6. Response to July 21 TEP meeting minutes FINAL 4830-5370-4017 v.2
26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952 -401-8757, Fax: 952-401-8798
Memorandum
Date: October 9, 2017
To: Andi Moffatt (for City of Chanhassen, LGU)
Todd Gerhardt & Kate Aanenson, City of Chanhassen
Cc: Ben Meyer, BWSR
Aaron Finke, Carver County SWCD
Ryan Malterud, US Army Corps of Engineers
From: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company
Mark Nordland, Level 7 Development
Darren Lazan & Steve Sabraski, Landform Professional Services
Peder Larson, Larkin Hoffman
Jim McComb, McComb Group
Re: Response to July 21, 2017 – Revised August 1, 2017
TEP Meeting Minute Notes for Avienda Meeting July 11, 2017
This memo provides responses to outstanding WCA status items from the July 21, 2017 TEP
Meeting Minute Notes for Avienda Meeting July 11, 2017 (Attachment A).
Item 2. Avoidance and Minimization. Status: The 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 TEP m eeting, and the changes in the proposed
wetland im pacts.
Avienda Response:
A summary of the project sequencing argument following the organization of MN WCA
Rule 8420.0520 Sequencing Subp 3-Subp 6 is included as Attachment B. Table 2-REV.
Comparison of Avienda with Other Regional Lifestyle Centers along with a discussion is
in that attachment. The summary supports the determination that sequencing
requirements have been satisfied.
Changes in the proposed wetland impacts are illustrated on Figure A and itemized in
Table 1 on the following page. As now proposed, Wetlands 3, 4, and 10 will be
completely avoided.
2
Impact to Wetland 6 has been significantly (nearly 50%) reduced by removing the
previously proposed stormwater pond (Figure B1) and incorporating its treatment
function within other stormwater BMPs in the updated Draft Stormwater management
Plan dated 10-6-2017. Impact reduction for Wetland 6 was feasible because it is located
along the periphery of the project limits and within a natural low spot that was originally
proposed to be used entirely for stormwater treatment purposes (Figure B2). This
situation does not apply for the remaining wetlands proposed for impact (Wetlands 1, 1/2,
2, 5, 7, 8, and 9). The reduced impact to Wetland 6 has resulted in significant
modification to the previously submitted Draft Stormwater Management Plan. A revised
Draft Stormwater Management Plan dated 10-6-2017 has been submitted to the LGU.
Table 1. Revised Wetland Impact Summary -Avienda, Chanhassen
Wetland
Original
Proposed
Impact (ac)
Impact
Type
Revised
Proposed
Impact (ac)
Impact
Type
USACE
Regulated
Wetlands 1 1.1001 Fill 1.1001 Fill No
Wetland 1/2 0.1860 Fill 0.1860 Fill No
Wetland 2 2.2569 Fill 2.2569 Fill No
Wetland 4 0.1253 -- -- -- Yes
Wetland 5 0.3483 Fill 0.3483 Fill No
Wetland 6 0.5302 Fill 0.4986 Fill Yes
Wetland 6 0.2514 Excavate -- -- --
Wetland 7 0.0150 Fill 0.0150 Fill No
Wetland 8 0.0844 Fill 0.0844 Fill No
Wetland 9 0.0985 Excavate 0.0985 Excavate No
Total 4.9961 4.5878
Item 3. Secondary Impacts. Status: The applicant will need to submit the new stormwater
analysis and modeling to the City for review as part of the WCA process, including
analysis of secondary impacts to Wetlands 3 and 4 and downstream mitigation areas.
Avienda Response:
A revised Draft Stormwater Management Plan dated 10-6-2017 has been submitted to the
City/LGU. Revisions were necessary because the stormwater pond previously proposed
in the northwest corner of the site has been removed from the plan and its treatment
functions have been incorporated into the revised stormwater plan.
The analysis of secondary impacts (i.e., the potential for a decrease in wetland hydrology
and hence wetland size post-development) to avoided and downstream wetlands can be
evaluated by comparing pre and post-development discharge volumes (i.e., volume of
runoff discharging into wetlands) and wetland high water levels. When large reductions
in input volumes or high water levels occur, wetland type and specific characteristics that
3
dictate actual wetland hydrology/wetland boundaries should be taken into account as well
when evaluating the potential for secondary wetland impacts.
Reproduced below is Appendix G from the updated Draft Stormwater management Plan.
