The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Staff Report 02-17-2015a PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission provides the City Council with comments and feedback on the Concept Planned Unit Development, along with staff's proposed comments listed in the staff report." PROPOSAL: Conceptual Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) of two parcels on approximately 78 acres of land. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard APPLICANT: Scott Carlston Level 7 Development, LLC 18315 Cascade Drive #165 Eden Prairie, MN 55345 PRESENT ZONING: A -2 Agricultural Estate 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office, Regional Commercial, and Medium Density ACREAGE: Approximately 78 acres DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting conceptual review to consider rezoning from Agricultural Estate to Regional Commercial. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The Planning Commission is holding a hearing to make recommendations to the city council. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan review for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The site is currently zoned Agricultural Estate (A -2). With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the property west of Powers Boulevard for either Office or Commercial. The 1.66 -acre parcel located east of Powers Boulevard is zoned Agricultural Estate and is guided Medium Density. The applicant is requesting a land use amendment of this parcel. With the update of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the city considered two land use options for the subject properties: Office or Regional Commercial. The dual guiding allows the City Council review of the application for Regional Commercial to ensure it furthers the city's vision as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development - Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 2 of 23 The use of the PUD zoning also allows for greater specificity in the types, location and sizes of uses. The city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would be the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectations are to be realized as evaluated by the city's goal and policies (see Attachment #11 - 2007 Community Survey questions asked regarding a regional mall." Parcels 1. 76.69 acres being considered for conceptual PUD for Regional Commercial. 2. 40 acres for a future phase. 1 1.66 acres guided Medium density. Site Information Parcel ID -Taxpayer Acreage Land Use Current Zoning Current Phase 250230500 Chanhassen 212 LP 22.89 Office or Commercial A -2 Agricultural Estate 1.66 Medium Density A -2 A2jcultural Estate 250230300 Fox Properties LP 54.07 Office or Commercial A -2 Agricultural Estate Current Phase Total 78 .62 Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2015-05 February 17, 2015 Page 3 of 24 The owners of the 40-acre parcel have indicated that they are not prepared to show any proposed uses on their site at this time. Initial Development Land Uses Acres Use 39.2 Regional Commercial* 4.7 Office 5.6 High Density Residential 15.9 Conservation *The Regional Commercial included 1.66 acres of property guided Medium Density. Staff does not support the land use change at this time due to MnDOT’s acquisition of access control and topography. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 4 of 23 The development plans describe the land use designations but has not identified any specific uses. Staff has commented on this in the Market Study section. BACKGROUND 2030 Comprehensive Plan VISION The land use change to either Office or Regional Commercial District as a part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was based on the city's vision for the a lifestyle center. The Comprehensive Plan states: 2.7.4 Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial "Definitionlrision: A mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors and is designed to serve trail users and mass transit as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity and mix of retail and service uses within their boundaries. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading, parking of automobiles, lighting and trash collection and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. Goods and Services Examples • Entertainment • Department Store • Comparison Shopping • Specialty Retail/Boutique • Restaurants • Hotels • Residential A new zoning district Regional Commercial (RC) will be created in the City Code to implement this land use. The city has given a dual land use of the 118 acres at the southeast corner of Powers and Lyman Boulevards to accommodate this use." ANALYSIS In 2009 the city adopted standards and guidelines for a regional /lifestyle center commercial planned unit development. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 5 of 23 ZONING DISTRICT The RC Zoning District is found in the PUD District. Sec. 20 -509. - Standards and guidelines for regional/lifestyle center commercial planned unit developments. (a) Intent. (1) The use of planned unit developments for regional /lifestyle center commercial purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. This district is intended to provide for the development of regional and community scale integrated retail, office, business services, personal services and services to the traveling public near freeway interchanges. It shall strive to create a self - sustaining pattern of land uses with cultural, employment, entertainment, housing, shopping and social components. (2) The regional/lifestyle center commercial district is a mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive, comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors. It shall be designed to serve pedestrian and mass transit users as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type, generally, have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity of mixed retail and service uses. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. (3) Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading, parking of automobiles, lighting and trash collection and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme, but shall avoid monotony in design and visual appearance. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. (b) Minimum lot size: 10,000 square feet (c) Minimum lot width at building setback: 100 feet. (d) Minimum lot depth: 100 feet. (e) Minimum setbacks: Building setbacks are also a function of the building height. As a building's height increases above 35 feet, the front, rear and project perimeter setback shall increase on a one to one basis. The increased setback shall only apply to that portion of the building that exceeds 35 feet, e.g., a 40 -foot tall building would be set back ten feet (front or rear) at that point where the building height equals 40 feet. A building height may step back, providing the setback/building height ratio is maintained. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 6 of 23 (1) PUD exterior: 30 feet. The 30 -foot PUD exterior setback maybe changed, increased or decreased, by the city council as part of the approval process when it is demonstrated that environmental protection or development design will be enhanced. Building setbacks adjacent to exterior development lot lines abutting an area designated for residential use in the comprehensive plan shall be 50 feet, unless unique circumstances are found which would allow the city to reduce the setback requirement. (2) Front yard: 5 feet. (3) Rear yard: 5 feet. (4) Side yard: 0. (5) Parking: Setbacks (feet): Front: 10 Side: 10 Rear: 10 (6) Parking setback exemptions: a. There is no minimum parking setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off - street parking area. b. Parking along public streets shall provide an appropriate transition, which shall incorporate such elements as landscaping, decorative fencing, public art, berming, etc. c. Parking setbacks adjacent to exterior development lot lines abutting an area designated for residential use in the comprehensive plan shall be 50 feet unless unique circumstances are found which would allow the city to reduce the setback requirement. Unique circumstances include site elevation, separation by natural features such as wetlands or stands of mature trees or substantial visual screening through berming and landscaping. (7) Parking standards shall comply with City Code for type and location. (f) Maximum building height: Commercial— retail 2 stories Commercial— services 3 stories Office 5 stories Residential 5 stories Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 7 of 23 (g) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. (h) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yards shall require a mix of over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and less intensive land uses. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative blocks retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. (2) Exterior landscaping and double fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and less intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double- fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget or plan for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget or prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. (4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. (i) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: (1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments; (2) Streetscape requirements: a. Every building shall incorporate a Streetscape, public realm space between the building the roadway. The use of canopies, awnings or arcades is encouraged in these interfaces. b. Outdoor seating areas must be in a controlled or cordoned area with at least one access to an acceptable pedestrian walk. Seating areas may be shared by multiple uses. When a liquor license is involved, an enclosure is required around the Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 8 of 23 outdoor seating area and the enclosure shall not be interrupted; access to such seating area must be through the principle building. Outdoor seating areas must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. c. Streetscape elements shall include: Landscaping, lighting and street furniture such as benches, bus shelters, kiosks, planters, public art, tables and chairs, etc. To receive the Regional Commercial zoning, the ordinance requires that the property be under one owner and be developed under a PUD. The developer is required to demonstrate that they are meeting the vision of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as well as the intent of the zoning District Concept PUD — What is required? Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article VIIL — Planned Unit Development District, Division 2. — Procedures Sec. 20 -517. - General concept plan. (a) In order to receive guidance in the design of a PUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended for large PUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following information appropriate to the type of development, e.g., commercial, industrial or residential: (1) Approximate building areas, pedestrian ways and road locations; (2) Height, bulk and square footage of buildings; (3) Type, number or square footage or intensities of specific land uses; (4) Number of dwelling units; (5) Generalized development plan showing areas to be developed or preserved; and (6) Staging and timing of the development. (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 9 of 23 (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 make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing. Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten days prior thereto to owners of land within 500 feet of the boundary of the property and an on -site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the council may comment on the concept plan. The PUD process provides for an opportunity to receive clear direction from the Planning Commission, the City Council and the residents of Chanhassen. The city's expectation is that the proposed development will be of higher quality and create a sense of place and identity for the community. The development shall provide regional and community scale including retail, office, and services uses that complement existing commercial uses in the downtown and provide shopping opportunities not currently located in the community. The development must also be sensitive to environmental features on site including topography, vegetation, wetlands and scenic views. Finally, the project should have appropriate transitions between uses. One of the conditions of the Concept PUD will be an update to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) which was done in 2003 prior to the subject site land use amendment. The traffic component will be one of the most critical elements needing to be updated. The amount of traffic being generated and the impacts to the surrounding transportation system will need to be examined. The traffic study and its impacts may affect the land use recommendations. RETAIL MARKET STUDY In June 2014 the McComb Group, Ltd. completed a Trade Area Demographic, Characteristic and Sales Potential for the Chan-212 area. The executive summary comments include "Chan-212 trade area's many economic attributes, population, and upper income households provide support for retail stores, restaurants and key services." The developer had not disclosed his specific uses with this application, but based on the marketing study it is apparent a grocery store /supermarket is a potential use. In a previous meeting with staff the developer indicated that: Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 10 of 23 • The Shopping Goods Store Type— categorized as Clothing & Accessories, Furniture, Home Furnishing, Electronic, Sporting Goods, Hobby and Music is significantly underrepresented in the project's primary trade area and the sales of this merchandise category from the primary trade area are being captured in other distant trade areas. • The Chanhassen trade area is growing and creating additional sales potential for grocery stores. In addition, the Chanhassen "outflow grocery sales" are higher than normal. This suggests that trade area residents may be dissatisfied with existing grocery shopping options. The study indicated the ability of the trade area to support a new grocery store in excess of 90,000 square feet without creating hardship for existing grocery retailers. In addition, other potential uses include warehouse clubs and supercenters, building supply and home centers. In 2006 -07 when the city was considering the land use change on the site there was much discussion about this area having uses different from the downtown. The downtown area is intended to be the uses that meet the daily needs of the residents, and the regional mall site was envisioned to be those uses that would be more of a comparison shopping that would serve a regional market including: Goods and Services Examples • Entertainment • Department Store • Comparison Shopping • Specialty Retail /Boutique • Restaurants • Hotels • Residential (Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page I 1 of 23 The Convenience Goods trade area, shown on Map 5, includes Chanhassen, Chaska, and portions of Eden Prairie, Shakopee, Carver, Victoria, Shorewood, Minnetonka, and Excelsior, along with portions of Jackson, Louisville, Dahlgren, and Laketown Townships. This trade area extends north to Lake Minnetonka, east to Highway 212 and I -494, south to Highway 41 in Shakopee, and west to Laketown Road in Laketown Township. The Convenience Goods trade area covers approximately 88 square miles centered on Chanhassen. �+ r i Map 5 CHAN -212 CONVENIENCE GOODS TRADE AREA y s {. � .k vsUw <+y 5imcr LiYO1 T125Ea. '. Source. ScarYUS, Inc. and McComb Group, Ltd. (Staff report continued on the next page) e ^ lr � 1 e •^ e P �...• +i �,.. 1111 f � .k vsUw <+y 5imcr LiYO1 T125Ea. '. Source. ScarYUS, Inc. and McComb Group, Ltd. (Staff report continued on the next page) e ^ lr � 1 e Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 12 of 23 The Shopping Goods trade area covers the southwest Metropolitan Area, as shown on Map 6, extending 60 miles west and encompassing over 2,100 square miles. General boundaries are six miles north of Highway 7, east to Highway 100 in Bloomington/Edina, south to Highway 22 just south of LeSueur, and west five miles from Highway 4 in Hector. !Anib, 13.`6" Nx:tu: p rtrrr I.Aa e..•. is vim-msg� Map 6 CHAN -212 SHOPPING GOODS TRA E AREA f'y.Yi {tx3[ ektalu,ncn h.Rpq. .i•- n�.�.- ,.�:.wer R n -.c. Zr 1 . •. •�. C7c?wc fto QJkV. Ci+Kn °.�tNmtiMK ri- rm::rn ihrmns i7.mYa.'"9 r"w ►7FJmM� -9 Lox U .lsrav"gpw" Adttv.m J!h>KMM 1AI CsW r •'AY imbrh Mwmnna® 'd 1141kEReU1 N'F P+ Ikb hehlKp;,ry 9 talhfat.Me L•'.�,Ct If Cw17� v Cent r�-' Lill^ KIYtR" .. .. omb Group, Ltd:. (Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development - Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 13 of 23 Table 28 CHAN -212 POTENTIAL GROSS LEASABLE AREA Gross Leasable Area Store Category Low High Convenience Goods 105,000 135,000 Shopping Goods Anchor Stores 120,000 220,000 Junior Anchors 220,000 315,000 Inline Stores 110,000 180,000 Subtotal 450,000 715,000 Food Service Restaurants 20,000 30,000 Fast Food 15,000 20,000 Subtotal 35,000 50,000 Services 20,000 30,000 Destination Stores Health Club 50,000 60,000 Home Center 115,000 115,000 Cinema 50,000 60,000 Subtotal 215,000 235,000 TOTAL 825,000 1,165,000 Source: McComb Group, Ltd Shopping goods retailers are stores where comparison shopping is a common part of the shopping trip. Department stores typically anchor these shopping centers. Potential anchor store GLA ranges from 120,000 square feet to 220,000 square feet. Junior anchor retailers are various size stores, ranging in size from 10,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet, also adding the center's drawing power. Junior anchor GLA could range from 220,000 square feet to 315,000 square feet. Inline, small store tenants could range from 110,000 square feet to 180,000 square feet. Total shopping goods stores could range from 450,000 square feet to 715,000 square feet. Food service establishments are expected to range from 35,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet. Services of various types could range from20,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. Destination retailers like health clubs, home centers, and cinemas, could total 215,000 square feet to 235,000 square feet if all three located at Chan-212. