The URL can be used to link to this page

Appendices CombinedChanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 49 APPENDIX 1— • RESOLUTION ORDERING THE AUAR • CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESOLUTION # 016-XXX Y CITY OF ClIANIIASSEN d w 9 S Chanhassen isa Community for Life-Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow NH A MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director DATE: November 28, 2016 SUBJ: Adopt Resolution Ordering the Update to the AUAR, 2005MUSA Area; and Approve Professional Services Agreements PROPOSED MOTION The Chanhassen City Council adopts a Resolution ordering the Update to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the 2005 MUSA Area; and approves professional services agreements with Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc." City Council approval of requires a simple majority vote of City Council. BACKGROUND With conceptual PUD approval of Avienda by the City Council, staff has prepared a resolution ordering the update to the AUAR. What is an AUAR? An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is authorized under Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3610 as an alternative form of environmental review for development projects. Generally, the AUAR consists of a hypothetical development scenario, an inventory of environmental and cultural resources, an assessment of the "cumulative" impacts that the development scenario may have on these resources as well as public infrastructure services, and a set of mitigation measures that reduce or eliminate the potential impacts generated by the development. The AUAR is intended to address the "cumulative" impacts resulting from a sequence of related development projects as opposed to and Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)or Environmental Impact Statement( EIS) which simply looks at a single project's impacts and does not attempt to outline mitigation initiatives. PH 952.227.1100• www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us • FX 952.227.1110 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA 55317 AUAR Update November 28, 2016 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS Because the AUAR was adopted in 2003, it needs to be updated. The Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program has the following criteria regulating the updating of the AUAR: 4410.3610 Alternative Urban Areawide Review Process Subp. 7. Updating the review. To remain valid as a substitute form of review, the environmental analysis document and the plan for mitigation must be revised if any of the circumstances in items A to H apply. A. Five years have passed since the Regulatory Governmental Unit(RGU) adopted the original environmental analysis document and plan for mitigation or the latest revision. This item does not apply if all development within the area has been given final approval by the RGU. B. A comprehensive plan amendment is proposed that would allow an increase in development over the levels assumed in the environmental analysis document. C. Total development within the area would exceed the maximum levels assumed in the environmental analysis document. D. Development within any subarea delineated in the environmental analysis document would exceed the maximum levels assumed for that subarea in the document. A substantial change is proposed in public facilities intended to service development in the area that may result in increased adverse impacts on the environment. E. Development or construction of public facilities will occur on a schedule other than that assumed in the environmental analysis document or plan for mitigation so as to substantially increase the likelihood or magnitude of potential adverse environmental impacts or to substantially postpone the implementation of identified mitigation measures. F. New information demonstrates that important assumptions or background conditions used in the analysis presented in the environmental analysis document are substantially in error and that environmental impacts have consequently been substantially underestimated. G. The RGU determines that other substantial changes have occurred that may affect the potential for, or magnitude of, adverse environmental impacts. AUAR Update November 28,2016 Page 3 of 3 The 118 area proposed for development was re-guided from low density residential to either office or Regional Commercial in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, which is an increase in development levels. Over five years have passed since the AUAR was approved. The plan must be updated for Avienda to move forward. The AUAR is a public process taking approximately four to five months and requires City Council approval. Attached for approval are two professional services agreements, one from Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKgi) in the amount of$40,000 for land use planning, document preparation, project management and public engagement; and one from Kimley-Horn &Associates in the amount of$54, 570 for engineering services (traffic, sanitary sewer,potable water, and storm water). While the city is the Regulatory Governmental Unit assigned with the responsibility for conducting the AUAR,the developer, Level 7 Development, is responsible for paying for the AUAR update. The study will proceed once the applicant has escrowed the cost for the update of the AUAR. The cost of original AUAR, $114,395.47, of which $11465.00 was split among all property owners in the study area based on parcel size. All developed parcels have paid their portion of that AUAR. The parcels comprising the parcels in the Avienda development have an outstanding balance of$25,836.70. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion. The Chanhassen City Council adopts a Resolution ordering the Update to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the 2005 MUSA Area; and approves professional services agreements with Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc." ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution. 2. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Professional Services Agreement. 3. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Professional Services Agreement. 4. 2003 AUAR Cost Allocation 5. AUAR Update Schedule. g:\plan\2016 planning cases\2016-25 avienda-chan retail site\auar cc staff report-11-28-16.docx CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES,MINNESOTA DATE:November 28, 2016 RESOLUTION NO: 2016-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION ORDERING UPDATE TO THE ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREA WIDE REVIEW (AUAR) FOR THE 2005 METORPOLITIAN URBAN SERVICES AREA WHEREAS, on August 11, 2003 the City of Chanhassen, acting as the official Responsible Governmental Unit(RGU), approved Resolution 2003-70, an order for review requesting the initiation of an AUAR for the 2005 MUSA; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2003 the City Council adopted a Final AUAR Environment Analysis Document and Mitigation Plan in the 2005 MUSA; and WHEREAS, in November 10, 2008 the city adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a significant amount of development has occurred in the AUAR area but there are vacant parcels; most significantly 118 acres with a land use designation of either office or regional commercial designated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,the City of Chanhassen is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) assigned with the responsibility of conducting the AUAR; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Administrative Rule 4410.3610 requires that AUARs be updated every five years unless development has occurred and land use and densities have changed since 2003; and WHEREAS,the project area included approximately 600 acres within the City that is generally bound by Lyman Boulevard on the north, Audubon Road on west, Pioneer Trail on the south, and Powers Boulevard on the east,project area on the attached map shown as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the anticipated nature, location and intensity of projected future development is consistent with the development pattern stipulated in the current comprehensive plan. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen adopts the Order for Review for the update to the 2005 Chanhassen AUAR. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 28th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor YES NO ABSENT cfs5\cfs5\shared data\admin\resol\2016\11-28-16\auar.doc Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 50 APPENDIX 2—WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION: AVIENDA Report is available and will be provided upon request Avienda A Healthy Way of Life Village City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application Prepared for Level 7 Development, LLC by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2015-130) January 12, 2017 Avienda City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT SUMMARY................................................................................................1 2. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................1 2.1 Applicant’s Stated Project Purpose and Need ......................................................1 2.2 Mixed Use Lifestyle Centers Defined ..................................................................1 2.3 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Need ........................2 2.4 Geographic Area of Review .................................................................................3 3. ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS ..........................................................................3 3.1 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Requirements ..........3 3.2 Alternative Sites Selection Criteria for Practicability Determination ..................5 3.3 Alternative Sites Practicability Determination .....................................................6 3.4 Environmental Factors for Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination ..................8 3.5 Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination ...........................................................10 4. SITE LOCATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, & EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................11 4.1 Land Cover, Site Topography, and Drainage Areas ..........................................12 4.2 Wetland Delineation and Wetland Characteristics .............................................12 4.3 MnRAM Analysis and Applied Buffer Widths ..................................................14 5. SEQUENCING DISCUSSION/ONSITE ALTERNATIVES LEDPA DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................15 5.1 Project Goals and Requirements ........................................................................15 5.2 No-Build Alternative ..........................................................................................17 5.3 Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative ............................................................17 5.4 Minimization Alternative ...................................................................................20 5.5 Proposed Alternative/Proposed Project ..............................................................21 5.6 Proposed Project Impacts ...................................................................................23 5.7 Wetland Impact Minimization ...........................................................................24 5.8 Wetland Impact Rectification .............................................................................24 5.9 Wetland Impact Reduction or Elimination Over Time ......................................24 5.10 Sequencing Flexibility ......................................................................................24 6. WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN ......................................................................25 6.1 Compliance Framework and Required Replacement .........................................25 6.2 Replacement Plan Overview ..............................................................................26 6.4 Actions Eligible for Credit .................................................................................27 7. RARE SPECIES CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................28 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................29 FIGURES 1. Site Location and Property Boundary 2. Existing Land Cover 3. Topographic Elevations 4. Minor Watershed Boundaries 5. Existing Drainage Areas 6. Delineated Wetlands 7. Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative 8. Wetland Minimization Alternative 9. Proposed Alternative 10. Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas 11. Tree Removal Areas TABLES 1. Project Required Components with Component Minimum Acreage 2. Alternative Sites Comparison Matrix for Practicability Determination 3. Environmental Factor Matrix for LEDPA Determination 4. Summary of Delineated Wetlands 5. MnRAM Summary 6. Pre- and Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas for Alternatives Considered 7. Net Developable Area, Wetland Impacts, and LEDPA Determination for Alternatives Considered 8. Wetland Impact Summary 9. WCA and USACE Required Replacement APPENDICES A. Joint Application for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Alternative Sites Analysis Figures C. Wetland Delineation Notice of Decision D. Wetland Delineation Addendum E. Historic Photos and Topographic Maps F. MnRAM Analysis Output Results G. Onsite Alternatives Concept Plans H. Grading Plan I. Rare Species Information 1 Avienda City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Wetland Permit Application 1. PROJECT SUMMARY Level 7 Development, LLC is proposing to develop a 119.88-acre site in the City of Chanhassen as Avienda, a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) that will include a retail hub of specialty shops and restaurants, anchor retail, local supporting retail, hospitality, medical and professional offices, and townhomes and apartments to service an existing trade area population of more than 400,000 residents within and surrounding the City of Chanhassen. As proposed, the project will require 4.6462-acres of jurisdictional wetland fill and 0.3499-acre of jurisdictional wetland excavation. Approximately 714.5 linear feet (1,429 square feet) of USACE regulated waterway will also be impacted with project grading. Permanent wetland impacts are proposed to be replaced through the purchase of wetland bank credits from a Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) certified wetland bank located within the same Bank Service Area as the proposed project. The following narrative describes the Project Purpose and Need and provides an alternatives analysis addressing practicability, and LEDPA identification including an assessment of site alternatives, a description of the proposed project, a wetland sequencing discussion, and a proposed wetland replacement plan. Figures and appendices referenced are attached. The Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota is included as Appendix A. 2. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 2.1 Applicant’s Stated Project Purpose and Need To provide a viable mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center within the City of Chanhassen that will meet local and regional demand and need for the provided uses and implement the City’s vision and intent for property based on the current land use guidance plan. 2.2 Mixed Use Lifestyle Centers Defined Mixed use lifestyle centers are developed as a single cohesive project that provide a variety of uses/services to the local and regional population within a thoughtfully designed and meaningful layout that is largely walkable. A well thought out, integrated plan with complementary and Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 2 supporting uses that meets local and regional market demands is the driving factor for project viability. A project is typically considered mixed use if it has two or more uses that are both meaningful in scale and well thought out as independent parts. A viable project must have a centrally located retail hub (specialty shopping and restaurants) that creates consumer draw with immediately surrounding uses of anchor retail, support retail, office, and residential. The mix of complementing uses and users is critical to create the synergy for sustained activity (i.e., businesses to support daytime use, residential to support evening use; destination shopping and hospitality to support weekend/seasonal use) for project viability. The formula for percentages allocated to each use always includes retail as the anchor in a mixed use development as it creates the overall energy of the project and attracts outside visitors. The percentages/acreages of each use within the proposed project are dictated by local demand factors. With the exception of larger format retail and offices on the periphery where the user is more likely to drive, all other multiple uses/components must be in an inviting, walkable environment so as to contribute to the overall diversity and viability of the project. This includes communities where residents of an apartment building are able to walk to the retail and restaurant components. 2.3 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Need The City of Chanhassen (Carver County, Minnesota) is located in a rapid growth area of the southwest Twin Cities Metro Area (Figure A – Appendix B). By the year 2008, the City was 65% developed, and is expected to be fully developed by 2030. With the aging of the baby boomer generation, and the influx of younger and middle-aged individuals and families, the City will experience steady growth in the coming years resulting in continued demand for housing for all stages of life as well as support services such as retail, restaurants, office, medical, and hospitality. The City completed the “Chanhassen Retail, Office, and Residential Market Analysis and Development Potential” dated June 2006 to evaluate the effect of new retail commercial development within the City and found that the existing Central Business District (i.e., “Downtown Chanhassen”) (Figure A) would “remain healthy even with the additional commercial and office opportunities provided outside of the downtown core, including a lifestyle center”. The need for a mixed-use Regional/Lifestyle Center (i.e., a mixed-use development) project within the City of Chanhassen was first identified with the adoption of the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, which included updated development information, including the new Trunk Highway 212 (TH 212) corridor. Market studies were also initiated by the City and others to verify consumer support for the identified need. Market studies conducted by McComb Group, Ltd. in 2006 for the City and in 2014 for Level 7 Development detail existing unmet demand for the proposed development services and further support the need for the proposed development as the population of the City Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 3 of Chanhassen and neighboring rural areas continues to grow. Specific to supporting the need for a mixed-use development, the studies found that “the existing trade area economic attributes, population, and upper income households would provide support for retail stores, restaurants, and key services and that the need for these services will only grow as the population within the City and surrounding area grows”. 2.4 Geographic Area of Review The City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for a mixed-use regional lifestyle center within the City limits to service the existing and rapidly increasing population within this overall rapid growth, yet underserved, area of the southwest Twin Cities Metro. Undeveloped sites outside the City of Chanhassen were not explored for project feasibility or practicability as they failed to meet the stated Project Purpose and Need. Cities to the north and east are already highly developed with little to no large-tracts of appropriate, undeveloped land remaining. Cities to the west and south have yet to demonstrate the need or market support for the proposed project. The defined geographic area of the City of Chanhassen for a mixed-use regional lifestyle center is therefore appropriate and consistent with local planning and need. 3. ALTERNATIVE SITES ANALYSIS Alternative sites within the City of Chanhassen were explored for their potential practicability to meet project goals and requirements, and to verify that the Proposed Site and design represent the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) as required for permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 3.1 City of Chanhassen Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Requirements According to Section 2.7.4 of the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the definition/vision for the “Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial” is as follows: “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.” Specific standards and guidelines identified by the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance drive the need for services/uses, project scale, and end layout of the proposed project. These guidelines require: Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 4  Inclusion of medium and high-density residential components of which the location should provide a visual transition from adjacent offsite single-family homes to onsite commercial uses. Onsite housing density will help the City achieve its goal of providing a variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle and is a PUD requirement.  Inclusion of retail/medical/professional/entertainment/hospitality space to provide a self-sustaining pattern of land use (i.e., businesses to support daytime commercial/use, residential to support evening commercial/use; destination entertainment to support weekend/seasonal commercial/use). Inclusion of the proposed range of services will help the City achieve its goal of providing regional shopping/medical/etc. options for existing and new residents in an underserved area of the City and southwest Twin Cities metro area while complementing existing Chanhassen businesses.  A site design/layout that includes a pattern of buildings orientated around a centrally located promenade that connects to existing intersections (i.e., a retail hub) and includes a comprehensive traffic circulation system. A centrally located retail hub that is immediately adjacent to, and within walking distances from housing, medical/professional, and entertainment/hospitality will provide project synergy and will be the key factor for project viability.  Property/project that is under single ownership and developed under a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Single ownership will allow the project to be designed with one theme/architectural style and a coordinated landscaping plan, which will result in a timeless character and enhance the pedestrian experience. A thoughtfully planned, cohesive development is required to meet both the City’s and the developer’s visions for the site. In order to meet the City’s vision for the site and generate a viable project, the selected site must include a minimum of 90 acres of contiguous buildable area based on the following use acreages detailed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Project Required Components with Component Minimum Acreage Required Component (Service/Use) Minimum Acres Retail Hub (Specialty Shops and Restaurants) 25 Office (Medical/Professional) 13 Anchor Retail & Entertainment/Hospitality 11 Supporting Local Retail/Daycare/etc. 10 High Density Residential (approximately 300 units) 12 Medium Density Residential (approximately 55 units) 6 Stormwater Treatment Varies with site Roadways (circulating traffic system plus collector streets) 13 Total 90 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 5 Lifestyle center retail hubs are commonly 25+ acres in size. Acreages provided for high and medium density units are based on standard product sizes to meet PUD density requirements. The remaining required acreages for anchor retail/hospitality, support retail, and office uses are based on market analysis calculations of supporting services that are needed to provide project synergy and viability. 3.2 Alternative Sites Selection Criteria for Practicability Determination In order to evaluate alternative sites (offsite locations) for practicability, project specific site selection screening criteria that would meet the stated Project Purpose and Need for a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center in Chanhassen that meets the City’s vision were first defined and are listed below.  Final site boundary comprised of a single parcel or conglomeration of available parcels that are wholly or partially within the City of Chanhassen and that is/are: (1) primarily undeveloped, or (2) shown on the City of Chanhassen Available Land Inventory Map. Mixed-use projects require large, open (undeveloped) land to lessen site restrictions and allow for a cohesive project to be carefully designed. Undeveloped land within the City Chanhassen zoned for public/semi-public use (e.g., Minnesota Landscape Arboretum) was excluded from the analysis. Undeveloped land located primarily within a shoreland zone (e.g., land surrounding Lake Ann and Lake Lucy) was excluded from the analysis due to shoreland restrictions on site density and impervious surface coverage which are not compatible with the proposed high density uses.  Tract of contiguous land 90+ acres in size. As described previously, in order to provide the City-required services/uses and generate a viable project, the selected site needs to include a minimum of 90 acres of contiguous buildable area.  Located within one-half mile of the intersection of a 4-lane highway/freeway and an existing arterial road. To allow services to be conveniently accessed the project must be located near a highway/freeway interchange. A distance of one-half mile from an interchange to the site is the maximum allowable distance for a viable project: (1) meeting traffic requirements, and (2) creating project visibility.  Accessible from at least two locations via existing arterial roads, and with potential for internal connections to existing (or potential future) collector streets. Arterial road connections allow for adequate site service/capacity from the surrounding area, while collector streets supplement internal flow. Per the City’s Comprehensive Plan: “Principal arterials are the highest roadway classification and are considered part of the metropolitan highway system. These roads are intended to connect the central business districts of the two central cities with each other and with other regional business concentrations in the metropolitan area. These roads also connect the Twin Cities with important locations outside the metropolitan area.” Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 6 “Collector streets are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city and to provide access from neighborhoods to the arterial system. These roads supplement the arterial system in the sense that they emphasize mobility over land access, but they are expected, because of their locations, to carry less traffic than arterial roads.”  Consistent with City planning and zoning efforts (or with the ability to be rezoned), and compatible with density/impervious restrictions. Land use designations are fixed by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and are rarely revised on a project by project basis. Rezoning requires City Council approval followed by an update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable environmental documents (e.g., AUAR). Because of the high density and high impervious cover associated with mixed-use regional lifestyle center developments, the site should lack significant shoreland area which restricts site density and impervious surface coverage. A project area that is generally square/rectangular in shape. A rectangular/square shaped boundary is required for providing a viably designed plan that flows between uses and amenities within walkable distances. Odd shaped parcels divide/segregate the project, isolate uses, and discourage or impede site walkability due to transportation or other barriers, and lengthened walking distances. 3.3 Alternative Sites Practicability Determination Potential alternative sites within the City of Chanhassen were identified by reviewing aerial photography, a city basemap, the city Land Use Plan map, the City of Chanhassen Available Land Inventory map, and the City Road Classification map. Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) were evaluated for practicability using the project specific site selection screening criteria described previously. The following paragraphs provide a summary of each site’s ability to meet the site screening criteria. Table 2 on the following page provides a condensed summary of the practicability determination, and for reference:  Figure B – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on an aerial photograph.  Figure C – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on a map of the City of Chanhassen.  Figure D – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on the City of Chanhassen Land Use map.  Figure E – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on the City Available Land Inventory map.  Figure F – Appendix B illustrates the location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site overlaid on the City of Chanhassen City Road Classification map. Alternative Site 1 (Figure G) is 58 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to but cannot be accessed from Trunk Highway (TH) 5 (arterial road), but has the potential for site access via two collector streets (Audubon Road and Coulter Blvd). The site is Pr a c t i c a - b i l i t y Ca t e g o r y Fa c t o r / S c r e e n A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 1 ( F i g u r e G ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 2 ( F i g u r e H ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 3 ( F i g u r e I ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 4 ( F i g u r e J ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 5 ( F i g u r e K ) A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e 6 ( F i g u r e L ) P r o p osed Site (A pp licant's Preferred Project Site) - Figure M Ye s Y e s Y e s Y e s Y e s Y e s Y e s Ow n e r s 1 B u s i n e s s P a r t n e r s & 1 c h a r i t y la n d o w n e r 1 p r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r 3 p r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r s 2 p r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r s 1 p r i v a t e l a n d o w n e r 1 A s s o c i a t i o n l a n d o w n e r ( p r i v a t e developed land, with potential for redevelopment)1 private landowner No N o N o N o Y e s Y e s Y e s To t a l p a r c e l P a r c e l = 5 8 a c P a r c e l = 5 0 a c P a r c e l = 7 0 a c P a r c e l = 4 0 a c P a r c e l = 1 1 7 a c P a r c e l = 2 2 6 . 5 a c P a r c e l = 1 1 6 a c We t l a n d s a n d Ot h e r W a t e r s We t l a n d s = 2 . 1 5 a c ; W a t e r w a y s 1 = 1, 5 2 5 f t We t l a n d s = 2 . 3 5 a c ; W a t e r w a y s = 1, 7 7 0 f t We t l a n d s = 1 3 . 8 4 ; W a t e r w a y s = 1, 1 0 0 f t We t l a n d s = 1 1 . 7 5 a c ; D N R Wa t e r c o u r s e 1 = 8 3 0 f t We t l a n d s = 3 7 . 2 3 a c W e t l a n d s = 3 . 3 1 ; D N R W a t e r c o u r s e = 3,565 ftWetlands = 5.65; Waterways = 383.5-ft & 331-ft Ye s N o N o N o Y e s Y e s Y e s In t e r c h a n g e di s t a n c e , r o a d w a y co n n e c t i o n s , vi s i b i l i t y . Ad j a c e n t t o T r u n k H i g h w a y ( T H ) 5 in t e r c h a n g e , b u t n o d i r e c t a c c e s s v i a ar t e r i a l r o a d . S i t e a c c e s s v i a t w o co l l e c t o r r o a d s . V i s i b l e . 1 m i l e t o T H 5 , 1 . 7 5 m i l e s t o T H 2 1 2 . On e p o t e n t i a l s i t e a c c e s s p o i n t v i a ar t e r i a l i n t e r s e c t i o n , n o c o l l e c t o r s t r e e t co n n e c t i o n s . N o t v i s i b l e . 1 m i l e t o T H 2 1 2 , 1 . 5 m i l e s t o T H 5. S i t e a c c e s s v i a t w o a r t e r i a l ro a d s , a n d o n e c o l l e c t o r s t r e e t co n n e c t i o n . N o t v i s i b l e . Ad j a c e n t t o T H 2 1 2 i n t e r c h a n g e . Si t e a c c e s s v i a t w o a r t e r i a l r o a d s , no c o l l e c t o r s t r e e t c o n n e c t i o n s . Vi s i b l e . Ad j a c e n t t o T H 2 1 2 i n t e r c h a n g e . S i t e ac c e s s v i a t w o a r t e r i a l r o a d s . L o w po t e n t i a l f o r f u t u r e c o l l e c t o r s t r e e t co n n e c t i o n . M i n i m a l l y v i s i b l e . ~0.5 mile to TH 212 interchange. Site access via on arterial road. Low potential for future collector street connections. Minimally visible.Adjacent to TH 212 interchange. Site access via two arterial roads, and two future collector streets. Visible. No ( l a c k s c o m m e r c i a l / r e s i d e n t i a l ) ; Y e s (l a c k s s h o r e l a n d ) No ( l a c k s c o m m e r c i a l / r e s i d e n t i a l ) ; N o (s h o r e l a n d i s p r e s e n t ) No ( l a c k s c o m m e r c i a l / r e s i d e n t i a l ) ; No ( s h o r e l a n d i s p r e s e n t ) No ( l a c k s c o m m e r c i a l / re s i d e n t i a l ) ; N o ( s h o r e l a n d i s pr e s e n t ) Ye s 3 ( N o - b u t h a s l o w p o t e n t i a l t o be c h a n g e d ) ; Y e s ( l a c k s s h o r e l a n d ) Yes 3 (No - but has low potential to b e changed); Yes (sufficient buildable area even with significant shoreland)Yes; Yes (lacks shoreland) Of f i c e , I n d u s t r i a l O f f i c e , I n d u s t r i a l . N o t c o m p a t i b l e w. r . t . s h o r e l a n d . Of f i c e , I n d u s t r i a l . N o t c o m p a t i b l e w. r . t . s h o r e l a n d . Of f i c e . N o t c o m p a t i b l e w . r . t . sh o r e l a n d . Re s i d e n t i a l L o w D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l L o w D e n s i t y D u a l g u i d e d f o r O f f i c e o r R e g i o n a l Commercial/Lifestyle Center Ye s N o Y e s N o Y e s Y e s Y e s Re c t a n g u l a r s h a p e . T r i a n g u l a r s h a p e O n e s q u a r e n o r t h a r e a , a n d o n e sq u a r e s o u t h a r e a . Ir r e g u l a r s h a p e . R e c t a n g u l a r s h a p e . R e c t a n g u l a r s h a p e . O n e r e c t a n g u l a r n o r t h a r e a , a n d o n e square south area. No t P r a c t i c a b l e N o t P r a c t i c a b l e N o t P r a c t i c a b l e N o t P r a c t i c a b l e P o t e n t i a l l y P r a c t i c a b l e P o t e n t i a l l y P r a c t i c a b l e P o t e n t i a l l y P r a c t i c a b l e Fa i l e d s i z e a n d a c c e s s s c r e e n s . Z o n i n g is p a r t i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e ( l a c k i n g co m m e r c i a l , r e s i d e n t i a l ) . A l s o , s i t e i s bi s e c t e d b y a t r i b u t a r y t o B l u f f C r e e k bo r d e r e d b y s t e e p s l o p e s l i m i t i n g u s e i n th e w e s t t h i r d o f t h e s i t e . Fa i l e d s i z e , a c c e s s , v i s i b i l i t y , z o n i n g , im p e r v i o u s , a n d s h a p e s c r e e n s . S o u t h ha l f o f s i t e s u b j e c t t o s h o r e l a n d 5 im p e r v i o u s r e s t r i c t i o n s . P e a t s o i l s ~ 2 5 ac r e s a n d r e q u i r i n g c o r r e c t i o n ; fi n a n c i a l i m p e d i m e n t . Fa i l e d s i z e , v i s i b i l i t y , z o n i n g , a n d im p e r v i o u s s c r e e n s . L a n d a l o n g t h e so u t h w e s t p r o p e r t y b o u n d a r y su b j e c t t o s h o r e l a n d i m p e r v i o u s re s t r i c t i o n s . Fa i l e d s i z e , a c c e s s , z o n i n g , im p e r v i o u s a n d s h a p e s c r e e n s . Al s o , s i t e i s b i s e c t e d b y B l u f f Cr e e k f l o o d p l a i n , s e p a r a t i n g t h e si t e i n t o t w o s m a l l e r a n d s e p a r a t e pa r c e l s . Si t e i n C h a n h a s s e n , o f s u f f i c i e n t si z e , w i t h s i t e a c c e s s , p o t e n t i a l vi s i b i l i t y , l a c k i n g s h o r e l a n d , a n d re c t a n g u l a r . P o t e n t i a l f o r r e - z o n i n g an d c o l l e c t o r c o n n e c t i o n l o w b u t po t e n t i a l l y f e a s i b l e . Site in Chanhassen, of sufficient size, with site access, potential visibility, compatible shoreland limits, and rectangular. Potential for re-zoning and collector connection low but potentially feasible.Site in Chanhassen, of sufficient size, with site access, visible, appropriate zoning, lacking shoreland, and generally square. 1 W a t e r w a y = U S A C E j u r i s d i c t i o n a l w a t e r w a y / d r a i n a g e w a y / d i t c h ( f l o w > i n t e r m i t t e n t ) . D N R W a t e r c o u r s e = p e r D N R P W I d a t a . W a t e r w a y s a n d W a t e r c o u r s e s a r e n o t w e t l a n d , b u t a r e r e g u l a t e d a s a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e s b y U S A C E . 2 S h o r e l a n d e x t e n d s 1 0 0 0 - f t f r o m D N R P W I O H W L ( o r d i n a r y h i g h w a t e r l e v e l ) . 3 L o w p o t e n t i a l t o b e r e z o n e d , b u t c o n s i d e r e d f e a s i b l e f o r p r a c t i c a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s . Lo c a t i o n , A c c e s s i b l e , a n d V i s i b l e La y o u t R e l a t i v e l y S q u a r e / Re c t a n g u l a r Pr a c t i c a b l e S i t e ( a n d o t h e r co n s i d e r a t i o n s ) Ap p r o p r i a t e Z o n i n g / L a n d U s e ; Co m p a t i b l e w i t h De n s i t y / I m p e r v i o u s R e s t r i c t i o n s (i . e . , l a c k s s i g n i f i c a n t s h o r e l a n d 2 ) Ta b l e 2 . A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e s C o m p a r i s o n M a t r i x f o r P r a c t i c a b i l i t y D e t e r m i n a t i o n - A v i e n d a M i x e d U s e L i f e s t y l e C e n t e r P r o j e c t , C h a n h a s s e n , M N Av a i l a b l e f o r A c q u i s i t i o n i n t h e Ci t y o f C h a n h a s s e n Lo g i s t i c s ( P a r c e l S i z e = 9 0 + a c ) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 7 visible from TH 5. The site is zoned for Office Industrial use, lacks shoreland, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map is rectangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 1 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable alternative site. The site also fails zoning, access, and layout screens. Furthermore, the site is bisected by a tributary to Bluff Creek and bordered by steep slopes, isolating and limiting use in the western third of the site. Alternative Site 2 (Figure H) is 50 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is within 1 mile of TH 5, has only one potential site access point at the intersection of two arterial roads (Galpin Blvd and Lyman Blvd intersection), but cannot connect with existing/future collector streets. The site is not visible from a freeway/highway. The site is zoned for Office Industrial use, and the south half of the site is within the shoreland of Lake Hazeltine and would be subject to impervious surface restrictions. The site is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is triangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 2 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable alternative site. The site also fails zoning, access, visibility, impervious, and shape screens. Futhermore, the site is comprised of approximately 25 acres of mapped peat soil which would require correction (i.e., removal and replacement) prior to site use and is a financial impediment to developing the entire site. Alternative Site 3 (Figure I) is 70 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is within 0.5-mile of TH 212, has the potential for site access via two arterial roads (Lyman Blvd and Audubon Road), and connection with one existing collector street (Audubon Road). The site is not visible from a freeway/highway. The site is zoned for Office Industrial use, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is comprised of two generally square sections. The southwest portion of the site is within the shoreland of Lake Hazeltine and would be subject to impervious surface restrictions. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 3 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable alternative site. The site also fails zoning, visibility and impervious screens. Alternative Site 4 (Figure J) is 40 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to a TH 212 interchange, has the potential for site access via two arterial roads (Powers Blvd and Pioneer Trail), but cannot connect with existing/future collector streets, and is visible from TH 212. The site is zoned for Office use, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is irregular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. Alternative Site 4 would not provide sufficient buildable land area to meet the scope, purpose, and need of the proposed project and is therefore not a practicable site. The site also fails Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 8 zoning, access, impervious, and shape screens. Furthermore, the site is bisected by Bluff Creek, its floodplain/wetlands, and adjacent steeply sloping topography which divides the site into two smaller and separate development parcels. Alternative Site 5 (Figure K) is 117 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to a TH 212 interchange, has the potential for site access via two arterial roads (Powers Blvd and Great Plains Blvd), with a low potential for connection to a future collector street. The western portion of the site is potentially visible from TH 212. The site is zoned for Low Density Residential use, lacks shoreland, is shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is rectangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. The site meets size, location, visibility, and access screens. The site lacks shoreland and is generally rectangular in shape. While the potential for rezoning and future collector street connections are low but feasible, Alternative Site 5 was considered to be a potentially practicable site for the proposed project for the purpose of this analysis. Alternative Site 6 (Figure L) is 226.5 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is within 0.5 mile of a TH 212 interchange, is accessible via one arterial road (Pioneer Trail), with a low potential for connection to future collector streets. The northwest corner of the site is potentially visible from TH 212. The site is zoned for Low Density Residential use, is not shown as available land on the City’s Available Land Inventory map, and is rectangular in shape. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. The site meets size, location, visibility, and access screens. Although the site contains significant shoreland area, the remaining portion of land outside of shoreland meets size requirements. While the potential for rezoning and future collector street connections are low, Alternative Site 6 was considered to be a potentially practicable site for the proposed project for the purpose of this analysis. The Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) (Figure M) is 116 acres in size, is located in the City of Chanhassen, is adjacent to a TH 212 interchange, and site access can be provided by two existing arterial roads (Powers Blvd and Lyman Blvd), one existing collector street (Bluff Creek Blvd), and one future internal collector street (see Figure F). The site is visible from TH 212. The site is dual-guided for Office or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center use, is shown as available land on the City Available Land Inventory map, lacks shoreland, and is generally square. Adjacent land is not available to expand the size of the site. The Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) meets size, access, visibility, zoning, impervious, and shape screens and was therefore considered to be a potentially practicable alternative site for the proposed project. 3.4 Environmental Factors for Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination The potential for impacts on aquatic resources and other environmental impacts that would result from construction of the proposed project on a No Action Site, the two identified potentially Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 9 practicable alternative sites, and the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) were evaluated using the environmental factors defined below.  Waterway/Watercourse Impacts and Changes in Waterway/Watercourse Function – Waterways/Watercourses provide drainage for connected water features (e.g., adjacent wetlands), adjacent upland, and the upstream watershed. Filling or removing a waterway represents a decrease in function; no change to a waterway represent no change in function, and improving a waterway (e.g., deepening or widening) represents an increase in function.  Wetland Impacts and Loss in Wetland Function – Natural/intact, non-degraded (e.g., not excavated, not drained) wetlands surrounded by undisturbed upland represent wetland functions at their highest level, so impact to non-degraded wetland represents a high loss in wetland function. Wetlands that are annually farmed, excavated, or drained/partially drained and/or are surrounded by annually managed or disturbed upland represent wetland functions at the lowest level, so impact to degraded wetland represents a low loss in wetland function.  City of Chanhassen Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Impacts and BCOD Gain or Loss in Function –The BCOD is a contiguous conservancy zone for preservation and enhancement of the natural resources of Bluff Creek. Disturbance or alteration to onsite BCOD is considered to be a loss in function, avoidance without log-term protection of onsite BCOD is considered to maintain the function, and preservation (i.e., avoidance with permanent protection) of onsite BCOD is considered a gain in function.  Cultural Resources – The known presence/absence or the potential for cultural resources to be impacted by the proposed project is stated as Yes, No, or Unknown based on available information and experience on similar sites.  Potential to Negatively Impact Downstream Water Quality/Impaired Waters – The potential to negatively impact downstream water quality with site development is High when impaired waters are closer and/or when treated stormwater discharge is direct, and Low when impaired waters are further away and/or treated stormwater discharge is indirect.  Viewshed Impacts – The Bluff Creek corridor (BCOD), the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and the Minnesota River are all significant visual, environmental, and recreational amenities within the City of Chanhassen. A project that is highly visible from any of these resources has a high (i.e., negative) impact on these resources. Projects that are screened from these resources have a Low impact on these resources.  Impacts to Existing, Perennial Vegetation Cover – Disturbance of land that is under permanent/perennial vegetation cover has a higher potential for increasing negative impacts (untreated runoff, erosion and sediments) to onsite and downstream water resources. Disturbance of land that is bare or planted annually has a lower potential for increasing negative impacts to downstream water resources. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 10  Project Area Size and/or Configuration Meets Project Goals – The applicant has determined that the minimum buildable area for the proposed project is ≥ 90 contiguous acres in a square or nearly square/rectangular configuration. The ability of the site to meet this requirement is stated as Yes or No. 3.5 Alternative Sites LEDPA Determination Table 3 on the following page summarizes the assessment of the environmental factors defined above for each previously identified potentially practicable alternative site. Reference figures are provided as Figures N, O, and P – Appendix B. Development of Alternative Site 5 would likely result in at least 7.07 acres of non-degraded wetland impacts, with a corresponding high loss in wetland function. Additionally, development of this alternative site requires at least 14.50 acres of direct impact to the BCOD (79% of the onsite BCOD) with a corresponding high loss in BCOD function, has moderate potential to negatively impact downstream water quality/impaired waters, results in high impact to existing, perennial vegetation cover, and is minimally visible from a principle highway. Although the external site boundary is generally rectangular, internal buildable area is irregular resulting in a non-walkable layout that lacks synergy. There are no waterways or Watercourses onsite, the potential for cultural resources to be present onsite is unknown (but possible), and impacts to the local viewshed would be minimal. As shown on Figure N, the draft layout is short over 13 acres of medical/professional/support retail area and short 5 acres of housing. To meet Project Purpose and Need, a significant amount of additional wetland impacts to non-degraded wetlands plus impact to the entire area of the BCOD would be required. Impacts to the large wetland in the east portion of the property are unlikely to be approved, as this is a DNR Public Wetland. After a more detailed review of site conditions, and limitations described above, it has been determined that Alternative Site 5 is not a practicable site for the proposed project. Development of Alternative Site 6 would likely result in at least 2.77 acres of degraded onsite wetland impacts, and 1.35 acres of offsite non-degraded wetland impacts for roadway upgrading, with a corresponding medium loss in wetland function. Additionally, development of this alternative site has high potential to negatively impact nearby downstream water quality/impaired waters, results in high impact to the local viewshed, high impact to existing, perennial vegetation cover, and is not visible from a principle highway. There are no direct impacts to onsite BCOD with a corresponding maintenance in function as the area is too large for permanent preservation by the developer. The potential for cultural resources to be present onsite is unknown (but possible). As shown on Figure O, the draft layout is disconnected, and is short 5 acres of medical/professional/support retail area and short 5 acres of housing to meet Project Purpose and Need due to topographic changes and irregular internal development boundaries. Additionally, it is unlikely that the potential future collector streets would be approved by the City due to Fa c t o r s No A c t i o n Al t e r n a t i v e Al t e r n a t i v e S i t e 5 Co m m e n t s Al t e r n a t i v e S i t e 6 Co m m e n t s Proposed Site (Applicant's Preferred)Comments Qu a n t i t a t i v e W a t e r w a y / W a t e r c o u r s e 1 Im p a c t s ( l i n e a r f e e t ) No n e N A No w a t e r w a y s / W a t e r c o u r s e s w i t h i n p r o j e c t li m i t s o r t h e s i t e b o u n d a r y . NA No w a t e r w a y s / W a t e r c o u r s e s w i t h i n p r o j e c t l i m i t s o r th e s i t e b o u n d a r y . 383.5-ft W a t e r w a y i m p a c t e d b y d e v e l o p m e n t o f s i t e . Qu a l i t a t i v e C h a n g e s i n W a t e r w a y / Wa t e r c o u r s e F u n c t i o n ( o n s i t e a q u a t i c re s o u r c e ) No n e N A No w a t e r w a y s / W a t e r c o u r s e s w i t h i n p r o j e c t li m i t s o r t h e s i t e b o u n d a r y . NA No w a t e r w a y s / W a t e r c o u r s e s w i t h i n p r o j e c t l i m i t s o r th e s i t e b o u n d a r y . NAWaterway is currently providing wetland drainage/outlet. If upstream wetlands are filled with development, waterway function no longer needed. Qu a n t i t a t i v e W e t l a n d I m p a c t s ( a c r e s ) N o n e 7 . 0 7 - a c 7. 0 7 a c n o n - d e g r a d e d w e t l a n d i m p a c t s . We t l a n d s n o t d r a i n e d o r f a r m e d , u n d i s t u r b e d up l a n d . 4. 1 2 - a c 2. 7 7 - a c o n s i t e d e g r a d e d ( e x c a v a t e d w e t l a n d w i t h ma n a g e d u p l a n d ) w e t l a n d i m p a c t s ; 1 . 3 5 o f f s i t e n o n - de g r a d e d ( u n d r a i n e d w e t l a n d w i t h u n d i s t u r b e d u p l a n d ) we t l a n d s i m p a c t s . 4.00-ac 4.00-ac degraded wetland impacts. Wetlands are partially- drained, farmed, and surrounded by disturbed upland. Qu a l i t a t i v e L o s s i n W e t l a n d F u n c t i o n s (o n s i t e a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e ) No n e H i g h Im p a c t e d w e t l a n d s a r e g e n e r a l l y n o n - g r a d e d by n u r s e r y / h a y i n g a n d a r e s u r r o u n d e d b y na t u r a l v e g e t a t i o n . Me d i u m Im p a c t e d w e t l a n d s a r e d e g r a d e d d u e t o ex c a v a t i o n / f r e q u e n t m o w i n g , a n d a r e s u r r o u n d e d b y ma i n t a i n e d g o l f c o u r s e o r r o a d w a y . LowImpacted wetlands area generally degraded due to excavation, drainage, and/or farming and are surrounded by agricultural fields. Qu a n t i t a t i v e I m p a c t s ( a c r e s ) t o B l u f f Cr e e k O v e r l a y D i s t r i c t ( B C O D 2 ) No n e 1 4 . 5 0 - a c 1 4 . 5 0 - a c i m p a c t e d , 3 . 7 5 - a c p r e s e r v e d 0 0 - a c i m p a c t e d ; 1 0 0 - a c a v o i d e d 2 . 6 4 - a c 2 . 6 4 - a c i m p a c t e d , 1 9 . 3 6 - a c a v o i d e d a n d p r e s e r v e d . Qu a l i t a t i v e G a i n o r L o s s i n B C O D Fu n c t i o n No n e Lo s s 79 % o n s i t e B C O D i m p a c t e d ; 2 1 % p r e s e r v e d . Mi n i m a l p r e s e r v a t i o n . Ma i n t a i n e d Pe r m a n e n t p r e s e r v a t i o n b y a p p l i c a n t n o t f e a s i b l e d u e t o si z e ( 1 0 0 - a c ) . Gain 12% BCOD impacted; 88% preserved. Significant permanent preservation. Cu l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s N/ A Un k n o w n Pr o x i m i t y t o D N R / o p e n w a t e r w e t l a n d s , v i e w s fr o m B C O D a n d k n o l l w o o d l a n d i n d i c a t e s t h e po t e n t i a l f o r c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . Un k n o w n Pr o x i m i t y t o D N R W a t e r c o u r s e , p r e s e n c e o f B C O D wi t h w o o d l a n d a n d b l u f f a r e a s i n d i c a t e s t h e p o t e n t i a l fo r c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . No 2016 survey indicates no resources within project area. Po t e n t i a l t o N e g a t i v e l y I m p a c t Do w n s t r e a m W a t e r Q u a l i t y / I m p a i r e d Wa t e r s ( o f f s i t e a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e s ) N/ A Mo d e r a t e In d i r e c t t r e a t e d s t o r m w a t e r d i s c h a r g e t o do w n s t r e a m B l u f f C r e e k ( i m p a i r e d n a t u r a l st r e a m ) v i a p i p e a n d w e t l a n d ( 1 0 0 0 - f t di s t a n c e ) . I n d i r e c t d i s c h a r g e t o d o w n s t r e a m La k e R i l e y ( i m p a i r e d w a t e r ) v i a w e t l a n d ( 2 0 0 0 - ft d i s t a n c e ) . Hi g h Di r e c t t r e a t e d s t o r m w a t e r d i s c h a r g e t o B l u f f C r e e k v i a st e e p t o p o g r a p h i c f l o w p a t h s ( 5 0 0 t o 1 0 0 0 - f t d i s t a n c e ) , pl u s d i r e c t d i s c h a r g e t o B l u f f C r e e k v i a p i p e ( 1 1 0 0 - f t di s t a n c e ) . LowIndirect treated stormwater discharge to Lake Susan (impaired lake) via existing treatment pond and wetland complexes (5,400-ft distance). Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek (impaired stream) via wetland 1200-ft. Vi e w s h e d I m p a c t s N / A L o w Si t e i s s l i g h t l y l o w e r t h a n a d j a c e n t B C O D a n d is t h e r e f o r e s c r e e n e d f r o m i t s v i e w s h e d . T h e si t e i s n o t v i s i b l e f r o m M N r i v e r v a l l e y t o so u t h . Hi g h Si t e i s h i g h l y v i s i b l e f r o m o n s i t e B C O D a n d d i s t a n t lo c a t i o n s , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e M N R i v e r N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e Re f u g e / M i n n e s o t a R i v e r b l u f f s . Low Woodland on high topography screens view from primary BCOD. Di s t u r b a n c e t o E x i s t i n g , P e r e n n i a l Ve g e t a t i o n C o v e r N/ A H i g h En t i r e s i t e h a s p e r m a n e n t v e g e t a t i o n c o v e r ; si t e d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d c a u s e d i s t u r b a n c e t o pe r e n n i a l v e g e t a t e d a r e a s . Hi g h En t i r e s i t e h a s p e r m a n e n t v e g e t a t i o n c o v e r ; s i t e de v e l o p m e n t w o u l d c a u s e d i s t u r b a n c e t o p e r e n n i a l ve g e t a t e d a r e a s . LowNearly 60% of site is currently bare ground/cropland/non-perennial vegetation. Site development would disturb 20% of perennial vegetated areas. Pr o j e c t A r e a S i z e a n d / o r C o n f i g u r a t i o n (m e e t s p r o j e c t d i m e n s i o n s / g o a l s ) N/ A N o Al t h o u g h e x t e r n a l b o u n d a r y i s g e n e r a l l y re c t a n g u l a r , i n t e r n a l d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a i s ir r e g u l a r , a n d d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a d o e s n o t m e e t pr o j e c t p u r p o s e a n d n e e d . No Al t h o u g h e x t e r n a l b o u n d a r y i s g e n e r a l l y r e c t a n g u l a r , in t e r n a l d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a i s i r r e g u l a r , a n d d e v e l o p a b l e ar e a d o e s n o t m e e t p r o j e c t p u r p o s e a n d n e e d . Yes Project area is generally square and developable area meets project purpose and need. LE D P A No - D o e s n o t m e e t pr o j e c t n e e d No Si t e h a s g r e a t e s t p r o j e c t e d w e t l a n d i m p a c t s an d d o e s n o t m e e t p u r p o s e a n d n e e d . No Si t e h a s g r e a t e r p r o j e c t e d w e t l a n d i m p a c t s t h a n t h e Pr o p o s e d S i t e a n d c a n n o t m e e t p u r p o s e a n d n e e d d u e to o t h e r f a c t o r s . Yes Site has the least projected wetland impacts compared to alternative sites and meets project purpose and need. 2 B l u f f C r e e k O v e r l a y D i s t r i c t ( B C O D ) . A c o n t i g u o u s c o n s e r v a n c y z o n e f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d e n h a n c e m e n t o f t h e n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s o f B l u f f C r e e k . 1 W a t e r w a y = U S A C E j u r i s d i c t i o n a l w a t e r w a y / d r a i n a g e w a y / d i t c h ( f l o w > i n t e r m i t t e n t ) . D N R W a t e r c o u r s e = p e r D N R P W I d a t a . W a t e r w a y s a n d W a t e r c o u r s e s a r e n o t w e t l a n d , b u t a r e r e g u l a t e d a s a q u a t i c r e s o u r c e s b y U S A C E . En v i r o n m e n t a l F a c t o r s Ot h e r Q u a l i t a t i v e F a c t o r s Ta b l e 3 . E n v i r o n m e n t a l F a c t o r M a t r i x f or L E D P A D e t e r m i n a t i o n - A v i e n d a M i x e d U s e L i f es t y le C e n t e r P r o j ec t , C h a n h a s s e n , M N Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 11 alignment and adjacent land use (single-family residential). After a more detailed review of site conditions, and limitations described above, it has been determined that Alternative Site 6 is not a practicable site for the proposed project. Development of the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) would likely result in 4.00 acres of degraded onsite wetland impacts, with a corresponding low loss in wetland function. Although approximately 384 linear feet of waterway impacts would occur, waterway function (drainage of upstream wetlands) would no longer be required. Development of the site has a low potential to negatively impact downstream water quality, low impacts to the viewshed, and low impacts to perennial vegetation cover. The site and its components are visible from a principle highway. Although development of this alternative site may require 2.64 acres of direct impact to the BCOD, there is a corresponding gain in function due to 19.36 acres of permanently preserved and protected BCOD. There are no cultural resources within the project area. As shown on Figure P, the draft layout provides sufficient services to meet the Project Purpose and Need. This alternative site also results in less direct impacts to wetlands than Alternative 5 or Alternative 6, and results in less direct/indirect impacts to other environmental factors than Alternative 5 or Alternative 6. The City of Chanhassen has established its goal for a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center within the City based on the described need and demand. The developer conducted a thorough search to identify the most appropriate location for a viable mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center that meets City requirements and ensures project viability by providing all required project components. Based on Table 3 and the above alternative site summaries, locating the project on the Proposed Site (Applicant’s Preferred) according to the design described in more detail below that includes wetland avoidance and minimization considerations is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) that will meet the Applicant’s stated Project Purpose and Need. There are no alternative sites where a viable project could be located that do not affect special aquatic sites, and locating the project on other potentially practicable alternative sites would have more adverse impact on aquatic ecosystems and other environmental factors. 4. SITE LOCATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, & EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed Avienda mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project is located on 119.88-acres in Section 23, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. More specifically, the site is primarily located southwest of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard (Figure 1) and west of the trunk Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard intersection. The property corresponds to Carver County PIDs 250230500, 250230420, 250230430, 250230410, and 250230300. Currently, no development is proposed on the small, 1.66-acre parcel that is part of PID 250230500 located east of Powers Boulevard (Figure 1). Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 12 The project is located in an area of the City of Chanhassen which is in transition from what was once primarily agricultural uses to residential, commercial, and office uses. The property is currently bordered by MnDOT ROW (Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way) to the east and southeast, and single-family residential development to the north, west, and southwest (Figure 1). 4.1 Land Cover, Site Topography, and Drainage Areas Land cover on the site consists of approximately: 68.53 acres of cropland, 22.78 acres of woodland, 9.02 acres of non-cropped grassland, 5.12 acres of former farmstead area, 3.20-acres of shelterbelt, and 5.65 acres of wetlands scattered throughout the site. Approximately 1.70 acres of recently upgraded Lyman Boulevard right of way (ROW) is within the property boundary (Figure 2). Specific to the City of Chanhassen land use requirements, approximately 20 acres in the southwest portion of the site falls within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) boundary (Figure 2). The very northwest corner of the property boundary also contains a very small area of mapped BCOD. The Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) covers the Bluff Creek watershed area with the intent of protecting the resource through guided development by: preserving natural conditions, establishing a primary protection zone, requiring structure setbacks and buffers, connecting open areas, and providing public access and education. More information can be found at (http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/323). Land cover on the site is largely a function of existing topography. Topography throughout cropped portions of the site is moderately undulating, while meadows and woodland are generally moderate to steeply sloping, and wetlands are located at the base of localized depressions, swales, or confluences. Figure 3 shows site topography and highlights the main topographic changes present throughout the site. The site is located within the Lower Minnesota River major watershed (Watershed #33), and also within two minor watersheds. The west/southwest part of the site drains to west/southwest and eventually to Bluff Creek; the northeast part of the site drains to the north/northeast and eventually to Lake Susan and Riley Creek. Figure 4 illustrates the minor watershed divide. Figure 5 illustrates existing onsite drainage areas based on LiDAR contours and site observations. 4.2 Wetland Delineation and Wetland Characteristics Ten wetlands have been identified and delineated on the property as illustrated on Figure 6 and as summarized in Table 4 on the following page. Eight of the wetlands (Wetlands 1 through 8) were reviewed and approved in 2015 by the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) (City of Chanhassen) (Appendix C) when the site was under contract by a different developer and was known as “The District at Vincent Ridge”. Previous delineation reports/memos describe the 2015 approved delineation in more detail and included National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and soil survey mapping. Copies of the reports/memos are available upon request. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 13 Wetland 9 and Wetland 10 were both identified during a fall 2016 site visit by Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES) and Appendix D includes an addendum to the 2015 approved delineation for documentation of these wetlands. The addendum also discusses historic Wetland 9 versus 2016 delineated Wetland 9. Also during the fall 2016 KES site visit, the boundary of the MnDOT wetland located along the southeast site boundary was located with a Trimble T41 GPS unit (Figure 6) for application of City and Watershed District required buffer. Table 4. Summary of Delineated Wetlands Wetland ID Size (sf) Size (ac) Circular 39 Cowardin Classification Eggers & Reed Wetland Plant Community Wetland 1 47,922 1.1001 Type 3/1 PEMCd/PEMAd Partially-drained shallow marsh and fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 1/2 8,102 0.1860 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 2 98,310 2.2569 Type 5/2/1 PUBGx/ PEMBd/PEMAd Excavated shallow, open water and partially-drained fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 3 29,169 0.6696 Type 1 PEMA Fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 4 5,456 0.1253 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 5 15,172 0.3483 Type 1 PEMAfd Partially-drained, farmed, seasonally flooded basin Wetland 6 34,045 0.7816 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 7 654 0.0150 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 8 3,677 0.0844 Type 1 PEMAd Partially-drained, fresh (wet) meadow Wetland 9 4,291 0.0985 Type 1 PEMAfd Partially-drained, farmed, seasonally flooded basin Wetland 10 3,223 0.0740 Type 1 PFO1A Seasonally Flooded Basin Total 250,021 5.7397 1 Circular 39, Cowardin Classification, and Wetland Plant Community verified and approved as part of RPBCWD review of MnRAM results. All wetlands, except for Wetland 10 which is 0.0740 acres, on the site have been disturbed/degraded by either excavation, drainage, and/or farming. Except for Wetland 10, wetlands not dominated by crops or annual agricultural weeds are dominated by invasive species (e.g., reed canary grass). Except for the central portion of Wetland 2 where the water table has been exposed through deep excavation, all wetlands onsite are hydrologically supported by surface runoff, which under existing conditions is largely untreated agricultural runoff. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 14 A number of drainage features are present onsite which affect wetland characteristics.  Wetlands 1,1/2, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are drained by defined waterways/ditches located within the wetland boundary and extending downstream of the wetland boundary.  Wetland 1/2 appears to be comprised of a sediment plume from upslope agricultural erosion, or material from the excavation of Wetland 2.  Wetland 5 appears to be drained by agricultural tile as evidenced by field observation of a tile outlet discharging to Wetland 4 from the slopes in which Wetland 5 is located (Figure 6). Additional agricultural tile may be located onsite.  Wetland 8 is a sloping roadway ditch.  Wetland 9 is drained by an incised and back-cutting gully. Wetlands 3 and 10 are the least altered wetlands onsite. Although an outlet was installed on the west end of Wetland 3 when single-family development to the west occurred, the outlet does not appear to drain the wetland. Wetland 10 has a natural outlet and is located within the southwest woodland. The center of Wetland 2 was excavated sometime between 1980 and 1984 (Appendix E). Prior to excavation, Wetland 2 appeared to be managed as a hayfield, with wetland hydrology/wetland signatures (e.g., inundation, saturated soil) rarely observed other than altered pattern. A January 4, 2017 site visit was completed to assess the water depths in the excavated portion of the Wetland 2 using an ice auger and staff gauge. At the time of the site visit, the wetland was completely frozen over, as was the entire length of the waterway that drains the wetland. No flowing water or open water areas were observed. It appears that cattail has not been able to colonize the center of the wetland due to water level depths in excess of 4 feet (maximum water depth = 5.5-ft). Open water in the center of the wetland is a function of water table exposure due to deep excavation conducted by a previous landowner. 4.3 MnRAM Analysis and Applied Buffer Widths For the purposes of applying City and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) wetland buffer rules, a MnRAM 3.4 analysis was completed for each wetland on the site as well as the offsite MnDOT mitigation wetland located along the southeast site boundary. Full MnRAM output results are included in Appendix F. With project development, Wetland Management Classification and applied buffer widths for the City of Chanhassen should follow those outlined in Section 20-411 (https://www.municode.com/library/mn/chanhassen/ codes/code_of_ordinances) of the City Code. Wetland Rating and applied buffer widths for Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) should follow Rule D (http://rpbcwd.org/files/2114/1687/3382/Rule_D_-_Final_- _5_Nov_2014.pdf) of watershed rules. City and RPBCWD wetland management classification/rating and applied buffer widths are summarized in Table 5 on the following page. Ta b l e 5 . M n R A M S u m m a r y - A v i e n d a , C h a n h a s s e n , M N We t l a n d I D W e t l a n d Ma n a g e m e n t Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n (C i t y R a t i n g ) Mn R A M Cr i t i c a l / H i g h e s t R a t e d Fu n c t i o n Ci t y A p p l i e d Mi n i m u m B u f f e r Wi d t h ( f e e t ) RP B C W D 1 We t l a n d R a t i n g Ru l e D - C r i t i c a l / H i g h e s t Ra t e d F u n c t i o n RPBCWD Applied Buffer Width (feet) Mn D O T W e t l a n d M a n a g e 2 M o d e r a t e f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r V e g e t a t i v e Di v e r s i t y a n d o t h e r fu n c t i o n s 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 1 M a n a g e 2 L o w f o r A m p h i b i a n Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 2 M a n a g e 2 L o w f o r A m p h i b i a n Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 3 M a n a g e 2 M o d e r a t e f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t a n d S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 4 M a n a g e 1 M o d e r a t e f o r A m p h i b i a n Ha b i t a t 25 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t a n d S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 5 M a n a g e 3 L o w f o r V e g e t a t i v e Di v e r s i t y 16 . 5 M e d i u m S t o r m w a t e r S e n s i t i v i t y (R P B C W D d e t e r m i n a t i o n ) 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 6 M a n a g e 2 M o d e r a t e f o r A e s t h e t i c s AN D L o w f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t 20 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r A e s t h e t i c s AN D L o w f o r W i l d l i f e Ha b i t a t 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 7 a n d 8 M a n a g e 3 L o w f o r V e g e t a t i v e Di v e r s i t y 16 . 5 M e d i u m M o d e r a t e f o r S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 9 M a n a g e 3 L o w f o r V e g e t a t i v e Di v e r s i t y 16 . 5 M e d i u m S t o r m w a t e r S e n s i t i v i t y (R P B C W D d e t e r m i n a t i o n ) 40 average; 20 minimum We t l a n d 1 0 P r e s e r v e H i g h f o r A m p h i b i a n Ha b i t a t 40 E x c e p t i o n a l E x c e p t i o n a l f o r S t o r m w a t e r Se n s i t i v i t y a n d M e d i u m f o r Ve g e t a t i v e D i v e r s i t y 80 average; 40 minimum 1 R P B C W D - R i l e y P u r g a t o r y B l u f f C r e e k W a t e r s h e d D i s t r i c t Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 15 5. SEQUENCING DISCUSSION/ONSITE ALTERNATIVES LEDPA DETERMINATION Alternative project designs were evaluated in an attempt to completely avoid or minimize wetland impacts to the extent possible in compliance with WCA and Section 404 requirements, while satisfying the above goals and requirements. The following discussion addresses wetland avoidance, wetland impact minimization, and wetland impact reduction over time. The following onsite alternatives analysis demonstrates that there are no feasible and prudent alternative project designs available that would completely avoid or further minimize wetland impacts while meeting the Project Purpose and Need, goals, and requirements. 5.1 Project Goals and Requirements Creating a viable project that will meet Project Purpose and Need requires that the project design be driven by project scope and City vision considerations while meeting other applicable environmental regulations. The Avienda project plan must meet all of the following goals and requirements to be considered feasible and prudent, and well as reasonable and practicable. 1. Provide a mixed use development within the City of Chanhassen of community and regional scale integrated with retail and business uses to serve local residents and a regional market; 2. Provide housing alternatives for all stages of life; 3. Create a pattern of land uses that are compatible and supportive by providing a mix of cultural, employment, entertainment, housing, shopping, and social components; 4. Provide a development design that serves pedestrian/walking use, mass transit use, and automobile traffic with vehicle and pedestrian access that is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system including a pedestrian promenade; 5. Create a layout design that is planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between uses of commercial and residential and to share parking; 6. Connect all structures and spaces with compatible pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, and trails and provide connections to existing pedestrian walkways and corridors; 7. Provide effective drainage for the overall site while capturing and treating stormwater runoff in a manner consistent with local, state, and federal standards (see Stormwater Requirements description on the following page); 8. Be consistent with the updated AUAR. The City is currently updating the AUAR, which will reflect the proposed development plan. The AUAR update is expected to be completed in early 2017. 9. Be sensitive to environmental features (topography, vegetation, wetlands, scenic views); 10. Avoid and minimize alteration to the Bluff Creek Overlay District bluff area, high quality woodland, and cultural resources; 11. Avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts on wetlands and water resources to the extent practicable; 12. Maintain the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetlands (see City Code Requirements on the following page); Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 16 13. Replace unavoidable wetland impacts with compensatory wetland mitigation that has wetland functions equal to or exceeding those of the impacted wetlands; and 14. Designate/establish buffers adjacent to avoided wetlands, and establish easements over the remaining wetlands, wetland buffers, and avoided/preserved areas of the Bluff Creek Overlay District to ensure their long-term viability and protection. Stormwater Requirements In order to meet the requirements of the RPBCWD, the proposed development must abstract the first 1.1-inches of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces for every rainfall event. Approximately 1.27-inches of rainfall on an impervious surface will yield 1.1-inches of runoff. Therefore, impervious runoff from every storm that is 1.27-inches or less (the most commonly occurring rainfall events) will need to be completely captured (abstracted). Using historical annual rainfall data from April 15, 1998 to October 15, 2016, the engineer calculated that of the 3,496 total days, 1,181 days had rainfall. Of those 1,181 days, only 69 days had over 1.27-inches of rainfall. By this estimation, 5.8% of rain days will result in some discharge from stormwater features, while 94.2% of rain days would never result in discharge to downstream wetlands or other water resources. City Code Requirements City Chanhassen Code Section 20-410(b) states that when a wetland alteration permit is issued, the alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetlands. In addition to direct impact to wetlands from fill or excavation, potential decreases in the hydrological characteristics of avoided wetlands were assessed in accordance with local rules. Per the requirements of City of Chanhassen Code Section 20-409(b)(3), Table 6 below provides pre-development wetland drainage areas with post-development drainage areas for the alternative designs considered. Table 6. Pre- and Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas for Alternatives Considered Wetland ID Pre- development Wetland Drainage Areas (ac) 1 Avoidance Alternative Wetland Drainage Areas (ac) 2 Percent Reduction in Drainage Area Mini- mization Alternative Drainage Area (ac) 3 Percent Reduction in Drainage Area Proposed Alternative Wetland Drainage Areas (Ac) 4 Percent Reduction in Drainage Area Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2 31.12 9.98 68% 9.95 68% Impacted NA Wetland 3 7.14 3.83 46% 5.1 29% 3.84 86% Wetland 4 1.14 1.14 5% increase 1.02 11% Impacted NA Wetland 5 5.55 3.23 42% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 6 17.48 5.4 69% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 7 4.81 1.59 67% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 8 3.85 0.69 82% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 9 3.36 1.57 53% Impacted NA Impacted NA Wetland 10 0.55 0.55 0% 0.55 0% 0.55 0% 1 - See Figure 5, 2 - See Figure 7, 3 - See Figure 8, 4 - See Figure 9 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 17 The drainage areas in Table 6 on the previous page encompass the wetland and its undeveloped surrounding landscape and represent supporting wetland hydrology available from untreated surface runoff post-development. The indicated reduction in drainage area would correspond to a similar reduction in drainage volume/supporting wetland hydrology. Because less than 6% of rainfall events result in stomwater discharge as described previously, treated stormwater discharge is not available to contribute to, or fully support, wetland hydrology post-development. 5.2 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative was considered as a way to eliminate all wetland impacts associated with the project, both direct and indirect. Although the no-build alternative would directly avoid all wetland impacts, it would not meet the Project Purpose and Need, goals, and requirements, and would not be inconsistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which dual-guides the project area for Office or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center. The No-Build Alternative is the only alternative that would completely avoid direct and indirect impacts to all onsite wetlands. Any development plan that meets the guided use (which includes large areas of impervious surfaces requiring abstraction) will result in secondary impacts to at least some onsite wetlands in order to meet stormwater management requirements. Because the No-Build Alternative will not meet the guided use for the site it was rejected as an approach to completely avoiding wetland impacts. 5.3 Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative An alternative project design that would completely avoid directly impacting wetlands was considered (Figure 7 and Appendix G - Concept C). This direct avoidance design includes three site access points via two arterial roads and a collector street, provides housing for all stages of life, and utilizes medium density housing to transition from existing single-family residential to the west to onsite commercial uses. Under this scenario the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) would be avoided, as would all onsite wetlands and wetland buffers. Due to elevation changes between avoided wetlands and their buffers, adjacent developed areas, and roadway connections, additional land surface must remain undeveloped to reconcile grade differences (i.e., the plan results in poorly accessible and undevelopable upland area throughout the site). Therefore, the Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative results in a net developable area of 58.33 acres, and a gross area of roadway/ROW of 14.92 acres. Preserved BCOD totals 20.25 acres (this number excludes wetland area and does not include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd). Multiple factors render this alternative not practicable, feasible, or prudent and result in a non- viable project: 1. The layout lacks a contiguous, flowing traffic system in which to circulate traffic as required by the City. 2. Office uses are physically separated and visually distanced from retail uses by the avoidance of Wetlands 1 and 2. Anchor retail/entertainment/hospitality is visually distanced from specialty retail by avoidance of Wetland 5. Avoidance of Wetland 9 Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 18 physically separates retail uses. Disconnected and isolated uses eliminates project synergy. 3. Disconnected and isolated uses do not provide an inviting and comfortable “walking” environment as required by the City and necessary for project viability. 4. The avoidance design lacks sufficient component area as detailed in Table 7 below. Specifically, the site does not provide sufficient components of retail hub, anchor retail/hospitality, or residential services/uses as required to meet Project Purpose and Need. 5. This alternative does not meet the use diversity/make-up requirements of the proposed PUD. Table 7. Developable Area, Wetland Impacts, and LEDPA Determination for Alternatives Considered Project Required Components Minimum Required Acres Avoidance Alternative NDA 1 (ac) Minimization Alternative NDA (ac) Proposed Alternative NDA (ac) Retail Hub (Specialty Shops and Restaurants) 25 0.00 0.00 25.67 Office (Medical/Professional) 13 14.70 13.81 12.61 2 Anchor Retail & Entertainment/Hospitality 11 8.22 10.54 11.05 Supporting Local Retail/Daycare/etc. 10 23.60 17.64 12.87 Residential 18 11.81 28.75 13.98 3 Roadways 13 14.92 14.48 16.60 Total NDA 90 73.25 85.22 92.78 Wetlands Impacts 0.00 1.33 5.00 Remaining Wetlands 5.65 4.32 0.65 Preserved BCOD (excludes wetlands) 20.25 15.48 14.40 Preserved NE Parcel 1.66 1.66 1.66 Total Other Areas 27.56 22.79 21.71 Total NDA and Other Areas 100.81 108.01 114.49 Total Property Boundary/Gross Area 119.88 119.88 119.88 Poorly Accessible/Undeveloped Area 19.07 11.87 5.39 LEDPA Determination Does not meet Project Purpose and Need Does not meet Project Purpose and Need Meets Project Purpose and Need 1 NDA = Net Developable Area. All uses measured using NDA except for ROW which is measured as Gross Area. 2 Office component is met/exceeded by utilization of two-story office space. 3 Residential component is met by apartment design and size. In addition, for the purposes of assessing water resource impacts of an alternative for identifying the LEDPA, it is important to note that even the Complete Direct avoidance alternative would have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of some avoided wetlands bordered or completely surrounded by intense development (i.e., high impervious uses) because: Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 19 a) For Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2, while the center of the Wetland 2 would potentially maintain hydrology characteristics via water table support, wet meadow portions of Wetland 1, 1/2, and 2 (~60% of the Wetland 1, 1/2, 2 complex area) would see a significant decrease in supporting wetland hydrology due to the elimination of agricultural runoff post- development in combination with an absence of replacement hydrology due to stormwater abstraction rules. As shown in Table 6, the Complete Avoidance Alternative would reduce the drainage area of supporting wetland hydrology to Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2 by 68%, and the wetland to watershed ratio would decrease from roughly 9:1 to 3:1. In addition, post-development the wetland would be surrounded by high intensity components, that would diminish its ecological value and use as wildlife habitat. Although the buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural/un-manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center commercial setting. b) Wetland 3 is an isolated depression that would be largely surrounded by low intensity post-development components, and would be unlikely to suffer adverse effects to ecological and hydrological characteristics with the avoidance plan. c) Wetland 4 is a slightly depressional, sloping wetland that would be largely surrounded by low intensity post-development components, and would be unlikely to suffer adverse effects to ecological and hydrological characteristics with the avoidance plan. d) Wetlands 5 and 9 are both slightly depressional, slightly sloping wetlands (farmed swales) that would likely maintain seasonally flooded basin hydrologic characteristics post-development. However, their ecological value when completely isolated by high intensity components would be minimal. Although buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural/un-manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center setting. e) Wetlands 6, 7, and 8 are all flow-through/swale wetlands that would likely maintain their hydrologic characteristics. Their ecological value would be minimal as a result of surrounding development and their location adjacent to major roadways. Although buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural or un-manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center setting. In summary, the avoidance design (and any other project design on the site consistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan) will result in some impact/adverse hydrological effect to onsite wetlands when in compliance with the requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District stormwater rules because the project design must include a system that Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 20 retains (i.e., “abstracts”) the majority of impervious runoff onsite through infiltration, evapotranspiration, or capture and reuse. This alternative is inconsistent with the City’s overall vision for the site as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and construction of this alternative would not meet existing or future demand for services, or result in a viable, mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project. Lastly, proposed land alterations and the stormwater management plan would result in a net adverse effect on the ecological and/or hydrological characteristics of avoided Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. For the above reasons, the complete avoidance alternative was rejected. 5.4 Minimization Alternative An alternative project design that would minimize total wetland impacts was also considered (Figure 8 and Appendix G - Concept B). The minimization design includes three site access points via two arterial roads and a collector street, provides housing for all stages of life, and utilizes medium and high density housing to transition from existing single-family residential to commercial uses. Under this scenario the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) would be partially-impacted so as to avoid Wetland 1/2 and meet residential development requirements. As with the Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative, due to elevation changes between avoided wetlands and their buffers, adjacent developed areas, and roadway connections, additional land surface must remain undeveloped to reconcile grade differences (i.e., the plan results in inaccessible and undevelopable upland area throughout the site). Therefore, the Minimization Alternative resulting in a net developable area of 70.74 acres, and a gross area of roadway/ROW of 14.48 acres. Impacts to Wetlands 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 total 1.33 acres. Preserved BCOD totals 15.48 acres (this number excludes wetland area and does not include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd) (Table 7 page 18). The design would also require that 383.5-linear feet of waterway be relocated around developed area. Multiple factors render this alternative not practicable, feasible, or prudent and result in a non- viable project: 1. The layout lacks a contiguous, flowing traffic system in which to circulate traffic as required by the City. 2. Office uses are physically separated and visually distanced from retail uses by the avoidance of Wetlands 1 and 2. Anchor retail/entertainment/hospitality is visually distanced from specialty retail by avoidance of Wetland 5. Avoidance of Wetland 9 physically separates retail uses. Disconnected and isolated uses negatively impact project synergy. 3. Disconnected and isolated uses do not provide a comfortable walkable environment as required by the City and necessary for project viability. 4. The avoidance design lacks sufficient component area as detailed in Table 7 on page 18. Specifically, the site does not provide sufficient retail hub, office, or anchor retail/hospitality services as required to meet Project Purpose and Need. 5. With the inclusion of apartment housing in Section M, the design meets PUD housing density requirements; however, this significantly reduces the available space for retail uses which is the driving component of the Regional/Lifestyle Center. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 21 Post-development, Wetlands 3 and 4 would be largely surrounded by low intensity components, and the preservation of surrounding space in relation to their wetland size (i.e., ~0.5-ac or less) and supporting hydrology (i.e., seasonal flooding) would maintain their ecological and hydrological characteristics. For Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2, while the center of the Wetland 2 would potentially maintain hydrology characteristics via water table support, wet meadow portions of Wetland 1, 1/2, and 2 (~60% of the Wetland 1, 1/2, 2 complex area) would see a significant decrease in supporting wetland hydrology due to the elimination of agricultural runoff post-development in combination with an absence of replacement hydrology due to stormwater abstraction rules. As shown in Table 6, the Minimization Alternative would reduce the drainage area of supporting wetland hydrology to Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2 by 68%, and the wetland to watershed ratio would decrease from roughly 9:1 to 3:1. In addition, post-development the wetland would be surrounded by high intensity components, that would diminish its ecological value and use as wildlife habitat. Although the buffer (20-ft minimum; 40-ft average) would remain in a natural state as required by local rules, all other surrounding undeveloped area would be manicured (i.e., not maintained as natural/un- manicured) in a Regional/Lifestyle Center commercial setting. In summary, the minimization design (and any other project design on the site consistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan) will result in some impact/adverse hydrological effect to onsite wetlands when in compliance with the requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District stormwater rules because the project design must include a system that retains (i.e., “abstracts”) the majority of impervious runoff onsite through infiltration, evapotranspiration, or capture and reuse. This alternative is inconsistent with the City’s overall vision for the site as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and construction of this alternative would not meet existing or future demand for services, or result in a viable, mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project. Avoidance of Wetland 1, 1/2, and 2 results in a non-contiguous project, in a non-walkable environment, that lacks a comprehensive circulation system as well as sufficient component areas to service the existing and future market. Lastly, proposed land alterations and the stormwater management plan would result in a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of avoided Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2. For the above reasons, the Minimization Alternative was rejected. 5.5 Proposed Alternative/Proposed Project Level 7 Development, LLC is proposing to develop a 119.88-acre property in the City of Chanhassen to Avienda, a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center that will include a retail hub of specialty shops and restaurants, anchor retail, local supporting retail, hospitality, medical and professional offices, and townhomes and apartments with associated streets, utilities, stormwater management features, and buffers on avoided wetlands as illustrated in Figure 10. The grading plan is provided in Appendix H. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 22 Project construction is expected to start in summer of 2017. The Avienda project will be mass graded in one phase. Streets and infrastructure such as storms sewers will be installed during the early stages of construction. Earthwork and seeding for wetland buffers and landscaping is expected to be completed by summer of 2018. Completion of the project is expected to require 3 years. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan anticipates development of this site as “Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial”. The Comprehensive Plan also notes that a new zoning district regional Commercial (RC) will be created in the City Code to implement this land use. However, the City Zoning Ordinance adopted in 2009 notes that the City wishes to see it zoned as a Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial PUD (Planned Unit Development). With the restriction of “one owner/one PUD” the City’s expectations for the completed project are that it will be of higher quality, create a regional sense of place/identity for the community, provide regional retail/commercial services that will complement existing uses within the City yet of a scale so as to provide shopping opportunities not currently located in the community, be sensitive to environmental features (topography, vegetation, wetlands, scenic views), and provide appropriate transition between uses. Lifestyle center retail hubs are commonly 25+ acres in size. Acreages provided for high and medium density units are based on standard product sizes to meet PUD density requirements. The remaining required acreages for anchor retail/hospitality, support retail, and office uses are based on market analysis calculations of supporting services that are needed to provide project synergy and viability. The Proposed Project (Proposed Alternative) is shown on Figure 9 (Appendix G - Concept A). Wetland impact types and areas overlaid on the proposed grading plan are shown on Figure 10. The proposed project design includes: 1. A retail hub and retail anchor/hospitality, supporting retail, and office components of sufficient acreage of contiguous buildable area (98.33 acres) to create a viable, mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center; 2. Three site access points via two arterial roads and a collect street and an internal contiguous, flowing traffic system in which to circulate traffic as required by the City; 3. Housing components for all stages of life that meets PUD density requirements and that will provide project viability; 4. Utilizes housing to transition from existing single-family residential to commercial uses provides a visual buffer between the development and natural features/woodland; and 5. Due to the nature of the site’s soils (clays) the proposed development is unable to infiltrate the abstraction volume. Therefore, the project will use onsite irrigation of all landscape areas to meet abstraction requirements. Per same requirements, none of the irrigation water will run off into the wetlands. With the proposed project the resulting net developable area is 81.73 acres and the gross area of roadway/ROW is 16.60 acres. Impacts to Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 total 4.9961 acres. Preserved BCOD totals 14.40 acres (this number excludes wetland area and does not Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 23 include 1.66 acres of preservation indicated for the undeveloped parcel to the east of Powers Blvd) (Table 7, page18). The design also results in 714.5 linear feet of waterway impact. The proposed project design meets the project purpose, need, goals, and requirements as described previously and implements the future land use envisioned by the City of Chanhassen. The proposed project represents an orderly and logistical use of the subject property and is consistent with applicable land use and policy plans. The Proposed Project represent a balanced effort to accommodate the project purpose, goals, and requirements, while minimizing impact to the BCOD, and avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts to the extent practical. Based on Table 7 and the above avoidance and minimization alternatives summaries, construction of the Proposed Project is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) that will meet the overall Project Purpose and Need. There are no practicable or reasonable alternative project designs that would meet the Project Purpose and Need of the Avienda mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center. 5.6 Proposed Project Impacts As proposed, the project will require 4.6462-acres of jurisdictional wetland fill and 0.3499-acre of jurisdictional wetland excavation. Unavoidable wetland impacts for the Avienda project are summarized in Table 8 below. The table documents wetland impact amount, impact type (fill versus excavation), and a general description of the justification for impact. Table 8. Wetland Impact Summary Impact Wetland Impact Size (ac) Type of Impact Impact Justification Wetlands 1 1.1001 Fill Located within the footprint of the retail hub and circulating traffic system. Wetland 1/2 0.1860 Fill Wetland 2 2.2569 Fill Wetland 4 0.1253 Fill Grading reconciliation between the apartment construction pad and sloping woodland. Wetland 5 0.3483 Fill Located within the footprint of retail space and associated parking. Wetland 6 0.5302 Fill Excavation and fill to construct stormwater treatment feature. 0.2514 Excavate Wetland 7 0.0150 Fill Located within the footprint of retail space, associated parking, and stormwater treatment feature. Wetland 8 0.0844 Fill Wetland 9 0.0985 Excavation Located within the footprint of retail space and associated parking. Totals 4.9961 The project plan also includes 714.5 linear feet (1,429 square feet) of USACE regulated waterway impacts (Figure 10). The northern waterway (383.5-ft) is currently located within an Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 24 area of the project that will be filled to construct retail and parking space and a stormwater basin. The southern waterway (331-ft) is located within an area of the project that will be filled for apartment and retaining wall construction. With development, the southern waterway will be relocated to the east so as to maintain the surface water flow paths from the woodland. 5.7 Wetland Impact Minimization There are no practicable or feasible alternative plan designs that would partially impact wetlands thereby minimizing wetland impacts. Because the entire area of each wetland proposed for impact will be impacted, minimization of impacts on individual wetlands is not possible. 5.8 Wetland Impact Rectification No temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed. Impact rectification does not apply. 5.9 Wetland Impact Reduction or Elimination Over Time Practices that will be implemented to help reduce or eliminate wetland impacts over time, include: (1) providing vegetated buffers along avoided Wetland 3 and 10 to protect against ecological impacts and to provide wildlife habitat; and (2) implementation of a stormwater management plan manage that reduces or eliminates potential effects of stormwater runoff to remaining onsite wetlands as well as offsite water resources. The City of Chanhassen, the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, and Minnesota Department of Transportation have review jurisdiction over storm water runoff from proposed redevelopment at this site. The MPCA has jurisdiction under the State Construction Stormwater NPDES General Permit. Because site soils have very low infiltration capacity, preferred methods to achieve stormwater management requirements will consist of BMPs including detention ponds, filtration, and water reuse for irrigation. Because the drainage area of Wetland 3 will be reduced by 86% with a corresponding decrease in watershed to wetland ratio from 11:1 to 6:1, the Applicant proposes to monitor Wetland 3 for secondary impacts to wetland hydrology. 5.10 Sequencing Flexibility Sequencing flexibility offers a process for approving proposed wetland impacts when the proposed replacement wetland is certain to provide equal or greater public value as determined based on a functional assessment reviewed by the technical evaluation panel using a methodology approved by the board (Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0520, Subp. 7a.). The local government unit may allow sequencing flexibility if any of the following apply: 1. the wetland to be impacted has been degraded to the point where replacement of it would result in a certain gain in function and public value; 2. avoidance of wetlands would result in severe degradation of the wetland's ability to function and provide public value, for example, because of surrounding land uses, and the wetland's ability to function and provide public value cannot reasonably be maintained Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 25 through implementation of best management practices, land use controls, or other mechanisms; 3. the only feasible and prudent upland site available for the project or replacement has greater ecosystem function and public value than the wetlands. This may be appropriate only if the applicant: a. demonstrates impact minimization to the wetland; b. agrees to perpetually preserve the designated upland site; and c. completely replaces the impacted wetland's functions and public value; or 4. the wetland is a site where human health and safety is a factor. Item 1 applies to proposed impacts to Wetlands 5 and 9, and Wetlands 7 and 8. Wetlands 5 and 9 are both partially-drained, annually farmed wetlands surrounded by cropland that have limited wetland functions and values. Wetland 7 and 8 are both partially-drained swales, dominated by invasive vegetation and bordered by cropland that have limited wetland functions and values. Replacement of these wetlands with the proposed replacement plan is sure to provide an increase in wetland functions and values. Item 2 applies to proposed impacts to Wetlands 1, 1/2, and 2. As previously discussed, post- development these wetlands will be surrounded by intense components and significant impervious area. Due to the large size of the wetland complex in relation adjacent preserved space in combination with a significant change to supporting wetland hydrology (i.e., the elimination of agricultural runoff in combination with the absence of supporting replacement hydrology), any project plan showing avoidance of these wetlands would result in severe degradation of the wetland's ability to function and provide public value. The Applicant requests that sequencing flexibility be invoked for impacts to Wetlands 1, 1/2, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 once the replacement plan is finalized, and after MnRAM results confirm that the replacement wetland results in increased wetland functions and values. 6. WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN 6.1 Compliance Framework and Required Replacement State Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0017, Subp. 1, states that Carver County is in an area with less than 50% of the presettlement wetlands remaining. Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0522, Subp. 4, states that the minimum replacement ratio for impacts to wetland on nonagricultural land in a less than 50% area is 2:1. Federal Total wetland impacts are greater than 3 acres; therefore, the Avienda project will require a Standard Individual Permit (IP) from the USACE with a likely wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 26 Waterway replacement is usually accomplished by providing assurance that the capacity and flow of the impacted resource is maintained, and that upstream and downstream resources are not negatively impacted. The function of the existing northern waterway (383.5-ft) is to provide an outlet for Wetlands 1 and 2. With the proposed project, Wetlands 1 and 2 will be impacted and the function of the waterway will no longer be needed. Upstream resources will no longer exist, and downstream resources will benefit from the reduction in untreated agricultural runoff. The function of the existing southern waterway (331-ft) is to provide an outlet for agricultural drain tile, and a path for surface runoff from the southwest woodland. With the proposed project, tile drainage will no longer pass through Wetland 4. Woodland runoff will be routed offsite by the construction of a 617-ft swale feature (Figure 11, Waterway Relocation) south of the apartment building. For these reasons, waterway impacts should not require replacement under Section 404. Table 9 below summarizes required wetland replacement for the Avienda mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center project. Table 9. WCA and USACE Required Replacement Total WCA/USACE Wetland Impacts Total Required Replacement 4.9961 acres 9.9922 acres Total USACE Waterway Impacts Total Required Replacement 714.5-linear feet (1,429 sf) None 6.2 Replacement Plan Overview Permanent wetland impacts are proposed to be replaced through the purchase of wetland bank credits from a Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) certified wetland bank located within the same Bank Service Area as the proposed project. However, other actions eligible for credit, or a combination of actions, are potentially available for meeting project replacement requirements. The final implemented Avienda Replacement Plan will be based on City, Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), and USACE feedback and suggestions. After wetland impacts and the proposed project have been preliminarily approved by the TEP and USACE, a finalized replacement plan will be submitted that will meet BWSR, USACE, and local replacement requirements. Specific to the City of Chanhassen, the replacement plan will: 1. Include a Wetland Buffer Strip Plan for avoided onsite wetlands (City Code Section 20- 412(h)). 2. Demonstrate that the replacement action/s result in an improvement in wetland functions and values, and addresses water quality improvement, maintenance of preexisting hydrological balance, and wildlife habitat improvement (City Code Section 20-146(a)). Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 27 The following paragraphs provide a summary of actions eligible for credit for the proposed project. At this time, the Applicant is only proposing replacement via banking; however, the Applicant is willing to investigate other potential replacement options based on TEP/USACE comments/feedback. 6.4 Actions Eligible for Credit Wetland Banking Wetland banking is the currently proposed wetland replacement plan. At the time of this application, there are no wetland banks in Major Watershed #33 and Bank Service Area 9 (BSA 9) that are: (1) available to the public, (2) have sufficient credit balance, and (3) are USACE certified. Therefore, if banking is chosen as the replacement plan or a component of the replacement plan, the applicant proposes to purchase USACE certified credits from an available wetland bank (or banks) within BSA 9, which is an area with less than 50% of presettlement wetland remaining. Wetland bank/s, total credit amount, and credit types used would be based on TEP and USACE comments/requirements. At a minimum, 9.9922-acres of credit would be purchased to meet compensatory mitigation requirements. Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural Resource Value (ENRV) Restoration and protection of important resources are eligible for replacement credit when the action improves or directly contributes to the function and sustainability of an exceptional natural resource. The determination of an exceptional resource can be based on the resource’s value relative to other resources in the watershed. Implementing this action could provide partial onsite replacement within the Bluff Creek minor watershed. An eligible resource exists onsite. Post-development, 14.40-acres of the site will be avoided and preserved oak woodland located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). As it is a local priority to protect and improve the function of the BCOD, utilization of ENRV is appropriate. Granting replacement credit under ENRV provisions would protect the long-term function and sustainability of the resource. According to BWSR guidance, preservation of upland in combination with a qualifying restoration activity is eligible for up to 12.5% credit of the total area permanently protected. With the proposed plan, 14.40-acres of BCOD could be restored and preserved thereby generating 1.8-acres of replacement credit. It may be possible to generate up to 10% replacement credit for Section 404/USACE permitting via upland buffer credit. Project-Specific Wetland Restoration/Creation The Applicant could explore wetland restoration/creation opportunities on other sites within the City of Chanhassen, with priority given to sites within, or with a tributary to, the BCOD. Sites would be identified by review of City documents (e.g., Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites from the City of Chanhassen 2nd Generation: Surface Water Management Plan), aerial review of primarily undeveloped sites, and City knowledge/feedback. Sites identified would be assessed for ecological suitability and sustainability, actions eligible for credit, total potential generated credits, construction feasibility, and landowner cooperation/authorization. The Applicant is willing to consider this option for fulfilling part, or potentially all, of the required replacement. Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 28 7. RARE SPECIES CONSIDERATIONS State and federal wetland rules require that endangered and threatened species be considered in wetland permitting. Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0515 specifies that endangered and threatened species must be considered when submitting a wetland replacement plan. Approval of wetland impacts under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act must comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The federally-threatened northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is the principle species of concern for this review. The NLEB hibernates in caves during winter and establishes maternity roosting colonies under the loose bark of trees during the summer. There are no known NLEB hibernacula or roosting colonies in the vicinity of the development site or in Carver County, Minnesota (Appendix H). KES reviewed the site in the field on September 28, 2016 to assess tree species, size, and condition, and to establish a base for quantifying tree removal and potential effects on NLEB habitat. Based on the field visit, KES determined that woodland consisted of three distinct cover types within the development parcel (Figure 2). The parcel east of Powers Boulevard is not proposed for development and is not included in this discussion.  Woodland Cover A (approximately 1.48 acres) was located along the northern edges of Wetlands 1 and 2. The woodland was dominated by green ash and boxelder ranging from 2 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of American elm, black willow, and black cherry ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>30-inch DBH) cottonwoods were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn, gray dogwood, chokecherry, and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover B (approximately 3.20 acres) was a shelterbelt in the center of the site. The woodland was dominated by green ash ranging from <4 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of boxelder, black cherry, black walnut, and American elm ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>15-inch DBH) bur oaks were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover C (approximately 21.00-acres) was located in the southwest portion of the development parcel. The woodland was dominated by red and bur oak ranging from 6 to 25 inches DBH and sugar maple ranging from <4 to 16 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of basswood, American elm, and black cherry (all 4 to 10 inches DBH) were present. Understory buckthorn shrubs were observed mainly along the outer edges of the woodland. Development of the Avienda project will require approximately 10.98 acres of tree removal (1.48 acres of Woodland Cover A, 3.20-acres of Woodland Cover B, and 6.30-acres of Woodland Cover C). Development tree removal areas are shown on Figure 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidance on the NLEB 4(d) Rule eliminates the need for detailed USFWS review because the project area is not located within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree or within 0.25 mile of a known hibernaculum (Appendix I). Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 29 Under the 4(d) Rule, the USFWS created a framework that streamlines Section 7 Consultations under the Endangered Species Act when federal actions may affect the NLEB, but will not cause prohibited take of this threatened species. Federal agencies have the option to rely on the finding of the programmatic biological opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule to fulfill their project-specific Section 7 responsibilities by using this framework. Nevertheless, the project team understands that a federal interagency agreement requires the USACE to provide the USFWS with notice of proposed tree removal and allow the USFWS 30 days to comment. USFWS Guidance for federalized projects under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) Rule states that incidental take from “tree removal activities is not prohibited” because the project will not result in: 1. removing a known occupied maternity roost tree, 2. tree removal activities within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through July 31, or 3. tree removal activities within 0.25 mile of a hibernaculum at any time. 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological surveys have been completed on the site. There are no cultural resources within the project area. Copies of the surveys are available upon request. Avienda Wetland Permit Application FIGURES 1. Site Location and Property Boundary 2. Existing Land Cover 3. Topographic Elevations 4. Minor Watershed Boundaries 5. Existing Drainage Areas 6. Delineated Wetlands 7. Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative 8. Minimization Alternative 9. Proposed Alternative 10. Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas 11. Tree Removal Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 28 species must be considered when submitting a wetland replacement plan. Approval of wetland impacts under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act must comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The federally-threatened northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is the principle species of concern for this review. The NLEB hibernates in caves during winter and establishes maternity roosting colonies under the loose bark of trees during the summer. There are no known NLEB hibernacula or roosting colonies in the vicinity of the development site or in Carver County, Minnesota (Appendix H). KES reviewed the site in the field on September 28, 2016 to assess tree species, size, and condition, and to establish a base for quantifying tree removal and potential effects on NLEB habitat. Based on the field visit, KES determined that woodland consisted of three distinct cover types within the development parcel (Figure 2). The parcel east of Powers Boulevard is not proposed for development and is not included in this discussion.  Woodland Cover A (approximately 1.48 acres) was located along the northern edges of Wetlands 1 and 2. The woodland was dominated by green ash and boxelder ranging from 2 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of American elm, black willow, and black cherry ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>30-inch DBH) cottonwoods were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn, gray dogwood, chokecherry, and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover B (approximately 3.20 acres) was a shelterbelt in the center of the site. The woodland was dominated by green ash ranging from <4 to 12 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of boxelder, black cherry, black walnut, and American elm ranging from 2 to 12 DBH were also present. A few large (>15-inch DBH) bur oaks were present. The understory consisted of common buckthorn and prickly ash shrubs.  Woodland Cover C (approximately 21.00-acres) was located in the southwest portion of the development parcel. The woodland was dominated by red and bur oak ranging from 6 to 25 inches DBH and sugar maple ranging from <4 to 16 inches DBH. Lesser amounts of basswood, American elm, and black cherry (all 4 to 10 inches DBH) were present. Understory buckthorn shrubs were observed mainly along the outer edges of the woodland. Development of the Avienda project will require approximately 10.98 acres of tree removal (1.48 acres of Woodland Cover A, 3.20-acres of Woodland Cover B, and 6.30-acres of Woodland Cover C). Development tree removal areas are shown on Figure 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidance on the NLEB 4(d) Rule eliminates the need for detailed USFWS review because the project area is not located within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree or within 0.25 mile of a known hibernaculum (Appendix I). Under the 4(d) Rule, the USFWS created a framework that streamlines Section 7 Consultations under the Endangered Species Act when federal actions may affect the NLEB, but will not cause prohibited take of this threatened species. Federal agencies have the option to rely on the finding of the programmatic biological opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule to fulfill their project-specific Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center Wetland Permit Application 29 Section 7 responsibilities by using this framework. Nevertheless, the project team understands that a federal interagency agreement requires the USACE to provide the USFWS with notice of proposed tree removal and allow the USFWS 30 days to comment. USFWS Guidance for federalized projects under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) Rule states that incidental take from “tree removal activities is not prohibited” because the project will not result in: 1. removing a known occupied maternity roost tree, 2. tree removal activities within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through July 31, or 3. tree removal activities within 0.25 mile of a hibernaculum at any time. 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES Archeological surveys have been completed on the site. There are no cultural resources within the project area. Copies of the surveys are available upon request. Avienda Wetland Permit Application FIGURES 1. Site Location and Property Boundary 2. Existing Land Cover 3. Topographic Elevations 4. Minor Watershed Boundaries 5. Existing Drainage Areas 6. Delineated Wetlands 7. Wetland Avoidance Alternative 8. Wetland Minimization Alternative 9. Proposed Alternative 10. Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas 11. Tree Removal Areas Figure 1 - Site Location & Property Boundary Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Property Boundary MnDOT ROW (adjacent to site) Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Residential Development Residential Development Residential Development Trun k H i g h w a y 2 1 2 Lyman Boulevard Po w e r s B o u l e v a r d Parcel within property boundary (1.66-ac). Not proposed for development at this time. Figure 2 - Existing Land Cover (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Bluff Creek Overlay District Wetlands (5.65-ac) Not Cropped/Grass (9.02-ac) Former Farmstead (5.12-ac) Shelterbelt (3.20-ac) Woodland (22.78-ac) Cropland (68.53-ac) Roadway (1.70-ac) Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap No developmentproposed for thisparcel.WoodlandCover A1.48-ac WoodlandCover B3.20-ac WoodlandCover C21.00-ac WoodlandCover D0.30-ac Po w e r s B l v d TH 2 1 2 916 914 912 91 8 920 91 0 908906 9 0 4 902 9 0 0 898 896894 8 9 2 8 9 0 888 8 8 6 884 92 2 9 2 4 9 2 6 928 9 3 0 8 8 2 9 3 2 880 934936946 878 938 940 876 942 944 874 872 870 948 950952954956958 890 894 92 8 916 944 9 2 0 89 8 934 942 878 9 0 0 94 6 92 4 950 902 938 934 936 914 930 910 88 4 91 6 92 6 936 9 1 2 932 916 954 92 0 932 952 93 0 874 906 9 2 4 922 918 950 938 934 9 0 8 892 932 916 914 886 876 936 896 934 90 6 942 930 918 940 912 9 0 4 946 926 930 940 874 9 2 4 918 938 910 90 0 9 1 0 906 938 948 914 872 936898 9 0 6 928 904 914 9 1 4 9 2 6940 9 0 2 924 92 8 934 874 9 3 4 952948 918 914 954 930 9 1 6 896 92 0 946 944 89 6 9 1 2 9 0 0 888 936 908 910 8 8 4 924 9 3 8 89 2 9 2 2 944 912 91 6 90 2 894 928 926 904 9 0 2 932 89 8 922 938 9 2 0 870 Figure 3 - Topographic Elevations (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Ag Tile Carver Co 2-ft Lidar Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 950-ft 924-ft 908-ft 912-ft 938-ft 932-ft 9 3 2 - f t 8 9 4 - f t 8 8 6 - f t 926-ft 930-f t 910-f t 906-f t 906-ft 9 0 0 - f t 8 9 2 - f t 924-ft 914-f t 936-ft 8 8 6 - f t 876-ft 916-f t 9 0 0 - f t 902-f t 946-ft 912-f t 930-f t 946-ft 936-ft 902-f t Figure 4 - Minor Watershed Boundaries (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Minor Watershed Divide Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL3 2016 WL9 WL5 WL4 WL2 WL1 WL1/2 WL7 WL8 WL10 Lake Susan & Riley Creek Watershed Bluff Creek Watershed Source: www.mngeo.state.mn.us Figure 5 - Existing Drainage Areas (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Drainage Areas (DA) Sub Drainage Area (SDA) Surface Drainage Direction Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 DA 17.48-ac WL1/2 DA 31.12-ac WL8 DA 3.85-ac WL7 DA 4.81-ac DA 2.56-ac WL3 DA 7.14-ac WL5 DA 5.55-ac DA 12.61-ac DA 28.83-ac DA 3.62-ac DA 2.36-ac WL9 SDA 3.36-ac WL10 SDA 0.55-ac WL4 SDA 1.14-ac Figure 6 - Delineated Wetlands (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Proposed Site Historic Wetland 9 Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Ag Tile Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 0.7816-ac WL3 0.6696-ac Historic WL9 2016 WL9 0.0985-ac WL5 0.3483-ac WL4 0.1253-ac WL2 2.2569-ac WL1 1.001-ac WL1/2 0.1860-ac WL7 0.0150-ac WL8 0.0844-ac WL10 0.0740-ac Buildings shown here no longer present Figure 7 - Complete Direct Avoidance Alternative With Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Property Boundary Waterway Retaining Wall Drainage Areas Sub Drainage Areas Bluff Creek Overlay District WL1/2 WL5 WL4 WL10 WL3 WL9 WL6 WL7 WL8 Figure 8 - Minimization Alternative With Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Property Boundary Relocated Waterway Waterway Retaining Wall Drainage Areas Sub Drainage Areas Bluff Creek Overlay District WL3 WL10 WL4 WL1/2 Figure 9 - Proposed Alternative With Post-Development Wetland Drainage Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet WL3 WL10 Legend Property Boundary Relocated Waterway Retaining Wall Drainage Areas Sub Drainage Areas Bluff Creek Overlay District Figure 10 - Wetland and Waterway Impact Areas Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, MN Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Property Boundary Waterway Fill Waterway Relocation Wetland Fill Wetland Excavation Wetlands WL6 WL1 WL9 WL5 WL4 WL8 WL7 WL1/2 WL2 WL10 WL3 383.5-ft 331-ft617-ft Figure 11 - Tree Removal Areas (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Tree Removal6.3-acres P o w e r s B l v d TH 2 1 2 Tree Removal3.20-acres Tree Removal0.27-acres Tree Removal1.21-acres ThisParcelNotDeveloped Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX A Joint Application for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Avienda, Chanhassen, MN PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Level 7 Development, LLC (contact Mark Nordland) Mailing Address: 8315 Cascade Drive, Suite 165, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: (612) 812‐7020 E‐mail Address: mnordland@launchproperties.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above):Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services Mailing Address: 105 5th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612‐252‐9070 E‐mail Address: Darren B. Lazan, RLA <dlazan@landform.net> Agent Name: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Mailing Address: 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: 952‐401‐8757 E‐mail Address: Melissa@kjolhaugenv.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Carver City/Township:Chanhassen Parcel ID and/or Address: 250230500, 250230420, 250230430, 250230410, and 250230300 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): Sec23, T116, R23 Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 44°50’15” N; 93°33”27” W Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet):Site = 119.88‐acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. See Sections 1, 2, and 5.5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Avienda, Chanhassen, MN PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Size of Impact2 Overall Size of Aquatic Resource 3 Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area4 County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area # of Impact Area5 Wetland 1 Wetland Fill P 1.001 1.001 Shallow marsh/wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 1/2 Wetland Fill P 0.1860 0.1860 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 2 Wetland Fill P 2.2569 2.2569 Open water/ shallow marsh/ wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 4 Wetland Fill P 0.1253 0.1253 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 5 Wetland Fill P 0.3483 0.3483 Seas fl basin Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 6 Wetland Fill P 0.5302 0.5302 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 6 Wetland Excavate P 0.2514 0.2514 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 7 Wetland Fill P 0.0150 0.0150 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 8 Wetland Fill P 0.0844 0.0844 Wet meadow Carver, 33, 9 Wetland 9 Wetland Excavate P 0.0985 0.9850 Seas fl basin Carver, 33, 9 North Waterway Waterway Fill P 383.5‐ft (767 sf) sf) 383.5‐ft (767 sf) sf) Open water Carver, 33, 9 South Waterway Waterway Fill P 331‐ft (662 sf) 331‐ft (662 sf) None/Water Carver, 33, 9 1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”. 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”. 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: 1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 6 of 12 Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply): Wetland Type Confirmation Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non‐binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013). http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 8 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Avienda, Chanhassen, MN Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management, and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings, roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: See Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on‐site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: See Section 5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4): See Section 5 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Off‐Site Alternatives. An off‐site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be required to provide an off‐site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off‐site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. See Section 3 of the attached Avienda Wetland Permit Application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Avienda, Chanhassen, MN Attachment D Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation not associated with the local road wetland replacement program. Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements. Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an existing wetland bank (with an account number in the State wetland banking system) for all or part of your replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements. Wetland Bank Account # County Major Watershed # Bank Service Area # Credit Type (if applicable) Number of Credits TBD TBD TBD 9 TBD 9.9922 Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at least a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project. This documentation could be a signed purchase agreement, signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU. Project‐Specific Replacement/Permittee Responsible Mitigation. Complete this section if you are proposing to pursue actions (restoration, creation, preservation, etc.) to generate wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation credits for this proposed project. WCA Action Eligible for Credit1 Corps Mitigation Compensation Technique2 Acres Credit % Requested Credits Anticipated3 County Major Watershed # Bank Service Area # 1Refer to the name and subpart number in MN Rule 8420.0526. 2Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota. 3If WCA and Corps crediting differs, then enter both numbers and distinguish which is Corps and which is WCA. Explain how each proposed action or technique will be completed (e.g. wetland hydrology will be restored by breaking the tile……) and how the proposal meets the crediting criteria associated with it. Applicants should refer to the Corps mitigation policy language, WCA rule language, and all associated Corps and WCA guidance related to the action or technique: NA Attach a site location map, soils map, recent aerial photograph, and any other maps to show the location and other relevant features of each wetland replacement/mitigation site. Discuss in detail existing vegetation, existing landscape features, land use (on and surrounding the site), existing soils, drainage systems (if present), and water sources and movement. Include a topographic map showing key features related to hydrology and water flow (inlets, outlets, ditches, pumps, etc.): NA Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX B Alternative Sites Analysis Figures © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure A - West Metro Twin Cities and City of Chanhassen Location Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5 Miles Legend City of Chanhassen Proposed Site Retail/Comerical/Mixed-Use Commerical Burnsville Center Eden Prairie Center Canterbury Downs Arbor Lakes Shops at West End Ridgedale Center Downtown Chanhassen Minneapolis Southdale Center B l u f f C r e e k Minneso t a R i v e r Riley C r e e k C h a s k a C r e e k Purgatory Creek Unn a m e d t o M i n n e s o t a R i v e r Assumptio n C r e e k U n n a m e d T r i b u t a r y Bluff Creek U n n a m e d t o M i n n e s o t a R i v e r Rile y C r e e k Ri l e y C r e e k R i l e y C r e e k Figure B - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (Aerial Photo) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 1 3 4 5 Legend City of Chanhassen Proposed Site Alternative Sites Public Waters Public Watercourse MN Landscape Arboretum (MnLA) Temple of Eckankar MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge TH 2 1 2 TH 5 TH 4 1 6 Seminary Fen Inter-change Inter-change Camp Tanadoona MnLA TH = Trunk Highway Figure C - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (City Basemap) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/1527 1 3 4 5 Legend City of Chanhassen Alternative Sites Proposed Site 6 Figure D - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (Land Use) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 1 3 4 5 6 City of Chanhassen Alternative Sites Proposed Site (Dual Guided for Office Campus or Regional Commercial/Lifestyle Center) Figure E - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (City of Chahassen Available Land Inventory) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet Und e r Dev e l o p m e n t 1 2 3 4 5 6 Legend Proposed Site Alternative Sites Figure F - Location of Alternative Sites and the Proposed Site (City Road Classification) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 5,000 Feet 2 1 3 4 5 6 Legend Alternative Sites Proposed Site Bl u f f C r e e k Riley Creek Figure G - Alternative Site 1 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Offsite Waterway Determination Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Alternative Site 1 = 58-acresCharity and Business LandownersGuided for Office Industrial Use General MillsProperty ExistingDaycare General MillsOffice/Factory 0.90-ac 0.28-ac Coulter Blvd (collector) TH 5 (arterial) Au d u b o n R o a d ( c o l l e c t o r ) 0.10-ac 0.10-ac 0.28-ac 0.31-ac 0.18-ac S t e e p S l o p e s Hazeltine (10-14 P) Hazeltine (10-14 P) Figure H - Alternative Site 2 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Soil Survey Mapped Peat Soil Offsite Waterway Determination Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Alternative Site 2 = 50-acres1 Private LandownerGuided for Office Industrial Use~25 acres mapped with peat soils requiring correction before useSouthwest half of site within shoreland (impervious surface restrictions) Railro a d T r a c k s Lyman Blvd (arterial) Ga l p i n B l v d ( a r t e r i a l ) 0.56-ac 0.34-ac 0.15-ac 1.30-ac Hazeltine (10-14 P) Blu f f C r e e k Figure I - Alternative Site 3 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Offsite Waterway Determination Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver NWI Wetland 4.0-acres NWI & Offsite Wetland Total (soils; topo) 9.6-acres Alternative Site 3 = 70-acres3 Private LandownersGuided for Office Industrial UseBluff Creek Overlay District south half siteShoreland on southwest and northeast site boundaries Existing OfficeIndustrial Lyman Blvd (arterial) Au d u b o n R o a d ( a r t e r i a l ) NWI Wetland 0.11-acres 0.13-acres Au d u b o n R o a d ( c o l l e c t o r ) Bluff Creek Figure J - Alternative Site 4 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Wetland Complex 11.75-acres Alternative Site 4 = 40-acres2 Private LandownersGuided for Office UseBluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD)Shoreland extends past BCOD limts Pioneer Trail (arterial) TH 2 1 2 ( p r i n c i p l e a r t e r i a l ) Po w e r s B l v d ( a r t e r i a l ) MN D O T La n d MN D O T La n d Unnamed (10-214 W) Unnamed (10-215 W) Figure K - Alternative Site 5 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Wetland Complex 18.25-acresWetland Complex 6.50-acres Wetland Complex 4.2-acres Cit y P a r k Pre s e r v e Wetland 0.48-acresWetland 2.0-acres Wetland 0.62-acres Wetland 0.84-acres Wetland 1.61-acres Wetland 0.38-acres Alternative Site 5 = 117-acres1 Private LandownerGuided for Residential Low DensityBluff Creek Overlay District Wi l s o n T r e e F a r m rec e n t l y p e r m i t t e d res i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t cur r e n l t y u n d e r con s t r u c t i o n . TH 2 1 2 ( p r i n c i p l e a r t e r i a l ) Po w e r s B l v d ( a r t e r i a l ) Gr e a t P l a i n s B l v d (a r t e r i a l ) Alternative Site 6 Alt Site 4 Created Pond Present 2015 2 Parcels to be added to Wilson Tree Farm Pioneer Trail (arterial) Potential future collector street Wetland 2.35-acres Bluff Creek Figure L - Alternative Site 6 with NWI Map Overlay (green shading) (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Road Upgrade ROW Ravine Offsite Wetland Determination Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver Alternative Site 6 = 226.5-acres(of which 100 acres is within BCOD)1 Association LandownerGuided for Residential Low DensityBluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD)Shoreland does not extend past BCOD TH 2 1 2 (pri n c i p l e arte r i a l ) Po w e r s B l v d (a r t e r i a l ) Alternative Site 5 Alt Site 4 Pioneer T r a i l ( a r t e r i a l ) 0.89-ac 0.23-ac 0.10-ac 0.09-ac 0.06-ac 0.09-ac 0.97-ac 0.18-ac 0.41-ac 0.13-ac 0.12-ac 0.04-ac Potential Future Collector Future Collector B l u f f C r e e k Figure M - Proposed Site (Applicant's Preferred) with Delineated Wetlands (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet 0.13-ac 0.10-ac 0.35-ac 0.67-ac 0.78-ac 2.26-ac 0.19-ac 1.00-ac 0.02-ac 0.08-ac Proposed Site = 116-acres1 Private/Applicant LandownerDual Zoned/Guided for Office or Regional CommercialBluff Creek Overlay District / Woodland Po w e r s B l v d ( a r t e r i a l ) Lyman Blvd (arterial) TH 2 1 2 (pr i n c i p l e a r t e r i a l ) Bluf f C r e e k B l v d (co l l e c t o r ) Legend Proposed Site Waterway Intermittent Surface Flow Ag Tile Delineated Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Bluff Creek Primary Corridor Public Watercourse Public Waters Shoreland Zone Parcels2015Carver 0.07-ac Unnamed (10-215 W) Unnamed (10-214 W) Riley (10-2 P) Figure N - Alternative Site 5 Reference Figure (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Collector Street Wetlands (green shading) Retail Hub (25-acres) Circulating Traffic System (10-acres) Housing (12.5-acres) Anchor & Entert/Hospitality (11-acres) Medical Professional Retail (9.3-acres) Stormwater (3.5-acres) Bluff Creek Primary Corridor (BCOD) Public Watercourse Public Waters B l u f f C r e e k Wetland impacts identified in white 0.67-ac 0. 4 8 - a c 1. 6 1 - a c 0.73-ac 0.36-ac 2.0-ac 0.84 - a c 0.38-ac Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1000-ft Indirect discharge to Lake Riley(impaired water)2000-ft Wetland Impact = 7.07-acres. Additional impact to wetlands and BCOD required to meet project purpose and need. Layout is short: 13+ acres of retail etc.; 5 acres of housing. TH 2 1 2 Po w e r s B l v d Gr e a t P l a i n s B L v d Bluff Creek Figure O - Alternative Site 6 Reference Figure (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Alternative Sites Collector Street Road Upgrade Road Upgrade ROW Wetlands (green shading) Retail Hub (25-ac) Circulating Traffic System (10-ac) Housing (13-ac) Anchor & Entert/Hosp (11-ac) Medical Professional Retail(18-ac) Stormwater (3.4-ac) Bluff Creek Primary Corridor (BCOD) Ravine Public Watercourse Carver Co 10ft Contours 0.04-ac 0.89-ac 0.18-ac 0.97-ac 0.23-ac 0.10-ac 0.09-ac 0.06-ac 0.09-ac 0.28-ac 0.22-ac 1.01-ac (all three) Direct discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1100-ft Direct discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1000-ft Direct discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)500-ft Site is less than 0.5-mi from Minnesota River and MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge (directly south) Wetland impacts identified in white0.12-ac 0.10-ac 0.02-ac 50-ft gra d e c h a n g e 8 0 - f t g r a d e c h a n g e Wetland Impact = 4.12-acres, including offiste impacts for roadway upgrades. Layout is disconnected and short: 5 acres of retail etc., 5 acres of housing to meet project purpose andneed. Collector streets not likley approved by City. TH 2 1 2 Pioneer Trail Bl u f f C r e e k Figure P - Proposed Site (Applicant's Preferred) Reference Figure (2016 Metro Aerial) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle CenterChanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figureare approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Indirect discharge to Lake Susan(impaired water)5400-ft Indirect discharge to Bluff Creek(impaired stream)1200-ft 0.10-ac 3.45-ac(all three) 0.35-ac 0.02-ac 0.08-acWetland impacts identified in white Legend Proposed Site Alternative Sites - Copy Collector Street Wetlands (green shading) Waterway Retail Hub Circulating Traffic System Housing (18-acres) Anchor & Entert/Hosp (11.5-acres) Medical Professional Retail (23-acres) Stormwater (3.5-acres) Bluff Creek Primary Corridor (BCOD) Public Watercourse Alternative Site 3 Alt Site 4 TH 2 1 2 Po w e r s B l v d Wetland Impact = 4.00-acres. Waterway impact = 383.5-ft. Layout is connected and meets project purpose and need. Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX C Wetland Delineation Notice of Decision Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX D Wetland Delineation Addendum 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952-401-8757, Fax: 952-401-8798 Memorandum Date: January 9, 2017 To: Terry Jeffery, City of Chanhassen Ryan Malterud, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cc: Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services, LLC From: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company Re: Delineation Addendum AVIENDA, CHANHASSEN, MN (formerly The District at Vincent Ridge) This memo provides an addendum to the 2015 City approved wetland delineation for the Avienda site in Chanhassen, MN (Figure 1). Background Information Eight wetlands were originally identified and delineated on the Avienda site as illustrated on Figure 2. These wetlands (Wetlands 1 through 8) were reviewed and approved in November 2015 by the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) (City of Chanhassen) (Appendix C) when the site was under contract by a different developer and was known as “The District at Vincent Ridge”. Previous delineation reports/memos describe the 2015 approved delineation in more detail and included National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and soil survey mapping. Copies of those reports/memos are available upon request. In 2016, the new developer for the site contracted with Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES) for wetland permitting services. As part of the wetland permit application, MnRAM analyses based on wetland characteristics is required to determine wetland buffer widths. As such, KES visited the site on September 28, 2016 to document wetlands and their adjacent upland characteristics for completing the MnRAM analyses. During that visit, two additional wetlands were identified and delineated. Wetland 9 Wetland 9 was a 0.10-acre, Type 1 (PEMAfd) partially-drained, farmed, seasonally flooded basin that was drained by an incised and back cutting gully. Page 2 of 2 Wetland 9 was historically an approximately 0.69-acre Type 2 wetland. On April 6, 2007 the City of Chanhassen approved a WCA agricultural exemption allowing the landowner (Fox Properties, LP) to impact Wetland 9 (Attachment A). The WCA exemption expires after 10 years (i.e., expiration date of April 6, 2017). Any impact within the area of historic Wetland 9 prior to the expiration date would require replacement. After April 6, 2017, any required replacement would be based on wetland that currently exits. Therefore, wetland that currently exists in or near the area of historic Wetland 9 was delineated during the September 2016 site visit (Figure 2). A data sheet documenting the 2016 boundary for Wetland 9 is included in Attachment B. A review of all available FSA photos (198o’s to present) was not completed for the area of Wetland 9 since they are not all representative of post-exemption site conditions. Instead, available FSA photos from post-2007 (2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2015) were reviewed for wetland signatures in and around the area of Wetland 9. The delineated boundary of Wetland 9 corresponds to saturated soil signatures observed in 2013 and 2015 (Attachment C). Wetland Signature Observations for 2016 Delineated Wetland 9 Year Climatic Condition Wetland Signature 2008 Normal None 2009 Dry None 2010 Normal None 2013 Wet Saturated Soil 2015 Normal Saturated Soil Wetland 10 Wetland 10 was a 0.07-acre, Type 1 (PFO1A) primarily unvegetated, seasonally flooded basin located in the southwest woodland. During the September 2016 site visit, KES observed surface runoff flowing into the northwest edge of Wetland 4 from upslope. After following a shallow and mostly dry drainageway/swale to the top of the woodland, Wetland 10 was discovered (Figure 2). Based on wetland type, Wetland 10 would have water only during the springtime in normal years and could easily be missed. It is likely that the hydrology observed during the site visit was a function of the wetter than normal fall precipitation conditions of the 2016 growing season (Attachment C). A data sheet documenting the 2016 boundary for Wetland 10 is included in Attachment B. Wetlands 1 Through 8 Wetlands 1 through 8 were observed to be as originally delineated (Figure 2) during the September 28, 2016 site visit. With submission of this delineation addendum we request that the wetland boundary and type for Wetlands 9 and 10 be approved by the LGU. We are requesting delineation concurrence and a PJD from the USACE. Attachment A of the Joint Application Form is included within Appendix A of the Avienda Wetland Permit Application. © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 916 914 912918 920 91 0 908 906 9 0 4 902 9 0 0 898 896894 8 9 2 890 888 8 8 6 8 8 4 92 2 9 2 4 9 2 6 9 2 8 9 3 0 882 932 880 934 936946 878 938 940 876 942 944 874 872870 948 950 952 954 956958 934 928 938 924 932 936 914 950 942 890892 878 910888 88 4 926 908 9 1 2 89 8 948 934 894 89 6 9 1 2 936 944 9 2 2 932 92 0952 954 874 906 924 918 950 916 9 3 4 872 902 932 9 2 6 884 94 6 876 9 0 4 928 934 9 4 4 942 930 9 2 4 940 92 0 920 946 9 0 6 930 914 916 926 9 1 0 916 910 90 0 9 2 0 906 938904 916 936 898 9 0 2 90 4 930 918 9 1 4 940 930 924 92 8 9 0 0 874 91 6 896 934 952 9 4 8 9 1 8 914 930 9 3 8 936 946 9 1 2 896 90 0 874 9 0 0 886 908 91 0 916 924 9 3 8 89 2 944 9 1 6 91 4 894 928 926 90 6 90 2 932 89 8 92 2 9 3 8 918 8 7 0 Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2016 7-County Photo) Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Legend Proposed Site Historic Wetland 9 Transect Wetlands MnDOT Wetland Waterway Intermittent Drainageway Ag Tile Carver County Lidar Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 0.7816-ac WL3 0.6696-ac Historic WL9 2016 WL9 0.0985-ac WL5 0.3483-ac WL4 0.1253-ac WL2 2.2569-ac WL1 1.001-ac WL1/2 0.1860-ac WL7 0.0150-ac WL8 0.0844-ac WL10 0.0740-ac Buildings shown here no longer present SP9 SP10 Avienda Delineation Addendum ATTACHMENT A WCA Notice of Decision Avienda Delineation Addendum ATTACHMENT B Wetland Determination Data Forms 1/9/2017 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database http://climate.umn.edu/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=456391&passYutm83=4965441&passcounty=Carver&passcounty_number=10…1/1 Minnesota Climatology Working Group State Climatology Office ‐ DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Minnesota home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | contact us | search | Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Carver township number: 116N township name: Lake Minnewashta range number: 23W nearest community: Chanhassen section number: 23 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Thursday, September 01, 2016 Score using 1981-2010 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: August 2016 second prior month: July 2016 third prior month: June 2016 estimated precipitation total for this location:10.01 5.49 3.80 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.11 2.94 3.27 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:5.25 4.23 5.27 type of month: dry normal wet wet wet normal monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)17 (Wet) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 1/9/2017 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database http://climate.umn.edu/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=456391&passYutm83=4965441&passcounty=Carver&passcounty_number=10…1/1 Minnesota Climatology Working Group State Climatology Office ‐ DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Minnesota home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | contact us | search | Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Carver township number: 116N township name: Lake Minnewashta range number: 23W nearest community: Chanhassen section number: 23 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Saturday, October 01, 2016 Score using 1981-2010 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: September 2016 second prior month: August 2016 third prior month: July 2016 estimated precipitation total for this location:5.60 10.01 5.49 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:2.48 3.11 2.94 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:4.35 5.25 4.23 type of month: dry normal wet wet wet wet monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)18 (Wet) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Stunted soybeans, low overall percent cover. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP9-wetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat to slight concave Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 25 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 00 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 0 00 0.00% Y 0 Glycine Max 25 Y UPL (Plot size: 5 0 5.00 25 125 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 25 125 00 00 Absolute % Cover30 Wetland 9f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). Farmed = not normal circumstances. Vegetation = disturbed. Y Dominant Species Indicator Status X Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Lester-Kilkenny NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: swale Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Surface soil was saturated from recent rain, pockets of standing water present on surface. D2 may not apply due to drainage by gully. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Sampling Point:SP9-wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: flat farm field Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N Lester-Kilkenny NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). Farmed = not normal circumstances. Vegetation = disturbed. N Dominant Species Indicator Status 00 00 0 5.00 50 250 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 50 250 Glycine Max 50 Y UPL (Plot size: 5 N 0 Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 50 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 00 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 00 0.00% Healthy soybeans, normal overall percent cover. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP9-uplMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat/linear Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP9-upl Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X Surface soil was wet from recent rain, no pockets of standing water present on surface. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Some sedge present in wetland. Green ash not in wetland, but overhanging edges. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP10-wetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 0 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 25 50 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 00 100.00% Y 0 (Plot size: 5 0 2.00 25 50 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 00 00 00 Absolute % Cover30 Wetland 10f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). Y Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Y FACW Dominant Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes N Kilkenny-Lester NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: slight depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X X Aquatic Fauna (B13) X True Aquatic Plants (B14) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Water table = apparent water table. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) 2Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2+ 0 Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) X Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Sampling Point:SP10-wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s): M. Barrett Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Level 7 State: flat woodland Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N Kilkenny-Lester NWI Classification: 0-3 Lat:Long:Datum: N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 f yes, optional wetland site ID: Gridded database climatic condition not typical (wet). N Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Y FACW Dominant Species Indicator Status Quercus rubra 15 Y FACU 00 00 0 2.75 40 110 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 00 (Plot size: 5 N 0 Avienda Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 0 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 25 50 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 15 60 50.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County: Chanhassen/Carver Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/28/2016 Sampling Point: SP10-uplMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat/linear Sec23, T166, R23 (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP10-upl Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil assumed present. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Avienda Delineation Addendum ATTACHMENT C FSA Photos 2008 FSA Photo (Normal Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2009 FSA Photo (Dry Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2010 FSA Photo (Normal Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2013 FSA Photo (Wet Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 2015 FSA Photo (Normal Climatic Year) with Delineated Wetland 9 Avienda Delineation Addendum (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap WL6 WL2 WL9 WL3 WL1/2 WL1 WL5 Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX E Historic Photos, Topographic Maps 1940 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1947 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1951 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1957 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1963 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1966 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1970 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1980 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1984 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1991 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1997 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 2003 Aerial Photo Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1905 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1907 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1958 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1958 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1972 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 1993 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap 2013 USGS Topo Map Avienda Mixed Use Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX F MnRAM Analysis Output Results Wetland Community Summary Avienda Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community * PEMA Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL3 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL4 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL6 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL7/8 Low Low Low100 PFO1A Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.510-116-23-23-001Avienda WL10 Moderate Moderate Moderate100 PEMF Type 4 Deep Marsh 60 0.510-116-23-23-001Avienda MnDOT WL PSS1B Type 6 Shrub Carr 20 0.5 PEM1A Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 20 0.5 Moderate Moderate Moderate100 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 80 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL1 PEMCd Type 3 Shallow Marsh 20 0.5 Moderate Low Low100 PUBG Type 5 Shallow, Open Water Communities 0 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL2 PEMBd Type 2 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 2 * Denotes incomplete calculation data. Wetland Community Summary Avienda Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community * Low Low Not Applicable PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL5 Low Low Low100 PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.110-116-23-23-001Avienda WL9 Low Low Low100 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 2 of 2 * Denotes incomplete calculation data. Wetland Name Maint. of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maint. of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline Protection Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Avienda HydrogeomorphologyLocationWSSA Moderate High High Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL3 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) Avienda WL4 10-116-23-23-001933 Moderate Moderate High Moderate Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL6 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL7/8 10-116-23-23-001933 High Moderate High High Not ApplicableDepressional/Isolated (no discernable inlets or outlets)Avienda WL10 10-116-23-23-001933 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda MnDOT WL 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) Avienda WL1 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL2 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL5 10-116-23-23-001933 Low Moderate Moderate Low Not ApplicableDepressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) Avienda WL9 10-116-23-23-001933 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maint. of Char. of Wildlife Habitat Maint.of Char. Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Avienda Maint. of Char. Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Develop.Location RechargeModerateNot Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowLowAvienda WL3 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeModerateNot Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowModerateAvienda WL4 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateModerateNot ApplicabAvienda WL6 10-116-23-23-001 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowNot ApplicabAvienda WL7/8 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeHighNot Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ExceptionalHighHighAvienda WL10 10-116-23-23-001 Combination Discharge, Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateModerateLowAvienda MnDOT WL 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowLowAvienda WL1 10-116-23-23-001 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable ModerateLowLowAvienda WL2 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Low Low Moderate ExceptionalLowNot ApplicabAvienda WL5 10-116-23-23-001 RechargeLowNot Applicable Low Low Moderate ExceptionalLowNot ApplicabAvienda WL9 10-116-23-23-001 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) 0.33 0.66 0.55 0.30 0.00Avienda WL1 Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowLow 0.30 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.300.17Avienda WL1 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 80 0.1 0.50 0.30 0.18 Moderate Low Low Avienda WL1 10-116-23-23-001 PEMCd Type 3 Shallow Marsh 20 0.5 0.50 0.30 0.18 Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low1000.50 0.30 0.18 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 16Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL1 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/FlowThru 8-1 6 inches 8-2 50% 9 40 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 C 14 C 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 C 23 20 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEMCd Type 3 Plant Community:Shallow Marsh Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 C 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 C 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 C 55 A 56 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Discharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 1.03 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.20 0.51 0.42 0.20 0.00Avienda WL2 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowLow 0.28 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.200.23Avienda WL2 PUBG Type 5 Shallow, Open Water Communities 0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.00 Low Low Not Applicable Avienda WL2 10-116-23-23-001 PEMBd Type 2 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.00 Low Low Not Applicable PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.00 Low Low Not Applicable Low Low Not Applicable0.10 0.10 0.00 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 17Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL2 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 60 inche 8-2 60% 9 40 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 B 14 C 15 C 16 80% 17 NA 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PUBG Type 5 Plant Community:Shallow, Open Water C Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEMBd Type 2 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% 26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 B 38 C 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 B 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 C Native Mixed Sparse Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 55 A 56 C 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Discharge 62 Discharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 2.33 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Moderate High High Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.55 0.77 0.68 0.33 0.00Avienda WL3 Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowLow 0.36 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.330.15Avienda WL3 PEMA Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL3 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Page 1 of 1 8Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL3 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 6 inches 8-2 5% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 A 14 C 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 A 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMA Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 100% 26-B 0% 26-C 0% 27 A 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 B 50 Yes 51 C 52 B 53 B 54 C 55 B 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.58 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/13/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet), Depressional/Flow-through (apparent inlet and outlet) 0.33 0.58 0.52 0.30 0.00Avienda WL4 Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowModerate 0.38 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.300.37Avienda WL4 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL4 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 9Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL4 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/FlowThru 8-1 6 inches 8-2 50% 9 40 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 C 23 50 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 A 42 Adequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 B 55 A 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.13 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.10 0.49 0.39 0.18 0.00Avienda WL5 Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Low Moderate Exceptional LowNot Applicable 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.53 0.10 0.180.00Avienda WL5 PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL5 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Page 1 of 1 18Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL5 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 1 inches 8-2 100% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 C 16 50% 17 C 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 C 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 C 40 B 41 B 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56 C 57 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 Yes 65 A 66 0.36 0 0 67 30 feet 68 A 69 Drain Tiles, Lowere d Outlet 70 1 71 C 72 A Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/13/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Moderate Moderate High Moderate Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.43 0.56 0.70 0.35 0.00Avienda WL6 Recharge Low Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate ModerateNot Applicable 0.27 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.350.00Avienda WL6 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL6 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 12Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL6 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 0 inches 8-2 0% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 B 15 A 16 100% 17 B 18 A 19 B 20 A 21 C 22 B 23 50 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 25% 26-C 75% 27 A 28 C 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 C 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 B 50 Yes 51 C 52 C 53 B 54 C 55 B 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.78 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.20 0.53 0.45 0.23 0.00Avienda WL7/8 Combination Discharge, Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate LowNot Applicable 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.230.00Avienda WL7/8 PEMAd Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL7/8 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 13Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL7/8 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 0 inches 8-2 0% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 B 16 100% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 C 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 C 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Discharge 63 Discharge 64 No 65 66 0.08 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Low Moderate Moderate Low Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.10 0.49 0.39 0.18 0.00Avienda WL9 Recharge Low Not Applicable Low Low Moderate Exceptional LowNot Applicable 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.38 0.10 0.180.00Avienda WL9 PEMAd Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.10 Low Low Low Avienda WL9 10-116-23-23-001 Low Low Low1000.10 0.10 0.10 Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Page 1 of 1 19Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL9 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 1 inches 8-2 100% 9 20 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 C 13 C 14 C 15 C 16 50% 17 C 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 0 feet 24-A 0% 24-B 0% 24-C 100% 25-A 0% 25-B 0% 25-C 100% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMAd Type 1 Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 C 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 C 40 B 41 B 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56 C 57 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 Yes 65 A 66 0.1 0 0 67 30 feet 68 C 69 Lowere d Outlet 70 1 71 C 72 A Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/13/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. High Moderate High High Not Applicable Depressional/Isolated (no discernable inlets or outlets)1.00 0.55 0.70 0.83 0.00Avienda WL10 Recharge High Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Exceptional HighHigh 0.74 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.830.67Avienda WL10 PFO1A Type 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin 100 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Avienda WL10 10-116-23-23-001 Moderate Moderate Moderate1000.50 0.50 0.50 Saturday, December 10, 2016 Page 1 of 1 14Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda WL10 Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Isolated 8-1 12 inche 8-2 100% 9 15 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 A 14 A 15 A 16 30% 17 NA 18 A 19 B 20 C 21 B 22 A 23 50 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 75% 25-B 25% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PFO1A Type 1 Plant Community:Seasonally Flooded Ba Cowardin Classification: Circular 39:26-A 100% 26-B 0% 26-C 0% 27 A 28 A 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 C 40 A 41 A 42 Adequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 No 51 C 52 C 53 A 54 A 55 A 56 B 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 0.07 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 Exceptional 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/10/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Wetland Functional Assessment Summary Wetland Name Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime Flood/ Stormwater/ Attenuation Downstream Water Quality Maintenance of Wetland Water Quality Shoreline ProtectionHydrogeomorphology Wetland Name Ground- Water Interaction Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Aesthetics/ Recreation/ Education/ Cultural Commercial Uses Wetland Restoration Potential Wetland Sensitivity to Stormwater and Urban Development Additional Stormwater Treatment Needs Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Additional Information Cowardin ClassificationWetland Name Location Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Plant Community Wetland Community Summary Circular 39 Wetland Proportion Individual Community Rating Highest Wetland Rating Average Wetland Rating Weighted Average Wetland Rating Community Denotes incomplete calculation data. Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Not Applicable Depressional/Tributary (outlet but no perennial inlet or drainage entering from upstream subwatershed) 0.52 0.63 0.58 0.45 0.00Avienda MnDOT WL Combination Discharge, Recharge Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate ModerateLow 0.51 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.450.30Avienda MnDOT WL PEMF Type 4 Deep Marsh 60 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Avienda MnDOT WL 10-116-23-23-001 PSS1B Type 6 Shrub Carr 20 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate PEM1A Type 1 Fresh (Wet) Meadow 20 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate1000.50 0.50 0.50 Friday, December 09, 2016 Page 1 of 1 15Avienda MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:Avienda MnDOT WL Location:10-116-23-23-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/Tributary 8-1 48 inche 8-2 60% 9 60 acres 11-Upland Soil 11-Wetland Soil 12 B 13 B 14 B 15 A 16 75% 17 B 18 B 19 B 20 A 21 B 22 A 23 40 feet 24-A 70% 24-B 0% 24-C 30% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMF Type 4 Plant Community:Deep Marsh Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PSS1B Type 6 Plant Community:Shrub Carr Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEM1A Type 1 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 25-A 25% 25-B 50% 25-C 25% 26-A 0% 26-B 100% 26-C 0% 27 B 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 B 39 B 40 A 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 B 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 B 50 Yes 51 A 52 C 53 A 54 C Native Mixed Sparse Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 55 C 56 B 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Recharge 60 Recharge 61 Discharge 62 Discharge 63 Discharge 64 No 65 66 11.5 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 A 72 C Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on:12/9/2016 Minnesota (Shakopee)Watershed : Service Area:9WS#33 Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX G Onsite Alternatives Concept Plans L y m a n B o u l e v a r d P o w e r s B o u l e v a r d Avienda Parkway U S H w y 2 1 2 Bluff Creek Boulevard Bethesda Circle Lyman BoulvevardJersey Way Mills DriveRiver Rock Drive N Degler CircleRIVER ROCK DR S Jeurissen Lane Sunset Trail P o w e r s B o u l e v a r d Bluff Creek Boulevar d 25,000 S.F. x 2 STORIESRETAILRETAIL R E T A I L RE T A I L R E T A I L 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S R E T A I L A N C H O R 8,000 S.F. 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 8,000 S.F. 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 6 , 0 0 0 S . F . RETAIL 6 , 0 0 0 S . F . 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 10,00 0 S . F . 1 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . 25,000 S.F. O F F I C E C 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E S T C 9 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E S T D 20,000 S.F.20,000 S.F.20,000 S.F.60,000 S.F. R E S T A 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S 6 , 5 0 0 S . F . 6 , 5 0 0 S . F . 6 , 5 0 0 S . F . 7 , 0 0 0 S . F . APARTMENTS 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 115,000 S.F.16,000 S.F.40,000 S.F. R E T A I L 20,000 S.F. 1 2 , 0 0 0 S . F . 76,000 S.F. 1 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . 2 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . OFFICE A O F F I C E B R E T A I L R E T A I L R E T A I L R E T A I L R E T A I L HOTEL A R E T A I L RETAILRETAILRETAIL R E S T B APARTMENTS DAYCARE R E T A I L R E T A I L RETAIL R E T A I L TWIN HOME 35 3 3 7 185178 3 6 9 537 1 0 3 1 1 5 3 3 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 7 9 4 6 6 306 1 1 4 539 1 8 7 N A B L O F G I J K EDC P R/W R / W R / W R/WR/W R/W R / W H M R / W PR P R R/W R / W R e g i o n a l M a p L e g e n d S t a l l F u t u r e T r a f f i c S i g n a l E x i s t i n g T r a f f i c S i g n a l S t a l l C o u n t P u b l i c R i g h t O f W a y R e g i o n a l C o m m e r c i a l O f f i c e H i g h D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l M e d i u m D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l P r e s e r v a t i o n P o n d i n g N o t e s D e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s h o w n f o r s c h e m a t i c p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . C O N C E P T A W e t l a n d I m p a c t E x h i b i t - P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e - N O R T H 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 AVIENDA L a n d f o r m a n d S i t e t o F i n i s h a r e r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e m a r k s o f L a n d f o r m P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , L L C . R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEV E L O P M E N T RSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND C O L L I E R S A V I E N D A x C h a n h a s s e n , M N W e t l a n d a n d B u f f e r P R R / W 1 2 4 9 4 1 0 3 9 4 1 6 9 5 1 6 9 5 5 6 2 1 0 0 6 2 M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E R B L O O M I N G T O N M I N N E A P O L I S 3 5 W S I T E 9 4 9 4 6 9 4 3 5 W 3 5 W 3 5 3 5 E 4 9 4 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 3 5 W 2 1 2 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 0 0 1 2 M I N N E S O T A R I V E R C H A N H A S S E N M A P L E G R O V E A r e a D a t a G r o s s A r e a : N e t A r e a s : R . O . W : W e t l a n d : P r e s e r v a t i o n ( e x c l u d e s w e t l a n d s ) : W e t l a n d B u f f e r / S e t b a c k S t o r m W a t e r / I n a c c e s s i b l e 1 1 9 . 8 8 A c r e s 1 6 . 6 0 A c r e s 0 . 7 5 A c r e s 1 6 . 0 6 A c r e s 1 . 4 1 A c r e s 6 . 3 0 A c r e s N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a : 7 8 . 7 6 A c r e s A r e a O f W e t l a n d I m p a c t : 5 . 0 0 A c r e s D e v e l o p m e n t D a t a S e c t i o n G r o s s A r e a ( A c r e s ) N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a ( A c r e s ) B u i l d i n g A r e a ( S . F . ) P a r k i n g S t a l l s U n i t s / B e d s P a r k i n g R a t i o ( S t a l l s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 S . F . o r p e r U n i t ) 8 . 2 9 8 . 2 9 9 0 , 0 0 0 4 6 6 5 . 2 1 . 7 9 1 . 7 9 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 . 5 1 0 . 5 1 7 . 5 4 9 3 , 0 0 0 5 3 9 3 1 5 1 . 7 9 . 2 8 6 . 4 4 7 6 , 0 0 0 n / a 3 8 5 . 2 9 4 . 1 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 0 6 6 . 1 1 . 5 8 1 . 5 8 1 6 , 0 0 0 3 5 2 . 2 4 . 3 0 4 . 3 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 3 6 6 . 7 4 . 2 1 4 . 2 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 3 7 6 . 7 1 . 5 0 1 . 3 2 6 , 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 . 1 1 . 5 8 1 . 2 0 6 , 5 0 0 1 1 4 1 7 . 5 2 . 0 5 1 . 6 5 6 , 5 0 0 1 0 1 1 5 . 5 1 . 8 4 1 . 8 4 7 , 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 . 7 2 5 . 6 7 2 5 . 6 7 2 5 7 , 0 0 0 1 2 8 5 5 . 0 3 . 4 9 3 . 4 9 3 6 , 0 0 0 1 8 7 5 . 2 2 . 7 6 2 . 7 6 2 5 , 0 0 0 1 8 5 1 0 0 1 . 9 2 . 5 8 2 . 5 8 4 0 , 0 0 0 1 7 8 9 2 1 . 9 1 6 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a 1 6 . 5 6 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a T o t a l 1 1 9 . 8 8 7 8 . 7 6 8 1 9 , 5 0 0 4 , 3 9 8 5 4 5 n / a A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P P R R / W O F F I C E C 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S DAYCARE6,000 S.F. R E T A I L A N C H O R 9 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . O F F I C E C 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S O F F I C E B 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . APARTMENTS40,000 S.F. R E S T A 7 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E T A I L 2 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . L Y M A N B O U L E V A R D SUNSET TRAIL A V I E N D A P A R K W A Y BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD P O W E R S B O U L E V A R D MILLS DR. U S H W Y . 2 1 2 JERSEY WAY DEGLER CIRBETHESDA CIR RIVER ROCK DR N P O W E R S B O U L E V A R D RIVER ROCK DR S LYMAN BOULEVARDJEURISSEN LN RETAIL32,000 S.F. R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E T A I L 1 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . HOTEL13,000 S.F. R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . 4 5 0 1 0 3 5 0 3 7 0 150160 400 44 3 6 1 3 6 3 2 6 1 3 2 7 R/WR/WR/W R/W R / W R / W R/W A B C D E F G GML K J I HH K K LGPR P R R/W R / W R e g i o n a l M a p D e v e l o p m e n t D a t a S e c t i o n G r o s s A r e a ( A c r e s ) N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a ( A c r e s ) B u i l d i n g A r e a ( S . F . ) P a r k i n g S t a l l s U n i t s / B e d s P a r k i n g R a t i o ( S t a l l s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 S . F . o r p e r U n i t ) 7 . 8 8 7 . 8 8 9 0 , 0 0 0 4 5 0 5 . 0 1 . 8 0 1 . 8 0 7 , 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 4 . 7 1 . 2 2 1 . 2 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 5 0 5 . 0 7 . 6 9 7 . 2 2 7 4 , 0 0 0 3 7 0 5 . 0 2 . 6 6 2 . 6 6 1 3 , 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 . 0 2 . 7 5 2 . 6 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 1 6 0 8 0 2 . 0 2 2 . 3 4 1 9 . 1 2 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 8 0 1 . 9 5 1 . 3 6 6 , 0 0 0 4 4 7 . 3 5 . 5 1 5 . 5 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 6 1 7 . 2 4 . 7 9 4 . 7 9 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 6 3 7 . 3 1 3 . 9 3 3 . 5 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 6 1 5 . 2 7 . 5 0 6 . 0 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 2 7 6 . 5 7 . 0 2 7 . 0 2 7 5 , 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 . 0 1 4 . 4 8 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a 1 8 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a T o t a l 1 1 9 . 8 8 7 0 . 7 4 6 7 5 , 0 0 0 3 , 0 3 9 5 1 0 n / a L e g e n d S t a l l F u t u r e T r a f f i c S i g n a l E x i s t i n g T r a f f i c S i g n a l S t a l l C o u n t P u b l i c R i g h t O f W a y A B C D E F G H I J K L M R e g i o n a l C o m m e r c i a l O f f i c e H i g h D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l M e d i u m D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l P r e s e r v a t i o n P o n d i n g N o t e s D e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s h o w n f o r s c h e m a t i c p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . C O N C E P T B W e t l a n d I m p a c t E x h i b i t - P a r t i a l I m p a c t - N O R T H 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 AVIENDA L a n d f o r m a n d S i t e t o F i n i s h a r e r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e m a r k s o f L a n d f o r m P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , L L C . R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEV E L O P M E N T RSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND C O L L I E R S A V I E N D A x C h a n h a s s e n , M N W e t l a n d a n d B u f f e r / S e t b a c k P R R / W P R R / W 1 2 4 9 4 1 0 3 9 4 1 6 9 5 1 6 9 5 5 6 2 1 0 0 6 2 M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E R B L O O M I N G T O N M I N N E A P O L I S 3 5 W S I T E 9 4 9 4 6 9 4 3 5 W 3 5 W 3 5 3 5 E 4 9 4 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 3 5 W 2 1 2 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 0 0 1 2 M I N N E S O T A R I V E R C H A N H A S S E N M A P L E G R O V E A r e a D a t a G r o s s A r e a : N e t A r e a s : R . O . W : W e t l a n d : P r e s e r v a t i o n ( e x c l u d e s w e t l a n d s ) : W e t l a n d B u f f e r / S e t b a c k : S t o r m W a t e r / I n a c c e s s i b l e 1 1 9 . 8 8 A c r e s 1 4 . 4 8 A c r e s 4 . 4 2 A c r e s 1 7 . 1 4 A c r e s 5 . 0 0 A c r e s 8 . 1 0 A c r e s N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a : 7 0 . 7 4 A c r e s A r e a O f W e t l a n d I m p a c t : 1 . 3 3 A c r e s BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD AVIENDA PARKWAYMILLS DR. U S H W Y . 2 1 2 DEGLER CIR SUNSET TRAILRIVER ROCK DR N JERSEY WAYBETHESDA CIR P O W E R S B O U L E V A R D R E T A I L 1 8 , 0 0 0 S . F . RIVER ROCK DR S O F F I C E B 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S RETAIL26,300 S.F. RE T A I L 10,0 0 0 S . F . RETAIL 13,000 S.F. R E T A I L A N C H O R 9 0 , 0 0 0 S . F . R E S T A 7 , 0 0 0 S . F . RETAIL10,000 S.F.OFFICE A12,500 HOTEL A 13,000 S.F. DAYCARE6,000 S.F. O F F I C E C 25 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S RETAIL7,000 S.F.JEURISSEN LN L Y M A N B O U L E V A R D P O W E R S B O U L E V A R D RETAIL5,000 S.F.LYMAN BOULEVARDTWN. HM.76,000 S.F. O F F I C E C 2 5 , 0 0 0 S . F . x 2 S T O R I E S 35 3 3 4 145 3 5 9 125 2 1 3 313 14477 L A J F G I C R/W D R / W R/WR/W H R / W 1 1 7 2 7 0 1 0 4 3 5 7 E R / W B M R/W K 5 1 I I F L PR P R R/W R / W R e g i o n a l M a p D e v e l o p m e n t D a t a S e c t i o n G r o s s A r e a ( A c r e s ) N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a ( A c r e s ) B u i l d i n g A r e a ( S . F . ) P a r k i n g S t a l l s U n i t s / B e d s P a r k i n g R a t i o ( S t a l l s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 S . F . o r p e r U n i t ) 6 . 6 7 6 . 6 7 9 0 , 0 0 0 3 5 7 4 . 0 1 . 5 5 1 . 5 5 1 3 , 0 0 0 5 1 1 4 8 0 . 4 5 . 6 3 5 . 4 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 7 7 7 5 1 . 7 9 . 2 9 6 . 3 8 7 6 , 0 0 0 n / a 3 8 5 . 2 9 2 . 4 0 1 2 , 5 0 0 1 4 4 1 1 . 5 1 . 6 5 1 . 0 6 6 , 0 0 0 3 5 5 . 8 4 . 7 2 4 . 7 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 5 9 7 . 2 4 . 1 4 4 . 1 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 3 4 6 . 7 1 4 . 2 5 3 . 4 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 1 3 4 . 3 1 . 9 3 1 . 9 3 7 , 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 4 . 9 1 4 . 1 9 1 2 . 7 2 5 8 , 3 0 0 5 8 3 1 0 . 0 8 . 2 9 4 . 3 1 1 8 , 0 0 0 2 7 0 1 5 . 0 4 . 2 3 3 . 5 8 1 3 , 0 0 0 1 1 7 9 . 0 1 4 . 9 2 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a 2 3 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 n / a n / a T o t a l 1 1 9 . 8 8 5 8 . 3 3 4 6 8 , 8 0 0 2 , 6 4 4 2 6 1 n / a L e g e n d S t a l l F u t u r e T r a f f i c S i g n a l E x i s t i n g T r a f f i c S i g n a l S t a l l C o u n t P u b l i c R i g h t O f W a y A B C D E F G H I J K L M R e g i o n a l C o m m e r c i a l O f f i c e H i g h D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l M e d i u m D e n s i t y R e s i d e n t i a l P r e s e r v a t i o n P o n d i n g N o t e s D e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s h o w n f o r s c h e m a t i c p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . C O N C E P T C W e t l a n d I m p a c t E x h i b i t - A v o i d a n c e - N O R T H 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 AVIENDA L a n d f o r m a n d S i t e t o F i n i s h a r e r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e m a r k s o f L a n d f o r m P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , L L C . R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEV E L O P M E N T RSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND C O L L I E R S A V I E N D A x C h a n h a s s e n , M N W e t l a n d a n d B u f f e r P R R / W P R R / W 1 2 4 9 4 1 0 3 9 4 1 6 9 5 1 6 9 5 5 6 2 1 0 0 6 2 M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E R B L O O M I N G T O N M I N N E A P O L I S 3 5 W S I T E 9 4 9 4 6 9 4 3 5 W 3 5 W 3 5 3 5 E 4 9 4 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 3 5 W 2 1 2 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 0 0 1 2 M I N N E S O T A R I V E R C H A N H A S S E N M A P L E G R O V E A r e a D a t a G r o s s A r e a : N e t A r e a s : R . O . W : W e t l a n d : P r e s e r v a t i o n ( e x c l u d e s w e t l a n d s ) : W e t l a n d B u f f e r / S e t b a c k S t o r m W a t e r / I n a c c e s s i b l e 1 1 9 . 8 8 A c r e s 1 4 . 9 2 A c r e s 5 . 7 1 A c r e s 2 1 . 9 1 A c r e s 9 . 4 9 A c r e s 9 . 5 2 A c r e s N e t D e v e l o p a b l e A r e a : 5 8 . 3 3 A c r e s A r e a O f W e t l a n d I m p a c t : 0 A c r e s Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX H Grading Plan L y m a n B o u l e v a r d P o w e r s B o u l e v a r d A v i e n d a P a r k w a y U S H w y 2 1 2 Bluff Creek Boulevard Degler CircleBethesda Circle Lyman BoulvevardJersey Way Mills DriveRiver Rock Drive NRIVER ROCK DR S Jeurissen Lane S u n s e t T r a i l P o w e r s B o u l e v a r d B l u f f C r e e k B o u l e v a r d 0 1 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 7 N O R T H 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 AVIENDA L a n d f o r m a n d S i t e t o F i n i s h a r e r e g i s t e r e d s e r v i c e m a r k s o f L a n d f o r m P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , L L C . R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEV E L O P M E N T RSP ARCHITECTS xWELSH AND C O L L I E R S A V I E N D A x C h a n h a s s e n , M N P R O P O S E D G R A D E Avienda Wetland Permit Application APPENDIX I Rare Species Information White-Nose Syndrome Zone Around WNS/Pd Positive Counties/Districts Northern Long-Eared Bat Final 4(d) RuleU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Map Created January 29, 2016 Northern Long-Eared Bat range and WNS Zone subject to change as new data are collected. WNS = White-Nose Syndrome Pd = Pseudogymnoascus destructans ; the fungus that causes WNS Counties/Districts with WNS/Pd Infected Hibernacula White-Nose Syndrome Zone Per Final 4(d) Rule U.S. counties within 150 miles of positive counties/districts (Data as of 01/26/16; additional updates expected) Northern Long-Eared Bat Range (As of 04/30/2015) 0 150 300 450 600 Miles Coordinate System: North America Equidistant Conic Datum: North American 1983 WNS Counties/Districts Data Provided By: Pennsylvania Game Commission Basemap Data: USGS TOWNSHIPS CONTAINING NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT ROOST TREES AND/OR HIBERNACULA Minnesota DNR/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 6, 2015  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules restrict activity around northern long-eared bat roost trees and hibernacula. See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html for more information on the northern long-eared bat and its protection.  The townships listed below contain one or more northern long-eared bat roost trees and/or hibernacula  A roost tree may be identified to a specific tree or to a general location (e.g. within ½ mile)  If a project involving tree removal is not within a listed township, no further action is required  If a project involving tree removal is planned within an identified township, you may: o Submit a data request to the DNR for a printed copy of precise locational information (see http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/nhnrp/nhis.html#datarequest) o Apply to the DNR for a data license to obtain a digital copy of precise locational information (see http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/nhnrp/nhis.html#datarequest) o Contact the USFWS to obtain detailed information and advice on how to proceed with your project (see contact information at the bottom) o Also contact USFWS if your project involves federal funding, a federal permit, or federal lands  These data are current as of June 6, 2015. Updates of this information will be released twice annually on April 1 and October 1  As of this date, there are 25 known hibernacula and 163 known roost trees in Minnesota County Township Contains one or more Hibernaculum Contains one or more Roost Tree Aitkin T139N R25W X Aitkin T48N R23W X Aitkin T48N R24W X Aitkin T48N R25W X Aitkin T49N R24W X Aitkin T49N R25W X Aitkin T49N R26W X Aitkin T50N R26W X Aitkin T51N R27W X Carlton T47N R18W X Carlton T47N R19W X Carlton T47N R20W X Carlton T47N R21W X Carlton T48N R17W X Carlton T48N R18W X Carlton T48N R19W X Carlton T48N R20W X Carlton T48N R21W X Cass T133N R29W X Cass T139N R25W X Cass T139N R26W X Cass T139N R27W X Cass T139N R28W X Cass T51N R27W X Chisago T32N R19W X Crow Wing T138N R29W X Fillmore T102N R12W X Fillmore T103N R13W X Fillmore T104N R10W X Fillmore T104N R12W X Goodhue T112N R15W X Goodhue T113N R14W X Hubbard T144N R35W X Lake T56N R7W X Lake T60N R9W X Lake T62N R11W X Lake T63N R11W X Morrison T130N R30W X Morrison T131N R30W X Morrison T133N R29W X Morrison T133N R30W X Nicollet T110N R26W X Pine T42N R20W X Ramsey T28N R22W X Ramsey T28N R23W X Stearns T124N R28W X St. Louis T62N R12W X St. Louis T62N R15W X Winona T106N R7W X Winona T107N R9W X For more information, contact: Lisa Mandell, Deputy Field Supervisor Rich Baker, Endangered Species Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office Division of Ecological and Water Resources 4101 American Blvd E., Bloomington, MN 55425 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155 lisa_mandell@fws.gov richard.baker@state.mn.us 612-725-3548 651-259-5073 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 51 APPENDIX 3—CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT (INCLUDING AVIENDA PHASE 1 ARCHEAOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY) CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE CHANHASSEN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR), CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Submitted to: Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Submitted by: The 106 Group Ltd. May 2003 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE CHANHASSEN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR), CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA SHPO File No. Pending The 106 Group Project No. 03-12 Submitted to: Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North Third Street Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Submitted by: The 106 Group Ltd. The Dacotah Building 370 Selby Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 Report Authors: William E. Stark, M.A. Andrea C. Vermeer, M.A., RPA May 2003 Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................................i LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................................i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................................................3 2.1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH METHODS.......................................................................................................3 2.2 A RCHAEOLOGY STUDY A REA...................................................................................................................3 2.3 A RCHAEOLOGY FIELD METHODS .............................................................................................................3 2.4 A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY STUDY A REA..................................................................................................4 2.5 A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY FIELD METHODS............................................................................................4 3.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ..............................................................................................................5 3.1 A RCHAEOLOGY............................................................................................................................................5 3.2 A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY..........................................................................................................................5 4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................7 4.1 A RCHAEOLOGY............................................................................................................................................7 4.1 A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY..........................................................................................................................8 REFERENCES CITED ..............................................................................................................................................12 APPENDIX A: PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX B: LIST OF PERSONNEL LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. ST UDY A REA AND A RCHAEOLOGY RESULTS...........................................................................................2 FIGURE 2. A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY RESULTS...........................................................................................................9 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. A RCHAEOLOGICAL SITES W ITHIN STUDY A REA.......................................................................................5 TABLE 2. A RCHAEOLOGICAL SITES W ITHIN ONE MILE OF STUDY A REA..............................................................5 TABLE 3. A RCHITECTURE -HISTORY PROPERTIES.....................................................................................................10 Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 21, 2003, The 106 Group Ltd. (The 106 Group) conducted a cultural resources assessment for the Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The assessment was conducted under contract with Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. for the City of Chanhassen. The study area is located in Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27, T116N, R23W (Figure 1). This report is intended to provide preliminary cultural resour ces information for completion of the AUAR and to assist in future compliance requirements under federal and state law. If the regulatory review for this project is at the state or local level, consultation with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is appropriate. If there will be any federal involvement in the future (for example, through funding or permitting), consultation with the applicable federal agency and SHPO is required. The purpose of this cultural resources assessment was to identify any historic properties within the study area of the Chanhassen AUAR that require further investigation in order to determine their potential eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to eliminate those properties that are clearly not eligible. In addition, the survey assessed the project area's potential for containing previously unidentified archaeological resources. Should the boundaries of the Chanhassen AUAR be altered from their current configuration, the study area for architecture-history and archaeological resources will need to be adjusted as appropriate. The cultural resources assessment for the AUAR included background research, a visual reconnaissance of the entire study area, assessment of a rchaeological potentials within the study area, and photographic documentation of buildings and structures 50 years of age or older within the study area. The study area for archaeological and architecture-history resources was approximately 650 acres (263 hectares). Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 3 2.0 METHODS 2.1 BACKGROUND R ESEARCH M ETHODS On May 16, 2003, prior to fieldwork, background research was conducted using the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) site files for information on previously identified archaeological sites and architecture-history properties within one mile (1.6 kilometer [km]) of the study area and on cultural resources surveys previously conducted within the study area. In addition, researchers examined historical maps and aerial photographs of the study area. 2.2 ARCHAEOLOGY STUDY AREA The study area for archaeology included all areas where construction or other ground - disturbing activities related to the project might take place. Based on construction plans available in May of 2003, the Chanhassen AUAR study area is approximately 27,878,400 square feet (ft.) (2,589,903 square meters [m]). The total survey area for archaeology is approximately 650 acres (263 hectares). 2.3 ARCHAEOLOGY FIELD M ETHODS The project archaeologist conducted an assessment (windshield survey) of the study area to identify areas with moderate or high archaeological potential. Such areas were defined as the undisturbed portions of the study area: · within 500 ft. (150 m) of an existing or former water source of 40 acres (19 hectares) or greater in extent, or within 500 ft. (150 m) of a former or existing perennial stream; · located on topographically prominent landscape features; · located within 300 ft. (100 m) of a previo usly reported site; or · located within 300 ft. (100 m) of a former or existing historic structure or feature (such as a building foundation or cellar depression). In addition, archaeologists compared historical documentation, such as plat maps and aerial photographs, with current field conditions to assess the potential within the survey area for intact historical archaeological sites. Areas defined as having a relatively low potential for containing intact archaeological resources included inundated areas, former or existing wetland areas, poorly drained areas, and areas with a 20 percent or greater slope. Low potential areas and areas in which Holocene (less than 10,000 years old) deposits have been significantly disturbed are defined as having little or no potential for containing intact archaeological resources. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 4 2.4 ARCHITECTURE-H ISTORY S TUDY AREA The study area for architecture-history took into account potential effects to historic resources, including physical alterations to buildings, increases in levels of noise or pollution, changes in visual or aesthetic qualities, or changes in traffic densities or patterns. The study area for architecture-history resources comprised the entire area of the Chanhassen AUAR, which is approximately 650 acres (263 hectares). 2.5 ARCHITECTURE-H ISTORY FIELD M ETHODS During the field survey, the project historian completed an inventory of the buildings and structures within the study area in order to identify properties that appeared to be 50 years of age or older. Those resour ces were photographed and assessed for historical integrity. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 5 3.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATI ONS 3.1 ARCHAEOLOGY No archaeological surveys have been previously conducted within the Chanhassen AUAR study area. Two reported (not field checked) archaeological sites (21CRaj, 21CRak) are located within the study area for the Chanhassen AUAR (Table 1; see Figure 1). There are seven additional previously recorded (confirmed) archaeological sites (21CR14, 21CR15, 21CR97, 21CR103, 21CR104, 21CR108, 21CR109) within a one -mile (1.6-km) radius of the study area (Table 2). 3.2 ARCHITECTURE-H ISTORY No previous surveys have been conducted within the project area, although two county- wide surveys help to establish the historical context for architecture-history resources. Carver County was surveyed in 1977 as part of a comprehensive county-by-county survey of the state for all cultural resource types. This survey provided a baseline inventory for the county’s historical resources. As a follow-up to that survey, the Minnesota Historical Society published Carver County: A Guide to Its Historic and TABLE 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL S ITES WITHIN STUDY AREA Site No. Site Name T R S ¼ Sec. Description NRHP Status 21CRaj unnamed 116N 23W 23 SE-SW -SW -SW Reported mound group Not evaluated 21CRak unnamed 116N 23W 23 SE-SE-SE-SW Reported burial Not evaluated TABLE 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL S ITES WITHIN ONE M ILE OF STUDY AREA Site No. Site Name T R S ¼ Sec. Description NRHP Status 21CR14 unnamed 116N 23W 22 N-SW -SW -SW Artifact scatter Not evaluated 21CR15 unnamed 116N 23W 22 W -NE-SE-SW Lithic scatter Not evaluated 21CR97 unnamed 116N 23W 21 NW-NW-NE-SE Single flake Not evaluated 21CR103 unnamed 116N 23W 27 SE-NW-SE Lithic scatter Determined not eligible 21CR104 unnamed 116N 23W 27 SW -NE-NE-SE Lithic scatter Not evaluated 21CR108 Lake Susan- Riley Creek 116N 23W 14 N-NW-NE-SE and S-SW -SE- NE Lithic scatter Not evaluated 21CR109 Lake Susan SW Shore 116N 23W 14/ 23 C-S-S-SE/ NE-NW-NE Lithic scatter and possib le mound group Not evaluated Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 6 Prehistoric Places (Lofstrom and Spaeth n.d.). This document provides a guide “to the landscape of the county, to its prehistoric settlers, to the European immigrants who settled the county in the nineteenth century and to the residents of Carver County since that time” (Lofstrom and Spaeth n.d.:i). No properties have been previously inventoried within the study area. A total of three farmsteads/houses have been inventoried within one mile (1.6 km) of the project area. These farmsteads, located just north of the project area on Audubon Rd., are indicative of the types of properties that may be considered to be significant within the study area. Each of the farmsteads (CR-CHC -004, CR-CHC-005, and CR-CHC -006) has a house made of Chaska brick and constructed circa 1890. Chaska brick is a locally manufactured brick known for its cream color. The Albertine and Fred Heck House (CR- CHC -006) is listed on the NRHP under Criterion A “as a well-preserved example of a building const ructed of Chaska brick” (Albertine and Fred Heck House NRHP nomination, on file at the Minnesota SHPO, St. Paul). It is located adjacent to the project area. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 7 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 ARCHAEOLOGY The topography of the Chanhassen AUAR study area is comprised of several high ridges and knolls surrounding the lower-lying Bluff Creek and associated wetlands. Most of these high ridges and knolls are situated within cultivated fields or are wooded, and they have undergone minimal or no disturbance. A few of the more eleva ted portions of the study area, however, have been heavily disturbed through the previous establishment of farmsteads, including houses, outbuildings, and graded driveways. The areas directly adjacent to Audubon Road, Lyman Boulevard, and Pioneer Trail ha ve been disturbed through the construction of those roads, and an area just south of Lyman Boulevard in the northwest portion of the project area has been disturbed by the previous construction of a city building. In addition, a low-lying location within the southeastern portion of the study area has been disturbed through the excavation of a sand or gravel pit, and a few of the areas adjacent to the creek are steeply sloped and/or eroded. In general, those portions of the study area that are steeply sloped, eroded, or heavily disturbed are considered to have low potential for intact archaeological resources (see Figure 1). The remaining portions of the study area consist of locations in proximity to Bluff Creek, to Hazeltine Lake to the west, and to wetlands connected to Lake Susan to the northeast by a stream, most of which are topographically prominent. These portions of the study area include the locations of two previously reported (not field checked) sites. Based, therefore, on their overall lack o f disturbance, their proximity to significant water sources and previously reported sites, and their topographic prominence, the remaining portions of the study area are considered to have high potential for intact precontact archaeological resources (see Figure 1). 4.1.1 Historical Maps Historical plat maps (Northwest Publishing Co. 1898; Hudson Map Company c. 1925) of the study area indicate that most of the early farmsteads within the study area remain standing. These farmsteads are addressed in the architect ure-history section of this report. Two residential buildings that are no longer extant, however, were present as early as 1898 in the central portion of the study area, and the former Chanhassen Town Hall had also been constructed in the northeast corner of the study area by that year (Northwest Publishing Co. 1898). Due to the apparent lack of disturbance in the locations of these structures, these locations, which fall within areas considered to have high potential for precontact archaeological resources, are considered to have moderate to high potential for intact post-contact archaeological resources. The potential significance, however, of any post-contact archaeological resources that might exist within the study area is not known at this stage. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 8 4.2 ARCHITECTURE-H ISTORY The 106 Group inventoried eight properties within the study area that contained buildings 50 years of age or older (Figure 2; Table 3). All of the properties are associated with farmsteads in this agricultural region. Building types include frame houses, barns, silos, granaries, chicken houses, and other outbuildings dating to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. House styles include a Queen Anne, a Craftsman-style bungalow, and American Foursquares. Photos of the properties are located in Appendix A. Due to its proximity to Chaska, this area is known for its houses constructed of Chaska brick, a distinctive cream-colored brick associated with the region. Three previously recorded properties constructed in the 1890s, lo cated just north of the project area (see Figure 2), are examples of the use of Chaska brick. None of the properties located within the study area utilized this building material. Most farmsteads exhibit building types commonly constructed during the 1910s and 1920s. One exception is Property 6 (1600 Pioneer Trail), which features a Queen Anne style house, more typical of the late nineteenth century. None of the farmsteads retain a complete complement of agricultural outbuildings typical of farms from this period, such as a granary, a chicken house, and other sheds. Some only retain the original house and barn. In some cases, the historical integrity of the primary buildings, such as the house or barn, have been significantly compromised. As a result, the farmsteads do not sufficiently convey their association with late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century farming practices. Although several of the individual buildings retain good historical integrity, their styles are typical of the period and do not appear to be significant representations of architectural styles. One property listed on the NRHP is located adjacent to the project area (CR-CHC -006; the Albertine and Fred Heck House). Should the Chanhassen AUAR project involve a federal agency in the future, this house should be considered when assessing effects to historical properties. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 10 TABLE 3. ARCHITECTURE-HISTORY PROPERTIES Field Number Address Property Type Building Types Date (Estimate) Description/Integrity 1 1630 Lyman Rd. Farmstead House, Dairy Barn, Granary, Garage c. 1900 The house has been significantly altered with vinyl siding, replacement windows, and additions. The central bay barn has board and batten siding and retains good integrity. The granary, with drop siding, is partially demolished and in a dilapidated state. 2 9111 Audubon Rd. Farmstead House (c. 1950), Barn, Granary/Corncrib, Chicken House, Silo, Pole Barns c. 1910 The house wa s constructed circa 1950. The gambrel roof dairy barn has board and batten siding and retains good integrity. The granary and corncrib also retain good integrity. The addition of pole barns and the house compromise the overall integrity of the farmstead. 3 9201 Audubon Rd. House House, Pole Barn c. 1940 This small, side-gabled house has replacement windows and fair integrity. It is adjacent to Property 4 and includes a large, metal-sided pole barn. 4 9231 Audubon Rd. Farmstead House, Dairy Barn, Garages c. 1920 The Craftsman-style bungalow retains most of the original architectural features and has a rear addition. The jerkinhead, gambrel dairy barn has board and batten siding, and a concrete block foundation has good integrity. A modern garage and a c. 1920 garage are also included with this property. 5 9715 Audubon Farmstead House, Barn (converted to house), Garage, Pole Barn c. 1910 The one-and-a-half story, front-gabled house retains good integrity. Another house on the property appears to have been converted from a concrete block barn. Other buildings include a garage and a metal pole barn. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 11 TABLE 3. ARCHITECTURE-HISTORY PROPERTIES Field Number Address Property Type Building Types Date (Estimate) Description/Integrity 6 1600 Pioneer Trail Farmstead House, Granary/Corncrib, Silos, Corncrib, Trailer Offices, Spring House (?) c. 1890 The two -story house features massing and detailing of the Queen Anne style. Although some alterations have been made, it retains good integrity despite its dilapidated state. Other outbuildings, such as the garage, chicken house, granary, and corncrib retain good-to-fair integrity but are als o dilapidated. The original barn has been demolished, with only the foundation and two adjacent silos remaining. A concrete block structure is believed to have been a springhouse. Modern trailer offices have been added to the site. The farmstead as a whole does not retain integrity. 7 1500 Pioneer Trail Farmstead House, Quonset Barn, Pole Barns, Butler Bins, Harvestore c. 1910 The foursquare house has been clad with aluminum siding and has had other alterations, resulting in poor integrity. The origin al barn appears to have been replaced with the addition of a Quonset shed on the original foundations. Other metal pole barns, Butler bins, Harvestore silo have been added to the farmstead, resulting in poor overall historical integrity. 8 1370 Pioneer T rail Farmstead House, Dairy Barn, Granary, Pole Barn c. 1910 The foursquare house has wooden clapboard siding and retains good integrity. The gambrel-roof dairy barn has board and batten siding and retains good integrity. Other buildings include a partia lly demolished granary and a metal pole barn. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Page 12 REFERENCES CITED Hudson Map Company c. 1925 Plat Book of Carver County, Minnesota. Hudson Map Company, Minneapolis. Lofstrom, T. and L. V. Spaeth n.d. Carver County: A Guide to Its Historic Places and Prehistoric Places. Minnesota Historical Society. Northwest Publishing Co. 1898 Plat Book of Carver County, Minnesota. Northwest Publishing Co., Minneapolis. Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 1, House Property 1, Barn Property 1, Granary Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 2, House Property 2, Barn Property 2, Granary/Corncrib Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 3, House Property 4, House Property 4, Barn Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 5, House Property 5, Barn/House Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 6, House Property 6, Granary/Corncrib Property 6, Corncrib Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 7, House Property 7, Barn Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment Property 8, House Property 8, Barn Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment APPENDIX B LIST OF PERSONNEL Chanhassen AUAR Cultural Resources Assessment LIST OF PERSONNEL Project Manager Anne Ketz, M.A., RPA Principal Investigators Archaeology Andrea C. Vermee r, M.A., RPA Architecture-History William E. Stark, M.A. Graphics Matt Schillerberg Avienda Development Project Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Level 7 Development/Landform “Avienda” Development Project, Carver County , Minnesota PREPARED BY Merjent, Inc. 800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 315 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Dean T. Sather, M.A., R.P.A, Principal Investigator Under Contract to Level 7 Development November 2016 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 2 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 2 3.1 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................. 2 3.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 2 4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................. 3 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 3 4.2 PRE-CONTACT OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 3 4.2.1 Early Paleo-Indian Period (11200 to 10500 BC) ...................................... 4 4.2.2 Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic (10500 to 7500 BC) ................. 4 4.2.3 Middle Archaic (7500 to 3000 BC) ........................................................... 4 4.2.4 Late Archaic (3000 to 500 BC) ................................................................ 5 4.2.5 Woodland: Initial, Terminal (500 BC to AD 1200) .................................... 5 4.2.6 Oneota Tradition (AD 1200 to 1650) ........................................................ 6 4.3 CONTACT AND POST-CONTACT OVERVIEW ................................................. 7 4.3.1 Contact Period (1650 to 1837 CE) ........................................................... 7 4.3.2 Eastern Dakota........................................................................................ 7 4.3.3 British ...................................................................................................... 7 4.3.4 Initial United States ................................................................................. 7 4.3.5 Post-contact Period (1837 to 1960 CE) ................................................... 7 4.3.6 Early Agriculture & River Settlement (1840 to 1870) ................................ 8 4.3.7 Railroads & Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) ............................. 8 4.4 BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 9 4.4.1 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites ............................................... 9 4.4.2 Previously Recorded Standing Historic Structures ..................................10 5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ...............................................................................................11 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................12 7.0 REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................................13 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: TOWNSHIP, RANGE, AND SECTION OF LANDS INCLUDED IN AVIENDA PROJECT .................. 2 TABLE 2: PRE-CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIODS IN SOUTHERN MINNESOTA ............................. 3 TABLE 3: PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT . 9 TABLE 4: PREVIOUSLY RECORDED HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL SITES WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA ....................................................................................................................10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Avienda Project Area – Topographic Overview Figure 2 Avienda Project Area – Survey Coverage Figure 3 21CRaj Site Map 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY In October of 2016 Merjent, Inc. (Merjent) conducted a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the route for the Level 7 Development/Landform “Avienda” development Project (Project). The archaeological survey consisted of the pedestrian and subsurface archaeological investigation of an approximately 113 acre parcel of land located within the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, proposed to be developed for commercial use. During the field survey Merjent relocated and delineated one previously documented site. No previously undocumented archaeological sites were identified. 2 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Level 7 Development is proposing to develop the “Avienda” commercial center in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The proposed Project is located on approximately 113 acres of land located on previously undeveloped agricultural fields (Figure 1). A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Project was conducted due to the presence of previously documented cultural resource sites within and near the perimeter of the defined Project boundary, in compliance with the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (MN 138.31-42). Merjent was contacted in October of 2016 by Landform to conduct the Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey. Project activities will occur in the legal locations shown in Table 1, which served as the basis for the Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey area. Table 1: Township, Range, and Section of Lands Included in Avienda Project County Township Range Sections Carver 116N 23W NE 23 Between October 24th and October 26th, 2016, Merjent cultural resource staff conducted a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Project. The Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey relocated and delineated one previously documented archaeological site. 