Discharge Volumes
The table provided by the engineer demonstrates that the discharge volume for 1, 10, and
100-year storm events post-development either increases or does not significantly
decrease for Wetland 3, Wetland 6, MNDOT Mitigation Wetland M9, or MNDOT
Mitigation Wetland M10.
Although calculations indicate a significant decrease in discharge volume to Wetland 4
for all storm events, when considering the actual specific characteristics of Wetland 4, it
can be confidently determined that this reduction will not affect the wetland boundary.
Wetland 4 is a small (0.1253-acre), Type 1 flow-through wetland that is hydrologically
4
supported by intermittent drainageway discharge/flow (Figure C). Wetland 4 is located
at the convergence of two drainage pathways and one agricultural tile outlet, and would
most accurately be described as a vegetated sediment plume. The wetland is slightly
sloping and has two incised drainageways within it. The existing outlet for Wetland 4 is
below the wetland boundary and removes any short or long-term water storage. As long
as the drainage/runoff from the ~20-acre woodland to the northwest keeps flowing
through it, Wetland 4 hydrology will be maintained. The plans show that this existing
woodland drainage pathway will be maintained.
Although the post-development discharge volumes to Wetland 6 increases more than
120% of pre-existing conditions for each storm event, Wetland 6 is also a sloping, flow-
through wetland with an outlet located below the wetland boundary. Increased discharge
to this wetland will simply continue to pass through it, as is now the case.
High Water Levels
Changes in wetland high water levels for 1, 10, and 100-year storm events (although
calculable) is immeasurable in the real world for MNDOT Mitigation Wetland M9 or
MNDOT Mitigation Wetland M10. For those storm events that technically show a
decrease (noting that some actually show an increase) in the post-development high water
level, the resulting high water level is still above the wetland outlet elevation which is
generally considered the elevation that controls the extent of the wetland boundary.
Because the high water level for all storm events will be higher than the outlet elevation,
is can be confidently determined that secondary wetland impacts will not occur.
Although a significant drop in high water level is indicated for Wetland 4, this wetland is
actually incapable of a high water level as it is a sloping wetland with an outlet located
below the wetland boundary. High water levels are not provided for Wetland 6 for the
same reasons.
The calculated decrease in the high water level for Wetland 3 for all storm events is a
function of the new engineered outlet elevation that is 1.1-feet lower than the current
outlet. The pre-development outlet elevation used for stormwater modeling represents
the current lowest landscape position along the wetland boundary (Figure D). A review
of historical aerial photos (Appendix E of the Wetland Permit Application) and field
observations showed that Wetland 3 has never ponded water, and that prior to
development to the west the excess hydrology appeared to flow west if it flowed at all. It
is extremely unlikely that water ever discharges from Wetland 3. Therefore, the
engineered outlet at a “lower” elevation in conjunction with increases in discharge
volume to Wetland 3 for the 1-year storm event, and insignificant changes in discharge
volume for 10 and 100-year storm events is unlikely to result in secondary impact to the
wetland (i.e., unlikely to result in a smaller/lower wetland boundary). The engineer has
indicated that a weir structure could be added to the outlet culvert if deemed necessary by
the TEP.
Item 5. Housekeeping Items. Status: The applicant needs to provide written documentation
and current site plan showing the accurate wetland impacts.
5
Avienda Response:
Revised proposed wetland impacts are summarized in Table 1 above and are illustrated
in Figure A. Revised impacts/avoided wetlands include:
Wetland 4 will now be completely avoided because the request for a variance for
development impacts to the BCOD was not approved by the planning
commission. The request for the variance was subsequently withdrawn.
The west half of Wetland 6 will now be avoided by removing the stormpond in
that part of the site. The Draft Stormwater Management Plan has been
remodeled, and other/additional stormwater management methods have been used
so that the updated plan meets local, state, and federal water quality requirements.
4830-5370-4017, v. 2
K:\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
Attachment A
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.
Attachment A
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.
Attachment A
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 .
Attachment A
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
1
Response to the TEP’s request for information “responding to the requirements of Minnesota Rules
8420.0520 Subp 3-Subp 6, including reference to the Revised Table 2, discussion at the TEP meeting,
and the changes in the proposed wetland impacts.”
Avienda provided information on avoidance and sequencing in its March 2017 application, its June 2017
submittal subsequent communications. We provide this supplemental information in response to the
TEP request.
8420.0520 SEQUENCING
Subp. 3. Impact avoidance.
Subp. 3.A. Avoidance is required when indicated by part 8420.0515.
