Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2. AUAR Worksheet Form
Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) WORKSHEET FORM This section consists of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (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 Page 8 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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 1/ 4 of Section 22, SW 1/ 4 of Section 23, NW % of Section 26 and NE 1/4 of Section 27 Township: 116 Range: 23 The following figures are included within this AUAR. Page 9 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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. Page 10 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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, Page 11 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update 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 Page 12 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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. Page 13 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update 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. Page 14 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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 (0) uses will generally consist of one or two story office buildings. Office/Industry(O/1) 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 Page 15 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update TABLE 7.1 -PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA-"NO BUILD" CONCEPT GROSS ACREAGE of Land Use Types Total Acres 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 Net Developable %of Land Use Type Acres 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 Net Developable %of Land Use Type Acres 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 Page 16 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update 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 Regulatory Citation (as may be approval noted) City of Chanhassen Subdivision Approval City Code Chapter 18 Planned Unit Development City Code Chapter 20, Article VIIIApproval 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 Utility Crossings Permit MN Statute 103G, MN Rules Resources 6115.0810 Federal Endangered Species Natural Heritage Program Preservation Act of 1973, as Coordination amended in 1978, 1982, and 1988; MN Statutes Chapter 84.0895; MN Rules Chapter 6134 Section 404 Of The Clean Water Clean Water Act Section 404/10 Act Title 33CFR26 Water U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Permits 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 Page 17 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update Unit of Government Type of Permit/review or Regulatory Citation(as may be approval noted) Wastewater Permit Indirect Source Permit(ISP) Riley, Purgatory, Bluff Creek Watershed District Grading Permit Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Plan ApprovalEnvironmentalServices Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act, Protection of Minnesota State Historic Cultural Resource Coordination Historic Properties"(36 CFR Part Preservation Office 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 Environmental Assessments Minnesota Rules 4410Board (EQB) AUAR) 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. Page 18 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update TABLE 9.1 —EXISTING LAND USE CALCULATIONS Net Developable Land Use Gross Acreage 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 Woods 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. Page 19 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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: Page 20 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update 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. Page 21 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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 Page 22 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update 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 Element Natural Heritage& Nongame Occurrence Research Program) 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. Page 23 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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. 1he 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 Page 24 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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. Page 25 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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. Page 26 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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 Waste Current Current Future Future Estimate Residential Generationton Rates Population Estimate Population Tons/Year at full Estimate tons/Year Estimate buildout 1.098 tons of 2,032 2231 3,632 3988 MSW/person/year 0.026 tons of 2,032 53 3,632 94 recycling/person/year 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 Current Current Future Future Estimate Of Generation Rates Employment Estimate Of Employment tons/Year Estimate tons/Year Estimate 1.59 tons of 0 0 tons 3,945 6,272 MSW/employee/year 1.1 tons of 0 0 tons 3,945 4,339 recycling/employee/year 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(n).2 employees/1000 square feet and Commercial Areas @3 employees/1000 square feet. Page 27 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update 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. Figurel8 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 Page 28 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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) Trip Generation Values Property Land Use Intensity Daily AM Total PM Total In/Out) In/Out) 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 NE 700/760) Quadrant 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 407 DU 2,590 205 (40/165) 240 (155/85)Apartments) Page 29 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update Trip Generation Values Property Land Use Intensity Daily AM Total PM Total In/Out) In/Out) Residential-Attached 38 DU 125 10 (0/10) 10 (5/5) Townhomes) Hotel 100 Rooms 520 55 (30/25) 60 (30/30) 1,360 2,450 Total Site Generated Trips 26,225 770/590) (1,175/1,275) Internal Capture Reduction 6,448 295(150/145) 660 (330/330) 1TotalDrivewayTrips19,777 45 90 622010/445) 844515/945) Pass-By Reduction 5,512 460 (230/230) 1TotalNetNewTrips14,265 45 170 6220/0/445) 615/5/715) General Light NW Industrial 440,100 SF 3,065 405 (355/50) 425 (50/375) Quadrant Total Net New Trips 3,065 405 (355/50) 425(50/375) Office 240,600 SF 2,655 375 (330/45) 360 (60/300) Residential-Attached 157 Units 1,075 80 (15/65)105 (70/35) SE Apartments) Quadrant 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) Page 30 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update TABLE 21.2—TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES(CONCEPT B) Trip Generation Values Property