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 14 of 24 It is possible that not all the anticipated potential tenants will located at Chan-212 indiciating that the shopping center is likely to be between 800,000 square feet and 1,000,000 square feet. Source: McComb Group, Ltd. *See Attachment #7 — "Sales Potential and Supportable GLA" for more specifics on uses and square footage. Planning Comments The Concept Plan does not meet the requirements of City Code Section 20 -517. - General Concept Plan: (a) In order to receive guidance in the design of a PUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended for large PUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following information appropriate to the type of development, e.g., commercial, industrial or residential: (1) Approximate building areas, pedestrian ways and road locations; (2) Height, bulk and square footage of buildings; (3) Type, number or square footage or intensities of specific land uses; (4) Number of dwelling units; (5) Generalized development plan showing areas to be developed or preserved; and (6) Staging and timing of the development. In lieu of any descriptions of this information staff has the following comments based on a Commercial /Regional Retail Development Diagram (see Attachment #13) showing building areas, type, number, square footage or intensities of specific land uses. 1. A pattern of buildings and uses that might be oriented around a central public promenade, street, or public space of some sort and that when looked at together form a "regional" commercial destination — given the land area available in Chanhassen for this (100 + - acres), and in understanding the market, this not necessarily see this as a "dale" type of shopping center, but maybe more like a "Shoppes at Arbor Lake" or the new outlet center in Eagan (paragon outlets /Eagan outlets) off of 77 and 13, or the Woodbury Lake Development. 2. Such a center might include a collection of buildings with footprints ranging from as small as a 3,000 to 5,000 square -foot restaurant to a 100,000 square -foot multi- tenant building. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 15 of 24 Anchors might be more in the 35,000 to 75,000 range (i.e. JC Penney, Kohls, Sears, Dicks, Gander Mountain, Cabelas, etc.). A more likely scenario would be the smaller restaurant users or supporting commercial users in the 3,000 to 10,000 square -foot range would be individual spaces within a larger building, but maintaining individual entrances facing the public space, promenade, plaza, or street. Mixing in entertainment, hotel, and to a degree some residential uses could allow for shared parking. This assumes that people come to this area for the experience and that they park once and visit many locations; as opposed to more convenience retail where people are only coming to this store for a quick shopping visit (i.e. discount retailers, pharmacy, grocery, hardware, building materials etc.). The Planning Commission should give feedback on the types of uses and square footages they would support. Engineering Comments The concept plan includes the extension of Bluff Creek Boulevard from its current terminus to Powers Boulevard and a north -south road to Lyman Boulevard at the Sunset Trail intersection. A roundabout is proposed at the intersection of these streets within the development. The roadways should be aligned to encourage through traffic to use Bluff Creek Boulevard. The plan shall also include a connection to the existing stub street on the northwest comer of the area to the single - family development to the west (Mills Drive) and a connection to the existing emergency exit within the Camden Ridge single - family development to the south. An internal circulating road system will also be required within the development. The concept plan also includes retail /convenience development on the southeast corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. Access to the site is subject to Carver County approval. As part of the AUAR update the developer shall complete a traffic study based on the proposed land uses. The study shall include the following: • Updated current and 20 -year projected traffic volumes • Analysis of turning movements • Level of service analysis, including recommendations for improvements should the projected level of service fall below the acceptable level • Analysis of existing and proposed turn lanes to the development and recommendations for stacking lengths Landscaping Requirements In Commercial /Office areas: • Parking lot landscaping requirements Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 16 of 24 Bufferyard landscape requirements Foundation plantings Boulevard trees along public streets In Residential areas: • Tree Preservation/Canopy Coverage requirements • Bufferyard requirements • Foundation plantings • Boulevard trees along public streets Bluff Creek Overlay District • Entire wooded area in southwest corner within Primary Corridor therefore should be identified for preservation Carver County Comments This development was studied to some extent during the Lyman Boulevard Project development process. The owners (Dorsey and Fox) were very involved. They requested Lyman Boulevard be designed to accept a 100% retail development on the property even though the comprehensive plan guides the lifestyle center. We had SRF Consulting perform a traffic study of the AUAR option, the comprehensive plan option and the 100% retail option to determine impacts to our project. There are severe impacts to Powers Boulevard dependent on the land use and some to Lyman Boulevard. Obviously the development will require a full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), but the SRF study is a good place to start. Other comments we have at this point are: Future right -of -way needs for Lyman and Powers Boulevards will need to be addressed, especially in the areas of the intersections. Walk and trail locations need to be determined and accommodated along the roadways, adequate right of way or easements need to be preserved. Utilities will need to be addressed during design. Park Comments The proposed Lifestyle Center (PUD) is located within the city's 2005 Metropolitan Urban Service Area. This region of the city is currently in transition from primarily agricultural uses to residential, commercial, industrial, and office uses. In concert with this change in land use, the city's Community Development Department implemented two key planning processes —the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan (Bluff Creek Overlay) and the Alternative Urban Area Wide Review (AUAR). Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 17 of 24 Comprehensive Park Plan The city's comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one -half mile of every residence in the city and a community park/public school facility to be located within one to two miles of each residence. The proposed lifestyle center site is situated within the community park service area of Bandimere Community Park and the Chanhassen High School campus. However, the proposed residential housing within the concept is outside the one -half mile service area of any existing neighborhood parks in the area. Neighborhood Parks Provide opportunities for informal recreation close to home. Developed primarily for unstructured active recreation such as field games, court games, play equipment and trail opportunities. Must be easily accessible to residential areas with safe walking and biking access on trail networks. Sites need well- draining soils and flat terrain to accommodate active play features. To fulfill the comprehensive plan guidance for providing neighborhood park services, the application needs to include a public neighborhood park component. The proposed recreational site would be best associated with the existing woodlands situated in the southwest corner of the PUD. The park space needs to be of sufficient size to accommodate traditional park attractions including an open play field, playground and hard surface sport court. The site should seek to be accessible to the residential units in a barrier -free pedestrian manner. A park dedication requirement either in the form of land dedication or the payment of park fees or a combination of both will be a component of any agreed upon conditions of approval for the proposal. Park fee credit is not granted for the inclusion and/or construction of private recreation amenities. Comprehensive Trail Plan The city's comprehensive trail plan includes existing trails located to the north, east and southwest of the proposed Lifestyle Center PUD. All proposed structures and spaces within the PUD need to be connected by a combination of pedestrian walkways, sidewalks and trails to these existing pedestrian trail corridors. Existing trail improvements include the Lyman Boulevard Trail, the Powers Boulevard trails and the Bluff Creek Boulevard trails. Consideration should be given to providing a pedestrian connection through the preserved woodlands to the Camden Ridge development via Miranda Way. Park and Recreation Commission Review At the appropriate time in the PUD evaluation, the Park and Recreation Commission will review the proposed park and trail components of the Lifestyle Center and provide a recommendation concerning parks and trails to the City Council. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 18 of 24 Building Official Comments 1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Soil evaluation (geo- technical) report required. 4. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION • What is the city's vision for this area: is it big box retail or mixed -use development? Big Box Retail �IrEVIYSweI Mlmw✓e WMSnJn ID Neel LdMY > ti 1 I oow W i.e a [� 1AMiMC[nM 4 11 peon OY � hee&tl e N, -VaeOH Meun[ei a +on tl ry aaaeueo InleVfloeNwux V4NJ Ad e s &s, quytV I wnnlwlo: YpISmM YegNion 0 � � I{Y.Vtt 16xW tl OMmeMmtl lip lw T. tI Noawwdo Wmi �+. ..'ns tl yT S ?TowneMIJk! i CegV Vr At fi[VM1YNenY%xe mncerlsnia_ Y � Fle1NYeVWen n A N Welmnl s[ael Cu61aetl651ntWgen _ NM I Imrens i. _ i. cne„m,w tl xmrw" °e'r""'c c0Op0m spinls n CI,tl4 YemTipn ATL ow 6 T� I WC Jcveno,, I Towne centyr VnionwwMt • • pakl5prcun9 fimW v. ��J `pleb Bln,dY 1 am Rc ayr.u'> �UVx�I' ve arrr tl „Ifl,,. pn Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 19 of 24 (Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 20 of 24 Mixed Use Development A lifestyle center is a shopping center or mixed -used commercial development that combines the traditional retail functions of a shopping mall with leisure amenities oriented towards upscale consumers. Northfield Stapleton 8340 Northfield Boulevard Denver, CO 80230 Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 21 of 24 NCH IMgNG n v EEPJMHl Maa, Si eiu Pp scow RYtl:d WCM JCPPmry - Mi[YS FGPcriiyil aPM @ -MEME Rcilh Q'- ixtYAtlW hPoS'LxP HIT.PK kie 6499 0 xrs TYp: E:.ib JCPqupl• Q :m. A eiV - my M'V eat R rz [IVA. L� 010 %iV+ Q Lne9l RRPARM -WNZ S 0 evem 0 Mr. Wis: w'.'_w iirt[YMyr Jh Ai1D 6R.l.,k Yb69b NOR xM MOO YP. Mnry OEM NYNRRh9sulgq S� uirye � Mp Rml PrgldP UDPIt � NNi Ywaa[atphR � O % VE"am SDCiN ® IInePP qucxc u IYU1['xC (1 N -maaws E� JLPmmY JY�:P - MacP3 P2�- O4Nary NCIRTIRIFRDBULL£VARp ,w sr W1 i � mnr S HARMNS THEATRES IS AR:EaYRMSldEWMHM ®r CfiStln3 C'.7T: CGrsz SMCg JCPMn9L _ Ma[yS ® NPS buitapms EI@ImlHMS(fREMR[TI B In B. &EmR, ft. s fom; [heeYfY PoPiI 0 CINnfO Rt91[fimLLiDp ® NPDraci{D Nbtam Nro:r 0 hn aah� m PaHDCmst+J]rd PDgi �E 3s�mP1YOL'Lbshe:�mmLl bpGp Mae ® -bhphm Fang Saria i -Y0.•Ia 0 V[Nn. WCNb3 � npm pMD 9YWZ 0 AiaxyB AYYma a�e:n] PpwrKr. LM:{ p-t0 hw 0 MAbL 5iU4:rziHrE l:m; [RR lrtem9Nr3 �L RV4. 0 Rhm RiDx' PMxM(I�lyl: hAl1 i? �'7 %hlr'amrm roanmprylaflvocu "0' Nem9tlf wro]amq Rnc piD lnNl 0 PmLSimt NbpmCR{IbfimGc Ag:rtih LClNa]DiEM Ah[ R[gn lyuhvN- CDhtgmml Wm�he9 VgMSI2tOltvl r N IXPRx( �. n a i d�6 mhAxc 4 Atr 1� Wxgg3 �� n noamiM��w � Dw MIIFNG Ra RFEIAER W 66! MMEIIiRRiBY! 0 6n Lwa E::o- :rs e'd 83'il iCCl[AD W:DJ 0' Cgha - HaMil11:9:5 %MiiMtl IH m' inpeq C4DRCnaneRmDc 6� INnm9W =R. Phi@ NIDCYhL niNPBass Pm 6R7j� Jrt NNV.I'zEY6� 0' Le531tla T9'{Wi tNllc - HO Giwln ffi - maw T 0 ahamRu � iLl: R9Rl2 ® iaryP@'slpMiilsB3a >rt ® an Ahm slmR e:aEgl mom R49 EhinesF: MENp PpumTmmfnSaeaxm Fmf/AfirllkslYp ClmirgP Nhr SY9D 0 Wol ®J®P.MissigPmLiY..Y Sji ILhtlrg uu.l 0 MMM� .G!WreY i611i95iWq O Ehm RmnPnauyapiy✓niL%.b� RYYTaNmRPLpCgiFNY12101Tq 0 cnN9M Ria Mn iMRE9 [hiKtlD P.19v � Gm:is PDVVYh ®' RNZt IJtc ® Jv ry SQL rvmfz E ": - CTOnuagarsn:es EPEREMxrwwe ® [W SIDReGmagry � Rhixc 0 &W ESIP &MY[M MYmYP➢ ®' M¢uRkY /pxn Te3Yt 0 Mwidn MSa MtaaC;. ® 9[aaa M:K'YJ a'b fl ,W. TWM. bis ® =Mmu fR�wD usue Srow ® s+EY.hy 0 iy^ryCYpLiHP wm;as RS -P:e m w,lswl:r PEMMFiERmRKYREENxCEE Rm Pw 6n;pf OJ.iCV w:D[ RerD Raim Pazw:a xsM.mi cq 19nm4 �t @ RDnip ma: ehm Pwshgs; tLPemry JCPgnry?MrN ELhc I}aMMnSiD.'CPo RII Rrei[wvi iYCp Rq 1�j R[w Ginhn RPo Ift54' b4p]oi liMilW hMed:PnirpLl bhN 1 TMepx1q p Ll Sfa}'s WilkozRA iicc Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 22 of 24 • Not all of the property is under one development plan. There is 40 acres not included with this plan. The AUAR needs to be updated for the entire 118 -acre site. If the AUAR were to more forward assumption for the 40 acre parcel need would need to be made. • Is the amount of Commercial Use appropriate? The total square footage on any category is not specified should it be? • What types of Commercial uses should be permitted: hotels entertainment etc. • The 1.66 acres west of Powers Boulevard is guided medium density residential and is being shown as a land use amendment for commercial. MnDOT bought all of access control to this site and therefor does not have access. Staff does not support and land use change of the property. RECOMMENDATION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission provides the City Council with comments and feedback on the Concept Planned Unit Development along with the following comments: 1. If the Planning Commission supports the concept plan, the Regional Commercial Zoning District shall be followed. 2. To receive Regional Commercial zoning, the ordinance requires that the property be under one owner and be developed under a Planned Unit Development. The developer is required to demonstrate that they are meeting the vision of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as well as the intent of the zoning district. 3. The AUAR will need to be updated for the entire 118 -acre site. 4. As part of the AUAR update the developer shall provide a full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) based on the proposed land uses. The study shall include the following: • Updated current and 20 -year projected traffic volumes • Analysis of turning movements • Level of service analysis, including recommendations for improvements should the projected level of service fall below the acceptable level • Analysis of existing and proposed turn lanes to the development and recommendations for stacking lengths 5. Landscaping requirements shall be as follows: In Commercial /Office areas: • Parking lot landscaping requirements • Bufferyard landscape requirements Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 23 of 24 Foundation plantings Boulevard trees along public streets In Residential areas: • Tree Preservation/Canopy Coverage requirements • Bufferyard requirements • Foundation plantings • Boulevard trees along public streets In the Bluff Creek Overlay District • Entire wooded area in southwest corner within Primary Corridor therefore should be identified for preservation 6. Future right -of -way needs for Lyman and Powers Boulevards will need to be addressed, especially in the areas of the intersections. 7. Walk and trail locations need to be determined and accommodated along the roadways, adequate right of way or easements need to be preserved. 8. Utilities will need to be addressed during design. 9. A park dedication requirement either in the form of land dedication or the payment of park fees or a combination of both will be a component of any agreed upon conditions of approval for the proposal. Park fee credit is not granted for the inclusion and/or construction of private recreation amenities. 10. All proposed structures and spaces within the PUD need to be connected by a combination of pedestrian walkways, sidewalks and trails to these existing pedestrian trail corridors. Existing trail improvements include the Lyman Boulevard Trail, the Powers Boulevard trails and the Bluff Creek Boulevard trails. Consideration should be given to providing a pedestrian connection through the preserved woodlands to the Camden Ridge development via Miranda Way. 11. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 12. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 13. Soil evaluation (geo- technical) report required. 14. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development — Planning Case 2015 -05 February 17, 2015 Page 24 of 24 ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application. 2. Quadrant Concept Plan Modification Letter dated February 4, 2015. 3. Narrative for Application for Concept Review dated January 16, 2015. 4. Proposed Land Use dated February 4, 2015. 5. Regional Context dated January 16, 2015. 6. Site Analysis dated January 16, 2015. 7. Chapter VI -Sales Potential and Supportable GLA excerpt from Trade Area Demographic, Characteristic and Sales Potential for the Chan-212 Area, prepared by the McComb Group, Ltd. 8. Letter from Kevin Ringwald, City of Chaska dated February 3, 2015. 9. Letter from Kate Miner, Carver County Public Works dated February 4, 2015. 10. Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Hearing. 11. 2007 Community Survey questions asked regarding a regional mall. 12. "From shopping centers to lifestyle centers" article from the LA Times dated December 10, 2006. 13. AUAR Commercial /Regional Retail Development Diagram. g: \plan\2015 planning cases\2015 -05 lifestyle center \pc staff report.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227 -1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1110 * CITY OFC9ANgASSEN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers ..... $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Single - Family Residence . ............................... $325 ❑ All Others .......................... ............................... $425 ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ In conjunction with Single - Family R ❑ All Others ......... ............................... ❑ Rezoning [71 Planned Unit Development (PUD) . ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD ❑ All Others ......... ............................... esidence.. $325 ................ $425 .............. ................ $100 ................ $500 ❑ Sign Plan Review ........................ ...........................$150 ❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Administrative ................... ............................... $100 ❑ Commercial /Industrial Districts * ......................$500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area "Include number of existing employees: and number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts .......... ............................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES: ✓❑ Notification Sign ................... ................;( ............... (City to install and remove) 2 El Property Owners' List within 500' ...�.3 per ad (City to generate— fee determined at pre - application meeting) ❑ Escrow for Recording Documents.. $50 per document (CUP /SPRNACNARNVAP /Metes & Bounds Subdivision) n Project Name: Chanhassen Mixed Use ❑ Subdivision ❑ Create 3 lots or less ............. ...........................$300 ❑ Create over 3 lots .......................$600 + $15 per lot ❑ Metes & Bounds .........................$300 + $50 per lot ❑ Consolidate Lots .................. ...........................$150 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment .............. ...........................$150 ❑ Final Plat * ............................. ...........................$250 *Requires additional $450 escrow for attorney costs. Escrow will tie required for other applications through the development contract. ❑ Vacation of Easements / Right -of- way ................... $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑ Variance ................................ ............................... $200 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Single - Family Residence ............................... $150 ❑ All Others ........................ ............................... $275 ❑ Zoning Appeal ....................... ............................... $100 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment ............................ $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) TOTAL FEES: $ -9-40` Received from: City of Chanhassen will invoice. � Date Received: 1- 1b— /.7 Chec Number: 5 rL,54 . Camr» IeGLLC V-d g15a Property Address or Location: Southwest corner of Powers and Ly Parcel #: Multiple - See attached. Legal Description: See attached. Total Acreage: 118 .223 Ocr_i5 Wetlands Present? Present Zoning: A2 Agricultural Estate District Present Land Use Designation: Commercial - Regional Lifestyle [Yes ❑ No Blvd, Chanhassen, MN Requested Zoning: PUD - Regional Lifestyle Requested Land Use Designation: Commercial - Regional Lifestyle Existing Use of Property: Vacant - non - productive land. Description of Proposal: Concept Plan review for a Commercial Regional Lifestyle Development. Project narrative attached. ❑ Check box if separate narrative is attached SCANNED Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Carlston Developments Address: 18315 Cascade Drive, #165 City /State /Zip: Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Email: scott @cadston.com Signature: �oriS G' Contact: Scott Carlston Phone: (612) 889 -7898 Cell: Fax: Date: /. /S'. 13 PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: See attached Address: City /State /Zip: Email Signature: Contact: Phone: Cell: Fax: Date: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Landform Professional Services, LLC Address: 105 Fifth Avenue S, Ste 513 Contact: Kendra Lindahl Phone: (612) 638 -0225 City /State /Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55401 Cell: (612) 290 -8102 Email: klindahl @landform.net Fax: (612) 252 -9077 SCANNED Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: Property Owner Via: Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: Applicant Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Other* Via: Via: ❑✓ Email ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City /State /Zip: Email: SCANNED • • L A N D From Site to Finish 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 February 4, 2015 Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen 1 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Quadrant Concept Plan Modification Dear Ms. Aanenson: F O R M Tel: 612 - 252 -9070 Fax: 612 - 252 -9077 www,landform.net On behalf of my client, Scott Carlston of Level 7 Development, LLC, we are modifying our application for Concept Plan review. Our original application included a 40 acre parcel owned by LCR Holdings, LLC. (parcel ID 250230430, 250230420 and 250230410). However, after they signed the application and we submitted the application, they contacted my client asking us to remove them from this application and allow them additional time to review their development options. With this letter we are asking that LCR Holding, LLC be removed from the application and that name of the applicant be changed from Carlston Development to Level 7 Development, LLC. Scott Carlston remains the applicant contact and controls the 78 acre parcel (parcel ID 250230500 and 250230300) that we are proposing for development. We have revised our concept plan to reflect the fact that the LCR Holdings, LLC property is not party to this application. However, since some access to that property will be through our property, we have continued to show a concept for how that property could be developed. This type of "ghost plan" is very typical with developments of this nature. We continue to ask that the City order an update to the 2005 AUAR (dated December 2003) for this area. As you know, AUARs are required to be updated every 5 years and this AUAR is overdue for the update. The AUAR project area includes an area of approximately 624 acres, much of which has already been developed. We understand that the AUAR area encompasses far more area that the regional /lifestyle mixed use area designated in the Comprehensive Plan or the area of our concept plan application, but we have agreed to fund the cost of the City's AUAR update. We believe the AUAR is important for the City to update in compliance with the Minnesota environmental rules and for us to better understand the development issues for our project. It is very common for a City to initiate an AUAR for an area that neither they nor a developer own. We have prepared a concept plan that shows what we believe to be the best use for our property and the remaining property that we do not control, based on the Comprehensive Plan goals, the fixed access points and transitions to existing homes. The City certainly has the option to look at other options for the property. Le„aronno, senanrycreeno and Sine nFimee'a„eeislenat! .mice marks of Lancffo,m P,ofea,nal sen.,ces. LM SCANNED • • • • • • We request that the City initiate an update to the 2005 AUAR to reflect the land use and infrastructure changes since the AUAR was developed. We believe that the AUAR will reflect the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and will support the develop concept we have prepared. We look forward to working with the City to prepare the AUAR update and incorporating any findings into our development proposal. The AUAR update is overdue and we are committed to funding the update for the City. We request that the City Council order the AUAR as soon as possible. We look forward to Planning Commission review of our concept plan on February 17, 2015 and City Council review on March 9, 2015. We continue to request that the City Council order the AUAR at that meeting as well. If you are able to prepare a scope of work and cost estimate for us, we would provide you a check for the escrow so that the AUAR work may begin. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 612.638.0225 or email me at klindahl @landform.net Sincerely, Landform Kendra Lindahl, AICP Principal COPY: Scott Carlston, Level 7 Development, LLC ENCL: Revised Land Use Plan Kate Aanenson February 4, 2015 Developmer, Carlston Developments REGIONAL DESTINATION, LIFESTYLE AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT REVIEW January 16, 2015 L A N D From Site to Finish CITYOPCHANHASSEN F 0 R M RECEIVED 6 0 ' JAN '16 2015 WNHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANN SCANNED INTRODUCTION On behalf of Carlston Developments, Landform is pleased to submit this application for concept plan review for a mixed use Regional /Lifestyle Center at the southwest corner of intersection of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Our development team has completed a site analysis and believes we have a mixed use development concept that is market -ready and consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. We are excited to provide a concept with potential uses that may include townhomes, apartments, office, medical and professional services, retail, entertainment and hospitality uses. We have initiated this concept plan review in order to begin discussions with the City and begin the update of the AUAR before we get too detailed in our design. The concepts are still at the preliminary stage, but we have completed a survey, tree survey and wetland delineation to inform our site analysis. We look forward to getting feedback from the City of Chanhassen on our concepts so that we can continue to refine our plans and prepare for a formal submittal. The design team has reviewed a number of City documents before beginning development of our concept, including: • Chanhassen 2005 AUAR (dated December 8, 2003) prepared for the City by HKGi • The "Chanhassen Retail, Office and Residential Market Analysis and Development Potential" report (dated June 2006) prepared for the City by McComb Group, Ltd. • The 2007 City Survey • The 2010 City Survey • The 2013 City Survey • The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance • The Chanhassen Subdivision Ordinance • The 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 10, 2008) The proposed mixed -use development will help the City achieve its goals of providing a variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle, providing a mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market, preserving natural resources through the protection of the Bluff Overlay district, and providing regional shopping options for existing residents and new residents as anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. This plan incorporates a mix of office, retail and residential space in an underserved area of the City. The project will be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme as directed by the Comprehensive Plan. While we have SCD14001 L A N D F O R M January 16, 2015 Project Narrative 2 not yet defined these details, our submittal package includes an amenity inspiration sheet to give some idea of the concepts we are currently evaluating. Market Study After reviewing the 2006 McComb Group, Ltd, our development team contracted directly with McComb Group, Ltd to prepare an updated market study. This study was recommended by City staff and it reinforced the need for this development and the findings support the Regional /Lifestyle Center anticipated by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The study showed that this area could support 825,000 square feet to 1,120,000 square feet of new retail /commercial. Key takeaways from the June 2014 McComb study are described by the following executive summary for this site: • Trade area population of 407,361 in 2014, which is expected to increase to 438,533 in 2019, an annual growth rate of 1.49 percent. • Trade area households grew at an annual rate of 1.94 percent between 2000 and 2010. During a slow growth period caused by the great recession, household growth averaged 1.0 percent annually. • Households are expected to increase at an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent from 157,810 in 2014 to 169,997 in 2019. • The trade area includes Carver and Scott counties, the two fastest growing counties in Minnesota. Between 2010 and 2013, population in Carver and Scott counties grew at annual rates of 1.6 and 1.8 percent, respectively. • Trade area average household income of $103,006 in 2014 is 20 percent above the Minneapolis -St. Paul MSA average household income of $85,611 and 41 percent above the United States average of $72,869. • Trade area median household income of $83,841 in 2014 is 55 percent above the national median household income of $53,958. • Trade area average household income is expected to increase to $110,603 in 2019, while median household income is expected to rise to $91,761. In 2014, 60,100 households (38.1 percent) are estimated to have household income above $100,000 and is expected to increase to 71,000 (41.8 percent) in 2019. One - quarter of the households (42,113) are expected to have incomes above $150, 000 in 2019. • Families comprise 70 percent of all households in 2014 compared to 64.7 percent in the Minneapolis -St. Paul MSA and 66.6 percent in the United States. SCD14001 L A IN D F O R M January 16, 2015 Project Narrative 3 • Trade area population age 25 plus is well educated with 30.4 and 13.1 percent that hold college and graduate degrees, respectively. This is well above the United States rates of 20.8 and 12.2 percent, respectively. • Trade area population in 2014 is 89.9 percent Caucasian followed by Asian /Pacific Islander (4.0 percent), African American (2.3 percent), Native American (0.4 percent), and Other (3.4 percent). Hispanic (any race) is 4.3 percent. • The trade area's many economic attributes, population, and upper income households provide support for retail stores, restaurants, and services. This market study supports the need for this mixed use development on this property and details the unmet demand in the City. Our project will help the City of Chanhassen capture dollars that are currently leaving the City and provide services and amenities needed to support the existing and new residential development in this area. AUAR (Alternative Urban Areawide Review) The City completed an AUAR in 2003 that included this site. MN Environmental Rules require that AUARs be updated every 5 years. It appears that the AUAR has not been updated by the City because there has been limited development interest in this area. When the City updated the Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City identified this property as a significant development opportunity within the City due in part to the residential development potential in the western portion of the City and the need to provide regional commercial for Chanhassen residents. While the AUAR was not updated with the Comprehensive Plan, the City did discuss land use changes from the residential land uses shown in the 2003 AUAR and to the regionalllifestyle mixed use shown in the Comprehensive Plan. It is our understanding that a different developer approached the City in 2012 to discuss a potential mixed use development on this site and the City contracted with HKGi, at the developer's expense, to begin looking at development scenarios for an AUAR update. While the development did not proceed, and the AUAR was not updated, there were several development concepts prepared by HGKi for consideration. We have evaluated these alternatives as part of site analysis. We believe that our concept plan shares many of the same concepts developed by HKGi and responds to current market realities. We request that the City initiate an update to the 2003 AUAR to reflect the land use and infrastructure changes since the AUAR was developed. We believe that the AUAR will reflect the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and will support the develop concept we have prepared. We look forward to working with the City to prepare the AUAR update and incorporating any findings into our development proposal. SCD14001 L A N D F O R M January 16, 2015 Project Narrative 4 Design Concept We have developed a concept plan meets your Comprehensive Plan goals and includes: • 54.6 acres of Regional Commercial (approximately 435,000 square feet) • 5 acres of Office (approximately 40,000 square feet) • 11.4 acres of Regional Commercial /Office Mix (approximately 85,000 square feet) • 10.8 acres of High Density Residential (approximately 300 units) • 4.9 acres of Medium Density Residential (approximately 55 units) • 4.4 acres of Stormwater ponding • 15.9 acres of Conservation land The concept plan shows an east -west road connection between the existing neighborhood and Highway 212 as well as a north -south connection. Internal connections are provided within the development, but these key connections will provide collector road access through the site. Access points on Lyman Boulevard have been designed based on County plans. The road alignments may be modified slightly as we continue to develop the design and determine specific user requirements for this regional destination center. Ample landscaping will be incorporated to create an inviting environment. We have worked to preserve the trees in the buffer area in the southwest portion of the site to provide a buffer between the proposed development and the existing homes on the south and west. We have also designed a plan that locates the medium and high density housing in these areas to provide a transition between the existing homes the planned commercial uses. A comprehensive landscape plan will be developed to supplement the existing trees and support the design theme throughout the development. We expect different land uses in the development to have different landscape and architecture details, but many of the core design concepts will be threaded throughout the development. The landscaping plans will likely also include private amenities and street furniture that helps activate the streetscape and enhances the pedestrian experience by providing places to relax, rest, or meet friends. The streetscapes will be designed to reflect the different street characteristics within the development from local residential streets to collector streets intended to move traffic through the project. SUMMARY We look forward to being part of one of Money Magazine's Best Place to Live communities! We respectfully request review of our concept plan for this regional destination, lifestyle and mixed use center and we request that the City initiate the update of the AUAR. We look forward to Planning Commission review on February 17, 2015 and City Council review on March 9, 2015. SCD14001 L A N D F O R M January 16, 2015 Project Narrative 5 CONTACT INFORMATION This document was prepared by: Landform 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55330 