RESPONSE: This subpart of Minnesota rules first requires a determination of whether avoidance
is required based on consideration of “Special Considerations” as described in Minnesota Rules
8420.0515. None of those Special Conditions arise from the project so avoidance is not required.
Subp. 3.B. Wetland dependence determination:
RESPONSE: This subpart of Minnesota rules first requires a determination of whether the
Avienda project is wetland dependent. The Avienda project is not wetland dependent.
Subp. 3.C. Alternatives analysis:
The alternatives analysis is used as the basis of the local government unit’s determination of
“whether any proposed feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts
to wetland.” If such an alternative is not available in light of the Basic Project Purpose, the LGU
must evaluate the replacement plan’s compliance with the impact minimization requirements in
Subpart 4.
This one sentence description of the Basic Project Purpose was included in Section 2.1 of the
application that was deemed complete on March 14, 2017:
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.
Subsequent sections defined “Mixed Use Lifestyle Centers” (Section 2.2), described the City of
Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Need (Section 2.3) and the Geographic Area of review
(Section 2.4).
A more detailed Basic Project Purpose is included in Section 5.1 of the application:
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
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
2
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);
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.
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
3
In addition, the Avienda Basic Project Purpose is detailed in the Memorandum to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers dated June 5, 2017 that is was previously submitted to the City. (“USACE
Memorandum”). That document contains important information describing why creating a
viable mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center is the Basic Project Purpose and why the individual
project components must be correctly arranged to create a viable mixed use Regional/Lifestyle
Center. Page 4 of that document states that “This project provides this opportunity for this
diverse mix of uses in a high- quality lifestyle center. Lifestyle centers create a lifestyle
experience, rather than a simple shopping experience, for customers though creation of a main
street in the center of the project with places to dine, converge and socialize.”
An understanding of what constitutes a (1) mixed use, (2) regional, (3) lifestyle center is
essential to evaluating whether the alternative meets the project purpose.
Mixed use is described throughout the McComb Alternatives Evaluation
Memorandum included in the June 5 supplemental information packet.
(Paraphrasing) along with the anchor stores, smaller retail stores, and food services
provided by the traditional shopping center/regional mall, the MIXED USE regional
lifestyle centers incorporate medical, office, hotels, and residential uses in a
coordinated development, integrated on one site, located in close proximity to
facilitate continent pedestrian circulation (i.e., walkable environment). The primary
draw/focus of the mixed use regional LIFESTYLE CENTER continues to be the
centrally located retail hub which is an integrated shopping center with a “main
street” or central village.
The scale of the project must be large enough to serve a REGIONAL market. The
McComb Alternatives Evaluation Memorandum discussed the components within
two examples of existing comparable mixed use regional lifestyle centers; West End
and Arbor Lakes. Table 2-REV (provided on the following page) from the July 21,
2017 TEP meeting, provides a comparison of the size (i.e., developed area) of the
proposed project to the size of other mixed use regional lifestyle centers. The
proposed project is smaller than any other comparable project. Due to the smaller
overall size, the internal layout of Avienda, specifically the internal layout of the
retail hub (central focus of the project), is critical for project success.
The retail hub is the “main street in the center of the project” critical to the Avienda Basic
Project Purpose. The Avienda project as a whole and the Retail Hub area are significantly
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
4
smaller than other Regional Lifestyle Centers as shown in the revised Table 2 below that was
discussed in the last TEP meeting:
Table 2-REV. Comparison of Avienda with Other Regional Lifestyle Centers
Development Develope
d Area (sf)
*
Retail
Hub (sf)
Total
Retail
(sf)*
Avienda Preferred 1,115,200 167,000 405,000
Avienda Minimized 675,000 0 194,000
Avienda Avoid 468,000 0 128,000
Galleria 6,000,000 417,000 3,000,000
Shoppes at Arbor
Lakes
3,500,000 391,151 2,000,000
Woodbury Lakes 2,000,000 318,853 1,500,000
West End 3,000,000 348,541 950,000
Central Park
Commons
2,000,000 434,000 1,200,000
City Place Unknown 170,000 Unknown
* Indicates estimated values
The Memorandum to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated June 5, 2017 includes in Exhibit G
a memorandum from the McComb Group evaluating alternatives in light of the Basic Project
Purpose.
Subp. 3.C(1) In addition to documentation for the proposed project, the applicant must provide
the local government unit with documentation describing at least two alternatives that avoid
wetland impacts, one of which may be the no-build alternative.