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 SCOPE OF WORK The Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey was conducted to determine if archaeological resources were present within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE for this segment included all surface and subsurface locations that would potentially experience direct physical disturbance as a result of the construction within the defined Project area segment (Figure 2). Subsurface testing was limited to the wooded area in the southwestern portion of the Project area. 3.2 METHODOLOGY Field investigations for the current Phase I Survey were conducted according to guidelines prepared by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (Anfinson, 2005). A literature review was conducted to determine the scope and results of previous archaeological and historic property inventories conducted in the region. Data files maintained by both the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) provided information regarding recorded cultural resources and previous survey activities within the Project area. Previously published synthesis reports provided a majority of the background information regarding regional cultural contexts and environmental history. The environmental background and historic contexts were examined to assess the probability of sites and what types of sites might be identified. Field investigations executed during a Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance provide a means of determining if cultural deposits exist within a defined Project area and to assess the vertical and horizontal boundaries of any discovered deposits. Investigative techniques for Phase I survey may include pedestrian survey, shovel testing, and deep testing. 3 Pedestrian survey consists of controlled visual inspection of the ground surface. Visual inspection is conducted on ground surfaces exhibiting exposed soils such as cultivated fields. Field personnel conducting pedestrian surveys are spaced 5 meters (m) apart and traverse the field in parallel transects inspecting the exposed surface for evidence of cultural deposits. Positive findings consist of historic or prehistoric artifact concentrations and/or evidence of larger, intact cultural features such as structural remains or earthworks. Generally, pedestrian survey is not recommended for areas where surface visibility is less than 25 percent. Shovel testing, when required, consists of a hand dug excavation unit between 30 and 40 centimeters (cm) in diameter at 15 meter intervals. The depth of the excavated shovel test varies, depending on the depth of subsurface deposits and the presence or absence of intact cultural material. Shovel tests are generally excavated to a depth where intact subsoil horizons are exposed. In locations where subsurface deposits extend beyond the capabilities of hand excavated shovel tests, deep testing may be conducted. All materials excavated from shovel tests or deep tests are screened through one-quarter inch hardware mesh. Detailed field notes are recorded during field investigations for both positive and negative results. With regard to potentially deeply buried sites, a desktop review is first conducted to identify the landforms and soils present in a Project area. If there is the potential for deeply buried living surfaces that might contain archaeological materials, field testing such as auger coring or mechanical trenching is done. 4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The Project is located in the Eastern Broadleaf Forest ecological province of central Minnesota. Historic vegetation in the area consisted of oak woodland and maple-basswood forests. Large game animals were dominated by white-tailed deer, while small game resources were also abundant. The environmental survey corridor traverses Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) sub-region Central Lakes Deciduous South, 4S. The following discussion of pre-contact archaeological periods follows Gibbon 2012 unless otherwise noted. 4.2 PRE-CONTACT OVERVIEW Pre-contact cultural traditions and development are defined primarily by the material culture present at a site and the subsistence patterns being utilized at that time. Material culture includes artifacts and features, and subsistence patterns include hunting/gathering and horticulture. Further, within pre-contact periods there are often subdivisions based on geographical location, projectile point typologies, and ceramic typologies. Gibbon divides Pre-contact cultures in southern Minnesota into six cultural periods as shown in Table 2. Table 2: Pre-Contact Archaeological Periods in Southern Minnesota Periods Year Early Paleo-Indian 11200 to 10500 BC Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic 10500 to 7500 BC Middle Archaic 7500 to 3000 BC Late Archaic 3000 to 500 BC Woodland: Initial, Terminal 500 BC to AD 1200 Oneota Tradition AD 1200 to AD 1650 4 4.2.1 Early Paleo-Indian Period (11200 to 10500 BC) Paleo-Indians were likely the first people to populate the North American continent. Communities were comprised of small bands of highly nomadic hunter-gathers, primarily focused on the exploitation of mega-fauna, including mammoths and mastodons. Paleo-Indian sites tend to be small and are commonly identified by the recovery of large, distinctive lanceolate projectile points. 4.2.2 Late Paleo-Indian/ Early Eastern Archaic (10500 to 7500 BC) The transition from the Early Paleo-Indian to Late Paleo-Indian in the central Minnesota is evidenced in the archaeological record by the replacement of fluted points with stemmed points and some heavy stone tool construction. Tool types of Late Paleo-Indian/Early Eastern Archaic peoples occur in much greater numbers than those of their predecessors, the Early Paleo-Indians. Tool characteristic of this period show a high quality of workmanship and include projectile points with a lanceolate shape, lack of fluting, ground and thin edges, and fine oblique or collateral flaking across the blade face. Types of Late Paleo-Indians identified in Minnesota include Agate Basin, Alberta, Angostura, Browns Valley, Eden, Frederick, Hell Gap, Midland, Plainview, and Scottsbluff. Early Eastern Archaic points are notched or stemmed forms, often constructed of heavily reworked lanceolate points with a concave base, basal ears, and fluting on some specimens. Although the point types differ from those of Late Paleo-Indians, the Early Eastern Archaic was contemporary in part with the Late Paleo-Indian period, sharing a nomadic, animal hunting lifeway. The majority of identified Late Paleo-Indian Sites in Minnesota occur along lake edges and rivers, with most lake edge sites located along smaller, non-glacial lakes. Sites identified from this period are typically find spots of points, lithic workshops, and temporary camps. Long term habitation sites, burial locations, and kill sites are rare and underrepresented in the archaeological record. 4.2.3 Middle Archaic (7500 to 3000 BC) Middle Archaic projectile points typically are smaller and less well made than during the preceding phases and suggest a general decline in high quality stone working outside of the Paleo-Indian tradition. Characteristics of Archaic points that separate themselves from Paleo-Indian projectile points include smaller size and beveled and resharpened edges designed for cutting and penetration. An expansion of tool technology begins to appear during the late Middle Archaic with a new suite of ground stone tools including banner stones, plummets, and grooved axes. The utilization of copper artifacts also appears for the first time. Known Middle Archaic sites in central Minnesota remain sparse, typically consisting of surface scatters of stone artifacts in small, shallow components with minimal midden buildup. Site types include short term camps, kill sites, lithic workshops, quarries, and burials. The features and minimal number of artifacts suggest a small population of highly mobile hunters and foragers with single use to short term habitation sites. 5 4.2.4 Late Archaic (3000 to 500 BC) The expansion of tool technology that starts to appear in the Middle Archaic period flourishes in the Late Archaic. New sets of side stemmed and side-notched projectile points, ground stone tools, and the first clearly identifiable fishing implements in the archaeological record of Minnesota originate in the Late Archaic. Utilization of raw materials like native copper and marine shell and creation of unusual artifacts like birdstones, gorgets, and Turkey Tail bifaces are defining characteristics of the period, as well as communal burial sites and the continuing absence of pottery from the archaeological record. Late Archaic sites in Minnesota are mostly characterized by the presence of hammered copper artifacts, as well as ground and polished stone artifacts. The lithic tool assemblage located at the Fish Lake West site near Duluth consists mostly of choppers, adzes, and bifaces; tools adapted to working in an environment dominated by timber. The lithic styles and hammered copper artifacts found at the Fish Lake West site are also present in Late Archaic sites farther south at sites such as the Petaga Point site near Lake Mille Lacs. 4.2.5 Woodland: Initial, Terminal (500 BC to AD 1200) Gibbon (2012) separates the archaeological record of Initial Woodland period in South Eastern Minnesota (a resource region that coincides with the portion of the state located south and east of the City of Saint Cloud) into three periods: the Early Woodland (500 to 200 BC), Middle Woodland (200 BC to AD 200), and Late Middle Woodland (AD 200 to 500). Pottery remains are the most representative artifacts from the Initial Woodland tradition. Pottery styles from the period are usually typified by a thick walled jar with cordage markings on both the exterior and interior faces of the pottery. The construction and shape of the pottery typically consist of strait rims, slightly constricted necks, somewhat rounded shoulders, and subconoidal bottoms resembling varieties of pottery from the Havana-Hopewell complexes in Illinois. Lithic assemblages show continuity with earlier Archaic and Woodland assemblages typical of highly mobile groups of hunters and foragers. The greatest artifact concentration in the region appears in the rivers, lakes, wetlands, and wet prairies of southern Minnesota. In addition to the presence of pottery in the archaeological record, Woodland sites from this period are also exemplified by the presence of conical shaped burial mounds (Gibbon 2012). By the Late Middle Woodland phase of the Initial Woodland tradition, cultural practices of the Late Middle Woodland people seem less elaborate than during the previous phases. Burial mounds became simpler, often lacking diagnostic grave goods. Pottery styles at this later stage are described by more globular bodies, thinner walls, and finer temper with more complex rim profiles. The transformation from Initial Woodland complexes to Terminal Woodland complexes after AD 500 remains poorly understood (Gibbon, 2012). What is clear is that the Terminal Woodland period represents a time of technological and cultural change. The bow and arrow replaced the atlatl, earlier pottery traits disappeared, and elaborate mortuary rituals associated with large earthwork construction began. Long distance acquisition of materials, ritual pipe smoking, and possibly the presence of socially ranked societies were descriptive of cultures with a great reliance on domesticated plants and larger populations within groups. Known Late Woodland sites, while evident in some areas of southwestern Wisconsin and eastern Iowa, are sparse in southeastern Minnesota. One reason may be that the lack of real sites as large scale surveys in the region have failed to identify a strong Late Woodland presence, suggesting a population density much lower than those areas farther south and east 6 (Gibbon 2012). Because of sparse number of Late Woodland sites in the region, examples must be borrowed from the surrounding states of Iowa and Wisconsin. Initial Late Woodland (AD 500 to 700) in southwestern Wisconsin and northeastern Iowa consist of components most recognized by the presence of Lane Farm Cord-Impressed pottery, a jar with a somewhat rounded base and constricted neck. The small and corner notched projectile points of the period may represent the first arrow head points in the region. Small conical and elongated linear mounds containing limited grave goods and primary flexed burials are evident. Defined by Gibbon (2012) as the Mature Late (Terminal) Woodland period in the Upper Mississippi River Valley, AD 700 to 1000 represents the time period defined by the Effigy Mound Complex. Effigy Mound people constructed earthen conical and linear mounds similar to previous cultural phases as well as mounds designed in the shape of wildlife, including avian, mammalian, and reptile. Grave goods are typically utilitarian objects such as ceramic vessels and projectile points. Material culture of the Effigy culture includes the near absence on non- utilitarian “luxury” items intended for the elite, simple unnotched triangular points, thinner and finer tempered ceramics with more complex shapes, and a shared cultural identity that covered a large geographic region for over 600 years. Mound building would disappear from the archaeological record during the Final Late (Terminal) Woodland period from AD 100 to 1200. Pure Late Woodland sites become rare and are replaced with stockade sites exhibiting both Late Woodland and Middle Mississippian characteristics. Ceramics from this period belong to the Grant Series with design features including grit tempering, cord roughened jars that may have squared orifices, prominent castellations, and special rim treatment that raises the height of the rim. Decorations, when present, generally consist of single cord impressions forming zigzag and chevrons over plain or cord roughened rim surfaces. Lithic technology from this period includes simple unnotched Maddison triangular arrow points and Cahokia Site Notched cluster points. 4.2.6 Oneota Tradition (AD 1200 to 1650) The transition from the Woodland-dominated cultural landscape to the Upper Mississippian contexts in southern Minnesota saw a shift from long established lifeways of Woodland peoples to the appearance of societies with new material cultures, settlement patterns, social organization, and ideology. Groups of people were less mobile and more dependent on the cultivation of maize, living within more permanent and often fortified settlements. The construction and artistic techniques used to produce ceramics evolved to vessels with shoulder decorated rims, smoothed rather than cordmarked exterior surfaces, shell temper rather than grit temper, and handles in place of collars or castellations. Oneota Sites are distributed throughout the forests and prairie of southern Minnesota with regional variations of Oneota pottery identified in the northeastern prairie region and in the north woods. Oneota village sites are located along several rivers within southern Minnesota, specifically the Mississippi River near Red Wing, along the St. Croix north of Stillwater, the Blue Earth River and along the Upper Minnesota River. Oneota Pottery is also present in the upper layer of many sites as far west as the South Dakota border. Ceramics are shell tempered, round bottomed globular jars with high straight to slightly curving rims ranging in size from 0.5 to 5 gallons. Stone tools identified at Oneota village sites consist of unnotched triangular points, scrapers, knives, drills, wedges, choppers, and expedient flake tools. 7 4.3 CONTACT AND POST-CONTACT OVERVIEW 4.3.1 Contact Period (1650 to 1837 CE) The Contact Period (1650 to 1837) includes American Indian and Euro-American contexts. The Minnesota OSA (MN OSA) subdivides the American Indian context into “Indeterminate” or “Eastern Dakota”, and the Euro-American context into “Indeterminate”, “French”, “British”, and “Initial US” (MN OSA, 2009). 4.3.2 Eastern Dakota The Eastern Dakota, along with the Western Dakota and the Lakota, comprise the ethnic group of the Sioux people. The Eastern Dakota lived in “village-centered tribal world societies” throughout Minnesota during the 17th century and were in an alliance with French fur traders and merchants (Gibbon, 2012). The Dakota War of 1862 resulted in numerous attacks on settlements and trading posts along the Minnesota River and culminated in the mass hanging of 38 Eastern Dakota (MNHS, 2015). After the war, many families relocated to the western territories and Canada. There are currently four reservations in Minnesota inhabited by descendants of the Eastern Dakota people. 4.3.3 British After the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the British quickly set up fur trading posts throughout Minnesota. The British fur trading economy was centered at Grand Portage, where traders would bring their furs and leave with other valuable trade goods. After the Revolutionary War of 1776, competition between the United States and British companies intensified throughout Minnesota. In 1803, the Louisiana land purchase established United States lands extending from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains. The War of 1812 saw a demise in the British fur traders due to the United States denying business licenses to British traders. 4.3.4 Initial United States Early Americans conducted the first fully documented land survey of Minnesota in the mid-18th century and early 19th century. Jonathan Carver explored the upper Mississippi River in the 1760s, and by 1806 Zebulon Pike had explored portions of the river. Missionaries began to arrive in the early 19th century, primarily along the Minnesota River. The American Fur Company was founded by John Jacob Astor in 1811, after which numerous fur trading posts were quickly established throughout the state. At the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, Fort Snelling was constructed in 1819 to protect the new United States investments in the area. Large-scale fur trade resulted in a major decline in native beaver populations, and by 1842 the fur trade in Minnesota had come to an end (Dobbs, 1989). After the passing of the fur trading industry, land was opened up to Euro-American settlers. 4.3.5 Post-contact Period (1837 to 1960 CE) MN OSA subdivides the post-contact period into eight categories based on social and economic issues pertaining to different geographical locations and time frames (MN OSA, 2009): • Indian Communities & Reservations (1837 to 1934) • Early Agriculture & River Settlement (1840 to 1870) • Northern MN Lumbering (1870 to 1930s) 8 • Tourism & Recreation (1870 to 1945) • St. Croix Triangle Lumbering (1830s to 1900s) • Railroads & Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) • Iron Ore Industry (1880s to 1945) • Urban Centers (1870 to 1940) Additionally, Euro-American Farms in Minnesota (1820 to 1960) have been divided into eight development periods (Terrell, 2006): • Early Settlement (1820 to 1870) • Development of a Wheat Monoculture (1860 to 1885) • Diversification and the Rise of Dairying (1875 to 1900) • Industrialization and Prosperity (1900 to 1920) • Developing the Cutover (1900 to 1940) • Development of Livestock Industries (1900 to 1940) • Depression and the Interwar Period (1920 to 1940) • World War II and the Postwar Period (1940 to 1960) 4.3.6 Early Agriculture & River Settlement (1840 to 1870) This category is defined by subsistence farming and the transition to wheat monoculture. It is primarily focused on the southeastern portion of the state. Farmsteads within this context are represented by farm buildings and other types of structures, such as, dugouts, soddies, and “claim shacks” (Terrell, 2006). The Preemption Act of 1854 and the Homestead Act of 1862 brought many settlers to Minnesota and the railroads quickly followed. Many towns arose along major transportation routes and along important rivers. The large influx of settlers created ethnic communities that were centered on churches and schools. As the farms and towns grew, so did industries associated with agricultural activities (Terrell, 2006). This, in turn, gave rise to the next historical context: Railroads & Agricultural Development. 4.3.7 Railroads & Agricultural Development (1870 to 1940) This category is characterized by larger and more diverse farms, primarily in the southern and western portions of the state. Farmsteads within this context also include subsistence farming and large scale bonanza farms (Terrell, 2006). As the earlier, smaller communities continued to grow, railroads were expanding to accommodate full-scale agricultural commerce. Towns located along railroad lines quickly became important to the local economies for the ease of transporting agricultural goods, as well as bringing in needed goods for the local populations. As the modern industrial era continued to expand and change, so did the local historical landscapes of the railroad towns. Urban sprawl, along with new technologies, industries, and railroads all led to changes within these communities that can still be seen today (Terrell, 2006). 9 4.4 BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW In October 2016, Merjent Senior Cultural Resource Specialist Dean T. Sather examined site files maintained at the OSA and the SHPO in St. Paul to update and supplement the Phase IA Background Literature Review conducted the previous year. The objective in reviewing cultural resources background literature is to identify previously recorded cultural resource sites and assess the potential for unrecorded sites to be located within the Project Area. The standard for considering a cultural property significant is whether it meets the criteria for listing on the NRHP. The initial criterion for such listing is an age of 50 or more years. Beyond age, a property must retain integrity and be associated with significant historic trends, historic persons, building styles and craftsmanship, or the property must have the potential to provide significant information about the past. Merjent staff inventoried previously executed cultural resource investigations for the townships included in the Project area and the greater Carver County region. A total of 8 previously documented archaeological site and two inventoried standing structures were located within one-mile of the Project. 4.4.1 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Prior to conducting archaeological field investigations for the Project, Merjent retrieved information from the Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) regarding previously documented archaeological site locations within a 1-mile-wide (1.6 km) study area including and surrounding the Project area. Merjent’s review of the information obtained at MNHS identified seven previously reported archaeological sites within one mile (mi) (1.6 kilometers [km]) of the proposed Project area and one archaeological sites within the Project Area (Figure 1, Table 3). Table 3: Previously Documented Archaeological Sites within One-Mile of the Project Site Number/Site Name/Site Type County, Location (TRS) Site Significance Location to Project Area 21CR 014/unnamed/Pre- contact artifact scatter Carver, 116N/23W /22 Unevaluated West of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 015/unnamed/ Pre- contact Lithic Scatter Carver, 116N/23W /22 Unevaluated West of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 103/unnamed/ Pre- contact Lithic Scatter Carver, 116N/23W/27 Unevaluated South and West of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 104/unnamed/ Pre- contact Lithic Scatter Carver, 116N/23W/27 Unevaluated South and West of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 109/Lake Susan SW Shore/Pre-contact Lithic Scatter Cass, 116N/32W/14 Unevaluated North and East of Project – external to Project boundary 21CR 140/unnamed/Historic artifact scatter Cass, 116N/23W /27 Unknown South and West of Project – external to Project boundary 10 21CR aj/unnamed/Pre-contact mounds Cass, 116N/23W /23 Unknown Within Project 21CR aj/unnamed/Historic Burial Cass, 116N/23W/23 Unknown East of Project – external to Project Boundary As mentioned above, seven of the sites were located within the one-mile buffer surrounding the boundary of the Project Area (21CR014, 21CR015, 21CR103, 21CR104, 21CR109, 21CR140, and 21CRak). As these sites are situated external to the boundary of the proposed Project area, they will not be impacted by proposed construction activities associated with the Project. The remaining site, 21CRaj, is an informant documented pre-contact burial site comprised of two low conical mounds situated in a wooded area in the southern portion of the Project Area (Figure 1 & 3). These features were relocated and delineated during field investigations. Physical testing of the features was not undertaken at the time of the field survey as the current development plans indicate that this area will be maintained as green space and no construction activities will be occurring in this area. Therefore, while located within the proposed Project Area site 21CRaj is situated external to construction area and will not be impacted by proposed construction activities. 4.4.2 Previously Recorded Standing Historic Structures A review of records at the MN SHPO indicated that no historic/architectural resources have been previously inventoried in the Project boundary. Two historic/architectural resources have been previously inventoried within one-mile of the Project area (Figure 1). One of these resources has been listed on the NRHP. The other resource has not been evaluated. The list of previously documented historic/architectural resources is summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Previously Recorded Historic/Architectural Sites within One-Mile of the Project Area Site Number/Site Name/Site Type County, Location (TRS) Site Significance Location to Project Area CR-CHC-004/Farmstead Cass, 116N/23W /22 Unevaluated North and East of Project – External to Project boundary - No Impact CR-CHC-006/Albertine and Fred Heck House Cass, 116N/23W/22 Evaluated – Listed on NRHP North and East of Project – External to Project boundary - No Impact Structure CR-CHC-004 an unnamed farmstead located on the west side of County Road 17 approximately 0.5 miles north and west of the Project Area. This structure was inventoried during a 1980 survey. Its current status is unevaluated for National Register. As the structure is external to the Project Area it will not be impacted. Structure CR-CHC-006 is the National Register listed Albertine and Fred Heck home. The historic property is located approximately 0.2 miles north and west of the Project Area, near the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Audubon Road in Chanhassen. The listing includes one contributing structure and one non-contributing structure. The contributing structure is a well preserved single residence constructed in 1895 of locally produced Chaska-brick. The non- 11 contributing structure is an unattached garage constructed of concrete block. The structures were originally part of a 105 acre farm settled by a German immigrant family. The listed structures are located external to the proposed Project Area and will not be impacted by the proposed construction. 5.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Field work was conducted between October 24th and October 26th, 2016. Merjent Cultural Resource Specialist Matthew Terry served as Field Director. The Project was considered of moderate to high potential for prehistoric archaeological deposits due to the proximity to both permanent water resources and the presence of previously documented cultural resources within one mile of the Project (Figure 2). The Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey was conducted to determine if unrecorded cultural resources were present within the Project’s APE. Cultural resources could include archaeological sites or historic/architectural resources. Field reconnaissance consisted of a combination of pedestrian survey and shovel test excavations with a focus on culturally viable landforms. Shovel testing consisted of hand dug excavation units between 30 and 40 centimeters in diameter. The depth of the excavated shovel test varied depending on the depth of subsurface deposits and the presence or absence of intact cultural material. Shovel tests were generally excavated to a depth where intact subsoil horizons were exposed. All materials excavated from shovel tests or deep tests were screened through ¼” hardware mesh. Detailed field notes were recorded during field investigations along the individual landforms that were pedestrian surveyed, as well as the shovel tested areas. Pedestrian survey involved controlled visual inspection of the ground surface. Field personnel conducting pedestrian surveys were spaced a maximum of 5 m apart and traversed the segment in parallel transects inspecting the exposed surface for evidence of cultural deposits. The majority of the land surface investigated had excellent ground surface visibility. All shovel tests excavated within the Project area were negative for cultural materials. No intact deposits containing cultural materials relating to the historic or prehistoric period were identified within the Project boundaries. The Project will have no adverse impact on any recorded, known, or suspected cultural resources. 12 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Merjent recommends that there will be no adverse impact on known or suspected cultural resources as a result of this Project and that no additional cultural resource investigations are needed. Merjent recommends that if construction plans are altered to affect areas that were not previously surveyed or disturbed, these locations should be examined for cultural resources. In the event that additional archaeological materials are identified during construction activities, Merjent recommends that construction in proximity to the discovery immediately cease and procedures be followed to notify the MN SHPO and other agencies, as required. Further, if human remains are encountered during construction activities, all ground disturbing activity must cease and local law enforcement must be notified. MS 307.08, the Private Cemeteries Act, prohibits the intentional disturbance of human burials. Work should not resume until all issues are resolved. 13 7.0 REFERENCES CITED Anfinson, Scott. 2005. SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Minnesota Historical Society of Minnesota. State Historic Preservation Office. Dobbs, C.A. 1989. Historic Context Outlines: The Contact Period Contexts (ca. 1630 A.D. – 1820 A.D.). Draft. Reports of Investigations No. 39. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology. Submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society. Gibbon, Guy. 2012. Archaeology of Minnesota, the Prehistory of the Upper Mississippi River Region. University of Minnesota Press. Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS). 2015. U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Electronic Document. http://www.historicfortsnelling.org/history/us-dakota-war. Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist (“MN OSA”). 2009. Minnesota Archaeological Site Form. Terrell, Michelle. 2006. Historical Archaeology of Minnesota Farmsteads: Volume 4, Historic Context Study of Minnesota Farmsteads, 1820-1960. Two Pines Resource Group, LLC, Shafer, Minnesota. E E E E E E E E × × 21CR0014 21CR0015 21CR0103 21CR0104 21CR0109 21CRaj 21CRak 21CR0140 21CRaj T116R23WSec. 16 T116R23WSec. 15 T116 R23WSec. 14 T116R23WSec. 13 T116 R23WSec. 21 T116 R23WSec. 22 T116 R23WSec. 23 T116 R23WSec. 24 T116 R23WSec. 28 T116 R23WSec. 27 T116 R23WSec. 26 T116 R23WSec. 25 T116 R23WSec. 33 T116 R23WSec. 34 T116R23WSec. 35 T116 R23WSec. 36 CR-CHC-004 CR-CHC-006 Canada WISD ND MI IANE Minnesota Da t e : (1 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 6 ) So u r c e : Z: \ C l i e n t s \ I _ L \ L e v e l _ 7 _ D e v e l o p m e n t \ A v e i n d a \ F i e l d _ D a t a \ C u l t u r a l \ R e p o r t s \ S H P O \ F i g u r e _ 1 _ A v i e n d a _ T o p o g r a p h i c _ O v e r v i e w . m x d Figure 1 Avienda Chanhassen Project Topographic Overview Carver County, Minnesota p01,000 2,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,000 feet × Previously Identified Architectural/Historic Resource E Previously Identified Archaeological Site Field Verified Archaeological Site Project Area Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 300 600 Meters USGS 7.5' Shakopee Quad, 1973 For Environmental Review Purposes Only !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !(!(!(!( 21CRaj 21CRak 21CRaj T116R23WSec. 22 T116R23WSec. 23 T116 R23WSec. 27 T116R23WSec. 26B l u f f C r e e k P o w e r s B l v d RiverRockDr M-10 UST H 2 1 2 5922 5919 5 9 1 9 591 7 S u n s e t T r P o w e r s B l v d J e r s e y Way Mills Dr 5917 5912 B l u f f C r e e k B l v d R i v e r R o c k D r Bethesda C i r UST H 2 1 2 Lyman Blvd Canada WISD ND MI IANE Minnesota Da t e : (1 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 6 ) So u r c e : Z: \ C l i e n t s \ I _ L \ L e v e l _ 7 _ D e v e l o p m e n t \ A v e i n d a \ F i e l d _ D a t a \ C u l t u r a l \ R e p o r t s \ S H P O \ F i g u r e _ 2 _ A v i e n d a _ S u r v e y _ C o v e r a g e . m x d Figure 2 Avienda Chanhassen Project Archaeological Survey Coverage Carver County, Minnesota p0200400 Feet 1 inch = 400 feet Project Area E Previously Identified Archaeological Site !( !( !(Shovel Test Transect Field Verified Archaeological Site Survey Coverage Field Verified - Disturbed Shovel Tested Surface Collection Service Layer Credits: 0 60 120 Meters For Environmental Review Purposes Only !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( Bluff C r e e k B l v d Bluf f C r e e k B l v d River R o c k D r Canada WISD ND MI IANE Minnesota Da t e : (1 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 6 ) So u r c e : Z: \ C l i e n t s \ I _ L \ L e v e l _ 7 _ D e v e l o p m e n t \ A v e i n d a \ F i e l d _ D a t a \ C u l t u r a l \ R e p o r t s \ S H P O \ F i g u r e _ 3 _ 2 1 C R a j _ F i e l d _ S i t e _ M a p . m x d Figure 3 Avienda Chanhassen Project 21CRaj Updated Site Map Carver County, Minnesota p0100200 Feet 1 inch = 200 feet Project Area E Previously Identified Archaeological Site !( !( !( Negative Shovel Test Transect Mound Location Field Verified Archaeological Site Survey Coverage Shovel Tested Surface Collection Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar 0 30 60 Meters Wooded 0% Visibility Datum # 5 8 4 m e t e r s For Environmental Review Purposes Only Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 52 APPENDIX 4—AVIENDA CONCEPT STAFF REPORT Y , e> w CITY OF ClIANIIASSEN S Chanhassen isa Community for Life-Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow H AS MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhart FROM: Kate Aanenson AICP,Community Development Director SUBJ: Avienda CASE#2016-25 D18 DATE: November 28,2016 BACKGROUND PROPOSSED ACTION: The City Council provide observations and feedback to the developer on the Concept Planned Unit Development including the observations in the attached November 1st Staff Report. The PUD ordinance states, "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. Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission, the City Council shall consider and comment on the concept plan". ANALYSIS On November 1st a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission (verbatim minutes are included in the November 28th packet). Following is a generalized list of issues and concerns raised: Density on two of the residential parcels are 26-34 units an acre exceeding city density limits Loss of wetlands—would like to see a plan that saves the wetlands and the overall impact to the wetlands after the development is completed Tree loss Over grading of the site—ignoring the terrain Can they meet the storm water requirements? Walkability of the proposal PH 952.227.1100• www.ci.chanhassen.nln.us• FX 952.227.1110 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA 55317 Traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard Amount of commercial development—with the expectation the uses would be different/complementary to what exists in the current down-town area with emphasis on specialty/high-end retail Screening or loading on the back of buildings/access management Light and noise pollution Sustainability of big boxes Lack of charm/should be quaint/ what makes it unique Too much asphalt Lack of parks and open space—gathering places Acting Chair Steven Weick summarized the comments at the November 1'meeting as he felt fell into 4 buckets: 1. "There's aesthetics that I think people are very concerned about moving forward. Whether it be site grading which then probably leads to the charm of what you actually create there as far as the buildings. There's noise and light pollution that I would consider aesthetics. Park space and open space. 2. There's a traffic bucket that you know we'll look at but obviously that was a primary concern that came out of the meeting this evening. Specifically the access points for Bluff Creek on both sides. Not just going into the neighborhood but entering the site from 212 as well as the proposed entrance, I think it's at Mill is the name of the, so I think those 3 points are specific traffic concerns. 3. I think there was some good density questions that came up just regarding, and obviously this is preliminary but we need to keep that into consideration and we will as these things move forward but that is a very valid concern that was raised, and finally I think 4. The wetland preservation and how we do that moving forward so I think those, a lot of the comments fell into those 4 buckets so if we can certainly be sure in addition to everything that's noted by staff in the packet, if we can specifically make note of those items that came out this evening I think we'll be moving in a good direction." RECOMMENDATION The City Council provide observations and feedback to the developer on the Concept Planned Unit Development including the observations in the attached November 1st Staff Report. Attachments 1. Email from Jennifer Swanson 2. Email from Geetha Bhatraj 3. Email Bhanu Thota 4. Email from Pramod Putta 5. Email from Lori and Corey Hothan 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 1, 2016 g:\plan\2016 planning cases\2016-25 avienda-chan retail site\cc cvr memo 11-28-16.docx Aanenson, Kate From: Jennifer Swanson <swanjls@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:21 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Proposed Developmetn Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Completed Kate, I had the opportunity to view the planning meeting earlier this week regarding the proposed development at Lyman and Powers Blvd. You had indicated that one of the goals of the project was to have a housing component as part of the project. When the previous study was conducted there was not to my knowledge a housing component identified for the site. I am curious when that change took place. You had also indicated that the southwest building was to be designated as senior housing. In the McComb study there was a conclusion that the site could support 825k- 1M+of retail and would be a regional draw. The concern that I have is that because a significant portion of the project is being developed as housing there will not be the appropriate square footage available for retail to make this a regional draw. If the PUD approves the proposed layout toward the acreage designated for High Density housing what guarantee will there be that it is senior housing vs Market Rate apartments. I feel that the location of this project gives significant retail advantages over other locations in Chanhassen. The close proximity to Highway 212 gives the potential for retail development and will utilize existing infrastructure. Eric Swanson 1440 Bethesda Cir Chanhassen, MN 1 Aanenson, Kate From: geetha bhatraj <gbhatraj22@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:18 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject:Avienda Development Hi Kate, This is Geetha.I live in the neighborhood on the preserve.I attended the discussion the last week or before in regards to the Avienda development. Looks to be a great development initiative.It was brought to our notice that there could be a possible road connection from the Mills drive into the new development for School bus and public Safety. Ours is a young neighborhood with lot of infants and toddlers.So having that road extension is not a great value addition for the community as it might increase thru traffic and increase safety concerns.This is due to the fact that once we have a road we really cannot restrict the traffic. By having dead end will restrict the traffic.During the meeting same concerns were raised by other members in the neighborhood. Please consider this as a sincere request from our neighborhood not to have a road extension on Mills drive.Hope council takes decision considering preserve residents opinion. Thanks Geetha 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Bhanu Thota <bhanuprashant.t@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:58 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Avienda Development - Mills Drive resident - Concerns Hi, I am Bhanu Thota,resident of 1495 Mills Dr of Preserve. I would like to raise my concern regarding the proposed Avienda Development in our area. Myspecific concern is regarding the road connection from Mills Drive to the new development. Our community has a lot of infants and toddlers and connecting the Mills Drive to the new development will increase the traffic. This is a serious issue for the young kids. Please consider this as a sincere request from our neighborhood not to have a road extension on Mills drive. Hope council considers our concerns in making the decision. Sincerely, Bhanu Thota 1495 Mills Dr 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Pramod Putta <pramod.putta@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 3:39 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Avienda Development - Mills Drive Concerns Hi, Good afternoon, this is Pramod and Kavitha living at 1502 Mills Dr of Preserve. We are writing to voice our concern about possible proposed road connection from Mills drive into the new development for School bus and public Safety. We are very concerned about safety of little kids with possible increased traffic that new connection may bring into the neighborhood. Please consider this as a sincere request from our neighborhood not to have a road extension on Mills drive. Hope council considers our concerns in making the decision. Sincerely, Pramod Putta and Kavitha Vimmigari 1502 Mills Dr 1 November 3, 2016 Dear City Council, We are Lori and Corey Hothan; we live at 1941 Commonwealth Blvd.,#5, Chanhassen, MN 55317. Our e-mail address is LHothan0l@hotmail.com. The purpose of our letter/e-mail is in regards to the New Development "of Avienda." We do have some key concerns we would like to share with you as our City Council, pertaining to this new development. Please see our key concerns listed below: Traffic Over-Flow: We have a huge concern with where the connection of our existing development,which is off of Bluff Creek Blvd., where this would be connected to the New Development for Avienda. If this connection was actually to take place,this would bring way too much over-flow of traffic into our existing development.This is totally unnecessary to connect this street (Bluff Creek Blvd.) into the New Development of Avienda. If there is a law that this actually and physically has to take place, then we as homeowner's have the right to see actual documentation supporting this connection. However, if there technically is not a law or something backing this connection,then this truly should not take place for the reasons listed above.The City Council and the Builder need to take this into serious consideration as to what this would actually do to the existing developments and/or homeowner's. The other concern pertaining to the Traffic Over-Flow, would be for the homeowner's who live right off of Hwy 212, Pioneer Trail and Lyman Blvd. where you are building this New Proposed Development for Avienda,that when the current homeowner's come home from work the traffic from the new development is going to create a huge traffic mess. How can this really be addressed if this New Development takes place right off of the on and off ramp of Hwy 212?That is one of the key questions of the day. Noise Buffers and Pollution: I know the builder from what we understand from our neighbor, had briefly mentioned or touched on two of the things that are highly important to those homeowner's, such as our selves who currently live in the existing developments which are right off of Bluff Creek Blvd.. I know for both of us that when you are putting in this type of new development (Avienda), right off of Powers Blvd. that as homeowner's we want to know that we can still enjoy living in our existing development and not have the noise and pollution become an enormous factor. Current homeowner's who have lived here now for about 8 to 10 years, do not want to have to stress about possibly having to deal with Noise and Pollution issues. Aesthetics' For the New Development of Avienda: In regards to aesthetically what is currently being proposed for how the new Avienda development looks,we feel that it would be better if they could make it look a little more eye catching or appealing so it doesn't look like every other new development that has already been built within the twin cities. We think maybe some stone or metal is ok for this new development, but try and find a balance. We would suggest that maybe have the developer come back and have a couple of ideas from an aesthetic outside perspective on how this New Development for Avienda could look. Please don't make this like every other development that has already been done to death. Page 2 Lori and Corey Hothan Concerns for the New Development of Avienda Aesthetics' For the New Development of Avienda (continued) In regards to the some of the trees within this new development for Avienda, as a couple we know that some of these trees would need to be taken down. Now with that being said, it would really be nice if the developer could preserve some of the existing trees, because we really do have some gorgeous beautiful maples, etc... currently existing within this new development that is looking to be built. In any area there needs to be a balance between trees, mother nature and buildings so-to-speak. Retail, Restaurants, Commercial and Offices: We also have a definite concern in regards to what is going to truly support all of the retail businesses that you are looking at putting in for this New Development for Avienda. If you look around the city of Chanhassen, you certainly can see and tell that there have been businesses that have come and gone over the years that ihey have been here. When deciding on how many businesses, restaurants, etc... it might be wise for you as a City Council to take a step back and seriously think about what is realistic in regards to how many retailers, restaurants, etc... that really should be built and put in this new development. In this day and age, our economy truly just does not support new retailers and businesses.The proof is truly in the pudding, if you truly just look around and see how many businesses in our community just are not making it that should tell you something. As a City Council you have got to be honest with yourself and suggest what is realistic and what is not. In regards to the Restaurants that the City Council and the Builder are looking at putting in at this new development for Avienda, we would strongly suggest that you look at actual restaurants, and not fast food chains. We have more than enough fast food chains within our Chanhassen community. Please look at some of the key,top restaurants that would make our new development of Avienda a little different and even more so updated. As I mentioned we have enough McDonalds' and fast food places within our Chanhassen community, so please do not add those to the new development of Avienda. The other thing pertaining to Apartments/Condo's or Business Buildings, is that we somewhat have a concern in regards to how high these buildings might end up being. We would definitely prefer these buildings to stay on the definite lower side of things, and not where we have buildings which might be say 6 to 20 stories high. Again, when putting the specs in for this new development of Avienda,you need to always keep the current homeowner's or developments in mind. We don't need sky scrapper buildings put within this new development, keep in mind in the end, how is it going to affect the existing developments and/or homeowner's. Kate,we would greatly appreciate it if you would please pass on our current thoughts and concerns to the rest of the City Council members for this new proposed development for Avienda. We hope that the City Council takes our thoughts and concerns into serious consideration, especially since we live right by this new proposed development for Avienda. We would love to attend any of the upcoming meetings for this new proposed development. I have provided our names and phone number listed below. Thank you ^' Best regards, Lori and Corey Hothan 952.368.0559 Y PC DATE: November 1, 2016 0 e- 1011 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CC DATE: November 28, 2016 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 29, 2016 9 g p S CASE #2016-25 BY: KA PROPOSED ACTION: The Planning Commission provide observations and feedback to the City Council on the Concept Planned Unit Development. PROPOSAL: Conceptual Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development(PUD)of 6 parcels on approximately 118 acres of land. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard APPLICANT: Landform Professional Services LLC 105 South Fifth Ave Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55330 PRESENT ZONING: A-2 Agricultural Estate 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office, Regional Commercial, and Medium Density Residential ACREAGE: Approximately 118 acres DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting conceptual review to consider rezoning from Agricultural Estate to Planned Unit Development Regional Commercial. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The Planning Commission is providing the City Council with comments and direction on the Concept Planned Unit Development. 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. 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 to review the application for Regional Commercial to ensure it furthers the city's vision as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The 1.66-acre parcel located east of Powers Boulevard is zoned Agricultural Estate and is guided Medium Density Residential. The applicant has not proposed development plans for this parcel at this time. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary for any action to change the land use. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 2 of 37 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 goals and policies(see Attachment#11 —2007 Community Survey questions asked regarding a regional mall). HISTORY OF THE SITE A Concept PUD for a Regional Commercial zoning was approved by Planning Commission and the City Council in 2015. That application included 70 acres,this application is for 118 acres. The City Council did authorize the update of the AUAR(Alternative urban Areawide Review). The update was never executed. The development of the 118 acres in now under a new LLC and will be included in the AUAR. 31N M1 j I` yah Ct Lyman,B r , , -75:' ' ii,, , - I); - 1 A 0...,- ,...._ _ v it - is ,'7. a t o ' - Ai V* ' F 4 ,,.ger t Subject',. qq4n,YM!/,fit SIf.i;<.a 1V1ltirr w.rlh I r I l/itir” Site V fie ` r rte 1 4lis,, Al, ''....../t' S R j, it Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 3 of 37 Parcel and Site Information Parcel ID Taxpayer Acreage Land Use Current Zoning 250230500 Level Development Inc. 22.89 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate 1.66 Medium Density A-2 Agricultural Estate 250230300 Level 7 Development Inc. 54.07 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate 250230410 Level 7 Development Inc. 20 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate 250230430 Level 7 Development Inc. 16 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate 250230420 Level 7 Development Inc. 4 Office or Commercial A-2 Agricultural Estate Total 118.62 Concept Provided by Level 7 Development, LLC I LiY`—' JOAN 9OULCVAeaI r i J t, LS—-—..— LS---- UA lMare Z7f Q_ aAa_c _r.`-7- .4 `I 9 enaea Ly/ c Av Hw vuxvwv 222111 ti cal raiz 1 C C L I • l L 11'.a RI s, ; t ' a 7 T 1 00C., 4,46 —J o i l--- J—_.- 4 C C aw,C !"_ r .IOW oorI I c Ask oma . 1 ( } II e/ no L[ i c Q tie 1 u I L Y -7 U ,, o c7 _— r_r---J-, J new E 11 A eW4\ i]c_G _— a j p Q II 1 i 0•;\,--,--:-.7_,ic-,9 ',J. iJ 1 rz—,, I s I IItLL- --—- 1 L' i Site plan is for illustrative purposes only and is subject to L_ change. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development-Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 4 of 37 Development Data Gross Net Section Area Developable Building Area Parking Units! Acres) Area S.F.) Stalls Beds Acres) 0 9.93 9.55 108,000 573 0 1.33 1.33 7,000 99 Legend 9.01 8.57 93,000 128 312 9.56 6.32 68,000 n!a 72 5.33 2.97 50,000 197 1,51 Fuhre Traffic Signal L c 2.58 2.58 30,000 191 AExisting Traffic Signa' 0 3.38 3.38 33,000 249 C.% 3.27 3.27 60,000 259 C) Stall Count C) 1.86 1.63 6,500 115 J 1 RAI c Right Of Way 0 1.57 1.20 6,500 96 0 Pondng C 2.04 1.64 6,500 119 I 1.83 1.83 7,000 104 Preservation 0C) 26.70 26.70 254,500 1364 177 Wetland and Buffer G 2.45 2.45 25,000 138 150 I I Regional Commercial 0 2.58 1.91 25,000 115 100 Office G 3.45 3.02 40,000 108 92 0 11.04 0.00 rite n/a High Density Residential 0 15.88 0.00 nia n/a n Medium Density Resident al Total 113.79 78.35 820,000 3,855 726 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 (verbatim language) 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 a lifestyle center. The Comprehensive Plan states: Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 5 of 37 2.7.4 Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial Definition/Vision: A mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive, comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors and is designed to serve trail users and mass transit as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity and mix of retail and service uses within their boundaries. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading,parking of automobiles, lighting and trash collection and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, with similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme. Vehicle and pedestrian access is coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. 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 OF APPLICATION FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL In 2009 the city adopted standards and guidelines for a regional/lifestyle center commercial planned unit development. 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 Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 6 of 37 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. 1) PUD exterior: 30 feet. The 30-foot PUD exterior setback may be 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. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development–Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 7 of 37 3) Rear yard: 5 feet. 4) Side yard: 0. 5) Parking: 6) Setbacks (feet): Front: 10 Side: 10 Rear: 10 7) 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. 8) 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 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: Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 8 of 37 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 beans 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 and 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 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. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 9 of 37 To receive the Regional Commercial PUD zoning, the ordinance requires that the property be under one owner control 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. (Section 20-505) Concept PUD—What is required? Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article VIII.—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: 1) The developer meets with city staff to discuss the proposed developments. 2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 10of37 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 and comment on the concept plan. The PUD process provides an opportunity to receive clear direction from Planning Commission, City Council and 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 service 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 comments of the Concept PUD review will be an update to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) which was done in 2003. The traffic component will be one of the most critical elements that needs 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. In order to best determine the intensity of development for the AUAR, staff is recommending that the applicant proceed to the PUD development stage(per City Code Section 20-508). This stage requires submittal of a preliminary plat and fees. After review of the development stage, a condition of final approval will be completion of the update to the AUAR. 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: The Shopping Goods Store Type—categorized as clothing and accessories, furniture,home furnishings, electronics, 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. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 11 of 37 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. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 12 of 37 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. Map 5 CHAN-212 CONVENIENCE GOODS TRADE AREA W Irhf.ni 1 Irl..a ly.: t . r alitsrR.elwh •1J--. ry1 I r-• 6tiA r' r 1 ,a, r" i 'f 5 7fj r :34,: i tAh r,Wf r4.1xrh oar, Lt 1 ill'IJ 11'. P tib R, pr a4 uwn1 • i 1 U 47 0 e ,• - tlelit.tilaori tirSim eti j UVd 71?5ti r r . Source: ScaniUS,Inc. and McComb Group,Ltd. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 13 of 37 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. Map 6 CHAN-212 SHOPPING GOODS TRADE AREA ST N.{v. C1 :. o rr,•,1f1 tItAfitial P's Cckac errs# f 1rrP a: +t,` 06 (.47,PIrI•: GPrqa,x,y',a • 1'n tblchlnVal gki gigot P" VP? SYAGfIN) 1 t,t 5410; Chai14 I Lianotri i crot Ftat) Cebpnc ifYQr Dee` hk-li7r '. ar-t=:r ikc.•WIl a, It.m t,,ryM WAIN; 1., Colla J010111 to Fcrrt•IncnT.1 usingt n Via' 110Lr itarlob I r e Po her Nlrker tieneffscr t Frill AInyeur tti' F'taii •1z: Thad'fin. lele C9tK'fY tc+tFliat RicemM _ Source: ScanJUS,Inc.and McComb Group, Ltd. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development-Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 14 of 37 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 (This would be in total square feet not building foot print). Junior anchor retailers are various size stores, ranging in size from 10,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet, also adding to 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 from 20,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 15 of 37 Destination retailers like health clubs,home centers, and cinemas, could total 215,000 square feet to 235,000 square feet if all three are located at Chan-212. It is possible that not all the anticipated potential tenants will locate at Chan-212 indicating 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 Departments Comments When the city was considering the land use change on the site in 2006-07,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 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 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 when looked at together form a"regional" commercial destination. Given the land area available in Chanhassen(100+acres), and in understanding the market, this concept would not necessarily be seen as a"dale"type of shopping center,but possibly more like a"Shoppes at Arbor Lake,"or the new outlet center in Eagan(paragon outlets/Eagan outlets) offof 77 and 13, or the Woodbury Lakes 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. Anchors might be more in the 35,000 to 75,000 square-foot range (i.e. JC Penney, Kohl's, Sears, Dick's Sporting Goods, Gander Mountain, Cabela's etc.). A more likely scenario would be the smaller restaurant users or supporting commercial users in the 3,000 to 10,000 Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 16 of 37 square-foot range with individual spaces within a larger building,but maintaining individual entrances facing the public space,promenade,plaza, or street. 3. 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.). Based on the lack of specificity in the types and sizes of uses, staff is recommending a list of permitted and prohibited uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan(see recommendation for use and square footage below). The applicant will be required to create a PUD district with a list of specific uses. Staff is has provided recommendations for uses base on the in intent of the RC Zoning District Sec. 20-509. Again the intent of this district: 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. 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. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 17 of 37 Recommendation for Use and Square Footage Square Footage Square Footage USE Merchandise Category SIC Code Tenant(minimum) Tenant(maximum) Convenience Goods Specialty Food Stores: bakeries,candy, dairy, 542, 543, deli, fruits&vegetables,meat&fish,nut& 544, 545, confectionary 546 and 549 700 18,000 Food Service: restaurants, eating and drinking,no drive thru 581 and 582 200 10,000 Other: drug,florist, liquor,miscellaneous, 5912, 5921, newsstand, optical and tobacco 599 700 Specialty Grocery 541 10,000 25,000 Shopping Goods General department store 5311 90,000 150,000 Apparel&Accessories: clothing and shoes 56 900 28,000 Furniture&Home Furnishings 571 1,200 37,000 Electronics&Appliances 572 &573 900 26,000 5941, 5942, 5943, 5944, Other: art,book,camera, cosmetic, game, gift, 5945, 5946, hobby,jewelry, leather, luggage,novelty,pet, 5947, 5948, photography, sewing, souvenir,sporting goods 5949 and and stationary 5999 600 45,000 Services Personal: adult care,miscellaneous,photography, 722, 729 tax preparation,veterinary and 835 900 8,000 Personal: salons and spas 723 and 724 900 8,000 Recreation: clubs and spas 7991 1,400 33,000 801, 802, 803, 804 Health care: clinics and offices and 809 900 60,000 61, 62, 63, 651, 653, 654, 67,73, 87 (not Offices: professional services 8734) 200 60,000 Theater: motion and theatrical 783 and 792 1,300 50,000 Hotel(250 rooms) 701 5,000 65,000 Bank and financial institutions 60 900 20,000 Residential To be determined with PUD, assume 550 units of high and medium density TOTAL 116,700 643,000 Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 18 of 37 Prohibited Uses SIC Code Automobile, Boat, Recreational Vehicles, Motorcycle and Truck, Mobile Home dealers and Suppilies 527, 55, 751 Automotive Repair and Services 76 521, 523, 525, Building Materials 526 Car wash 754 Convenience store with gas 5411, 5541 Day Care 835 Discount Store 533 Dry cleaning 721 Elementary and secondary schools, public or private 82 Fast Food Restaurant with drive thru 5812 Gas Station 5541 Grocery Stores 5411 Hardware 5251 Hospitals 805, 806 Liquor Store 592 Membership organizations 86 Motor vehicle repair and parts 76 Nursing Homes 805 Residential Care facilities 805, 836 Supermarkets 5411 Theater Warehouse Club 533 Wholesalers 51 Engineering Comments The concept plan includes the extension of Bluff Creek Boulevard from its current terminus to Powers Boulevard. Bluff Creek Boulevard is a Municipal State Aid Route therefore the design is subject to review and approval ofMNDOT's State Aid Office. The roadways should be aligned to encourage traffic to use Bluff Creek Boulevard for the development. The roadway however should be designed to discourage cut-through traffic to Audubon Road or Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 19 of 37 Pioneer Trail. The plan shall include a connection to the existing stub street on the northwest corner 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 public road that loops through the development is proposed. The plan includes a roundabout on Bluff Creek Boulevard just west of Powers Boulevard. A public loop road-Avienda Parkway- is proposed on the north side of the Bluff Creek Boulevard extension to provide access to the retail, office and medium-density residential uses. Another roundabout or some other traffic calming feature on Bluff Creek Boulevard should be considered at the western intersection of Bluff Creek Boulevard and Avienda Parkway as a demarcation between the Avienda mixed use development and the existing residential uses to the west. A full access is proposed at Lyman Boulevard and aligns with Sunset Trail to the north. The AUAR update will examine this intersection and include recommendations evaluate if the intersection meets signal warrants. The AUAR will also look at pedestrian movements at this intersection to see if an enhanced pedestrian crossing is warranted if a signal is not. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development-Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 20 of 37 Public street t J iL connection to _ I11.Wi ECM EVAxr a, Mills Drive tN required. to_ e(,. F ' , R1Y 0• :``-1'Ai 111110 F I 1 v - - e ( r 1 - C} I i as ee a. 04 1 ®I i 1 I o I I I. 1 . I ea. 07, t: 1 R1\' ® 4'' RI' Iiy,..: s J c' t rSI o1f1oA -° 1 IA. 1 1 —i-- 1.--j1_ ;{ R51 Via. P R1r p• C 1 L_1 O C 711 II I W.X.MY" b Raso6l IIT sf` GOC. II z1J obi J Possible roundabout to demarcate between the proposed mixed use development from the existing Connect to 1, residential uses to the west. existing fire lane to the south. i 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 and signalization warrants Analysis of potential cut-through traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard/Bluff Creek Drive to the west of the site. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 21 of 37 Based on the existing elevations where the development improvements connect to Powers Boulevard, Lyman Boulevard, Bluff Creek Boulevard and Mills Drive the developer will have unique opportunities to utilize the grade differences to enhance the development, such as walkout medium density units and preservation of the majority of the wetland complex at Powers Boulevard/Bluff Creek Boulevard intersection. The water main proposed for the developed shall be modeled to confirm the sizing is adequate for peak use and fire flows. Water Resources Comments Wetland Protection The final updated delineation reveals eight(8)wetland basins covering 6.15 acres of land. One wetland, WL9 received an agricultural exemption. Wetland 1 and 2 were found by the Technical Evaluation Panel to be hydrologically connected and,therefore,the applicant's consultant was required to revise the boundary as shown in purple on the following exhibit from Kjolhaug Environmental Services. The city is still awaiting the GIS compatible, georeferenced shapefiles for final approval of the delineated boundary. 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. All activities within the city shall be governed by the MN Wetland Conservation Act. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Under Minnesota State Law and Chanhassen City Code §20-402 through 20-421 wetland impacts should be avoided were feasible to do so. This proposal makes little effort to avoid wetland impacts on the site. As shown in the conceptual plan for the site, all but one of the basins will be filled in their entirety for a total direct wetland impact of 5.57 acres. The remaining wetland, a low quality Type 1 basin, dominated entirely by reed canary grass, would have a high probability of secondary impact as the concept plan routes surface water runoff away from the remaining wetland. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act was passed in 1991 (MN Statute 103A and MN Rule Chapter 8420)with the purpose of; achieving"no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands"; increasing"the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished wetlands"; avoiding " direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands;" and replacing "wetland values where avoidance is not feasible and prudent." Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 22 of 37 It is very important to note that MN Rules part 8420.520. Subpart 3.0 (2) clearly defines what is feasible and prudent"as follows. An alternative is considered feasible and prudent if it meets all of the following requirements: a) it is capable of being done from an engineering point of view; b) it is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices; c) it is consistent with reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare; d) it is an environmentally preferable alternative based upon a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts; and e) it would create no truly unusual problems." That subpart goes on to describe the city's obligations under when reviewing avoidance alternatives. 3) The local government unit must consider the following in avoidance alternatives as applicable: a) whether the basic project purpose can be reasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in the same general area that would avoid wetland impacts.... b) The general suitability of the project site and alternate sites considered by the applicant to achieve the purpose of the project; c) Whether reasonable modification of the size, scope,configuration or density of the project would avoid impacts to wetlands; d) Efforts by the applicant to accommodate or remove constraints on alternatives imposed by zoning standards or infrastructure, including requests for conditional use permits,variances, or planned unit developments; e) The physical, economic, and demographic requirements of the project. Economics alone do not make an alternative not feasible and prudent; and f) The amount,distribution,condition,and public value of wetlands and associated resources to be affected by the project and the potential for direct and indirect effects over time. 4) If the local government unit determines that a feasible and prudent alternative exists that would avoid impacts to wetlands, it must deny the replacement plan. If it is determined that there is no feasible and prudent alternative that would avoid impacts as described above, then Chanhassen must determine if the applicant has demonstrated that they have minimized impacts to the wetlands. The minimization follows the same basic rigor and review as described for avoidance. Further augmenting the "feasible and prudent alternatives" case is that the original AUAR showed three concepts that significantly minimized wetland impacts on the site. (See page 3 of the Avienda Concept Submittal packet.) The two higher quality wetlands were, in particular, saved from impacts. A memorandum from Ben Meyer of the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources, dated 10/19/16 and attached, echoes these concerns. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 23 of 37 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. 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. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 24 of 37 MM!.4-;*, T L6 F 0.74 ac I t t' 1' r MI r. 414' trl 0.69 act, x. I r „ 1 ` • --J Previously,Dralned;, . -f 4WL2i/f 1 t, 14- Not Present ' s *2.33 act,3 tWL8 1- ji1— , WL112' .~~,i 0.08 ac .. , _ . 11,1 0719 ac .•-. ;- 1 V 3 • 441;00• VVL7 `1, -- ill° - 0.65 ac WI-1 0.02 acAl' 1.03ac e y p/ W//L— WL5 0.36 ac , t WL4 0.13 ac Y ll 1 t 1 Legend 4' r l•- O Project Boundary r I •: 7 1a Ej 2015 KES Wetland Revisions 2014 Sambatek Wetland Boundary 2014 Boundary Wetland 6 I ii 0 Drainageway t i •:' Calvert tt 44. fir, Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2013 Carve Photograph) N 0 500 The District at Vincent Ridge( KES 2015-013) II Feet Chanhassen,Minnesota r Note:Boundaries indicated KJOLHAUC on this figure are approximate F VVIRONMENTAI.SERVICES COMPANY and do not constitute an official sur eyproduct. v Sou me:MnGeo,SSRI Imagery Basenap Figure 1 -Updated wetland delineation including additional areas in purple. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 25 of 37 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 functions 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. Given the impaired status of the downstream receiving waters, any approved unavoidable wetland impacts should be mitigated in the same minor 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 the 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 they meet the Section 404 requirements. The applicant needs to show an adequate sequencing argument for the extent of the proposed impacts. Water Quality Protection This site drains to one of two water bodies (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. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 26 of 37 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 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 111.D.1.1), 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, regionalponding 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 Purgatory 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. These removals are consistent with the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) recommendations and the volume is consistent with the NPDES permit requirements. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 27 of 37 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 andprotection of sensitive environmental features,induding 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 ofland uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. 3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses,induding both existing andplanned.Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. 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. In addition, wetland 4 lies entirely within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and feeds the large mitigation area to the south. This overlay 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. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 28 of 37 A 4 r Subject Site rrr j I ate•' R rr` A ' c f' 016r4V- ''' E rrrrf '{ - - MO Landscaping Comments Existing natural features on the site include a tree windrow in the center of the property, landscaping around the existing homes, natural vegetation around the wetlands and a large native woodland in the southwest corner. The developer is proposing to preserve some of the wooded area in the southeast corner. This woodlot falls entirely within the Bluff Creek Corridor Primary Zone and is intended for preservation. The woodlot is of high quality and consists of native species of trees and shrubs with minimal invasive species present. Landscaping requirements for Commercial/Office areas: Parking lot landscaping requirements o Use less individual islands and more extended planting spaces and areas o Use extended planting areas for both landscaping requirements and stormwater management infiltration basins o Incorporate landscape materials and design that requires minimal irrigation Bufferyard landscape requirements o Bufferyards will be required around perimeter as well as differing uses within the development Foundation plantings Boulevard trees along public streets Landscape area/green space requirements Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 29 of 37 o Preferable to have minimum mowed turf areas. Use prairie or no mow mixes in low use areas o Employ capture-and-use irrigation systems for development In Residential areas: Tree Preservation/Canopy Coverage requirements Use a diverse mix of species for planting Bufferyard requirements Foundation plantings Boulevard trees along public streets Landscape area/green space requirements Preferable to have minimum mowed turf areas. Use prairie or no mow mixes in low use areas Employ capture-and-use irrigation systems for development Bluff Creek Overlay District Entire wooded area in southwest corner within Primary Corridor therefore should be identified for preservation Conservation area should remain undisturbed and the feature should be worked around to signify a higher quality of development standards for the site. Carver County Comments (from 201 S) 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. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development–Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 30 of 37 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). 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 Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 31 of 37 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 On Tuesday, October 25, 2016,the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission took public comment and discussed desired park, open space, recreation, and trail components for the proposed Avienda concept planned unit development(PUD). Commissioners focused on making the development a highly desirable and livable environment for future residents and how best to integrate the site into the existing neighborhoods and landforms. Below is the Park and Recreation Commission's list of recommendations at the concept level: Incorporate meaningful park-like places, including the provision of appropriate recreation equipment, site furnishings, and landscaping adjacent to both the townhome and apartment neighborhoods. Preserve the woodlands identified in the Bluff Creek Overlay District to the greatest extent possible. The Commission envisions nature trails within a portion of the woodlands. Significantly increase the walkability of the core retail space to encourage pedestrian interaction by providing wide sidewalks, numerous gathering locations, interesting site furnishing, landscaping, and hardscapes. Provide well-designed sidewalks and pedestrian connections to all buildings and locations. Incorporate traffic calming into all pedestrian crossing locations. Design, incorporate, and construct a comprehensive on-site system of trails, including: 1. A trail running west to east from Bluff Creek Boulevard through the upper portions of the woodlands continuing east along the southern border of the property, then turning north adjacent to Powers Boulevard. 2. An internal trail positioned north to south within the townhome neighborhood allowing residents to gain access as pedestrians to adjacent destinations. 3. A thoughtfully designed, formal access that welcomes pedestrians from the intersection of Lyman and Powers Boulevard directly into the proposed development. 4. Completion of the emergency roadway connection with Miranda Way to be utilized as a trail way except in the event that north/south emergency vehicle access is needed. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 32 of 37 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. BIG BOX RETAIL/MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Consideration for a lifestyle center was what was contimplated with the 1st Comprehensive Plan. pain recommenditon for the potentail Regional Commerical land use. 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 as well as residential uses in a walkable environment. The plan for this development must be consistent with the vision for the site. There are numerous examples of regional commercial developments int the metro area. Examples of Mixed Use Development The Villages at Arbor Lakes PUD Concept Plan, while having big box uses in close proximity, provides a comparison of distribution of uses by type. This example is for illustrative comparison only. Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 33 of 37 f Skye at Arbor Laker7s[[Oa J - preweiv,, r4 .2st",.. 9,-,, z4 _. I---- AS.s'' lir ' iii;41,....,....1 , or' nr 0 z 7`.sif, I •ttom,;_ O ive Garden. v t is r Ll1 EIrp-C Dlv t Maple Grove,MN 55369 Reniha 1 i(,I,r(;ovp Na(li d ke5 z Cost o wnoe Davc F:fluster i Rd(0 Lakes° , . .. 40.000s„ we.ShopFr,:_th Si + y sem• w '.-• pi,- :•. eAMCArborEek3fy„•' — 40 ,,1: 5000q 35,00041-1 y 0 ntainsAt Arbil Iv .p 4 ..Wholey h 1 tainsiDrr L ' Foo &: x& Dick ;.u,u4.9 a,as Summary of Uses Avienda Arbor Lakes Apartments 404 units 752 units Townhouses 72 units 0 Hotel 250 rooms 206 rooms Office 173,000 sq.ft. 64,000 sq.ft. Restaurants 33,500 sq.ft. 40,000 sq.ft. Retail 362,500 sq. ft. 383,000 sq. ft. Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 34 of 37 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 1. What is the city's vision for this area: Is it big box retail,mixed-use development or lifestyle area? The Comprehensive Plan gives specific goods and services examples: a. Entertainment, department stores, comparison shopping, specialty retail/boutique, restaurants,hotels and residential. 2. Design considerations a. Design internal circulation to encourage pedestrian interaction and activity by providing sidewalks, gathering place; and interesting landscaping. b. Establish gateway at the boundaries of the district. c. Create a distinct identity through the use of consistent signage, street graphics, lighting and landscaping. d. Encourage sidewalk activity by developing amenities into all major pedestrian areas. Amenities should include coordinated street furniture trash and recycling containers,bus shelters, paving, landscaping and lighting. e. Provide architectural elements, such as sculpture, public art and unique signage into the development including streetscapes to establish a strong district identity. 3. Outcomes from the 2040 Visioning exercise(April 2016) a. Why we choose to live & work here: Small town feel Within easy striking distance of big city amenities Parks, lakes & trails Open space;recreational opportunities Community values Family-friendly; healthy; engaged; close knit Kid-friendly Strong schools; beautiful parks; safe;neighborly Great downtown Attractive;walkable Safe Low crime Strong city services Community amenities; can get almost everything here Affordable Housing; low taxes Special attractions Chanhassen Dinner Theatres; library; fishing; 4th ofJuly! Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 35 of 37 b. Why Chanhassen? Great community People care about each other; we are good neighbors; people are engaged, helpful, friendly (13 responses) Small town feel in an urban area: Everything we need is here yet we are close to big city amenities (6 responses) Family oriented Great place to raise a family(4 responses) Beautiful Clean, safe and beautiful(4 responses) Excellent schools Choice, quality (2 responses) Prince He lives here/is my neighbor (2 responses) c. Lifestyle Center Priority Medium for 3 groups; high for 2 groups Positives Helps bring new residents attracted to vibrant lifestyle and services Helps retain current residents who appreciate amenities/quality of life Job growth Considerations - Potential negative impact on downtown; should be planned to complement downtown Environmental impact Traffic impact on Highway 5 Suggestions Must be welcoming for seniors Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 36 of 37 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission provides observations and feedback on the Concept Planned Unit Development along with the following comments: 1. 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. 2. In order to best determine the intensity of development for the AUAR, staff is recommending that the applicant proceed to the PUD development stage (per City Code Section 20-508). This stage requires submittal of a preliminary plat and fees. After review of the development stage, a condition of final approval will be completion of the update to the AUAR. 3. 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 4. With the Preliminary PUD, the developer shall address the comments in the staff report from a. City Engineering b. Water Resources Coordinator c. Environmental Resources Specialist d. Parks and Recreation e. Building f. Planning- including list of permitted and prohibited uses. g. Carver County Staff report continued on the next page) Planning Commission Regional Commercial Concept Planned Unit Development—Planning Case 2016-25 November 1, 2016 Page 37 of 37 ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application. September 30, 2016 2. Application for Concept Plan Review September 30, 2016 3. Concept Submittal Exhibit dated September 30,2016 4. Email John Thomas Transportation Manager Eastern Carver County Schools dated 10-6-16 5. Email form Center Point Energy dated 10-10- 16 6. Email from MN Board of Water and Soil Resources datedl0-19- 16 7. 2007 Community Survey questions asked regarding a regional mall. 8. 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. 9. Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Hearing G:\PLAN\2016 Planning Cases\2016-25 Avienda-Chan Retail Site\PC Staff Report COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division—7700 Market Boulevard Or CITY OF C}IANIIASSNMailingAddress—P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300/ Fax: (952)227-1110 7, ,2, ' APPLICATION1FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date: 6/'`-'/I V PC Date: I y I ( \!Ii' CC Date: t 1 L Ji(#7 60-Day Review Date: I I '3i I Section 1: Application Type(check all that apply) Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 600 Subdivision(SUB) Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300 Create over 3 lots 600+$15 per lot Conditional Use Permit(CUP)lots) Single-Family Residence 325 Metes& Bounds(2 lots)300 All Others 425 Consolidate Lots 150 Interim Use Permit(IUP) Lot Line Adjustment 150 In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 Final Plat 700 Includes$ 450 escrow for attorney costs)*All Others 425 Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Rezoning(REZ) Planned Unit Development(PUD) 750 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way(VAC) $300 Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Additional recording fees may apply) All Others 500 Variance(VAR) 200 Sign Plan Review 150 Wetland Alteration Permit(WAP) Site Plan Review(SPR) 0 Single-Family Residence 150 Administrative 100 All Others 275 Commercial/Industrial Districts*500 Plus$10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: Zoning Appeal 100 thousand square feet) Zoning Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) 500 Include number of existing employees: Include number of new employees: Residential Districts 500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Plus$5 per dwelling unit( units) 1 Notification Sign (City to install and remove) 200 Property Owners' List within 500'(City to generate after pre-application meeting) 3 per address addresses) i Escrow for Recording Documents(check all that apply) 50 per document Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Site Plan Agreement i Vacation Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Metes&Bounds Subdivision(3 docs.) Easements( easements) TOTAL FEE: $950.00 j Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: See Attached Narrative Property Address or Location:SW corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard Parcel#: See Attached Legal Description:See Attached Total Acreage: 118.00 Wetlands Present? 0 Yes No Present Zoning: Agricultural Estate District(A2) Requested Zoning: Planned Unit Development(PUD) Present Land Use Designation: Commercial Requested Land Use Designation: Commercial Existing Use of Property: single family home and vacant, agriculture land 0 Check box is separate narrative is attached. i 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: Landform Professional Services, LLC Contact: Kendra Lindahl Address: 105 South Fifth Avenue,Suite 513 Phone: 612)638-0225 City/State/Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55330 Cell: 612)290-8102 Email: klindahl@landform.net Fax: 612) 252-9077 Signature:Kendra Lindahl, AICP Digitally YKendra Undahl,A Date2016.0.2217:19:51-05'00' ACP Date: 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: Level 7 Development Contact: Bahram Akradi Address: 4600 SYR0 Kings Point Road Phone: QSZ_ ZZ ....71.7t7-7 City/State/Zip: Minnetrista, MN 55331 Cell: yr 12.— 8 l 2 - I2 t' Email: 6«tiraw10. I0Li t i' ,fS•C-12r* Fax: Signature: L--aDate: 9— 24- •z.t) This application must be completed in full 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 and fees. 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 Professsional Services, LLC Contact: Steven Sabraski Address: 105 South Fifth Avenue,Suite 513 Phone: 612)638-0243 City/State/Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55401 Cell: Email:ssabraski@landform.net Fax: 612)252-9077 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 Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: 0 Other* Via: 0 Email 0 Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields,then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing(required).SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM Level 7 Development, LLC AVIENDA Chanhassen, MN D...., . u 4 AVI)+;Nl)A 7..'' Z.'"`• '_,. 7, „ mow ' 1%'IENDA 14fir,+ 4. n a,64 0 Y.._a APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW September 30, 2016 LANDFORM From Site to Finish INTRODUCTION On behalf of Level 7 Development, Landform is pleased to submit this application for concept plan review for"Avienda", a mixed use Regional/Lifestyle Center at the southwest corner of intersection of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. The property is dual guided Office or Regional Commercial and zoned Agriculture Estate west of Powers Boulevard and is guided Medium Density Residential and zoned Agriculture Estate for the 1.66 acres east of Powers Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates development of this site as"Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial". The plan notes that the vision for the site 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 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." SCD14001.LEV L A NDF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 2 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW In 2015, the City reviewed a similar concept plan from Carlston Development for a portion of this site. The City provided feedback on the concept plan and ordered an AUAR update. Before the AUAR could begin, Level 7 Development acquired the property and decided to pause and take a fresh look at the site. The new development team completed the site analysis and reviewed the feedback that was received during that process. The design team has also 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 comments provided during the 2015 review of the Carlston Development proposal Level 7 Development has been working to refine the plans for 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 a mix of potential uses that may include townhomes, apartments, office, medical and professional services, retail, entertainment and hospitality. 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 a similar high-end architectural style, similar exterior building materials and a coordinated landscaping theme as directed by the Comprehensive Plan. While we have not yet defined all of these details, our submittal package includes a schematic concept plan to give some idea of the concepts we are currently evaluating. SCD14001.LEV L ANDF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 3 Design Concept The provided concept plan meets your Comprehensive Plan goals and includes approximately: 50 acres of Regional Commercial (approximately 435,000 square feet) 15 acres of Office(approximately 40,000 square feet) 12 acres of higher density housing including with a potential for Market Rate Apartments(300 units)and Senior Living (100 units) 6 acres of Hospitality/Hotel uses(250 rooms) 4 acres of Stormwater ponding 16 acres of Conservation land 1.6 acres of land at the southeast corner of Powers and Lyman Boulevard that is not proposed for development, but could be used in conjunction with the adjacent city land for regional or local stormwater/wetland improvements. The design vision for the Avienda development will be an integration of both traditional and contemporary elements that will ultimately establish a"timeless" character. Both visually and physically, architecture will play a major role in the overall design character for the development. High-quality materials including authentic stone, brick and masonry, architectural metal panels, and glass will be key elements that will establish this character. The pedestrian experience will establish the overall scale of the buildings and spaces, with interesting facades and carefully designed architectural elements, lighting, awnings and other unique features. 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 and 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. The concept plan shows construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard, a key east-west road connection between the existing neighborhood and Highway 212. Internal connections are provided within the development, SCD14001.LEV L A ND F OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 4 including a connection to Lyman Boulevard on the north. 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. Market Study The concept plan was developed based on a 2014 market study prepared by McComb Group, Ltd, a consultant that the City has used in the past. The study reinforced the need for this development and the findings to support the Regional/Lifestyle Center anticipated by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The 2014 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 highlights from the executive summary: 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. SCD14001. LEV L ANDF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 5 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. 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. Our regional center will serve an unmet need in the community and will complement existing Chanhassen businesses. AUAR(Alternative Urban Areawide Review) The City completed the Chanhassen 2005 AUAR in 2003 for 624 acres, including this 114 acre site. MN Environmental Rules require that AUARs be updated every 5 years, but the AUAR has not been updated by the City despite the fact that much of the AUAR area have been developed since 2005. 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 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR to the regional/lifestyle mixed use shown in the Comprehensive Plan. We ask that the City order an update to the 2005 AUAR(dated December 2003)for this area. 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. SCD14001.LEV L ANDF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 6 We request that the City initiate this AUAR update to reflect the land use and infrastructure changes since the original AUAR was developed.We believe this 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 update and incorporating any findings into our development proposal. We request that the City Council re-order the AUAR as soon as possible. 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. In 2015, the City Council ordered an update to the AUAR, but it was not started. We now request that the City begin that work to update 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. SUMMARY 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 the City Council work session on October 19, 2016, Planning Commission review on November 1, 2016 and City Council review on November 14, 2016. CONTACT INFORMATION This document was prepared by: Kendra Lindahl, AICP Landform 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Kendra Lindahl at klindahllandform.net or 612.638.0225. SCD14001.LEV L A N DF OR M September 30,2016 Project Narrative 7 Diotlitiolit .._ sg Is. 8 aiiii. 1. 40 a ill k .30. td 1J ff `'E't''k#4,°S t. p T w _ f rkv ? yK a rr tili! ILv ta'i...-r\ ' a-i ; t iil•t : . 7 •C'i` Ar F S43f •I *( { `i f c'7/i,7 ty i,j7',t moi.`` y`• tom, ? ,r rya :.g 4111.1.y9 f'}. ,.? , 9'u'S.Y , ' ^l -;_ ),I\ if i 3,cLA a4 .kY. 1':' c.'R v`? t..:, t i0-T41' h ; x 5, ` 11 lZ, 9x_ '.1 X,{` af r'' til x;71"` .,.i'e: ?P.O.C:it•'. .r' A ,'„,4%1:1.4,,,, f.*• p. •i s- r S a ... / j._ t 1: f r 9- 7 i Y f •€ - > , t - t :. . } iP' •.-.•` •••• 11- 91•t•,., _r ' R -"-; Irk }• "aFi s'i , Y4 2 zf' 'e t ,fes t, a f t. y e ,y 1, Y! •- C'' • AA IvrIEN DAo:::41.-_, , , IENDA tip% j t: r rte ! t F ib...t.s:`c1 { is i6•. ,., II-.. r' -• 1., ,F. tr s- re f M r t x r t ,S I '•_: i, tI Y i spa Cj5" `+ t_/' y. y.s..s- a-_'. . is• 176 a-j t- f;- • J' ,• , _ tom. .'•if11 r=iii i iII IM MIL Al Concept Submitta' Exhibit Contents: 1 . Regional Context 2. Site Analysis 3. Proposed Land Use 4. Development Plan 3.5 5. Concept Plan Options for Center Village in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA LANDFORM RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL AVIENDA• Chanhassen, MN 09.30.2016 t, •' ••;.7.t. 4,, , 1..•-*' 11111, Pk. r,= •''''''rc 1 E t . A_' .1;•::•:•;iji.41e,•-t/5:' 'I*'''1''''''--;. .*. ._-_,•0.,.,-. ' -":%. 1....i.-• ''' )-4 1--t.' s E,-.-.7----11 f•1.7:-._•--,. „...1 • • ., * .'.. t - 7:-.' •al F , , 1 b.SS./.. , '- 1Alli ''110kr__ ii4kic.,,_. -../-11„- t ` :" 1 4.,,:....,‘ _ _...,_*''' , Lake Ann, :' - -*"`'''''':'.*' VP',V ' 2411" e• 4‘•tt•'.' '"'' Downtown Chanhassen inneapol is4...;.. sl 4.7 ,-4•-_, I ;,-..,y,7 --Chanhassen Arboretum .,,--. t, 1:4-mi: 4 • ••- ,...• - 4 -i '1,-'••••tt.., emarli5. 1.11111141 q•—•1--*.• .- - " 4,,--1--- , '', - : ,- ,. c cic • „:-.-• aur"--- k 5 E4-,i; 1I,'. 1 A - '. I,' '.'.‘'.......„, II f' • 1 in,-* 74. l• e'" 1e`,,. te -• • II'• 1-- m114agt..,-i '0),',-•- 1_,,4, vi- 1, 4i;,, c;' ''..,• i,.,".‘.,..',..?,1•.:,:f' I.t-. •. i..'",.,. f;r'.;.,;:,-':.'' 0e-.' t.,.%•---',.I-n.•_-f-i.i.„ 1,-1-_,) 11TP0( 0.- 1, 0v44 , 1 Project Site 4. 7 .• C II1V4 A i.lis i 1, ,,,,a'' ,,ik.-..; , • - •:;:,.=_......-'• 7, , 1 P ' 4 . ',,,' -' • • I'' - 4"1 s . .. 1 ' '-'11!itC... 1,::. i t .. )\--.7-4,' 4 ,' . 11§".. '4 r t'• 4 1,;!,,,, ik.' I.1. lAt. 2 S..l''... '11)44411 ...' ...'.: '. 1'.f : '.: .I:' ( N '., ,'4: If;„t. ,.:,*. , li"L, 4,' ly ,, ,i. -_,•1'10441 ,.„ ., 440 _.• • t t1:••.'"t. ' , e- • , J.-t- ,v, 4...• - ' • a I- ._.- , ev.• .-",,., ,,,<,,- _it .. -•.,.., r." I',, . .11. It.... -0.,,,,Ar...f. r.,-;--• 1-•.: 14k-.7....., 41 • I • oh : a I* 410) 141 •' 41, 1iii 1 , --,:-: ......,, Chanhassen High School .., Rice Mar ' 1, • ,.. iii,,,ja =-,)„, i! 1-1-,, L4',---• I.),- ,,.. .... P.a.,441-212 - • . -,;.-b.. 1 e-1,,,,;icip... , •• - •_ . •....y! to...f,, <,...., ,/:te.'",,,,..- .... --c,- .•••.- , , , T , •• c_ 1 •, 7.'± 'Pls.'. • 1 r '41e -- ' I, ' k ^ • - • ,' "' lir. - ,t,,, '' ' -' :.- df„,.‘•.:••'- • „ _, .&,..,.. t:air ;i7 V _. ,,,.., -.; .,- ,, 4.. • , . 4A-- - -'‘ ' ,• ' :• _---- e;OW''''' S. - 4..t ..... ,.,,. -...‘,„•... •'4,..... 1 ^x' P"1.44 .'.. ' - .. .• N. r.A,g,sI;1b.,4. . " .• , .,. 114. 1i.,i,•'• t 1t•. ; tr1 *. 1.^.- . ,, • - t Project 4, Site 'H-....-.I..,'-""•--,k.:'irg..l.i. ,, 4-„,,k1.-.%,' t„'., 21. j-i., 4,:•'...•.;:; I•.'-.,—• 4;4, z„,',,;(,),., 6•.'...,'”', .. 4-',.- .7'. • ..,.'.-,.-M; .V.:-.,... 4.: 4-,.i•._.:. r„ s... 7,. 1,•,,,,\-•.,,,,-.. 4,,,c,,:•.. 1 4 -1'4 - 1 t- i',' ; .,,, ; , - r -ei,, - u.A t-1. ''' - ' t. r - 7.-A-1-•• i Ak 1-41"'-',i . ,r1,v,..i•-•,,lib.;,,.., -,--:;.,--,,L, "X.- # -• •# ' •,.‘ •,;,, - '144`'''S '41.414*,...1 ,..; '''' '' ' r. -`.•1".: / ,„_tay; I ill! , 1. . • , :F •`... '2' ' • i le,.,4.': yr , _... - _;.:'..._:3'1,.,:_*,r:t -, ;A 1,-...,;•••••,„.* 1..-••.. 1.„,z,- .... FAA - 11.1111_1 sk, % 07...s;• ••10.11",.,. !4014i t • 1 4' i "-e vcIpoik1 .fr i,.1,,,Ii.,,,,,,„,„ k. - - 1-- i t., -J..-,.. ' ............ ...k.,......-• 4 LAP $(1 Flt, ._ . t„,....„1 1 " I 1 , OfIr ', 1• .: a.:-10,— . - F fq.o'Cilv4'...;$4„.0.Lake Bavaria t • , ,.... :e ,', • iv," i .,.. Hazeltine Lake 41.I.P".4v -I' v*,.. li 4'1...e."'• ••.,le,Flying CLoud Airport - -.., r 'V Lake Riley I. ,',,, _-_ - - 11, 7* ' p If 44,01.•:: 4 k . .`Q ,,,;. .f so PO' a , r. x, ..,k Itt 1,1111= : . • ff•it-r-.s . .. \,. ', v ,-; I w 14-4-•'••"""•••,, '-- ••••• 11 ..„---...rh ft ‘. n .' Iai- b.,ir-,--r.r.;, ...4 i;•• ••_,,,.:" : _-' 4,-.7‘..,••,,-,‘tv-sr ,t I r -....,.. 4 OI, r._';//.,. ik'„,':....•..,:, Chaska- High-•School ': j\ay•, v:. -.', 1.. s', rsi.., ...,' St,: Y" 4..;-.,• ' ,.!.:-, I,• TA.' • V,,. r-m._-. .' , ..'..../ Ili',?.'. 1%„,.--• 0r147.,.'• nrW. IPi. P.M•- 4-•.‘'*:.4 -t•..:: 6-',••-.• 441•,"_.1'•.•.'.',,,''... 0", e-., b,,,.,.. I,..''-;,`,., 4"-,.../ s'''t.! 6.' l!• 4'.'/ y.,':..-., s` T..•. ff...,.*.• s.'•.'•.•.•,..., 1-`. v'-'"t', j.,...--1' Z,:.-:-' Z.:',":‘' r2• r.• t.I••, 4• 1. i14•!,,:'k-, i1. i1i's1. 7/.{'. o1C0k3%•:%./', l.i.si' i-.- 1„ v't. •••. Y. 4.- 4. i1•!.. 4-.1.,!, . '., Li 1;4., ti...t.. t... - • . . ,.... i..... .,„.....;..;.!... , :,. .. .'''..._:.,.,, ).., ,,..., r • '. , .. ,,1 El.'Do, ..if:i.: rt: ' 1,0 I -,ON`: k..:.212 Medical Center --,,••i'lli- 4.1- ., ),,,• . v Available Land i: •-1 'I' Ai' • . ',1 „ 1 ', sr="-„ * ' „ ' ... . ' ../,:..4.i...7.1,1.' .47,...1,:',... 1 itt:4104: 1; t: Elo1,....'H L.,,...i.,;•, z,, ‘ ii*.. ...t 'z?,-,.•., ' ,-;',,,',./...' 44:.,•., 4212,., .4, M. .„:1;., ,....,,,,,?„-4 4-*Vwle ••••-• ‘ iii ti;..I 10 *.”AL,. 40.,t, %Sz,• L.., 1 -•' t.$•."; ..... -A . s..1,+. 54.7::,,,kray, IV.,. Existing Trail / Sidewalk 41.•,,,--. 44. - .- ' . ,,,.• ' ' i,-, .. .,- -,-:•;; • -,-,.. .--,,.. . ,. •-- i i' r.:- ,. .1..4,4.- f.--.-it. ,4„.,•' tig ,• grew- „ Apk ,/V :- ?_, '. '. ;-..• **y. ;•-: -•',;(- ':t.. 14, t.---- ..,_ .- .." '- s''. -4''' • ; '••-.-;:f‘i 4 I -411‘, 1"; - ' ...:- -:---_1 ,:.to I C t .c.ad'.A4. 1,,4 l ••• Rice Lakeip.-...*C..C..' 'N -...- • :...:.,-..7.1,:-,... ,t- .,,1,,,.,..,44:2,_-_,„..-, 1 148rc-,,i;-P11-.4*:::-.41" ',-.-. 4,– t 6 41e,,1,,,,c,..e-. - - :- ...• „, 15,•,,,,,,, e' 4 \.. ,.. ... sc. er.,-. t. -,... e 4,Iil ; ., - 4>•', %!* 4; , - .,, • • - ilb' 11k 4:' •• . $ • 4 11,!'•4: i )..,;• 17,1-; - .k t • - ..... :,..- .,.. - .,-••• •."' i • '4Iiit 4-It 1',":011'&'*". s . ro, ' r• c. ..._ .':?' '..•'' -Ile . -_, 212 . ' '.-, , „ ) 4., .., s,, ,. s a*-1.', a, A ,... ,,,,, •- er ... i. .; ,,,,, At_, .. ,, -111r;4411111 t '. 1,- ' '•-.'••• 4.-, -- - ..,, I; _ .1 ., ',., Arv- 2‘-- t?' ..•,,,.- . -.'.1.; .. • ' 1 t. 4 — .3 v irt A14•-'...... ,_ PAP'.- 't,..,-.-,...4-- ...:Y i - 1 Li ,41 t;,,,,--, ',; r-f-',111 '4 ' .' .'" 'IL i '' 4-. ;IS-.'.1.. .''''4.- 4,, 1.. .. , ,... , . .,....,..., 4.4....:,,,,,,, AL.... 014., 4411,., .,..,_ :‘,.. ;,,..,-,..1,v, . boa r 'I it. _. 4_,.,„., -: -- _N, ,,c„--3,-..,.•• ,...., -_e.,: --,,,t, , . .,R• IL., • fil —16,-,,..- it.,.... , v 1. 4 1 ••• co''') - ••..„71.4r,.'fr.......''''•-•.....4:. ' ;•"`•2 . 1.4 . ..\-•:-...,,.... eat, IPi1-)„.44.• • -I...k,„.. ...• /„,,_-.4„/.....,,, , . , "sp.-, ,_ lia.." - • , itit.k.„.1„ 4 t i 1k• —41 416 ff ' a 4,g,:;..,1--••y• ., • .,••. , • -..-;•,.. •-. ... • A' f.,'-`4"•.'-:- .•-IP 71:',.- _•i„N'tt-.. •,-. ; REGIONAL CONTEXT in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA -1:: A N D F 0 R M RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL AVIENDA•Chanhassen, MN Concept Submittal.09.302016 krY y ebi ,` t Y' •+'_€+' moi/ 1. e .fie ., v., i r J- a- qr, il 4•1 • •-'4.:‘ \\ ------_______ ,;,,,.,.. r,...,4--, 1 s :: iiri.1r .. ..)i 4. 9w 4-,444INN __ MIN an ouievar J• • rte! '1 t_ Edges sensitive to adjacent use a- += i s %i' f r 1\.____\-----_______._ l \" Access to Lyman Blvd l' W ands l Existing etl ii t• 4I h P.r.Potential Connection'` 4 ,h, r.l ti a I Signaled Access I/ i Existing Residenal ./ F 1 R r e 4 a kliet2 A•f•--74..4411441PL..ta.I '''. . •-‘'-7t:• "1r, 4e4ieNeighborhoodAccessg ' roltit ,, r 1 I , - 7 7 / II 4,-,a f 4. -e ! f 1 , rt. ' l ,J ( r n. F /• r N. 0 ft.. i. ,Densely Wooded Knoll t ate+.1'---- f L. fil7F. ' : 46( , A'6 * 1'. ' \ s\\\\\\\''‘11‘ ' ' . . ____-_, 7' 7.-•-,„--- \._,,,,',‘ii,;,41t._,.,.---.-.-i,•. .'.jk\l' .,, , or-.'- 1 •,Emergency Access 4. 010....r.--„ 4,-.., .. _ ..,.. ' , ,,,,, 7- . , ../ 1110 ,-. 74. r.- r.' _%, '. i ce--- L . - - -1• N j` c J y: i ,"'i k 'L ice - A•.•R0,:... .fr y r SITE ANALYSIS in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA L ANDF OR M RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL AVIENDA•Chanhassen, MN Concept Submittal•09.30.2016 Lz....,rEz....i..Fr-. z, -r.a....... .,..<.z c.-.F.-......e...-r..L:C Land Uses from 2012 HKGi AUAR U SAN BO 'Concepts (constrained to project site) rOMINIMMEMMIENnimmimmEmmommomminimic.." I I CONCEPT 1 (Acres)5.33 Ac 2.58 Ac 3.38 Ac 3trj7nt4 r i, x 30.3 Regional Commercial W MDR AVIENDA PARKWAY --- c K - ' 17.4 Office 3.27 Ac 444... J 6 13.5 High Density Res. I° 7t419.8 Medium Density Res.lam"Stormwater Conservation l j 1.86 Ac hillaW7- Ti 9.56 Ac 26.70 Ac Land Uses 2016 1.57 Ac Proposed Concept CONCEPT 2 (Acres) J i Acres) s:t'n"' i . R 18.2 Regional Commercial 2.04 Ac M'R 3 33.6 Office 50.21 Regional Commercial k 5.8 Mixed Use OBLUFFCREEKBOULEVARD 1.83 Ac 14. 56 Office 4.1 High Density Res. Q1.33 Ac 16 Medium Density Res.12.46 High Density Residential ik3. 5gli Stormwater 9.01 Ac 2.58 Ac 1-- Conservation 9.93 Ac 9.56 Medium Density Residential CONCEPT 3 (acres) 3.45 Ac Alternative BMPs may be 65.2 Regional Commercial implemented in plan L44 Y 1 .4 Office 15.88 Conservation 0 High Density Res.K t_ 15.88 Ac 11 .04 Right-of-Way13.5 Medium Density Res. g y Stormwater Site plan is for illustrative 113.79 Total Development Conservation purposes only and isj Acres) i . subject to change. PROPOSED LAND USE in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA L A N D F0 R M RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL AVIENDA•Chanhassen, MN Concept Submittal•09.30.2016 Legend Regional Map h Future Traffic Signal rri-U LLYMANBOULEVARD t:::: 5I CP I OFFICES 0 OFFICE E Public Right Of Way n 25,000 S.F.x 2 STORIES OFFICE C 0 u..wII r- SITEJ15000S.F.x2STORIES o = 16500SF.x2 STORIES 0 1111 = I O Q m Ponding AVIENDA PARKWAY --- --- le ° ` O r Preservation Ca D[ZED /IIII I I I IIII I LEPI O D III z:iaib i, MT J Q0 0 19 i; NII I[LI I i/L 1I- --- - - II _ LI Iu,ll. r. l U f 5ol:h..l .(mel. ,(cl 1:.l oci l:.l I.Office C: Development Data 111111111111111._. R c o o n - o 0 01i - C u o o High Density Residential NetI LJ as ) 0 l O Gross Developable Building Area Parking Units/l'-'21 J y Q 0 I MI Medium Density Residential Section Area Area S.F.) Stalls BedsAcres)Acres)I t I k C O 0-'o O o J O o o C Riii: 1. 19 QBIM O 9.93 9.55 108,000 573 0 0 F N___`-' co , -.) O O J O 1.33 1.33 7,000 996 0 t) O '1 S C '\ C rfimp o 0 r,oval! 9.01 8.57 93,000 128 312 f'' •I •0 0 9.56 6.32 68,000 n/a 72 IA' - o od ` 5.33 2,97 50,000 197ia' '0: 0 2.58 2.58 30,000 191 r li T; O 3.38 3.38 33,000 249 rC G 02,1:1:: ' . . REs F 3.27 3.27 60,000 259 B UFF CREEK BOULEVARD Q p w s F Q 1.86 1.63 6,500 115 0 G' C 0 1.57 1.20 6,500 96 i. O RE9TE 0 x n 7 . o 0 1.0009.F. c Q O 2.04 1.64 6,500 119APARTMENTSr0., 50 „ , , 33. r„O SF O y I o 1 1.83 1.83 7,000 104 Ej 0 26.70 26.70 254,500 1364T$ I Di\ 2.45 2.45 25,000 138 150 v " o1, 0, o II_ 7 ` 0 2.58 1.91 25,000 115 100 U r O 3.45 3,02 40,000 108 92 APARTMENTS ttop40000S { t RETAIL RETAIL ANCHOR \ ® O 11.04 0.00 n/a n/ a l- t- 1SCCOSF• 90,000 S.F tee F 61-CD-,0 ` O 15.88 0.00 n/a n/ axN' Jae 61- I G o o Total 113.79 78.35 820,000 3,855 728, t• O 0‘i iii .Site plan is for moi, illustrative purposes S.• r p p 1 only and is subject to iei`y change. i. 4044 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3. 5 in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA L A N D FO R M RSP ARCHITECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL 1 IENDA•Chanhassen, MN Concept Submittal•09.30.2016 iisi I , :• 81bil 1) L.L_______, MAN BOULEVARD D = ost_g) LY0=1:1=C;e="'f'--- -NI sii-c;117-77 144gr____t_ilf ,- 9) ,Ccla=r-t=7-0-- -NAilazEcizr, rv-Th 5, , 1.\p____ . "Nte- . _oi,. T 17--/ r OFFICE-A 1 i CI n . . c, 7 ; ,-,r, 0ID111:41/1: o , ,-,,,,o,o l 25,000 S F x 2 STORIES r OFFICE 8 e TO I p.000 S F x 2 STORIES = = 116,500 S°FEFxl7TORIES 0 0 I. \ 1 ! 0 ei 0 iii 0-n 0 0______p j /0 1 r3i 9 ._.. _ _ 3 I. Lo 0 0 ° 1 - isi r1”. - K1 c. 25K ' - - --- 1 .it i PLAZA t, . .i, , o° ° . IQeitio11 < I' C C F! F.--)6- 0 i t• AAVIENDAPARKWAYI-) Li mr_ c°4 i40.411-----.---iill------im. 11. 41110, 0 0 ccl r @ 4 - -I i) ' 6 i ofiwo,_ .... —,., -7 r-iimms417,),___.1.• • _ a,1. 25K • .I 2 51(- 1/ii . • 44.- 01 lir 0,/ 1 iik„ R ; I ',I,NJ',$I 'Air,,r,r; •,‘rmr; •,‘"',1, t- --I ! r 11P4 1111.IIIIisi I 4 4 -- -I i • alma2001f.1 C C:7 C.) ,0 4 ".1PF i '. • • ' 1. i 1, 1 • _____1II 0 0 0 41•0- Ora 'I ol Ilia° I II 7/,11 C 0 0 1 1 0 0 •' S "-IF riere: -______OA, 7K. • J. :1110-41,=.0-\ 0 L ft, MI Vti."7 1 I k I I I I i 1 25K II # 01--• 7 1'7 1 '''''. Lc ii L.-- • ,t, ul, li' 3 1 I g , 0 D • - ,-.-: - - ,.1 i - .-, C,, ..• 1 i 1 ••• 41, 4/1 7Ar r I •••• ii 1 A ..• ,i -..'0-3_, 4 1 0 Q‘! • I 1116;--4 i_i * el. 4 i ,.-1-. • 4r- atm r...wir, ---- pr, 6T ot. 1, cc \3 1 3 6 --0 c- 0" , \- — 601^.*.. ---)E --------7--"'— 0 flaill DNS I ir0 5 rF 1 , /0 OPTION 2 n 1 LT L OPTION 3III ' `6 \ \ 115,cco. . 