The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-11_WALMART CONCEPT PUD/REZONING IOP TO CC (2)Municode Page 1 of 2 Attachment #I Chanhassen, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> - CITY CODE >> Chapter 20 - ZONING >> ARTICLE XVIII -A. - "CC" COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT >> IARTICLE XVIII -A. - "CC- COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-741. - Intent Sec. 20-742. - Permitted uses Sec 20-743 - Permitted accessory uses Sec. 20-744. - Conditional use Sec. 20-745. - Lot requirements and setbacks Secs. 20-746-20-750 - Reserved Sec. 20-741: Intent. (a) The intent of the community commercial district is to provide for moderate to large sized commercial development. These large-scale commercial and office users need high visibility along arterial roads. While smaller scale ancillary commercial uses may be permitted integral to the principal use, the primary use of a building shall be medium to large type users with a minimum tenant space of 15,000 square feet. The intent of the district is to accommodate larger uses. The creation of mule -tenant, small user, strip centers is prohibited. (b) Location criteria for community commercial uses are: Access to arterial and collector streets, preferably at intersections with collector and arterial streets; moderate to large-sized sites; public water and sewer service; environmental features such as soils and topography suitable for compact development; and adequate buffering by physical features or adjacent uses to protect nearby residential development. (c) The total building area on a single level or floor for an individual use shall be no more than 65,000 square feet. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sec. 20-742: Permitted uses. Arts and crafts supply store. Automotive parts and accessories. Book store. Building supply center. Consumer electronics and appliance store. Drugstore. Furniture and home furnishings. Garden center. Grocery store. Health and dental clinics. Hobby, toy and game stores. Office. Office equipment and supply. Personal services. Sewing and fabric store. Sporting goods. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sec. 20-743.- Permitted accessory uses. Antennas. Automatic teller machines (ATMs). http://library.municode.coni/print.aspx?clientID=14048&HTMMequest=http%3a%2f%2fl... 10/24/2011 Municode Page 2 of Parking lots and ramps. Signs. Utility services. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sec. 20-744: Conditional use. Screened outdoor storage. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sec. 20-745: Lot requirements and setbacks. Minimum lot area: One acre. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet. Minimum lot frontage: 100 feet. Maximum lot coverage: 70 percent. Maximum building height: Four stories; 50 feet. Setbacks. Building/parking: Front: 25 feet. Side: 10 feet. Rear: 10 feet. Parking setback exemptions: There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. Parking setbacks may be reduced to ten feet along public streets if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that 100 percent screening is provided at least five feet above the adjacent parking lot. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sees. 20-746-20-750.- Reserved. http ://library.municode.conilprint.aspx?clientID=14048&HTMRequest=http%3a%2flIo2fl... 10/24/2011 Attachment #2 Industrial / Commercial Comparison Target ISTAR MN LLC Acerage gross 10.08 14.1 Building sq. ft 130,110 154,674 2011 Total Market Value $10,095,600 $5,167,000 2011 Total Tax $350,044 $208,394 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317—(952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: Walmart c/o Kimley-Horn and Assoc. 2550 University Ave W. Suite 238N St. Paul, MN 55114 Contact: William D. Matzek Phone: 651-643-0497 FaX:651-645-4197 Email: Will.Matzek@Kimley-Horn.com Planning Case No.0?O 1 1— I ( CiTy OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 3 0 2011 �'He N:Ie CCFI� Pi A wNr nrp- Property Owner Name and Address: iStar Minnesota LLC c/o istar Financial I 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, New York 10036 Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit X Planned Unit Development' It -150 Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Welland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment X Notification Sign $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $50 CUP/SPRfVACIVARNVAP/Metes & Bounds $450 Minor SUB K rhley—IiGrr, TOTAL FEE $_ 950. 00 Rd Cr -A a,IIt3ac4 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (`.tif) format. ""Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: walmart Store #5949-00 LOCATION: 1000 Park Road, Chanhassen, MDQ 55317 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Lot 1, Block 1, of the Park Two 2nd Addition Plat. 255660010 TOTAL ACREAGE: 14.10 ACRES WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: IOP - Industrial Office Park District REQUESTED ZONING: PDD - Planned Unit Development PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Industrial office/ Community gommerejal REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Commercial REASON FOR REQUEST: The p, p pp quest a PUD in order to develop an .appipximately 120,000 SF retail building on said property. The proposed development has been prepared in accordance with the City of Chanhasaen's Code of FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of Vie 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. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or 1 am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. fi"AE�Q_2 /n- CG--/ / Signature of Applicant Date Aef? - Sir of Fee Owner Date / te g:Wlanlfnmukkvdupnxnl mvicw 4viicmion.doc ©�© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. November 21, 2011 Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Response Letter for Conceptual PUD Staff Report Proposed Walmart, 1000 Park Road Dear Ms. Aanenson, ■ Suite 238N 2550 University Avenue West St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 In response to the November 1, 2011 Staff Report, recommendations from the Planning Commission and from residents, the Walmart development team has revised our proposed Site and Building Plans. In the pages that follow, we respond to concerns raised by the community and in the Staff Report and also offer a brief explanation of our revisions. The Site is currently a vacant industrial building. Retail development at the Site is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Site's unique features present challenges that would be best addressed through the flexibility afforded through a Planned Unit Development ("PUD"). We understand that in exchange for the development flexibility available through a PUD, the City expects that the development will be of higher quality. We believe that our revised development meets that goal: o Walmart has agreed to finance the costs of all of the recommended off-site traffic improvements that were listed in the November 0 staff report. These traffic improvements will not only relieve traffic concerns related to Walmart, but will also serve the anticipated future growth of Chanhassen through 2030. o The building's facade not only exceeds code requirements but has been considerably upgraded. The building is smaller than the most common layout of new Walmart stores. Drive-throughs and the garden center have been eliminated. o Landscaping, pedestrian and Site amenities have been enhanced — the typical pylon sign along Highway 5 has been replaced with a decorative monument sign; planters and benches have been added to soften the building's front 1 Fi entrances; proposed interior landscaping exceeds City requirements and the addition of over 180 new trees on Site will increase the tree canopy from 14% in the existing condition to 39% for the proposed Site. A new sidewalk along Powers Boulevard is proposed together with a pedestrian staircase at Powers and Highway 5. o The redevelopment will exceed storm water treatment requirements and will increase the quality of the water discharged into adjacent creeks and wetlands. o To further protect the wetlands and creek on Site, Walmart proposes that these areas (approximately one-quarter of the Site) be protected for the future with a permanent conservation easement. Walmart proposes eradicating invasive plant species from the wetland buffer areas. The buffer areas have been increased. o To help achieve some of the benefits described above, Walmart proposes to shrink the size of its parking lot. First, the width of the stalls has been narrowed to 9 feet to match City ordinances. Secondly, there aren't as many stalls. Although the parking ratio is less than the City requires in a typical non -PUD development, our parking study shows that even on "Black Friday," the busiest shopping day of the year, there will be 79 extra parking stalls at the Site. o Walmart's building will use the latest "green" technology — skylights will be interlocked with the interior building lighting system, super high energy efficient HVAC units will be installed together with Central Energy Management, heat reclaimed from refrigeration systems will be used to heat the water used in the store, and LED lighting will be used in the parking lot, for signs and in the refrigeration cases. Walmart has an aggressive recycling program that is used not only after the store is open but also during construction. There are many more items that will be included in this store that will make it one of the most up to date buildings in the State of Minnesota as far as "green" technology. The Walmart team appreciates the opportunity to work with the City of Chanhassen on the proposed development and we ask that the City Council approve the conceptual PUD. With conceptual PUD approval in hand, we will next work on preparing final PUD plans and look forward to refining our plans to meet the City's requirements and goals. Feel free to contact us should you have any questions or would like further information. Sincerely, � William D. Matzek, PE, CPESC Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD 4 Walmart, Chanhassen, MN Concept Planned Unit Development Revised Plans, November 21, 2011 ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE The November 1 ' Staff Report describes the extent to which the original design met standards for commercial, industrial, and office developments under the City Code. In response, SAIC has proposed new elevations for the proposed building. The new elevations show planters and benches for seating have been added across the front of the building. Material changes have also been made to the front of the building to provide a more significant upgrade. Additional exterior building features such as canopies, window groupings, changes in color, and changes in parapet height have been added to meet the zoning code's requirement that building expanses of more than 40 feet in width be divided into smaller increments with either facade modulation, vertical divisions using different materials or variation in the roof line. The pylon sign has been redesigned to a monument sign offering more architectural interest. The sign area will not exceed 80 square feet. Materials for the monument sign will match those being used on the building. In addition, a decorative feature has been added that mirrors the City of Chanhassen's signature decorative maple leaf. The building's pre -cast panels will be integrally colored and will have a grid system as well as a pebble texture. The use of EIFS has been limited to accent areas only — mostly on the front of the building. The large EIFS area on the rear of the building shown in the original plans has been replaced with TRESPA panels similar to the front signage area. In addition, the integral colored split -face block has been replaced with Quik Brik in several earthtone colors to provide a more significant upgrade. We have added additional spandrel glass window areas and areas with suspended awnings to meet the requirement for a significant architectural upgrade to the building. The building's parapets have been raised to provide additional screening of rooftop equipment from adjacent sidewalks. The Code requires that all facades viewed by the public must contain 50 percent windows and/or doors. The revised plans show that additional architectural detailing has been added to the sides and rear of the building. SAIC has added spandrel glass window areas to the west side of the building along with suspended canopies on all three sides. The front entrance canopy has been extended to provide more customer shelter along the front of the building. Additional articulation has been added to the sides and rear of the building through the use of extended parapets, color and material changes, and changes in plane. Screening materials for the loading areas and refuse areas will be the same as those used on the building. TRAFFIC We understand that the community is concerned about traffic generated by the new Walmart as well as traffic that will be generated as Chanhassen continues to grow. Walmart wants safe roads around its Site and will pay for the following off-site traffic improvements that were identified by the Traffic Impact Analysis and reviewed by the City, Carver County, and the Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD 3 Minnesota Department of Transportation. These improvements are all based on the projected traffic volumes that were identified in a Traffic Impact Analysis and included within the November I Staff Report: 1. Construct an additional left tum lane for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard. 2. Re -time the existing left turn signal on Highway 5 for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard. 3. Construct an additional left tum lane for northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5. 4. Install a traffic control signal at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Park Road. 5. Increase the length of the left tum on northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5. 6. Install tum lanes and a raised median within Park Road. We understand that none of the above improvements are included in the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan and Walmart has agreed to make these improvements at its cost if the development is approved. PARKING Walmart prefers to build only the number of parking stalls needed for a store and has been looking for ways to shrink its parking lots, in part in recognition of the environmental impacts from large parking lots. Prior to our original submittal, we prepared a parking study for this Site based upon other area Walmarts and determined that the Store would need 528 parking stalls. This will result in a 4.5 parking ratio, which will fall short of the City Code's requirement of 5.0 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area. The proposed 528 stalls includes a 15% contingency factor such that even on the busiest shopping day of the year, "Black Friday," it is anticipated that there will still be an excess of 79 stalls in the parking field. The revised Site Plan provides the number of stalls required by the parking study and the revised Site Plan reduces the number of compact stalls from 25% to 18.6%. We ask that the smaller parking lot be approved as part of the concept PUD approval. SITE ACCESS The Site has two access points on Park Road. The revised Site Plan shows that the eastern access drive has been shifted 50 feet to the west and now exceeds City spacing requirements. In addition, the tum lane taper has been moved west, and the curb radius entering the Site has been increased from 12 feet to 30 feet. To address potential stacking concerns, the west access has been revised to allow for approximately 150 feet of stacking, 20 feet greater than the stacking distance recommended in the Traffic Impact Assessment. Additional stacking has also been provided at the east access that also exceeds the required stacking that the Traffic Impact Assessment recommended. Staff was concerned about potential U -tum movements - many vehicles using the "right -out" at the eastern access may want to go to Powers Boulevard. The Traffic Impact Assessment projects that only 4 vehicles per hour are anticipated to use the "right -out" at the eastern access. To mitigate the potential for U-turns, the median on Park Road will include "No U -tum" signs. The Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD median and lane configurations for the proposed Site also appear to be similar in nature to the intersection of County Road 117 and West 78th Street, which is also located in a commercial area. The Staff Report identified a potential weaving issue between vehicles making a right turn out of the east access and vehicles making the right turn in to the west access. Due to the low volume of drivers projected to make the right tum movements (4 vehicles per hour), weaving is not anticipated to be an issue for this Site. Staff looked at aerials of more than 60 big box retail sites in the metro area and found two sites that have only two access points; the remaining sites had three or more accesses. Every retail Site is different based upon the proposed retail use, size, property configuration and natural features, surrounding streets and corresponding traffic. In the case of Chanhassen, the Traffic Impact Assessment found that the proposed access configuration operates acceptably. There are many "big boxes" in the Twin Cities metro area as well as around the country with one or two access points. Some examples in the Metro include: Costco in Eden Prairie, Best Buy in Eden Prairie, Target in Vadnais Heights, Super Target in St. Louis Park, Sam's Club in Bloomington, Home Depot in Bloomington, Gander Mountain in Woodbury, Fleet Farm in Oakdale, and the Target in Chaska. Additionally, we used the vehicle modeling program, Auto -Tum, to model the proposed truck route and found that truck traffic will not impede proposed vehicular parking areas. The Staff Report notes that parking is currently restricted on the north side of Park Road. The proposed modifications to Park Road will require that the south side of Park Road be a "No Parking" area as well. Employees of the IWCO property currently park on the south side of Park Road. We have discussed the proposed median on Park Road and the potential on -street parking restriction with the owners of IWCO and believe that IWCO supports the project, including the impacts to parking on Park Road. Finally, as to concerns about the west access drive's possible impacts to the vegetation on the western portions of the Site, please note that the proposed access location matches existing conditions. To improve sight distance, some of the existing sumac bushes will require removal or trimming, but no significant trees are anticipated to require removal to improve sight lines. GRADING The updated Site Plan increases the finish floor elevation to 932 feet and reduces the retaining wall heights on the west side of the Site to a maximum height of approximately 12 feet rather than 21.5 feet, which was proposed in the original plans. Note that the proposed retaining walls are all outside of the existing drainage and utility easement. WATER OUALITY; STORM WATER Under existing conditions, 5.3 acres of impervious surfaces discharge storm water to the adjacent wetlands without any treatment. The proposed plan will add approximately 3.4 acres of impervious surfaces, but will incorporate storm water treatment techniques such as rain gardens and underground storm water treatment, all of which will improve the quality of the water discharging from the Site and will exceed City requirements. We are enclosing a Preliminary Drainage Analysis for additional information. Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD f CONSERVATION AREAS — WETLANDS AND BUFFER AREAS The westerly portion of the Site will not be affected by the development. This area, approximately 3.75 acres, includes Riley Creek, wetlands, trees and natural vegetation. Walmart is willing to place the westerly portion of the Site into a permanent conservation easement to assure that these natural features are preserved. The Staff Report raised concerns about encroachments into the required wetland buffer areas. We are grateful for the feedback and have revised the plans accordingly. The revised_Site Plan now meets or exceeds the City's buffer requirements. The existing wetland buffers at the Site will be increased if the proposed development is allowed to proceed. The proposed retaining walls have been moved further to the east and are now shorter. Based upon a field investigation as part of the wetland delineation performed onsite and approved by the City Staff, the existing upland buffer adjacent to the existing parking lot contains a significant population of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), a non-native noxious weed species, that is an ecological threat to native habitats. As part of the proposed project, Walmart will remove the invasive species and plant new native species that will improve the function of the wetland buffer. As mentioned above, the proposed westerly access drive matches existing conditions. In order to improve sight distance, some of the existing sumac bushes will require removal or trimming, but no significant trees are anticipated to require removal. Additionally, no trees shading Riley Creek will be removed as part of the project and these trees will be preserved. LANDSCAPING The revised plans address the Staff Report's comments on landscaping in the following ways: o Parking Lot Landscaping: City Ordinances requires 8% interior landscaping in the vehicle use area. For this project, 20,238 square feet of interior landscaping is required. The revised plan included within this submittal provides 22,230 square feet of interior landscaping which exceeds City ordinances. o Foundation Landscaping: Planters have been added to the front of the store and landscaping has been added to the green space along store's perimeter. o Bufferyard Requirements: The proposed Site Plan has been updated to provide a minimum of 20 foot parking setback along the side and rear of the Site while maintaining 100% screening. The front yard setback also exceeds the City's requirement of 25 feet by providing a setback of at least 35 feet. o Native Landscaping: The revised plans do not impact the wetland area or wetland buffers. Walmart will remove the noxious weeds in the upland buffer and plant native vegetation to improve the buffers' functions. o Pervious hard surfaces in parking lot: The Site is comprised largely of clay and fine soils that are not suitable for infiltration. Pervious pavements are not effective under these conditions. There are many methods to treat storm water runoff and the revised plan incorporates such storm water treatment techniques as rain gardens and underground treatment. Please see the Preliminary Drainage Analysis for additional information. Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD !¢,M•p•Y 7-1 RY�YI N/ON`,Y • Ne, Al fq E i NNllmilrt.� I 'T 1n,ln er: ? I e11 h° \ �{.. i / �r.`,.��'� � r �.,..r •...+.'fix , sITE wTR ...,x....., n.,,.. ,, ...... LEGEND _® .,..., R es oma+ IJfllll�? nnw. PARR" w .s." ,......,....ee.,.+ '� II n .. «...«,� w v wwn ix w ' I fQWWRITAT[�0 ONE p �.L �:."`• — ! ALERT TO CONTRACTOR: 6040 v C C L. CC C C 1 11 Oil W ETLkAO DELINEATION I, NDTIUR IAIFPIl, ,,7LAN D DUFFER cL - 0 \ moi0 TRI,CKNOUT E,TR ETA cc Z) 1ll RINING NALL 6- �i F"E z 11FE 'L FI%IMJlA LL I Ul'... LE A, K 1 5D FAXI10� LIN— E _R F COMF��TPAII.N,DTALL3 III SIGN Walmal STORI IR 117,278sl 0 111 10; ----------- ------- DR. i LL -PARKROAD I�Ell ------ - ------- 71,�l:LIL ----- --- EIGH7 RAN Ll Y 11:004,1111p VERDI... ORINARENTALTRI LINSAPERIENINIALS All NAI AS D 11URS C E49TING TREE TO REMAIN Walmart SITE PLAN U, CHANHASSEN, VIN NOVEMBER 2011 IdIL II ill 1 -KIDEEIRRNN4ECE8E --------------- IS IQ Klmley-Horn and Associates, Ina Front tlevation Rear uevauuli Riy 1 1% a-1 VV U ., Left Elevation WaImart November 7.'1, )0, i F:.m sr..M.io sawwe SI n 21 Hel ht $A Ft Totals Ft almart 3 5'-6' 29800 596.00 aNM4PM1am: 1 I'-6' 10258 102.58 Total: Nese Walmart �_-mw FNn $tivpbSMtl:Cf'N'rs I':J'+'pmbe121, 2011 '�L:L_�.. .,�.Pi J4:-1$ Walmart :;: November 21, 2011 Chanhassen. MN 5949-0O Fran Sovm a SlLL - a-------- - Ferr.recrpve ' 4 Em" NORTH NATURAL RESOURCES Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 75 150 Feet Walmart:;: November 21. 2011 C^.anhasser.. �eNe s9�4 �mnsws.m smm. r R Legend _ - Property Boundary (14.1 acres) Welland Preservation Area (2.33 acres) Upland Preservation Area (1.63 acres) - g 1 R 1 � v 0 PARK ROAD Y)lFQV `!*) t..pi 1 � 19 .tea 4�� I. i i r '' 1 z" 'i•,.�c - ✓: Aj f 1 r S � 1 WETLAND AND UPLAND NORTH Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 0 75 150 PRESERVATION AREAS MMMMMMC:Z_=Feet ot"Esc)4 Minnesota Department of Transportation 0 YY b< Metropolitan District s yo Qo� Waters Edge �'ovrnv`'e 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113.3174 August 11, 2011 Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Wal-Mart, Mn/DOT Review # Sll-036 SW Quad of TH 5 (Arboretum Blvd.) and Powers Blvd. City of Chanhassen/Carver County Control Section 1002 Dear Mr. Generous: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Wal-Mart Traffic Impact Analysis (TTA). Because of the general nature of this plan Mn/DOT is not able to provide comments concerning issues such as drainage or design. As plans are developed, we would like the opportunity to meet with our partners and to review the updated information. Mn/DOT's staff has reviewed the document and has the following comment: Traffic.- The raffic.The traffic impact analysis only examines the PM peak period. The AM peak period is more critical for this location since there is a heavy westbound left turning movement opposing a high eastbound volume heading inbound in the morning. Additionally, congestion in the AM peak period may become more significant when Wal-Mart begins operating 24 hours per day. Mn/DOT conducted fuming movement counts at TH 5/Powers Blvd. on 9/25/08. The turning movement counts completed for this traffic impact analysis have a date of 2/8/11. Mn/DOT's counts were significantly higher, especially the PM eastbound turning movement - 916 vehicles versus 715. This can likely be attributed to the time of year in which the counts were taken. In the 2030 build options the intersection falls into an unacceptable LOS E. Indeed, queues for motorists turning left, block both the northbound and westbound approaches. The TIA recommended monitoring the surrounding growth in the long term in consideration of a dual left for both eastbound and westbound traffic. As stated previously, our concern is for westbound motorists turning left. Based on our 9/25/11 turning movement counts, this problem should be addressed in the short term. Mn/DOT would like to meet with the City of Chanhassen to discuss possible funding options for the needed improvements. An equal opportunity employer Mn/DOT agrees with the TIA recommendation of installing a signal at Powers Blvd and Park Rd (when it is warranted). Along with the signal installation at Park Rd. the three signals on Powers (at Park Rd, TH 5 and W 78ai St.) should be interconnected and have cross coordination plans implemented with the current TH 5 system. For questions concerning these comments, please contact David Sheen (651-234-7824) of Mn/DOT Metro's Traffic Section. Permits: Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at http://www.doi.state.mn.us/utility/ Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Standard Submittal Statement: As a reminder, there are four submittal options. Please submit either: 1. One (1) electronic pdf version of the plans. Mn/DOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us provided that each separate e- mail is less than 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: Mn/DOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disk. 4. Plans to Mn/DOT's external FTP Site. Please send pdf files to: :// 2.dot.state.mn.us/ ub/incomin etroWatersEd e/Plaunin Internet Explorer doesn't work using Rp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews dotO,state.mn us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651)234-7794. Sincere , Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy sent via E-Mail: Arash Moin, Water Resources Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Nicole Peterson, Area Engineer David Sheen, Traffic Ann Braden / Metropolitan Council Paul Oehme, City of Chanhassen - aoehme0d.chanhassen.mmus August 19, 2011 Carver County ft bCu Works ..ninistratnui Par�3 113607ffghway 212Engineering Suite 1 ?ligliway Maintenance Cologne, MN 55322-8016 Equipnent Maintenance (Phone (952)466-5200 Tax(952)466-5223 ,SnnvyingdAtapping Paul Oehme, City Engineer City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: WalmartTIA Dear Mr. Oehme: After reviewing the Walmart Traffic Impact Analysis we offer the following comments. • We agree that a signal should be installed at CSAH 17 and Park Road. The County would require a full build out of turn lanes on Park Road, requiring right and left turn lanes both eastbound and westbound. We would not allow a split -phasing as shown in the analysis in place of a full build out. • We have requested in the past that the modeling include the signal at 78th Street to further understand any queuing impacts along CSAH 17. This analysis still does not include that intersection, and it is recommended with a build condition that the signals along CSAH 17 are interconnected and include a cross coordination pattern with TH 5. Due to the large volumes at the intersection at TH 5 and CSAH 17 and the analysis showing that the queues in the 2013 build condition would negatively impact the safety of CSAH 17 and TH 5 by reducing deceleration lengths within the turn lanes, the County recommends that in the build year the full recommended geometric improvements at the intersection of TH 5 and CSAH 17 be constructed. This would include dual left turns on all approaches at the intersection of TH 5 and CSAH 17. AS you know, we are in the process of finalizing our development review process and want to thank you for the opportunity to review this project early in the process. We will require further review as the project moves along and look forward to working with you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions, 952-466-5208. Sincerely, Kate Miner, PE Carver County Traffic Engineer Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Memorandum To: David Cox, AIA Walmart Stores, Inc. From: Brian Smalkoski, P.E., AICP, PTP, PTOE William Matzek, P.E., CPESC, LEED AP Date: March 23, 2011 Subject Walmart 5949-00 Chanhassen, MN March 23, 2011 ■ SLAB 238N 255OUrhu*As West SL Pal. Wes* 55114 INTRODUCTION Walmart Supercenters follow a variety of design variations, typically ranging from approximately 90,000 to 220,000 square feet. At around 120,000 square feet, the proposed Chanhassen Supercenter represents a relatively compact footprint for a discount store that includes a fidl-service grocery department. Classified as free-standing discount superstores (Land Use 813) by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Walmart Supercenters typically utilize independent trip and parking generation rates from the more general free- standing discount store classification (Land Use 815), which do not include full- service grocery departments. Parking Generation, 4* Edition`, published in 2010 by ITE, includes only a single parking generation study of a discount superstore. Carried out on a Wednesday in mid-April, the observed peak parking demand ratio for the 220,000 square -foot site was found to be 1.85 vehicles per 1,000 square feet gross floor area (GFA). Due to the lack of available data for Saturday parking generation rates at compact discount superstores, it was necessary to conduct counts at local sites in order to establish reasonable parking generation rates for a typical Saturday in December at the proposed Chanhassen, MN Walmart Supercenter. PARKING STUDY A total of three sites located in the Minneapolis -Saint Paul metropolitan area were selected for analysis. Each site, located in Apple Valley, Bloomington, and Eden Prairie, respectively, was originally constructed as a standard Walmart store, and underwent expansion during 2009-2010 to allow for the inclusion of a full-service grocery department With an average size of 142,000 square feet, the three sites studied were 118,000, 121,000, and 188,000 square -foot Supercenters, post -expansion. Parking supply at each site was calculated at 5.0, 5.0, and 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA, respectively, for a weighted average of 4.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. Ten hourly independent field counts were ■ Ili 651 66 41N FAX 65166 5116 SCANNED ❑�❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc March 23, 2011 conducted on Saturday, February 19, 2011, at each of the three sites between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Although demand never exceeded the effective supply of parking, snow storage reduced the observed February parking supply at each site by 30%, 32%, and 10%, respectively. The peak hour of demand was unique at each site, with the average peak hour falling between 2 and 3 p.m. The final results of the parking study documented Saturday maximum demand ratios of 2.54, 2.83 and 2.37 vehicles per 1,000 square feet GFA. This represents an average ratio of 2.58 vehicles per 1,000 square feet GFA with a standard deviation of 0.23. Final results of the parking study, formatted to represent standard ITE documentation, are provided in Figure 1. Land Use: 813 Free -Standing Discount Superstore Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. 