RESPONSE – Complete Avoidance Alternatives – No Build Alternative – The applicant
fulfilled the requirement of providing alternatives in its submittals. The alternate project
configurations provided in the Wetland Permit Application by the applicant were good
faith efforts that included illustrations of the type/scope of project that would
completely avoid wetland impacts (Section 5.3, Figure 7). Avienda provided the no build
alternative as well as other alternatives that “include consideration of alternate sites or
alternative project configurations on the proposed site” as provided for in the rule. The
No Build Alternative was provided in Section 5.2 of the Wetland Permit Application.
Additional information regarding the No Build alternative was provided in the response
to USACE Comment 5(d) of the June 5 supplemental information packet.
Additional information regarding the No Build alternative was provided in the response
to USACE Comment 5(d) in the USACE Memorandum, noting that the No Build
Alternative:
would not meet the project purpose and need which is a mixed use
Regional/Lifestyle Center within the City of Chanhassen. This has been an
identified need since 2008, and there have been multiple attempts to develop a
viable site plan. The current project team has been working with the City for
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
5
over 2.5 years, and has developed a plan that meets both the City’s
need/vision/rules, and is also a viable plan for the developer.
The no build alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative because it is
inconsistent with the City of Chanhassen vision contained in the Comprehensive
Plan and is therefore fails the test of whether “it is consistent with reasonable
requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare.” The No Build
Alternative does not result in a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center within the
City of Chanhassen .
RESPONSE – Complete Avoidance Alternatives – Complete Avoidance On-Site
Alternative. The complete avoidance alternative was provided in Section 5.3 of the
Wetland Permit Application (including Figure 7 and Appendix G in the Application). That
Application information shows that the alternative fails the test of “whether reasonable
modification of the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project would avoid
impacts to wetlands.” That analysis concludes the required modifications are not
reasonable because:
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 physically separates retail uses. Disconnected and isolated uses
eliminate 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.
The McComb Alternatives Evaluation includes an assessment of the Complete
Avoidance Alternative beginning on page 10 of that document. The analysis concludes
that the alternative “is not feasible,” “does not represent a regional lifestyle center in
scope, design, or size” and “is not consistent with the City of Chanhassen vision
contained in the Comprehensive Plan.”
The complete avoidance alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative because it
is inconsistent with the City of Chanhassen vision contained in the Comprehensive Plan
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
6
and therefore fails the test of whether “it is consistent with reasonable requirements of
the public health, safety, and welfare.” In addition, the alternative is not a feasible and
prudent alternative available to avoid impacts to wetlands because it fails the test of
“whether reasonable modification of the size, scope, configuration, or density of the
project would avoid impacts to wetlands.” The modifications of the “size, scope and
configuration or density” required to create the complete avoidance alternative are not
reasonable because the resulting project would not achieve the Basic Project Purpose
and would result in a project that, according to the McCombs alternative memorandum,
is “not feasible” and inconsistent with the City’s vision.
RESPONSE – Complete Avoidance Alternatives – Alternative Sites. Section 2.4 of the
Wetland Permit application describes the geographic area of review for alternative sites:
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.
An analysis of alternative sites was provided in Section 3 of the Wetland Permit
Application. Each of those sites contain significant wetlands and, as the analysis shows,
each fails the test of whether an alternative site “is an environmentally preferable
alternative based on a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts.”
Subp. 3.C(1) For projects that repair or rehabilitate existing infrastructure, only one alternative is
required. The alternatives may include consideration of alternate sites or alternative project
configurations on the proposed site.
RESPONSE - The project does not “repair or rehabilitate existing infrastructure.
Subp. 3.C(1) (continued) The alternatives must be judged by the local government unit as good
faith efforts, or the local government unit may require the applicant to redraft them for
reconsideration.
RESPONSE - The alternate project configurations provided in the Wetland Permit
Application by the applicant are good faith efforts that illustrated the type/tenant
mix/layout/ scope/scale of projects that would completely avoid (Avoidance Alternative
#2; Section 5.3, Figure 7). As noted in the minimization discussion below, the applicant
also provided good faith alternatives to minimize (Section 5.4, Figure 8) wetland
impacts. Knowing that the impacts under primary focus/scrutiny were those to Wetland
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
7
1, Wetland 2, and Wetland 1/2 (henceforth referred to as Wetland 1/2) (due to overall
wetland size), the avoidance and minimization alternate project configurations both
showed avoidance to Wetland 1/2.
Subp. 3.C (2) The local government unit must determine whether any proposed feasible and
prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to wetlands. 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 on a review of
social, economic, and environmental impacts; and (e) it would create no truly unusual problems.