0 Q 1c ==, r==El 1.1...71•Nm• 0 C c. .. 1-milli"..III. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'llIllisETAR. l'H" . ,/ 1A1\ --' cP a n 8 500.S.F JP , 1.;'"(''''l'INIIE --' 111111111. 11111---.---- I 9) \.10;tr:"6"f''. - W3=r ti."-r, tgcgr......_tz-459 r• , "- . ' , 0) LICGX2=3=7,---- "1-VIORP=1;;C:CP 6, 6' , Y.----. 4• a:::- ---._ 1/4' 4,- re_-- ,Vr 8-- 7 '------lailftw BLUFF CR__E_EK BO—ULEV ARI, !.. yr117 11/ - 4.,_4. Qt.! S 5' 1r-315: II LIIII 1 0 1 960 6, crp 6,, .A I No et PLAZA 1 2 aK81 - ri• 4 ,11 0 irt- re ut. • as (Jr_ i 4. to ....,A C Cs or cz, --, .• lb 418D ill• - dr dr 418 84* .--, oar dir 4 --. 4 0 1.' 0 OPTION 1 1 _ m- CrD J • • 0 ,,,,, .,==, 0' 1 • it ii 'ci 115K ,45 II soi aylliThip, 0 ATIL A, lid tli ,i • 1 ir:8- iriri A 1IIIAPARTMENTSblop Ma-st# gt41._!. • . 0. ' . 4 - t it4OCCOSF01:1/i a,/ft iig.ffnl:0 AI III roy,r.I do Ili.ii i - 1 : , 1 rifier 1 CIO , ' 1}it , . :\41 1 0 e 1-.- I ,-,--, , _ L._ L- alb ar it. ,Ic , • AP al• 111 I g 0- -0 i 0 I 4,„• , oF 0 4It 411n co .7, 41, 4 mr isi qr. ,-..-- Ipli o Ell 1. 4 _ 0 1. 1t fi itt IS. 4 I (IL c_•_-_ al-V i_lL 7Ki NIX 1•mr ror S ite plan is for I! 1=1,•-,,:-. 04„,v‘...C:Z.s- r• cfr ale , ii. ° I:ar___ • , I illustrative purposes n I only and is subject to OPTION 4 OPTION 5 change. CONCEPT PLAN OPTIONS FOR CENTER VILLAGE in collaboration with:LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT AVIENDA ANDFORM RSP ARCHTECTS•COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL AVIENDA•Chanhassen, MN Concept Submittal.09.30.2016 Lana,rne an15.,loFi,th,a,reg,kred svotk n wi 5 Cla-1..r.Frew.rol Set,-.LLC Aanenson, Kate From: Thomas, John <ThomasJohn@District112.org> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 9:36 AM To: Kahring, DeeDee; Brecht, David;Aanenson, Kate Cc: Bauck, James Subject: RE:Agency Review Request - Avienda Residential, Commercial, Hotel &Office Concept Plan Good morning Kate— Dee Dee Kahring forwarded your email communications to me regarding the proposed development at Lyman and Powers Blvd. I've reviewed the proposal, and I have one concern regarding the High Density Residential area. Referring to the Land Uses 2016 Proposed Concept graphic on page 4, it appears that the smaller HDR (3.45ac) will only be accessible using parking lots or a secondary road/driveway. My concern is, as the Transportation Manager of the school district, that we don't want to route our school buses into areas that may not be designed and maintained for larger vehicles. For instance, our aim is to stay on city streets that were built for heavier traffic by heavier vehicles, and will be plowed in a timely manner in the winter. We also do not want to use parking lots where turns may be tight and our buses are mixing with a large amount of personal vehicles. Based on the graphic, my thought is that we would use Bluff Creek Blvd. and have a bus stop established on that road for the 9.01ac building. However, in order to pick up students for the 3.45ac building, we will need to use the secondary road and parking lots,which concerns me. Therefore, I would like to request/recommend consideration to make the secondary access road on the south side of the 9.01ac building more substantial and possibly be considered a city street so that it can be maintained at the same level as Bluff Creek Blvd. I'd like to see it wide enough for large vehicles to pass each other safely, with a sidewalk on one or both sides. I hope this makes sense to you. I'd be happy to discuss this further with you if you're not clear from my description. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this. Sincerely, John Thomas,Transportation Manager Eastern Carver County Schools 952-556-6161 From: Kahring, DeeDee Sent:Wednesday, October 5, 2016 3:11 PM To:Thomas,John <ThomasJohn@District112.org>; Brecht, David <BrechtD@District112.org> Cc: Bauck,Jim <BauckJ@District112.org> Subject: FW: Agency Review Request-Avienda Residential, Commercial, Hotel &Office Concept Plan Development information for Lyman and Powers Blvd. follow instructions below. DeeDee Kahring, SFO Director of Finance & Operations 1 C CenterPoint 700 West Linden Avenue PO Dox 1165 Energy Minneapolis,MN 55440-1165 October 10, 2016 City of Chanhassen Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposed Request for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 118 acres of land located at the SW corner of Powers and Lyman Boulevards. Dear Mrs. Aanenson: Concerning your request, CenterPoint Energy has no objection to the Rezoning. If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-321-5381. Respectfully, CENTERPOINT ENERGY Chuck Mayers Right-of-Way Specialist Engineering Services charles.mayers@centerpointenergy.com 612-321-5381 Minn to Water&Soil Resources October 19, 2016 Kate Aanenson VIA Email: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ms. Aanenson, I have reviewed project number 2016-25, known as the Avienda-Chan Retail Site. I am concerned that the project proposer has not accounted for the nearly 5. 5 acres of wetland that exist on the site. These wetlands are regulated by the MN Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) under MN Rule 8420. My understanding is that this site includes a tributary watershed to both Lake Susan, an impaired water and Bluff Creek, an impaired watercourse. Wetlands are recognized as having important functions and values, including: stormwater retention, water quality treatment, wildlife habitat and others. The WCA purpose is to achieve a no net loss in the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands. Although the WCA allows for replacement of these functions and values where avoidance is not feasible, it does not preclude the project from being reviewed for adequacy under the MN Rule 8420.0520 Sequencing. This rule says that a project must first demonstrate wetland avoidance alternatives and minimizes wetland impacts. Although the WCA does not regulate the rezoning of property the current plan as proposed, does not address the requirements as outlined in the state wetland rules. I encourage the applicant to meet early with the reviewing agencies as part of their planning process. Sincerely, Ben Meyer Wetland Specialist MN Board of Water and Soil Resources Cc. Terry Jeffery, City Aaron Finke, Carver SWCD Melissa Jenny, Corps of Engineers Ken Powell, BWSR Becky Horton, DNR Kristen Larson, Carver Co. Brainerd Detroit Lakes Duluth Mankato Marshall New Ulm Rochester St.Cloud St.Paul St.Paul Office 520 Lafayette Road North St.Paul,MN 55155 Phone:(651)296-3767 www.bwsr.state.mn.us TTY: (800)627-3529 An equal opportunity employer The City of Chanhassen Citizen Survey ADDITIONAL. QUESTIONS Four additional questions were asked by the City of Chanhassen as listed below. The results for these questions are also available in the Report of Results. Question 16a: Policy Question 1 The City completed a retail market study that showed Chanhassen businesses successfully meet day-to-day shopping needs, and a regional mall along with the new Highway 212 in the City of Chanhassen would be viable and expand the retail opportunities in our city.The City Council would like to know the level to which you Neither agree or disagree with the Strongly Somewhat agree nor Somewhat Strongly following statements: agree agree disagree disagree disagree Total I would like a regional mall built along the new Highway 212 29% 24% 16% 14% 17%100% I would like the City to focus retail expansion in the downtown area and not along the new Highway 212 21% 25% 24% 20% 10%100% I would like to limit retail to the amount currently found in Chanhassen and not build a regional mall 16% 13% 17% 25% 29%100% Question 16b: Policy Question 2 Medium Large I do not two multiple support the Small department department No development specialty stores and stores and preference of a regional stores specialty specialty in terms of mall in only) stores) stores) scale Chanhassen Total What size mall, if at all, would you like to see developed in Chanhassen? (select only one) 10% 34% 22% 9% 25% 100% Summary Report CHAN-212 TRADE AREA DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND SALES POTENTIAL Prepared for Carlston Commercial RE, LLC Prepared by McComb Group, Ltd. Y June 2014 0 Copyright 2014 McComb Group, Ltd. 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 MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Gross Leasable Area) Store Size Merchandise Category 2015 2020 2025 Low Median High CONVENIENCE GOODS 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 1,240 2,047 All Other Specialty Food Stores 1,095 1,315 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 Cream&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 Svs Stafions/Cony Gas/Convenience Food Stores 6,619 8,052 9,708 1,500 2,933 6,121 42 Table 27(continued) CHAN-212 SHOPP1 GGOODS SUPPORTABLE GLA BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Gross Leasable Area) Store Size Merchandise Category 2015 2020 2025 Low Median High SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department Stores(Incl.leased depts.) Discount Stores 216,484 263,376 317,536 57,720 94,788 141,986 Department Stores 157,156 191,200 230,520 89,641 148,796 243,167 Other General Merchandise Stores Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 270,224 328,758 396,362 90,134 151,980 217,447 Dollar Stores 23,218 28,250 34,055 2,726 8,000 13,788 Miscellaneous General Merchandise 47,148 57,360 69,156 3,200 8,400 11,212 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and Boys 10,050 12,223 14,732 2,002 4,000 5,635 Womens Clothing 49,115 59,755 72,040 2,074 4,200 8,740 Children's&Infant 18,929 23,029 27,767 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family Clothing 87,835 106,862 128,835 2,374 8,000 28,228 Clothing Accessories Stores 4,659 5,666 6,831 918 1,400 2,001 Other Clothing Stores 13,902 16,909 20,389 1,060 2,300 8,234 Shoe Stores Men's 921 1,117 1,348 903 1,640 2, 186 Women's 1,759 2, 137 2,574 1,309 2,384 3,158 Children's&Infant 424 514 621 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family Shoe Stores 28,063 34,143 41,166 2,021 3,388 10,234 Athletic Footwear 11,931 14,514 17,491 1,535 3,284 11,314 Furniture&Home Furnishings Furniture 74,612 90,773 109,442 3,108 7,927 36,712 Floor Coverings 32,742 39,836 48,022 1,229 3,593 7,819 Window Treatment Stores 3,510 4,267 5,143 1,489 4,905 9,934 AllOther Home Furnishings Stores 49,114 59,749 72,040 2,868 3,570 6,500 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household Appliance Stores 26,255 31,938 38,505 2,349 4,000 7,563 Radio,TV&Electronics Stores 99,203 120,693 145,517 1,208 3,406 10,451 Computers,Software,Music,&Other Electronics 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 25,257 30,726 37,051 1,604 4,050 25,861 Camera&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 able 27(continued) CHAN-212 SHOPPING GOODS SUPPORTABLE GLA BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Gross Leasable Area) Store Size Merchandise Category 2015 2020 2025 Low Median High OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building Materials&Supplies Stores 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 Outdoor Power Equipment 25,590 31,140 37,540 N/A N/A N/A Retail Nurseries,Lawn&Garden 72,890 88,680 106,920 N/A 15,000 N/A Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers 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 16,084 9,111 10,879 900 1,400 3,480 Nail Salons 2,027 1,145 1,373 773 1,200 1,807 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 1,320 747 893 1,223 1,856 3,130 Other Personal Care Services 2,509 1,417 1,691 703 1,488 4,128 Drycleaning&Laundry Services Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 4,367 9,880 11,807 1,038 1,608 2,731 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services 14,750 16,710 19,960 3,059 5,050 7,495 Photographic Studios 2, 156 2,440 2,916 990 1,866 2,550 Veteranarian Services 9,849 11,151 13,329 1,346 2,122 2,701 Pet Care 3,387 3,827 4,560 900 1,200 1,500 Rental and Leasing Formalwear and Costume Rental 482 729 871 763 1,046 1,773 Home Health Equipment Rental 1,664 2,516 3,008 1,200 1,600 3,480 Recreation Physical Fitness Facilites 67,750 76,725 91,663 1,433 6,448 32,170 Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians 69,703 83,863 100,202 969 1,652 4,008 Offices of Dentists 32,197 19,368 23,145 1,090 1,700 3,970 Offices of Chiropractors . 4,649 2,797 3,342 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of Optometrists 1,764 3,183 3,805 1,074 1,620 4,347 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners 2,391 4,316 5,157 1,090 1,800 3,970 Physical&Occupational Therapists 4,006 7,232 8,641 1,090 1,600 3,970 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. 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 convenience is a primary consideration as they are visited on a regular basis. Examples include supermarkets, drug, liquor, hardware, arid other stores and services. Table 28 CHAN-212 POTENTIAL GROSS LEAS ABLE 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 from 20,000 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. It is possible that not all the anticipated potential tenants will located at Chan-212 indicating that the shopping center is likely to be between 800,000 square feet and 1,000,000 square feet. 45 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 20, 2016 , 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 Concept Planned Use Development for a regional destination, lifestyle and mixed use center Avienda) on five parcels totaling 118 acres on property zoned Agricultural Estate District A-2) with a land use designation of Regional Commercial or Office use, and located at the southwest corner of Lyman and Powers Boulevards, Planning Case 2016-25 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. Kim T. -u is n, Depu y Clea, Subscribed and sworn to before me this x10 day of b 0-DI 2016. ija, r<. JENNIFER ANN POTTER Nor " PubE c-„i jan3sota 911-'4Ji;1= +My oommisoonhTotaryPublic C O O O 2 O U m w c E ° T Zaa- .° . m ani O > CO c O L-' 0 U) O CO • Q.. t O O (0 m r oo•m 2D m osco '3)4= O N > Y U __,v) O ~ +s+a-o 2,,-3 EE No '3 ° 2---0.O (0 j p (0 C OC +'Q) c U m d- m ° o ' - 0 7 6 O O U O O C Q) O C O O) N ^ a) cn E m- E c n o ami C a) c 6- O CO 0 C C E C O O L. ( 6 Cyc H N `2> o > ma m i O O co C) O MO m >- mm me E - C O 0 C .3 O U C O_ ( n O >' O -O ' c •L. '--. T o v E =3 E >' Q> O) O. O O O U Q. O c o T '° - n c m N C N C c0 > (0 O UrL1' 2." co >U >Nmouo Eo 0) .;c- c6)'D O •> Q ° U Q) E +"C-. U O Q N ••- p ° 0 •- O (C O Q c aF E n°.0 a• `L°°m C N N m Q Q CO J y 0 U) U ' a) O .. N ,. ++ 0 O .0 a'..3 E a' j-..,. . " > ir L y w-. O L C C J O V O Q) N O O a) >+ U 7 C C U vJ c .(7)0 > c o > N ° s N m 3 m w L p Y a) 0 .) c m C .0 OL-,. Q. O+.C. O E `_ E C 3 CN p M. ° .Q a' 2.684“" t2 ..2 6 cmi i,m m 3° a"i 'Ni u°i a) C C ..0 N ..2..S O ` d E N C LO J a) rL ~ - ,_ > O >+ O U 0 .O -, 6 O. O D_U O A• ° ' "- .(C 'C w v a m m(-)o o .v•aai sUItZOtcnQ. Q) O N U C (0 O f Cl) O oo >-CL o > C O O a) ?i "' t + ° O ° O as C) C 15o ca >~a8 %a°'..-- - 0) O • U) O a) O'_ C O C C _c• O (D 7 U) En > o > >- >- '.=« 3cN C 'U) O_L-. O fo O p ° Q. O C) C O `.- al - p O V) co .O O 0).0 +-T . o'r . >o Q 'S 3 U) O -• CD 0 0 -O a 'C •0 E 30 O O. O C - a• N O 00 O O O.43 O C (0 U - m`o • E a °o'-°o`c a.N m m o 8coOO .0 O C C 00 C N t-,- O O - 3 E. .. (0 N a C a) .,, °U .- c) 0 L mco' E 2 - > °>,m 2 w a-o o d 2 w C O) O X_ (0 CO y O "O -O O _ c0 to O d +-. Q u w E >r'.'•_ o f c o- c- C .-+ i C ° • U) C C i L O O) O U) > O C N C O U ° O 'O R P 0 O ° c n c E m a t rn o w o m > ° o V O c0 C Q) C E to t0 • O O > •U ... L O V) N O C o o> f-_ .•- E m >U.0 N (0 p v L fo `r E 0 > C .N O - 0 O •p' _co d > N '0 C -O v -02 d > o o 2 a, , m«o 1- a E a C U ° O` O >..- 7• c = L >0 0 V U Q 7 c 0 V ,c,..>‘ C) O X O o d :±,_-1,73m 4101, 2sNi aE> o a°,V U oa)O C 7 O N 71, C O N U ° o m .. °. o7 L o (0 (0 (0 5 O Q. - 1::" J y O. co 0 O) C . C co O O U O 0 U) (n a m a ani E 2'o N=U u0. C O -C O- O co U > « 0)O r i - 0 O O -U) i ( O 3IP. a u, o s g'6.i.: C a n_._ rn>''_ C •C c U 9.?. -5 - N O O . L N . O C (o 2 O 2 U! +• U) C +' d \ O O. O 5 m af;221:"63 ,,,"' E 2 > rn m2 m o cCE = C U) < O 0 O O O .... O U > ,L 1:(10) 00:1 -1--Lc O L CI E 'O cc > > 8 U m > V O O > C O 6 `' -oti y O 0-.( D,,.• O).6,U . (0 U Ot OO) O 0 U) E C j, mWd YEouE3@sccN .ac O C ° r C (... = C - CZ0 J > 0 0 O C - O- C L -O 0, 2 0 L as M U) O - 0 E o oomom o 0 s0E ,a n-0 Z ° O C !o ' O 0 O (...51- C OO L CO 00 -O O O CO ° _ o -m > a mm m.5aa0- EZO C U `- O O U O U) £N 0O U> 0 Q) - i 0 0) E 0 (/), N V E > c_ E n.> L > N •- (0 -' . N0 CJ ° g C _.0 c .O O •V C N _ 2 a)r+ C Q) N j tUo EaE- rnN ccavc i 3 .- O (0 L O 7 O m ,_ L , v • 2-82-0-0 ro a> c m m o v wL "y 1,2am = a) •c ) a) E _U C _c 5 O_,U 7 .V U) 1- Ude = 0 O •- N Q v4- • O. 0 > ' C• amot dc o 'Qac cL > > C Ny 6 U) as O 7 O O ES) .O 0+ O N O O O (0 O E oma,- ng ° oE mE > naoEn C 7 O O (0 N O O O - C 7 O L() +U 3 N --=• •0 ° u a .N a m 0 f S O CC -0 O_W O < O U) 4 1- (0 ( 0 O.,- N M '' - +... CD N 0) C E q) O.d Q) ay C° p-2cao..a,--Fa_mt__ E,oE=rnVwU) N O C ° N N 1° ° a o 0 3 C co -0Q L:'-QIS coic- 3aaUoc C Q O cmmN a.. ova o >v8• or °).t L' d O C O C Cd ma 2 Nry+C iHHIllPdtHhIflfloc6: 0, C C0) o£L>. >rg° O d U) aw °L`rno015Nrn3 'aN r C) 0. Q 0 V as C r 7 E 0 IK.o 8:o'>m'=D L c o o c 0 a°) 00)0 0COd0. a J C Co Z a U:Uo=: co 1- a3 >(o n: Emla cn 0 o . 0 r0 U O O O ate... L C)o 2 m >E Lo,--F. . 0 . a, ,a, t C U)O 4+-- O d ui m rT1oom cma me oL N . o 5a W 7 O a3 CO N - C Q) C ° ~ .+oU 3 E wL ° O O (0 O 7 V) m O C O O c E O O) N > E > a E c a b ai C C o o U C O U r a) c E o .N N> >.° o D O ,.. V Cl) ( O ( L C O L N 45 L U N N j O •U 0 U) O Q °' E (D U) Q) O O) O I- 2° > mai m m E C 0 ,U C O C . i- o0 - C 0 >. O -00 ••- _ •1- - O ° Ec o''Et @ oE >' a 01 O U Q l6 OQ E O T.E C - a C > rn O C C c.0 TOL O O O 6 (K5 ,_ c NU 00 m a>- t(..9- cT'L o 0) f6 @ > a) .5 Q 0 U _O • E +-+ () o O N .E O Y ° •C p 0 (C E O cl E-. a aF'0 E-o a co()v.c mm C Cy m E Q O J O V ° O fo O . 2 ' O O -Z-5 fo U d '0 oc3 E2 ri °cE aa' iL c' 2 O s p N O C O m O C Q. O- C O a) lC 7 L -O - o ' u>,m a`oi.o.3 w)gO d 1u w E ~ L > N° p U i y 2 a)CO - 0) a) OL C Q O O O E. +a t a_--. .cu .0 2 3 c,,- 3 aU > o10 w n` mO N N > O t U) R - O O O U N U c• E 03 O > 1- N m` 1'n m°' 0,2 O 8 a m aoi=f oCEOUt' c0 O moi " O) O O O O O_" R O C a cdm oT cL- 0) O • N O O O C (n O p 6.0 O C _ C .c a)a) CO N U 7 4) fo .0 O +>a c n m o > a >m o . o 3 c wE •U) O) O N co 0-.0) d O C C O .3 ,F (0 E p r (0 U U -O O a) ,,, 0).- .c E o .c y c o Q 0 3 L U) O c N- 0 0 io (0 C v `m- :• O QJ (0 O O Q.0 O E t0 (-)ro E v w'o o E m o OOI p QL O N fl O O OL L (0 N L Naha °U L mL - >°> mo {, 1L', 0odaw O) "0 Q) 0 C O C O O u.4, E m C 3 E c o- c L 2 ."-< F5 ,5))X ° O w O C ` - C ° 4- a) O P -O - O 7 U L p 0 0 3 O p ° a T„,o ° 0> °-,,, 00 (6E, 0 0 0 m U.cVO E ) C _ co 7 a) E O j 'U O c- a) •> 0 O Q C O U 0 ;,32> 0E 0 c C -0 C o °a ar• m o o E a>i g g 0 m oV - Q c0 -O E p O a E N - •p 'C > Q OO 7)--O •D U O. O r '0 C X - o T g a 3- a' c o£y °O a,U o 0 0) ' m E - C U C O O >. 7 C O L O 0 -6 O O C Q O 0 O O . 2 -0 N 08-9 m a= w o 1Y o c a a m Y L . 8 (0 a (0 ( 0 c0 O C O J N O- . 0 0) _ U) . 3 O 7 U Q N O N 2 y a 58 ,F 0 E rn°o Y O u 0. C O .0 O U > 4- .0 U)O C rr N C O O -0 0 ( 0 O 3 °a °v c E n-C m> E 0 cU O O00 (0 C O O U) O (0 > O y .0 0 >. 0 - C O m ° ao Eomam cLo O U O ° a) C ..-. Q) C O) O a... U) ..-• fo v_ O ++ O E -0 o_ O m a- E'-t E > N>rn m o c O O N > •U C N.- _c O 42 o C N 7 O ."' > C O L. . U) N .0 7 O O O N E C 7 C 'a u, d o d a o w d 'o t t=- V O C O O O'-I i . 0 6 6 - U N OOj (0 y.0 Q) >. c > YE ooE ' mc T. 0. p U - C >, O C O G O 2 C 6•- + U p .2- E O C M > O - L t con'E 3 u m °' >o I>o O N CO O O i O Q)C (0 (0 (n aEw c.- mmo> a...E >n v 0 C Z L.. ° O C (O N t0 J > V £ (o cl'C = O 00 O ri tD Ln O O N r-i M O .1 i N mOrO Ln 0 O M d' 00 N d' 01 t0 t0 0 01 m 0 d' H M! d' W W I •1 H O r-I i1 01.-1 N O O 4* l0 O O O 0 ri O Cr CO d' O Cr O I. N 00 00 N N N CO CO d- 0 00 I. 00 t0 00 N CO r-I N M M I. i M I. 00 N 0 N M d' Ti. d' . d' d' d' I. d' d' Cr) Lt /. d' d 00 d' N d' 01 N N N d' 141 '1 Tr d' d' O1 .1 N A A N N N N N I N I N N ,._, A N N N N N A h h h h h d' N N h A n A A N N r-I ri r-I r-I r-I ri -I, ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri -I ri ri ri ri ri ri r-I L.n ri 0 r-I ri ri ri e l r-I ri Q- M m m M M m M m m m o m m m M M m M m M m m M L m ri m m m M m m m Ln Ln Ln Ln, Ln M Ln Ln Ln, Ln p Ln to Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ill Ln Ln Ln in Ln N Ln 111 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln N Ln v) Ln Ln' Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln v1 Ln Z Ln oo Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln v z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z Z z Z z z Z Z z Z 2z ' %i Z Z Z Z Z z z N 212' 2 212: 22 2II2I2 2'22' 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21Z 2LMn 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z Z Z' Z Z Z Z 2: 2: uijZ, Z i Z Z Z Z1 Z Z Z Z O Z Ln Z Z Z Z1Z Z Z W W W W W ,W W W W W Z W' W W W W W' w W W W I W' W ' W _ Lr) W W W W W: W w U v) v) v);v) Un v) In v) v) v) cn N'U) N v), V) U) N v). v) v)I N W Ln 2. v) v) v) v) LAIC() v) v) v) v) v) N v) v) v): v) v) Q v) v) v) v) v) v) v) N v) v) v) v) Z v) ;N v) v) N v) v) v Q Q Q a a a a a - Q a J a <- < a a a a a a a a a, - a Q a Q a Q a a 222222222• 2 "- 22222222222 2 a IY 2 x 2 2 2 2 2 O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ' Z ' Z Z w Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z . Z Z 2'10 Z v) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X- Q a s a' Q Q a a Q Q a a a a a a a a a Q a a' 0 aj < a Q a Q Q a a co2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 2 W 2 2 2• 2 x x • 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 I— U U UIU 0 0 0 0 U U m, U_ U U U UIU U U U U U U m U U U U U U U U U ri N W l- V/ W 0 Z Z Z O cn Z O cn Z ce cc N 0 00 0 p O D O J D m 0 0 0 000hehe m U 0 U m U VI U — U — -I Q U J W U U Z U Q — U U U Q 0. n m v O U v oc. cc m v~) cc v cC U, O m b z O O Q 0 0 0 O w 0 o z 23 CC v) 0 CC C K CC O ' 0 0 0 0 m ! OC z } W m CL 0 CC w W CC W m o m W wa OC W v) J 0C J J LA vul Q f J J J W J ccW c cc 0 > I- W CW W N x J W cc Y >l' -,-2 0 Oi I>I W — W W W I J_ J_ >_ N J W J W w > G W Q G 2 W W Q W Q m m 2 O m o 0 2 2 o 0 2 ' 0 = m _, x U cC m Q m 1— m o cC O m m 0 Q r1 N N 0 ri 0 0 Ln Ln r-I Ln Ln ri N O H ri ri 0 ri N Ln 0 rI N d• 01 0 0 0 ri m r1 x N d• 00 N 01 M 00 0 CO• t0 d' 01 I. Ln M ri Ln 01 0 N 0 d' 00 0 01 N r•I in m 0 1. N m c0 ri d• d' O N ri rI v) d' v1 01 d' dr• d' d- Ln d• O N d• Ln Cr ri 00 Cr O Cr O M M d' Lf) I—101 r-I %-I 01 01 O1 01 r1 ri ri ri ri ri' e-I ri ri ri 01 ri ri ri 01 01 ri 0) LO r I 01 01 ri 01 1 rl ri 1- VI M z H N v) Q O 0 cc 0 J O m U J 2 z'. 2 I Q x 0 O' N UZ 0 N 0 w • 0 0W > W c z 0 0 W v) 0 cc Z 0 w Y u 0 o0zZzz0QYwZwh- u Z U ZZ z O2v) O Z w LL C7 2 N J N Q W Z W Li w m Q Q 0 Q m aO -1 Q cc J w = Y H w 0 0 w m z a cc 0J N W (n Y W ..., 1— • v) Q p' W N m Z Q 2 Z w U cC • Z U J N m cC mES > N N z —I• 2 w Q G 2 D Y W m W N I Y Z W 2 F--10 Q 2 Z W W WLLIJ Z 13' °, 0, 00, g Q ) a Z 2 LQi H O v) Z a m 2 0 a C7 O Z a a' z -I U z 0 z, z }IO w aDle L w o 0 0 cc 0. = > 1— i“.. I- IW o,S' w Z < o o', a CL ° <• I Y 0 0 Z ' Q = -I'Q' Q Q Q Q Q Q w Q Q j >Q., 2 cc cc Q Q Q 2 2 2IZ m a C J Z Z Z z m N (7w2 2 0 cC m m m m E m m m <I< Q 2 2 2 2 2 2 H- < Q < < < < < < Q < co 0 coI Nmm000000000000U U U U U U U M 0 00 01 0 0 t.0 M' N to tel N N 0 0 0 Lf) 0 01 (0 (D N 01 N N 00 N N t0 00 O 1 O V1 00 00 M O d' M to i .1 M 00 00 O d' Lf) .0 O M N d' N d' Lf)F r-I Ct .1 0M N 0 N N N 1 N 00 m N 00 N N lD N N N N N N e-I 00 l0 N LD 00 N 00 N N N 00 kr) M d' T Tr d' Cr N T Cr T Tr W d' N I d'I d' cf M Tr W Tr W d' Cr d' d' Tr d'. d' I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N' N N N N N 1 N N N N N NrirIrie-1 r I ri r-1 s-I ri ' ri r I r I r-I r-I ri r I r I r-I r-I r-I r-I i-I ri r I ri r-1 ei r 1 s-I r-I ei s-I ri riMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M'' M M M M M M0MN, 0 0 0 Lr) LA CM 0, 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 to 0 010 Ln Lf) 0 0, 0 Ln 0 0 01M Ln 010 Ln M0' 00000 0000' 0' 000000000000000, 000000 0 0 z z z z z Z ' ZIZ Z Z Z' Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z' Z Z Z Z Z ! Z Z Z Z Z ZIZ Z Z Z 2 2, 2 2 2 2 212 2' 22. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 212 2 2 2 22! 2 2 2 2 z ZZ Z Z z ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z: Z ZiZ Z z Z Z Z Z' Z Z Z Z Z ZIZ ZIZZWW W W W W W W IW W W W W W'W' W W W W W W i ld W W W WWW W Waw W'. W Wtoto000Nto010000000!0 N (n N 0 to 0 000000 (n to (n 1 N N N 00000- N to toN N UtH11N V) V) N V) to N to N I N 1n N N V) N to N N N N V) a a a a a a Q Q a aiaaaa < a s ala a ala a a a a a a a a a a a a 2! = = = x, 1 = = = z z z z z Z z Z Z Z zZ' Z Z 2 Z z z z z z z z ' z ZZ Z Z z ' z z z Z' zasa . a a a a Q a a a a, a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a I _' _ = = _ _ _ I _ _ _ UL L) U U U U U U:U U U U U U;U U`UIU U U U U' U U UIU U'U U U U U U cc Z o N Z Z til Z Z Z cc 0 = O z a J 0 o o c 0 m z 0 J 0 0 Ocee U Gc cc w w = w W (7 Y c Y Y cc U > p0 } U >- J.Y W Y Y c 0C U — U U a a a a z U _IU U o woo - - - zau u' oouomuo woccaoouu WcC W — fr W W W W W p W CC p W W W > OC ' w LN Z LU > W } (N/) OC I Np p Ct 0C W W W J Jw ' W W W J WWWQ 1J-1WWWQ WW zW > W uwWWW mIO ' mm0 0 0Uw00 : w 2' 0 0 = cc cc0mJ 0 m Elwwo0 0 O aOOrrrOOrrrOr 1 NOr-1 N e-I O up .1 tD W N O N r-I N t,D 00 117 r-I' t0 N .1 ri 00 N O .1M W .h M N M to M r 1 O O N t,0 s- 1 rMi 01 r- 1- 1 Ol 01 001 rv- I 0) 0I r-I 01LLfl Ol 01 Ol 01 C r0i r-1 ri 001 r i av- I ri rOI 07 1 rO0 i. i Ol 01 01 01 01 I I I i 1 j I i i i i 1 I i I i 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I Z01 z J m a- a N N wwwawY w (I) zS _1 u = hHh U0 O N z to o z o = cc z: 0 J JOwmwZZ OJ w 3 L I Z - > Np J 0 > w z o U D _ < o a -' m Q W a U 0 _1 Olo 0 m j 0 g w wiN sa w ' H J Z AD2x1--- N z Z J Q w Jao_ N N Za J _1 J Y _I 0 W Y D w W m = j 0 o z U a _ Z _ J ,0 a m waIww w 0 0 p cc 47 zt47 z cc _ z z z > > > w owc z 0 z w c) U Y Y Q p z ecc o z w a Q I' I O W CGp a a Q Q a a a a w w,0 O p m = 2 2 2 2 > w m Q m LL = U U U U p 0 m• 0 0 0 0 0 0 010,0 0 w w w w w w w 0 O = = a _ J > a: Q d' 00 d' LO Al d' O 01 ri LT Ill N O O l0 00 N 01 Al Al 01 l0 d' L,0 O M d' Cr) O Vl V) L,0 O Ln O Ill ri O O d' r-I d' O N03 M ddV.1 d' dd- ' d' ' rM O In O O O d O d' M d' M N M N 00 M rI N 00 N M LO N 00 N N 00 N 00 00 N 00 M N N M M N N N L11 N N d' N d' d' N cn d' d' d' N 00 d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' N d' N N N d' N d' 00 d' A i i i i i i i I I I I I I I I I i I I I I i i i I i I i i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ri r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I,r-I c--1 r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-1 e-1 ri r-I r-I r-1 %-1 r-I %-1 r-I r-I r-I c--1 r-1 c--1 ri M M M M I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M In Ln Ln In V) Ln in in Ln in Ln Ln in in in In in Ln LA In in Ln Ln Ln Ln in in Ln in in lin 1 L on Lr) Le) In V)Lf) LLn Ln n'LI) Le) n VInL ) In Ln Ln Ln Ln In V) In Inn LnIIn Ln Ln In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln In Ln z z z z z z z z z Z z z z Zz z z z z z z Z Z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2' 22 2' 2 2 2' 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22' 2 2 212 2' 2 Z Z Z Z , Z, Z Z Z Z Z Z Z,Z. Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LU W LU LU LU LU LU LU W UJLUUJ W W LU LU W LU W LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU W LU LU LU LU LU V) Ln N V) V) V) V) V) L/) (/) V). Ln V) V) N N N N V) V) V) N V) V) N V) V) N (/) N N V) N (/) Q Q Q Q QQ Q Q Q' Q Q Q. Q Q a l a Q Q Q Q NQ Q Q Q Q Q < < Q ala <C < <C a 2222222, 222, 2, 222 = = i2 = 222. 22222222222 Z Z Z Z Z Z' Z Z Z , Z ZZZ, Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ' Z Z Z Z', Z Z Z Z Z a Q a a < < < < < 1Q ,:t < 1 ‹ .‹ Q Q Q Q Q Q a a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q' Q a a a a 2. 2 , 2 I ='', = 2 2 2 = 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2. 2, 212 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U O D U U U U U U U U U C) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U' U' U U U I)1Z i In j v) V) 0 N Z y V) Ln O V) Z Z cc c cc N CC LU cc ccL) a' N : w d' cc a' p 0 Z p Q p 0 0C cc O 0 Q Z c z cc p'a' 0 p c 0 p Y Y J Y a Y J - U U Y >- Y a J U J U Y p Y U Y Y U U W U Y U fx' Q' Q UIQ - - U Y z Q Z QUJUYH CC U Q I- U I- U O 0 0 0 O = O•HIZ' O CC' In 0 3 0 0 0 O W O CCw O U 0'O U Z O D U; 0 U O p p w w In w 0 W >- w w VV)) w 0 N w w CC OC On > p CL (I) CC I Z CCCCwJw2 _ W Z G H -I 1lCC w V) C7 C7 w 2 °C I=- - D I 0 w 2 Z 2 w H' cc z w 2 w I - UJ _ D Q W W _ LU W W _ W I W W W W W _ W W Q 0 W W _ > E ccw c7a 2 oc Ln U m 2 m - p 0 oc a m t -, m 0 ac a 2 U oc m 2 GC J 2 N r-I 0 01 O N 01 O I N r-I Ln Ol 0 0 0 0 0 0 s-1 01 in O N r-I N r-I c1 r-I 00 r-I r-I O r-I OV) c--1 LD en LT N N Ln Ol Ln Ln In 0 al r-I 01 0 0 d' M r-I r-1 Al 01 ri 0l Cr) O 00 en d- N r-1 r-I d' r-I N d' d' Il) d• 0) d' Ch d' d' LP) d- s-I 0 en Ln L.0 d' V) LA d' 0 d' d' d' Ln d' d' d' N r-I en i c-I s--I c-I r-1 ri 0l 01 %i ri %i 0l ri 1 r-1 LT %i 0ll71Ol Ol Ol c-I ri Ol 00 c I c ri ri Ol ri al LT 0) r I 1 I i I- V) D cc I- uJ I Z O1 m i . . W cc HQccw0 U N C7 U 00 z CC 1Ij H awmQ; Z Z Z W w I- Z a Z W wz 0 ma ZZLL QZwln O CCZ 2. <' Z Z Z O N J N O N 00 (1) 7 = 0 , Z UJ W W Q Y W I- W w Z I O U ceQ. Z W. Z H J Q O > L.) = m z Z Ln U ' Y Q w w ' Q w w cc tx p L1?S Q' Q N cL 2.Q w O Z 2 U O.Ln 2 Q p'L)2S 06 Ln 0 U w c 1 Q Z = z z m J. cc U J. < Z w w OZf: ZIZ O w LNiI Q ag cc 06 U l 03 wlw•w, w D Q U cC I-0 LU CL U O a cc j 2 = Q Z Z w w 2 m >w w w O p w w w LL Q 17 Q 2 2 2 = 2' Z Z Z Z N' N LW/) N t~n ' ' H -' J z Q Q Q Lc)w w w w w I w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O Y Y Y Y I Y' Y Y Q Q Q Q w waw w w O) O N d' 00 ri 00 O 00 O M' U) d' to W O W 00 N N to N rI O N O lO N N d' In N O N N r-{ 0 U) M 00' . 4 O M d' M kr) Trd' O M N r I W r- 1 O d' d' O N N ( O M U) ( O 00 N N N N I`, N M 00 N U) ,- N N m co ( O 00 i. 00 N N co d- 51- d' 00 N m 0) d d' d' d' d' d' et N d' er 00 0) er' d' N d' 00 . 4 d' d' N d i 0) i i i i i I i I i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i i A A N N A 1 ri A N N N A N N N N n N N N N N N N N N N N NN A N N ri ,- 1 r I r- 1 ,-- 1 IJ M ri ri r- 1 r- 1 ri r- 1 ri e- 1 r 1 r• 1 ri r 1 r- 1 ,-. 1r- 1 ri r- 1 r- 1 r• 1 ri. i- 1 r- 1 N ,- 1 r• 1 , 1 r- 1 m M m M m d' M M M M m M 1 M m M m M m m m M m m M m m M m m O m m m• m U) U1 U) U U) m U) U) U) U) U) U). U) U) U) U1 U) U) U). U). U) U) U) U) U), U) U) U) U) m U1 U) U) U) U) U1 U) U1 U) 1D U) U) U) U)- U) U) U) U1 111 U)- U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U1 U) fV U) U)' U1 U) ZZZZZ o z z z z z z Z z z z z z z z Z z z z z z z z z N z z z z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 212 2 212: 2 2 2 2' 2 2 ' 2 2, 2 2 . 2 2, 2, 2 2 2 2 Z Z z z' z < Z Z: Z Z Z z z z'' zwwww z Z Z Z z, z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 14 z1Z Z z W W W W W J N N V) V) V)', V) N V) V) N V) N V) V) V) V7 V) V1 N V) V) V) N Z V) N N V) V) V) N V) V) , J V1 V) N V) V) < RWOO V) V)' V) N V) V) V) V) N V) N V) N N V) N V) V1, V). 11) itn V): V)' ln 1... <' < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <' < < Q. QQ Q Ili 12122 m = = = = mm =, = mmmm- m = mmmzm' m' = = z z z z z z z z z. z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z < z z z'' z z < < , <-‹ a < Q' a < < < < < < < < < < a , Q a, a 0 < < < a 1 1 1 = C = m m = = = m = = m m 1. x 1 m = m = I ' m m' = Q = m I m U U U U U J G U U U U U O O O U O O O U U U O U I U U U U IU . W O U O U I cc V) V) Z Z Z (,) z V) 0 Z cc 0 N ee cc cc cc cc Q Z L cc ce 0 I- d 0 Z o 0 M J, 0 U >- Y Z ' W Y' f Y p U Y Y w cc Y > W w = } cc he - ICC 0 " 3ccoNoccoo o o0oQ• uoumoQz' 3ccu = =, Oowo w w >- 0 = x0- 0 = = w oc w. w 0 w ° C Z z O ' 0 w } 0 w 0Iw } o: V1 J L-, C7 J wcc . _ icem C7 w ,' w w w l7 w w ( 7 N _ L7 I- Z• w cc D 1. 1. 1• w . Z w _ W _ W W _ _ J w _ )- } W J I Q w w W g w W 0 000 =, e R Y e a cc o cc o m cc cc w o cc J J a w i U 0, e o e V) 2 = =, Q O .- 1 O U) . 4 m O U) r• 1 O r• 1 r- 1 01mM r- 1 00 0 0 ri .- 1 0 0 0' r- 1 ri O N ri N ( Ni r 1 O O r- i N m ( O ( O d' rI O N N M W d' O d'; n d' d' 00 r- 1 O M N O I M M W h O O N W N N U) d' Tr Tr d' Tr d' W d' O ri d' r• 1 - I d N d' N O M ri M U) N l e 0 d' d' r1 0 ( O d' M ( O 00 r- I ri ri ri 0) - I d' r- 1 r- I 0) r- 1 01 01 r• i 0) O) 0) 0) 0) r- 1 r- 1 ri 0) ri 0) ri ri O) - I d' % i 0) ri 00 1 I 1 1 I N = a = CI I- W V' N Z Z w O w m - I 0 z W O w > Z UZ Z w w z w a I O a Z w w 2 0 3 2 a ' o cc 2 w - J 3 a z Y w z J U Q cc 0 W O Z a J w 0 2 z cc cc a } O a , 2 z Q J J Z , N O Y Z - w Q w o C7 ' m Q 1n ,_ a H = 2 w a im i_ m N a o w z > m = Z w Q_i a > N0 -N 0 0 "' Z n H 1- w I- J a N O < O o2S z o Q Q w z > 1- 1n 2 N m• a H N n a Z a a' 1x11 5 o' azww! oo ° ' Wo z' W = ccI- ' = oazzW " 2 " of aWo Z YZ 0 0 O ^ F O Z m Q a a a m m U C w l- J O I-• m - Izzmuuw Ne W w 111 Z cccccc a' cc cc cc 1- > C 1 m m m Y w w F- W L N m Q J Z W W W O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q ( 2z1- a V J Z h w a w U ZYYYYYJJJ9222222222222zzzzOaaaaoaccwcccccc I 0 ri W tD 00 N LA N L10 N 00.O 00 r-I L.O 0) N d' 00 O 00 O ri 01 N erM TrO tD Tr r-I N M d' r-1 .1 T' d' T T 111 U1 r I M Tr %-10 .10 111 M r-1 d' O O d' LI) ri N 00 r-1 00 N L10 N N N 00 N N N 00 W O N TrM N ri O N 00 00 N d' M N M 111 111 1. d' 01 1 Tr d' d' Tr d' T 'I 1" d' d' 2 00 N d' 01 N 't 'r d' 01 N .1 d' d' 71. I I i i I I S i i I i i 00 I I i i I N I I I I I N A N N N I N N N N N N N N N N N 01 N N n n h. d' n N N N N A N n h N ri r-I r-I ri r-I r-I ri r-I r-I r-I r-I ri ri r-I r-I I M ri r-I r-1 r-I r-I I r•I ,--I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I %--I r r-I M M M M M M M M M M M M!M M M 00 d' M M M M M O M M M M M M M I M M M 111 00010 I LA Ln Lf) 0 Ln LA 0'0100 = LI) 0 LI1 LI1 111 111 t Lf) Lf) 00000 0 N Lf) 000010 0 Ln LI) In, If1 U) If1 LA Ln Lf) in Ln LI) II1 LI1 Ln 111 LI) LI) Ln LI1 LI) Ln LI1 Lf) Lf) Ln Z Z Z ZIZ Z Z Z ZZ Z Z ZZ Z Ln Z Z Z Z Z Z LL1 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z1Z Z Z 222 22222 2222222 z 222222z 2 22 2222222 z z z z z z z z z' z z z z z z 2 ' z- z- z z z 2 z z z z z z z' z z z Ww WW w w w w w wwW w W w _jJw w wwWWi LULUWLUULJJLULLJUJLJJ NNNNN NNN! NN N N N = mN NN % oN NN N N00N0H00 / 0 0 2 = 22 1 212 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 2 C1' w 2 S 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z ZZ Z Z Z 1- Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z ZZ Z Z Z a a a aia a a a a a a a a a < z Z_ a a a a Q } a a a a a a a a a a 2 2 2 m222222 = 2 2 2 2 < 2 2 2 x 2 . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U o U U U U U O- UIU UU U U U U U U H cm a 2 00 o 0 2 M co Z Q H N N H Z v) O a 0 Z a Z a 0 DC p cc Q 0 oa,. Z O C G O °C Q h Q J = W W W J w !Y (= O > V OC Y W -J w V U U UQ Q U cc U J Z - U J Q Z U a J 0 w w D ply N W pOL o w O m °c w 001- =, ° c °; Q z °C O OJ w _IZ O 2 -1 w J 2 5, 20L4". . J O J W 1- O j 2 Z tD > w J 1.- 2 > w w Q WDwW > J W w w W W m W W n M 2 2 o Q o- 2 2 w m a Q oc 2! Q 2 m < 20.. 00202 m J m m x 2 x ri r., 0 „1 r-1 N 0 0 0 r-1 c-1 ri r-I N r-I v1 0 0 r-I 111 i-I 0 0 r-I r-I 0 0 r-I r-I Ln LI) 00 TrWMOWr-1 r-1 M M r-I Ln O W O W Tr ri O M .1 N M O M M Ln .1 0 0 0 111 0 00 M N d' 0) 0 LI) LI1 N N Ln L.D If) Tr r-I d' 0 N M .I 0) LI) 0) tD r-1 0 d' Tr LC) d' Tr tt N t0 M ri M M ri i-I M M ri r1 ri r-I M ri M M N r-I 00 M r-I 00 r-I M M ri r-1 r•1 M ri ri r I r-I a a W to 0 W W w W Z Z Y W 00 00 0I- 2 2 m cc 0 0 H a 2 2 N w I- D Y w w m 0 Z oZS a v) O Y 2 U U HZ Z w J cc m Zd wLLLi oc J Z W co _ m w Q Nc Z Y 00 m z OwW QZ W QZZC 2 Qa 2 a W , O a Q 0O -a vN Z >E J 00QQ Z wcccS O m Z O VW Q 2 U a 2WwwUaa H J7Lu3a J1U CL• O QQm x nZw < s 2a 0 2wJ ZWwU -, 00 < z a LU oaaaaNZ w2 < v) m - ozzwzaz0 Q Z 2 wwW2 a mbe oC WW WJJ0 >' ZZOIQ aOW QQc wWIO , Qo JW LL a 5wm m m n1N 0 0 0 N 0V1N 0 0 0 1- F- 1-11- 1- 1' H H > > > N NY Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 53 APPENDIX 5—TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Appendix 4 Traffic Analysis Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA UPDATED MARCH 2017 Prepared By: 1 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 REPORT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 4 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 5 2.1 SITE LOCATION ................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE ................................................................................... 5 2.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ....................................................................................................... 6 3.0 STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 ADJACENT LAND USE ......................................................................................................... 7 3.3 SITE ACCESSIBILITY ........................................................................................................... 7 3.4 SITE CIRCULATION ............................................................................................................. 7 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 9 4.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................... 9 4.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................................................................................... 11 5.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC ...................................................................................................... 12 5.1 SITE TRAFFIC FORECAST ................................................................................................ 12 5.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTING.................................................................................... 14 5.3 TOTAL TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................ 14 6.0 TRAFFIC AND IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 15 6.1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 16 6.2 YEAR 2022 BACKGROUND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS............................................ 17 6.3 YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ................................................... 18 6.4 YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (WITH MITIGATION).................. 22 6.5 TURN LANE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 24 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 25 7.1 EXISITNG LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ..................................................... 25 7.2 BUILDOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ................................................... 25 7.3 MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................................................. 26 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 2 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 27 TABLES TABLE 1: 2005 AUAR LAND USES……………………………………………………………..…………………5 TABLE 2: 2017 AUAR UPDATE LAND USES…………………………..……………………..…………………6 TABLE 3: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SCENARIOS…………………………..……………………..…………………6 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS……..……………………..……………….10 TABLE 5: EXISTING ADT VOLUMES……..……………………..………………………………………….…..11 TABLE 6: CONCEPT A TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY…….…..…………………………………………..12 TABLE 7: CONCEPT B TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY…….…..…………………………………………..13 TABLE 8: LEVEL OF SERVICE GRADING CRITERIA..…….…..……………………………………………..15 TABLE 9: EXISTING LOS SUMMARY (UNSIGNALIZED)……………………………………………………..16 TABLE 10: EXISTING LOS SUMMARY (SIGNALIZED)…………..………………………………….………..16 TABLE 11: YEAR 2022 BACKGROUND LOS SUMMARY (UNSIGNALIZED)…………………………..….17 TABLE 12: YEAR 2022 BACKGROUND LOS SUMMARY (SIGNALIZED) ………………………….……...18 TABLE 13: YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT LOS SUMMARY (UNSIGNALIZED)……………………….………..….19 TABLE 14: YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT LOS SUMMARY (SIGNALIZED) ………………………………….…...20 TABLE 15: YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT MITIGATION LOS SUMMARY (UNSIGNALIZED)………….………...22 TABLE 16: YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT MITIGATION LOS SUMMARY (SIGNALIZED) ………....…...….…...23 3 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 2: EXISTING AND PROPOSED AUAR DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT 3: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 4: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION EXHIBIT 5: PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT (CONCEPT A) EXHIBIT 6: PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT (CONCEPT B) EXHIBIT 7: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXHIBIT 8: BUILDOUT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (CONCEPT A) EXHIBIT 9: BUILDOUT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (CONCEPT B) EXHIBIT 10: PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents a traffic analysis performed as part of the Chanhassen Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR), Section 21, for a proposed development surrounded by Lyman Boulevard, Powers Boulevard, Pioneer Trail, and Audubon Road in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. 1.1 REPORT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to address traffic and transportation impacts of the proposed development on surrounding streets and intersections. This traffic impact study was prepared based on criteria set forth by the AUAR guidelines. The following specific information, per AUAR recommended content, should be provided: ·A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state, regional, and local roads to be affected by the development of the AUAR area. This information should include existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and projected background (i.e. without the AUAR development) traffic volumes; ·Trip generation data – trip generation rates and trip totals – for each major development scenario broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. The projected distributions onto the roadway system must be included; ·Analysis of impacts of the traffic generated by the AUAR area on the roadway system, including: comparison of peak period total flows to capacities and analysis of Level of Service and delay times at critical points (if any); ·A discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management measures that are proposed to mitigate problems. Note: in the above analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the traffic to be generated would have a significant effect on the roadway system and traffic measurements and projections should include peak days and peak hours, or other appropriate measures related to identifying congestion problems, as well as ADTs. 5 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 SITE LOCATION The AUAR development is in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. The site is bordered by Lyman Boulevard to the north, Powers Boulevard to the east, Pioneer Trail to the south, and Audubon Road to the west. The project location is shown in Exhibit 1. 2.2 EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE The overall development consists of a mix of residential, office, retail, and general light industrial. The total site area is on approximately 625 acres.Table 1 provides a summary of the land uses that were assumed in the 2005 AUAR analysis. TABLE 1: 2005 AUAR LAND USES TAZ LAND USE SIZE 1 (Degler Property)School 1,700 Students 2 (Town and Country)Residential – Attached 313 DU Office/Light Industrial 56,584 SF 3 (Town and Country)Residential – Attached 227 DU Office/Light Industrial 242,673 SF 4 Office/Light Industrial 153,026 SF 5 Residential – Detached 11 DU Office 271,531 SF 6 Residential – Detached 401 DU Residential – Attached 140 DU 7 Residential – Detached 207 DU 8 Residential – Detached 335 DU Since the original AUAR document in 2005, some of the project area has been developed. The school that was planned for TAZ 1 has since been constructed on the north side of Lyman Boulevard. Table 2 provides a summary of the existing land uses that have been constructed, as well as the remaining development that is unbuilt. The table provides specific information for the NE quadrant, which is the location of a proposed Planned Unit Development called Avienda. Two separate concept plans have been put together for the Avienda development; Concept A assumes the existing wetlands will be mitigated and developed, whereas Concept B assumes the wetlands would remain. In conjunction with the Avienda development, two concepts have been developed for the SE quadrant, both of which contain a mix of residential and office land uses. Concept A assumes a larger amount of residential development while Concept B assumes are larger amount of office development.Exhibit 2 provides a map with the areas that have already been developed, as well as the locations of the remaining undeveloped areas. Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 6 TABLE 2: 2017 AUAR UPDATE LAND USES DEVELOPED LAND USE SIZE SW Quadrant Residential-Detached +/- 240 Units Residential-Attached +/- 415 Units UNDEVELOPED LAND USE CONCEPT A CONCEPT B NW Quadrant Light Industrial 440,100 SF 440,100 SF NE Quadrant Retail 419,500 SF 231,000 SF Office 150,000 SF 150,000 SF Residential-Attached (Apartments)407 Units 280 Units Residential-Attached (Townhomes)38 Units 80 Units Hotel 100 Rooms 150 Rooms Day Care Center 16,000 SF 6,000 SF SE Quadrant Office 240,600 SF 428,600 SF Residential-Attached (Townhomes)157 Units 34 Units As the future parcels develop, Bluff Creek Boulevard will be extended from its current terminus through the Avienda development and connect at the existing intersection of Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (North). The NW Quadrant will provide an internal collector that will connect the intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North and Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive. Because of natural waterways and existing roadways, the SE quadrant is broken up into three areas. The eastern property (east of Highway 212) will be served by two cul-de-sac roadways, one connecting to Pioneer Trail and one connecting to Powers Boulevard. The western property (west of Highway 212) will be served by a cul-de-sac roadway that connects to Bluff Creek Drive, north of Pioneer Trail. The existing and proposed connections that serve the AUAR development are shown in Exhibit 1. 2.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS As part of the 2005 AUAR, the base year was assumed to be 2003 and the background year was assumed to be 2010. As part of the 2017 AUAR Update, the base year was assumed to be 2015 and the background year was assumed to be 2022. For the purposes of the analysis, it was assumed that all undeveloped parcels will be developed by 2022.Table 3 describes the scenarios analyzed for the 2017 AUAR Update. TABLE 3: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SCENARIOS SCENARIO ANALYSIS PERIOD WITHOUT UNDEVELOPED AUAR PARCELS E-1 Existing Traffic; Existing Network F-1 2022 Projected Background Traffic WITH UNDEVELOPED AUAR PARCELS F-2 2022 Projected Traffic, Concept A Land Uses; includes all internal roads F-3 2022 Projected Traffic, Concept B Land Uses; includes all internal roads 7 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 3.0 STUDY AREA 3.1 STUDY AREA The study area includes the existing and future intersections that have a significant effect on the roadway system due to the AUAR development. The study area for the 2017 AUAR update is generally consistent with the 2005 AUAR. These intersections include: · Audubon Road & Lyman Boulevard · Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive/NW Quadrant Access · Audubon Road & Bluff Creek Boulevard/Butternut Drive · Audubon Road & Pioneer Trail · Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek Drive · Pioneer Trail & SE Quadrant Access · Pioneer Trail & Powers Boulevard · Powers Boulevard & SE Quadrant Access · Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp (South) · Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp (North)/NE Quadrant Access · Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard · Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access · Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road (North)/NW Quadrant Access The projected build out of the AUAR development is anticipated to be 2022. The Avienda development is anticipated to be under construction in 2018, with the NW and SE quadrants following in development. 3.2 ADJACENT LAND USE The land uses adjacent to the AUAR development are generally residential. There is a golf course located on the south side of Pioneer Trail, to the southeast of the AUAR development. The existing high school is located on the north side of Lyman Boulevard, to the northwest of the AUAR development. There is open space on the east side of the AUAR development, across from Powers Boulevard. 3.3 SITE ACCESSIBILITY The site is accessed locally via Audubon Road, Lyman Boulevard, Pioneer Trail, and Powers Boulevard. Regional access is provided by TH 212 and by other Principal Arterials such as Trunk Highway 5, Trunk Highway 41, and Trunk Highway 101. 3.4 SITE CIRCULATION The locations of the intersections of the internal roadway system with the perimeter streets were based upon coordination with MnDOT and Carver County. Since the previous AUAR document, Bluff Creek Boulevard and Bluff Creek Drive have been constructed to serve as internal roadways. The following provides a summary of the existing and future internal roadway system: Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 8 Existing Roadways ·Bluff Creek Boulevard connects at the intersection of Audubon Road & Butternut Drive, and intersects Bluff Creek Drive at the existing roundabout. From there, Bluff Creek Drive heads to the north and east and will ultimately extend to Powers Boulevard once the Avienda development is completed. ·Bluff Creek Drive is a north-south roadway that connects to the realigned intersection of Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek Drive, and continues north to the existing roundabout. ·River Rock Road has been constructed as a north-south roadway that intersects Bluff Creek Boulevard to the north and west of the existing roundabout. Future Roadways ·NW Quadrant: An internal roadway will be constructed to serve the northwest quadrant development. The roadway will connect to the existing intersections of Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive and Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road (North). ·NE Quadrant (Avienda Development): As previously mentioned, Bluff Creek Boulevard will be constructed as an east-west roadway through the development and connect at the existing intersection of Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (North). A north-south roadway will be constructed through the northern end of the development and connect at the existing intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail. ·SE Quadrant: The SE quadrant is broken up into three areas. The eastern property (east of Highway 212) will be served by two cul-de-sac roadways, one connecting to Pioneer Trail and one connecting to Powers Boulevard. The western property (west of Highway 212) will be served by a cul-de-sac roadway that connects to Bluff Creek Drive, north of Pioneer Trail. 9 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The existing roadway network within the study area includes Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road, Pioneer Trail, Powers Boulevard, and Bluff Creek Drive. Several streets that compose the existing roadway network will carry trips generated by the AUAR development. Major characteristics of these roadways are summarized in Table 4. Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18)is an east-west roadway that runs along the northern boundary of the AUAR development. Since the original AUAR document was completed, Lyman Boulevard has been widened to a four-lane roadway between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard, with full median openings at Audubon Road (North) and Sunset Trail. Audubon Road (CSAH 15),between Lyman Boulevard and Pioneer Trail, is a County road that runs north- south in the vicinity of the development area. Audubon Road has offset intersections at Lyman Boulevard, which are approximately 1,530 feet apart. The westernmost intersection is signalized and the easternmost intersection is stop-controlled in the north and south approaches. North of Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road is a City collector road. Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14)is an east-west roadway that is adjacent to the southern border of the AUAR development. Pioneer Trail is currently a three-lane roadway with approximately 48 feet of pavement. Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17)runs north-south adjacent to the eastern border of the AUAR development. At the time of the previous AUAR document, Powers Boulevard terminated at Lyman Boulevard. Since then, the roadway has been extended to Pioneer Trail, and includes an interchange with TH 212. Bluff Creek Boulevard has been constructed as part of the AUAR development, and was a future planned roadway in the 2005 AUAR document. Currently, Bluff Creek Boulevard is a two-lane divided roadway that extends from Audubon Road east to Bluff Creek Drive, then heads to the north and west. The roadway currently terminates just east of River Road Drive. Bluff Creek Drive south of Pioneer Trail has been realigned to the east since the 2005 AUAR document. It is currently a two-lane undivided roadway south of Pioneer Trail. Bluff Creek Drive was constructed to the north of Pioneer Trail as part of the AUAR development. Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 10 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS STREET NAME STREET NUMBER FUNCITONAL CLASSIFICATION NUMBER OF LANES POSTED SPEED MEDIAN COMMENTS Lyman Boulevard CSAH 18 “A” Minor Expander (1) “A” Minor Expander (3)4 50 mph Yes Widened to four-lane divided in 2014 Audubon Road (N)--Collector (2)2 No Audubon Road (S)CSAH 15 “A” Minor Expander (1) “A” Minor Expander (3)2 50 mph No Currently has bypass lanes at “T” intersections. Curb and gutter at major intersections. Pioneer Trail CSAH 14 “A” Minor Reliever (1) “A” Minor Reliever (3)2 45 mph No Powers Boulevard CSAH 17 “A” Minor Expander (1) “A” Minor Expander (3)4 50 mph Yes There are left and right turn lanes at all street intersections. Path along both sides. Bluff Creek Boulevard --Collector (2)2 35 mph Yes Bluff Creek Drive --Collector (2)2 35 mph No It should be noted that values in this table have been updated to reflect current roadway conditions as of 2016, and may vary from what was provided in the 2005 AUAR document. (1) Metropolitan Councils’ Functional Classification Plan (2) City of Chanhassen 2030 Comprehensive Plan (3) Carver County 2030 Comprehensive Plan The following intersections exist in the AUAR development and are shown with existing traffic control. Some of these intersections differ from existing operations reported in the 2005 AUAR. · Audubon Road & Lyman Boulevard (Signalized, FYA phasing for left-turns) · Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive (EB stop-controlled) · Audubon Road & Bluff Creek Boulevard/Butternut Drive (Signalized, protected phasing N-S) · Audubon Road & Pioneer Trail (Signalized, FYA phasing for left-turns) · Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek Drive (Signalized, FYA phasing for left-turns) · Pioneer Trail & Powers Boulevard (SB stop-controlled) · Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp South (Signalized, protected phasing) · Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp North (Signalized, protected phasing) · Powers Boulevard & Lyman Boulevard (Signalized, FYA phasing for left-turns) · Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail (SB stop-controlled) · Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North (NB-SB stop-controlled) 11 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 4.