The LGU reviewed the wetland delineation,
typing, and MnRAM classifications. This inform ation is summ arized below. Per the Replacem ent
Plan Check list included with the March 17, 2017 Notice of Application, sequencing flexibility is not
being sought with this project. The LGU and TEP concurred with the wetland delineation, wetland
typing, and MnRAM classifications as noted below and in the application.
K:\01694-860\Admin\Docs\2017_07_21 TEP Meeting Notes.docx
Aug 1, 2017
Page 3
Table 3. Wetland T ype and M anagement Classification Summary
2016 Application Ci ty's Plan 2014 Report
Cowardi n Ci rcul ar 39 Management Cl ass Manage me nt Class Cowardin Circular 39
We tland 1 PEMAd T1 M2 M2 PEMB T2
PEMCd T3
We tland 2 PUBG T5 M2 M2 PEMB T2
PEMBd T2 PUBFx T4
PEMAd T1
We tland 3 PEMA T1 M2 M3 PEMB T2
We tland 4 PEMAd T1 M2 PEMB T2
We tland 5 PEMAd T1 M3 PEMA T1
We tland 6 PEMAd T1 M2 M2 PFO1A T1
We tland 7/8 PEMAd T1 M3
We tland 9 PEMAd T1 M3
We tland 10 PFO1A T1 P
Status: No additional information from the applicant is needed.
2. Avoidance and M inimization: The March 2017 application did not provide sufficient supporting
docum entation that avoidance and m inim ization had been m et per the W CA. The applicant
provided a m ark et study dated March 2017 (subm itted in April 2017). This stud y summarized
existing retail trends and shopping centers in the greater Twin Cities area.
The appendices in the June 5, 2017 subm ittal provided additional inform ation about regional
lifestyle centers and the need for different land use t ypes to provide a viable developm ent. The
LGU developed a table (in the June 30, 2017 TEP m eeting agenda m em o) based on this
inform ation for discussion purposes. At the TEP m eeting, the applicant clarified table categories and
provided a revised table based on appropriate comparative data, to clarify the LGU’s compilation
and interpretation of various information gathered from the Applicant’s June 5 submittal. This
revised table is shown below.
The applicant discussed what m akes a Regional Lifestyle Center and stated that it is the synergy
of the proposed developm ent that m akes it a viable developm ent and function together. A
Regional Lifest yle Center is intended to create an experiential use to overcom e e -comm erce
pressures. T he applicant discussed that the Senior Housing that was proposed in a part of the
Bluff Overlay District was being rem oved; the Cit y s taff indicated the proposed road through the
Bluff Overlay was also being rem oved. W etland 4 is no longer being im pacted as noted in the
application. T he applicant indicated the stubbed roads surrounding the project set up the location
for the internal ring road and that there was 75 feet of relief across the site, which also sets up
site constraints for development. The applicant stated that if they avoided the center wetland, the
ring road connection and carefully designed retail hub, both integral components of the project, would be
lost and there would not be enough m ass of uses or project synergy for the developm ent to
serve as a regional lifestyle center.
K:\01694-860\Admin\Docs\2017_07_21 TEP Meeting Notes.docx
Aug 1, 2017
Page 4
Status: T he applicant needs to supply a clear, concise avoidance and m inim ization argum ent in
conform ance with W CA 8420.0520 Subp 3-Subp 6 and based on the Revised Table 2, discussion
at the T EP m eeting, and the changes in the proposed wetland im pacts .
3. Secondary Impacts: The inform ation supplied does not provide sufficient evidence that
secondar y h ydrolog y im pacts would not occur to onsite W etland 3 and to the downstream
wetland mitigation areas (W SB m em o dated May 1, 2017). New Note: As part of the TEP
reviewing these m eeting notes, since W etland 4 is now proposed to not be im pacted, analysis of
secondar y im pacts also needs to be provided for W etland 4.
At the m eeting, the applicant provided a quick overview of the additional storm water anal ysis and
design that they will be submitting to the Cit y. This inclu ded pervious pavem ent, rock beds, and
rainwater capture s ystem s.
Status: T he applicant will need to subm it the new storm water anal ysis and m odeling to the Cit y
for review as part of the W CA process, including analysis of secondary im pacts to W etlands 3
and 4 and downstream m itigation areas .
4. M itigation: T he applicant is currently proposing wetland m itigation through the purchase of
wetland credits within banks located in Blue Earth, Stevens, and Rice Counties. The TEP asked if
there were other bank s located within the Carver or Hennepin County or closer to the project.
Melissa indicated there were not when she was looking for credit.
The City discussed that if sequencing and secondar y im pacts can be evaluated, that wetland
m itigation could be accom plished through the purchase of the wetland credits at a 2:1 ratio as
proposed, as well com pletion of a wetland im provem ent project within the city. This in-cit y project
could com e in the form of an actual project or b y securing funds from the applicant for a future
project to be com pleted by the cit y when a suitable location is determ ined.
The TEP discussed this m itigation strategy and concluded that (pending justification of avoidance
and m inim ization) purchase of credits at a 2:1 would meet the W CA. The TEP was silent on the
need for further replacem ent of lost functions and values within the watershed and indicated this
would be for the LGU to determ ine.
The LGU determ ined that while the purchase of credits m eets the 2:1 requirem ent of
replacem ent, it does not replace the lost functions and values within the imm ediate watershed.
The project is within the headwaters of Bluff Creek and Lake Susan, which are im paired waters.
Recognizing there is not currently a good location to complete a project in the watershed to
replace lost functions and values, the LGU has determ ined that securing funds from the applicant
for an in-city project to be c onducted at a future date would m eet the need to replace lost
functions and values in the watershed. The group discussed that this future project would not
need to m eet W CA wetland design or perform ance standards, but rather work to provide general
habitat and water treatm ent functions.
Status: No additional inform ation from the applicant is needed.
5. Housekeeping Items: A f ew housekeeping item s with the application were discussed.
Status: T he applicant needs to provide written docum entation and current site plan showing the
accurate wetland im pacts.
These m eeting notes reflect the LGU’s recollection of the m eeting and have been reviewed b y the TEP
and City staff. If you have questions or changes, please contact m e within one week of the date of this
m em o to discuss additions or corrections at 763-287-7196 or am offatt@wsbeng.com .