Response: No feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to
wetlands. The applicant submitted several alternatives, each of which was submitted
because it might be “capable of being done from an engineering point of view . . .in
accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices.” Those alternatives were
then evaluated to determine if any alternative is an environmentally preferable alternative
based on a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts.”
o Six other alternative sites within the City of Chanhassen were explored for project
feasibly in Section 3 of the Wetland Permit Application. Two of the six sites were found
to be potentially practicable alternative sites. While it is understood that the “LEDPA”
determination is specific to the Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 process, the
underlying analysis is applicable to the City’s action. It was concluded that: “locating the
project on the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) … 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.”
o The proposed alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because, although
it results in wetland impacts, it avoids impact to other onsite locally identified high
priority resources (based on City rules and policy) of BCOD woodland, bluff slopes, and
cultural resources,
o Furthermore, the alternative sites analysis (Section 3 of the Wetland Permit Application)
concluded that there are no other single sites or conglomeration of adjacent sites within
the city of Chanhassen that provide 90+ acres of contiguous developable land AND
result in less impact to wetlands and other natural resources. This is supportive of the
proposed site as the most environmentally appropriate site within the geographic area
of review for this single and complete project.
Subp. 3.C(3) The local government unit must consider the following in evaluating avoidance
alternatives as applicable:
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
8
(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. An alternate site
must not be excluded from consideration only because it includes or requires an area not
owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained, used, expanded, or managed
to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed project;
(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. Economic
considerations 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.
RESPONSE –As described above, no feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would
avoid impacts to wetlands. The information provided by the applicant shows:
o The basic project purpose cannot be reasonably accomplished “using one or more other
sites in the same general area that would avoid wetland impacts”. The proposed project
is a single and complete project. Using more than one site in the same general area
would not meet the definition of a mixed use regional lifestyle center – which is a
centrally located group of organized and compatible uses and structures (i.e., the retail
hub/lifestyle center), surrounded by mixed supporting uses (i.e., housing, office, retail,
grocery, hotel, entertainment) that are regional (i.e., large) in scale. Mixed use lifestyle
centers and City if Chanhassen mixed use regional/lifestyle center requirements were
described in Sections 2.2 and 3.1 of the Wetland Permit Application. Using more sites is
not a feasible or prudent wetland avoidance alternative for the proposed project. In
addition, as noted above the alternative sites would not “avoid” wetland impacts.
o The materials supplied by Avienda are more than sufficient to allow the LGU assess “the
general suitability of the project site and alternate sites considered by the applicant to
achieve the purpose of the project.” The project site is specifically guided for the
“purpose of the project”, which is described above. The applicant provided information
describing potential alternative sites and detailed information and analysis showing that
no alternative site is preferable and that the project site is suitable for project.
o The modifications of the “size, scope, configuration, or density of the project” necessary
to avoid impacts to wetlands are not reasonable because, as described in detail in this
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
9
document and the applicant’s submittals, they would result in project configurations
that do not meet the Basic Project Purpose. Based on the needs of the City and
surrounding cities, the proposed project is regional in scale. A reduction in project scale
would not meet the project purpose of a mixed use regional lifestyle center, or satisfy
the need for the project.
o The city is very aware that Avienda has made significant efforts to “accommodate or
remove constraints on alternatives imposed by zoning standards or infrastructure,
including requests for conditional use permits, variances, or planned unit
developments”. There is no other site/parcel/conglomeration of parcels within the City
or straddling City limits (under private ownership and without considerable shoreland)
that could accommodate the proposed project as demonstrated in the alternative sites
analysis; therefore, this is the only parcel within the City of Chanhassen that is
undeveloped, large enough, and can be re-zoned to Regional/Commercial to
accommodate the proposed project. The project plan was developed under a PUD
which allows for the project to meet overall density and land use goals without being
bound by standard zoning requirements. Any parcel within the City of Chanhassen could
be developed under a PUD, no matter the zoning. However, as stated in City Code Sec.
20-502 – Allowed Uses (1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the
site is designated in the comprehensive plan. For this site, the PUD use must follow City
Code Sec. 20-509 – Standards and guidelines for regional/lifestyle center commercial
planned unit developments. Site constraints are illustrated in Figure 1.
A variance to impact a portion of the BCOD for the high-density housing component was
rejected by the City. The City will not allow impacts to the BCOD. A use transition that
includes high and medium density housing is required by the City in the west portion of
the site, adjacent to single-family housing. A comprehensive, circulating traffic system
(Bluff Creek Boulevard extension and connection to Powers Boulevard) is required by
the City. These site constraints cannot be removed.