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Kendra Lindahl at klindahl a)landform.net or 612.638.0225. SCD14001 L A N D F O R N January 16, 2015 Project Narrative 6 Land Uses from 2012 HKGi AUAR Concepts (constrained to project site) l CONCEPT 1 (acres) 30.3 Regional Commercial 17.4 Office 13.5 High Density Res. 19.8 Medium Density Res. f t -- Stormwater 16 Conservation CONCEPT 2 (acres) s 18.2 Regional Commercial 33.6 Office 65.2 5.8 Mixed Use 4.1 High Density Res. 16 Medium Density Res. [3-6 190 units, 3 stories -- Conservation e 0 \J� j High Density a Residential, a 5.6 acres I Conservation, 15.9 acres Office 4.7 acres Regional Commercial, 23.4 acres Line ��e CIV -N �a -n CD CD W 0 C CD M a- Retail Convenienc , 1.6 acres REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, 212 & POWERS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LAND USES CONCEPT 3 (acres) 39.2 Regional Commercial 65.2 Regional Commercial E 1.4 Office - ' 0 High Density Res. 190 units, 3 stories 15.9 Conservation 13.5 Medium Density Res. :h Stormwater Conservation e 0 \J� j High Density a Residential, a 5.6 acres I Conservation, 15.9 acres Office 4.7 acres Regional Commercial, 23.4 acres Line ��e CIV -N �a -n CD CD W 0 C CD M a- Retail Convenienc , 1.6 acres REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, 212 & POWERS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA LAND USES Acres 39.2 Regional Commercial 360,000 sf, One story 4.7 Office 40,000 sf, One story 5.6 High Density Residential 190 units, 3 stories 15.9 Conservation O NORTH r. F O R M 0 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, 212 & POWERS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ELChanhassen High School ELChaska High School O 212 Medical Center X,XXX ADT (Traffic) Available Land (January 2013) Existing trail /sidewalk Distance Comparison Project Site Lyman /Powers to Downtown Chanhassen 2.5 miles, 6 minutes Precedent 1 Village Point to Downtown Omaha, NE 18 miles, 20 minutes Village Point to Shops at Legacy (NE) 2.1 miles, 5 minutes Precedent 2 Shadow Lake Towne Center to Downtown Omaha, NE 1.7 miles, 4 minutes CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED IaJ rmPeMSleloFValAmanOvlsaOemkemW dlsMmmRtlowe9ahR LLC. CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT SCANNED vnmmomRnna amm r�wrsnrereoaananoMO�rew asmaoovam��a saes uc ,.,CANNEEv Chapter VI SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE GLA The Chan -212 Convenience Goods and Shopping Goods trade areas have the potential to support more GLA than can be accommodated at the proposed development. This creates the enviable situation where the developer can choose from a wide variety of retail stores to establish its market position. Supportable GLA Estimated Chan-212 supportable GLA by retail store type is contained in Table 27. In almost every category, supportable space exceeds the median store size. These estimates of supportable square feet are likely to be understated due to the high trade area household income. Also, there are likely to be a large proportion of high income and high asset households where there are few constraints on discretionary spending. Table 27 CHAN -212 SHOPPING GOODS SUPPORTABLE GLA BY MFRCHANDIS E CATEGORY (Gross Leasable Area) Store Size Merchandise Category 2015 2020 2025 Low Median High Food Stores Grocery Stores 94,087 113,202 135,261 31,676 52,500 65,888 Supermarkets 92,189 110,915 132,528 31,245 52,419 69,462 Convenience Food 2,913 3,507 4,190 1,349 2,085 5,323 Specialty Food Stores 7,650 9,205 11,000 1,188 2,400 6,000 Meat Markets 2,529 3,036 3,631 1,130 2 ,215 18,080 Baked Goods 524 632 756 1,191 1,834 3,285 Confectionery and Nut Stores 409 494 591 702 1,740 2,047 All Other Specialty Food Stores 1,095 U15 1,570 1,069 2,200 8,007 Other Convenience Goods Drug & Proprietary Stores 20,480 24,643 29,443 8,280 11,700 23,714 Hardware 7,795 9,384 11,211 5,638 13,831 27,743 liquor 19,819 23,845 28,491 1,305 2,856 7,210 Florist 2,879 3,463 4,137 766 1,600 5,396 Food/Health Supplement Stores 1,400 1,684 2,012 1,200 1,234 1,968 Food Service Full- Service Restaurants 72,594 88,319 106,481 2,000 4,500 9,775 Limited Service Restaurants 41,438 50,415 60,783 1,335 3,000 3,400 Cafeterias 3,528 4,294 5,170 517 1,073 10,049 Snack &Beverage Places 14,733 17,927 21,613 850 1,500 2,495 Ice Gleam& Soft Serve 1,702 2,071 2,492 902 1,148 1,570 Frozen Yogurt 275 340 405 1,031 1,282 1,700 Doughnut Shops 3,518 4,277 5,159 744 1,200 2,153 Bagel Shops 804 978 1,178 2,000 2,388 3,400 Coffee Shops 4,698 5,713 6,888 881 1,500 2,000 Cookie Shops 138 170 203 220 602 797 Other Snack Shops 2,456 2,986 3,600 850 1,578 2,495 Gasoline Sw Stations /Conv. Gas /Convenience Food Stores 6,619 8,052 9,708 1,500 2,933 6,121 42 Table 27 (continued) CHAN -212 SHOPPING GOODS SUPPORTABLEGLA BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (Gross Leasable Area) Merchandise Category SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department Stores (Incl. leaseddepts.) Discount Stores Department Stores Other General Merchandise Stores Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters Dollar Stores Miscellaneous General Merchandise {� Apparel & Accessories Clothing Stores Mons and Boys Womens Clothing M Children's & Infant Family Clothing Clothing Accessories Stores Other Clothing Stores Shoe Stores Men's Women's Children's & Infant Family Shoe Stores Athletic Footwear Furniture & Home Furnishings Furniture Floor Coverings Window Treatment Stores A8 Other Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliances Stores Household Appliance Stores Radio, TV & Electronics Stores Computers, Software, Music, & Other Hectronics Store Sine 2015 2020 2025 Low Median High 216,484 263,376 317,536 57,720 94,788 141,986 157,156 191,200 230,520 89,641 148,796 243,167 270,224 328,758 396,362 90,134 151,980 217,447 23,218 28,250 34,055 2,726 81000 13,788 47,148 57,360 69,156 3,200 8,400 11,212 10,050 12,223 14,732 2,002 4,000 5,635 49,115 59,755 72,040 2,074 4,200 8,740 18,929 23,029 27,767 1,490 3,912 6,000 87,835 106,862 128,835 2,374 8,000 28,228 4,659 5,666 6,831 918 1,400 2,001 13,902 16,909 20,389 1,060 2,300 8,234 921 1,117 1,348 903 1,640 2,186 1,759 2,137 2,574 1,309 2,384 3,158 424 514 621 1,490 3,912 6,000 28,063 34,143 41,166 2,021 3,388 10,234 11,931 14,514 17,491 1,535 3,284 11,314 74,612 90,773 109,442 3,108 7,927 36,712 32,742 39,836 48,022 1,229 3,593 7,819 3,510 4,267 5,143 1,489 4,905 9,934 49,114 59,749 72,040 2,868 3,570 6,500 26,255 31,938 38,505 2,349 4,000 7,563 99,203 120,693 145,517 1,208 3,406 10,451 15,241 18,543 22,357 997 3,388 25,600 Other Shopping Goods Sporting Goods 81,035 98,585 118,860 2,238 7,500 44,116 General Line Sporting Goods 33,155 40,335 48,625 3,765 5,850 28,128 Specialty line Sporting Goods 42,564 51,787 62,431 1,097 2,449 4,356 Book Stores & Newsdealers 28,394 34,544 41,650 2,428 4,542 29,974 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 16,043 19,520 23,531 585 1,033 2,247 Musical Instrument & Supplies 11,254 13,696 16,513 2,432 7,324 26,094 Jewelry Stores 28,332 34,471 41,560 790 1,450 3,410 Hobby, Toy & Game 25,757 30,726 37,051 1,604 4,050 25,861 Camem & Photographic Supply 6,695 8,149 9,822 816 2,200 5,965 Gift, Novelty & Souvenirs 33,567 40,827 49,227 2,369 4,422 7,015 Luggage &Leather Goods 3,065 3,735 4,500 1,193 2,300 3,102 Sewing, Needlework & Piece Goods 23,330 28,390 34,210 2,678 12,202 19,299 Pet Stores 22,100 26,885 32,420 1,847 3,200 12,398 Art Dealers 3,276 3,982 4,800 675 1,434 2,401 Optical Goods Stores 12,703 15,452 18,631 885 1,561 4,068 Pre- Recorded Tapes, Compact Discs 3,048 3,709 4,470 1,308 3,426 12,753 Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies & Perfume 9,409 11,447 13,800 1,102 1,953 6,235 All Other Health & Personal Care 18,753 22,811 27,505 697 1,786 3,084 43 I I I I Table 27 (continued) CHAN -212 SHOPPING GOODS SUPPORTABLEGLA BYMERCHANDISE CATEGORY (Gross Leasable Area) SERVICES Personal Care Services Beauty Shops Nail Salons Diet & Weight Reducing Services Other Personal Care services Dryclessing & Laundry Services Drycleanmg & Laundry Services (except coin -op) Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services Photographic Studios Veteranarian Services Pet Care Rental and Lasing Formalwearand Costume Rental Home Health Equipment Rental Recreation Physical Fitness Facilites Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians Offices of Dentists Offices of Chiropractors Offices of Optometrists Offices of Mental Health Practitioners Physical & Occupational Therapists Sow= McComb Group, Ltd 16,084 9,111 10,879 900 1,400 Store Size 2,027 Merchandise Category 2015 2020 2025 Low Median High OTHER REWL STORES 1,223 1,856 3,130 21509 1,417 1,691 Building Materials & Garden Supplies 1,488 4,128 4,367 9,880 11,807 1,038 Budding Materials & Supplies Stores 2,731 14,750 16,710 19,960 3,059 5,050 Home Centers 91,060 110,786 133,566 8,981 95,173 135,833 Paint, Glass &Wallpaper 9,564 11,636 14,031 2,348 3,533 5,028 Lawn & Garden Equipment 4,560 900 1,200 1,500 482 729 Outdoor Power Equipment 25,590 31,140 37,540 N/A N/A N/A Retail Nurseries, Lawn & Carden 72,890 88,680 106,920 N/A 15,000 N/A Motor Vehicles & Parts Dealers 32,170 69,703 83,863 100,202 969 1,652 Auto Parts & Accessories Stores 25,010 30,425 36,685 2,232 6,500 13,000 Tire Dealers 18,900 22,995 27,725 3,514 6,944 12,014 SERVICES Personal Care Services Beauty Shops Nail Salons Diet & Weight Reducing Services Other Personal Care services Dryclessing & Laundry Services Drycleanmg & Laundry Services (except coin -op) Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services Photographic Studios Veteranarian Services Pet Care Rental and Lasing Formalwearand Costume Rental Home Health Equipment Rental Recreation Physical Fitness Facilites Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians Offices of Dentists Offices of Chiropractors Offices of Optometrists Offices of Mental Health Practitioners Physical & Occupational Therapists Sow= McComb Group, Ltd 16,084 9,111 10,879 900 1,400 3,480 2,027 1,145 1,373 773 1 ,200 1,807 1,320 747 893 1,223 1,856 3,130 21509 1,417 1,691 703 1,488 4,128 4,367 9,880 11,807 1,038 1,608 2,731 14,750 16,710 19,960 3,059 5,050 7,495 2,156 2,440 2,916 990 1,866 2,550 9,849 11,151 13,329 1,346 2,122 2,701 3,387 3,827 4,560 900 1,200 1,500 482 729 871 763 1,046 1,773 1,664 2,516 3,008 1,200 1,600 3,480 67,750 76,725 91,663 1,433 6,448 32,170 69,703 83,863 100,202 969 1,652 4,008 32,197 19,368 23,145 1,090 1,700 3,970 4,649 2,797 3,342 1,090 1,600 3,970 1,764 3,183 3,805 1,074 1,620 4,347 2,391 4,316 5,157 1,090 1,800 3,970 4,006 7,232 8,641 1,090 1,600 3,970 Shopping Center Size Sales potential and supportable square feet provide an indication of shopping center potential. Shopping center size will depend on tenant interest and the number of anchor stores. The potential GLA by store category ranges from 825,000 square feet to 1,120,000 square feet, as shown in Table 28. Convenience goods ranges from 105,000 square feet to 135,000 square feet depending on supermarket size and number of other retailers. Convenience goods includes stores where 44 r �..�.w. February 3, 2015 City of Chanhassen Attn: Kate Aanenson, AICP P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Concept PUD for a Lifestyle Center Dear Kate: Thank you for forwarding to us for our review the Concept PUD for a Lifestyle Center at Lyman & Powers Boulevard in Chanhassen. I hope that you will find our comments helpful. The City of Chaska continues to support Chanhassen's vision for "Regional /Lifestyle Center Commercia /'that brings a new retail type to the residents of the southwest region. First, the project narrative provided by the developer states that they plan to update the AUAR for the site; the City of Chaska supports that statement as an important element in understanding all of the impacts of a development such as the one proposed. To that end, the TH212 to Powers Boulevard to Lyman Boulevard route provides an important traffic connection to the City of Chaska's northern industrial area; and as such, the City of Chaska is interested in understanding the traffic impacts of this project and its related improvements through the AUAR process. Second, a Regional Lifestyle Center attracts people from the region, for better or worse; as recently noted in the Star Tribune (1/20/15) the City of Eagan is adding to its police force as a result of the popularity of their new Premium Outlet Mall (630 police calls since mid - August), the updated AUAR should address how this core service is impacted by the proposal. Lastly, the project narrative provided by the developer mentions an updated market study by the McCombs Group (dated June of 2014); the City of Chaska would appreciate receiving a copy of this study to better understand the market forces behind this proposal. We look forward to working with you cooperatively and collaboratively on this endeavor and would appreciate being kept informed as this project moves through the planning process. If you should have any question or comments, then please contact me at 448 -9200. lgwatd, AICP of Planning and Development ciftf 01 aS ea Minnesotai One City Hall Plaza 55318 -1962 Phone 952/448 -9200 ; Fax 952/448 -9300 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 February 5, 2015, 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 Hearing for the Regional Lifestyle Center — Planning Case 2015 -05 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. Subscribed and sworn to before me this I day of 12015. 1 Notary Pub 'c u K n J. En el rdt, DeoutyClerk =MEUWISSEN M0 O) C d M M O c 41 •L N .c V O ,Q U 7 IL C O G c d t6 U d O c Z N rn N @ s c t6 .0 U C d d M O) O C .N d E xE V O U CL c O �C e d lC �a O c Z N N 0 @ t c R s U @ T c L 4) Mn O L N N m `o 9.2- _m c a'- n d m 8 m @ N C 3 0 to N > O N +N- OF t y d t� vym f 0 `v o E -o o U@ �� N U U y Y 4 o 0) U C C o c m o m@ c Q a d� a� M .; �N .c «� @ N @ m- N h N co M E C O O H m `ar c E -a OE= o. @ c m m vo N ON3OV C a Oa aE >NNO v°ma uvomao m«Ed >aE v d -> N @ U C` a N O .N .N-. TO.O C•c L d U@ E' Q 3�o d 10 u0 v_ v mmdmoE -moE a o56 '-� > QC > a) Sup -r 'O O U NaUN C N @ C C '� 3Y_N C0Oto 00- mi MICHAEL D TIMM KENT B & LORI BETH WARNBERG DUANE R SKLUZACEK 1101 LYMAN CT 1111 LYMAN CT 1190 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8535 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8535 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9166 BRENT R & KATHLEEN A MILLER ROBERT J & FRANCINE H JOHNSON MINH CAM TRAN 1200 LYMAN BLVD 1300 OAKSIDE CIR 1330 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9168 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9005 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9168 CRAIG J PETERSON CHAD & JAN GNIFFKE LCR HOLDINGS LLC 1340 OAKSIDE CIR 1419 BETHESDA CIR 14191 113TH ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9005 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 LITTLE FALLS, MN 56345 -6352 CHRISTOPHER R ANDERSON JOSEPH ARMSTRONG GEORGE MURRAY 1423 BETHESDA CIR 1427 BETHESDA CIR 1430 BETHESDA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 CHANHASSEN, MN 553174749 BRADLEY WESTVIG KEITH M & KAREN S WHITACRE THORIR THORISSON 1430 JERSEY WAY 1431 BETHESDA CIR 1435 BETHESDA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8622 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 JONATHAN R & SHANNON G ABAD ERIC L & JENNIFER L SWANSON MARION CHARLES 1439 BETHESDA CIR 1440 BETHESDA CIR 1440 JERSEY WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8622 MARK E & MOLLY K WILSON WENDY M GALL ADAM J CARVER 1443 BETHESDA CIR 1445 MILLS DR 1447 BETHESDA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4811 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 WILLIAM FUESZ JESSICA E GALVIN BRADLEY SKEEL 1450 BETHESDA CIR 1451 BETHESDA CIR 1452 MILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 CHANHASSEN, MN 553174749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 4811 ZHEXIN ZHANG JOAN M MCNANEY JOHN C PETERSON 1455 BETHESDA CIR 1455 MILLS DR 1459 BETHESDA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4811 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 COREY MASLOWSKI KLAYAN MAVULETI MARC GILLITZER 1460 BETHESDA CIR 1460 JERSEY WAY 1461 DEGLER CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -6749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8622 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4750 SUMAN K THAPA KRAIG R STABENOW KEVIN K O'NEILL 1462 MILLS DR 1465 MILLS DR 1470 BETHESDA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4811 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- CHANHASSEN, MN 553174749 GUNJAN SHARMA BHASKAR GURRAMKONDA PATRICK T MACY 1470 JERSEY WAY 1471 DEGLER CIR 1472 MILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8622 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4750 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4811 JASON R BURCKHARD CURTIS L CLEMENTS DAVID L VEGA 1475 MILLS DR 1480 BETHESDA CIR 1480 PEMBROKE PASS CHANHASSEN, MN 553174811 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4749 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4756 ASHLEY N Z NELSON ASIM MOHAMMED SYED WILLIAM J & VICKY L GOERS 1485 MILLS DR 1561 LYMAN BLVD 1601 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4811 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9403 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9402 JOSEPH ALTHAUS U S HOME CORP (DBAILENNAR) JONATHAN M GILBERT 1610 JEURISSEN LN 16305 36TH AVE N STE 600 1641 JEURISSEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4842 PLYMOUTH, MN 55446 -4270 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4842 B ELMER FAMILY FARMS LLC FOX PROPERTIES LP STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 19450 281ST ST 27990 SMITHTOWN RD 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 631 TRAN BELLE PLAINE, MN 56011 -5010 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7911 ST PAUL, MN 55155 -1801 PRESERVE @ BLF CRK CHANHASSEN 212 LP DEGLER LAND COMPANY LLC HOMEOWNERS 5270 HOWARDS POINT RD 541 PINEVIEW CT 4672 SLATER RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8368 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8697 EAGAN, MN 55122 -2362 CARVER COUNTY CAMDEN RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD CHANHASSEN RESIDENTIAL DEV 602 4TH ST E ASSN PAR CHASKA, MN 55318 -2102 7100 MADISON AVE W 7300 METRO BLVD #300 GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 -3602 EDINA, MN 55439 -2302 THE PRESERVE AT BLUFF CREEK RONALD W & CAROL M ENTINGER TUOI VAN TRAN HO 8851 AUDUBON RD 8900 SUNSET TRL 7300 METRO BLVD