1,000 sq. ft GFA On a: Saturday (Non -December) statistic Peak Period Demod Peak Period 100-200 .m; 200-300 m;400 -5W pm NmbaofStudySia 3 AwmE SQ of Suidy Sts 142000 itGFA Awmgc Peak Period Pmking Delmrd 2.58lehcles per 1,000 sq. R GFA Standard Deviation 0.23 cocBuem orvar®tun 9% LUM 2-37-2.83 %elicks per 1,000 . R GFA 85th Per n* 2.74 rehcR 33rd Peeerk 2.48 wlic Saturday Non -December Peak Period Parking Demand 0 20 40 60 a0 100 120 140 1W 180 200 a=1,000 R Ont ♦ Aetwl Data Pits Figure 1 - Parking Study Resuds Kimley-Horn ❑ and Associates, Inc March 23, 2011 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The parking study conducted in February represents a snapshot of potential parking demand for a new site, and it is necessary to take into account additional correction factors, depending on the planning objectives for the site: • Seasonal Variation — Consumer spending fluctuates throughout the year, and much like a shopping center, free-standing discount superstores exhibit changing trip generation rates month-to-month. Figure 2, which represents changing trip generation rates by month for shopping centers in the United States, demonstrates that parking lot design is heavily dependent upon the design month of interest. This is typically either an "average" month, the non -December peak month, or December, the month with peak demand. Monthly Variation in Shopping Center Parking Demand ISM . rws rfeu o 22" F 11aS 9Re 8PF u '" fiat 50% E7 ManMle Figure 2 - Monthly Variation in Shopping Center Traffic° • Effective Parking Supply — The Urban Land Institute defines effective parking supply as the number of occupied spaces at optimum operating efficienc?". Parking lots are typically perceived as full at less than the actual total capacity, generally around 85-95 percent occupancy. To prevent driver frustration and reduce time spent searching for open spaces, it may be necessary to take this factor into account during parking lot design. • Snow Storage — Depending on site location, snowfall may have a significant effect on usable parking supply for three to five months out of the year. It is often necessary to take this into account in the design stage, or develop contingency plans such as contracted snow removal services. ®® Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc March 23, 2011 Shared Parking — Some sites have the potential to utilize shared parking, particular if the peak hours of demand for each of the land uses have no overlap. Schools and churches, for example, are often compatible for shared parking reductions, and certain retail and restaurant uses may exhibit offset peak hours. All of these factors potentially play a role in the ultimate parking demand for the site, and adjustments to average observed parking demand ratios must follow from specific design objectives for the site and context sensitivity to the surrounding communities. The Chanhassen Supercenter will be located in a suburban industrial setting with no nearby street parking. As such, it may be necessary to plan for peak seasonal demand to prevent yearly parking spillover problems during the holiday shopping season. By planning for absolute peak demand, however, there will be an oversupply of parking for the remaining 11 months out of the year, making the application of additional factors such as snow storage or effective parking supply impractical. In such a case, it is reasonable to take the calculated average observed parking demand ratio, and correct for seasonal variation to obtain a design ratio for a December peak month: Parking Supply Ratio = Observed Demand / Seasonal Factor Seasonal Factor =0.85/1.49=0.57 (February to December Peak) = 2.58 / 0.57 = 4.5 In the calculation, a seasonal variation factor of 0.57 is used to account for the time of year in which the parking study was conducted (February) relative to parking demand during the peak month of December. Parking generation rates at shopping centers in February represent about 85% of the demand during a typical month, and 57% of the demand during December. December demand is typically around 149% of the demand for a typical month. These seasonal adjustment factors, when taken together, allow for a final recommendation of a supply ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA, which will provide adequate parking for the peak month during the year, December. K:\TVC_LDEV\WALMAR'n70419-0\DOCS\PARKMG STUDY\Walmart Parking Study Memo Chanhassen Final.docx ' Parking Generation, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. ' Smith, Mary S. Shared Parking, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, 2005. Page 14. Smith, Mary S. Shared Parking, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, 2005. Page 3. f 7 1 LEGEND gmovo cwwcre ucau , y' 111} i. I I ' iii � o i � I I fie n 6f `JiL I ti�f7 - PARK ROAD = I �op tl�i H • m f C , ao z 7 a 2 3 z I NOR i z Of WCO� 1 q maw 1 � op , I 7 mLD'-2�o n+n sn. c\rt�aNwurTwrnc\�wn`Fa9rs\orsa\�-u.ran-b a � u n wv.�auM o-� mart uMntrdrz li4vl w. rA mr xrY� M e'r.+vi I I I OeM TI STORE#5949-00 IIMPR VO EMEHT EXHIBIT 1 1 1 1 1 0 Traffic Impact Analysis Walmart (Store #5949-00) Chanhassen, Minnesota Prepared for: Walmart Stores, Inc. Bentonville, Arkansas Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota CKirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. May 2011 116199062 C=" Kimley-Horn IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINand Associates. Inc. 1 1 1 1 Traffic Impact Analysis Walmart (Store #5949-00) Chanhassen, Minnesota Prepared for: Walmart Stores, Inc. Bentonville, Arkansas Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: Brian R. Smalk i, P.E. License No. 47531 Date: S I?a I Z,Q l I I 1 I I L 1 1 0 I 1 Kimley-Horn Walmart (Store #5949-00) and Asslaciates. Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Chanhassen. Minnesota Introduction Walmart Stores, Inc. is proposing the construction of a new store, number 5949-00, near the southwest quadrant of the Arboretum Boulevard (Trunk Highway 5) and Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) intersection in Chanhassen, Minnesota (see Figure 1). The project is anticipated to be completed by the year 2013, and will include retail and grocery land uses on a vacant industrial parcel. The proposed development site plan is shown in Figure 2. The purpose of this report is to document the anticipated traffic impacts that the change in land use at the proposed Walmart site will have on the surrounding roadway network intersections. This traffic impact analysis (TIA) represents a review of traffic impacts of the project, based on land use and site plan information, and is intended to identify the key traffic issues associated with the project. This TIA documents the existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site, estimates the traffic anticipated to be generated by the project, distributes and assigns these trips to the adjacent roadway system, and evaluates the traffic operations of key intersections near the site and those providing access to and from the site. In order to have a basis of comparison, a "no -build" analysis was completed for each future scenario that includes the general background growth on the adjacent roadways as well as traffic generated by other possible development adjacent to the project. Based on the analysis, the TIA evaluates roadway and/or traffic control mitigation measures to accommodate future traffic levels in the system and whether these mitigation measures are triggered by background growth or the proposed project. May 2011 't a L + ♦ � R _ . N FIGURE 1: Site Location o loo 20o GW Feet !MPI Kim!ey-Han m and Associates, Ira-,. .1 V".4 I rl I t I I LLUW f FIGURE 2: Site Plan Y� / MFJ KrnIey+Iorn i= and Associates, Inc. ZJ S-44 K., A '. --, .1 V".4 I rl I t I I LLUW f FIGURE 2: Site Plan Y� / MFJ KrnIey+Iorn i= and Associates, Inc. toStore 95949 00 I Kimley-Horn Walmart t l y 'z Traffic Impact Analysis and Associates. Inc. f.ha.h.ee. „ Study Area The project site is bounded by Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) on the north, Powers Boulevard on the east, and Park Road on the south. The proposed development will include an up to 120,209 square -foot Walmart store. Current nearby land uses are a mix of office and industrial. Access to the site will be provided via the two existing driveways on Park Road, with a southbound tum lane constructed on the west driveway. The segment of Park Road between Powers Boulevard and the west driveway will be reconfigured to accommodate westbound right turn lanes at the driveways as well as an eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard and a westbound left turn lane at the west driveway. A center median will divide the two directions of travel. Data Collection PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 and Wednesday, February 9, 2011 for the following study intersections: • Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) & Powers Boulevard • Park Road & Powers Boulevard (12 -hour count) • Park Road & East Driveway • Park Road & West Driveway Figure 3 displays the existing lane geometry and traffic control for the intersections in the study area. Figure 4 summarizes the existing turning movement volumes for the PM peak hour conditions; volumes were balanced among the four intersections. See Appendix A for the raw turning movement count data. May 2011 I I 1 1 1 I 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 J !I rt h � r}p S t. v.-,' 71 - J' Ji1L, is .r , ',fie'' ' >• C f ik � Fi-_ sw �5 �, . pis " FIGURE 4: 2011 Existing Turning Movement Counts o fao zoo xao /MFI Kindey-Han O Fees Kx PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and AssoCieles, inC. I Kimley-Horn walmart (store 95949-00) ' Traffic Impact Anatysis ;;rd Associates. Inc. Chanhassan, Minnesota ' Trip Generation ' The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 8'k Edition, was used to calculate the anticipated net new external project trips for the proposed development. A 120,209 square -foot free-standing discount superstore (land use code 813) was used to ' determine the total number of trips generated by the site. Total pass -by trip reduction was determined to be 28%. Of the total calculated pass -by trips, 70 percent, 20 percent, and 10 percent were assumed to originate on Arboretum Boulevard, Powers Boulevard, and Park Road, respectively. ' Existing non -vehicular travel was examined in the TMCs and determined to be negligible; therefore, no reductions were made for transit use or pedestrian travel. The trip generation for the proposed project with adjustments for pass -by trips is shown in Table 1. The proposed site is anticipated to generate 554 trips (271 entering, 283 exiting) for the PM peak hour. 1 1 j May 2011 r M .9 Table i 'tripUneralion YM Peak Hour -- — _Net pass- Now %Total pass -by Yas s-bv h]tc nal Lana TaH Yas s-bY Pass -by, Trips Trial Tri xs 'I'otnl I hntcr blit Use4 /and the 'I'vi Size Units Formula '1'rl 611er !Wt Filer Erit 813 Fn:c-Stmtdut wuni Su crstorc ¢0209 KSF T-...... 554 271 283 28.0'i I55 7fi 79 taw 195 204 .9 lmart 00) .;P' =71 Khley-Horn weTraficstoatAnal-ss ' ssn, Analysis - � : c3ntj Asst:�lateS. Irx. Chanhassen. Minnesota ' Future Traffic Projections t Project buildout is expected to be in 2013. Linear growth of 1.8 percent per year was applied to the counts to obtain background traffic for the year 2013. This growth is based on historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) on Powers Boulevard and Arboretum ' Boulevard since 2001. The 2013 no build peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5. ' To obtain background traffic estimates for 2030, however, it was determined that 1.8 percent linear growth per year was an unreasonable estimate over a 17 year period. Instead, average annual growth on Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard was obtained from the Carver County Travel Demand Model over the 30 year period from 2000 to 2030 due to its basis in census data, local comprehensive plans, and established estimates. A linear growth of 0.5 percent per year was determined and then applied to the ' balanced 2013 estimates to establish a baseline estimate for 2030. t Growth from demand model largely represents long term regional trends, however, and does not provide reliable estimates for traffic growth at individual intersections due to the development of specific parcels. Based on discussions with the City of Chanhassen, it ' was determined that traffic from five nearby parcels, using square -footage and development type estimates, would be added to the 2030 baseline estimate to establish a ' final estimate for 2030 background traffic. One development, located near the Powers Boulevard / TH 212 interchange, represents a revision to the original estimates used within the Carver County Travel Demand Model. The assumed PM peak period trips based on single family residential were subtracted from the total trips calculated based on the revised land use scenario (commercial and office), to represent a land use change from the regional demand model rather than an entirely new development. Peak trip ' generation estimates for each parcel is provided in Table 2, with the location of each site shown in Figure 6. 1 1 The net trips anticipated to be generated in the PM peak hour by the surrounding development were calculated and distributed onto the roadway network (discussed below), and added to the 0.5% per year background growth from 2013 to 2030. The resultant total background growth in the study area therefore varies by intersection, ranging from 1.6 percent per year linearly on Arboretum Boulevard up to 4.1 percent per year linearly on Powers Boulevard. Total off-site trips are shown in Figure 7. The 2030 no build peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 8. May 2011 Table 2 O1" ite'Frip Generation PM Peak hour Pass-bY Net New % Total Pass -by Puss -4 External Land Total Pass -by Pass -by Trips Trips '17ti Total Enter blot Use Land Use Tv • Size Units Formula Trips Einer Esi1 'fri Enter Flit 814 Specialty Retail Cmncr 22.350 KSF 'r -= 2.40(X) 1 21.48 75 33 42 0% U 0 0 75 33 42 814 Specialty Retail Center 32,800 KSF T= 2.40(X1. 221.48 100 44 56 - 0% U U 0 100 44 56 110 General light Industrial 221.000 KSF T -0.97(X) 214 26 188 00i 0 U U 214 26 188 630 Clinic 28.980 KSF T --5.18(X)' 150 62 88 0% 0 U 0 150 62 88 710 anicral Office 948000 KSF T - 1.12(X) '78.81 1.141 14i 947 0% U 0 0 1.141 194 1 947 820 Shopping Center 40G.()U KSF Lu(r)= 11.6' X'3.37 1.627 797 830 0% 0 0 U 1.627 797 830 21 0 Sin Ic-F'tanil Detached Housing 132.000 Acres 'r 2.74(X) m. I' 1 0% 0 0 U ' Uxing dirc<uunal uisi ri,.iun hom tri, cw, v.. employee, P.M peak ram 2.415 917 2.028 0°/ 0 0 0 2.945 917 2029. a F n, LU 814 9 1w Sw 11100 _) 948.000 sq. ft. LU 220 406.000 sq. ft. REMOVED: 0-11 (LU 210) (132 Acres) FIGURE 6: Additional Future Development PP'Myj K rdei-Hon, i m and Associates, Inc. y PP'Myj K rdei-Hon, i m and Associates, Inc. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G 1 1 I fl 1 1 I 1 I- L I� 11 1 I 1 E K'nley-Horn i® and Associates, Inc. Project Trip Distribution Walmart (Store 6949-00) Traffic Impact. Malysis The project trip distribution is based on selected zone analysis from the Carver County Travel Demand Model, which represents a refined version of the Metropolitan Council's demand model for the Twin Cities region. As shown in Figure 9, the proposed site is located in TAZ 142.3, which includes a region bounded by Hazeltine Boulevard on the west, Arboretum Boulevard on the north, and Powers Boulevard on the east. After assigning trips to the network, vehicles originating from or heading to the TAZ on each of the 10 roadways (or centroid connectors) shown in the figure were measured to calculate a daily distribution for both the 2000 and 2030 analysis years. Results were then interpolated between the two base years to estimate distribution for the 2013 analysis year. By adding trips to and from the north (lines 1, 2, 9, and 10), to and from the east (line 3), to and from the south (lines 4, 5, and 6), and to and from the west (lines 7 and 8), the final directional distribution was established for the site. Figure 10 shows the final assumed trip distribution for the project, with 35 percent to the east, 20 percent to the north, 20 percent to the west, and 25 percent to the south. 10 percent of the trips to the west and 10 percent of the trips to the south were assumed to use Park Road west of the site. Trip distribution for the four surrounding off-site parcels contained within TAZ 142.3 was assumed the same as for the Walmart site, with slight assignment modifications based on location. For the modified parcel located near TH 212, trip distribution was analyzed for TAZ 146, which contains the proposed development, showing that approximately I I% of the trips to and from the development utilized Powers Boulevard. Estimated project trips, shown in Figure 11, were then added to 2013 and 2030 no build traffic conditions, along with corrections for pass -by trips, as shown in Figure 12. The final traffic estimates for the build condition are shown in Figures 13 and 14 for 2013 and 2030, respectively. May 2011 15 h rrr__rrrrrr �1421 N 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet FIGURE 9: Selected Zone Analysis -- TAZ 0oundary — — Centrad Connector EM" Kimley-Horn and Associates, Irc. ' l l N 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet FIGURE 9: Selected Zone Analysis -- TAZ 0oundary — — Centrad Connector EM" Kimley-Horn and Associates, Irc. 7 Pa'k Road 0 100 200 4W Feet 4 . to Vim. if! 7 Pa'k Road 0 100 200 4W Feet MEN -up", FIGURE 10: Site Trip Distribution xx Trip Distribution Percentage PP'Mn Kidey4iGrn 111h, = and Associates, Iric. I u 1 I [-1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 G 1 1 I I 11 I I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I Kimley-Horn 'Nalmalt(Store #5949-00) 3 and Associates, Inc. ChanhanhNmpsUAnto hassen Minnesota Level of Service Analyses Intersection level of service (LOS) analyses were performed for each of the intersections within the study area using the signalized analysis methodology found in the Highway Capacity Manual (HC* and Trafficware's Synchro/SimTraffic version 7. Each intersection was analyzed for PM peak hours for the following scenarios: • 2011 existing traffic conditions, • 2013 no build (without project trips) conditions, • 2013 build (with project trips added) conditions, • 2030 no build (without project trips) conditions, and to 2030 build (with project trips added) conditions. One of the primary measures of effectiveness used to evaluate intersection traffic operations, as defined in the HCM, is level of service (LOS) --a qualitative letter grade (A through F) based on seconds of vehicle delay due to the traffic control device at an intersection. By definition, LOS A conditions represent high-quality operations (i.e., motorists experience very little delay or interference) and LOS F conditions represent very poor operations (i.e., extreme delay or severe congestion). This study used the LOS D/E boundary as an indicator of satisfactory traffic operations. Figure 15 displays the LOS thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. loo 90 80 70 L Fso 00 50 N o 40 a30 20 to 0 ■ May 2011 Figure 15. Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Criteria. Slwaliz" Umi9nallaed I 1 1 1 I 1 1 PP' M F\ Kimley-Hom walmart (Score #5949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis ' 1 ® and Associates, Iric. Chanhassen, Minnesota It was assumed that for the future scenarios an intersection with unsatisfactory operations should be addressed through signal timing modifications, or if that was not possible, through implementation of an intersection or roadway improvement. In order to determine the impacts of the project on the transportation network, a traffic operations analysis was performed on the internal and surrounding roadway network. The ' analysis process included determining level of service and queue lengths at each of the study intersections for existing, no build and build conditions. Supporting SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix C. For each scenario, five one-hour simulations were ' conducted in SimTraffic. In each of the following sections, a description of potentially unsatisfactory operational characteristics is summarized for each scenario modeled. For each scenario a table is included where the intersection level of service and delay is summarized. The SimTraffic ' reports were reviewed to identify individual movements that experience unsatisfactory level of service and delay or queue lengths_ that are anticipated to extend beyond available ' storage lengths. Only in instances where an individual movement experiences an unsatisfactory measure of effectiveness will the movement information be summarized. 2011 Existing Operations Table 3 provides 2011 level of service (LOS) results for the existing conditions. All ' intersections within the study area operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS A. A total of six movements ' operate at LOS E, with average delays per vehicle summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 63 seconds * Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 75 seconds ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 68 seconds ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 73 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 66 seconds At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, the signal is timed such that the through movements on Arboretum Boulevard are maintained at LOS C, with lower LOS on ' Powers Boulevard, the lower volume side street. All left tum queues are contained within the available storage lengths and no blocking by queues in adjacent lanes is expected. The delays associated with the LOS E or F movements are not associated wi operational problems at the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. I May 2011 23 9 W�nart (Store #5949-00) Kimley Hom Traffic Impact Analysis and Associates. Inc. Chanhassen. Minnesota Table 3 — 2011 Existing Conditions 2013 No Build Operations Table 4 provides 2013 level of service (LOS) results for the 2013 no build scenario, using background linear growth from 2011 to 2013 of 1.8 percent per year. The simulation assumes the same signal timing plan at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard as under existing conditions. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS A. A total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E, with average delays per vehicle summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 65 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 76 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 68 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 70 seconds At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, the through movements on Arboretum Boulevard are maintained at LOS D or C, with lower LOS on Powers Boulevard, the lower volume side street. All left turn queues are accommodated within the available storage lengths and no blocking by queues in adjacent lanes is expected. The delays associated with the LOS E movements are not representative of operational problemsay the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. 1(�r�(/ May 2011 24 I 1 I H I 2111 PM Peak Hour 4R iwn OpnNipn 6y MeremeM Ow flu >.dkm APWna wue3 We Mou t kRwwgy„ COnRG Ate, Sub w" � OCw aeL" 0eW Way Perwmie 6eNwn1 LOS LOS llsegw6l IwJwM LOS (wOwR1 LOS IWnAI LOS 310 610 21.9 C 4A A 302 C Mtronwm48. 225' 2S0 34.9 C 39 A 33.0 C •,dA Si 360 D Pwiws RPd 130' 236 56.1 31 A 504 0 lair 23.1 66.3 29 A 416 0 0 9.6 A 115 B 5.1 A 3.2 A Park Rd6 0 10.4 B 331 B 5.1 A 73 A Pq,HSRM TV SC tor{ 4P 25 A 09 A 5.1 A 19 A 3) A 58 25' 4.6 A 3.1 A 3b A 3.3 A ParkU& E8 O 06 A 01 A Me A East nNSC we o 1.6 A 0.4 A - - 0.2 A Oriww9 M P SJ A 3o A 3.3 A 09 A SB 0 Park RdR E8 b 02 A OJ A 02 A W. IwSC we O 20 A as A - - 0.9 A Oriw�9 M 0 Ss A 2.9 A 2b A 3.6 A Io A SO 0 3.1 A 3.1 A 2013 No Build Operations Table 4 provides 2013 level of service (LOS) results for the 2013 no build scenario, using background linear growth from 2011 to 2013 of 1.8 percent per year. The simulation assumes the same signal timing plan at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard as under existing conditions. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS A. A total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E, with average delays per vehicle summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 65 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 76 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 68 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 70 seconds At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, the through movements on Arboretum Boulevard are maintained at LOS D or C, with lower LOS on Powers Boulevard, the lower volume side street. All left turn queues are accommodated within the available storage lengths and no blocking by queues in adjacent lanes is expected. The delays associated with the LOS E movements are not representative of operational problemsay the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. 1(�r�(/ May 2011 24 I 1 I H I I 1 1 I 1 KirnleyHorn Walmarl (Store X5449-0(1) Traffic Impact Analysis and Associates, Inc. Chanhassen, Minnesota Table 4 — 2013 No Build 2013 Build Operations Table S provides 2013 LOS results for the 2013 build scenario, based on background traffic plus trips associated with the Walmart parcel. The simulation assumes the same signal timing plan at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard as under existing conditions. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS C or better. A total of eight movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays for the LOS E movements summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 66 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 75 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 75 seconds The following movements are expected to operate at LOS F under the 2013 build scenario: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 174 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 260 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 55 seconds • Park Road & East Driveway northbound right: 494 seconds Operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2013 no build levels, with increased delay to the westbound left and northbound left movements. The northbound left turn queue is anticipated to extend beyond the 230 foot ' s May 2011 25 au nD etl•D • rr r9afl nwr left Tum DpVibON b/WwMeM w:ws LM APPmaA QTtV NI@MRun ImtltMbn fnnVM Apprwq 95t9 Dela Oep'v DelaE 4r Delry oetnnttr IuJWeI Eos Eos I+AJunl IuJunl los DeJuBI EOS IuJ•efll los E6 305' 64,5 R.A C A6 A 31.5 C Mboretum I WB 265' )5• T6 D A.l A 35.5 D P., L 5gna� A9 !AS' )4) fiB1 33 A ABI a 3).5 D SB IW 716 69.9 30 A 429 D 1� P Ila B 100 A 51 A 7.9 A Park RCB EWX WB P 97 A Its B 53 A ).1 A P. iil YC E• IF 73 A 10 A 55 A 20 A 3l A Sa W 5A A 31 A 36 A 3A A Pvt RC6 f9 P as A 01 A O6 A East 11VSC I we P I) A a A - 09 A OrivetaY ElB P 6.) A 30 A l5 A 10 A SB P Park RCB EB 03 A - 03 A WBA J14 OA A - 0.9 A A 6.) A )l A 3) A5B 09 Afl• A l9 A 2013 Build Operations Table S provides 2013 LOS results for the 2013 build scenario, based on background traffic plus trips associated with the Walmart parcel. The simulation assumes the same signal timing plan at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard as under existing conditions. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS C or better. A total of eight movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays for the LOS E movements summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 66 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 75 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 75 seconds The following movements are expected to operate at LOS F under the 2013 build scenario: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 174 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 260 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 55 seconds • Park Road & East Driveway northbound right: 494 seconds Operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2013 no build levels, with increased delay to the westbound left and northbound left movements. The northbound left turn queue is anticipated to extend beyond the 230 foot ' s May 2011 25 9 _.� Kimley-Horn / _ r and Associates. Inc. Walmart (Store #598900) Traffic Impact Analysis left turn lane, with a 95'h percentile queue of 396 feet. The adjacent through lane will also block access to the left tum lane, with a 95'h percentile queue of 563 feet. The westbound left tum queue is expected to fit within the tum lane; however, with a 95'h percentile queue of 598 feet and 630 feet of storage length, and a posted speed of 55 mph, left turning vehicles will need to begin decelerating in the adjacent through lane, delaying vehicles making the westbound through movement. At the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, the eastbound left tum movement is expected to operate at LOS F, due to increased volumes during the PM peak hour. Queuing from this movement is expected to block vehicles exiting the east driveway from the south, leading to LOS F on the northbound approach. As a low volume side street approach, it is likely that most vehicles will reroute and utilize the west driveway during the PM peak hour. No tum lane spillback or lane blocking is anticipated from any of the left tum lanes at the intersection. Table 5 — 2013 Build --- — — - 2013 Build - PM Ptak HADr -- --- ----- left twA OperMloiw b9 AaoWimM mond Oeery Mt..0" Approach Apprpa h ee.e. len Der Meant Ilmerueae Bath Dew Delar, pf1W DeW perontie IW eebi LOS -0-hi losEOSA T leweehl loft .eefeehi los EB l2D 6S6 25.5 CA C Nhprelum t,d8 y8m 9F0 60p' IAA 3).l 0 D F.&e IN M 195 260.1 A.6 Slw D 80 105' al) 74,9 N39 O EB 320' 553 169 C park Rd& w8 D 20A C 2217 C8 B Towers 0lW ��AB 69' 11A a 13 4A A 1]A B sB 10 >O A 36 AA A park 8d8 FB O. tl 23.5 CA 234 C Feu nI25C 0 - 06 AA 022l6 193.5 < Se I tl I f I 1 0.2 1 A 417 1 A pvk Bda E8 D 3.2 A .) A 19 A II A W., WB 25' 2.1 • 01 A Ds A 09 A OrirewaY MSC M tl 6.1 • 89 A 6a_ _ p 6.4 A _ 86 A 58 IOD 189 C 34 A IBA C 2013 Build Operations with Signal Installation and Optimization Table 6 provides LOS results for the 2013 build scenario, assuming the installation of a signal at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, as well as optimization of splits at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard. The simulation assumes an optimized timing plan Park Road and Powers Boulevard, with the signal operating with an 80 -second cycle length, half that of the 160 -second cycle at Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, to allow for coordination with the optimized splits at the major intersection. Although signal optimization removes approximately 6 seconds from the major street approaches, the signal remains coordinated along the TH 5 corridor, with minimal increases in delay. May 2011 26 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 yp� y l 'r =--- ' Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. Walmart (Store #5949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis rharhassen. Minnesota • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 62 seconds 1 • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 71 seconds 1 All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period with the two unsignalized intersections on Park Road operating at LOS A. Similar to the no build scenario, a total of six movements are expected to 1 operate at LOS E or F, with average delays for the LOS E intersections summarized as follows: 1 • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 71 seconds 1 At the signalized intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. With the signal in place, queues are anticipated 1 to clear during most cycles, allowing the northbound right -tum movement at the east driveway to operate at LOS A. 1 The delays associated with the LOS E or F movements are not associated with operational problems at the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. No geometric improvements are recommended, and the cycle length at 1 Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is expected to remain at 160 seconds to maximize the coordinated westbound and eastbound through movements. 1 1 iIII May 2011 27 1 • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 71 seconds 1 • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 69 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 62 seconds 1 • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 71 seconds The following movement is expected to operate at LOS F under the 2013 build scenario 1 with signal installation: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 87 seconds 1 Operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2013 no build levels, with increased delay to the southbound through movement. With 1 the signal timing modified, queuing and blocking issues are eliminated. The 95'h percentile queue for both the northbound left tum and through movements is reduced to 232 feet, which is easily accommodated within the taper of the 230 foot storage length. 1 The 95'h percentile westbound left tum queue is reduced to 340 feet, which leaves nearly 300 feet in the tum lane for vehicles to decelerate. 1 At the signalized intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. With the signal in place, queues are anticipated 1 to clear during most cycles, allowing the northbound right -tum movement at the east driveway to operate at LOS A. 1 The delays associated with the LOS E or F movements are not associated with operational problems at the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. No geometric improvements are recommended, and the cycle length at 1 Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is expected to remain at 160 seconds to maximize the coordinated westbound and eastbound through movements. 1 1 iIII May 2011 27 1 JW F1Klmley-Hom M and Associates. Inc. Table 6 — 2013 Build with Improvements Walmart (Store #5949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis Chanhassen. Minnesota a Laza.raw.nry.N,ivm BArom 6.pgemMe s9W enwN.m � Pal sar PdaR 2030 No Build Operations Split optimization was assumed under the 2030 no build scenario due to the significant increase in volume from surrounding off-site development, although the cycle length was assumed to remain at 160 seconds. Without split optimization, the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is anticipated to operate at LOS F, with queues propagating throughout the network. Table 7 provides 2030 LOS results for the no build scenario, using background linear growth from 2013 to 2030 of 0.5 percent per year, plus additional traffic associated with five parcels within the study area. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS C or better. A total of 13 movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E movements summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 66 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 71 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 76 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 43 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound through: 37 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 48 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound right: 41 seconds The following movements are expected to operate at LOS F under the 2030 no build scenario: May 2011 28 C 1 I Mill Build with Signal - PM Peak Hour Len turn owatiodd 6. Bro..'nem n9we. Len tNRleht APPro+n orera Nreruagn mlwmnloa Cenuw App9aA 9Nn oe6P Delay W" Oehl Pwo:m2e ILetlaenl Lob lur/9en1 l05 5W9eM LOS LOS ILWwnI LOS INMye6 LOS EB 315' 306 30.6 C 5.1 A 364 D W6ornum We 340' 313 41.4 D 4.1 A 39.2 D SWI 41.2 0 AS 1lD 6a) 62.1 43 A 43.2 0 Powarvs OM 3.3 A 524 D 56 105' 31.0 e).1 Ea 195' 133 C 13.3 C 33 A HIO 6 Park Rd 6 LPN we D 001 D 37A D t2 2 a 212 C P., Blvd NO 115' 270 C 9.6 A 60 A 13.4 B 132 0 is SO 113 B 6a A 60 A 66 A Park RdA ED 0 23 A OS A 23 A �s1 1WX We O Os A 06 A 06 Orlvmy 1M O 9.6 A 96 12 A Sfi 1l A 2.3 Pah RdB EB O 3.9 A O6 A 01 A 0.9 WA Wen M'SC WB 25' 1I A 0.2 A 06 A 0.90 19 A ).4 A 33 A 42SB 95' as A 25 A 6.3 a Laza.raw.nry.N,ivm BArom 6.pgemMe s9W enwN.m � Pal sar PdaR 2030 No Build Operations Split optimization was assumed under the 2030 no build scenario due to the significant increase in volume from surrounding off-site development, although the cycle length was assumed to remain at 160 seconds. Without split optimization, the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is anticipated to operate at LOS F, with queues propagating throughout the network. Table 7 provides 2030 LOS results for the no build scenario, using background linear growth from 2013 to 2030 of 0.5 percent per year, plus additional traffic associated with five parcels within the study area. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS C or better. A total of 13 movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E movements summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 66 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 71 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 76 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 43 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound through: 37 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 48 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound right: 41 seconds The following movements are expected to operate at LOS F under the 2030 no build scenario: May 2011 28 C 1 I I [-1 1 1 1 L I M / 1 Kriley-Horst M and Associates. Inc. Walmart (Store #5949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 96 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 116 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 96 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound through: 61 seconds • Park Road & East Driveway northbound left: 1 l5 seconds • Park Road & East Driveway northbound through: 102 seconds • Park Road & East Driveway northbound right: 100 seconds At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, the through movements on Arboretum Boulevard are maintained at LOS D or C, with lower LOS on Powers Boulevard, the lower volume side street. The northbound left turn queue is anticipated to spillback from the 230' left turn lane with a 95`h percentile queue of 332 feet. Access to the left tum lane is also anticipated to be blocked, with a 95" percentile queue of 394 feet in the adjacent through lane. Lane blocking may also occur on the westbound approach, with a 630 foot left turn lane and a 673 foot 951h percentile queue in the adjacent through lane. The 95'h percentile queue for the eastbound left tum is 470 feet, compared to a storage length of 550 feet. While the 951h percentile queue is contained within the storage length, there is little length remaining in which vehicles can decelerate. This results in left turning vehicles decelerating in the adjacent through lane, causing additional delay. Table 7 — 2030 No Build ------------- 2030 NO BWIA - PM Peak Now Lee Tern opsXNM6 RMerMna Mereeedd (pneal Nteraeclipn AP~Daen9 ypaaT .. LeftTRr RNMR— 95111 Decry M, Retry Dela, h M" IMC/eam LM I-Weehl los 1 -4 -hi los Iw/eehl Eos Ween tos EB 4711 9S6 359 D 49 A 065 D M6areNm &W & Stinal WB 370' 6S9 M.1 D de A 411 D pawva OM MB 3b' I15.7 710 46 A 50.7 0 q.1 0 S& 170' 763 95.S 3.4 A u's EB 0' 4b 36.& 30.6 0 36.8 Park Rd& new We V 477 60.5 405 43.1 Powers Blvd M 45' &6 A 1.9 A 52 A 2.7 A 116 B SB 60 8.4 A 33 A 3.7 A 4.1 A Pao Rd& M D 25.5 D 162 c 25.3 0 fora TwX WB D 19 A OS A - 0.7 A A& V LISA - 102.0 1003 Orirewey I&6 C 50 P Part Rd& V lb A 26 A Wgt lWK wB r 2.6 A OS A �Yew4Y M P 6A A 35 A 7.2 A 6.9 A 22 A 59 G 63 6.3 Qemral• /9qu1 Q/m.;3 ArpeeuaaMRasa 2030 Build Operations Table S provides 2030 LOS results for the build scenario, using the previously calculated 2030 background traffic volumes plus trips associated with the Walmart site. As with the 2030 no build scenario, split optimization was assumed at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, with coordination maintained using a 160 -second cycle. May 2011 29 PP' Kim and Walmart (Store 95949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis Chanhassen. Minnesota While the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is anticipated to operate at LOS D, as under the 2030 no build scenario, both of the driveways on Park Road are expected to operate at LOS F. This is the result of queuing on the eastbound approach at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, as in the 2013 build scenario. With the increase in traffic volumes between 2013 and 2030, the eastbound Park Road queue at Powers Boulevard is anticipated to block both the east and west driveways on Park Road. At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, LOS is maintained at a similar level to the 2030 no build scenario, but the travel demand at this intersection is, in effect, metered by the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard. A total of 20 movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F. Table 8 — 2030 Build Delarstatm d S9PaE $Ila ®M6aNin sq Po+ae 2030 Build Operations with Signal Installation Table 9 provides 2030 LOS results for the build scenario, assuming the installation of a signal at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard. The simulation assumes an optimized timing plan at Park Road and Powers Boulevard, with the signal operating with an 80 -second cycle length, half that of the 160 -second cycle at Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, to allow for coordination with the optimized splits at the major intersection. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the two unsignalized intersections on Park Road operating at LOS A. Similar to the 2030 no build scenario, a total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E intersections summarized as follows: May 201 1 30 1 1 1 2070 SWId • PM Peak Hour leaulu05 opnali O.elal MteefeO �wlue.emem LeR Appq wnaetlba Canlml Appraad t 9stA Deal Btlq Delq Debi Oelq P .tft I. /»nl lD& . W.enl hos bed -h) LOS I-V� los qbl los ES 890 lose 471 D 55 A Ss6 aW& L.1 WB 615' 7s6 563 50 A S23 0 $90 a5 A JOB 0 PwniOW Na 325 Bio SIA D SS 115' 36.6 911 35 A $7.7 E& 190 1913 26.5 0 94 A 1279 van A68 3W we 0 155.1 171.1 129.6131A 2A A 55 A a.0 A Pawns aW NB SO 12.7 0 J 0 56 M 0.1 B Ja A S.2 A 49 A NO 18& fa 0 116.2 40S 1855 Ea6 LwSC WB O 06 A I1 A 03 A Dermav NO 0 5729.1 5092.5 1257 SB d 92 A 9.2 A Part B86 Ea b MJ7 253.9 2919 2SS-1 Wn, Wa 20 2.2 A 02 A 0S A 08 A OH. y NO 0 6773 9650 MA 2512 SB 500' 1K&9 20 A le)bJ Delarstatm d S9PaE $Ila ®M6aNin sq Po+ae 2030 Build Operations with Signal Installation Table 9 provides 2030 LOS results for the build scenario, assuming the installation of a signal at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard. The simulation assumes an optimized timing plan at Park Road and Powers Boulevard, with the signal operating with an 80 -second cycle length, half that of the 160 -second cycle at Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, to allow for coordination with the optimized splits at the major intersection. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the two unsignalized intersections on Park Road operating at LOS A. Similar to the 2030 no build scenario, a total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E intersections summarized as follows: May 201 1 30 1 1 1 I 1 d d 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 PP`- 1Gm �... and Waknart (Store 45949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 72 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 65 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 79 seconds rhe following movements are expected to operate at LOS F under the 2030 build scenario with signal installation: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 104 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 122 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 113 seconds As with the 2030 build scenario, operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2030 no build levels. Left turn lane spillback is anticipated on the northbound approach, where the 95th percentile queue is 395 feet. The left tum lane will also be blocked by the 479 foot queue in the adjacent northbound through lane. Some blocking will also occur on the westbound approach, which has a 630 -foot left turn lane but the 95D' percentile queue in the adjacent lane is 795 feet. Also, there is little space for deceleration in the eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. The 951h percentile queues for the westbound and eastbound left turns are 605 feet and 465 feet, respectively, compared to storage lengths of 630 feet and 550 feet, respectively. At the signalized intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. With the signal in place, queues are anticipated to clear during most cycles, allowing the northbound right -tum movement at the east driveway to operate at LOS A. Table 9 — 2030 Build nrpmem4rtw, Wme[[tMtl=9w $Ph BANar[ Irrp'prpnMa 5giy Nslfls'pn.� psN erEPWe[s May 2011 31 2010 auikl with Signal • PM Peak Ha[r Left Turn Oae mM EM MPeeM4M IMufeabn CPntM atAt6 NttnNM 2191r9fA ApMyA Queues Lin ne"e" 95 0 °� Didar Dow MMMie tao/rl LOS lM l+eM[/y LOS P LM + LOS EB 465' IND 48.0 D 5.5 A S5.2 kWre[um MW Si00a1 wa 605' 22.0 52.6 0 49 A 49A 0 P. Med M 395' 122.1 N.S 6.6 A 503 D 533 D sa BP 2(S I12a 50 A 60.3 Ea 2M' 306 C 19.2 0 42 A 212 C Psrk AEa s we O 45a 0 50.■ 0 26.4 C Rb C pci a NM 8^ al as t4a lS2 D 15.2 I 65 A 103 ° 1)2 ° % IM' 29D C 23 A 63 A 93 A Park Pah Ea O 26 A as A 2.6 A FaE[ PNSC WB a - 02 A 0.6 A 0.6 A Orr..' M O 103 C I6.1 C _ 3 A 5a O 1 SO 1 A if SA i A Park AEI E0 a 22 A 0) A lA A 0.9 A Wes[ M,u WB 40 2.5 A 03 A OS A 0.9 A Dri., NO a 2.2 A 65 A SD A 5.a A 5.1 A Is 14P - 126 a 3D 1 A 12.4 a nrpmem4rtw, Wme[[tMtl=9w $Ph BANar[ Irrp'prpnMa 5giy Nslfls'pn.� psN erEPWe[s May 2011 31 ® ® /® lcmley-Hom Walmart (Store #5949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis ® and Associates. Inc. Chanhassen, Minnesota 2030 Build Operations with Signal Installation and Dual Left Turn Lanes Table 10 provides 2030 LOS results for the build scenario, assuming the signal installation, split optimization, and the construction of double left turn lanes on both the eastbound and westbound approaches on Arboretum Boulevard. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the two unsignahzed intersections on Park Road operating at LOS A. Similar to existing conditions, a total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E intersections summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 80 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 67 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 77 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 57 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 76 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 76 seconds As with the 2030 build scenario, operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2030 no build levels. Left turn lane spillback and blocking is still anticipated on the northbound approach, with a 95`6 percentile queue of 347 feet for the left turn movement and 333 feet for the through movement. The left tum lane is 230 feet long and could not be lengthened without shortening the southbound left tum lane at the Park Road and Powers Boulevard intersection. Lane blocking is also anticipated on the westbound approach where the left tum lane is 630 feet long and the 95th percentile queue in the adjacent through lane is 709 feet. With the addition of the tum lanes, approximately 300 feet of storage length is available for deceleration in the eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. May 2011 I 11 L I I 1 J I 1 1 1 M Table 10-2030 Build with Improvements Walmart (Stare 05949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis e�w�.erMn A <.ynm,=aaIX+ IX syw �m 19.wmohrm as PM0 r,.�remem9 syw msr.�ra�o.� g Pao ana�e ImpOwmeMC FayDaMWvpN LeT�bDmelunr ar9 Pwvi inym�emeraD Wee2IXM Oap/e Le4$ANmervnaNlWn aY 251+ 33 20.70 Build with Signal - PM Peak How left Tem Operrtiw669 Maremen[ 4eaea left l6rwRlat4WMDarR pera6lMerY06w IMaa,ad r Con4PW AWaadr 95th way Deny Oela1 Oe6n 00" hr4Mh wM1 L� ser/whl LOS wM1 wSA LOS W 'ah lM ad ah LOS M M 195 398 D A 6.0 D Wa 3a0' 661 638 D a6 A all 0Mal M1B US' 167 "1 6a A 96.9 Da30 D 56 im 16.1 76A 3] A %a D E8 2W 11.1 C 187 0 4.1 A 216 C #E8 WS W 436 D 49S D 251 C 31.3 CMa� !iis' A6 C 16.0 6 66 A 164 8123 8 58IW' Db C 36 A 73 A 9.3 A tl 26 A LI A 28 A ry25C WB tl p.) A Ob A 0.1 A 2M O 219 C 21.9 C 22 A SB 0' A3 A 4.3 A Park R86 O l9 A 03 A 0.5 A 098 weu 1wY WB 35' IA A 0.3 A 06 A 0.9 A Wpm, M O 6.6 A 1.2 A SD A 56 A 41 A SB 130' 114 8 26 A till 6 e�w�.erMn A <.ynm,=aaIX+ IX syw �m 19.wmohrm as PM0 r,.�remem9 syw msr.�ra�o.� g Pao ana�e ImpOwmeMC FayDaMWvpN LeT�bDmelunr ar9 Pwvi inym�emeraD Wee2IXM Oap/e Le4$ANmervnaNlWn aY 251+ 33 ` Kimley-Horn Walmart (Stom #5949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis Ilk, M and Associates, Inc. Chanhassen, Minnesota Signal Warrant Analysis As demonstrated in the previous section, signal installation has the potential to significantly improve operations on Park Road, and the following section discusses signal warrant analysis methodology using the 13 -hour count conducted at Park Road and Powers Boulevard. Under the 2013 build scenario, which includes background traffic plus Walmart trips, a total of six hours are met for Warrant IA and two hours are met for Warrant lB. Additionally, two analysis hours are within 20 vehicles of satisfying Warrant IA. In all cases, the heaviest side street approach is the eastbound approach to the intersection, excluding right -turning vehicles. Table 11 presents the results for Warrants I A and I B. Table 11 — 2013 Signal Warrant Analysis vo.ea el.a u6 • se mMc ❑me V4rlea 1NaeM rwceest eaa goad E6 ).,Ilia lNiear 6yproacnl Najw Vd. warnmt IA NMor Vol. Me? MijMinor". Vol. wa,raz warnm) ig Mati Minor VW. Met?MaMinor Vol. Get T fim-)m app 8t 6m Zm 9pW 0 lm 51) )m-Bm 669 59 fim 2p0 91111 tm 2)4 162 am -am 761 M am 2m 91111 IN Nit Sb 9m -low s26 96 6m 200 9m IN a4) lam -11m 4% tfii fim 2m 9m im i1.m fi 222 fim mD YES m0 1m me I t?m-t].m B01 216 fim 2m M 9m IN 274 4@ 1]ep-ta op9 ,ap aM yOp me IN pp, 14:m -Ism 662 1m 600 20) 9m IN m4 15.m -18m _WI 862 2m 6m 200 YES NO IN 482 16Im 916 256 fim 21M M 9m IN M 427 1)m 18m 110) 2)] 6m M YES M tm YES m2 t6m-14m fist 215 Bm 200 YES 9m IN 6M Muaa Ma l4pae Hgaad CoeJeY, Mel+ 8 6 NO 2 6 NO 0 4 YO 0 4 MO In order to add in the additional trips associated with the surrounding parcels, daily trip generation values were calculated based on each site's anticipated ITE Land Use code, as shown in Table 12. Hourly distribution assumptions were then applied to each rate, and the calculated trips were then added to the appropriate approach at the Park Road and Powers Boulevard intersection based on the trip distribution values previously discussed. By 2030, including all background traffic associated with general regional growth as well as the five parcels identified, both Warrants I and 1 B are anticipated to be met, as shown in Table 13. May 2011 34 I I I 1 1] I C 1 m m= m== s= m== m m -rable 12 — Off -Site Trip Generation Dully Pass-b4 Net New % Total Paas -by Paas -by External Land Total Paas -by Paas -by Trips Trips Trl Use At Land Loc Type Size Units Formula Trip Fitter Exit rrip, Fnter Exit Total Faster Flit 813 Frec-Standaig D'is'count Supcmtorc 120.209 KSF In(T)=1.35 in(X)*2.11 5300 2,650 2,650 N/A U 0 0 5,300 2.650 2,650 814 Specialty Retail Center 2.0.350 KSF T _ 44.32(X) 991 496 495 N/A U 0 0 991 496 495 814 Specialty Retail Center 32.801) KSF T = 44.32(X) 1,454 727 727 N/A U U 0 1,454 727 727 110 Gcncrul Light Industrial 22 LOW KSF T -747(X)-101.92 1,549 775 774 N/A 0 0 0 1,549 775 774 630 Clinic 28.980 KSF T = 31.45(X) 911 456 455 N/A 0 0 0 911 456 455 710 General OlFrcc 948.000 KSF Li(T)=0.77 Ln(X)•3.65 7,539 3.770 3,769 OV. 0 0 0 7,539 3,770 3,769 820 Shopping Center 406.000 KSF Ln(T) = 0.651n(X) t 5.83 16,884 8,442 8,442 0% 0 0 0 16.884 8,442 8,442 210 Single -Family DLtachcd Housing 132000 Acres T=26.04(X) 1, 11) I718 1 0% 0 1 0 0 3:437 1.711) I,71X 31.191 15.597 15,594 N/A 0 0 U 31,191 15,597 15,594 o el. Q E3 O s� PP"'- = F1 Kim bh�1® and Table 13 — 2030 Signal Warrant Analysis Walmad (Store #5949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis Chanhassen. Minnesota Powers&Yd NB c7se Traffic Time Pedod (Major Approaches) Park Road FB Traffic (Minor Approach) Major Vol. to Minor Vol. Wanantl Mel? Major Vol. ig Minor Vol. Met? 6:00 - 7:00 480 93 600 200 tee 900 100 902 7:00 - 8:00 1090 73 600 200 100 900 100 604 8:00-9;00 1176 105 600 200 1 100 900 100 YES 9:00-10:00 841 126 600 200 100 900 100 s]0 10:00- 1100 B58 198 600 2110 tW 900 100 fib 1100-12:00 1060 279 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 1250-13:00 1309 273 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 13:00-14:00 1129 229 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 14:00 -15:00 1098 231 600 2(10 YES 900 100 YES 15:00-16:00 1322 292 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 16:00-1750 1353 327 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 17:00 -16:00 1672 345 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 18:00-1950 1034 291 600 200 YES 900 100 1 YES Ma a MN Mus R'Wk COnMmn MM Hours Met Hours Required Condition Met? 8 a YES I 4 6 9 8 YES In order to identify the sensitivity of the signal warrants to the timeline of surrounding development, a 2015 analysis was conducted including all traffic associated with the two additional parcels on Park Road (Land Use Code 814). By adding the trips associated with these parcels to the trips generated by the Walmart site and general background growth of 0.5 percent between 2013 and 2015, it is anticipated that Warrant IA will be met, as shown in Table 14. Table 14 — 2015 Signal Warrant Analysis Vewar:Elva M•Se T.M. Tim<P<rbd 1Ma orA ac6<a Park Rpaa ®T.A. tMMor oazni r Ma or Vol. Wananu IA Minor Vol. M<P Ma ar Vol. wnnamx wdrRml 19 Minor Vol. mw Minorval. Mal] Minor Vm. Mal] 6.00-]:00 4150 a 600 200 900 tee ]00-e.00 902 n 600 x00 900 100 600-4.00 604 104 600 200 900 1 100 TM -lam 6M In 600 300 990 100 fo:00-1150 s]0 196 600 299 900 tW t T00-1200 fib 215 600 x00 Ya5900 100 1200. — 661 269 Epp 200 YES 000 100 Op 4W 13.-14:Op ]13 226 600 200 Yeo 900 100 1400-15:00 >m 229 600 x00 Y0 900 fro t50D-tSW 9n mB Epp 200 yE5 900 100 YES 16:011-1]00 1013 323 600 x00 YFS 900 fOD YES 1].00-1&W 1213 341 600 200 YES 90D 100 YES 1a 00. 