PC Staff Report 11-01-2011CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: November 1, 2011
CC DATE: November 28, 2011
REVIEW DEADLINE: January 27, 2012
CASE # 2011 -11
BY: AF, KA, TJ, JS
PROPOSED MOTIONS:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept Planned Unit
Development."
1:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends denial of the Concept Planned Unit
Development based on the findings of the Planned Unit Development as stated in the staff
report."
6
PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) on approximately 14. 10 acres of land
located at the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard
LOCATION: Southwest corner of TH 5 and Powers Boulevard (1000 Park Road).
APPLICANT: Walmart iStar Minnesota, LLC
c/o Kimley -Horn & Associates c/o iStar Financial, Inc.
2550 University Ave. W. Ste 238N 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27 Floor
St. Paul, MN 55114 New York, NY 10036
William D. Matzek
651- 643 -0497
Will.Matzekgkimley- horn.com
PRESENT ZONING: Industrial Office Park (IOP)
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial and Commercial
ACREAGE: Approximately 14 acres DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting a rezoning to permit commercial
development on land currently guided for industrial office or community commercial use. In
conjunction with the request, the applicant is requesting approval for a general concept plan for
PUD for 120,000 square foot Walmart.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING:
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the
City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 2 of 19
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The
site is currently zoned Industrial Office Park (IOP). With the adoption of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the property for either office industrial or
commercial land use. In 2009, the city adopted the Community Commercial (CC) zoning
district in order to implement the community commercial land use vision. The request for a
Planned Unit Development concept plan allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of
the conventional zoning districts by creating a unique zoning district rather than asking for
variances. The closest conventional zoning district is Community Commercial (see Attachment
#1).
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety
of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development
costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development
plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been
the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to
demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against nine criteria.
BACKGROUND
Concept PUD - What is required?
The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and City
Council without incurring a lot of expense. There will be a greater level of detail required
through the city code and the recommendations and direction in this report. Following are the
requirements for conceptual PUD approval.
Chanhassen City Code, Section 20 -517 General concept plan.
(a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a
plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development
without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following:
(1) Overall gross and net density.
(2) Identification of each lot size and lot width.
(3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
(4) General location and extent of public and common open space.
(5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development.
(6) Staging and time schedule for development.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 3 of 19
(b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be
filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement
shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the
property to a planned unit development district.
(c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures:
(1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments.
(2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together
with all supporting data.
(3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and
make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of
a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the
official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification
of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of
land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an
on -site notification sign erected.
(4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning
commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning
commission fails to make a report within 60 days after receipt of the application,
then the city council may proceed without the report. The council may approve
the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval
shall require a simple majority vote of city council, except for proposals requiring
comprehensive plan changes which shall require a four -fifths vote of the entire
city council.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The 14 -acre site contains an existing building with a footprint of 140,020 square feet. There is a
me zzanin e section in the building creating a total area of 154,674 square feet. The original building
was occupied by Victory Envelope. The building has been vacant for several years. With this
development proposal the current building is proposed to be torn down. Attachment #2 shows a
market value comparison between industrial and commercial use for this site.
The site is bordered by TH 5 on the north, Powers Boulevard on the east, a wetland with a stream
running through it on the west and Park Road on the south. Access to the site is gained via Park
Road. The elevation of the site changes 40 feet from the creek on the western portion of the property
to the intersection of Powers Boulevard and TH 5.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 4 of 19
*W- -- :
f I
y��
T774
fu�'s•fi
( F.
;Y
T
e,lv.
s
"�
f I
•l w'
y��
T774
fu�'s•fi
( F.
;Y
��
4 h ,
let'`t
•• Imo° �
"�
•l w'
y��
T774
fu�'s•fi
( F.
;Y
��
4 h ,
let'`t
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Chapter 20,
• Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District,
• Article VI, Wetland Protection,
• Article VII, Shoreland Management district,
• Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office
Development District,
• Article II, Division 6 of Site Plan Review
RETAIL MARKET STUDY
The City, in conjunction with the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce, commissioned a
Chanhassen Retail, Office and Residential Market Analysis and Development Potential, Prepared
by McComb Group, Ltd., June 2006. The conclusions of that study are as follows:
• Chanhassen can support additional retail opportunities.
• There is insufficient land available for commercial development:
✓ The downtown area would need an additional 12 f acres to adequately
accommodate the additional 112,000 square feet of supportable square footage.
✓ The potential lifestyle site at TH 212 and Powers Boulevard has the potential to
support 88 acres in 2010, increasing to 113 acres in 2025.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 5 of 19
With the outcomes of the Retail Market Study and through the comprehensive plan update in
2008, two additional commercial areas were created. One is close to downtown on TH 5 and
Powers Boulevard, and the other is south of TH 5 in the area of the US Highway 212/Powers
Boulevard intersection. The land use in the area of Powers Boulevard and US Highway 212 was
guided either Office Industrial or Commercial. Two zoning districts were also created:
Community Commercial and the Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development Standards.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Following is the section of the comprehensive plan regarding community commercial.
2.7.3 Community and General Commercial
Definition/Vision: A large -scale commercial and office district with a need for high visibility
along Arterial roads. This type of development has a moderate impact on the surrounding
environment, including but not limited to lighting, noise and traffic.
Location criteria for Community Commercial uses are: access to arterial streets, preferably at
intersections with collector and arterial streets; moderate to large -sized sites; public water and
sewer service; environmental features such as soils and topography suitable for compact
development; and adequate buffering by physical features or adjacent uses to protect nearby
residential development.
Goods and Services Examples
• Furniture and Home Furnishings
• Electronics and Appliance Stores
• Building Material and Garden Supplies
• Auto Parts and Accessories
• Sporting Goods
A new zoning district CC (Community Commercial) will be created in the City Code to
implement this land use.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
PUD Standards
Sec. 20 -504. - Coordination with other zoning regulations.
The development must comply with Article II, Division 6 of Chapter 20 addressing Site Plan
Review as well as Articles V, VI and VII (Floodplain, Wetland and Shoreland District).
Sec. 20 -505. - Required general standards.
• Standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the
proposed development and the surrounding use.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 6 of 19
• Location of buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the
topography of the area and existing natural features; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of
the proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy,
location and screening of non - compatible land uses and parking areas.
• The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural
and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and buffering
for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards.
• Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: commercial or industrial is 70 percent.
• Building and parking setbacks from public streets shall be determined by the city based on
characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least
20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD.
• PUDs must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established by the
Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 20, Article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code.
• Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in the sign plan approved by the city
and shall be regulated by permanent covenants or design standards established in the PUD
development contract.
• The requirements contained in articles XXIII (Supplementary Regulations- Design Standards)
and XXV (Landscaping and Tree Removal) of this chapter may be applied by the city as it
deems appropriate.
• The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets, utilities,
public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances
ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public
facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or
ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is
not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the
residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE
City code requires that developments comply with certain minimum requirements. These
requirements are outlined below.
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office
Development District
Size, Portion and Placement
Entries: The building has a pronounced entrance with a canopy over the front entry. There are
recesses and projections surrounding the front entrance and display windows.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 7 of 19
Articulation: The building has expanses of more than 40 feet in width that should be divided
into smaller increments with either facade modulation, vertical divisions using different materials
or variation in the roof line. The proposed building does not comply with this requirement
Signs: A pylon sign shall not exceed 80 square feet on a state highway and the area of the sign
shall not exceed 20 feet in height. It appears that the proposed pylon sign exceeds the allowed
height. There is not enough information to determine if the wall signs are in compliance.
Material and Detail
The materials on the building include EFIS and precast panels. Tilt -up panels that are grid or
brick -like in appearance are required. EFIS can only be used as accent material and may occupy
up to 15 percent of the buildings facades. The proposed building does not provide a significantly
higher quality of architectural or material detailing than required by city code
Color
The building color is tan and browns consistent with the requirements of the ordinance.
Height and Roof Design
The tallest part of the building is the front entry which is 35 feet. The building meets the height
requirement. All rooftop equipment must be screened. It appears that there is a parapet wall but
there is not enough information to determine screening compliance, especially since Highway 5
has a higher elevation than the building.
Facade Transparency
All facades viewed by the public must contain 50 percent windows and/or doors. All facades
that have visibility from the public must meet this requirement. The front or the southern side
meets the transparency requirements. The remaining fifty (50) percent of the publicly viewed
areas shall have screening by landscaping materials and architectural detailing and articulation
that provide texture on the facade. The building design does not meet the requirement.
Loading Areas, Refuse Areas, etc.
Refuse is located in the rear of the building with screening.
Parking
The parking plan takes advantage of compact parking stalls at the maximum of 25 percent or 116
stalls. The total parking provided is 528 stalls. The site is deficient 58 parking spaces or 12% of
required parking of the required 586 (five spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area).
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 8 of 19
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Roadways
The property lies south of Highway 5, west of Powers Boulevard and north of Park Road.
Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard are classified as Minor Arterials in the City's Transportation
Plan and are under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Carver
County, respectively. Park Road is a city street and is classified as a Major Collector roadway.
The development team performed a Traffic Impact Analysis to estimate the impact the proposed
Walmart store would have on the roadway system. The analysis assumes that trips to the site
will distribute as shown in Figure 1.