The site will be developed under a PUD which will allow for the project to meet overall
density and land use goals without being bound by standard zoning requirements. The
proposed plan which represents a mixed use regional lifestyle center meets these
standards and guidelines. The avoidance (and minimization) alternatives do not
represent a mixed use regional lifestyle center and therefore they do not meet these
standards and guidelines.
o The applicant has provided extremely thorough data and analysis that together describe
the “the physical, economic, and demographic requirements” to build a viable mixed-
use Regional/Lifestyle Center within the City of Chanhassen. Integral to site design is the
centrally located retail hub and its internal layout. Any wetland avoidance alternative
would require elimination of the retail hub (i.e., the lifestyle center) which is the central
focus of the project (i.e., the most important project component) and would make the
project unviable/infeasible.
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
10
The physical requirements of the project were presented in Section 3.2 of the Wetland
Permit Application. Of primary importance was a project location wholly or partially
within the City of Chanhassen. Second to location was a tract of contiguous land 90+
acres in size, which was based on the information present in Section 3.1 of the Wetland
Permit Application. The table Development Area Computation – Regional Lifestyle
Center included in the submittal to the Corps and also reproduced below itemizes mixed
use regional lifestyle center components and their standard areas and supports the
Wetland Permit Application determination that the project must occur on a tract of
contiguous land 90+ acres in size. Information on the contiguous nature of the project
has been provided in detail. Furthermore, the alternative sites analysis concluded that
there are no other single sites or conglomeration of adjacent sites within the city of
Chanhassen that provide 90+ acres of contiguous developable land AND would result in
less impact to wetlands and other natural resources with development of the proposed
project. Due to site constraints of: (1) City mandated Bluff Creek Overly District (BCOD)
avoidance, (2) City mandated transitional housing buffer, and (3) City mandated Bluff
Creek Boulevard extension and connection to Powers Boulevard, the retail hub cannot
be repositioned within the site to avoid impact to Wetland 1/2 (Figure 1 on the
following page).The size/location/internal layout of the retail hub cannot be reduced to
avoid impacts to Wetland 1/2.
Based on the needs of the City and surrounding cities, the proposed project is regional
in scale. A reduction in project scale would not meet the project purpose of a mixed use
regional lifestyle center, or satisfy the need for the project. Market/retail studies
(submitted previously) confirm that the proposed project will be supported by the
economic and demographic characteristics of the local and regional population.
o The materials supplied by Avienda are more than sufficient to allow the LGU “to
consider 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.” The amount, distribution, condition, and public value of
Figure 1 - Updated Project Layout Illustrating Existing Wetland Boundaries and Associated Buffer with Avoidance
Avienda Village (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 500
Feet
Site Boun dary
Wetlan ds
Wetlan d Bu ffer (40-ft)
WL6
WL2
WL1/2
WL1
WL8
WL7
WL5
WL9
WL3
WL4
WL10
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
11
wetlands on this site is low, especially when compared to potentially available
alternative sites. The majority of the site (and associated wetlands) has been degraded
by farming. The largest wetland on the site has been altered by excavation and
degraded by untreated agricultural runoff and sediments.
Ecologically significant area on the site is restricted to within the BCOD woodland –
which will be completely avoided. Development of the site will result in permanent
protection of the BCOD, and a reduction in indirect effects to remaining wetlands by the
elimination of agricultural runoff/sediment and the implementation of a stormwater
management plan.
The stormwater management plan - which will meet City anti-degradation rules - will
also benefit downstream water resources, specifically Lake Susan (impaired water).
With site development, all impervious runoff leaving the site will meet City local, state
and federal water quality standards.
(Discussion on future potential direct or indirect effects to the wetland hydrology of
Wetland 3, Wetland 4, Wetland 6, and adjacent MnDOT wetlands with project
development is provided in the accompanying memo.)
Subp. 3.C (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 no feasible
and prudent alternative is available that would avoid impacts to wetlands, the local government
unit must evaluate the replacement plan for compliance with subparts 4 to 8.
CONCLUSION - Per the analysis presented previously and in the other materials
submitted to the LGU, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives available that
would avoid impacts to wetlands.
Subp. 4. Impact minimization.