1400 nd 266 B00 x00 YES 900 1W Ma a MN Mus R'Wk COnMmn MM 6 6 YES 3 6 ND 4 6 Given that trips associated with the Walmart site will nearly satisfy Warrant IA in 2013, that additional development on Park Road will likely generate sufficient traffic to satisfy Warrant IA in the short term, and that a signal at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard will significantly improve local operations with additional traffic on Park Road, signal installation is recommended as part of the development of the Walmart site. May 2011 36 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1] I I I 1 I I Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. RECOMMENDATIONS Walmart (Store #5949.00) Traffic Impact Analysis With the construction of Wahnart Store #5949-00 near the southwest quadrant of the Arboretum Boulevard (Trunk Highway 5)/Powers Boulevard (CSAR 17) intersection in Chanhassen, Minnesota, items recommended that the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard be converted from side street stop control to signal control. Without stopping the northbound and southbound traffic on Powers Boulevard, there will not be enough gaps for the eastbound traffic on Park Road to enter the intersection. Queues on Park Road will, in tum, prevent vehicles from exiting from the east driveway onto Park Road. In addition, the splits at the signal for the Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard intersection should be retimed to efficiently serve the new turning movement distribution. By incorporating the recommended modifications, the street network will operate at similar levels to existing conditions. In the long term, the City should monitor the growth of the surrounding area. If the area develops as anticipated by the City, consideration should be given to adding a second left turn lane on the eastbound and westbound Arboretum Boulevard approaches to Powers Boulevard. Queues for these movements are not expected to spill out of the tum lane, but with the forecasted growth and development, would result in left turning drivers decelerating in the adjacent through lane and causing delays for through movements. Dual left turn lanes would shorten queues as well as delays. 37 11 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 li 1 1 I k7 i Appendix A Raw Turning Movement Volume Counts I 11 1 I 1 J 1 IL� I 1 1 �"' m Traffic Data Inc. 78AFilr W iff 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 Arboretum Blvd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No : 1 05:00 PM 1 59 Powers Blvd Southbound 28 0 14378 Arboretum Blvd Westbound 286 31 Powers Blvd Northbound 63 45 Arboretum Blvd Eastbound 0 133 Start Time R hl ThrU Left Pods APP. Total Rghi Th u Len Peea App, Total Ryhl Thry Len Pods App, Total RBht TIM Lal Peds App. Total Int. TOial Factor 1 1 1. 1 Total 1 220 1.0 1. 1 0 1 1. 1. 1 1247 1. 1. 1.0 1. 198 0 04:00 PM 53 45 16 0 114 52 256 21 0 329 41 69 12 0 122 7 191 43 0 241 806 04:15 PM 60 39 22 0 121 54 253 27 0 334 28 64 13 0 105 2 166 46 0 214 774 04:30 PM 52 39 19 0 110 57 285 24 0 366 41 51 12 0 104 6 184 29 0 219 799 04AS PM 48 43 21 0 112 67 293 31 0 391 30 69 16 0 117 6 146 41 0 193 813 Total 213 166 78 0 457 230 1087 103 0 1420 140 253 55 0 448 21 687 159 0 867 3192 05:00 PM 1 59 56 28 0 14378 60 286 31 05:15 PM 63 45 25 0 133 60 319 29 05:30 PM 44 59 37 0 140 64 344 46 •45 P 54 45 30 0 129 82 298 27 Total 1 220 205 120 0 5451 284 1247 133 Grand Total 433 371 198 0 1002 514 2334 236 Apprch % 43.2 37 11 0 1 16.7 75.7 7.7 Total °h 6.3 5.4 2.9 0 14.8 7.5 34.1 3.4 Class 1 430 364 195 0 989 511 2304 230 % class 1 991 981 90.5 0 98.7 99.4 98.7 97.5 Heavy Vehicles % Heavy Vehicles 0.7 1.9 1.5 0 1.3 0.6 1.3 2.5 0 395 55 79 24 0 408 36 60 15 0 454 29 65 16 407 29 44 14 0 1684 1 149 248 69 0 3084 289 501 124 0 31.8 1 54.8 13.6 0 45.1 4.2 7.3 1.8 0 3045 278 496 123 0 98.7 98.2 99 _99.2 1.3 1 3.8 1 0.8 0 1589 216 72 0 111 9 178 55 0 110 1 5 173 52 0 87 1 8 160 38 0 466 1 31 729 217 0 914 1 52 1416 376 0 1 2.8 76.8 20.4 0 13.4 0.8 20.7 5.5 0 897 50 1378 372 0 1 98.2 97.3.__98.9 0 1.91 3.8 2.7 1.1 0 299 995 0 242 894 0 230 934 0 206 829 0 9771 3652 0 1844 6844 0 0 26.9 0 1800 6731 0 97.6 98.3 0 2.41 1.7 Y% TRAFFIC DATA INC. Arboretum Blvd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park. MN 55416 File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No :2 -===[ 0wers Blvd m rll 1J79 B89 2J88 1 13 5 430 364 195 0 31 7 433; 3711 1981 Q R9ht Thu La11 Peds ;Q T A 3s W+ m a q y E c of I^ ^ 1— North 218/2011 04:00 PM 2/8/2011 05:45 PM +A Y o°f 1i Class 1 '� o a 9 �y a000jai 4, T r Left Thru ROM Pads 123 498 278 0 11 0 124 501 299 0 11424 F 897 541 7 914 Out In Total -===[ Traffic Data Inc. TRAFFIC DATA INC. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South !( St Louis Park, MN 55416 Arboretum Blvd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No :3 Jat Powers Blvd Southbound Arboretum Blvd Powers Blvd WwethnOnrl Nn,l6hnunA VPeda Arboretum Blvd Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Loft Peds App. Total Rght Thru Left Pada App. TOW Rght Thu Leat/ App. Total _ Rpht Thu Lea P Jat Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 59 56 28 0 143 78 286 31 0 395 55 79 24 0 158 9 218 72 05:15 PM 63 45 25 0 133 60 319 29 0 408 36 60 15 0 111 9 178 55 05:30 PM 44 59 37 0 140 64 344 46 0 454 29 65 16 0 110 5 173 52 05:45 PM 54 45 30 0 129 82 298 27 0 407 29 44 14 0 87 8 180 36 Total Voiume 220 205 120 0 545 284 1247 133 0 1884 149 248 89 0 468 31 729 217 ads App Total Int Total 0 299 995 0 242 894 0 230 934 iYl TPAFFIf DATA INC. Arboretum & Powers (Heavy Vehicles) Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 (�rnunc Prinfud. Heavv \/nhirloe File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 1 M = M = M Powers Blvd Arboretum Blvd Powers Blvd Arboretum Blvd Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Rght ThrO I Left Peds App. Total R9ht Thru Lea I Pada App,To.1 R9hl Thr. Left Pada App. Total R9ht Thru Lea Pada App. Total Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 i. 1.0 1.0 1.0 04:00 PM 1 3 1 0 _ 5 0 7 0 0 7 1 1 _1.0 0 0 2 0 8 2 0 10 _ 24 04:15 PM 1 1 2 0 4 1 4 1 0 6 1 1 1 0 3 0 7 1 0 8 21 04:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 5 13 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 10 Total 2 6 3 0 11 2 18 3 0 23 5 3 1 0 9 0 22 3 0 25 66 05:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 5 11 05:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 3 2 3 0 0 5 14 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 1 2 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 5 12 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 4 8 Total , 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 12 3 0 16 6 2 0 0 8 2 16 1 0 19 1 45 Grand Total 3 7 3 0 13 1 3 30 6 0 39 1 11 5 1 0 17 2 38 4 0 44 113 Apprch % 23.1 53.8 23.1 0 7.7 76.9 15.4 0 64.7 29.4 5.9 0 4.5 86.4 9.1 0 Total % 2.7 6.2 2.7 0 11.5 2.7 26.5 5.3 0 34.5 9.7 4.4 0.9 0 15 1.8 33.6 3.5 0 38.9 M = M = M TRAMC DATA INC. Arboretum & Powers (Heavy Vehicles) Chanhassen. MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 _..Q� File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 2 Powers Blvd n rna� 121 2s RIM Thru Left Pods �m ds 1 J0 i Noah m N 5 a m—� 2 ~ 1/8/2011 04:00 PM «— 3 2!5/2011 05:45 PM r.3 m m m rc a Htaw Vehiclesy 9 r Left Thru R h Peds 11 0 T Out In Total w Y% TRAFFIC DATA INC. Arboretum & Powers (Heavy Vehicles) Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No :3 Neale Hour Analysis rrom U4:UU FM to 110:40 NM - "OK 7 OT 1 o= w1 ... Mr Pmire Inlereanlinn Ranine el nA nn O\.1 Int. Total 04:00 PM Powers Blvd Southbound Arboretum Blvd WestboundNorthbound Powers Blvd Arboretum Blvd Eastboun Start Time Rght Thru Left Pads App. Total Rohl Thm Lon Pada App. Total Rohl Thn LM Paaa App. Total Raht Thu Lan Pads I App. Total Neale Hour Analysis rrom U4:UU FM to 110:40 NM - "OK 7 OT 1 o= w1 ... Mr Pmire Inlereanlinn Ranine el nA nn O\.1 Int. Total 04:00 PM 1 3 1 0 5 0 7 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 2 0 8 2 0 10 24 04:15 PM 1 1 2 0 4 1 4 1 0 8 1 1 1 0 3 0 7 1 0 8 21 04:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 5 13 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 7 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 10 Total Volume 2 8 3 0 11 2 18 3 0 23 5 3 1 0 9 0 22 3 0 25 08 % App.Total 18.2 54.5 27.3 0 8.7 78.3 13 0 55.6 33.3 11.1 0 0 88 12 PHF .500 .500 .37 .000 .5501 .500 .84 .375 .000 .821 .7 0 .000 .750 00 .688 .375 .00 .708 M MMM M M M M M M MM ==min MM M Mi Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South IRAfF1C DATA JN[. St Louis Park. MN 55416 Park Rd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN r_.nun. CrinlnA_ P1— 4 File Na e : 1241132 Park & Powers Site Cottle : 1241132 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No : 1 07:00 AM 17 Powers Blvd 9 0 700 Park Rd 1 0 I 6 Powers Blvd 13 0 74 2 Park Rd 1 0 3 149 07:15 AM 14 56 Southbound 0 75 2 Westbound 1 0 3 4 on ound 21 1 100 4 Eastbound_ 6 0 10 start Time Rght ThrU Left Peds App, Total RqM Tflmi Len Peds App, Total Rght Tflm LeftPedb App. Tota R9hl Thru Lafl Peds App. Total Int. Total r-- Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:45 AM 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 159 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 115 7 06:00 AM 2 30 0 0 32 23 0 15 1 39 1 10 4 0 15 15 2 _ 35 0 52 138 06:15 AM 4 27 4 0 35 4 0 7 0 11 3 32 9 0 44 4 1 13 0 18 108 06:30 AM 8 33 4 0 45 2 0 0 0 2 5 26 9 1 41 2 0 2 0 4 92 06:45 AM 13 4 5 0 72 2 1 2 0 5 10 19 40 108 22 44 0 1 72_ 1721 2 23 0 3 5 55 __ 0 i 7 81 156 Total 27 144 13 0 184 31 1 24 1 57 494 07:00 AM 17 44 9 0 700 1 1 0 2 6 55 13 0 74 2 0 1 0 3 149 07:15 AM 14 56 5 0 75 2 0 1 0 3 4 74 21 1 100 4 0 6 0 10 188 07:30 AM 17 88 6 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 7 85 18 1 111 3 0 3 0 6 196 07:45 AM 20 121 18 0 159 2 0 1 0 3 13 67 32 3 115 7 0 5 0 12 269 Total 68 277 38 0 3831 4 1 3 0 8 30 281 84 5 400 1 16 0 _ 15 0 31 1 822 08:00 AM 13 81 17 0 1113 1 0 0 4 13 55 24 0 92 8 0 6 0 14 221 08:15 AM 18 70 12 0 98 5 0 2 0 7 5 50 24 2 81 2 0 2 0 4 190 08:30 AM 15 49 9 0 73 4 1 2 0 7 7 29 12 2 50 2 2 6 0 10 1 140 08:45 AM 8 43 9 0 80 4 1 2 8 13 8 56 17 3 82 3 1 2 0_ 6 161 Total 52 243 47 0. 342 1 16 3 6 6 31 1 31 190 77 7 305 1 15 3 16 0 34 712 09:00 AM 26 28 9 0 63 5 0 1 0 8 2 35 10 1 48 1 1 4 0 6 123 09:15 AM 10 34 5 0 49 5 0 1 0 6 1 29 11 5 46 2 1 0 0 3 104 09:30 AM 9 26 3 0 38 8 3 0 0 11 4, 51 6 1 62 3 0 3 0 6 117 09:45 AM 12 18 8 0 38 7 0 1 0 8 3 39 5 2 49 1 1 3 0 5 100 Total 1 57 106 25 0 188 1 25 3 3 0 31 1 10 154 32 9 205 1 7 3 10 0 20 1 444 10:00 AM 6 21 5 0 32 7 3 0 7 17 2 33 4 0 39 2 2 6 0 10� 98 10:15 AM 6 30 6 0 44 6 0 3 1 10 0 17 5 3 25 0 0 4 0 4 83 10:30 AM 9 26 5 0 40 6 1 1 2 10 3 25 1 0 29 4 0 7 1 12 91 10:45 AM 11 29 3 3 46 7 3 2 0 12 7 32 6 4 49 3 3 8 0 14 121 Total 32 106 21 3 162 26 7 6 10 49 12 107 16 7 142 9 5 25 1 40 393 11:00 AM 9 25 2 5 414 1 2 0 7 I 1 36 9 6 52 3 0 6 0 9 109 11:15 AM 6 25 3 3 37 4 1 3 0 8 1 59 2 1 63 7 0 20 0 27 135 11:30 AM 11 38 4 0 53 10 0 6 0 16 2 62 0 3 67 12 1 15 0 28 164 11:45 AM 9 36 10 0 55 13 0 2 0 15 3 67 5 2 77 i t 2 14 0 27 174 Total 35 124 19 8 188 1 31 2 13 0 a6 7 224 16 12 2591 33 3 55 0 91 j 582 12:00 PM 21 49 2 0 72 15 1 9 0 255 67 1 3 76 4 1 20 0 25 198 12:15 PM 15 69 5 0 89 5 0 1 0 6 3 53 5 1 62 5 1 8 0 14 171 12:30 PM 23 65 8 0 96 5 5 2 0 12 2 56 10 1 69 6 2 17 1 26 203 12:45 PM 19 50 7 0 78 6 3 4 0 13 5 41 10 2_588 38 3 5016 163163 Total 78 233 22 0 333 31 9 16 0 58 15 217 28 7 265 23 7 50 1 61 735 owl Y l T9AMC DATA 1NC. Park Rd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 r_-- c-wa_ rt... 1 File Name : 1241132 Park & Powers Site Code : 1241132 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No : 2 02:00 PM 6 Powers Blvd 6 0 605 Park Rd 3 0 9 Powers Blvd 41 2 1 48 Park Rd 1 4 0 9 126 Southbound 6 46 5 0 Westbound 5 1 3 - Northb nd 9 1 42 4 Ea tbound 47 6 4 Start Time Rght ThrU Left Peds ApP. Tolal Ryht Thu LM Petla qpp, To al Ryht Tho Len Patla App. Total Ryht Th U LM Pstla App. Total Int. TOtal Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 1 6 4 2 1. 12 1 01:00 PM 17 61 11 0 89 4 2 1 0 7 3 49 4 3 59 5 1 13 1 20 175 01:15 PM 9 41 5 0 55 1 1 1 1 4 3 43 10 4 60 5 3 3 0 11 130 01:30 PM 15 50 10 0 75 2 2 2 0 6 1 36 8 2 47 4 0 5 0 9 137 1:45 PM 4 35 8 0 45 2 2 0 0 4 2 32 3 1 38 2 1 8 0 11 4 Total 45 187 32 0 264 9 7 4 1 21 9 160 25 10 204 16 5 29 1 51 540 02:00 PM 6 48 6 0 605 1 3 0 9 4 41 2 1 48 4 1 4 0 9 126 02:15 PM 6 46 5 0 57 5 1 3 0 9 1 42 4 0 47 6 4 2 0 12 125 02:30 PM 4 56 2 0 62 6 1 0 1 8 1 47 5 3 56 4 3 8 0 15 141 02:45 PM 10 55 8 0 73 6 4 2 0 12 1 34 5 2 42 1 1 5 0 7 134 Total 1 26 205 21 0 252 1 22 7 8 1 38 1 7 164 16 6 193 1 15 9 19 0 43 1 526 03:00 PM 6 48 3 0 57 4 0 0 0 4 1 101 6 1 109 14 2 14 0 30 200 03:15 PM 11 54 5 0 70 7 1 4 0 12 3 72 3 0 78 7 1 5 0 13 173 03:30 PM 4 56 4 0 64 6 1 1 0 8 1 83 10 0 94 8 1 9 0 18 184 03.45 PM 2 55 7 0 64 3 0 5 0 8 2 77 3 3 85 8 4 9 0 21 178 Total 1 23 213 19 0 255 1 20 2 10 0 32 1 7 333 22 4 3661 37 8 37 0 821 735 04:00 PM 10 52 6 0 68 7 1 8 0 16 4 78 5 2 69 13 0 17 0 30 203 04:15 PM 3 58 3 0 64 4 1 4 0 9 2 68 6 0 78 13 1 9 0 23 172 04:30 PM 8 55 5 0 68 5 2 5 0 12 2 95 7 0 104 17 0 13 0 30 214 PM 17 65 3 0 85 16 1 5 0 24 1 88 8 2 99 16 1 14 0 31 239 Total 1 38 230 17 0 285 1 34 6 22 0 61 1 9 329 26 4 368 1 59 2 53 0 1141 828 05:00 PM 15 73 6 094 27 2 8 0 37 2 115 14 0 131 24 1 17 0 42 304 06:15 PM 9 84 14 0 67 15 3 16 0 34 4 88 11 0 103 15 1 18 0 34 258 05:30 PM 27 73 11 0 111 8 0 7 0 15 6 93 29 1 129 17 1 10 0 28 283 05:45 PM 16 50 4 0 70 8 1 7 0 is 4 76 18 0 96 14 1 9 9 24 206 Total 1 67 260 35 0 3621 58 6 38 0 102 1 16 372 70 1 459 1 70 4 54 0 1281 1051 06:00 PM 4 42 6 0 52 31 1 20 0 52 0 69 2 0 71 33 2 46 0 81 256 06:15 PM 3 43 1 0 47 9 1 6 0 18 2 53 2 0 57 13 0 12 0 25 145 06:30 PM 2 46 1 0 49 3 0 3 0 8 1 45 7 1 54 11 1 4 0 16 125 06:45PM 11 49 0 0 60 2 0 1 0 3 1 52 10 0 63 4 0 7 0 11 137 Total 1 20 180 8 0 208 1 45 2 30 0 77 1 4 219 21 1 245 1 61 3 69 0 1331 663 Grand Total 568 2508 317 11 3404 352 55 163 19 809 176 2858 475 74 3583 1 384 55 487 3 9291 8525 Apprch % 1 16.7 73.7 9.3 0.3 57.8 9 30 3.1 4.9 79.8 13.3 2.1 1 41.3 5.9 52.4 0.3 Total% 6.7 29.4 3.7 0.1 39.9 4.1 0.6 2.1 0.2 7.1 2.1 33.5 5.6 0.9 42 4.5 0.6 5.7 0 10.9 TRAFFIC DATA IN[. Park Rd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241132 Park & Powers Site Code : 1241132 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No :3 Powers Blvd Out In Total 5681 25081 3171 ill Riht Thou Lett Pads 4 1 Lf NOAh y 2/8/20110 6:00 AM m �g 3 y 2/8/2011 08:45 PM rm LLLuIII a pqq less 1 L -� IL +, T r Hh R hl Peds 176 4 307 1 CjjjB Out In Total I Y% TRAFFIC DATA JNC. Park Rd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241132 Park & Powers Site Code : 1241132 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No : 4 I Start Time I Rght I Thru I Left I Peds I App. Total I Fight I Thru I Left Pads_I App. Total j Rght j Thru I Left I Peds I App. Total I Rght I Thru I Left I Peds I App. Total I Int. Total I Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 AM to 07:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 17 44 9 0 700 1 1 0 2 6 55 13 0 74 2 0 1 0 3 149 07:15 AM 14 56 5 0 75 2 0 1 0 3 4 74 21 1 100 4 0 6 0 10 188 07:30 AM 17 56 6 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 7 85 18 1 111 3 0 3 0 6 196 0745 AM 20 121 18 0 159 2 0 1 0 3 13 67 32 3 115 7 0 5 0 12 269 Tntal Volume 66 277 38 0 383 4 1 3 0 8 30 281 84 5 4001 18 0 15 0 31 822 M ® M M M M M M M M M M M r M M M M M ' Traffic Data Inc. 0 0 0 TRAFFIC DATA Jxc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South 0 0 0 East Driveway St Louis Park, MN 55416 0 0 Park Rd 0 File Name :1241133 Park &East Driveway Grand Total 0 Site Code : 1241133 Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, East Driveway _ Start Date : 2/8/2011 Chanhassen, MN 0 Page No : 1 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 Park Rd 0 0 0 0 East Driveway 0 0 0 Park Rd 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 0 0 o th o n Apprch % _ 0 0 0 nd 0 0 0 0 North 54 0 0 Easlbou 18 0 57 Start Time Rghl Thru Left Peds App. Total Rpot Thru rslbo Lef Peds App. Total Rp l Thu Lee Peds App, Total Rata Toru Left Pada App, Total I TOtaI F for 1 1 1. 1. 0 1.0 1. 1.0 1.0 104 1. 1. 1 142 1 0 4 0 291 1 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 19 4 0 1 1 6 _ 0 25 0 0 25 50 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 5 1 16 0 0 19 34 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 18 3 0 0 0 3 0 26 0 0 26 45 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 3 0 29 6 0 1 2 9 1 29 0 1 31 69 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 7 0 74 18 0 2 3 23 2 96 0 1 101 198 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 05:45 PM 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 Apprch % 0 0 0 0 Total %. 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2 0 30 9 0 1 0 10 0 36 0 0 36 76 0 0 14 9 0 23 5 0 1 0 6 0 25 0 0 25 54 0 0 39 18 0 57 4 0 1 0 5 0 26 0 0 26 88 0 0 23 9 0 $2 7 0 1 0 8 1 18 0 0 19 59 0 0 104 38 0 142 1 25 0 4 0 291 1 105 0 0 108 1 277 0 0 171 45 0 2111 43 0 6 3 52 3203 0 1 207 475 0 79.2 20.8 0 82.7 0 11.5 5.8 1 1.4 9a.1 0 0.5 0 0 36 9.5 0 45.5 9.1 0 1.3 0.6 10.9 0.6 42.7 0 0.2 43.6 Yl /RAFFIC DATA JNC. Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, East Driveway Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241133 Park & East Driveway Site Code : 1241133 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No :2 ( Rght Thru Left Peds + 1 4 �� r �s North gy & 2/82011 04:00 PM $ 2/8/2011 05:45 PM g � y a$ L fl Ifty R ht P091 ®4 5 0 Out In Total g�,,_��■"�' Traffic Data Inc. �'"'�l�'? ,l W 1 3268 Xenwood Avenue South TRAFFIC DATA INC. St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241133 Park & East Driveway Site Code : 1241133 Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, East Driveway Start Date 2f8/2011 Chanhassen, MN Page No :3 --- ----- T- -- Park Rd East DrivewayF — Park Rd Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time j Rght I Thru Left Peds App. Total Rpm Thru Lea Pada App. Total Rohl Thru Laa Pads App. Total Reht Thru Lea I Pada App Tolal Int.Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04;00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for En re Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 3 0 296 0 1 2 9 1 29 0 1 31 69 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2 0 30 9 0 1 0 10 0 36 0 0 36 76 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 9 0 23 5 0 1 0 6 0 25 0 0 25 54 05'30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 18 0 57 4 0 1 0 5 0 26 0 0 26 86 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 107 32 0 139 24 0 4 2 30 1 1 118 0 1 118 1 287 :',, a;; A V TRAM( DATA INC. Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, West Driveway Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241134 Park & West Driveway Site Code : 1241134 Start Date :2/9/2011 Page No : 1 Grand Total 0 0 1 0 1 1 126 38 0 184 26 1 9 0 38 5 157 0 0 182 363 Apprch uA 0 0 100 0 0.6 76.2 23.2 0 72.2 2.8 25 0 3.1 96.9 0 0 Total % 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 34.4 10.5 0 45.2 7.2 0.3 2.5 0 9.9 1.4 43.3 0 0 44.8 Park Rd West Driveway Park Rd h n N h E stb and tart Time R ht Thru LBft Pads App. Total Rpht Thru Lea Peds App, Total R9ht Thru LaM1 Peds App. Total Rahl Thru Left Pods App. Total Int. Total 1. 1. 1. 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1. 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 1 0 2 0 3 0 25 0 0 25 41 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 3 0 1 0 4 1 14 0 0 15 32 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 14 2 0 0 0 2 0 31 0 0 31 47 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4 0 19 5 0 0 0 5 1 18 0 0 19 4 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 8 0 59 11 0 3 0 14 2 88 0 0 90 163 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6 0 29 4 1 3 0 8 0 20 0 0 20 57 05:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 17 10 0 27 4 0 1 0 5 0 21 0 0 21 54 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 12 0 34 5 0 2 0 7 3 18 0 0 21 62 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 9 1 12 2 0 15 2 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 10 27 Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 74 30 0 105 1 15 1 6 0 22 1 3 69 0 0 72 1 200 Grand Total 0 0 1 0 1 1 126 38 0 184 26 1 9 0 38 5 157 0 0 182 363 Apprch uA 0 0 100 0 0.6 76.2 23.2 0 72.2 2.8 25 0 3.1 96.9 0 0 Total % 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 34.4 10.5 0 45.2 7.2 0.3 2.5 0 9.9 1.4 43.3 0 0 44.8 M M M M M M M r M M M M M M M M M M i TRAFFIC DATT�C. Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, West Driveway Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241134 Park & West Driveway Site Code : 1241134 Start Date : 2/9/2011 Page No : 2 In I Rpht Thu Left Petla ti _ Og North � 2/9(2011 04:00 PM $ 2/9(2011 08:49 PM Class 3 Left r i q.a 6 N � I i� Thtu R ht Petl 43 JB 79 Out In Total �V I 1RAM( DATA JN(. Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, West Driveway Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241134 Park & West Driveway Site Code : 1241134 Start Date : 2/9/2011 Page No :3 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - P6ak 1 of 1 Southbound Park Rd Westbound West Driveway North ound Park Rd Eastbound .SI tart Time I ght I Thru I Left I Peds I App Total I R9h1 I Thm Le11 I Petla I App Total Rght I Thr u Lan Pe4a I qpp, Total RpM Thru Lea I PeOs App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - P6ak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4 0 19 5 0 0 0 5 1 18 0 0 19 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6 0 29 4 1 3 0 8 0 20 0 0 20 05:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 17 10 0 27 4 0 1 0 5 0 21 0 0 21 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 22 12 0 34 5 0 2 0 7 3 18 0 21 Total Volume 0 0 1 0 1 0 77 32 0 109 1 18 1 6 0 25 1 4 77 0 0 81 Int. Total 43 57 54 I 1 Appendix B Development LI I d 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I x e e 4 G � � ----------- a % C - i N G - _ C t 1 _ G s F ---------------------- _ y V % e C N ^ � O 'v z Z I 1 1 I I x e e 4 G � � a i G - _ C t _ G _ y V % e C N ^ � O 'v z Z x = a 5 I 1 1 I I I u 1 n I [1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I s _ py 3 _ - r R v — i i F _ - ' E 8 5 i 2 S s S w o 'eN G .'r t H d N n S _ _ Y. I I ; _ 1 3_ o C C % _ _ Flit _ E `c A s a Se C C E E U - 5 _ py _ R v — i F _ i 2 G H d N n _ _ Y. I I ; _ 1 o C C % _ _ Flit _ E U - _ G y c e -_ 21 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 L� 1 1 1 I a _ 0 3 a _ - 1�9 3 - 3 - R + at P 8 0 V 9 r 4 S � V N � N t s _ _ Y Z _ J Z x � 9 e > � _ _ — — B m e - m Z — c o 4 v 3 Y 4 N L X Y Y e � 3 z T a E Z A: E 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 L� 1 1 1 I a _ 3 - R + at 8 0 V 9 V N t s _ _ Y Z _ J Z _ — c a S 3 Y 4 N L X Y Y Z A: E 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 L� 1 1 1 I 11 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Appendix C SimTraffic Reports I 1 1 1 1 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2011 Existing - PM 41612011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR" Wk WBT` WBR NBL NBT NBSBT� SBR Delay 1 Veh (s) 9.8 11.5 5.1 10.4 13.1 5.2 T4 0.9 5.1 4.6 3.1 3.6 Vehicles Entered 62 3 77 38 7 75 64 377 11 32 279 76 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay / Veh (s) 3.7 Vehicles Entered 1101 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay 1 Veh (s) 63.0 21.9 4.4 75.0 34.8 3.9 73.8 68.0 3.2 73.1 66.3 2.9 Vehicles Entered 209 730 30 135 1225 274 74 293 148 106 210 223 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay I Veh (s) 36.0 Vehicles Entered 3657 Denied Entry Before 0 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL " WBT WNBL - 1413T,]' NBR . " SBL -AN ?' . Delay I Veh (s) 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.5 5.5 7.9 2.6 7.1 1.0 Vehicles Entered 96 4 33 81 7 1 24 2 248 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT - NBL NBR All Delay I Veh (s) 0.6 0.1 1.6 0.4 5.7 3 0 0.9 Vehicles Entered 122 1 34 112 3 21 293 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2011 Existing - PM 4/612011 Total Network Performance 1 Delay / Veh (s) 44.5 , Vehicles Entered 3864 Denied Entry Before 0 1 1 1 1 SirnTraf6c Report ' Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report ' 2011 Existing - PM 41612011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard SimTraffic Report Page 3 M462 _. men��° �� .FBS �- :EB`Ed. �� : g Y��'N��'''NS�,NB �*� Nff ;SB � �'•SB Directions Served L Directions Served LTR LTR L T L T R T Maximum Queue (ft) 86 83 48 4 39 3 23 550 Average Queue (ft) 35 35 13 0 7 0 1 ' 95th Queue (ft) 67 65 38 3 26 2 9 69 Link Distance (ft) 99 166 1152 48 60 674 95th Queue (ft) 309 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 492 512 33 130 187 ' Queuing Penalty (veh)_ 0 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 225 674 225 Storage Blk Time (%) ' Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard SimTraffic Report Page 3 M462 _. men��° �� .FBS �- :EB`Ed. �� : g Y��'N��'''NS�,NB �*� Nff ;SB � �'•SB Directions Served L T T L T T R L T T L L Maximum Queue (ft) 337 270 296 274 550 578 36 160 201 217 112 119 ' Average Queue (ft) 183 129 156 128 340 358 2 69 127 139 48 60 95th Queue (ft) 309 220 253 225 492 512 33 130 187 209 90 102 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 674 674 Upstream Blk Time (%) ' Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard ' Movement SB SB Directions Served T T Maximum Queue (fl) 198 183 ' Average Queue (ft) 88 104 95th Queue (ft) 149 158 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 473 473 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) ' Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report ' 2011 Existing - PM 4/612011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Driveway , SimTraffic Report ' Page 4 I Directions Served LTR LR Directions Served LTR LTR LR Average Queue (ft) 5 Maximum Queue (ft) 29 39 30 ' Average Queue (ft) 2 19 2 95th Queue (ft) 14 43 15 ' Link Distance (ft) 292 412 357 , Upstream Blk Time (%) Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) , Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway SimTraffic Report ' Page 4 I Directions Served LTR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 45 Average Queue (ft) 5 19 95th Queue (ft) 26 45 ' Link Distance (ft) 99 387 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) , Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 , SimTraffic Report ' Page 4 I SimTrafftc Performance Report t 2013 No Build - PM 4/6/2011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 1 ' SimTraffrc Report Page 1 �" E8VII8�41�BR(VB7�NBRSB SBF `"SBR ' Delay / Veh (s) 11.0 1 5.2 9.7 11.5 5.2 7.3 1.0 5.5 0.0 5.5 3.2 3.6 Vehides Entered 57 4 76 36 8 73 66 413 14 28 288 79 ' Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 0.3 00 2 2 0.4 5.2 6 7 2.7 ' Movement All ' Vehicles Entered 91 4 32 88 4 1 24 Delay / Veh (s) 37 245 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles Entered 1142 0 0 ' Denied Entry Before 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement ' EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay / Veh (s) 64.5 22.4 4.6 75.9 37.8 4.1 74.2 68.4 3.3 73.6 69.5 3.0 1 0 Vehicles Entered 226 740 28 138 1298 273 79 295 171 112 221 239 ' Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 0 Movement . .- cK Delay /Veh (s) 37.5 Vehicles Entered 3820 Denied Entry Before 0 1 ' SimTraffrc Report Page 1 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL All Delay/ Veh (s) 0.3 00 2 2 0.4 5.2 6 7 2.7 4.9 0 9 ' Vehicles Entered 91 4 32 88 4 1 24 1 245 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Delay / Veh (s) 0.6 e 1 1 7 0.5 6 7 30 1 0 ' Vehicles Entered 114 2 37 117 4 22 296 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ' SimTraffrc Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2013 No Build - PM 41612011 Total Network Performance Delay / Veh (s) 46.6 Vehides Entered 4050 Denied Entry Before 0 SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report ' 2013 No Build - PM 4/6/2011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard ' SimTraffic Report Page 3 Movement EB WB NB- NB Sb-'-- SB ' Directions Served LTR LTR L T L R Maximum Queue Ill) 101 94 48 4 50 12 Average Queue (ft) 38 34 11 0 7 1 ' 95th Queue (ft) 71 64 37 4 29 5 Link Distance (ft) 99 166 1152 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 225 225 Storage Blk Time (%) ' Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard ' W . ` 'EB!IE M INB 'rro WBB�B�� 4 N&' NB , . NB Directions Served L T T L T T R T T L T T Maximum Queue (it) 345 314 330 347 672 686 209 16 34 156 225 235 ' Average Queue (it) 193 145 171 132 368 393 14 1 1 77 132 139 95th Queue (it) 307 242 268 264 598 624 184 11 25 143 207 207 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 2220 2220 674 674 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 ' Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 ' Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 1 3 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 123 142 186 199 ' Average Queue (ft) 52 65 95 111 95th Queue (ft) 108 118 160 174 ' Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 473 473 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 ' SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 No Build - PM 416/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Driveway ' ENINOMM =I 1110001 Directions Served LTR LTR LR r , Maximum Queue (ft) 30 35 12 Average Queue (ft) 3 19 1 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 43 9 292 412 357 Intersection: 9: Park Road & East D Directions Served LTR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 62 36 Average Queue (ft) 7 17 , 95th Queue (ft) 34 42 Link Distance (ft) 99 387 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 4 ' 1 SimTraffic Report ' Page 4 1 I l II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2013 Build - PM 41612011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Moveiifen ff. '`'EBL;`.EBT-' EBI iNB � lLL (7B FIBI ` tlt-� SBR Delay I Veh (s) 55.3 16.5 4.2 -'--jB� 20.4 22.7 11.0 11.0 1.5 5.3 7.0 3.6 5.3 Vehicles Entered 276 5 125 31 7 77 121 406 17 34 285 282 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Delay l Veh (s) 13.4 Vehicles Entered 1666 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay I Veh (s) 65.6 25.5 5.0 174.4 37.1 4.0 260.1 73.6 3.8 74.7 74.9 3.2 Vehicles Entered 214 715 100 227 1275 287 149 343 263 108 265 222 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay I Veh (s) 51.4 Vehicles Entered 4168 Denied Entry Before 0 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Delay/ Veh (s) 32 27, 1.9 2.1 0.2 0.5 6.1 8.9 6.4 18.9 3.4 8.6 Vehicles Entered 12 106 6 65 85 88 12 1 22 267 10 674 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Motiiterrt EBT EBR -' WBT WBR NBR SBR Al Delay I Veh (s) 23.5 1.3 06 08 493.5 4 7 24.6 Vehicles Entered 389 1 234 175 24 2 825 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 age 1 1 II I SirnTraffic Report ' Page 2 SimTraffic Performance Report 2013 Build - PM 41612011 Total Network Performance ' Delay / Veh (s) 67.7 Vehicles Entered 4538 Denied Entry Before 0 1 II I SirnTraffic Report ' Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report t 2013 Build - PM 416/2011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard 1 I 1 1 11 r Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Motiertient�tf'�=4� Directions Served L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) Directions Served L T T Directions Served L TR LTR L T T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) Maximum Queue (ft) 189 94 103 92 6 25 4 56 4 46 507 Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) 144 218 33 62 44 88 30 64 0 1 4 7 0 3 12 41 0 3 3 7 Link Distance (ft) 104 104 166 1147 1147 318 248 669 24 533 Upstream Blk Time (%) 55 0 0 396 563 456 Link Distance (ft) 2014 Queuing Penalty (veh) 112 0 0 1035 1035 669 669 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 350 225 0 225 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 ' Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard 600 230 1 I 1 1 11 r Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Motiertient�tf'�=4� Directions Served L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) Directions Served L T T L T T✓ R T T L T T 473 Maximum Queue (ft) 345 266 296 593 596 601 27 208 207 336 507 452 1 Average Queue (ft) 187 155 179 367 360 377 1 7 7 260 272 226 95th Queue (it) 318 248 275 598 533 541 20 152 151 396 563 456 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 1035 1035 669 669 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 0 ' Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 2 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 t Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 40 1 0 8 0 0 66 2 0 1 I 1 1 11 r Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Motiertient�tf'�=4� Directions Served L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 114 123 187 262 Average Queue (ft) 50 61 98 151 95th Queue (ft) 93 103 164 229 Link Distance (ft) 473 473 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 SimTra(fic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Build - PM 4/6/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Directions Served LTR L R LTR LT R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 73 30 8 55 219 88 26 26 Average Queue (ft) 8 7 0 21 82 10 3 2 95th Queue (ft) 42 27 4 48 202 75 34 27 Link Distance (ft) 883 104 291 406 339 339 116 116 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 29 100 Queuing Penalty (veh) 55 Storage BIk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway Movement EB EB WB WB— NB SB Directions Served T TR T TR R R Maximum Queue (ft) 140 227 27 56 232 30 Average Queue (ft) 65 71 1 4 82 2 95th Queue (ft) 176 271 14 32 247 14 Link Distance (ft) 291 104 104 376 339 Upstream BIk Time (%) 5 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage BIk Time (%) 29 Queuing Penalty (veh) 55 Network Summ Network wide Queuing Penalty: 267 SimTraffic Report ' Page 4 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2013 Build (Improvements A -B) - PM 5/6/2011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement INo m :sem'°E8B GVBL' VYN� 87;B SB SB gR Delay / Veh (s) 27.3 27.3 3.7 40.2 37.4 12.2 27.0 9.6 6.0 13.3 6.8 6.0 Vehicles Entered 279 5 129 30 7 77 121 406 17 34 280 277 ' 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement M--`. Delay / Veh (s) 13.2 Vehicles Entered 1662 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Mover epp T E61 E6 :i EBR MIBL WB7 VV�B NBt N9T- NBR-- SBU ,' SBT SBR ' Delay / Veh (s) 70.8 30.6 5.1 71.3 41.4 4.1 68.7 62.1 4.4 71.0 87.1 3.3 Vehicles Entered 215 713 99 224 1265 287 150 344 265 107 269 223 SimTraffic Report Page 1 t 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement NI Delay / Veh (s) 41.2 ' Vehicles Entered 4161 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement ' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Delay / Veh (s) 2.9 0.6 0.2 2.1 0.2 0.6 5.9 74 3.9 8.5 2 5 4 1 Vehicles Entered 13 105 5 63 85 91 11 1 22 266 10 672 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement t Movement EBT EBR WBT WEIR NBR SBR All Delay I Veh (s) 2.