W T 7 81+FSTRE T
T
HIGH--- 20%
WA
1��35
s
site
5 50
— 7 L
0 -0-
- ���RK ROAD
0
22 °
2
J -- --- - ---- --
- --------
- ------------ ----------- -
----------
-----------
------------------------- — ---------- W
------------------ 3:
0
CL
Figure 1. Anticipated traffic distribution for the proposed development
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 9 of 19
The analysis included the existing traffic volumes and estimated growth to the year 2030 due to
residential, commercial and industrial growth within the area. The analysis focused on the peak
PM volumes since this will likely be the time that has the highest impact to traffic. The
additional PM trips generated each hour to the proposed store are shown in Figure 2.
19
HIG
Sfte
i
r
142 j
- -10 y - —_
PARK ROAD
0
43
I
' 68
0
m
to -
w
O -----------
- : IL
Figure 2. Additional PM peak -hour trips generated by the proposed development.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 10 of 19
The peak PM hour traffic to the site will include "pass -by" trips, meaning vehicles that are
already traveling in a particular direction will stop at the site, and then continue to their ultimate
destination. Figure 3 shows the projected peak PM hour traffic volumes to the site for the years
2013/2030.
U I
ST 7 H STR
HfGHh/gY 5 2251328
89/51 \/
244/374
Site
276/324
931172,
PARK ROAD
1161139
0
J
m — ---
W -- — —
Figure 3. Anticipated peak PM hour traffic volumes to the site (2013/2030)
The following roadway improvements have been recommended based on the projected traffic
volumes identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis:
1. An additional left turn lane for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard
needs to be constructed.
2. The existing left turn signal on Highway 5 needs to be re -timed for westbound Highway
5 to southbound Powers Boulevard.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 11 of 19
3. An additional left turn lane for northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5
needs to be constructed.
4. Installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Park
Road.
5. Increase the length of the left turn on northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound
Highway 5.
6. Installation of turn lanes and a raised median within Park Road.
These improvements are not identified in the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan;
therefore, the developer should make these improvements if the development is approved. Based
on the developer's preliminary drawings, these improvements can be constructed within the
existing right -of -ways.
Site Access
The site currently has two access points on Park Road. The proposed access points are shown in
yellow in Figure 4. A comparison of the existing and proposed access points as compared to the
City Code requirements is shown in Table 1.
e.*
PARK t.. ROAD
Figure 4. Existing and proposed accesses. Dimensions to existing conditions shown in white. Proposed condition shown in yellow.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 12 of 19
Table 1. Access Spacing Comparisons
Access spacing from an adjacent street — in this instance, Powers Boulevard — is intended to
provide drivers sufficient distance to travel past an intersection before making a turn, and to
provide sufficient stacking distance for vehicles turning in to the access. Adequate distance
between access points is required for similar reasons. Access spacing requirements consider the
classification of streets and the land use of the property: spacing for a commercial property along
a high volume road is greater than that for a private residence on a low volume road.
The developer proposes to shift the eastern access approximately 10 feet west of the existing
access; however, the access still would not meet the minimum access spacing requirement from
Powers Boulevard.
Figure 5 illustrates staff s concerns with the proposed access points and associated roadway
modifications.
Existing
Proposed
Minimum Required per
Condition
Condition
Comprehensive Plan
Distance from Eastern
Access to Powers Boulevard
170 ft
180 ft
220 ft
Distance Between Eastern
and Western Access
290 ft
250 ft
200 ft
Access spacing from an adjacent street — in this instance, Powers Boulevard — is intended to
provide drivers sufficient distance to travel past an intersection before making a turn, and to
provide sufficient stacking distance for vehicles turning in to the access. Adequate distance
between access points is required for similar reasons. Access spacing requirements consider the
classification of streets and the land use of the property: spacing for a commercial property along
a high volume road is greater than that for a private residence on a low volume road.
The developer proposes to shift the eastern access approximately 10 feet west of the existing
access; however, the access still would not meet the minimum access spacing requirement from
Powers Boulevard.
Figure 5 illustrates staff s concerns with the proposed access points and associated roadway
modifications.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 13 of 19
"rrm'rrrm unmrrmnrugm ��r:��nii�'�'• �,
Stacking concern: Each turn
lane could accommodate one
vehicle. Beyond the turn lane
there is only stacking for two
additional vehicles.
Proposed turn lane taper is too close to
Powers Boulevard. Immediately after
turning off of Powers Blvd drivers
would have to make a decision whether
or not to turn into the site.
Curb radius is too
short. Passenger
vehicles will likely hit
the curb. Larger
vehicles cannot make
the turn.
lot
��� �, I I 1 � 1411 t 1 � 41
S88V2''2 "W -
15i7 JY.i r - ♦ i �
Potential high U- turning
movements. Many vehicles
using the "right -out" at the
eastern access will want to go
to Powers Boulevard.
1 �
I',IIII;
1
�I
Potential weaving issue
between vehicles making a
right turn out of the east access
and vehicles making the right
turn in to the west access.
Figure 5. Staff concerns with accesses and proposed modifications to Park Road
Staff looked at aerials of more than 60 big box retail sites in the metro area. Staff found two
sites that have only two access points; the remaining sites had three or more accesses. There is
approximately 310 feet between the accesses on "Site A" where both accesses are on the same
street. Neither access to "Site A" are close to an intersecting street. The accesses to "Site B" are
on different streets; neither is close to an intersecting street. At this point staff has not found a
big box retail site within the metro that has similar access issues as the concept plan submitted to
the city.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 14 of 19
y I r
W-
� ' J � :� .. •�ii .1 1.
WM Vi
Parking is currently restricted on the north side of Park Road. The proposed modifications to
Park Road would require that the south side of Park Road be a "No Parking" area as well.
Employees of the IWCO property currently park on the south side of Park Road. The
developer's engineer has discussed the proposed median on Park Road and the potential on- street
parking restriction with the owners of the IWCO.
Some of the vegetation on the west side of the site would have to be trimmed or removed in
order to ensure adequate sight distance at the west access.
Grading
The concept plan identifies the proposed finished floor elevation of the store to be 931', which is
approximately nine feet lower than the ground elevation on the east side of the building. The
concept plan includes retaining walls on the west, north and east sides of the property. The
developer's engineer has indicated that the maximum height of the retaining walls are
approximately 21 M eet on the west side, 16%2 feet on the north side and 16%2 feet on the east
side. Portions of the proposed wall encroach into the existing drainage and utility easement
Utilities
Public water and sanitary sewer is available to the property. If the project proceeds, a utility plan
must be submitted showing the existing and proposed services to the property.
Water Quality
This site is tributary to two surface waters that are included on the Federal Clean Water Act 303d
list. Riley Creek is impaired for aquatic habitat with turbidity the identified pollutant. Lake
Susan is impaired for aquatic recreation with nutrients as the identified pollutant. Because of
these impairments, both waters are considered Improve -1 Surface Waters per Chanhassen's
Figure 6. Big box retail "Site A" with two accesses on the same
street.
Figure 7. Big box retail "Site B" with two accesses on two
different streets.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 15 of 19
Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The stated goal of Improve -1
waters is to improve the existing water quality trend. To this end, water must be treated to
greater than NURP standards and must assure that rates to and within Riley Creek do not
increase.
The site is proposed to have a significant increase in hardcover with a corresponding loss in
vegetative cover, including mature shade trees. Stormwater treatment would need to occur
underneath the parking lot. This system would need to be under private management, since this
is a system that the city does not maintain.
Riley Creek is located on the property and Lake Susan within one -half mile of the subject
property. The close proximity of these two waters severely limits other opportunities to achieve
the water quality goals.
Wetlands and Buffer Areas
There exists a large riparian wetland on the property. This wetland is currently classified as
Manage 2 in the SWMP. A Manage 2 wetland requires 20 -foot buffers and a 30 -foot setback
from this buffer. The conceptual plan shows that a majority of the wetland has less than 30 feet
total between the wetland edge and the structural improvements on the site. In some places, this
protection is as little as 5 feet. Given that this is a planned unit development, the City should
expect an additional level of protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and
natural resources. This conceptual plan not only does not provide additional considerations of
these resources; it does not even meet the minimum standards required by code.
The encroachment into the wetland and buffer setback includes a substantial retaining wall. This
wall will limit the functions and values of the wetland as an ecological feature for both plant and
animal habitat. Edge features often promote the establishment of invasive plant species at the
expense of a diversity of native plants. Further, this wall will act to fragment the area from the
east and eliminate any associated upland habitat.
When reviewing the entrance to the west, as shown on the conceptual plan, it is apparent that
significant tree removal will be required for adequate sight lines at the ingress /egress. This
additional tree loss will be further detrimental to both the wetland area and the volume and
quality of water running off into Riley Creek. However, in no case may trees which shade Riley
Creek be removed. It remains to be seen how this would affect sight lines at this entrance.
Additional restrictions on the removal of vegetation will apply given that the western one -third
of the site, approximately, lies within the Shoreland Management District for Riley Creek.
Significant obstacles may preclude the development of this site as indicated in the conceptual
plan. This includes the treatment and conveyance of stormwater runoff, the protection of
wetland features and the preservation of natural resources.
Landscaping
The proposed development is short on interior landscape space to adequately meet minimum
parking lot landscaping requirements. All islands and peninsulas shown meet minimum
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 16 of 19
requirements for interior width. The quantity of trees required is based on the amount of
vehicular use required landscape area.
The plan is deficient in the following ways:
• Parking Lot Landscaping: Interior landscape space, trees, islands and peninsulas
• Foundation Landscape: Incorporate planters, trees, green space along store perimeter
• Bufferyard Requirements: Located on the north, east and south sides
• Native Landscaping: Located along the west side of the property in order to restore native
vegetation.