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were obtained from the MnDOT’s Transportation Data and Analysis Traffic Volume Maps. Volumes for existing roadways within the study area are summarized in Table 5. TABLE 5: EXISTING ADT VOLUMES ROADWAY FROM TO ADT VOLUME 2012/2013 2014/2015 Lyman Boulevard West of Audubon Road Audubon Road 11,000 12,100 Audubon Road Audubon Road North 9,400 14,600 Audubon Road North Powers Boulevard 8,800 9,700 Powers Boulevard East of Powers Boulevard 3,900 4,900 Audubon Road North of Lyman Boulevard Lyman Boulevard 3,250 3,300 Lyman Boulevard Bluff Creek Boulevard 7,900 8,600 Bluff Creek Boulevard Pioneer Trail 7,100 8,100 Pioneer Trail South of Pioneer Trail 8,300 9,600 Pioneer Trail West of Audubon Road Audubon Road 8,800 9,200 Audubon Road Powers Boulevard 8,300 10,500 Powers Boulevard North of Lyman Boulevard Lyman Boulevard 8,300 9,800 Lyman Boulevard TH 212 8,600 13,600 TH 212 Pioneer Trail 6,500 9,600 Bluff Creek Boulevard Audubon Road East of Audubon Road 1,900 2,200 Bluff Creek Drive Pioneer Trail South of Pioneer Trail 2,950 2,950 Weekday AM and PM peak period turning movement counts were performed at the existing study area intersections during the month of April 2015, except for Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road (North), Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail, and Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive. These counts were collected in 15-minute intervals.Exhibit 3 provides a summary of the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes. It should be noted that at the time of the traffic counts not all of the residential area was built-out (+/- 5% developed after the counts were taken). Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 12 5.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC 5.1 SITE TRAFFIC FORECAST The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE)Trip Generation, 9th Edition was used to calculate the trip generation potential for the remaining undeveloped parcels as part of the AUAR development. The manual provides peak hour trips rates/equations and inbound-outbound percentages which were then used to estimate the number of daily and peak hour trips that can be attributed to the remaining undeveloped parcels. It was assumed that the traffic generated from the developed parcels is included in the existing turning movement counts. Trip reductions were considered to account for both internal capture and pass- by traffic for the Avienda development. As previously mentioned, two future development scenarios were analyzed as part of this update to the 2005 AUAR.Table 6 provides a summary of trip generation for Concept A and Table 7 provides a summary of trip generation for Concept B. Additional information on the trip generation can be found in the Appendix. TABLE 6: CONCEPT A TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Property Land Use Intensity Trip Generation Values Daily AM Total (In/Out)PM Total (In/Out) NE Quadrant Day Care Center 16,000 SF 1,185 195 (105/90) 195 (90/105) Retail 393,000 SF 16,780 375 (235/140)1,460 (700/760) Restaurant 26,500 SF 3,370 285 (155/130) 260 (155/105) Office 150,000 SF 1,655 235 (205/30) 225 (40/185) Residential-Attached (Apartments)407 DU 2,590 205 (40/165) 240 (155/85) Residential-Attached (Townhomes)38 DU 125 10 (0/10)10 (5/5) Hotel 100 Rooms 520 55 (30/25)60 (30/30) Total Site Generated Trips 26,225 1,360 (770/590) 2,450 (1,175/1,275) Internal Capture Reduction 6,448 295 (150/145) 660 (330/330) Total Driveway Trips 19,777 1,065 (620/445) 1,790 (845/945) Pass-By Reduction 5,512 --460 (230/230) Total Net New Trips 14,265 1,065 (620/445) 1,330 (615/715) NW Quadrant General Light Industrial 440,100 SF 3,065 405 (355/50) 425 (50/375) Total Net New Trips 3,065 405 (355/50) 425 (50/375) SE Quadrant Office 240,600 SF 2,655 375 (330/45) 360 (60/300) Residential-Attached (Apartments)157 Units 1,075 80 (15/65)105 (70/35) Total Site Generated Trips 3,730 455 (345/110) 465 (130/335) Internal Capture Reduction 54 0 (0/0)10 (5/5) Total Net New Trips 3,676 455 (345/110) 455 (125/330) 13 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 TABLE 7: CONCEPT B TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Property Land Use Intensity Trip Generation Values Daily AM Total (In/Out)PM Total (In/Out) NE Quadrant Day Care Center 6,000 SF 445 75 (40/35)75 (35/40) Retail 224,000 SF 9,565 215 (135/80) 830 (400/430) Restaurant 7,000 SF 890 75 (40/35)70 (40/30) Office 150,000 SF 1,655 235 (205/30) 225 (40/185) Residential-Attached (Apartments)280 DU 1,820 140 (30/110) 170 (110/60) Residential-Attached (Townhomes)80 DU 265 20 (5/15)25 915/10) Hotel 150 Rooms 970 80 (45/35)90 (45/45) Total Site Generated Trips 15,610 840 (500/40)1,485 (685/800) Internal Capture Reduction 3,206 160 (80/80) 380 (190/190) Total Driveway Trips 12,404 680 (420/260)1,105 (495/6100 Pass-By Reduction 2,958 --240 (120/120) Total Net New Trips 9,446 680 (420/260) 865 (375/490) NW Quadrant General Light Industrial 440,100 SF 3,065 405 (355/50) 425 (50/375) Total Net New Trips 3,065 405 (355/50) 425 (50/375) SE Quadrant Office (West)287,600 SF 3,170 450 (395/55) 430 (75/355) Office (East)141,000 SF 1,555 220 (195/25) 210 (35/175) Residential-Attached (Townhomes)34 Units 115 10 (0/10)10 (5/5) Total Site Generated Trips 4,840 680 (590/90) 650 (115/535) Considering the proposed land uses for Concept A, the remaining AUAR development is anticipated to add an additional 1,925 AM peak hour trips and 2,210 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding roadway network. Considering the proposed land uses for Concept B, the remaining AUAR development is anticipated to add an additional 1,765 AM peak hour trips and 1,940 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding roadway network. Similar to the 2005 AUAR study, daily and weekday AM/PM peak hour project trips were distributed to the surrounding roadway network based on the Metropolitan Council’s estimate of total residential population and employment opportunities within an 11.8 miles radius of the site. This distribution was further refined based on consideration for existing traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network and discussion with City of Chanhassen staff.Exhibit 4 provides the trip distribution for the undeveloped parcels. Project trips were then assigned to the roadway network on the basis of the trip distribution and the likely travel patterns to and from the site.Exhibit 5 provides the trip assignment for Concept A and Exhibit 6 provides the trip assignment for Concept B. Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 14 5.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTING The background traffic volumes for the buildout year of 2022 were calculated based on applying a background growth rate to the existing turning movement volumes. Consistent with the 2005 AUAR, a 1.5% annual growth rate was applied. The background turning movement volumes for the study intersections are provided in Exhibit 7 for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 5.3 TOTAL TRAFFIC The results of the traffic assignment from Figure 4 and Figure 5 were added to the 2022 background traffic volumes shown in Exhibit 6 to produce total traffic volumes.Exhibit 8 provides the total traffic volumes for Concept A and Exhibit 9 provides the total traffic volumes for Concept B. 15 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 6.0 TRAFFIC AND IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS Traffic generated for the remaining development was assigned to the future roadway network. From this traffic assignment that included background traffic growth, potential future impacts were determined. Table 3 provides the traffic analysis scenarios for the AUAR update. Scenario E-1 was analyzed to determine existing conditions and to determine baseline conditions. Scenario F-1 was analyzed to determine if there would be any expected capacity issues at the study intersections when considering only background growth. Scenario F-2 and F-3 were analyzed to determine if any future impacts to the study area intersections can be expected with the potential buildout of Concept A and Concept B, respectively. Level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted for the AM and PM peak hours (typically an hour between 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, respectively) at each of the study intersections for the four traffic analysis scenarios described above. LOS is a quantitative measure used by traffic engineers to describe the operations of an intersection. It ranges from A to F, with A being the best and F being the worst level of operation. LOS A conditions are characterized by minimal vehicle delay and free-flow conditions, while LOS F is characterized by long vehicle delay – usually when demand exceeds available roadway capacity. Although LOS E is defined as at-capacity, LOS D is generally the minimum acceptable level of operation at an intersection. Each study intersection was analyzed based on the Highway Capacity Manual using Synchro/SimTraffic software. For unsignalzied intersections, LOS was reported for the stop-controlled movements and major street left- turn movements. Major street through and right-turn movements were not reported because they are assumed to experience zero delay and it can disproportionately skew the weighted average of all movements, which can mask important LOS deficiencies. The overall intersection LOS was reported for signalized intersections.Table 8 provides the LOS grading criteria for unsignalized and signalized intersections. TABLE 8: LEVEL OF SERVICE GRADING CRITERIA Level of Service Average Control Delay (s/veh) at: Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A 0 – 10 0 – 10 B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20 C > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35 D > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55 E > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80 F > 50 > 80 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 16 6.1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The LOS for unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 9 and LOS for signalized intersections are shown in Table 10. The analysis was based on existing intersection control and lane assignments. TABLE 9: EXISTING LOS SUMMARY (UNSIGNALIZED) Intersection Analysis Period NB SB EB WB L T R L T R L T R L T R Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North AM E A A -- -- -- PM B A A -- -- -- Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail AM A A A -- -- -- PM B A A -- -- -- Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail AM E A B -- -- -- PM E B A -- -- -- Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive AM A -- -- -- B A PM A -- -- -- A A (1) “--“ = Not applicable (2) Darkened boxes = movement not available TABLE 10: EXISTING LOS SUMMARY (SIGNALIZED) Intersection Analysis Period Overall Intersection Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road AM B PM B Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard AM B PM B Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (North)AM B PM B Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (South)AM B PM A Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek Drive AM B PM B Audubon Road & Pioneer Trail AM B PM B Audubon Road & Bluff Creek Boulevard AM B PM A Bluff Creek Boulevard & Bluff Creek Drive (Roundabout) AM A PM A 17 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 Based on the existing conditions analysis for unsignalized intersections, all the stop-controlled approaches at the unisgnalzied study intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) for both the AM and PM peak hours except for the following: SB left-turn movement at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North and the SB left-turn movement at the intersection of Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail. Based on the existing conditions analysis for signalized intersections, all signalized intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 6.2 YEAR 2022 BACKGROUND LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The LOS for unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 11 and the LOS for signalized intersections are shown in Table 12. The analysis was based on Year 2022 background traffic volumes and existing intersection control and lane assignments. TABLE 11: YEAR 2022 BACKGROUND LOS SUMMARY (UNSIGNALIZED) Intersection Analysis Period NB SB EB WB L T R L T R L T R L T R Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North AM F - A B -- -- -- PM B - A A -- -- -- Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail AM B - A A -- -- -- PM B - A A -- -- -- Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail AM F - A B -- -- -- PM F - C B -- -- -- Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive AM A A A A B A PM A A A A B A (1) “--“ = Not applicable (2) Darkened boxes = movement not available Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 18 TABLE 12: YEAR 2022 BACKGROUND LOS SUMMARY (SIGNALIZED) Intersection Analysis Period Overall Intersection Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road AM B PM B Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard AM B PM B Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (North)AM B PM B Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (South)AM B PM A Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek Drive AM B PM B Audubon Road & Pioneer Trail AM B PM C Audubon Road & Bluff Creek Boulevard AM B PM A Bluff Creek Boulevard & Bluff Creek Drive (Roundabout) AM A PM A Based on the 2022 Background conditions analysis for unsignalized intersections, all the stop-controlled approaches are anticipated to operate like Existing conditions. The SB left-turn movements at Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North and Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail are anticipated to operate at LOS F. Based on the 2022 Background conditions analysis for signalized intersections, all the signalized intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 6.3 YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The analysis was based on Year 2022 buildout traffic volumes and existing intersection control and lane assignments, with changes only made at the site access points. As previously discussed, two buildout scenarios were analyzed based on varying future parcel development.Table 13 provides a summary of LOS for unsignalized intersections for both development concepts, and Table 14 provides a summary of LOS for signalized intersections for both development concepts. 19 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 TABLE 13: YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT LOS SUMMARY (UNSIGNALIZED) Intersection Development Concept Analysis Period NB SB EB WB L T R L T R L T R L T R Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant Access A AM D F A F F F B -- -- A -- -- PM C D B D D A A -- -- A -- -- B AM F C A F F F B -- -- A -- -- PM C D B C C A A -- -- A -- -- Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive/NW Quadrant Access A AM A -- -- A -- -- C A A C A A PM A -- -- A -- -- C A B C A A B AM A -- -- A -- -- C A A C A A PM A -- -- A -- -- C A B C A A Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access A AM C A A C A A A -- -- A -- -- PM F A F D A A A ---- B -- -- B AM C A A C A A A ---- A -- -- PM F A B D A A A ---- A -- -- Powers Boulevard & SE Quadrant Access A AM A ----A ----C A A A A A PM B ----A ----F A F A A A B AM A ----A ----C A A A A A PM A ----A ----F A F A A A Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail A AM F DB -- -- -- PM F F B -- -- -- B AM F A B -- -- -- PM F F B -- -- -- Pioneer Trail & SE Quadrant Access A AM C A A -- -- -- PM D CA -- -- -- B AM C A A -- -- -- PM D CA -- -- -- Bluff Creek Drive & SE Quadrant Access A AM -- -- A -- A A PM -- -- A -- A A B AM -- -- A -- A A PM -- -- A -- A A (1) “--“ = Not applicable (2) Darkened boxes = movement not available Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 20 TABLE 14: YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT LOS SUMMARY (SIGNALIZED) Intersection Development Scenario Analysis Period Overall Intersection Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road A AM B PM B B AM B PM B Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard A AM B PM C B AM B PM D Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (North) A AM C PM D B AM C PM F Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (South) A AM B PM E B AM B PM F Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek Drive A AM C PM B B AM C PM B Audubon Road & Pioneer Trail A AM B PM C B AM B PM C Audubon Road & Bluff Creek Boulevard A AM B PM B B AM B PM B Bluff Creek Boulevard & Bluff Creek Drive (Roundabout) A AM A PM A B AM A PM A 21 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 Unsignalized Intersection Summary Based on the 2022 Buildout condition analysis for unsignalized intersections, all stop-controlled movements are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: · Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North · Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access · Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail · Powers Boulevard & SE Quadrant Access Based on Existing and Background conditions analysis, the SB left-turn movement at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. With the addition of traffic from the NW quadrant development, the side street approach will continue to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. Based on warrant guidance provided in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the side street volumes will likely meet the peak hour warrant threshold for installing a traffic signal during the AM and PM peak hours. It is recommended that this intersection continue to be monitored for a traffic signal, and a full warrant analysis be performed (including the eight-hour and four-hour warrants) as the NW quadrants begins to develop. The next section will provide a summary of intersection operations with the consideration of a traffic signal at this location. Based on Buildout conditions, the NB left-turn movement at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour for both Concept A and Concept B. Based on warrant guidance provided in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the side street volumes will likely meet the peak hour warrant threshold for installing a traffic signal during the PM peak hour for both Concept A and Concept B. It is recommended that a full warrant analysis be performed (including the eight-hour and four-hour warrants) to support a traffic signal at this location. The next section will provide a summary of intersection operations with the consideration of a traffic signal at this location. The stop-controlled approach at the intersection of Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail is anticipated to operate at LOS F for both Concept A and Concept B. Consistent with the mitigation plan in the 2005 AUAR document, a traffic signal is recommended at this intersection. It is recommended that a full warrant analysis be performed (including the eight-hour and four-hour warrants) to support a traffic signal at this location. With the addition of a traffic signal, it is anticipated that the queueing will be significantly reduced and therefore improving the operations at the SE Quadrant Accesss along Powers Boulevard. Signalized Intersection Summary Based on the 2022 Buildout conditions analysis for signalized intersections, all signalized intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS for the weekday AM and PM peak hours under both Concept A and Concept B, with the following exceptions: · Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp (North) during the PM peak hour for Concept B · Powers Boulevard & TH 212 Ramp (South) during the PM peak hour for Concept A and Concept B Queueing from the unsignalized intersection of Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trial is spilling back through these intersections and is causing individual movements to operate at an acceptable LOS. As discussed in Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 22 the 2022 Buildout conditions section for unsignalized intersection, a traffic signal is recommended at the intersection of Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail. With the proposed signal, operations at these two intersections is expected to improve as the queueing will be significantly reduced. The next section provides an updated analysis with the inclusion of the traffic signal at Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail. 6.4 YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (WITH MITIGATION) The analysis was based on 2022 Buildout conditions for the two development scenarios. The following mitigation measures as identified in Section 6.3 were analyzed: · Traffic signal at Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant Access · Traffic signal at Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access · Traffic signal at Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail Table 15 provides a summary of LOS for unsignalized intersections for both development concepts with mitigation, and Table 16 provides a summary of LOS for signalized intersections for both development concepts with mitigation. TABLE 15: YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT MITIGATION LOS SUMMARY (UNSIGNALIZED) Intersection Development Concept Analysis Period NB SB EB WB L T R L T R L T R L T R Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive/NW Quadrant Access A AM A -- -- A -- -- C A A C A A PM A -- -- A -- -- C A B C A A B AM A -- -- A -- -- C A A C A A PM A -- -- A -- -- C A B C A A Powers Boulevard & SE Quadrant Access A AM A -- -- A -- -- C A A A A A PM A -- -- A -- --F A E A A A B AM A -- -- A -- --C A A A A A PM A -- -- A -- --F A F A A A Pioneer Trail & SE Quadrant Access A AM C A A -- -- -- PM D C A -- -- -- B AM C A A -- -- -- PM E D A -- -- -- Bluff Creek Drive & SE Quadrant Access A AM -- -- A -- A A PM -- -- A -- A A B AM -- -- A -- A A PM -- -- A -- A A (1) “--“ = Not applicable (2) Darkened boxes = movement not available 23 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 TABLE 16: YEAR 2022 BUILDOUT MITIGATION LOS SUMMARY (SIGNALIZED) Intersection Development Scenario Analysis Period Overall Intersection Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road A AM B PM B B AM B PM B Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant Access A AM B PM B B AM B PM B Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access A AM A PM B B AM A PM A Lyman Boulevard & Powers Boulevard A AM B PM C B AM B PM C Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (North) A AM C PM C B AM C PM C Powers Boulevard & TH 212 (South) A AM B PM B B AM B PM B Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail A AM B PM B B AM A PM B Pioneer Trail & Bluff Creek Drive A AM C PM B B AM C PM B Audubon Road & Pioneer Trail A AM B PM C B AM B PM C Audubon Road & Bluff Creek Boulevard A AM B PM B B AM B PM B Bluff Creek Boulevard & Bluff Creek Drive (Roundabout) A AM A PM A B AM A PM A Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 24 With the addition of traffic signals, the intersections of Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant Access, Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access, and Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail are all anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours for both Concept A and Concept B. The side-street movements at the SE Quadrant Access along Powers Boulevard are anticipate to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour for both Concept A and Concept B. At this time, traffic signalization is not recommended at this intersection due to the close proximity to the signalized intersection of Powers Boulevard & TH 212 and that the traffic volumes would likely only meet a peak hour signal warrant. As this area begins to develop, it is recommended that additional traffic analysis be performed based on the specific land use and intensity being proposed. 6.5 TURN LANE ANALYSIS Based on the mitigation plan from the 2005 AUAR study, a number of left and right turn lanes have been constructed along Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road, Pioneer Trail, and Powers Boulevard. Based on the current geometry, there are dedicated turn lanes constructed at all of the study intersections, except for Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive/NW Quadrant Access. The proposed geometry is provided in Exhibit 10. As part of the mitigation plan for the updated AUAR, it is recommended that the northbound and southbound approaches at Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive/NW Quadrant Access be restriped to provide a dedicated left-turn lane and shared through-right lane. The proposed geometry is provided in Exhibit 10. 25 Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since the original 2005 AUAR study, many of the adjacent roadways have been improved, including the following: · Construction of TH 212 as a limited access facility within the study area; · Powers Boulevard was constructed as a four-lane divided roadway between Lyman Boulevard and Pioneer Trail, including interchange ramps at TH 212; · Widening of Lyman Boulevard between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard to a four-lane divided roadway; · Bluff Creek Drive has been realigned so that it intersects Pioneer Trail west of the TH 212; and · Bluff Creek Boulevard and Bluff Creek Drive were constructed within the AUAR area, including a roundabout where the two roadways intersect. The AUAR document was updated in order to assess the impacts of development of the remaining AUAR parcels. There are three areas that currently remain undeveloped; the NW Quadrant, NE Quadrant (Avienda Development), and the SE Quadrant. Two site plan concepts for the NE Quadrant (Avienda Development) were considered in the AUAR update. Concept A considered a more intense development with building on top of existing wetlands, whereas Concept B considered a lower intensity development with the wetlands remaining. In conjunction with these two site plan alternatives, the SE Quadrant assumes a higher office land use intensity for Concept B to offset the reduction in development potential of the NE Quadrant. The NW Quadrant remained the same for both Concept A and Concept B. The following salient observations and recommendations regarding the remaining AUAR land uses to be developed were noted. 7.1 EXISITNG LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY This analysis was completed to determine the impact of existing traffic volumes on the existing roadway network. This includes the built-out of portions of the AUAR development. Results of the Existing analysis showed that all study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except for Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North and Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail, where the SB left-turn movements are operating at LOS E during the weekday AM peak hour. 7.2 BUILDOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SUMMARY In addition to the Existing analysis, an analysis of Year 2022 conditions was completed. This was completed to determine the impact of future traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway network, with and without the remaining AUAR undeveloped parcels. Area traffic forecasts were computed for full development conditions. Two concepts were considered for full development; Concept A and Concept B. Results of the traffic analysis are as follows: · The interchange with TH 212 is anticipated to accommodate the future growth of the area, including the Buildout of the entire AUAR development. The interchange has already been constructed with signals and with dedicated turn lanes for all turning movements. Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 26 · At the intersection of Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive/NW Quadrant Access, the northbound and southbound approaches are recommended to be restriped to provide a dedicated left-turn lane and shared through-right lane. · It is recommended that the following intersections be periodically reviewed to determine if signal warrants are met as the area develops If signal warrants are met, signalization should be considered: o Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant Access o Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access o Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail . 7.3 MITIGATION PLAN Proposed improvements to accommodate the future Buildout scenario traffic includes the following. It should be noted that the same improvements are recommended based on either Buildout of Concept A or Concept B.Exhibit 10 provides the mitigation plan. · Extend Bluff Creek Boulevard from its current terminus through the Avienda development and connect to the existing signalized intersection of Powers Boulevard & TH 212 North. · Construct an internal connector roadway through the NW Quadrant to connect the intersections of Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North and Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive. As part of this, restripe the northbound and southbound approaches at Audubon Road & Lakeview Drive to provide a dedicated left-turn lane and shared through-right lane, and the WB approach provide a dedicated left-turn lane and shared through-right lane. · With the proposed Avienda development, connections will be made to the intersection of Powers Boulevard & TH 212 North and Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail. At the intersection of Powers Boulevard & TH 212 North, the EB approach is recommended to be three lanes; one dedicated left-turn lane, one through lane, and one dedicated right-turn lane. At the intersection of Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail the NB approach is recommended to be two lanes; one dedicated left- turn lane and one shared through-right lane. · The connections from the SE Quadrant development to Powers Boulevard and Pioneer Trail are both recommended to provide two lanes exiting; along Powers boulevard, the EB approach should provide a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through right lane, and along Pioneer Trail, the SB approach should provide a dedicated left-turn lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. A third connection for the SE Quadrant is proposed along Bluff Creek Drive, which is recommended to be only a one lane approach. · It is recommended that the following intersections be periodically reviewed to determine if signal warrants are met as the area develops If warrants are met, signalization should be considered: o Lyman Boulevard & Audubon Road North/NW Quadrant Access o Lyman Boulevard & Sunset Trail/NE Quadrant Access o Powers Boulevard & Pioneer Trail Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: EXHIBITS APPENDIX B: TRIP GENERATION Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 Appendix A: Exhibits NOT TO SCALE N Lyman Blvd Au d u b o n R o a d B l u f f C r e e k D r i v e 212 Pio n e e r T r a i l Po w e r s B o u l e v a r d EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND STUDY AREA LEGEND Site Location Study Intersections NOT TO SCALE N Lyman Blvd Au d u b o n R o a d Po w e r s B l v d Pioneer Trail Au d u b o n R o a d Su n s e t T r a i l L a k e v i e w D r i v e Bl u f f C r e e k D r i v e 212 EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING AND FUTURE AUAR DEVELOPMENT AREAS LEGEND Undeveloped Area Developed Area Future Roadway Existing Site Access Proposed Site Access NOT TO SCALE N Lyman Blvd Au d u b o n R o a d Po w e r s B l v d 212 Pioneer Trail EXHIBIT 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Existing Intersection Site Location Undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes AADT Volumes XX (XX) X,XXX 20 8 ( 5 9 9 ) 13 9 ( 2 7 3 ) 11 (5) 263 (80) 42 5 ( 1 6 6 ) 20 3 ( 1 6 7 ) 24 3 ( 5 3 2 ) 52 ( 2 1 9 ) 104 (340) 329 (259) 10 ( 9 ) 45 6 ( 2 3 8 ) 10 8 ( 6 3 ) 17 0 ( 4 2 9 ) 62 ( 7 4) 184 (156) 20 (55) 72 (60) 44 ( 2 4 ) 40 6 ( 1 6 9 ) 33 5 ( 3 0 4 ) 72 (83) 150 (249) 105 (267) 5 ( 5 ) 5 ( 5 ) 693 (383) 5 (5) 5 (5) 322 (594) 16 8 ( 4 7 2 ) 51 ( 1 3 2 ) 75 (223) 77 (64) 551 (269) 209 (120) 3 ( 1 0 ) 2 3 ( 4 8 ) 1 6 5 ( 6 6 ) 191 (5 3 8 ) 8 (27) 44 (13 0 ) 2 1 ( 2 3 ) 7 6 ( 8 7 ) 5 0 ( 2 2 ) 8 (12 ) 574 (3 0 0 ) 69 (13 7 ) 48 ( 2 1 ) 56 ( 2 3 ) 74 (72) 23 (68) 14 (41) 103 (90) 72 ( 2 0 1 ) 10 3 ( 2 9 5 ) 91 ( 1 0 9 ) 128 (304) 75 (262) 67 (69) 29 8 ( 1 2 8 ) 15 6 ( 1 2 6 ) 32 1 ( 1 1 7 ) 106 (75) 262 (212) 84 (146) 0 ( 6 ) 18 5 ( 4 8 4 ) 4 5 ( 1 2 4 ) 0 (2) 33 (19) 155 (61) 24 ( 5 0 ) 3 ( 5 ) 46 7 ( 1 8 0 ) 12 (7) 8 (0) 0 (0) 15 5 ( 2 1 6 ) 82 ( 9 3 ) 585 (233) 113 (155) 155 (41) 245 (506) 1 3 ( 0 ) 20 ( 6 ) 7 ( 2 ) 633 (217) 68 (222) 39 (10) 19 0 ( 9 0 ) 40 1 ( 1 6 6 ) 42 ( 7 ) 8 (2) 203 (455) 149 (373) 52 ( 5 2) 18 5 ( 5 4 9 ) 21 ( 2 1 ) 58 1 ( 2 1 1 ) 52 (52) 21 (21) 8, 6 0 0 8, 1 0 0 9,200 9,60 0 38,00 0 10,5 0 0 2,200 1 2 , 1 0 0 14,600 13 , 6 0 0 9, 8 0 0 9, 6 0 0 4,900 46,0 0 0 9,700 3,200 1,600 NOT TO SCALE N Lyman Blvd Au d u b o n R o a d Po w e r s B l v d Pio n e e r T r a i l 212 Su n s e t T r a i l EXHIBIT 4 FUTURE YEAR (2022) TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY 3% LEGEND Site Location Undeveloped Area Site Traffic Distribution Total Site Traffic (Inbound/Outbound) X% XX (XX/XX) 5% 10% 10% 10% 2% 30% 15% Option A Option B Daily 14,265 9,446 AM Peak 1,065 (620/445) 680 (420/260) PM Peak 1,330 (575/755) 865 (375/490) Option A Option B Daily 3,676 4,840 AM Peak 455 (345/110) 680 (590/90) PM Peak 455 (125/330) 650 (115/535) Option A Option B Daily 3,065 3,065 AM Peak 405 (355/50) 405 (355/50) PM Peak 425 (50/375) 425 (50/375) 5% 10% NOT TO SCALE N Lyman Blvd Au d u b o n R o a d Po w e r s B l v d 212 Pioneer Trail EXHIBIT 5 FUTURE YEAR (2022) NET NEW SITE TRIP ASSIGNMENT - OPTION A 27 9 ( 2 2 7 ) 14 5 ( 3 2 3 ) 18 (7) 49 (34) 30 ( 9 7 ) 17 6 ( 2 2 5 ) 63 ( 6 2 ) 11 0 ( 1 6 8 ) 3 ( 1 9 ) 185 (183) 102 (39) 108 (15) 5 ( 1 7 ) 14 4 ( 1 4 3 ) 76 ( 9 9 ) 45 (72) 22 (35) 212 (343) 98 ( 5 2 ) 99 ( 6 6 ) 0 ( 0 ) 32 (16) 34 (23) 0 (0) 19 ( 3 5 ) 15 9 ( 4 7 ) 51 ( 1 0 4 ) 41 (110) 13 (37) 43 (160) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0 ) 227 (54) 62 (61) 0 (0) 45 ( 7 2 ) 77 ( 1 2 3 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 52 (235) 106 (106) 17 0 ( 3 2 ) 12 7 ( 2 0 2 ) 17 ( 4 ) 18 5 ( 1 7 8 ) 21 (144) 6 (36) 82 ( 1 2 9 ) 51 ( 1 0 9 ) 28 (11) 105 (70) 97 (112) 9 (34) 10 ( 6 2 ) 8 ( 5 8 ) 59 (131) 51 (9) 92 (15) 98 (88) 2 0 ( 1 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 4 2 ( 2 3 ) 43 (11 2 ) 16 (3 1 ) 10 (5 0 ) 2 7 ( 2 0 ) 1 1 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 5 (2 0 ) 118 ( 6 0 ) 2 (1 1) 44 ( 7 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) 60 (60) 0 (0) 39 ( 9 1 ) 38 ( 9 2 ) 23 ( 3 3 ) 24 (53) 23 (52) 27 (21) 51 ( 2 9 ) 0 ( 0) 82 ( 5 1 ) 82 (51) 51 (29) 0 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 56 ( 1 4 6 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 44 (70) 0 (0) 60 ( 6 0 ) 0 ( 0) 13 1 ( 6 3 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 ( 1 ) 7 ( 1 ) 18 ( 1 3 ) 75 (129) 219 (29) 10 (19) 29 ( 2 2 7 ) 3 ( 1 9 ) 1 ( 8 ) 1 (3) 111 (101) 18 (3) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0 ) 55 (111) 24 (38) 0 (0) 32 ( 3 5 ) 9 ( 3 3 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 98 (72) 36 (9) 0 ( 0 ) 42 ( 4 4 ) 18 ( 3 ) 0 (0) 14 (102) 3 (19) 93 ( 1 4 ) 0 ( 0) 38 ( 4 9 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0 ) 65 (35) 0 (0) 15 ( 7 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) LEGEND Existing Intersection Site Access Site Location Undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) 2, 0 0 0 3, 2 0 0 2,100 2,10 0 1,100 2,40 0 1,200 2, 1 0 0 2,400 4, 1 0 0 4, 1 0 0 5, 3 0 0 1,100 5,40 0 4,000 2,100 1,200 NOT TO SCALE N Lyman Blvd Au d u b o n R o a d Po w e r s B l v d 212 Pioneer Trail EXHIBIT 6 FUTURE YEAR (2022) NET NEW SITE TRIP ASSIGNMENT - OPTION B 40 4 ( 1 7 7) 91 ( 2 5 5) 28 (6) 39 (22) 20 ( 1 5 9 ) 13 3 ( 2 4 4 ) 43 ( 3 8 ) 19 3 ( 1 6 5 ) 3 ( 1 9 ) 126 (110) 176 (33) 107 (15) 5 ( 2 7 ) 98 ( 8 8 ) 69 ( 1 5 1 ) 26 (50) 13 (24) 126 (234) 83 ( 3 4 ) 12 0 ( 4 5 ) 0 ( 0 ) 27 (10) 61 (16) 0 (0) 11 ( 4 0 ) 15 8 ( 5 9 ) 33 ( 1 1 7 ) 27 (93) 8 (32) 58 (161) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0 ) 227 (66) 41 (37) 0 (0) 26 ( 5 0 ) 45 ( 8 4 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 67 (236) 72 (66) 21 9 ( 3 8 ) 21 3 ( 1 4 5 ) 12 ( 4 ) 12 8 ( 2 3 3 ) 25 (170) 6 (43) 18 7 ( 9 8 ) 32 ( 9 0 ) 40 (10) 80 (46) 60 (191) 8 (51) 13 ( 7 5 ) 8 ( 6 8 ) 174 (96) 53 (12) 114 (21) 60 (174) 1 2 ( 5 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 2 3 ( 1 2 8 ) 38 (11 1 ) 11 (3 1 ) 138 ( 2 9 ) 3 0 ( 1 2 ) 1 1 ( 2 ) 0 ( 0 ) 57 ( 1 1 ) 121 ( 5 5 ) 2 (1 1) 44 ( 4 8 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) 60 (36) 0 (0) 39 ( 7 5 ) 38 ( 7 4 ) 23 ( 3 3 ) 24 (66) 23 (67) 27 (32) 51 ( 2 2 ) 0 ( 0) 82 ( 3 3 ) 82 (33) 51 (22) 0 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 62 ( 1 3 4 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 24 (48) 0 (0) 40 ( 3 6 ) 0 ( 0) 12 1 ( 6 2 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 ( 1 ) 7 ( 1 ) 16 ( 1 1 ) 46 (105) 219 (29) 7 (16) 29 ( 2 2 7 ) 3 ( 1 9 ) 1 ( 8 ) 1 (4) 94 (64) 18 (3) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0 ) 35 (99) 18 (26) 0 (0) 23 ( 2 4 ) 8 ( 4 3 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 90 (47) 48 (9) 0 ( 0 ) 48 ( 3 2 ) 18 ( 3 ) 0 (0) 14 (102) 3 (19) 93 ( 1 4 ) 0 ( 0) 28 ( 4 8 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0 ) 65 (180) 0 (0) 15 ( 4 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) LEGEND Existing Intersection Site Access Site Location Undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) 1, 8 0 0 2, 5 0 0 1,800 1,80 0 900 2,20 0 800 1, 8 0 0 1,800 3, 9 0 0 2, 6 0 0 5, 1 0 0 900 5,10 0 3,500 1,800 800 NOT TO SCALE N Lyman Blvd Au d u b o n R o a d Po w e r s B l v d 212 Pioneer Trail EXHIBIT 7 OPENING YEAR BACKGROUND (2022) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Existing Intersection Site Location AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes AADT Volumes XX (XX) X,XXX 2 24 ( 6 4 5 ) 15 0 ( 2 94 ) 12 (6) 283 (86) 45 8 ( 1 7 8 ) 21 9 ( 1 8 0 ) 26 2 ( 5 7 3 ) 55 ( 2 3 5 ) 112 (366) 354 (279) 10 ( 1 0 ) 49 2 ( 2 5 6 ) 11 7 ( 6 8 ) 18 3 ( 4 6 2 ) 67 ( 8 0 ) 198 (167) 21 (59) 78 (64) 48 ( 2 6 ) 43 7 ( 1 8 2 ) 36 1 ( 3 2 7 ) 78 (90) 162 (268) 113 (287) 5 ( 5 ) 5 ( 5 ) 747 (412) 5 (5) 5 (5) 348 (640) 18 1 ( 5 0 8 ) 55 ( 1 4 3 ) 81 (240) 83 (69) 594 (289) 224 (129) 3 ( 1 1 ) 2 4 ( 5 2 ) 1 7 8 ( 7 1 ) 205 ( 5 7 9 ) 9 (29) 48 (14 0 ) 2 2 ( 2 4 ) 8 2 ( 9 3 ) 5 4 ( 2 3 ) 8 (13 ) 618 (3 2 3 ) 74 (14 8) 52 ( 2 2 ) 60 ( 2 4 ) 80 (78) 24 (73) 16 (44) 111 (97) 78 ( 2 1 6 ) 11 1 ( 3 1 7 ) 98 ( 1 1 8 ) 137 (327) 81 (282) 72 (74) 32 0 ( 1 3 8 ) 16 8 ( 1 3 5 ) 34 6 ( 1 2 7 ) 114 (81) 282 (228) 91 (158) 0 ( 7 ) 20 0 ( 5 2 2 ) 49 ( 1 3 3 ) 0 (2) 36 (20) 166 (65) 26 ( 5 4 ) 3 ( 6 ) 50 3 ( 1 9 4 ) 13 (8) 9 (0) 0 (0) 16 6 ( 2 3 3 ) 89 ( 1 0 0 ) 630 (251) 122 (166) 166 (44) 264 (545) 14 ( 0 ) 21 ( 7 ) 8 ( 2 ) 681 (234) 73 (239) 42 (11) 20 3 ( 9 6 ) 43 2 ( 1 79 ) 46 ( 8 ) 9 (2) 219 (491) 161 (402) 55 ( 5 5 ) 20 0 ( 5 9 3 ) 22 ( 2 2 ) 62 6 ( 2 2 8 ) 55 (55) 22 (22) 9, 5 0 0 9, 0 0 0 10,200 10,7 0 0 42,20 0 11,7 0 0 2,400 1 3 , 4 0 0 16,200 15 , 1 0 0 10 , 9 0 0 10 , 7 0 0 5,400 51,0 0 0 10,800 3,600 1,800 NOT TO SCALE N Lyman Blvd Au d u b o n R o a d Po w e r s B l v d 212 Pioneer Trail EXHIBIT 8 FUTURE YEAR (2022) PEAK HOUR TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OPTION A 50 3 ( 8 7 2 ) 2 95 ( 6 1 7 ) 30 (13) 332 (120) 48 8 ( 2 7 5 ) 39 5 ( 4 0 5 ) 63 ( 1 1 2 ) 37 2 ( 6 9 1 ) 58 ( 2 5 4 ) 185 (240) 214 (377) 462 (265) 15 ( 2 7 ) 14 4 ( 1 6 2 ) 56 8 ( 3 3 6 ) 45 (120) 22 (35) 212 (421) 21 5 ( 1 2 0 ) 28 2 ( 5 2 8 ) 67 ( 8 0 ) 230 (183) 55 (82) 78 (64) 67 ( 6 1 ) 59 6 ( 2 2 9 ) 41 2 ( 4 3 1 ) 119 (200) 175 (305) 156 (447) 5 ( 5 ) 0 ( 0) 5 ( 5 ) 974 (424) 62 (103) 5 (5) 45 ( 1 3 4 ) 77 ( 1 6 5 ) 0 ( 0 ) 5 (5) 400 (813) 106 (168) 17 0 ( 3 2 ) 36 3 ( 8 5 3 ) 17 ( 4 ) 86 2 ( 5 36 ) 21 (144) 6 (36) 26 3 ( 6 3 7 ) 10 6 ( 2 5 2 ) 109 (251) 188 (139) 691 (401) 233 (163) 10 ( 6 2 ) 8 ( 5 8 ) 321 (879) 51 (9) 92 (15) 916 (506) 20 5 ( 1 3 4 ) 0 ( 0 ) 65 (35) 0 (0) 15 ( 7 0 ) 11 0 ( 1 7 6 ) 2 3 ( 2 3 ) 2 4 ( 5 2 ) 2 2 3 ( 9 4 ) 248 ( 6 9 1 ) 25 (6 0 ) 58 (19 0 ) 4 9 ( 4 4 ) 9 3 ( 9 5 ) 5 4 ( 2 3 ) 13 ( 3 3 ) 736 ( 3 8 3 ) 76 (1 5 9 ) 96 ( 9 2 ) 60 ( 2 4 ) 80 (78) 24 (73) 76 (104) 111 (97) 11 7 ( 3 0 7 ) 14 9 ( 4 0 9 ) 12 1 ( 1 5 1 ) 161 (380) 104 (334) 99 (95) 37 1 ( 1 6 7 ) 16 8 ( 1 3 5 ) 42 8 ( 1 7 8 ) 196 (132) 333 (257) 91 (158) 0 ( 7 ) 2 56 ( 6 6 8 ) 49 ( 1 3 3 ) 0 (2) 80 (90) 166 (62) 86 ( 1 1 4 ) 3 ( 6 ) 63 4 ( 2 5 7 ) 13 (8) 9 (0) 0 (0) 16 7 ( 2 3 4 ) 7 ( 1 ) 10 7 ( 1 1 3 ) 705 (380) 219 (29) 132 (185) 29 ( 2 2 7 ) 3 ( 1 9 ) 1 ( 8 ) 167 (47) 375 (646) 18 (3) 14 ( 0 ) 21 ( 7 ) 8 ( 2 ) 736 (345) 97 (277) 42 (11) 23 5 ( 1 3 1 ) 44 1 ( 2 1 2 ) 46 ( 8 ) 9 (2) 317 (563) 197 (411) 55 ( 5 5 ) 24 2 ( 6 3 7 ) 18 ( 3 ) 0 (0) 14 (102) 3 (19) 93 ( 1 4 ) 22 ( 2 2 ) 66 4 ( 2 7 7 ) 55 (55) 0 (0) 22 (22) LEGEND Study Intersection Site Location Undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) 11 , 5 0 0 12 , 2 0 0 12,300 12,8 0 0 43,30 0 14,1 0 0 3,600 1 5 , 5 0 0 18,620 19 , 2 0 0 15 , 0 0 0 16 , 0 0 0 6,500 56,5 0 0 14,800 5,700 3,000 NOT TO SCALE N Lyman Blvd Au d u b o n R o a d Po w e r s B l v d 212 Pioneer Trail EXHIBIT 9 FUTURE YEAR (2022) PEAK HOUR TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES - OPTION B 62 8 ( 8 2 2 ) 24 1 ( 5 4 9 ) 40 (12) 322 (108) 47 8 ( 3 3 7 ) 35 2 ( 4 2 4 ) 43 ( 6 4 ) 45 5 ( 7 1 2 ) 58 ( 2 5 4 ) 126 (140) 288 (384) 461 (279) 15 ( 3 7 ) 98 ( 9 8 ) 56 1 ( 3 9 7 ) 26 (75) 13 (24) 126 (275) 20 0 ( 1 0 2 ) 30 3 ( 5 07 ) 67 ( 8 0 ) 225 (177) 82 (75) 78 (64) 59 ( 6 6 ) 59 5 ( 2 4 1 ) 39 4 ( 4 4 4 ) 105 (183) 170 (300) 171 (448) 5 ( 5 ) 0 ( 0) 5 ( 5 ) 974 (456) 41 (59) 5 (5) 26 ( 8 2 ) 45 ( 1 0 6 ) 0 ( 0 ) 5 (5) 415 (844) 76 (98) 21 9 ( 3 8 ) 44 9 ( 7 9 6 ) 12 ( 4 ) 80 5 ( 5 9 1 ) 25 (170) 6 (43) 36 8 ( 60 6 ) 87 ( 2 3 3 ) 121 (250) 163 (115) 654 (480) 232 (180) 13 ( 7 5 ) 8 ( 6 8 ) 436 (844) 53 (12) 114 (21) 878 (592) 20 5 ( 1 3 4 ) 0 ( 0 ) 35 (180) 0 (0) 19 5 ( 4 0 ) 11 0 ( 1 7 6 ) 1 5 ( 6 3 ) 2 4 ( 5 2 ) 2 0 1 ( 1 9 9 ) 248 ( 6 9 0 ) 20 (6 0 ) 186 (1 6 9 ) 5 2 ( 3 6 ) 9 3 ( 9 5 ) 5 4 ( 2 3 ) 65 ( 2 4 ) 739 ( 3 7 8 ) 76 (1 5 9 ) 76 ( 7 0 ) 60 ( 2 4 ) 80 (78) 24 (73) 56 (80) 111 (97) 1 02 ( 2 9 1 ) 13 5 ( 3 9 1 ) 1 36 ( 1 5 1 ) 154 (393) 98 (349) 99 (106) 39 1 ( 1 6 0 ) 16 8 ( 1 3 5 ) 41 3 ( 1 6 0 ) 181 (114) 353 (250) 91 (158) 0 ( 7 ) 26 2 ( 6 5 6 ) 49 ( 1 3 3 ) 0 (2) 60 (68) 166 (65) 66 ( 9 0 ) 3 ( 6 ) 62 4 ( 2 5 6 ) 13 (8) 9 (0) 0 (0) 17 0 ( 2 3 4 ) 7 ( 1 ) 10 5 ( 1 1 1 ) 676 (356) 219 (29) 129 (182) 29 ( 2 2 7 ) 3 ( 1 9 ) 1 ( 8 ) 167 (48) 358 (609) 18 (3) 14 ( 0 ) 21 ( 7 ) 8 ( 2 ) 716 (333) 91 (265) 42 (11) 22 6 ( 1 2 0 ) 44 0 ( 2 2 2 ) 46 ( 8 ) 9 (2) 309 (538) 209 (411) 55 ( 5 5 ) 24 8 ( 6 2 5 ) 18 ( 3 ) 0 (0) 14 (102) 3 (19) 93 ( 1 4 ) 22 ( 2 2 ) 65 4 ( 2 7 6 ) 55 (55) 0 (0) 22 (22) LEGEND Study Intersection Site Location Undeveloped Area AM (PM) Peak Hour VolumesXX (XX) 11 , 3 0 0 11 , 5 0 0 12,000 12,5 0 0 43,10 0 13,9 0 0 3,200 1 5 , 2 0 0 18,000 19 , 0 0 0 13 , 5 0 0 15 , 8 0 0 6,300 56,2 0 0 14,300 5,400 2,600 EXHIBIT 10 FUTURE INTERSECTION CONTROL AND LANE ASSIGNMENTS NOT TO SCALE N Chanhassen 2005 AUAR Update │Appendix 4 -Traffic Analysis Updated March 2017 Appendix B: Site Trip Generation In Out Total In Out Total Day Care Center 565 16,000 Square Feet 1,185 105 90 195 90 105 195 Shopping Center 820 393,000 Square Feet 16,780 235 140 375 700 760 1,460 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 26,500 Square Feet 3,370 155 130 285 155 105 260 General Office Building 710 150,000 Square Feet 1,655 205 30 235 Chan 225 225 Apartment 220 407 Units 2,590 40 165 205 155 85 240 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 38 Units 125 0 10 10 5 5 10 Hotel 310 100 Rooms 520 30 25 55 30 30 60 26,225 770 590 1,360 1,135 1,315 2,450 802 45 25 70 20 45 65 2,152 30 25 55 125 135 260 2,120 70 50 120 75 70 145 1,108 5 35 40 95 65 160 266 0 10 10 15 15 30 6,448 150 145 295 330 330 660 19,777 620 445 1,065 805 985 1,790 4,974 0 0 0 205 205 410 538 0 0 0 25 25 50 5,512 0 0 0 230 230 460 14,265 620 445 1,065 575 755 1,330 In Out Total In Out Total General Office Building 710 240,600 Square Feet 2,655 330 45 375 60 300 360 Apartment 220 157 Units 1,075 15 65 80 70 35 105 3,730 345 110 455 130 335 465 27 0 0 0 0 5 5 27 0 0 0 5 0 5 54 0 0 0 5 5 10 3,676 345 110 455 125 330 455 In Out Total In Out Total General Light Industrial 110 440,100 Square Feet 3,065 355 50 405 50 375 425 3,065 355 50 405 50 375 425 TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS Chanhassen Bluff Creek AUAR - NE Quadrant (Option A) Trip Generation Analysis DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED TRIPS Land Use Description ITE LUC Intensity / Units Daily TOTAL SITE GENERATED EXTERNAL TRIPS Total Internal Capture Reduction Total Pass-By Reduction TOTAL NET NEW SITE GENERATED TRIPS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Office Internal Capture Reduction Retail Internal Capture Reduction Restaurant Internal Capture Reduction Residential Internal Capture Reduction Hotel Internal Capture Reduction TOTAL DRIVEWAY TRIPS Shopping Center (LUC 820) Pass-By Reduction Restaurant (LUC 932) Pass-By Reduction Chanhassen Bluff Creek AUAR - SE Quadrant (Option A) Trip Generation Analysis DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED TRIPS Land Use Description AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourDaily TOTAL SITE GENERATED EXTERNAL TRIPS Office Internal Capture Reduction Intensity / UnitsITE LUC Residential Internal Capture Reduction Total Internal Capture Reduction TOTAL NET NEW SITE GENERATED TRIPS TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED TRIPS Land Use Description ITE LUC Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Chanhassen Bluff Creek AUAR - NW Quadrant (Option A) Trip Generation Analysis TOTAL NET NEW SITE GENERATED TRIPS TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS In Out Total In Out Total Day Care Center 565 6,000 Square Feet 445 40 35 75 35 40 75 Shopping Center 820 224,000 Square Feet 9,565 135 80 215 400 430 830 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 7,000 Square Feet 890 40 35 75 40 30 70 General Office Building 710 150,000 Square Feet 1,655 205 30 235 40 185 225 Apartment 220 280 Units 1,820 30 110 140 110 60 170 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 80 Units 265 5 15 20 15 10 25 Hotel 310 150 Rooms 970 45 35 80 45 45 90 15,610 500 340 840 685 800 1,485 530 30 15 45 15 35 50 1,229 20 20 40 80 85 165 601 30 20 50 20 20 40 658 0 10 10 65 40 105 188 0 15 15 10 10 20 3,206 80 80 160 190 190 380 12,404 420 260 680 495 610 1,105 2,834 0 0 0 115 115 230 124 0 0 0 5 5 10 2,958 0 0 0 120 120 240 9,446 420 260 680 375 490 865 In Out Total In Out Total General Office Building (East of 212) 710 287,600 Square Feet 3,170 395 55 450 75 355 430 General Office Building (West of 212) 710 141,000 Square Feet 1,555 195 25 220 35 175 210 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 34 Units 115 0 10 10 5 5 10 4,840 590 90 680 115 535 650 4,840 590 90 680 115 535 650 In Out Total In Out Total General Light Industrial 110 440,100 Square Feet 3,065 355 50 405 50 375 425 3,065 355 50 405 50 375 425 TOTAL NET NEW SITE GENERATED TRIPS TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS TOTAL NET NEW SITE GENERATED TRIPS TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED TRIPS Land Use Description ITE LUC Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Chanhassen Bluff Creek AUAR - NW Quadrant (Option B) Trip Generation Analysis TOTAL SITE GENERATED EXTERNAL TRIPS Intensity / UnitsITE LUC AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourDaily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Office Internal Capture Reduction Retail Internal Capture Reduction Restaurant Internal Capture Reduction Residential Internal Capture Reduction Hotel Internal Capture Reduction TOTAL DRIVEWAY TRIPS Shopping Center (LUC 820) Pass-By Reduction Restaurant (LUC 932) Pass-By Reduction Chanhassen Bluff Creek AUAR - SE Quadrant (Option B) Trip Generation Analysis DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED TRIPS Land Use Description TOTAL NET NEW PROJECT GENERATED TRIPS Chanhassen Bluff Creek AUAR - NE Quadrant (Option B) Trip Generation Analysis DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED TRIPS Land Use Description ITE LUC Intensity / Units Daily TOTAL SITE GENERATED EXTERNAL TRIPS Total Internal Capture Reduction Total Pass-By Reduction TOTAL NET NEW SITE GENERATED TRIPS Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 54 APPENDIX 6—SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SYMBOL NAME Hm Hamel Loam TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % HcE3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 18 to 25 %, sev. eroded HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % HaC/LaC Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 % HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded HaD Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 % HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % Pd Houghton and Muskego Mucks HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % Hm Hamel Loam HaC/LaC Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 % HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded HaD Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 % HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded Hm Hamel Loam Ge Glencoe Loam HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % Cw Cordova and Webster Loams HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaD Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 % TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 55 SYMBOL NAME HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % Hm Hamel Loam HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded Pm Palms Muck Hm Hamel Loam TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % Hm Hamel Loam HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded Hm Hamel Loam Pd Houghton and Muskego Mucks HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % HaC/LaC Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 % HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded Hm Hamel Loam HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaC/LaC Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 % HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded Ge Glencoe Loam TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded Hm Hamel Loam HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % Hm Hamel Loam Pd Houghton and Muskego Mucks HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 56 SYMBOL NAME TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % Ge Glencoe Loam Pm Palms Muck HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % HaC/LaC Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 % Cd Canisteo Silty Clay Loam, Depressional HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % HcE3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 18 to 25 %, sev. eroded HaD Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 % HcC3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 12 to 18 %, sev. eroded HaC/LaC Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 % Pd Houghton and Muskego Mucks HaC/LaC Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 % Hm Hamel Loam HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded Ge Glencoe Loam TeC Terril Loam, 6 to 12 % TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % TeB Terril Loam, 0 to 6 % HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % Pd Houghton and Muskego Mucks Hm Hamel Loam HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HcC3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 12 to 18 %, sev. eroded Ge Glencoe Loam HcE3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 18 to 25 %, sev. eroded HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % Hm Hamel Loam HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded Hm Hamel Loam Hm Hamel Loam Pd Houghton and Muskego Mucks HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % HcE3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 18 to 25 %, sev. eroded Pm Palms Muck HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % Hm Hamel Loam HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded HcC3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 12 to 18 %, sev. eroded Ge Glencoe Loam Ge Glencoe Loam Pm Palms Muck HcE3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 18 to 25 %, sev. eroded Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2016 Update Page 57 SYMBOL NAME HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HaD Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 % Ge Glencoe Loam HcE3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 18 to 25 %, sev. eroded HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaD2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 12 to 18 %, eroded HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded Ge Glencoe Loam HaF Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 25 to 40 % Hm Hamel Loam HaC/LaC Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 % Hm Hamel Loam HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HaB/LaB Kilkenny-Lester Loams, 2 to 6 % HcC3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 12 to 18 %, sev. eroded HaC2/LaC2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 6 to 12 %, eroded HcC3 Lester-Kilkenny Clay Loams, 12 to 18 %, sev. eroded HaE2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 18 to 25 %, eroded HaB2/LaB2 Lester-Kilkenny Loams, 2 to 6 %, eroded