STE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439- CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9407 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9100 TIMOTHY C BOYCE JEFFREY S & LEE ANN FRANZ SANDRA SCHMITT BAKER & STUART 8941 AUDUBON RD 8950 SUNSET TRL 8955 SUNSET TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8412 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9100 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9126 NILESH C SUTHAR TERI MALECHA 9031 DEGLER CIR 9041 DEGLER CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4836 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4836 MARCO RASGATTINO HUONG N DANG 9141 RIVER ROCK DR N 9151 RIVER ROCK DR N CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4758 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4758 JOHN PIETRANERA BRYAN T PETERSEN 9171 RIVER ROCK DR N 9180 RIVER ROCK DR N CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4758 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4758 MARK HERZOG ROSS MARTIN 9271 RIVER ROCK DR N 9281 RIVER ROCK DR N CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4745 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4745 ILHAM LLC MAX JAHRAUS 9301 RIVER ROCK DR N 9311 RIVER ROCK DR N CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4746 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4746 CHRISTOPHER PRICCO PRESERVE @ BLF CRK HM OWN 9441 RIVER ROCK DR S ASSN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- 971 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY ST SAINT PAUL, MN 55118 -2856 VARUN PARVATANENI 9131 RIVER ROCK DR N CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4758 CRAIG P PABICH 9161 RIVER ROCK DR N CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4758 MANDEEP S VIRK 9190 RIVER ROCK DR N CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4758 ANDREW LASKA 9291 RIVER ROCK DR N CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -4745 CHAD LINDELL 9330 RIVER ROCK DR N CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -4746 '11" City Of Cbkbh U= Citizen &am ADDITIONAL, QUESTIONS 11mv aa& imval queationa Here as6J by the City of Cunbaaaan as hfftnl below. T6 1 ms aks for these quer6am are aloe svaiUle in the Regort of Rerults. Question 1M: Pofioy Question 1 TM laity aomplstad a mm ram" sumly ff* stsoerad Chistamm buslasssss "crosafuWmaatdW -t& ey sing seeds, arat a nm% wl nwt d" with few rases sy212intMCfgof l2asnlasaeen h„suld be ►kbls WW s QWW tM r m oppar rJOW in our ch y. rise dq' courda wam 1*5 to know an Mvst to which you Hel@aer agree of dwmgres udtk the Strmngty Sommhat agree nor 9omswhat abut y tolloMn4 statawoft; agree agree disagree dMagsee dWgm Total I wo Ad Nke a regional mat built along ft now I*tmay 212 29% 24% 10% 14% 17% 100% I waautd Nke the CKy to to J; rem" eaupanden In tro dowrrlown area and net along the now Highway 212 21% 25% 24% 20% 10% 10096 I would We to DmIt reW to the amount curtentty found in Chanhassen and not build a regional mW 1896 13% 17% 25% 29% 100% Question 16b; Pofiay Question 2 Madhua Cargo I do not (two (mulllplo support tits Small departn ent dstwrlment No development (apecfalty stares and stores and prefanenps of a regional stores specialty specially In tams of map in only) . atom) stores) scale Chanhassen Total What slam malt, if at all, would you Ike to am developed in Chantwa7 (ueiect orgy one) 10% 34% 22% 9% 25% 100% From shopping centers to lifestyle centers - LA Times Page 1 of 4 From shopping centers to lifestyle centers By VIRGINIA POSTREL VIRGINIA POSTREL (DYNAMIST.COM) IS A COLUMNIST FOR THE ATLANTIC AND THE AUTHOR OF "THE SUBSTANCE OF STYLE." DECEMBER 10, 2006 IWAS SHOCKED the first time I went to Universal CityWalk, several months after it opened in 1993• I'd read all about the place beforehand. Social critics had proclaimed it the new white - flight fortress against the crime, disorder and diversity of real city life. It exemplified "a Victorian -style separation of classes in our public life," wrote Norman Klein. George Will called CityWalk "a melancholy comment on metropolitan America." Mike Davis said, "It fulfills our worst prophecies." At best, CityWalk was a fake city, built for customers who, in Lewis Lapham's words, "had no intention of going to see the original city four miles to the south." After that buildup, I expected something at least as visionary and disturbing as Disneyland. What I found was a mall. Yes, it was outdoors and full of tourist traps. The store facades were more exuberant than the typical Banana Republic. But it was still just a shopping center. CityWalk seemed no more revolutionary — and less fortress -like — than the Beverly Center. What a letdown. A decade later, I returned to see what had happened to the famous harbinger of Fortress Los Angeles. On a Sunday evening in July, the place was absolutely packed. Families and friends by the hundreds were out enjoying the bustle, the neon lights, the night air, the music blasting from the public stage. A few people carried shopping bags, but most seemed just to be hanging out. Contrary to the prophets of a decade earlier, they were generally locals, and I was about the only pale -faced blond in sight. CityWalk wasn't separate from the real Los Angeles. It was emphatically part of it. It seemed less like a mall this time and more like a city. That, I now realize, was itself a false dichotomy — a remnant of postwar suburban thinking. Real city living has always been about commerce and security, the two main reasons people gather in close proximity. (A third is finding sexual partners.) Those who condemn malls for offering havens might as well condemn hybrid cars for not burning enough gas; these critics mistake the side effects of urban density for its purposes. lake mall visitors all over the country, CityWalk patrons aren't looking to escape urban life but to experience its pleasures. In fact, CityWalk says far more about the state of shopping centers than it does about the state of cities. Over the last decade and a half, the once - monolithic mall has become more diversified, more aesthetically appealing and more porous. Outdoor "lifestyle centers," often without department stores, are reinventing the city street, while traditional malls revamp to provide more entertainment, more restaurants, more appealing public spaces and more reasons to linger. After five decades of experiment and evolution, the American shopping center is finally beginning to fulfill its inventor's dream: to re- http: / /www.latimes.com/ news /la- op- postrel10dec10- story.html 2/11/2015 From shopping centers to lifestyle centers - LA Times Page 2 of 4 create the human -scale European city "filled, morning and evening, day and night, weekdays and Sundays, with urban dynamism." That dreamer's name was Victor Gruen, an architect in exile. In the mid -loth century, he lived in Beverly Hills but longed for Vienna, the city he'd been driven from by the Nazis. Like many emigres, he missed the cafes and conversation that defined Central European cities before the war. "I haven't seen people sit at sidewalk tables on Ventura Boulevard because there is nothing to look at," he lamented. To recover that lost urbanity, Gruen invented the shopping mall, imagining it as a human -scale alternative to the impersonal canyons of industrial downtowns and the drive -by anomie of postwar suburbia. The shopping center of his imagination would include not only stores but "a community center, an auditorium, a children's play area, a large number of public eating places and, in the courts and malls, opportunities for relaxation, exhibits and public events." It would be, as we say now, a "third place," a congenial gathering spot separate from home and work. Gruen sold his designs to retailers and succeeded as a commercial architect. But the economics of the time left his dreams severely compromised. Instead of centers of sociability, developers built "machines for shopping," designed to move customers efficiently from store to store, stopping only for essential fuel. In their day, malls were pretty exciting. Those of us who grew up in the 196os and '70s can recall the thrill of having big, climate - controlled spaces where you could walk without fearing the elements (a major selling point in most of the country) or dodging cars. Unfortunately, there was no place to sit comfortably — surely a reason that most of the people socializing at the mall were teenagers walking in groups. Architecturally, malls were monolithic buildings, physically and psychologically separated from their environment. To the road, they presented nothing more inviting than a department store sign. The action was on the inside. That old model has lost its appeal. For pure shopping efficiency, a big -box discounter is cheaper, a drive -up center is faster and an online retailer doesn't make you leave your desk. To compete, malls have finally realized the rest of Gruen's original vision, adapting it to the contemporary scene. Children's play areas, soft seating to encourage relaxation and lots of those "public eating places" have become de rigueur. Instead of getting shoppers in and out to buy shoes, today's malls encourage them to hang out, working on laptops or chatting with friends. It's the Starbucks strategy: provide an appealing environment so that people will make it a part of their daily life and spend money while they're there. You may come for the Wi -Fi, but you'll pick up a sandwich and maybe a shirt or two. Hence the Westfield Group's $33o- million expansion of its Topanga center in Canoga Park included a children's "Playtown" with a double- decker carousel. The $127- million renovation of the Westfield Century City mall upgraded the AMC theater and replaced the old food court with a large upstairs terrace offering fresher fare, more stylish surroundings and, on occasion, live music. It's a 21st century cafe, a place to talk, work, read or just enjoy the sun. Just off Santa Monica Boulevard, you can sit at a sidewalk table and have plenty to see. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-op-postrellOdeclO-story.html 2/11/2015 From shopping centers to lifestyle centers - LA Times Page 3 of 4 The traditional enclosed mall, even in its retrofitted and reinvigorated form, can't fully represent the new urbanity. For that, you have to turn to large -scale lifestyle centers — the Grove is a midsized local example — that re- create the urban street. Lifestyle centers have grown as the department stores on which traditional malls relied have shrunk. Specialty retailers are still looking for new locations, and Chico's and Build -a -Bear Workshop can't wait for space until Macy's is ready to commit to new malls. Like malls, lifestyle centers segregate their parking from pedestrian areas, making them different from old- fashioned strip centers. With their smaller shops and open -air design, they resemble city streets. Many feature apartments, offices or hotels. Take SanTan Village, now rising in Gilbert, Ariz., a suburb of Phoenix. Describing itself as "a Soo -acre urban village," the development includes 18 buildings laid out along a grid of streets, some of which will allow cars, with parking areas scattered throughout. Like modern enclosed malls, SanTan Village will group similar stores together — teen wares here, luxury goods there, mid- priced fashion over here — to save time and encourage related purchases. But because this shopping center has no central doors to shut at 9 p.m., restaurants and theaters can stay open late even if the children's stores are closed. Here, in exurbia U.S.A., the shopping center has reinvented the pedestrian - oriented city street. Surprisingly, even in the heat of Phoenix, open -air centers ring up the highest sales per square foot. "The shopper has voted with their dollars by saying they enjoy that outdoor experience," said David Scholl, a senior vice president of development at Westcor, SanTan Village's Phoenix -based developer. ( Westcor is owned by Macerich Co., the Santa Monica -based real estate investment trust.) "A husband and wife can go out and spend three or four hours seeing a movie and dinner and strolling the streets of a lifestyle center," Scholl said. "I think that given the choice, people would love to be outside." As if to prove the point, plans were announced last week for a major new residential and office development adjacent to Universal CityWalk. Shoppers are no longer trying to escape their environment but to enjoy it. Even in suburbia they value the hum of city life. Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 42 AC +/- 400,000 2000 + /- �nLwLr Icv rrn .21 B CORPORATE OFFICE 28 AC +/- 840,000 3300 + /- .68 C CORPORATE OFFICE 17 AC +/- 400,000 1350 + /- .54 D PROFESSIONAL OFFICE 3.5 AC +/- 20,000 90 +/- .13 WOODLAND PRESERVE 18 AC +/- N/A N/A N/A RIGHT -OF -WAY 7.5 AC +/- N/A N/A N/A TOTAL 116 1660,000 6740 + /- KEY ELEMENTS: / Corporate office sites near Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard intersection. / Smaller corporate office sites organized around an enhanced existing wetland and focused on the extended Bluff Creek Boulevard. / Regional commercial located near Powers Boulevard and Highway 212 with strong highway visibility. / Smaller professional office site along western boundary. / Wetlands remain and any impacted portions are mitigated on -site. / Stormwater treatment occur on -site in three sub - watersheds and assumes portions of stormwater treatment for Blocks A and B occur to the east in the MNDOT pond. Collector road (Bluff Creek Boulevard) shifts slightly north to allow for a larger Regional Commercial block. / Connection to single family neighborhood to the west remains in current location. / Full intersection at Lyman Boulevard, no additional right -in / right -out. / Signalized intersection at Powers Boulevard and the extension of Bluff Creek Boulevard. / Round -a -bout for traffic calming at intersection of collector roadways. / Fire access to medium density housing to the south along trail connection. MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director FROM: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: February 10, 2015 RE: Concept PUD Review for a Lifestyle Center PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The applicant is looking at developing approximately 112 acres of vacant land in southwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. The land has most recently been used for agricultural production. The applicant is proposing a mixed using comprised of the following land uses; regional commercial, office, high- density residential and medium - density residential. They are proposing to include just under 16 acres of wetland as preservation. WETLAND PROTECTION The Notice of Decision for the Wetland Boundary /Type Determination notes that there are three wetland areas that must be either investigated further or included in the report. There is a connection between Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 that must be delineated and approved. There is an area of wetland along Powers Boulevard at the eastern limits of the intermittent channel drainage what is called Wetland 1 that must be delineated and approved. Lastly, there is a wetland west of what is referred to as Wetland 2 that was granted an agricultural exemption in 2007. This area must be included as wetland in all relevant documents. Minnesota Rules §8420.0420, Subpart 1. D. states that `Present and future owners of wetlands impacted without replacement under an exemption for agricultural activities in subpart 2 ... must make no use of the wetland area after it is impacte, other than as agricultural land or other use as specified in subpart 2, for at least ten years after the impact unless it is first replaced according to Minnesota Statutes... " In discussions with BWSR, it has been determined that as the exemption was granted in 2007 that is the year from which the ten (10) year window is counted. Regardless of the areas requiring further investigation, the sheet entitled "SITE ANALYSIS" does not include all wetland areas that were already identified on the subject properties. This will be important when designing the site and determining sequencing and, if deemed appropriate, replacement. Even wetlands granted an agricultural exemption will be subject to certain wetland rules. 7ra n:ect Rrrhvd3 Rethn In / Trnaec[ SPI -I - ` TIMM Redoed 1 = / �/ M / aedmd4 tcea., d s i SP4 _ U.,a:E.. Project Bonndan � vpp. f; llli' ,J 1 _ Delineated Wetland Boundaries ' "' °' tom, „n< V�ambatek The District at Vincent Ridge Chanhasse.i, aAinnesuta t'<geaeiv�,st -� 's.- :.:.::.;: 1vvs: Men<�Ai \R4Y.lMlL r..r.rw Figure 1. Delineated wetland boundaries from Sambatek report dated October 22, 2014 There are several regulations limiting the use of and impact to wetland areas. In all cases, the overarching purpose is to achieve "no net loss" of wetland functions and values. Chanhassen City Code 620 -402 through ¢20 -421 Chanhassen City Code enumerates ten purposes for the Wetland Protection ordinance. Among these ten is the restriction and mitigation of the harmful effects of development on wetlands. No wetlands may be impacted without a Wetland Alteration Permit from the City. All activities within the city shall be governed by the MN Wetland Conservation Act. MN Rules Chapter 8420 (MN Wetland Conservation Act M.S. 6103F.612 et sea) MN Rules Chapter 8420.0500, Subpart 2 states that "No person may impact a wetland, wholly or partially, without being eligible for an exemption or no -loss, or first having a wetland replacement plan approved by the local government unit. Before approval of a replacement plan, the local government unit must ensure that the applicant has exhausted all possibilities to avoid and minimize wetland impacts according to sequencing in part 8420.0520. " Section 8420.0520 describes how, in descending order of priority, activities must avoid, minimize, repair or rehabilitate, and lastly, replace impacts determined to be unavoidable. MN Rules Chapter 8420.0520, Subpart 3 goes into more detail about avoidance. Paragraph C (2) of that section describes the criteria to be used by a local government to determine if any "feasible and prudent alternatives" exist. Although clear a high level view of the proposed development plan, there are several areas where it appears very little consideration was given to avoidance or minimization of wetland impacts. The road alignment coming south from the Sunset Trail intersection and wrapping around the southern edge of the large wetland complex will result in significant wetland impacts. The 2012 AUAR indicates other conceptual road alignments that would provide full access to the site and result in less impact to the wetland complex if not complete avoidance. Two of the three storm water treatment areas are shown fully within delineated wetlands. While it may ultimately be that ponding is the only practicable storm water treatment method, changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits, the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District rules and forthcoming changes to our city code will all dictate that treatment should occur through abstraction of runoff where practicable to do so. This may include infiltration, stormwater reuse or other methods which aren't likely to be successful in these areas. The applicant is advised to review and understand the implications of the MN Wetland Conservation Act on their design. Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will likely have authority over some of the wetland on the subject properties. While the Joint Notification Application allows for concurrent review processes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues their own permit with their own criteria. Approval from the City as the LGU responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act does not translate directly into federal approval. C:\ Users \katea \AppData \Local \Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. Outlook \QFDARXOV \MEMO_WRC_Concept Review.dou Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency must review and determine that any fill placement is compliant with the state water quality standards. The wetland on the subject property drain to either Lake Susan or into Bluff Creek. Both of these water bodies are impaired. Mitigation, for Approved Wetland Impacts Just as there are sequencing requirements for wetland impacts, there are also sequencing requirements for wetland replacement (mitigation). Section 20 -416 (b) (3) of Chanhassen City Code describes where mitigation can occur. These are, in descending order of preference; 1. On -site 2. Locally within the same sub - watershed elsewhere in the city; 3. Off -site within the same major watershed or through the purchase of wetland credits. Minnesota Rules 8420.0522 sets out the replacement standards if it is determined that the impacts are unavoidable or cannot be restored over time. The replacement wetland(s) must replace the public value of wetlands lost. One of the function some of the wetlands serve on the subject property have to do with flow augmentation and/or amelioration within Bluff Creek. It will be important that any impacts deemed unavoidable are mitigated for within the Bluff Creek watershed. The minimum replacement ratio will be 2:1 if the replacement is "in- kind" and within the same watershed or 2.5:1 if the replacement is "out -of- kind" or outside the watershed. Subpart 7 of the same section of Minnesota Rules sets requirements for the siting of replacement wetlands as follows in descending order of preference: 1. In the same minor watershed as impacted wetland; 2. In the same major watershed as the impacted wetland; 3. In the same county as the impacted wetland; 4. If replaced through banking then in the same wetland bank service area; or 5. In an adjacent bank service area provided it is also a less than 50% wetlands remaining bank service area. The Federal Clean Water Act also has mitigation requirements. Generally, replacement wetland meeting the above will satisfy the Section 404 requirements although this is not always the case. It will be the applicant's responsibility to assure that the meet the Section 404 requirements. It may be possible to receive wetland mitigation credit for the preservation of the woodland area located southwesterly on the site. The applicant may wish to explore this opportunity as the Planned Unit Development Requirements would suggest that the preservation of the woodland area is desirable. WATER QUALITY PROTECTION This site drains to one of two waterbodies (see figure 2). Generally the northeast portion flows to Lake Susan which has an impairment for excessive nutrients. The remainder of the site drains to Bluff Creek which has a turbidity impairment and an impairment for indices of biological integrity. Any stormwater management plan must consider these impairments as both are within one -mile of the site. NPDES Construction Permit This development will be subject to the rules of the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge C:\ Users \katea \AppData \Local \Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. Outlook \QFDARXOV \MEMO_WRC_Concept Review.doa Elimination System/State Disposal System Program (NPDES Construction Permit) issued August 1, 2013. This permit requires that the permittee manages the stormwater such that during project construction and upon completion there is no violation of state water quality standards. Part III.D states: Where a project's ultimate development replaces vegetation and /or other pervious surfaces with one (1) or more acres of cumulative impervious surface, the Permittee(s) must design the project so that the water quality volume of one (1) inch of runofffrom the new impervious surfaces created by the project is retained on site (i.e. infiltration or other volume reduction practices) and not discharged to a surface water. For purposes of this part, surface waters does not include man -made drainage systems that convey stormwater to a compliant permanent stormwater management system. For those projects where infiltration is prohibited (see Part 1H.D.1 j), the Permittee(s) shall consider other methods of volume reduction and the water quality volume (or remainder of the water quality volume if some volume reduction is achieved) must be treated by a wet sedimentation basin, filtration system, regional ponding or equivalent methods prior to the discharge of stormwater to surface waters. NPDES MS4 Permit Chanhassen is permitted to discharge stormwater under the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Small Municipal Storm Sewer Systems Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program (MS4) issued August 1, 2013. The MS4 permit requires Chanhassen, as a permittee to develop a post - construction stormwater management program. This program must give the highest preference to "Green Infrastructure" practices such as conservation design, infiltration and reuse. New development must result in no net increase from pre - project conditions of stormwater volume, stormwater discharge of total suspended solids and total phosphorus. Riley Pureatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Rule J Rule J requires that the 1.1 inches of runoff from impervious surface of a parcel must be abstracted on- site. In addition, the stormwater management must achieve 60% removal of total phosphorus and 90% removal of TSS on an annual basis. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Section 20 -501 lists 9 elements which are to be included in a planned unit development. These elements are consistent with low impact design (LID) and better site design practices. The preservation of significant ecological resources and open space is a primary reason for allowing the use of PUD. The first three speak directly to this goal: (1)Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. (2)More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. (3)High quality of design and design compatible 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. C:\ Users \katea \AppData \Local \Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. Outlook \QFDARXOV\MEMO_WRC_ Concept Review.docx This would lend to preservation of wetlands, woodlands and topographic features through thoughtful consideration during site layout and through the use of practices such as terrain- adaptive architecture. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The woodland area lies within the boundaries of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. This district is intended to protect Bluff Creek, preserve natural conditions and to establish a corridor of "interconnected open space" throughout the entire system for ecological, recreational and educational benefit. Section 20- 1561 (a) stipulates that "natural habitat areas within the primary zone shall be preserved as permanent open space." This would be consistent with the intent of the PUD and could very possibly be used as mitigation for wetland impacts although that must be determined in context of wetland preservation as a whole. This concludes my review. C:\ Users \katea \AppData \Local \Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content. Outlook \QFDARXOV \MEMO_WRC_Concept Review.doa Aanenson, Kate From: Zhexin Zhang <zhexinzhang @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 9:27 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Concerns with Quadrant development Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Director Aanenson, I have some concerns about the new Quadrant development that I would like to pass on to the City's Planning Commission Members. I was unable to find the contact information for the Members on the city's website. Can you please forward the message below to them? Thank you, Zhexin Zhang Dear City Planning Commission Members, I am writing you today to discuss the new Quadrant development for the city of Chanhassen. My family lives less than a mile away from the new planned development. We are very excited at the potential of the development and look forward to seeing a beautiful upscale retail /commercial area befitting of Chanhassen. However, I and many fellow Chanhassen residents do have some serious concerns with the plans of the current developer. Concerns which the developer has either avoided addressing or has been unable to address. The biggest concern is the high density residential area designated immediately next to low density residential area. The developer is planning on putting in high density apartments immediately next to homes which easily cost over $400,000. This is highly unusual and generally unaesthetic. Usually, medium density residential dwellings, such as townhouses, are placed between low density residential single family homes and apartments to provide a gradual transition. Does the City of Chanhassen's code allow for such drastic changes in zoning buildings? Secondly, I am concerned with the building of a hotel in this area as the developer has proposed. I have two main concerns with a hotel. The first is necessity. I do not understand the need for another hotel in Chanhassen. I know of 5 hotels with 2 -3 miles of this development area (Holiday Inn, Oak Ridge Hotel, Country Inn and Suites, Americhin, and Chanhassen Inn). Are all of these establishments being fully booked consistently so that there is demand in Chanhassen for a 6th hotel? I don't mind having additional competitors, but I worry that if one is built, at least one of the hotel will most likely sit more idle than business can support and will close shop. If that happens, the City of Chanhassen will be stuck with the administrative and fiscal headaches of redeveloping an unused hotel. Has an investigation been done to determine if a 6th hotel can be financially supported? My second issue is with safety. As you know there are many, many young families who live very near this proposed hotel location. Also the Chanhassen high school is very near this location as well. Many parents here are uncomfortable and worried about having a hotel housing strangers to the community which is in such close proximity to where our children play and spend time. Thirdly, I am concerned with the potential increase in crime that this development will create. As you may know, the city of Eagan has seen a noticeable increase in crime after the opening of the premium outlet mall this past year. As Chanhassen does not have its own police force and contracts with the Carver County Sheriffs department, I am very concerned from both the safety standpoint and from the financial stand point of requiring an increased police force with this development. Has the city conducted a study /forecast on this issue? Is so, can the results be shared with me and the public? Finally, we are very concerned with the increased traffic on Bluff Creek Blvd. I understand the city has designated Bluff Creek Blvd as a collector road and want the main traffic to use Pioneer Trail or Lyman Blvd for East/West traffic. However, since Bluff Creek Blvd will create a diagonal path between those main roads, and all three roads are one lane roads, I am concerned that through traffic motorists will take this new path. Once connected, Bluff Creek Blvd will offer no stop lights compared to Pioneer Trail and Lyman Blvd, and it is a more direct route when going SW and NE compared to using those two roads. I am interested to know what the city or the Planning Commission is doing to ensure traffic going through Bluff Creek Blvd will be more for collector type traffic and not for through traffic. I worry that with additional traffic, Bluff Creek Blvd may become more unsafe than acceptable. This is compounded if the high density apartments are built. With —200 apartments being planned and the average American household owning 2 cars. I worry about seeing an additional 400 cars driving up and down Bluff Creek Blvd on top of the additional traffic seen to visit the retail /commercial establishments. This extra traffic will also require higher road maintenance which I hope the city has accounted for in its financial forecasts. I imagine the city has investigated all of these issues and I'd appreciate that information be passed on to me and the public. I understand this is a challenging project and not everyone can be made entirely happy with the decisions that have to be made. I appreciate any information you can provide and look forward to your response. Regards, Zhexin Zhang Aanenson, Kate From: MACY, PATRICK <PATRICK.MACY @valspar.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:46 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: kirkwalton @gmail.com; kraig.stabenow @gmail.com Subject: RE: Powers Blvd, Lyman Blvd & 212 proposed development Kate, I've read the 52pg pdf file attached to the Planning Commission Report... doesn't answer many of the questions that have been proposed below. • ONE POINT— Letter from Kevin Ringwald'Director of Planning and Development' City of Chaska dated 2/3/2015 • "Regional Lifestyle Center (here in after RLC) attracts people from the region, for better or worse: as recently noted in the Star Tribune (1/20/2015) the City of Eagan is adding to its ploice force as a result fo the popularity of the new Premium Outlet Mall (630 police calls since mid - August), the updated AUAR should address how this core service is impacted by the proposal." • CHAN does not have a city police force, but relies on Carver County Sheriff... • This concerns me as a resident of the neighborhood merely from a security and traffic concern. • pg 14 under Planning Comments • NOTE #1 -- ... "given the land area available in Chanhassen for this (100+ acres), and in understanding the market, this not necessarily see this as a "dale" type of shopping center, but maybe more like a "Shoppes at Arbor Lake" or a new outlet center in Eagan (paragon outlets /Egan outlets) off of 77 and 13, or the Woodbury Lake development. • ALONG the 100+ acres comment — THIS proposal is for ONLY 78 acres — approx. 25% less space than recommended by the Proposal for Rec Commercial. ■ The contents also indicate that the Mills Stub MUST be connected — • Located on pg 15 of the Proposal "conceptual Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) of the two parcels • "The plan shall also include a connection to the existing stub street on the NW corner of the area to the single - family development to the west (MILLS DR)..." • This will certainly bring Commercial traffic into the neighborhood. Does the plan (Commercial /Regional Retail Development Diagram) included date 4/19/2012 have any bearing on the plan... this does not meet any of the 2030 guidelines of buffer and landscaping requirements... Has Scott Carlston submitted a concept plan. It is optional but is highly recommended... It is very difficult to address any of the Municodes, 2030 Rules /Guidelines as this concept plan would address many issues related to buildings, tenants, landscaping... I have other comments /questions /concerns... but we can start here and see where things go. Thanks, Pat Macy 612 - 327 -9865 From: Aanenson, Kate [ mailto :kanenson @ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:45 PM To: MACY, PATRICK Subject: RE: Powers Blvd, Lyman Blvd & 212 proposed development Aanenson, Kate From: Laufenburger, Denny Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:45 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Gerhardt, Todd Subject: FW: The Proposal for the Quadrant For the record.... DENNY LAUFENBURGER Mayor, City of Chanhassen 612 - 327 -6800 (cell) From: Erin [erinmichellel3 @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:40 AM To: City Council Subject: The Proposal for the Quadrant Dear Chanhassen City Council, I would like to voice my family's concerns regarding the proposed development of the Quadrant. My husband attended the open house meeting the Carlston group held and we have read through all the proposal documents and have many concerns with this proposal. First of all, the high density housing (apartments) proposal. There is already so much housing in Chanhassen that is vacant (off 101 and 212 for example), I don't think there is a need for more apartments especially luxury. The cost per month would be more than buying a house and paying mortgage with the interest rates as low as they are right now. Also, having them right in the back yard of houses is concerning to me as there will be significantly increased traffic and turnover if they do indeed fill up. I compare this to the Southwest Station condos in Eden prairie. There are many vacant units there, they ended up turning the condos into apartments (my cousin owns one of them and he is up to date with all this information) and the businesses there, even though right by the transit station have a lot of turnover. My concern is this would be very similar... Secondly, they are talking about putting in a luxury hotel. These are typically many stories high and I believe it would be an eye sore in the neighborhood. Also, Chanhassen already has three hotels I don't see the need for another, unless a market study has been performed that I'm not aware of that shows the demand /need? I know from experience of friends and family coming to visit from out of town that they always stay near the airport or the Mall of America or they stay with us. There isn't much out here so I don't see the need /demand for a large luxury hotel. Thirdly, they mentioned putting in a new movie theater. Chanhassen already has a movie theater, and this one would definitely put that one out of business. Also, the amount of traffic and noise that goes along with a movie theater would be a negative for the neighborhoods surrounding it. Fourthly, I am sure I speak for many residents of Chanhassen when I say this. Our family didn't move here for convenience. If we wanted that, we would have moved to Minneapolis, Eden Prairie or Edina. We were drawn by the small town charm of the city and Downtown. I feel a project this large scale would put downtown Chanhassen out of business. It would just shift the money from downtown to here instead of bringing in more money. Finally, I work in Maple Grove and frequent Arbor Lakes (which the Carlston group compared this to) and have seen it grow and develop. In the building of Arbor lakes, they had a lot more real estate to From: MACY, PATRICK [ mailto :PATRICK.MACY @valspar.