• Consideration of pervious hard surfaces in lesser used parking lot areas.
Building Review
1. Structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code.
2. The structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
3. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
4. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
5. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are
submitted.
6. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS
The applicant is requesting concept PUD for a retail commercial development
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety
of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development
costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development
plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been
the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to
demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 17 of 19
Findin : This conceptual plan not only does not provide additional considerations of
these resources, it does not even meet the minimum standards required by code.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of
land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding The concept plan does not effectively utilize the site. It encroaches into or
eliminates environmental features.
3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Finding The site plan and the design of the building does not meet the standards of
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and
Office Development District. The PUD calls for a higher standard than is found elsewhere
in the community. The site plan is deficient in the following ways:
• Architectural compliance does not meet the design standard, especially in articulation
and fagade transparency.
• The parking plan is deficient 58 parking spaces or 12% of required parking of the
required 586, and utilizes the maximum number of compact spaces.
• Areas of the site plan do not meet the 20 -foot parking setback from the exterior lot
lines.
• The proposed development appears to fall slightly short on interior landscape space to
adequately meet minimum parking lot landscaping requirements.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Findin : The proposed plan does not permit a transition between the highway, the
development, and the natural features. It eliminates the stand of trees in the northern
portion of property and encroaches into the wetlands.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Findin : The development is consistent with the comprehensive plan for commercial
use.
6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 18 of 19
Finding Pedestrian access to the site via city trails /sidewalk is poor. Access terminates
at the Powers Boulevard. There is no internal sidewalk system from Park Road. The site
encroaches into the Riley Creek wetland complex on site.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Finding Not applicable to this proposal.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding Sustainability elements Walmart implements in their building construction are:
• Central Energy Management System, to monitor and control heating, air
conditioning, refrigeration and lighting;
• Daylight Harvesting, reducing the electric lighting energy consumption up to 75 %;
• LED Technology, providing up to 52% more efficiency than traditional fluorescent
illumination;
• White Roofs, reducing the heat island effect with higher reflectivity and emissivity
factors;
• Non -Ozone Depleting Refrigerants; Heat Reclamation, utilizing the waste heat from
on -site refrigeration to supply hot water needs;
• High - Efficiency Faucets and Urinals, yielding a 75% reduction in water usage;
• Recycled Content Requirements, specifying construction materials containing waste
products;
• Low - Emitting Materials, specifying interior adhesives, sealants, paints and carpet
systems with low -VOC content;
• Waste Management Procedures, seeking to recycle, reuse, or salvage non - hazardous
waste generated by the Work and to eliminate or minimize the amount of waste going
to landfills.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts.
Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Finding The following roadway improvements have been recommended based on the
projected traffic volumes identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis:
• An additional left turn lane for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers
Boulevard needs to be constructed
• The existing left turn signal on Highway 5 needs to be re -timed for westbound
Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard
• An additional left turn lane for northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway
5 needs to be constructed
• Installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and
Park Road
Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development
November 1, 2011
Page 19 of 19
• Increase the length of the left turn on northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound
Highway 5
• Installation of turn lanes and a raised median within Park Road
• Proposed turn lane taper is too close to Powers Boulevard
• Curb radius entering the site is too short
• Stacking concern — Each turn lane could accommodate one vehicle. Beyond the turn
lane there is only stacking for two additional vehicles
• Potential high U- turning movements — Many vehicles using the "right -out" at the
eastern access will want to go to Powers Boulevard.
• Potential weaving issue between vehicles making a right turn out of the east access
and vehicles making the right turn in to the west access.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt one of the following motions:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept Planned Unit."
1'
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends denial of the Concept Planned Unit
Development based on the findings of the Planned Unit Development as stated in the staff
report."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 20 — Zoning, Article XVIII -A. — "CC" Community
Commercial District.
2. Industrial/Commercial Comparison.
3. Development Review Application.
4. Reduced copy of Preliminary Site Plan dated 9/30/11.
5. Building elevations and perspectives dated 6/21/11.
6. Letter from Tod Sherman of MnDOT dated 8/11/11.
7. Letter from Kate Miner of Carver County Public Works dated 8/19/11.
8. Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Public Hearing.
9. Emails from residents.
gAplan\2011 planning cases \11 -11 walmart store concept pud \pc staff report.doc
Municode Page 1 of 2
Attachment #I
Chanhassen, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> - CITY CODE >> Chapter 20 - ZONING >> ARTICLE
XVIII -A. - "CC" COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT >>
I ARTICLE XVIIi-A. - "CC" COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20 -741. - Intent.
Sec. 20 -742. - Permitted uses.
Sec. 20 -743. - Permitted accessory uses.
Sec. 20 -744. - Conditional use.
Sec. 20 -745. - Lot reouirements and setbacks.
Secs. 20- 746 -20 -750. - Reserved.
Sec. 20 -741.- Intent.
(a)
The intent of the community commercial district is to provide for moderate to large sized commercial development.
These large -scale commercial and office users need high visibility along arterial roads. While smaller scale
ancillary commercial uses may be permitted integral to the principal use, the primary use of a building shall be
medium to large type users with a minimum tenant space of 15,000 square feet. The intent of the district is to
accommodate larger uses. The creation of multi- tenant, small user, strip centers is prohibited.
(b)
Location criteria for community commercial uses are: Access to arterial and collector streets, preferably at
intersections with collector and arterial streets; moderate to large -sized sites; public water and sewer service;
environmental features such as soils and topography suitable for compact development; and adequate buffering by
physical features or adjacent uses to protect nearby residential development.
(c)
The total building area on a single level or floor for an individual use shall be no more than 65,000 square feet.
(Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11- 23 -09)
Sec. 20 -742.- Permitted uses.
Arts and crafts supply store.
Automotive parts and accessories.
Book store.
Building supply center.
Consumer electronics and appliance store.
Drugstore.
Furniture and home furnishings.
Garden center.
Grocery store.
Health and dental clinics.
Hobby, toy and game stores.
Office.
Office equipment and supply.
Personal services.
Sewing and fabric store.
Sporting goods.
(Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11- 23 -09)
Sec. 20 -743.- Permitted accessory uses.
Antennas.
Automatic teller machines (ATMs).
http: / /library.municode. com /print. aspx ?clientID= 14048 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2f%2fl... 10/24/2011
Municode
Parking lots and ramps.
Signs.
Utility services.
(Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11- 23 -09)
Sec. 20 -744.- Conditional use.
Screened outdoor storage.
(Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11- 23 -09)
Sec. 20 -745.- Lot requirements and setbacks.
Minimum lot area: One acre.
Minimum lot depth: 100 feet.
Minimum lot frontage: 100 feet.
Maximum lot coverage: 70 percent.
Maximum building height: Four stories; 50 feet.
Setbacks: Building /parking:
Front: 25 feet.
Side: 10 feet.
Rear: 10 feet.
Parking setback exemptions:
Page 2 of 2
There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off - street
parking area.
Parking setbacks may be reduced to ten feet along public streets if the applicant can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the city that 100 percent screening is provided at least five feet above the adjacent
parking lot.
(Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11- 23 -09)
Secs. 20- 746-20 -750.- Reserved.
http: // library. municode .com / print.aspx ?clientID = 14048 &HTMRequest= http %3a %2f'/o2fl... 10/24/2011
Attachment #2
Industrial / Commercial Comparison
Target
ISTAR MN LLC
Acerage gross
10.08
14.1
Building sq. ft
130,110
154,674
2011 Total Market Value
$10,095,600
$5,16700
2011 Total Tax
$350,044
$208,394
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227 -1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
0 3 + 2011
C,HANHA.SFN PI AC KIM. Pr-P - '
PLEA5E PRINT
Applicant Name and Address:
Walmart c/o Kimley -Horn and Assoc.
2550 University Ave W. Suite 238N
St. Paul, MN 55114
Contact: William D. Matzek
Phone: 643 -0497 Fax: 651- 645 -4197
Email: Will. Matzek@Kimley- Horn.com
Property Owner Name and Address:
iStar Minnesota LLC c/o iStar Financial I
1114 Avenue of the Ame ricas, 27th Fl
New York, New York 10036
Contact:
Phone: Fax:
Email:
NOTE Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non - conforming Use Permit
X Planned Unit Development' - 750
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review (SPRr
Subdivision"
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right -of- Way /Easements (VAC)
(Additional recording fees may apply)
Variance (VAR)
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
t
Notification Sign $200
(City to install and remove)
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Five (5) full -size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8 %" X 11" reduced
copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ( *.tif) format.
*'"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost"
- $50 CUP /SPRNACNARNVAP /Metes & Bounds
$450 Minor SUB 1C� ►��ey_ t-�orh
TOTALFEE$ 950.00 -GK�! altt3a�
Planning Case No. 07O 1 I - I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
PROJECT NAME: ! almart Store #5949 -00
LOCATION. 1000 Park Road, Chanhassen, MN 55317
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Lot 1, Block 1, of the Park Two 2nd Addition Plat.
PIN: 255660010
TOTAL ACREAGE: 14.10 ACRES
WETLANDS PRESENT: x YES NO
PRESENT ZONING: IOP - Industrial Office Park District
REQUESTED ZONING: PUD - Planned unit Development
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Industrial Office/ Community .rqW rcial
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Commercial
REASON FOR REQUEST. The p�izro. se y= t ss 4pplication _s t0 request A PUA in order to
d @v@lQy. an._.appXAXima.>cf =1y 120, 000 SP retail building on said property. The proposed
development has beQn prepazed in accordance with the City of gLa a Code of
Ordinances.