The applicant shall demonstrate to the local government unit's satisfaction that the activity will minimize
impacts to wetlands. In reviewing the sufficiency of the applicant's proposal to minimize wetland
impacts, the local government unit must consider all of the following:
A. the spatial requirements of the project;
RESPONSE – The applicant supplied sufficient information to the City to allow the TEP to fully
consider this factor. The regional scale of the project was discussed in the response above to the
avoidance requirements of Subp.3.C(3)(c). The regional project footprint requirement of 90+
contiguous acres of developable land was discussed in the response above to the avoidance
requirements of Subp.3.C(3)(e).
B. the location of existing structural or natural features that may dictate the placement or configuration
of the project;
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
12
RESPONSE - The applicant supplied sufficient information to the City to allow the TEP to fully
consider this factor. The requirements for the project to avoid existing BCOD, extend Bluff Creek
Boulevard through the site, and provide a housing transition zone - all of which affect the spatial
location of available developable area - was discussed in the response above to the avoidance
requirements of Subp.3.C(3)(d).
C. the purpose of the project and how the purpose relates to placement, configuration, or density;
RESPONSE - The applicant supplied sufficient information to the City to allow the TEP to fully
consider this factor. The purpose of the project as well as the density/scale/regionality of the
project was discussed in was discussed in the response above to the avoidance requirements of
Subp.3.C.(3)(a).
Constraints on the placement and configuration of the project layout within the site was
discussed in the response above to the avoidance requirements of Subp.3.C.(2).
The primary focus of the site design is the centrally located retail hub which creates the draw for
the project. The retail hub attracts the small store/specialty comparison shopping base critical
for a regional draw. These shop owners know that they could not exist on their own, and the
shops constituting the desired tenant mix will only locate in an environment where they will all
agree to locate, and therefore survive.
The retail hub is a very carefully designed project component. The number, size, and mix of
tenants are all very carefully thought through, and even building and individual parking space
orientations are considered in the efficacy of the design. The lifestyle center/retail hub
footprint is 25 acres which includes buildings with appropriate spacing, internal roadways,
parking space, and open/landscaping space. Due to City mandated site constraints, this
footprint is smaller than other comparable retail hub footprints.
Key retail hub design components are: (1) the internal roadway connection from Bluff Creek
Boulevard to Avienda Parkway, (2) the “main street village” with anchor retail at one end. This
is a very common successful layout design for lifestyle centers. The current location,
length/area/spacing, and orientation of the main street village is considered by retail experts to
represent a successful main street village within a lifestyle center.
Any wetland minimization alternative that minimizes impact to Wetland 1/2 by avoiding large
portions of Wetland 1/2, would result in the elimination or substantial reduction in size of the
main street village, negatively affecting its layout and function to such an extent that the desired
tenant mix would no longer be interested in locating at this site, and the project would not
move forward due to a lack of interested businesses.
D. the sensitivity of the site design to the natural features of the site, including topography, hydrology,
and existing vegetation;
RESPONSE - The applicant supplied sufficient information to the City to allow the TEP to fully
consider this factor. The majority of the site is comprised of annually tilled agricultural land and
topography will be altered with runoff incorporated into the stormwater management plan.
The site design prioritizes avoidance of the BCOD woodland, bluff slopes, and cultural resources.
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
13
Section 3.5 of the Wetland Permit Application compares multiple environmental factors on the
proposed site with those on potentially practicable alternative sites, with the finding that
development of the proposed site will result in the least impact to aquatic resources and other
environmental factors such as: waterways, wetlands, wetland functions, BCOD, cultural
resources, water quality, viewshed impacts, and disturbance to perennial vegetation cover.
E. the value, function, and spatial distribution of the wetlands on the site;
RESPONSE - The applicant supplied sufficient information to the City to allow the TEP to fully
consider this factor. Wetland characteristics and spatial distribution were described and
illustrated in Section 4.2 of the Wetland Permit Application. Generally, wetlands are located at
different elevations and are scattered throughout the site (Figure 3 of the Wetland Permit
Application).
Wetland functions and values were evaluated in Section 4.3 of the Wetland Permit Application.
The only wetland of above “Medium” quality was Wetland 10 (rated as Preserve/Exceptional)
located in the southwest part of the BCOD. The primary focus of project impacts, Wetland 1/2
due to its large size, was rated as a Manage 2/Medium quality wetland for its highest rated
function of Low for amphibian habitat. The most beneficial function of Wetland 1/2 may be its
storage and filtering of untreated agricultural chemical runoff and storage. With site
development, this function will replaced/met by the stormwater management plan (and the site
will no longer discharge untreated agricultural runoff).