Land Use Intensity Daily AM Total PM Total In/Out) In/Out) 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 280 DU 1,820 140 (30/110) 170 (110/60) Apartments) Residential-Attached NE Townhomes) 80 DU 265 20 (5/15) 25 915/10) Quadrant 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) General Light NW Industrial 440,100 SF 3,065 405(355/50) 425 (50/375) Quadrant Total Net New Trips 3,065 405(355/50) 425(50/375) 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) SE Quadrant Residential-Attached 34 Units 115 10(0/10) 10(5/5) Townhomes) 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 I 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 Page 31 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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. Page 32 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update TABLE 21.4—UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound LT 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 CD B DD A A -- -- A -- -- AM—Scenario F-3 F C A F F F B -- -- A -- -- PM —Scenario F-3 CD B CC 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 CA 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 Page 33 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update TABLE 21.4(CONT.)-UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection L T R L TR L TR LT 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 Scenario E-1 Scenario F-1 Scenario F-2 Scenario F-3 Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Lyman Boulevard & B B B B B B B B Audubon Road Lyman Boulevard & Powers B B B B B C B C Boulevard Powers Boulevard &TH B B B B C C C C 212 (North) Powers Boulevard &TH B A B A B B B B 212 (South) Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek B B B B C B C B Drive Audubon Road & Pioneer B B B C B C B C Trail Audubon Road & Bluff B A B A B B B B Creek Boulevard Bluff Creek Boulevard & A A A A A A A A Bluff Creek Drive (RAB) Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW B B B B Quadrant (') Lyman Boulevard & Sunset A B A A Trail/NE Quadrant(') Powers Boulevard & B B A B Pioneer Trail (1) 1) Analyzed as a potential signal fir Scenario F-2 and F-3 due to results of unsignalized intersection analysis 2) Darkened boxes=movement no!mailable Page 34 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update 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. Page 35 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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. Page 36 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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 (NRNP)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 Page 37 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Area wide Review 2016 Update 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 1/ 4 Sec. Description NRHP Status 21CRaj unnamed 116N 23W 23 SE-SW-SW-SW Reported Not evaluated mound group 21CRak unnamed 116N 23W 23 SE-SE-SE-SW Reported Not evaluated burial TABLE 25.2.—ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN ONE MILE OF STUDY AREA Site No. Site Name T R S 1/ 4 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- 116N 23W 14 N-NW-NE-SE Lithic scatter Not evaluated Riley Creek and S-SW-SE- NE 21CR109 Lake Susan 116N 23W 14/ C-S-S-SE/ Lithic scatter Not evaluated SW Shore 23 NE-NW-NE and possible mound group 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 Road, 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 Page 38 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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 resouices 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 Page 39 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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 Page 40 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update 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 Page 41 Table 3. Environmental Factor Matrix for LEDPA Determination-Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center Project, Chanhassen,MN Factors No Action Alternative Site Comments Alternative Site Comments Proposed Site(Applicant's Comments Alternative 5 6 Preferred) Environmental Factors Quantitative Waterway/Watercourse' None NA No waterways/Watercourses within project NA No waterways/Watercourses within project limits or 383.5-ft Waterway impacted by development of site. Impacts(linear feet) limits or the site boundary.the site boundary. Qualitative Changes in Waterway/ • Waterway is currently providing wetland drainage/outlet. If Watercourse Function(onsite aquatic None NA No waterways/Watercourses within project NA No waterways/Watercourses within project limits or NA upstream wetlands are filled with development,waterway resource) limits or the site boundary.the site boundary. function no longer needed. 7.07 ac non-degraded wetland impacts. 2.77-ac onsite degraded(excavated wetland with Quantitative Wetland Impacts(acres) None 7.()7-ac Wetlands not drained or fanned,undisturbed 4.12-ac managed upland)wetland impacts;1.35 offsite non- 4.00-ac 4.00-ac degraded wetland impacts. Wetlands are partially- upland. degraded(undrained wetland with undisturbed upland) drained,farmed,and surrounded by disturbed upland. wetlands impacts. Qualitative Loss in Wetland Functions Impacted wetlands are generally non-graded Impacted wetlands are degraded due to Impacted wetlands area generally degraded due to excavation, None High by nursery/haying and are surrounded by Medium excavation/frequent mowing,and are surrounded by Low drainage,and/or farming and are surrounded by agricultural onsite aquatic resource) natural vegetation.maintained golf course or roadway. fields. Quantitative Impacts(acres)to Bluff 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. Creek Overlay District(BCOD2) Qualitative Gain or Loss in BCOD 79%onsite BCOD impacted;21%preserved. Permanent preservation by applicant not feasible due to 12%BCOD impacted;88%preserved. Significant permanent None Loss Maintained Gain Function Minimal preservation. size(100-ac). preservation. Proximity to DNR/open water wetlands,views Proximity to DNR Watercourse,presence of BCOD Cultural Resources N/A Unknown from BCOD and knoll woodland indicates the Unknown with woodland and bluff areas indicates the potential No 2016 survey indicates no resources within project area. potential for cultural resources. for cultural resources. Other Qualitative Factors Indirect treated stormwater discharge to Potential to Negatively Impact downstream Bluff Creek(impaired natural Direct treated stormwater discharge to Bluff Creek via Indirect treated stormwater discharge to Lake Susan(impaired stream)via pipe and wetland(1000-ft steep topographic flow paths(500 to 1000-ft distance), lake)via existing treatment pond and wetland complexes Downstream Water Quality/Impaired N/A Moderate High Low Waters(offsite aquatic resources) distance).Indirect discharge to downstream plus direct discharge to Bluff Creek via pipe(1100-ft 5,400-ft distance). Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek Lake Riley(impaired water)via wetland(2000 distance). impaired stream)via wetland 1200-ft. ft distance). Site is slightly lower than adjacent BCOD and Site is highly visible from onsite BCOD and distantisthereforescreenedfromitsviewshed. The Woodland on high topography screens view from primary Viewshed Impacts N/A Low site is not visible fromMN river valley to High locations,specifically the MN River National Wildlife Low BCOD. south. Refuge/Minnesota River bluffs. Disturbance to Existing,Perennial Entire site has permanent vegetation cover, Entire site has permanent vegetation cover; site Nearly 60%of site is currently bare ground/cropland/non- Vegetation Cover N/A High site development would cause disturbance to High development would cause disturbance to perennial Low perennial vegetation. Site development would disturb 20%of perennial vegetated areas. vegetated areas. perennial vegetated areas. Although external boundary is generally Although external boundary is generally rectangular,Project Area Size and/or Configuration rectangular,internal developable area is Project area is generally square and developable area meets meets project dimensions/goals) N/A No irregular,and developable area does not meet No internal developable area is irregular,and developable Yes project purpose and need. and need. area does not meet project purpose and need. project purpose Site has greater projected wetland impacts than the No-Does not meet Site has greatest projected wetland impacts Site has the least projected wetland impacts compared to LEDPA project need No and does not meet purpose and need. No Proposed Site and cannot meet purpose and need due Yes alternative sites and meets project purpose and need. to other factors. 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 Bluff Creek Overlay District(BCOD). A contiguous conservancy zone for preservation and enhancement of the natural resources of Bluff Creek. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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). 11 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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. 12 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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 Cowardin Eggers& Reed Wetland 39 Classification 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 PUBGx/ Excavated shallow, open 5/2/1 PEMBd/PEMAd 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 PFOIA 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. 13 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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 Hiles, 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. 14 zCD C CD C CD CD CD b CD N K oma. 1:0 CD a0. 0. 0.Q 0 a P w N S c.oe CO 0 0 v P P ... r D etco AD w AD p AD AD AD P y a. to ir co co CD co a tii co CDt.') w n co N W N N NN - y 5 C a, cocS xxt7r' dr-4x 4t7r x4 Z4Zr' xr x4 '11n4n pp • cr(IQ • o o o o w ° w ° o o o ° . a O. o ,-.• .• O erAa ..• p I-14 p -4 e" ig AcoAy . • O A 0- ftcon u M ° I o a. dcoFs co P Q1 C Q y ccr t y C. N ,-' N N N N NO01O\ O CA V, C O O O C),. i I v, v,pE. o, ,7 IP a b a a CID s• 5 5 5 5 5 g g g 5 a. P 2: d 541 CIO o oo ooo`DCooaz o `D D CU)a' 6 CDDn . aCadga -g C .co a.C• .8. G .-. ••* CD o CD .••e co , •• co co , } co CD CD t7 ; G o , o fD C °. o C a' o o G o 0. o n nCI ,.. y a. cn '-+ ° -t 0- cn v) 'l v) -, ., ., a. -, o co o n co o d' ov y I mt. c o o . o . 0 0 . 0 . o 0 00 5g5i5i P < P. n g a 5 ua 5 uca 5 ao 565 to 5 as S El 5 cra a' I? CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C tz d N IJ N N N N N N N `'' C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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); 15 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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 dayshadover1.27-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- Avoidance Percent Mini- Percent Proposed Percent development Alternative Reduction in mization Reduction Alternative Reduction Wetland Wetland Drainage Alternative in Wetland in Drainage Drainage Area Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Areas(ac) ' Areas(ac)2 Area(ac)3 Area Areas(Ac)4 Area Wetlands 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% See Figure 5,2-See Figure 7,3-See Figure 8,4-See Figure 9 16 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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 17 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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 Minimum Avoidance Minimization Proposed Project Required Components Required Alternative Alternative Alternative Acres NDA '(ac) NDA(ac)NDA(ac) Retail Hub (Specialty Shops and 25 0.00 0.00 25.67 Restaurants) 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 Does not meet Does not meet Meets Project Project Project LEDPA Determination Purpose and Purpose and Purpose and Need Need Need 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: 18 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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 19 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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. 20 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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 Proiect 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. 21 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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 22 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd) (Table 7, page 18). 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 Impact Size Type of Impact Justification Wetland ac) Impact Wetlands 1 1.1001 Fill Located within the footprint of the retail hub and Wetland 1/2 0.1860 Fill circulating traffic system. 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. 0.5302 Fill Excavation and fill to construct stormwater treatment Wetland 6 feature. 0.2514 Excavate Wetland 7 0.0150 Fill Located within the footprint of retail space, associated Wetland 8 0.0844 Fill parking, and stonnwater treatment feature. 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 23 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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 constriction. 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 Sequencini 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 24 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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. 25 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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)). 26 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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. 27 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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). 28 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 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. 29