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. Include number of existing employees: and new employees:
This application must be completed in fill and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before tiling this application, you should confer with the
Planning Departrnent to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be matted to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
i will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information 1 have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
r
Signature of Applicatnt Date
Signa of Fee Owner &2 y ! d/
Oahe
g:�pkn \famw,Ikvctapnxni mviov aMiadan.dw
4
e CEP T1 0 N
0 N.
Wit M q
T b
SITE PLAN NOTES
F � I � � f ° r._..,s �� ; /. P t
N T—N—
Walmart"'
STORE 0 5949-00
C1 120- NOR -NOR
- T M-191, 117,278 SF 0*
n, Q W ;"I IX. m we
17 MA—T—mr—
RA
- 4
N
t -T
z
a-
LLJ
tz
U)
4-
If Sl DATA LEGEND <
Z
77
r rl I Aj A
-01 -1.1 i - " I ui
a.
w I I
wv
R", z
w
U)
�XA
F C Q
= 0 d)
Z w q
< le
% or J I w
L) Q w
Ir
ICC
co
—5 .15T --T
GOPHER STATE CALL 1p�E
r ALERT TO CONTRACTOR:
'10= NO
6040
vtae.eT awn .E — -s " ca. sac,.., c•• cc «coee�s Fastinisnsornsrusur
1 1 1 '.BNiw•;SSM,�a - F ^f�BFVUf
� ��lIMNI�IwNN - - �■ �
L-=
Front Elevation
Rear F-levauvn
�� �nre v� ee �� roeavn nve. e �' .w.wrowra tanaw
�rrsrwu.3
S
Total 5 .Ft
Right Elevation lmarr Si
Qty 5�9ht
S
Total 5 .Ft
park
2 8' -0
298.00
596.00
arket &Pharms
1 2'-6'
102.58
10258
TotaL•
698.58
LeTI tievaTion
Walmart
�Mff�r June
Fare 8oenoe to so"—
Chanhassen, MN 5949 -00
��at�Z L KLlwtul'
O 11 P -
'llm iq lay, I U - LI
7,.
� - 7
40
Aw
A
Walmart
June 21, 201 Chanhassen, MN 5949-00 p erspectives
Wa I m a r t
L RUFFS YTAI -A.,ALY VOT f
"
June 21, 2011 1 Chanhassen, MN 5949-00
Perspective 1 3
. li — — I I—I't.b" .l tj �. . j .. ... ...... t , [, r , I,! I., n. " m-1 ." -.1 •,, ".1L., I—— - ,,, I I I I'II , " 11 , ' " Ir I I j , _: , I , I I —'j'l._ 1.:, , , , , � , , :11.1111h' "1 1-1 -1 1
ft—
Walmart
rrti ra
x
June 21, 2011 1 Chanhassen, MN 5949 -00
Perspective
Walmart ;'%o
F— S—,- I.
June 21, 2011 Chanhassen, MN 5949-00 Perspective
,,I l N "', L All— - - r. r, :- , 1, u. u. ,,—..,,,,,,, 1 1 „.,.1 LW'. M1. . .111.1- .1, u. --- . .. , r o , 11 j ., . "—A
Do��NNesorgyo Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge
'hoFA�e 1500 West County Road S -2
Roseville, MN 55113 -3174
August 11, 2011
Robert Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJECT: Wal -Mart, Mn/DOT Review # SII -036
SW Quad of TH 5 (Arboretum Blvd.) and Powers Blvd.
City of Chanhassen/Carver County
Control Section 1002
Dear Mr. Generous:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Wal -Mart Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Because of the general nature of this plan Mn/DOT is not able to provide comments
concerning issues such as drainage or design. As plans are developed, we would like the
opportunity to meet with our partners and to review the updated information. Mn/DOT's
staff has reviewed the document and has the following comment:
TraffIe:
The traffic impact analysis only examines the PM peak period. The AM peak period is
more critical for this location since there is a heavy westbound left turning movement
opposing a high eastbound volume heading inbound in the morning. Additionally,
congestion in the AM peak period may become more significant when Wal -Mart begins
operating 24 hours per day.
Mn/DOT conducted turning movement counts at TH 5/Powers Blvd. on 9/25/08. The
turning movement counts completed for this traffic impact analysis have a date of 2/8/11.
Mn/DOT's counts were significantly higher, especially the PM eastbound turning
movement - 916 vehicles versus 715. This can likely be attributed to the time of year in
which the counts were taken. In the 2030 build options the intersection falls into an
unacceptable LOS E. Indeed, queues for motorists turning left, block both the
northbound and westbound approaches.
The TIA recommended monitoring the surrounding growth in the long term in
consideration of a dual left for both eastbound and westbound traffic. As stated
previously, our concern is for westbound motorists turning left. Based on our 9/25/11
turning movement counts, this problem should be addressed in the short term. Mn /DOT
would like to meet with the City of Chanhassen to discuss possible funding options for
the needed improvements.
An equal opportunity employer
Mn/DOT agrees with the TIA recommendation of installing a signal at Powers Blvd and
Park Rd (when it is warranted). Along with the signal installation at Park Rd. the three
signals on Powers (at Park Rd, TH 5 and W 78 "' St.) should be interconnected and have
cross coordination plans implemented with the current TH 5 system. For questions
concerning these comments, please contact David Sheen (651 -234 -7824) of Mn/DOT
Metro's Traffic Section.
Permits:
Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Permit
forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at ht!p://www.dot.state.mn.us/
include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit
application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig
(651 -234 -7911) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section.
Standard Submittal Statement:
As a reminder, there are four submittal options. Please submit either:
1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. Mn/DOT can accept the plans via
e -mail at metrodevreviews.dotgstate.mn.us provided that each separate e-
mail is less than 20 megabytes.
2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size
plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to:
Mn/DOT -- Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
3. One (1) compact disk.
4. Plans to Mn/DOT's external FTP Site. Please send pdf. files to:
ftp: / /ftp2. dot. state. mn. us /pub/ incoming /MetroWatersEdge/Planning Internet
Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows
Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to
metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been
submitted on the FTP site.
If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at
(651) 234 -7794.
Sincerej.�,
Tod Sherman
Planning Supervisor
Copy sent via E -Mail:
Arash Moin, Water Resources
Buck Craig, Permits
Nancy Jacobson, Design
Nicole Peterson, Area Engineer
David Sheen, Traffic
Ann Braden / Metropolitan Council
Paul Oehme, City of Chanhassen - poehme0d.chanhassen.mmus
Carver County, (Pu6, Work
-s
11360 Y gfeway 212
Suite 1
Cologne, 94W 55322 -8016
NWw (952) 466-5200 TPaX(952) 466 -5223
.Administration
(P arks
Engineering
.�figl►way 911aintenance
Equipment 94faintenance
Surveying zT, Mapping
August 19, 2011
Paul Oehme, City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Walmart TIA
Dear Mr. Oehme:
After reviewing the Walmart Traffic Impact Analysis we offer the following comments.
• We agree that a signal should be installed at CSAH 17 and Park Road. The County would require a full
build out of turn lanes on Park Road, requiring right and left turn lanes both eastbound and westbound.
We would not allow a split - phasing as shown in the analysis in place of a full build out.
• We have requested in the past that the modeling include the signal at 7& Street to further understand
any queuing impacts along CSAH 17. This analysis still does not include that intersection, and it is
recommended with a build condition that the signals along CSAH 17 are interconnected and include a
cross coordination pattern with TH 5.
• Due to the large volumes at the intersection at TH 5 and CSAH 17 and the analysis showing that the
queues in the 2013 build condition would negatively impact the safety of CSAH 17 and TH 5 by
reducing deceleration lengths within the turn lanes, the County recommends that in the build year the
full recommended geometric improvements at the intersection of TH 5 and CSAH 17 be constructed.
This would include dual left turns on all approaches at the intersection of TH 5 and CSAH 17.
As you know, we are in the process of finalizing our development review process and want to thank you for the
opportunity to review this project early in the process. We will require further review as the project moves
along and look forward to working with you.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions, 952 - 466 -5208.
Sincerely,
A c� N\�
Kate Miner, PE
Carver County Traffic Engineer
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
October 20, 2011, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for Walmart Rezoning — Planning Case 2011 -11 to the persons named on attached
Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and
depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage
fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate
records.
Kar J. Eng ha dt, DepQ Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
thi �eday of ��-� y , 2011.
Notary 1ubbt
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
Notary Public - Minnesota
My commi ssion Expires Jan 31, 2015
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Rezoning from Industrial Office Park (IOP) to
Proposal:
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a commercial
development of a 120,000 square -foot Walmart Store on
approximately 14.10 acres of land.
Applicant:
Walmart, c/o Kimle -Horn Associates, Inc.
Property
1000 Park Road
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /sery /plan /11- 11.html If you wish to
talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate
Questions &
Aanenson by email at kaanenson(d,)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or
Comments:
by phone at 952 - 227 -1139. If you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online on the project web site listed above the Thursday
p rior to the Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Rezoning from Industrial Office Park (IOP) to
Proposal:
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a commercial
development of a 120,000 square -foot Walmart Store on
approximately 14. 10 acres of land.
Applicant:
Walmart, c/o Kimle -Horn Associates, Inc.