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:24 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: kirkwaltonPgmail.com Subject: Powers Blvd, Lyman Blvd & 212 proposed development To whom it may concern: I'm writing to the members of Chanhassen that have decision powers as it relates to developing the City of Chanhassen. I'm specifically writing to express concerns related to the proposed development within the SW land parcel located at the Powers Blvd. and Lyman Blvd. junction. I understand the need for the City of Chanhassen to develop its infrastructure and entertainment options for the residents of the City. However, I do have concerns that we are allowing the Scott Carlston of the Level 7 Development to not follow the rules laid out by the city in his proposals. Here are the concerns: 1) We have created an whole NEW classification for this development — Regional /Lifestyle Center Commercial a. Defeniation can be found in the document from Kate Aanenson (AICP, Community Development Directory) b. But includes the potential following businesses i. Entertainment, Department Store, Comparison Shopping Specialty Retail /Boutique, Restaurants, Hotels and Residential. ISSUE #1— I researched the City's plans for this land at the time of my purchase on 10/27/2011. There was not this classification of development. o It was zoned for light commercial development and I understood that and accepted that. A hotel, Department Store and Low /Med /High density living quarters WERE NOT PART OF THE PLAN. • ISSUE #2 —There was not an access point that was linked to Lyman Blvd from the North Properties and there was not access from Mills Drive to these properties on the EAST side of the Preserve. • This now lends for NON neighborhood traffic to be allotted through our neighborhoods. • This is NOT something I and the neighborhood signed up for. Per 2030 Comprehensive Plan Definitions Created by City of Chanhassen vs Regional Commercial 212 & Powers document and associated letter to City Planning Commissioner put together by Scott Carlston with a date of 2/4/2035. 2) Residential High Density— between 8 -16 units per acre and target is 10 a. Plan provided by Scott Carlston initially asked for 300. Has now been modified to 190 for the HIGH DENSITY UNITS • ISSUE — plan calls for only allocating 5.6 acres thus MAX allotted units PER Chanhassen would be 90 units and the target would be 55 units. 3) Residential Med Density —between 4 -8 units per acre and target is 6 a. Plan provided by Scott Carlston is indicating 55 units. • ISSUE— plan calls for only allocating 4.9 acres for Low /Med Density thus max allotted units PER Chanhassen would be 40 units with the target of 30 units. 4) 2.5.3 definition on 2030 plan states following— Residential Medium: "Medium Density as transitional use between LOW density and commercial, office or HIGH density areas ". • ISSUE —the HIGH density allocated by Scott Carlston abuts the LOW density Preserve neighborhood (Bethesda) without a NEEDED transitional Medium Density. NOTE: Memorandum Letter to Todd Gerhardt, City Manager from; Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATED — 12/1/2014 Subject Lifestyle Center On page 3 direct copy "To receive the Regional Commercial zoning and ordinance requires that the property be under one owner and be developed under a PUD. The developer is REQUIRED to demonstrate that they are meeting the vision of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as well as the intent of the zoning District Staff is recommending that the developer proceed thought the concept PUD process in order to demonstrate concurrence with the city's vision.." ■ The following should be noted 1) Developer does not own all 160 acres noted in this noted parcel (LRC Holdings owns the properties 25023430, 25030420 & 250230410). These properties owned by LRC consists of 40+ acres. Scott Carlston is talking about them as if he is developing them. i. Commenting on road access to Lyman though the road would be through the LRC Holdings property. * ** Can the Regional Commercial Zoning permit if the whole 160 acres cannot be part of the development per the NOTES from the Memorandum noted above. Any additional information you can provide regarding the proposed development would be great. Please let me know if there are additional individuals I should contact with my concerns. Thank you, Pat Macy 612 - 656 -1342 Aanenson, Kate From: Laufenburger, Denny Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:45 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Gerhardt, Todd Subject: FW: The Proposal for the Quadrant For the record.... DENNY LAUFFNBURGER Mayor, City of Chanhassen 612 - 327 -6800 (cell) From: Erin [erinmichellel3 @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:40 AM To: City Council Subject: The Proposal for the Quadrant Dear Chanhassen City Council, I would like to voice my family's concerns regarding the proposed development of the Quadrant. My husband attended the open house meeting the Carlston group held and we have read through all the proposal documents and have many concerns with this proposal. First of all, the high density housing (apartments) proposal. There is already so much housing in Chanhassen that is vacant (off 101 and 212 for example), I don't think there is a need for more apartments especially luxury. The cost per month would be more than buying a house and paying mortgage with the interest rates as low as they are right now. Also, having them right in the back yard of houses is concerning to me as there will be significantly increased traffic and turnover if they do indeed fill up. I compare this to the Southwest Station condos in Eden prairie. There are many vacant units there, they ended up turning the condos into apartments (my cousin owns one of them and he is up to date with all this information) and the businesses there, even though right by the transit station have a lot of turnover. My concern is this would be very similar... Secondly, they are talking about putting in a luxury hotel. These are typically many stories high and I believe it would be an eye sore in the neighborhood. Also, Chanhassen already has three hotels I don't see the need for another, unless a market study has been performed that I'm not aware of that shows the demand /need? I know from experience of friends and family coming to visit from out of town that they always stay near the airport or the Mall of America or they stay with us. There isn't much out here so I don't see the need /demand for a large luxury hotel. Thirdly, they mentioned putting in a new movie theater. Chanhassen already has a movie theater, and this one would definitely put that one out of business. Also, the amount of traffic and noise that goes along with a movie theater would be a negative for the neighborhoods surrounding it. Fourthly, I am sure I speak for many residents of Chanhassen when I say this. Our family didn't move here for convenience. If we wanted that, we would have moved to Minneapolis, Eden Prairie or Edina. We were drawn by the small town charm of the city and Downtown. I feel a project this large scale would put downtown Chanhassen out of business. It would just shift the money from downtown to here instead of bringing in more money. Finally, I work in Maple Grove and frequent Arbor Lakes (which the Carlston group compared this to) and have seen it grow and develop. In the building of Arbor lakes, they had a lot more real estate to work with and they also built the houses around the businesses. In this case, they are trying to build businesses around houses and a High School just down the road. With the large scale size of this project, it's going to increase noise, traffic and crime and most likely cause all the surrounding housing values to decline (in the perimeter of Pioneer Trail, Audobon, Lyman, and Powers). I realize the area won't remain farm fields forever, but building it up too fast without thorough studies regarding traffic, noise, house value, market demand /need etc could be detrimental. Once it's there it's there forever. I believe a slower, well thought out and planned approach would be more beneficial to the city to ensure it's done right, downtown isn't negatively affected, and the city stays as charming and desirable as it has been for many years. I appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely, Erin Wong (Chanhassen Resident) ��kk4 I DESNG N ENS Consulting Group, Inc. SRF No. 0076098 MEMORANDUM TO: Nathen Will, P.E. Senior Associate FROM: Patrick Corkle, P.E. (MN,WI), PTOE, Principal Leif Gamass, P.E. (MN,MO), PTOE, Senior Engineer DATE: January 12, 2012 SUBJECT: LYMAN BOULEVARD PHASE III ANALYSIS UPDATE (REVISED FROM 5/26/2011) CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) is being upgraded from a two -lane undivided roadway to a four - lane divided roadway from Audubon Road (north of Lyman Boulevard) to Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17). This study provides a history of the previous worked completed and provides an update of the operational analysis results at the following intersections: • Audubon Road (north of Lyman Boulevard) at Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) • Sunset Trail at Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) • Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) at Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) • TH 212 North Ramps at Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) -- not part of CSAH 18 upgrade • TH 212 South Ramps at Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) -- not part of CSAH 18 upgrade Traffic volume forecasts and a traffic analysis (Intersection Control Evaluation) were previously completed in 2007 to determine the roadway configuration and traffic control devices along the Lyman Boulevard corridor. This analysis was completed prior to the opening of the Chanhassen High School, approval of the local community comprehensive plans in Carver County, and the completion of the TH 212 Design -Build project. With the completion of these significant documents/projects, it seemed prudent to update the previous traffic analysis. PROJECT HISTORY Table 1 on the following page summarizes the differences in the traffic forecasting assumptions and data sources between the original 2007 intersection control evaluation study and the more recent work. Differences between the studies are based on the travel demand model used, www.srfconsuIting.com One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 1 Minneapolis, MN 55447 -4443 1 763.475.0010 Fax: 763.475.2429 An Equal Opportunity Employer Nathen Will, P.E. January 12, 2012 Page 2 roadway network assumptions, and land use assumptions for the area bounded by Lyman Boulevard, Powers Boulevard, Audubon Road, and Pioneer Trail. Table 1 Forecast Assumptions & Data Sources Assumptions & Data Sources Original Forecasts (completed in 200 Revised Forecasts i ure 3 Updated Forecasts (Figure 4 Existing Base Conditions Chanhassen High School Estimated volumes tD Collected volumes (September 2010) Collected volumes (Sep 2010/Mar 2011) New TH 212 Alignment (impact of traffic volumes Estimated volumes ts> Future Assumptions 2006 Draft Carver County Roadway Systems Plan X 2009 Update Carver County Roadway Systems Plan X X Chanhassen 2005 AUAR X X (3) City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan X (4) Land Use Summary Residential 1496 dwelling units 1634 dwelling units 857 dwelling units Office 285,000 sq ft 724,000 sq ft 1,368,000 sq it Retail Development 200,000 sq ft No retail 644,000 sq ft tit Based on volumes collected by Traffic Data, Inc. in September of 2006. t �1 Based on typical forecasting methodology. 0) Regionanifestyle Center land use substituted from 2030 Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment A). t4) Assumes 50 percent retail and 50 percent office land uses as direct by the City (see Attachment A and Attachment B — Considemtion of 100 percent retail). The Twin Cities Regional Travel Demand Model developed by the Metropolitan Council was updated with the additional detail described in Table 1. The following provides additional supporting details: • Chanhassen Hi School: The High School opened in the fall of 2009. Turning movement counts collected in September of 2010 and March of 2011 (see Figure 2) reflect the actual traffic patterns induced by the new school. The estimated volumes used in the 2007 study were based on volumes collected in September of 2006 by Traffic Data, Inc. • New TH 212 Alignment: This new freeway facility opened for its entire length in the fall of 2008. Traffic volumes (collected in September of 2010 and March of 2011) used in the current study forecasts reflect the actual impact of this facility on travel patterns near the study corridor. The estimated volumes used in the 2007 study were based typical forecasting methodology for a proposed roadway network. • Carver County Roadway Systems Plan: The initial draft of this plan was developed in 2006. It was then updated in 2009 with more recent land use data (no roadway network Nathen Will, P.E. January 12,2012 Page 3 changes) reflecting recently completed comprehensive plans in cities throughout Carver County during the period since 2006. The "County Only" roadway improvement scenario from the Plan was used in the development of traffic volumes for this study. This means no new capacity was assumed on trunk highways, most notably TH 5 and TH 41 near the study area. • Chanhassen 2005 AUAR: This document provided additional roadway network and land use details for the area bounded by Lyman Boulevard, Powers Boulevard, Audubon Road, and Pioneer Trail. No retail development was included. • City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan defines a mix of commercial and office land uses in the southwest quadrant of CSAH 18 (Lyman Boulevard) and CSAH 17 (Powers Boulevard) for year 2030. Direction was provided by the County to substitute these land use assumptions in place of the land uses previously referenced in the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR for this specific location. See Attachment A for additional details on the Regional/Lifestyle Center land use update. Forecasts prepared assuming the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR land uses are shown in Figure 3. Forecasts prepared assuming the 2030 Comprehensive Plan substituted land uses are shown in Figure 4. It should be noted that these changes to the forecasts from the 2007 study are dependent on the east -west collector connection at the TH 212 north ramp intersection of Powers Boulevard. Without this connection, future volumes at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard would increase above those shown in Figures 3 and 4. YEAR 2010 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions analysis is based on existing traffic volumes and existing roadway geometrics /control (see Figure 2). Table 2 provides a summary of the existing conditions operational analysis results. Table 2 Year 2010 Existing Conditions Operational Analysis Results Intersection Level of Service A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Audubon Road north at Lyman Boulevard A / E t`) A / B Sunset Trail at Lyman Boulevard A/C A/C Powers Boulevard at Lyman Boulevard C C TH 212 North Ramps at Powers Boulevard A B TH 212 South Ramps at Powers Boulevard B B "X / X" indicates overall intersection operations followed by worst operating approach. 1p Acceptable levels of service achieved under traffic signal controlled conditions. Nathen Will, P.E. January 12, 2012 Page 4 Results of the analysis indicate the study intersections operate at overall acceptable levels of service under year 2010 existing conditions; however, the side - street stop controlled southbound left-turn movement at the Audubon Road/Lyman Boulevard intersection operates at a LOS E. Traffic signal warrant criteria are not satisfied at this intersection under existing volume and geometric conditions. Additionally, queues for the northbound left -turn at the Powers Boulevard/Lyman Boulevard intersection occasionally spill out of the exclusive turn lane and block the inside northbound thru lane during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, queues for the westbound left -turn at the TH 212 North Ramps/Powers Boulevard intersection also occasionally spill out of the exclusive turn lane. YEAR 2030 BUILD CONDITIONS Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Land Use Forecasts The year 2030 build conditions analysis was based on existing intersection control, forecasted traffic volumes, and recommended improvements as shown in Figure 3. Theses recommended improvements were previously included in the layout dated February 4, 2011. Table 3 provides a summary of the operational analysis results. Table 3 Year 2030 Build Conditions (Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Land Use Forecasts) Operational Analysis Results Intersection Level of Service A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Audubon Road north at Lyman Boulevard F / F 01 F / F Sunset Trail at Lyman Boulevard A / F °' A / F Powers Boulevard at Lyman Boulevard D D "X / X" indicates overall intersection operations followed by worst operating approach. (" Acceptable levels of service achieved under traffic signal controlled conditions. Results of the analysis indicate the Audubon Road (north of Lyman Boulevard)/Lyman Boulevard and Sunset Trail/Lyman Boulevard intersections are expected to operate poorly under future build conditions assuming the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR land use forecasts. The installation of traffic signal control would provide acceptable operations at the Audubon Road and Sunset Trail intersections. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Substituted Land Use Forecasts The year 2030 build conditions analysis is based on existing intersection control, forecasted traffic volumes, and recommended improvements as shown in Figure 4. Table 4 provides a summary of the operational analysis results. Nathen Will, P.E. January 12, 2012 Page 5 Table 4 Year 2030 Build Conditions (2030 Comprehensive Plan Substituted Land Use Forecasts) Operational Analysis Results Intersection Level of Service A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Audubon Road north at Lyman Boulevard F / F'D F / F Sunset Trail at Lyman Boulevard A/ F °' F/ F Powers Boulevard at Lyman Boulevard C D TH 212 North Ramps at Powers Boulevard C D'2t TH 212 South Rams at Powers Boulevard B B "X / X" indicates overall intersection operations followed by worst operating approach. " t Acceptable levels of service achieved under haffic signal controlled conditions. '2' Construction of the fourth leg, and additional improvements, are required to achieve LOS D. Results of the analysis indicate the Audubon Road (north of Lyman Boulevard)/Lyman Boulevard and Sunset Trail/Lyman Boulevard intersections are expected to operate poorly under future build conditions. The installation of traffic signal control would provide acceptable operations at the Audubon Road and Sunset Trail intersections. Based on current growth projections, traffic signal control would be warranted at the Audubon Road intersection in 10 to 15 years but would not be warranted at the Sunset Trail intersection during the 20 year study period. The current geometric layout of TH 212 North Ramps/Powers Boulevard intersection includes turn lanes for access to the future fourth leg of the intersection; however, the following geometrics are needed to accommodate the design year 2030 build volutes: • Eastbound: Two left -turn lanes, two thm lanes, and one right -turn lane. • Westbound: Two left -turn lanes, one thru lane, and two right -turn lanes. Table 5 provides a summary of the design year 2030 build conditions volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios. A V/C ratio gives an estimate of the available capacity of an intersection. Table 5 Year 2030 Build Conditions (2030 Comprehensive Plan Substituted Land Use Forecasts) Volume -to- Capacity (V /C) Ratios Intersection V/C A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Powers Boulevard at Lyman Boulevard 0.73 0.79 TH 212 North Ramps at Powers Boulevard 0.63 0.9400 TH 212 South Rams at Powers Boulevard 0.49 0.53 Constmction of the fourth leg, and previously noted improvements, are required to achieve a V/C < 1. Based on the V/C ratios, capacity is available at the Powers Boulevard/Lyman Boulevard and TH 212 South Ramps/Powers Boulevard intersections; however, the TH 212 North Nathen Will, P.E. January 12, 2012 Page 6 Ramps/Powers Boulevard intersection is expected to operate near capacity under the 2030 Comprehensive Plan substituted land use forecasts. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAYOUT Given the construction of the fourth leg and the geometrics needed to accommodate the design year 2030 volumes at the TH 212 North Ramps /Powers Boulevard intersection, the recommendations detailed below will provide acceptable operations under both year 2030 forecasted build conditions (Chanhassen 2005 AUAR and 2030 Comprehensive Plan forecasts). Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) at Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) Continuation of traffic signal control is recommended at the Powers Boulevard/Lyman Boulevard intersection. Recommended roadway geometrics are below: • Northbound: Two left -turn lanes (325 feet minimum), two thin lanes, and one right - turn lane (250 feet minimum). • Southbound: No modifications to existing. • Eastbound: One left -turn lane (400 feet minimum), one thro lane, and one "trap" right -tum lane (600 feet of six inch solid white striping, 200 feet of six inch dotted white striping with a "pork chop" island). • Westbound: No geometric capacity improvements needed. A two -lane roadway is acceptable based on operations east of Powers Boulevard but a right -turn trap is created from the eastbound transition from the four-lane roadway to the two -lane roadway. Poorly designed trap lanes can confuse drivers because they violate driver expectations; however, trap lanes are safe and can operate efficiently when they are properly signed and striped. Audubon Road (north of Lyman Boulevard) at Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) Continuation of side - street stop control is recommended at the Audubon Road (north of Lyman Boulevard)/Lyman Boulevard intersection until further study warrants a change in traffic control. This recommendation is consistent with the previous intersection control evaluation (ICE) document prepared in 2007. The need for traffic signal control should be evaluated as future development occurs along the corridor and based on current growth projections, traffic signal warrant criteria would be satisfied in 10 to 15 years. Recommended roadway geometrics are below: • Northbound *: One left -turn lane and one shared thm/right -turn lane. • Southbound: One left -turn lane and one shared thru* /right -turn lane. • Eastbound: One left -turn lane, two thm lanes, and one right -turn lane *. • Westbound: One left -turn lane *, two thm lanes, and one right -turn lane. * For future roadway. Nathen Will, P.E. Sunset Trail at Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) January 12, 2012 Page 7 Continuation of side - street stop control is recommended at the Sunset Trail/Lyman Boulevard intersection until further study warrants a change in traffic control. The need for traffic signal control should be evaluated as future development occurs along the corridor and based on current growth projections, traffic signal control would not be warranted in during the 20 year study period, although the warrants should be reviewed based on the actual regional/lifestyle center development. Recommended roadway geometrics are below: • Northbound *: One shared left- turn/thru lane and one right -tum lane. • Southbound: One shared left- turn/thru* /right -turn lane. • Eastbound: One left -turn lane, two thru lanes, and one right -turn lane *. • Westbound: One left -turn lane *, two thru lanes, and one right -turn lane. • For future roadway. N: IProjects16098- P317S Memo 1120112 _Lyman &PowersUpdate_ ..does s_ � e P§ ' � ,amucr w. »e HaV aLw r ea er. hex a t _ caaoicnw n �. n � E o- mseca - Z ffi m i 0.1MH1 M� W 91M91 R e� is ,p. ❑1 w � � g � � � � � � � �✓ �, ap yC1e�C. p t 6 LekeSUSa C Marsh' f� • s a t dF Y W1w, a �L�L `� c �� c p �x.� E �♦ e,� E 4� d m 4 Paa 5. mna g Q 64urAe y_ R ` PROJECT LOCATION aww aaa,aaeximxL wE m L1LItl ® avw 4nx 4 2, ,gom,LpL� jjP� Y 9 M Hazel ne Lake a'�uwo' ... , �a i� -- — O ,..4LnxiM... E,>:J` Z E � ,nLaeanaueoa. � 2000POP. ewa u '@ 4P fp6 � Z � m av4..m,L� a• ,n.4�,aLa w 4m C ;,a:a�* a meaaanavaL x na „ten a,• r. ,� a.nwaaw. ma�.,m yT {L4 tj' wu, tl tl 4xi L +s.ewwrv.�rn �n uerg4 "5} fir O d M L axv� LEGEND w �- P an Boulevard Phase 111 Analysis Update Figure 1 aac UO_wae Carver County May 2011 Year 2010 Existing Volumes and Geometrics Gonu,lflng. Group. W. Lyman Boulevard Phase IIIAnalysis Update Figure 2 M 01.8095 Carver County , Mey 2011 Z� •-• iu wiwmn. v✓°` d1 °i �_ L 57 m m m w @ WPq — (56) F. Op � t_88 (52) X755 b 1/Y I r a (2 0) f S 4 4-t* (310) w¢er. rt � 57) 121 --t & (91) 9 3 Q � (530) 318 (185)140 a ro � y C a 1 S La (292)146 o J N Meal teA �ww � / 5G v m� .u�y C, araq•�. � iw /4u'MW 4 4 4 � Jp 12.90011 "`J° 456 17.8001 11 r 79 �Mp a 111,300] aw. 18.800) g [4.400] • �} Ktr / Hawk a Lake roavzmm +r n.wuevF..m a tea, Lae Rile IL zoSOroP. W eFOe u u.siamwcv Z 4 Q_ s am�mnwraac I+ A «r.an wr. ivaserhvm i C .ai � ianam� Q� N � a Nv �YBICM 9�tAE OI d 234 (64) 1�l1�9111R 1 a,wrvwmc s n ueryyiy rouvu R �' 6 (3) B Y a } LEGEND t XX - A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I ' `" $ (XX) - P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4• w 6 POOai - Average Daily Traffic ? 34s s w o wa.b B - Signalized Intersection Side Street Stop Controlled w r7,a G - - -- i - - - - Future Roadway 6 5i E Year 2010 Existing Volumes and Geometrics Gonu,lflng. Group. W. Lyman Boulevard Phase IIIAnalysis Update Figure 2 M 01.8095 Carver County , Mey 2011 R- b • 1m maurer. ,w OMb#1W R I; W. M e i4 <iM[8[ 6 m. mcxen. e a. sd I] d 0. 9 -re.� @ no.emamt Forecasted Volumes Based rp i a alb e m on 2007 Study wo L140 QS) ° t5 (10) ce>f U ' f! a oI `" X1040(660) `^-.I_° (30) b (70) >� L 90 (100) M1ABh 1.a 4 r/0 i r35 m $ �— 220 (200) nwn (350)2502 (5) 61 590 } g )114 r30 (80) /V cw,Sw s,a x y ) ( ]95 45 (35) 10 - ( (45) 15 � i'" ° 1280) 260 a ih' A • o o 'a a <'an - g' @ (240) 210 (490) 250 [9.1001 ` D + I10.e091 M4Ytllf. 4 � a nxw 120.0001 R. 0.- mwv e� 7" � � P4 rye rye• f7.saq � � � WWI ff rIA4.% 121.0001 � Hazelt ne Lake lmwoe�,ana m a. ¢ m La Z 20oopop. nOcoE u 4P 4! �yW` saicm�.�. RII W Z a 0ac ¢ 'vmaxaEna:�w. LEGEND u. w m.wnworra� 11s,aa01 .um.,,a 1Y XX - A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes a, p p e� Evns a (XX) - P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes s .8 s+ P(,xxxl - Average Daily Traffic Q rc - Signalized IntersecIton di8 i O ,� 0 - Side -Street Stop ConVOI(ed s9 - - - - Future Roadway For Future Roadway «,�� Year 2030 Build Conditions - Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Land Uses J Lyman Boulevard Phase III Analysis Update Figure 3 CunudOng O.00p. mc. eRF W. 6096 Carver County "201, t CCUret �6 �, S • • a * fti Q �, � ■Q Z i O O v L145 (135 e• m'g'm LS (10) act ° °' m 1015 (815) "' ° 1130 (710) S ff m° m m° L e0 (100) Marsh �i 4-10 (35) N� r35 (90) p 1 �— 220 (20) La * •a,• 3 � l 1 � r (� F aY"a" (120) 175 -' (5) 5 � �}� "a""6' (280) 245., ,o q,w„ • (es5) 670 --i '� �� (955) 815 y • _I �k (280) 200 Ms's r�O' a (35) to rx f m (215) 170 � u ° o jf {�j (475) 240'i N (24.0001 ¢o,000l Izl,00m fa.7am 9 a U o t. ker 560 (47 c 165 (20 0 140 (2.0001 200 (525) U E i Ifne Lake 6iavw.mww ry Q -- ns,W01 ,a w•wi *�� {` } },1 ? 2o000op. gyp°$ e•x to + +woou� (4.eam +a.maooci (205) 70 1* �1 I I I W 1 Rlle 4 Qe ap [ .9am ^i ' i4'• a1r —m •• . . 8, o „•aim. Z (330) 80 m O) 1t0 W T v (10.aam _ nwwm•w • c u H t Q 'Sp B 4'+ L 510 (385) ne,oaq �m.e.•1•, awsr9e +�' a e.•nwmn. •annoywboay.w _ n n• 4- is (15) LEGEND = ffi 1 °#' R' XX - A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes "� (XX) - P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXk)q - Average Daily Traffic Z 9 - Signalized Intersection - Side - Street Stop Controlled - Future Roadway - For Future Roadway Year 2030 Build Conditions - Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Uses Figure 4 Lyman Boulevard Phase III Analysis Update Carver County MW 2011 ATTACHMENT A REGIONAULIFESTYLE CENTER LAND USE FORECAST REVISIONS Previous forecasts were prepared using land use assumptions obtained from the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR. This planning document included only residential land uses for parcels in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard. The City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan has specified this area could be developed with a mix of retail and office land uses. The county has provided direction to prepare revised traffic forecasts and operations analysis assuming retail and office land uses. The parcels to be updated for the traffic forecasts were first identified using the Carver County Property Assessment website. This investigation showed that the area to be developed in the southwest quadrant of the Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is approximately 116 acres, as shown in Figure A.1. Figure A.1 The direction provided by the city included the following assumptions: • The developable land area of these parcels should be reduced by 15 percent to account for roadway right -of -way and ponding requirements. • The remaining land was to be divided into 50 percent retail and 50 percent office land uses.* • Both retail and office land uses were to assume 0.3 floor area ratios (FAR). *See Attachment B for a high level planning assessment of a 100 percent retail land use assumption for the RegionalQ.ifestyle Center development. These computations resulted in estimates of approximately 644,000 square feet each of retail and office building sizes. Tables A.2 and A.3 summarize these estimates. Table A.2 Develonable Land Area Land Area Percent Acre sqft Size ROW/Ponding 100% 15% 116 17 5,052,960 757,944 Developable 85% 99 4,295,016 Table A.3 Buildine Size Calculations Development Size Percent Land (sqft) FAR Building (sqft) Developable Area 100% 4,295,016 Commercial 50% 2,147,508 0.3 644,252 Office 50% 2,147,508 0.3 644,252 The revised land use and building size estimates were convened to units of retail and non - retail employment, which are used as inputs to the Twin Cities Regional Travel Demand Model as modified for the Carver County Roadway Systems Plan. Typical factors of two retail employees per thousand square feet of commercial space and three office employees per thousand square feet of office space were used to develop these estimates. Table AA shows the resulting employee totals estimated for this development. Table AA Reeional/Lifestvle Center — Year 2030 EmDlovment Estimates Land Use Type Building Employees Retail Non -Retail (sqft) per 1000 sqft Employees Employees Commercial 644,252 2.0 1,289 Office 644,252 3.0 1,933 This revised land use information was updated in the Twin Cities Regional Travel Demand Model as modified for the Carver County Roadway Systems Plan. The trips generated in the travel demand model showed for both AUAR and regional /lifestyle center land uses are shown in Table A.5. Table A.5 Year 2030 Trip Generation Summary Forecast Scenario AM Peak h PM Peak h Daily Trips AUAR 630 705 7,900 RegionaULifestyle Center 1,430 2,860 28,600 The direction of approach for these trips was identified for year 2030 conditions, and is shown in Figure A.2. Figure A.2 Direction of Approach (Year 2U3U Uontlitions) C 15% ` 10%6t 1% 5I ;P15% Internal 10% 1. 5% 10% The resulting trips were substituted for the trips generated by residential land use in previous forecasts. Additional consideration was given to the peak hour percent of daily traffic and the directional distributions of the retail and office vehicle trips. The resulting daily volume forecasts and peak hour traffic volumes to be analyzed in the operations analysis are provided in Traffic Memorandum in Figure 4. ATTACHMENT B PLANNING LEVEL ANALYSIS OF REVISED LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS As detailed in Attachment A, previous forecasts prepared for this study assumed the land use assumptions obtained from the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR, which included only residential land uses for parcels in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard. The City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan has specified this area could be developed with a mix of residential, retail and office land uses. As directed by the city, the updated traffic forecasts assumed a land use breakdown of 50 percent retail and 50 percent office land uses (see Attachment A) in the absence of a current development plan for the Regional/Lifestyle Center development. The following summarizes a high level planning assessment of a 100 percent retail land use assumption for the Regional/Lifestyle Center development. Traffic Volume Forecasts A land use assumption of 100 percent retail for the Regional/Lifestyle Center development would have the following impact on the traffic volume forecasts: • Daily trip generation at the site would increase by 8,000 to 15,000 (over previously reported). • Forecast daily volumes on the site access road (across from the north ramp on Powers) could be expected to increase from 15,000 to 20,000- 25,000. • Forecast daily traffic volumes at the north site access at Lyman (across from Sunset) could be expected to increase from 5,400 to potentially to 7,500- 10,000. Traffic Operations Analysis The increase in trips would have an impact to the LOS and recommended improvements. The following summarizes the potential impacts with many of them extending beyond the current Lyman Boulevard reconstruction project limits (see Figure B.1): • The most likely impacted area would be Powers Boulevard at the TH 212 North Ramp intersection. • Dual eastbound right -turns would likely be needed. • A dual lane off -ramp would likely be needed. • An additional southbound thru lane (extended left -turn lane at TH 212 South Ramp intersection) would also likely be needed. • Dual eastbound left -turns would likely be needed at the Lyman Boulevard/Powers Boulevard intersection. This would also impact the westbound approach to the intersection. • An additional northbound lane between the TH 212 North Ramp and Lyman Boulevard would likely be needed. This additional lane would serve as an extended left -turn lane for northbound approach to Lyman Boulevard. • It is very unlikely that the general number of lanes (4 -lane) on Lyman Boulevard would change. In the absence of a detailed development plan for the Regional/Lifestyle Center development, a 50 percent retail and 50 percent office land use breakdown is a reasonable assumption given the current economic environment of the southwest metro region. Assuming the 100 percent retail land use, which is a worst case scenario, would likely require additional improvements beyond the Lyman Boulevard improvement project, as well as other improvements to Powers Boulevard and to the MnDOT ramp. These additional improvements (see Figure B.l) extend beyond the current Lyman Boulevard project limits which include the Lyman Boulevard/Powers Boulevard intersection, but do not extend south on Powers Boulevard to the TH 212 ramp intersections. Additionally, the project budget does not allow for these additional construction costs of $4 -6 million dollars (see Figure B.1). The 100 percent retail land use scenario requires high intensity commercial development (1.3 million square feet), which has no immediate development plan, and would require overbuilding of the roadway network. We would not recommend these additional improvements as they are cost prohibitive and beyond the scope of the current county project. Figure B.1 100% Retail Land Use — Additional Improvements & Associated Costs