Loading...
Fox dorsey traffic1. Does the traffic projections account for the latest land use in Chanhassen? They mentioned a 2010 MUSA change for SE Quad of 212 and Powers to include Office development. They also mentioned the land use for 101 and Lyman (the area near the previously proposed Harley Davidson shop). Does the traffic projections account for the land use in these areas accurately? Can we verify the TAZs in these areas? The property is currently zoned Agricultural. It is guided for either Commercial or Office. The staff cannot commitment what the city council will approve for the development. We have to make an assumption for the potential use. The TAZ’s in the comprehensive plan utilized residential land use the modeling. Any changes in land use would require the 2005 AUAR to be updated. Again we used the assumption of the 50/50 split in office retail. 2. They challenged FAR assumptions in the traffic study. They said they are not compatible with the city comp plan or zoning ordinance. They claim the FAR could be as much as 0.7 based on Chanhassen City Code (Pg CD20:96). They said the 15% for ROW and ponding was too much since part of the ponding is already accounted for in the 212 ponds across Powers. They wanted to know who provided the Land Use info from the City. I told them it came from you Paul with consultation with your planning department. They mentioned a 2006/7 McCombs study that analyzed future development in Chanhassen including their area. They said the results of this study showed much more development potential on their site. They gave me excerpts of the study and my initial review shows they may be wrong about this. It looks to me from the pages they gave me that the study says the Lifestyle Trade Area could support 1.1 million SF of retail by 2025. Our study assumes 1.2M SF at 50% Retail, 50% Office. They did not give me much to look at so the City should verify our assumptions in relation to the McCombs study. For the traffic study we assumed a 50/50 split in land use (commercial/office) and a floor area ratio of 0.3. The floor area ratio is a number that has been utilized consistently for development within the city and we believe it is accurate. The 15% ratio for right of way is based historical data of development within the city. We have confidence in this ratio and without a development plan is it a very fair. Assuming there are number parking lots in the development the 15% may actually be too low. The McComb study from 2006, supported 1.1 million square of retail based on growth in the regional market. Chanhassen’s population growth from 1990 to 2000 was 73 percent, but from 2000 to 2010 was only 13 percent. The 2030 Comp Plan used the Met Council population estimate for 2010 as 27,500. The 2010 census was lower at 22,952. The slower rate of growth in the trade area is relevant, as to how much commercial can be supported. This is why the city chose to provide office as a viable alternative land use. The amount of retail in the study is optimistic even by 2030. 3. They asked if they could get a new access point in between Audubon and Sunset as a Right in Right Out. I said we would look at our access guidelines and get back to them. Does the City have any concerns with this? The City does not support having a right-in/right-out access or local road frontage next to the Preserve at Bluff Creek Development parcels. The City code does not allow for double frontage lots in this situation (see attached, code 18-60). Also, significant grade changes would be necessary to construct this access. Wetlands would need to be mitigated. It appears the access spacing would not meet the County requirements. The 2005 AUAR should be updated before the County considers granting this access. If the County allows the access the cost should be 100% paid for by the benefiting property owner(s). 4. They asked about a traffic signal at Sunset as this was absolutely necessary for the development. I said we cannot get funding for a signal that does not meet warrants today. If one goes in it will have to be part of the development. They asked if the conduit could be put in with our construction. I said we would consider this. The City does not have an objection to installing the conduit. If the County allows for the conduit to be installed the cost should be paid by the benefiting property owner(s) that would drive the need for the signal in the future. 5. They wanted to know if we are done with our analysis of the road elevation and shift. I said we would be done soon and could meet with them again to discuss the findings. I told them that our initial estimation is that changing the profile would cost $300,000 more. The City does not have an objection to lowering the profile of the roadway unless it negatively impacts other properties or accesses. If the County lowers the profile greater than the MnDot or federal vertical requirements for design speed, the cost should be paid by the benefiting property owner(s) requesting the change.