Property
1000 Park Road
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /sery /plan /11- 11.html If you wish to
talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate
Questions &
Aanenson by email at kaanensonCcD-ci.chanhassen.mn.us or
Comments:
by phone at 952 - 227 -1139. If you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online on the project web site listed above the Thursday
p rior to the Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
CNL FUNDING 2000 -A CORE MPLS INDUST PORTF ETAL DONALD E HALLA REVOCABLE
PO BOX 1671 1600 DAVE ST #450 TRUST
ORLANDO FL 32802 -1671 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2447 PO BOX 260888
PLANO TX 75026 -0888
ECKANKAR
PO BOX 2000
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -2000
ISTAR MINNESOTA LLC
PO BOX 4900
SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261 -4900
LOTUS HOLDINGS LLC
7411 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9722
RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL CENTER
500 MAPLE ST S
WACONIA MN 55387 -1791
WILLIAM MATZEK
KIMLEY -HORN ASSOCIATES INC.
2550 UNIVERSITY AVE W STE 238N
ST. PAUL MN 55114
TFK MAMMOTH LLC
7801 PARK DR STE F
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9219
UNITED MAILING INC
7951 POWERS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9502
Carver County, MN
r � ..� �
s`
„r
.N
f � i► _ C
Property Information
Parcel ID: 255660010
Taxpayer Name: ISTAR MINNESOTA LLC
Taxpayer Address: PO BOX 4900
Taxpayer City St. Zip: SCOTTSDALE, AZ
85261 -4900
Property Address: 1000 PARK RD
Property City: CHANHASSEN
GIS Acres: 14.1
AS400 Acres: 14.68
Homestead: N
School District: 0112
Watershed District: WS 064 RILEY PURG
BLUFF CREEK
Tax Exempt: N
Platname: PARK TWO 2ND ADDITION
I
&
■I -- •T 17 a
.1p *Aw
/� /����,• .r Wyk �. •4 �• .L
Disclaimer This map was created using Carver County's Geographic
Map Scale N
Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from
1 inch = 641 feet
various City,County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a
surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a
W E
reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies
Map Date
contained herein.
10/13/2011 S
Aanenson, Kate
From: Scott Paulson [gcfworld @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:19 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Walmart
Good morning Kate,
My name is Scott Paulson and I met with you a few years ago regarding the proposed Harley Davidson Dealership. At
that time you indicated to me that you had 'Big Box' retailers contacting you constantly about building in Chanhassen.
You told me that there wasn't a single 'big box' location in town left. Is this still the case? What is the cities stance on
Walmart? I believe it would destroy the town and once they come in you can't get rid of them (see Eden Prairie!).
Thank you,
Scott Paulson
Aanenson, Kate
From: Matt & Sarah Thomas [Thomas8407 @q.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:39 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Wal -Mart
Hi Kate,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning regarding the proposed Wal -Mart development. At the
time I was unable to access the documents via Laserfiche. I have once again attempted to download the PDF from the
City website and while I couldn't print the PDF's I was able to view them. I hope to stop by City Hall tomorrow to take a
closer look at the plan set and obtain some copies.
A few quick things; I realize this is simply a concept plan but they don't have much of a narrative to support their
request. I'd like to know why they propose the zoning change, what benefit a rezoning and PUD would bring to the City,
and why they can't meet the standards within the zoning code?
I'd like to see if they could meet the zoning standards and what a 65,000 SF Wal -Mart would look like. The rear of the
building, outdoor storage and proof of parking along a busy corridor and entrance to downtown is not a good layout, in
my opinion. To garner support for this type of proposal the development should enhance not only the site but the
entire area and create a gateway to the downtown. Because of the number of deviations from code that I can only
assume they'll need, the development should provide a public benefit and also go above and beyond basic zoning
requirements. The "sign on a stick" pylon design shows Wal -Mart does not have the community in mind.
As I stated this morning, traffic greatly concerns me. 212 just alleviated the traffic on Hwy 5 and this development
would put us right back where we started. I don't know of any Chanhassen residents that have a desire for another big
box discount store in town, especially with Target right across the street. So we will have the traffic and road repairs
that are brought to us from residents living outside the City.
Lastly, Chanhassen contracts through the County for its police protection, and I would like to know how the City would
plan to handle the increased service levels this development would likely require. I have heard that crime tends to
follow Wal -Mart. That may or may not be true; however, I have had a Police Chief personally tell me not to shop at a
particular Wal -Mart after certain hours because it is not safe. My neighborhood has had many, too many, burglaries in
the past few years and besides the additional traffic, crime is a fear of mine with this proposal. I am curious if it would
be possible to check with other cities to see if they have seen an uptick in crime at their Wal -Mart locations.
Chanhassen just doesn't seem to be a good fit for Wal -Mart, especially at this location. I would like to see the City work
on enhancing the downtown and drawing in businesses that will compliment what already exists and not allow a
monstrosity such as Wal -Mart.
look forward to seeing this proposal at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
Sarah Thomas
2555 Longacres Drive
Aanenson, Kate
From: beth.miller1 @usbank.com
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 8:26 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Walmart
Please count us as against this development.
We will be at all meetings we are able to attend.
Beth Miller
Program Development Manager
Strategic Alliances Consumer Banking
Office (612) 973 -7834 Cell (952) 232 -7291 beth.miller1(q)_usbank.com
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e -mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic
communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient,
please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this
information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and
then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Aanenson, Kate
From: Suzanne Huwald [shuwald @mchsi.com]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 10:26 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: proposed Wal -Mart
We have been resident's of Chanhassen for over 17 years and I would be extremely disappointed if Chanhassen brought
a Walmart to our town. There is absolutely no need for a Walmart in Chanhassen. We live off of Powers Blvd and we
have the Target in Chanhassen within 5 minutes of our house, the Target in Chaska within 6 minutes of our house and
the Walmart and Target in Eden Prairie within 10 minutes of our house. There is not a need for another big box discount
retailer in this area.
We desperately need family friendly higher quality restraunts, quality retail and a clean grocery store with low prices
and quality produce. Hy -Vee grocery stores are amazing and would be a great addition to Chanhassen.
Thank you for your time,
Suzanne Huwald
From: Bonnie Filko [bonnie.filko@q.com]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Wal -Mart
Good Afternoon,
As a long -time resident of Chanhassen, I love how our community is growing and appreciate the
thoughtfulness the City Council has been in reviewing each new development request.
In regard to Wal -Mart. We have a Wal -Mart in Eden Prairie already which is only 5 miles or
so away. As a citizen, I am not opposed to a large establishment moving in especially as
this is close to the 212 highway and will therefore be attractive enough to draw consumers
and provide good tax revenue for Chanhassen. Let's look for something that closely matches
our needs, and will provide us something new in the area in regard to its goods —and services.
We have enough grocery stores, enough banks and enough pharmacies within our city limits.
The small strip malls in Chanhassen aren't very attractive, and am sort of surprised they are
even still in business. We have enough home improvement stores within a 6 mile radius.
I am short on ideas on what would be a good alternative for this land development, but hope
it is not Wal -Mart that you determine what is good for our area.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bonnie Filko
Aanenson, Kate
From: Ann Kloempken [annk2002 @juno.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:29 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Wal mart
Kate,
I was so happy to hear that Walmart might be building in Chanhassen !
It will bring jobs, increased tax revenue, and it could boost the sales of other retail
stores and restaurants in Chanhassen. It will bring shoppers in from surrounding areas.
Walmart is a great place to shop !
I'm concerned that you will only hear from people who are against the new store, so I wanted
to be sure to let you know that I am looking forward to it
Ann
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http: // thirdpartyoffers. iuno. com/ TGL3141 /4e938e2bc7a2032ad8m05vuc
1
From: barbalan20aol.com [barbalan2 @aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:48 AM
To: Furlong, Tom
Subject: Proposed Wal *Mart Store in Chanhassen
Good morning Tom -
We have heard that Wal *Mart is interested in locating a store at the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Powers Blvd.
Will you please let us know what your position is on this issue?
Will you also please let us know what the proposed investment from the City of Chanhassen is for this project
(infrastructure, TIF, etc.)
Thank you.
Alan and Barb Johnson
Aanenson, Kate
From:
dgjinc @aol.com
Sent:
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:58 PM
To:
Aanenson, Kate
Subject:
WAL -MART
Good Afternoon - I live in the Lake Susan Hills neighborhood and have been a resident of Chanhassen since 1991. This
is the first time I have felt the need to address the city and let my feeling known about any city projects. I have just heard
about the proposed Wal -Mart on Powers and Hwy 5.. I AM 100% OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. I believe it is wrong
for our community and personally oppose the general Wal -mart business policy- the way they treat their employees - how
Ilocal small business dries up under the shadow of a Wal -mart and how the dynamics of a city change when a huge box
store like Wal -mart dominates and dictates the local business climate. I will attend the Nov. 1st planning meeting and alert
my neighbors. I hope reason will prevail and this project will be killed. Doug Jacobson 952 - 937 -5381 . .
Aanenson, Kate
From:
Brown, Kevin [kevin.brown @bemis.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:54 AM
To:
Aanenson, Kate
Subject:
Wal -Mart Proposal
Good morning Kate,
I have just caught wind of the Wal -Mart proposal that will be under discussion on November 1. Unfortunately I will be
traveling for business on November 1 so my voice will not be heard at the meeting. As such, I am writing to you to
represent my voice. As a note, I live in the Springfield neighborhood at Lyman and 101— 559 Greenview Drive.