F. individual and cumulative impacts; and
RESPONSE - The applicant supplied sufficient information to the City to allow the TEP to fully
consider this factor. Discussion on future potential direct or indirect effects to the wetland
hydrology of Wetland 3, Wetland 4, Wetland 6, and adjacent MnDOT wetlands with project
development is provided in the Draft Stormwater management Plan dated 10-6-2017 submitted
to the City..
G. an applicant's efforts to: (1) modify the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project; (2) remove
or accommodate site constraints including zoning, infrastructure, access, or natural features; (3) confine
impacts to the fringe or periphery of the wetland; and (4) otherwise minimize impacts.
RESPONSE - The applicant supplied sufficient information to the City to allow the TEP to fully
consider this factor. Item 1 was previously discussed in the responses above to the avoidance
requirements of Subp.3.C.(3)(a) and Subp.4.D. Item 2 was previously discussed in the response
above to the avoidance requirements of Subp.3.C.(3)(d). Items 3 and 4 – Because the entire
areas of Wetland 1/2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 are proposed for impact, confining impacts to the fringe or
periphery of the wetland is not feasible. This was discussed in Section 5.7 of the Wetland Permit
Application. It should be noted that since the Wetland Permit Application was submitted, the
plan has been modified to eliminate impacts to Wetland 4. Also, impacts to Wetland 6 have
been reduced to the outer (periphery) swale portions (See Figure A of accompanying memo).
Subp. 5. Impact rectification. Temporary impacts must be rectified by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected wetland according to the no-loss provisions of part 8420.0415, item H.
Avienda, Chanhassen Attachment B
14
RESPONSE - No temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed. Impact rectification does not
apply (Section 5.8 of the Wetland Permit Application).
Subp. 6. Reduction or elimination of impacts over time. After an activity is completed, further impacts
must be reduced or eliminated by maintaining, operating, and managing the project in a manner that
preserves and maintains remaining wetland functions. The local government unit must require
applicants to implement best management practices to protect wetland functions.
RESPONSE - The applicant supplied sufficient information to the City to allow the TEP to fully
consider this factor. See Section 5.9 of the Wetland Permit Application. Also see discussion
regarding potential impacts to avoided and offsite wetland provided in the accompanying
memo.
4820-6606-9329, v. 1
Figures
(See following pages)
Figure A - Updated Project Layout with Wetland Impacts
Avienda Village (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 1,000
Feet Wetland Fill
Wetland Excavation
WL6
WL2
WL1/2
WL1
WL8
WL7
WL5
WL9
WL3
WL4
WL10
Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯
Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Post-dev~915-ft mslPost-dev~915-ft msl
Existing and post-dev~886-890-ft msl
Existing~890-896-ft mslExisting~890-892-ft msl
Figure B1 - Wetland 6 Minimized Impact
92
2
924
9
2
6 920928918916914
912
910
908
906
930932934
936904
902
900
898
896
894892
890
888
886
938 940 942
944
8
8
4
946932
936
88
4
930
940
926920
912
930938940
936 938922928934934
936
896
916
940
914
932
9369
3
4
934
924918
938
9
4
2
Figure B2 - Wetland 6 Existing Conditions
Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 150
Feet
Legend
Proposed Site
Carver County Lidar
Wetlands
Intermittent Drainageway
Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap
Wetland 640.7816 Acres
910
912 908904
906
896902900 898914916918920922
924926
894928
892890888
886884882930 880932 878934
876
936 874872938
87
0 940942868
944
946
866932
930928
920926
874926 9
0
0934
8729
2
4
93
2
934918932924872
930
934
9
0
2
938
936
910870938910
92
8
914930
88
4
914
9169289308749
2
2
924926 936Figure C - Wetland 4 Post Development Conditions
Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 150
Feet
Legend
Proposed Site
Intermittent Drainageway
Carver County Lidar - Existing
Wetlands
Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap
Wetland 40.13 Acres
922924926914
916918920928930932
91291
0
9
0
8 906904
9
3
4
902
900
936
898
896894938940942
892
944
890946
888922
93
2
918934
926
908
920
910928928922922 92
4
9
3
2
9129389
3
4 924922
934 9369
1
2
930 934930932
926 936922
930
926
93691
6
932
9049289249
2
4
934
930930
934
91
4914928
924
930934916918932 92
0
928
91092
4
90
6
9
0
2
Figure D - Wetland 3 Existing Conditions
Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 150
Feet
Legend
Proposed Site
Carver County Lidar
Wetland Estimate
Wetlands
Intermittent Drainageway
Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap
Wetland 31.30 Acres