I, like many other I am sure, am not in favor of Wal Mart being located in Chanhassen. As a citizen, I do not like the
impact Wal Mart has on the local business community. Local business is part of the charm of small American
communities as they help create and maintain the character of the community. Wal Mart's destruction of local
businesses is easy to identify and prove.
Additionally, Wal Mart's EDLP (everyday low prices) sounds great, but it is part of the reason, as James McMurtry sings,
we don't make it here anymore. To me, Wal Mart is simply the distribution network for foreign businesses. Our dollars
spent at Wal Mart reinforce the practice of sourcing outside of our country. That I cannot support.
I cannot be honest if I don't admit that there are benefits to additional business in Chanhassen. I would hope if this goes
through that Wal Mart's impact would be to increase the flow of money into the Chanhassen tax base. Subsequently,
this should allow taxes to be flat moving forward. If Chanhassen is providing too much tax incentive to bring Wal Mart
to the community then the benefit to the community is being prostituted.
Thanks for listening.
Kevin Brown
Director of Sales
Bemis - Wprint Division
kevin.brown(u) bemis.com
952- 403 -1572 - office
773 - 610 -7165 - cell
This email and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are not authorized to read, copy or use the contents of the email or any attachment. If you have received
this email in error, please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system.
Aanenson, Kate
From: Randi Shapiro [ rshapiro @jonathanmontessori.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:10 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Proposed Walmart
Hello Kate,
I am a resident of Chanhassen and was shocked to hear about the proposed development on the SW corner of
Hwy. 5 and Powers Blvd. First, that area is pretty busy now and I can hardly imagine it with a Walmart. There
is a Walmart 10 minutes down the road for those who really plan to shop there. I for one do not support their
business ethic, or lack there of I should say. Just because there is free enterprise, I would hope that the planners
of Chanhassen could think of a more useful business that would help the Chanhassen small town feel continue
and still bring in the tax base they are hoping for. Target is a more discreet business and certainly more ethical
than Walmart.
Perhaps a restaurant or or a store like Michaels, or a bowling alley for teens to have a good place to go would be
a better addition to Chanhassen. I would be sick to have to drive by that business (Walmart) on a daily basis.
A big mistake that will change the way Chanhassen is viewed. I doubt that the best small towns in the country
have a Walmart in them. Please think VERY carefully!
Sincerely,
Randi Shapiro
743 Preakness Lane
Aanenson, Kate
From: royetta.snow @mchsi.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Walmart
I am very much against having a Walmart built in our town. They are unfair to their employes
in the way they are treated and paid, and I believe it will greatly affect the other
businesses as well. I do not think they will add to the great town we have now. Royetta
Snow
1
Aanenson, Kate
From: THOMAS W KRAUS [kraushaus 1 @msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:09 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: proposed Wal Mart
We have learned that the city council is considering a rezoning proposal for the corner of Highway 5 and Powers Blvd to
allow Wal Mart to build a store there. We feel this is a bad use of the property. There is already a business there that
employs many people at higher wages that Wal Mart does. Plus the access and egress problems would be great as that
is one of the busiest interesections in town. We feel a better place for them to locate would be along 212 somewhere.
We feel a Wal Mart store in town would completely distract from the small town feeling of Chanhassen which is one of
the main reason we moved here.
Please deny this request.
Tom & Sharon Kraus
7744 Vasserman Trail
Aanenson, Kate
From: Linda Hauser [lindamhauser @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:33 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Wal Mart
Please, please, Say no to a Wal Mart in Chanhassen ! ! ! !
Linda Hauser
2089 Clover Ct
Chanhassen
Aanenson, Kate
From: Tom Lindemeier [tindemeier @mchsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 20119:14 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Walmart
Hi Kate, My wife and I have been living in Chanhassen for 18 years now and have seen our community go through many
changes, most of them have been very positive.
This Wal -mart development is a disaster waiting to happen. I have been in architecture for 26 years and when you review
the traffic plans and overall scale of the project for that site it should not stand a chance to pass.lf it has to be rezoned it
does not belong on that site to begin with
I know the city needs the revenue but this is a bad plan. It is going to hurt Target and other businesses which are slow
enough the way it is. Eden Prairie is not that far to do to Wal -Mart. Chanhassen Drug moved out after how many years
taken over by the big boys.
We drive on Powers South to 5 every day numerous times and it is too busy and dangerous the way it is.
Please vote no for this
Sincerely,
Tom Lindemeier
email: tlindemeierQ)mchsi.com
Aanenson, Kate
From:
Waltgrob @aol.com
Sent:
Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:59 PM
To:
Aanenson, Kate
Subject:
walmart
I am a resident of Chanhassen and do not feel we need or want a Walmart in our community.We have enough
competition in our grocery and other stores.
Walter G Roberts
2019 Clover Ct
Chanhassen,Mn 55317
Aanenson, Kate
From: Tony Nuss [tinuss @mchsi.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:37 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Cc: Connie Nuss
Subject: Proposed Walmart Site
Ms. Aanenson --
The purpose of this email is to communicate that I am not in favor of allowing a Walmart store in Chanhassen. As
Community Development Director, please know that I am concerned that it will diminish the small town feel of the city and
most importantly will negatively effect business owners in the community. That is one of Walmart's legacies accross this
country.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Tony L. Nuss
9140 Springfield Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952.402.0625
Aanenson, Kate
From: Bader, Tom [Tom.Bader @wolterskluwer.com]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 7:13 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: No Walmart
lam opposed to Walmart moving to Chanhassen.
Thomas M. Bader
Sales Manager, Business Compliance
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Phone /Fax: 877 - 347 -6108
tom.bader(o)_wolterskluwer.com
NOTICE: This message (and/or attachment) is a confidential business communication. If you are NOT the intended recipient, any further review, storage, distribution,
or other use of content is prohibited.If you received this message in error, please notify sender and delete the correspondence. Thank you.
Aanenson, Kate
From: Donald Dahlquist [donald.dahlquist @mchsi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:35 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Wal -Mart Proposed Store
10/18/11
Dear Ms. Anenson
The purpose of this letter is to request you and the City Council VOTE NO to the Wal -Mart request, to build in
Chanhassen, MN.
We understand the City Council's responsibility to govern our cities needs and especially revenues to support city needs
and delay property tax increases. This is good, this is your charter. However, adding a Big -box Wal -Mart store into our
downtown mix we feel is a negative for our community. There is a Wal -Mart only 8 miles east in Eden Prairie. Our good
neighbors, the CARVER, MN city council and MINNETONKA, MN city council both voted a proposed Wal -Mart store
down in their communities. We need to inquire WHY? Why were they so positively decisive for their existing
community businesses?
The comment of the possibility of Wal -Mart paying $350,000.00+ in annual taxes to the city comes across as if that was
in ADDITION TO tax revenue we currently receive to our fine city. PLEASE understand from past history with a Wal -Mart
being built in a city and village community, this is not true. The history of Wal -Mart going into a city and the belief that
adding a big -box store will increase consumer spending is also negative thinking. There are only so many dollars
consumers have, which in reality is spent at our current establishments OR would be at Wal -Mart.
The history of a Wal -Mart being built in a community usually results is the closing of neighboring retail establishments.
We are sure you agree, this would be BAD. Whole strips of retail stores closed provides a negative impact on the city's
image for any future business. The tax revenue we currently receive from our existing retail businesses will STOP when
they close or be reduced so far that the $350,000.00 expected from Wal -Mart will be awash in tax revenue gained.
Other arguments are the possibility for more employment. We tend to believe this is false. If existing retail
establishments close, some employees will try and be employed at Wal -Mart, so that is awash. The others will just be
unemployed. And again the history of Wal -Mart salaries are very low, the laid -off employees from closed businesses
who might gain employment at Wal -Mart most likely will not experience increased income as in their previous
employment. Again we are being factual and analyzing Wal -Mart history around the country. The closeness of the
Eden Prairie Wal -Mart and the placement of it in Eden Prairie in its major retail setting is completely opposite of our
village community environment. If we turned down a Fleet Farm years ago to be located on 5 and 41, which would
have been twenty- thirty miles away from another Fleet Farm, why would we approve a Wal -Mart that is only 8 miles
away from Chan?
Thank You for studying the Wal -Mart proposal thoroughly, and concluding the negative impact on our community as
well as the reality of few if any real benefits that we might capture. PLEASE vote NO to approving a Wal -Mart store in
Chanhassen.
Respectfully,
Mr. & Mrs. Donald B. Dahlquist
7634 Prairie Flower Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Aanenson, Kate
From:
ml2 @mchsi.com
Sent:
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:52 AM
To:
Aanenson, Kate
Subject:
Wal *mart
Is there any benefit to having a Wal *mart in Chanhassen other than taxes?
Michael Lalim
2089 Clover Ct
Aanenson, Kate
From:
Taylor Pederson [tcpeders @gmail.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 7:13 PM
To:
Aanenson, Kate
Subject:
Walmart Store
Please no Walmart!
I grew up in Chanhassen and now my husband and I just bought our first home here. We love the small -town feel, but
we worry that adding a Walmart would go against that. We already have a Target store that's doing great. We don't two
mega- stores in one square mile. There is already a Walmart 10 minutes away in Eden Prairie anyway. If anything,
Chanhassen could use a new restaurant or cafe in the neighborhood. A place that the community could be proud of and
stand behind. Walmart has been accused of poor business practices, mistreatment of employees, and pushing out local
businesses. Is that something we really want to bring to our beautiful city?
Please take this into consideration when discussing this matter.
Thank you,
Taylor Pederson
`��
r
Ste
W�s B Aev
l4a
C�
c
e i� e--
��w
Aanenson, Kate
From: pschrupp @mchsi.com
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 5:31 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Walmart
We would like to add our names to the citizens that are opposed the proposed building of a
Walmart in Chanhassen.
Chanhassen continues to be named one of the best places to live in Minnesota (and the
country). Look at other cities that have earned that honor. The majority of them do not
have a Walmart!
The proposed location will require new streets,stoplights - - -we assume at taxpayer cost.
There is a Target right across the corner from this location. If Target loses business and
closes, what would you do with that empty location?
There is an Office Max across the corner from this locatin. If Office Max loses business and
closes, what would you do with that empty location? We realize these are both "big box
stores ", but their location draws people into town.
The increased traffic, perhaps 24 hours a day, will require extra police coverage not only
near the store, but in surrounding neighborhoods.
While we recognize that we are more suburb than small town, the extra lights from the parking
area will add to destroying the "night sky" in our area.
There is ample evidence that a new Walmart in town ends up closing down local businesses. The
wages and benefits (or lack of benefits) Walmart pays its employees would not support most
families that choose to live in Chanhassen - -most Walmart employees would drive in to work and
leave rather than spending their dollars at other Chanhassen businesses.
If road construction allows shoppers easy in and out at Powers and Hwy 5, what incentive
would Walmart shoppers have to come into town to shop at other stores or eat at any of the
local restaurants? We like that there is still a "downtown" Chanhassen. We don't want to
end up like and Eden Prairie with malls and strip malls and no town center.
We are heartsick at the thought of a Walmart being the western entryway to our city.
While we appreciate that you are trying to grow our tax base, please -- please use some
creativity. There must be another option that would make a better neighbor than Walmart.
Sincerely,
Paul and Toni Schrupp
1
October 28, 2011
City of Chanhassen
���
Planning Commission
7700 Market Boulevard OCT 3 1 2011
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 -0147 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Members of the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission:
While I realize that a city needs to grow, exactly why do we need a 100,000 square foot plus retail
establishment? Is there not already enough retail in Chanhassen? Do we really need a big box store?
The rationale we are told is to create jobs and add to the property tax base. So let us take a look at those
claims.
Will a Wal -Mart create jobs? No doubt about it.
Do not get me wrong, I am all for creating jobs but what kind of jobs are we talking about? After all, Wal-
Mart is known for paying mostly minimum wage jobs and providing health care for only a small
percentage of its store employees. As such, Wal -Mart is not going to create. many high paying, middle
class jobs.. Are a lot of_Chanhassen residents going to be applying for.these jobs? My guess is probably
not, so such a development: is not 1 going , to. do.much job creation for,: Chanhassen. residents.. Is this the
type of, employer: that the City desires ?,; I doubt it.
Regardless of the jobs concerns,: let us look at the property tax base side of the equation. In reviewing
the Staff Report, thereare numerous infrastructure improvements that will, be: required including, but'not
limited to:
• An additional left turn lane for westbound Highway 5.
• An additional left turn lane for northbound Powers Boulevard.
• Addition of turn lanes and a median for Park Road.
According to the Staff Report, it will be up to the developer to pay for these improvements. Does the City
really believe that Wal -Mart will pay for such infrastructure improvements? That would mark a radical
departure from past practices where municipalities pay for infrastructure improvements to get retail
development. Given today's economy, I find it hard to believe that Wal -Mart is willing to sink close to a
million dollars for the three infrastructure changes recommended. I am sure they will ask the City to pay
for these changes which, according to the staff report, are not budgeted for in any current or future
infrastructure budgets.
find it interesting that the Staff Report does not recommend the addition of a traffic signal at Powers
Boulevard and Park Road. With the traffic volumes projected at opening and into the future, it seems like
a traffic light would be mandatory at this intersection, yet none is specified. I cannot even imagine the
traffic mess at this intersection without a traffic light. It is literally an accident waiting to happen, again
and again and again. And traffic lights are not cheap, particularly when it will have to be timed to a
number of other lights: in the near vicinity:.l;am,just guessing that a.traffic,light at,Powers Boulevard and
Park Road will cost-in the range of $200,000,;: ,t
Then there are the environmental issues. According to the Staff Report, because the site is near two
surface waters that: have environmental issues, the.site will require that storm water runoff from the
parking Jot go through some sort of.trea.tment before that water; can enter Riley Creek and Lake. Susan. I.
am sure that Wal -Mart will not be willing to pick up the cost of this and will ask the City to pay for such an
improvement. I have no idea what such a water treatment process would cost for such a space, but I
City of Chanhassen, Planning Commission
Wal -Mart Store Proposal
October 28, 2011
Page 2
have to imagine that it is not going to be cheap. Then there is all of the issues of removal of the existing
watershed attributes of the site should the development be approved. This will only further exacerbate
the issues regarding water quality in Riley Creek and Lake Susan.
So, based on my estimate, the City is looking at least at a million plus dollars worth of infrastructure
improvements that Wal -Mart will likely demand the City to somehow absorb.
Then there is the variance that will be required for entry into the development. According to the staff
report, the site will not comply with code as the entrance to the development will be 40 feet short of code
between the entrance and the Powers Boulevard and Park Road intersection. Based on the traffic
analysis presented, this entry configuration will likely mean that during peak times, traffic will back onto
Powers Boulevard in both directions as patrons attempt to enter the facility. As a result, it appears that
we will gain a traffic hazard with this plan.
If all of the above does not kill this effort, the eight code violations that are documented in the Staff Report
should kill it. Some of these code issues are going to be impossible to justify and will likely violate State
laws and statutes. So I do not know how the City can even consider this proposal realistic.
I am sure that Wal -Mart will demand property tax incentives to locate their store in Chanhassen as that is
standard operating procedure. So in addition to the infrastructure costs, the City will also likely have to
take a hit on property taxes. As a result, the net will likely be that the City will lose money on the deal for
at least the near term. If that sounds familiar, it should. That is the same deal the City cut to get the
existing downtown development and we are still paying for that. Seems to me that we are cutting off our
nose to spite our face if we move ahead with this proposal.
But the strangest thing of all about this proposal is that the Staff Report points to a number of building
sites along the new 212 corridor that are more than appropriate for such a development. So one has to
ask themselves, why does Wal -Mart want to locate its store at Powers Boulevard and Highway 5 when a
number of more appropriate sites are available along the 212 corridor? I find it hard to believe that Wal-
Mart is negligent and missed all of the code issues they were generating with their proposal. So why is
Wal -Mart proposing such a development at this location? Could it be that Wal -Mart deliberately wants to
destroy our existing downtown retailers? I think that is the question the Planning Commission and City
leaders should be asking the representatives of Wal -Mart. Competition is fine, but moving in with the
implicit plan of destroying a community's existing retail environment is reprehensible. It is all the more
reprehensible given that, as I recall, we are still paying for our existing downtown through tax incentives
and other giveaways that were granted at the time.
If Wal -Mart wants to come to Chanhassen, so be it. But bending over backwards, likely paying for
infrastructure improvements, granting tax incentives and creating the kind of variances that will be
required to build on the proposed site just does not make any sense. Chanhassen has plenty of more
appropriate sites for such a retail development. I would recommend that the Planning Commission reject
this proposal and direct Wal -Mart to more appropriate locations within the City.
T 1 1 Vn 1 IVIIVVV V1IVG
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Aanenson, Kate
From: Mark Fuchs [markjfuchs @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:57 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Walmart Proposal
Dear Amy
Unfortunately we cannot attend the meeting but please know that our household (2 adults, 2 children) all vote to reject the
building of the wallmart in chanhassen.
Sincerely,
Mark and Carrie Fuchs.
Aanenson, Kate
From: Patricia Hastreiter [ Patty .Hastreiter @mpls.k12.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:19 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: No Walmart in Chanhassen
Kate: Please forward this message to the Planning Commission members. Thank you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission Members:
We are, unfortunately, unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting tomorrow night but wanted to let you know
that we are very much opposed to allowing a Walmart to be built in Chanhassen. We think it would be detrimental to
other nearby local businesses. We think it would bring too much traffic to the area. We don't like big box stores,
especially Walmart. They pay low wages and make it difficult for smaller businesses to compete. There is already a big
box Target store, which seems to sell a lot of the same merchandise as Walmart.
We have lived in Chanhassen for 17 years, We like it there, and plan to stay. We enjoy the trails and lakes and the
relative quietness of the area. We like the Lakewinds Food Coop and Byerly's. Our top concerns in Chanhassen do not
include property taxes. The quality of life and ambiance of the area are much higher priorities to us. We think that
Walmart would take some of that away.
Sincerely,
Patricia and James Hastreiter
6990 Tecumseh Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952 - 470 -9057
Aanenson, Kate
From:
Amy Severson [aseverson @nemerfieger.com]
Sent:
Monday, October 31, 2011 12:19 PM
To:
Aanenson, Kate
Cc:
Amy Severson
Subject:
Please! No Walmart in Chanhassen!
Importance: High
Hi Kate,
I am so glad you are the person to contact to protest the proposed Walmart in Chanhassen. You have made such a
beautiful city for us, and to think a Walmart could come in and destroy our town is a crime. I support and shop at my
downtown stores. Target has been part of my life since I was a child.
Please! Don't compromise our town! I will pay more in property taxes to keep it out and I think my neighbors would too.
PS yep -1 am that Amy, class of '76 and Sarah's mom!
Thank You Kate for your consideration to this appeal!!
Amy Severson
Senior Account Executive
952 278 3123 direct
952 925 1907 fax
nemerfieger.com
Aanenson, Kate
From: Jody Lane Uokoberg @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:49 AM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Stop walmart
We live in chanhassen and DO NOT want Wal -Mart coming here!
PLEASE pass on your vote to NOT ALLOW WALMART TO BUILD IN CHANHASSEN.
We will be at the meeting.
Dave and Jody Lane
631 Bighorn Drive
Aanenson, Kate
From: Dave Lane [daveelane @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 20112:45 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Walmart
Do not let Walmart build in Chanhassen.
thanks
Aanenson, Kate
To: Megan Liebl
Subject: RE: Walmart in Chanhassen
From: Megan Liebl fmailto:mea.liebl @ amail.coml
Sent: Monday, October 31, 20114:09 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Walmart in Chanhassen
Hello Ms. Aannenson,
I am aware that there is a planning meeting regarding the future of Chanhassen tomorrow evening at 7:00 pm. Being
discussed is the proposal of allowing a Walmart store to be built and operated on the corner of Hwy 5 and Powers Blvd.
As an active and very concerned citizen of Chanhassen, please, please, please vote against this proposal
I'm sure you've received an overwhelming amount of feedback asking the same from other residents. After seeing all of
the letters to the Chanhassen Villager, talking with neighbors, reading Facebook posts, and other online chatter against
this proposal, it's hard to believe the idea is even still on the table. As your constituent, please do your part on behalf of
your citizens and residents of Chanhassen and be our voice by votin,- against the proposal to build a Walmart in our nice,
small town.
My husband and I often say to each other, "I just LOVE Chanhassen" while driving through town. It has such the most
pleasant, small town feel, yet close enough to larger cities like Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. As you know our city has
been ranked very high on multiple Best Places to Live lists.
The addition of a Walmart would not only bump our lovely Chanhassen down on those lists, but it would surely put the
smaller shops and stores around town out of business. We were so saddened to learn of Chanhassen Center Drug's closing,
and now Somebody's House just a few doors down, but this would be just the beginning if a Walmart is thrown into the
mix. It would be tragic to see a business like Walmart take business and revenue away from stores like Target, Cub Foods,
Byerly's, Lakewinds and all of the smaller shops passing this vote would negatively impact.
Not only for the above - stated reasons is a Walmart in Chanhassen a bad idea, but also for these (and beyond):
• Increased traffic in a bad location - I cross the intersection of multiple times every day. This area is already
congested without a Walmart on that corner. There are pedestrians trying to cross in the crosswalks. Add more
traffic there and you're just asking for trouble.
• There is a nearby Walmart in downtown Eden Prairie
• Poor business practices - Some may say the addition would bring job to the community, but Walmart is notorious
for paying as- low -as- possible wages, and giving as few hours as possible to all staff to avoid having to pay for
healthcare benefit, etc.
• Increased crime rate - Just read this study: hiip:// www .walmartcrimereport.com/report.pdf . The study states that
"Wal -Mart stores had more calls for service than nearby Target stores. For the sample, the average rate of
reported police incidents at Wal -Mart stores was 400% higher than the average rate of incidents at nearby Target
stores and 6 times higher for the number of reported criminal incidents defined as "serious or violent."
Again, p lease vote against a Walmart in Chanhassen We really don't need one, and there would be many more adverse
affects than positive implications to building one.
Thank you for your work.
Megan Liebl, Chanhassen
Aanenson, Kate
From: Susan.Wuollett@welisfargo.com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 6:28 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Walmart
Hi Kate,
I wanted to let you know that my husband and I are concerned with the potential new walmart
proposal for hwy 5 and powers.
I have read the proposal and I was torn for about a week, knowing the added sales tax may be
a benefit to the city. Since this walmart will be the furthest west, it will likely draw in
people from the western suburbs who currently drive into eden prairie to go to walmart.
However, I believe the possible negative side effects outweigh the positive. I am concerned
with the crime that Walmarts tend to attract, and the potential harm to the current small
businesses and boutiques we have in chan. Although the walmart would bring new job
opportunities, I have read the numbers and many of those will simply be removed or relocated
from current chan businesses, and all are lower paying jobs.
Although I understand the financial benefits are tempting, please vote
small town, classy that makes chanhassen special, and made my husband
northern suburbs to live here.
Thank you,
Susie Wuollett
720 Bighorn Drive, Chanhassen
no to preserve the
and I relocate from the
1
The Community Development Director received calls from the following people stating they are
opposed to the Walmart proposal:
• Gloria Leone
• Jane Osterfeld
• Kay Faust
Aanenson, Kate
From: KIMBERLY MCREAVY [ktmtmcreavy @msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Wal Mart proposal
Hi Kay,
I just want to voice opposition for the proposed Wal -Mart which is up for Planning Commission review tonight. My
husband and I are against the project for multiple reasons, including increased traffic and potential detriment to existing
Chanhassen businesses.
Please pass our input along to the Planning Commission as we are not able to attend in person.
Thank you,
Kim and Tom McReavy
1350 Heather Court
Chanhassen
Aanenson, Kate
From: Cook, Jamie M [JMCook @cbburnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:53 PM
Subject: Piz say no to walmart
Good afternoon,
My husband and I have been Chanhassen residents for many years. (kids attend Chan Elementary) We would
like to voice our concerns and do not want the Planning Commission /City Council to allow Walmart to build a
faculty off of Hwy 5 and Powers. We feel as many others do - -that the charm of Chanhassen could be lost
forever!
Have you completed a traffic study? I imagine that would costly -- Traffic is major concern for all with the
possibility of hundreds of cars a day traveling on Powers and into Chanhassen? How will it affect the events
we have at Lake Ann - -such as 4th of July and Miracles for Mitch? We have nothing against shopping at a
Walmart and believe this type of business /facility would be much better suited if it were located somewhere
off of 212 and not in the heart of Chanhassen. The proposed logistics is truly perplexing!
We shop at our local stores and can see how such a large conglomerate would really affect these business
such as the local hardware store. As Chan residents we are fortunate to say we still have many small
businesses and the feel of a small town that's why we live and raise our kids in Chan and not in Plymouth or
Eden Prairie. I have no doubt that when Target came to town it was opposed by many too -- but Target it is a
smaller store that is not overwhelming for the space nor traffic in Chan - Plus Target that gives back to the
community. Will having Walmart affect the money that is given back to the Chanhassen schools?
I am sure you are under pressure to hear the many voices of the Chan residents and I will predict they will be
loud voices on this topic! Please vote to turn down this proposal.
Regards,
Jamie and Jeff Cook
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended
solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and
may be unlawful.
The sender believes that this E -mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when
sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any
attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The
sender's employer is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments.
Aanenson, Kate
From:
Don Draper [donrdraper @msn.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:14 PM
To:
Aanenson, Kate
Subject:
Walmart - Yes
I'm very much in favor of a Walmart here. It will be a great convenience, add jobs and opportunity. Please vote to allow
it.
Thanks,
Don Draper
Aanenson, Kate
To: Tim Amlie
Subject: RE: Walmart Building
Hi Kate,
I had hoped to come to the meeting tonight, but I have a cold coming on that I don't want to spread it or hopefully make it
worse. Hopefully you can pass this on.
I am in complete support of the proposed Walmart plan. After taking time to drive around the area and seeing that it does
not sit next to any residential real estate, I feel it does not bring about problems that so many are voicing via the
newspaper or facebook (where I have already posted). Had it been next to housing, I may have a different opinion.
Those complaining about traffic may have forgotten about the "mall" that at one time (and hopefully will come back)
planned at Lyman and Powers - that would bring traffic onto Powers as well. It is already a 4 lane road which is more
than the Super Target sees in Chaska around it.
In terms of economic value -it is huge. We have a number of residents in this community that would benefit from jobs
from high school age to retirees looking for something. Sales tax revenue AND the property tax revenue would be much
greater than what we see from the current building at that site.
In a community our size, we need more shopping opportunity. The businesses in downtown Chanhassen are not the type
to be affected by a big box store - they are specialty shops. The only real competition will be for Target and quite
honestly, they need some. Target could have expanded to a Super Target in our community but decided against. We
have the largest retailer in the world knocking on our door in this economy - I think that shows a lot for us. People have
complained that we don't have enough good eating establishments in our community... Bringing in this type of retail will
bring along those types of businesses (even a Walmart). I grew up between Alexandria and Willmar - both towns have
Super Walmart stores - and the areas directly around them have brought in many eating establishments, etc. because of the
area becoming a shopping stop point. It will bring revenue to gas stations and the other stores as well.
My family owned a sporting goods store in St. Cloud for many years - it is still operating under new owners. We
absolutely feared the big box stores coming to town. We were wrong. People may have purchased items at the big box
stores, but when it came to after sale service and second purchases, they came to us. Business was incredible (the new
owners have even expanded since we sold off 12 years ago).
The bottom line is - I want to spend my money in my community. Those who are against Walmart don't have to shop
there. In fact, those who are so against building it should pitch in towards the tax revenue our city would miss out if it
isn't built. Additionally, those who would most benefit from this business probably can't even make this meeting or have
the ability to voice their opinion... If one does the math in our community of nearly 23,000, I'm guessing the percentage
of those against (but making a big stink) would be pretty small.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim An
8796 North Bay Drive