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 8.6 2.3 1.7 Vehicles Entered 391 1 235 175 23 3 828 ' Total Network Performance ' Delay / Veh (s) 53.7 Vehicles Entered 4522 SimTraffic Report Page 1 t Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Build (Improvements A -B) - PM 5/612011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement `",G zd L-0—Maw,1 SB r> Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 288 Directions Served L T T L T T Directions Served L TR LTR L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 185 105 136 134 98 136 28 66 90 95 75 Average Queue (ft) 129 32 53 57 43 62 4 17 16 26 35 95th Queue (ft) 195 68 103 114 85 115 21 48 55 68 69 Link Distance (ft) 104 104 166 1147 1147 669 669 Upstream Blk Time 18 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) 38 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 350 Storage Blk Time (%) 350 225 0 225 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement `",G zd L-0—Maw,1 SB r> Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 288 Directions Served L T T L T T L T T L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 376 304 318 387 689 700 263 257 268 106 123 197 Average Queue (ft) 185 173 192 208 404 423 140 149 155 50 63 104 95th Queue (ft) 313 270 292 340 590 602 232 232 239 97 106 176 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 669 669 473 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 230 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 2 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 3 1 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement SB r> Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 288 Average Queue (ft) 166 95th Queue (ft) 248 Link Distance (ft) 473 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 SimTraf6c Report Page 2 I [l I [1 I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Build (Improvements A -B) - PM 516/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Drivewav Movement EB WB WB NS SB SB Directions Served LTR L R LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 26 37 7 51 118 22 Average Queue (ft) 2 5 0 21 58 6 95th Queue (ft) 14 25 4 47 97 22 Link Distance (ft) 883 291 406 339 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) — 100 1 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Movement .. EB Directions Served T TR T TR R R Maximum Queue (ft) 103 42 14 39 52 30 Average Queue (ft) 12 2 1 2 18 2 95th Queue (ft) 55 28 11 18 45 15 Link Distance (ft) 291 104 104 376 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Network Network wide Queuing Penalty: 51 SimTrafhc Report Page 3 SimTraffic Performance Report 2030 No Build (Improvement A) - PM 51412011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement M ger EBL W1 i Iff, III, � 8NM%1XNjMI I . I I ' � III I : b :Iii- 1: ! '! 1: 1 1 , : I ! ; ; 1 1 � I III , �� -, - I ...... Delay/Veh(s) 426 36.8 30.6 47.7 60.5 40.5 8.6 1.9 5.2 8.4 3.3 3.7 Vehicles Entered 113 5 105 64 6 151 87 767 30 86 415 122 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay / Veh (s) 11.6 Vehicles Entered 1951 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 95.6 35.9 4.9 65.9 44.1 4.4 115.7 71.0 4.6 76.3 95.5 3.4 Vehicles Entered 261 803 51 267 1390 292 164 437 427 120 294 236 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 09WWSbSUS A -t 4 Delay / Veh (s) 47.4 Vehicles Entered 4742 Denied Entry Before 0 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement MoI EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL All Delay/ Veh (s) 2,6 00 2,6 05 64 35 7.2 62 2 2 Vehicles Entered 171 4 36 147 7 1 25 2 393 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR A] Delay / Veh (s) 25.5 16.2 1.9 0.5 115.4 102.0 18.6 Vehicles Entered 198 1 34 178 4 25 440 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Report Page 1 I F 1 1] I 1 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2030 No Build (Improvement A) - PM 5/4/2011 Total Network Performance Delay / Veh (s) 61.7 Vehicles Entered 5065 Denied Entry Before 0 ' SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 No Build (Improvement A) - PM 5/4/2011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Directions Served LTR LTR T L T R L R Maximum Queue (it) 119 237 54 57 20 14 69 22 Average Queue (ft) 90 116 3 18 1 0 28 3 95th Queue (ft) 135 218 23 43 7 8 62 14 Link Distance (ft) 99 166 223 4 1152 187 234 226 Upstream Blk Time (%) 27 10 358 370 673 697 228 61 Queuing Penalty (veh) 63 0 350 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 871 2220 350 350 225 225 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement. SB SB SB SB Directions Served Directions Served L T T L T T R T T L T T Maximum Queue (11) 498 369 409 412 726 728 209 81 94 320 408 402 Average Queue (ft) 279 215 239 238 442 467 21 4 5 187 234 226 95th Queue (11) 469 335 358 370 673 697 228 61 72 332 394 350 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 2220 2220 674 674 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 2 14 4 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 7 30 7 3 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement. SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T Maximum Queue (it) 130 135 282 301 Average Queue (it) 61 69 152 170 95th Queue (ft) 111 119 247 265 Link Distance (ft) 473 473 Upstream Blk Time (°k) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 8 SimTraffic Report Page 3 1 I [1 tQueuing and Blocking Report ' 2030 No Build (Improvement A) - PM 514011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Driveway I I 1 I I SimTraffic Report Page 4 1 tvrovem ' Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 47 49 31 Average Queue (ft) 7 7 21 2 ' 95th Queue (ft) 54 31 46 14 Link Distance (ft) 894 292 412 357 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway ' Moveme Directions Served LTR LTR LR Maximum Queue(ft) 217 63 136 ' Average Queue (ft) 63 7 39 95th Queue (ft) 212 37 117 Link Distance (ft) 292 99 387 Upstream Blk Time (°k) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 133 I I 1 I I SimTraffic Report Page 4 1 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance movement: Delay I Veh (s) Vehicles Entered Denied Entry Before All 293 2161 0 movement 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR ' SimTraffic Performance Report WBR NBL NBT NBR 2030 Build (Mitigation A) - PM SBT SBR 515/2011 105.0 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 5.5 75.6 ' Movement EBL 'EBT EBR �Y ItVB:" NBL NBT 'N _ 4.5 76.6 Delay 1 Veh (s) 191,3 26 5 9A 155.1 173.1 129.6 12.7 2 4 5.5 10.1 3.4 5.2 782 Vehicles Entered 144 4 74 56 8 136 137 764 33 84 403 318 192 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance movement: Delay I Veh (s) Vehicles Entered Denied Entry Before All 293 2161 0 movement 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR ML WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay i Veh (s) 105.0 47.1 5.5 75.6 56.3 5.0 86.0 59.0 4.5 76.6 91.4 3.5 Vehicles Entered 246 782 108 378 1395 304 192 405 444 121 307 235 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement = All EBT EBR Delay I Veh (s) 51.4 WBR NBL Vehicles Entered 4917 " < - _ � s - v �W Denied Entry Before 0 2539 298.9 3: Park Road & West Drivewav Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Delay / Veh (s) 283.7 2539 298.9 2.2 0.2 0.5 6723 965.0 1468.9 20 251.2 Vehicles Entered 11 167 3 73 136 88 13 1 24 47 1 564 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 186.2 40.5 0.6 1.1 5729.1 9.2 125.7 Vehicles Entered 222 1 295 166 17 3 704 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report ' 2030 Build (Mitigation A) - PM 515/2011 Total Network Performance ' Delay / Veh (s) 199,1 Vehicles Entered 5317 Denied Entry Before 4 F I I I I I I I I I I I ' SirnTra(fic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report 1 2030 Build (Mitigation A) - PM 5/5/2011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Movement EB" EB WB B8 NB NB., NB SB ` - SB SB NB Directions Served L TR LTR T L T R L T R ' Maximum Queue (ft) 206 115 253 225 107 8 13 91 4 57 690 Average Queue (ft) 178 38 207 119 36 0 1 35 0 5 530 95th Queue (ft) 190 89 304 295 81 4 7 71 3 30 ' Link Distance (ft) 104 104 166 223 226 1147 316 310 669 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time {°h) 99 1 69 30 2220 2220 669 669 Queuing Penalty (veh) 244 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 350 630 350 225 600 225 , Storage Blk Time (%) Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 1 5 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 7 ' Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard 23 4 3 , Movement EB EB EB WB - WS WB WB B4 . _ B4 NB - NB N8 Directions Served L T T L T T R T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 486 405 419 779 864 874 690 312 342 330 347 363 Average Queue (fl) 280 255 277 374 530 550 64 20 27 195 180 185 95th Queue (ft) 488 370 390 635 832 852 430 174 226 323 316 310 ' Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 2220 2220 669 669 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 2 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 1 5 7 10 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 7 19 21 23 4 3 , Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement SB SB SB SB SB t Directions Served L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 124 57 138 67 260 141 308 188 219 16 ' 95th Queue (ft) 107 117 234 299 137 Link Distance (ft) 473 473 Upstream Blk Time (%) ' Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 15 ' SimTraffic Report Page 3 I 1 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A) - PM 5/5/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Driveway Move E T <. =VilBr t15BB'S� Bf4 814 Directions Served LTR T L R LTR T LT R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 592 54 35 9 359 58 420 82 136 131 Average Queue (ft) 355 26 5 0 190 17 389 19 117 91 95th Queue (ft) 862 149 22 6 424 119 500 149 168 181 Link Distance (11) 883 257 0 291 406 277 339 339 116 116 Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 6 Storage Blk Time (%) 97 10 4 94 0 93 63 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Bend Mo T Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 370 Average Queue (ft) 13 95th Queue (ft) 194 Link Distance (ft) 871 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 149 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 293 Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Movement. EB,` 1NB :r WB NB B10 r:r SH Directions Served T TR T TR R T R Maximum Queue (ft) 150 307 12 75 447 180 30 Average Queue (ft) 149 290 0 4 293 34 2 95th Queue (ft) 154 363 6 30 526 138 15 Link Distance (ft) 291 104 104 376 257 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) 74 0 45 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 344 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 97 Queuing Penalty (veh) 226 Network Network wide Queuing Penalty: 914 SimTraffic Report Page 4 SimTraffic Performance Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -B) - PM 5/5/2011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Delay I Veh (s) 17.2 , Vehicles Entered 2435 112.9 Denied Entry Before 0 Delay / Veh (s) 30.6 19.2 4.2 45.0 50.8 26.4 35.2 15.7 6.5 29.0 7.3 6.5 ' Vehicles Entered 310 5 168 63 8 146 136 769 32 85 399 314 0 0 0 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement ; All Delay I Veh (s) 17.2 , Vehicles Entered 2435 112.9 Denied Entry Before 0 Vehicles Entered 243 787 108 372 1385 311 ' 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 312 Rnnwm n�'�;."EB' �iWBF��'WBRr.=T'��N.=;NBT�€NB� .� �z...•.56 � SB� NOW Delay / Veh (s) 104.0 48.0 5.5 72.0 52.6 4.9 122.1 64.5 6.6 78.5 112.9 5.0 Vehicles Entered 243 787 108 372 1385 311 224 476 526 119 312 238 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement MoveirfentX4`,3' r.Yw .aAll t ..., , , Delay / Veh (s) 53.3 Vehicles Entered 5101 Denied Entry Before 0 ' 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All ' Delay I Veh (s) 2 7 0.7 1.4 2.5 0.3 0.5 T2 65 5.0 12 8 30 5.1 Vehicles Entered 11 169 3 73 138 88 12 1 26 267 10 798 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Move QT WBWV , Delay / Veh (s) 2.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 18.1 5.0 2.1 Vehicles Entered 459 2 297 165 24 2 949 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 1 SimTraffic Report Page 1 ' SimTraffic Performance Report ' 2030 Build (Mitigation A -B) - PM 5/5/2011 Total Network Performance Delay I Veh (s) 69.3 Vehicles Entered 5551 Denied Entry Before 0 1 1 1 SirnTraffic Report Page 2 Movement E6 E& E& V z VUB`_ *i ,1� Yom. 64 NB N13 NB R Queuing and Blocking Report L T T L T T R T T L T 2030 Build (Mitigation A -B) - PM ' Maximum Queue (ft) 500 398 420 758 873 882 423 5/5/2011 132 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard 522 492 95th Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 267 255 277 368 518 545 MoMR"NB 3 7 265 268 250 SB SB 'SB SB 382 Directions Served L TR LTR T L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 182 92 225 25 158 190 273 45 134 314 78 107 250 Average Queue (ft) 143 38 109 1 72 90 140 11 52 25 30 52 13 95th Queue (ft) 199 71 196 13 142 162 223 35 101 164 66 93 ' Link Distance (ft) 104 104 166 223 1147 1147 0 669 669 4 6 Upstream Blk Time 26 0 3 30 4 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 65 0 0 72 10 6 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 350 225 225 ' Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement E6 E& E& V z VUB`_ *i ,1� Yom. 64 NB N13 NB R Directions Served L T T L T T R T T L T T ' Maximum Queue (ft) 500 398 420 758 873 882 423 84 132 350 522 492 95th Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 267 255 277 368 518 545 22 3 7 265 268 250 473 95th Queue (ft) 463 360 382 605 795 832 229 37 62 395 479 435 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 0 871 871 2220 2220 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 669 669 250 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 250 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 13 ' Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 3 600 230 Storage Bilk Time (%) 0 4 6 30 4 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 15 18 72 10 6 ' Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement NB SB SB SB SB S13 "" ''$6 _ B6 Directions Served R L L T T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 82 123 148 355 382 148 39 64 Average Queue (tt) 3 57 66 170 222 24 1 3 95th Queue (ft) 60 107 119 311 369 172 16 40 Link Distance (ft) 473 473 1834 1834 Upstream Bilk Time (%) 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 32 SimTrafric Report Page 3 ' Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -B) - PM Directions Served T 515/2011 ' Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Driveway t Average Queue (ft) 13 Movement EB WB WB" NB SB So - 1 Directions Served LTR L R LTR LT R 0 Maximum Queue (ft) 32 34 9 54 195 22 Average Queue (ft) 2 13 0 24 75 6 Maximum Queue (ft) 110 95th Queue (ft) 16 38 6 50 146 21 Average Queue (ft) 17 Link Distance (ft) 883 291 406 339 339 95th Queue (ft) 71 Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 51 16 ' Queuing Penalty (veh) 104 376 339 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) ' ' Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 Intersection: 4: Bend ' I ' SimTrafhc Report Page 4 1 Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 372 t Average Queue (ft) 13 95th Queue (ft) 195 Link Distance (ft) 871 Upstream Blk Time (°h) 0 ' Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 T Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) R I ' SimTrafhc Report Page 4 1 Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway ' Movement. `.: EB Directions Served T T TR R R Maximum Queue (ft) 110 10 22 63 30 Average Queue (ft) 17 1 1 20 2 95th Queue (ft) 71 9 9 51 16 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 104 104 376 339 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 ' Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 ' Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 225 I ' SimTrafhc Report Page 4 1 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement , All ` Delay I Veh (s) 17 3 Vehicles Entered 2430 Denied Entry Before 0 SimTraffic Performance Report & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement SBL SBT SBR Delay / Veh (s) 79.5 39.8 2030 Build (Mitigation A -D) - PM 66.7 43.8 4.6 76.7 57.2 5/512011 76.2 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 3.3 Vehides Entered 244 ' Movement EBI" EBT Y�BR_ GAB ' WBT 'WBit -` NBC ' NBT NBR SBS - SBT ; 'SBR 120 Delay / Veh (s) 311 187 4.1 43.6 49.5 25.1 34.8 1&0 6 6 2T6 T6 7.3 ' Vehicles Entered 308 5 167 62 9 146 138 765 32 86 397 315 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement , All ` Delay I Veh (s) 17 3 Vehicles Entered 2430 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR. NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay / Veh (s) 79.5 39.8 5.4 66.7 43.8 4.6 76.7 57.2 6.4 76.2 76.4 3.3 Vehides Entered 244 787 106 373 1385 311 223 471 525 120 312 235 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay I Veh (s) 430 Vehicles Entered 5092 Denied Entry Before 0 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Delay IVeh (s) 2.9 0.7 0-5 2.4 0.3 0.6 6.6 72 5.0 11.4 2-6 4.7 Vehicles Entered 11 167 3 74 137 88 12 1 26 266 10 795 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: Park Road & East Drivewav Performance by movement 1*04 RMsUr NI Delay I Veh (s) 2.8 1.1 0.7 0.6 21.9 4.3 2.2 Vehicles Entered 456 2 297 166 24 2 947 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Report Page 1 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -D) - PM 515/2011 Total Network Performance ' Delay / Veh (s) 59.6 Vehicles Entered 5542 Denied Entry Before p 1 I L' I'I ' SimTraffic Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -D) - PM 5/5/2011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard id6Diiient . - EB EB WB B8 NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LTR T L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 187 86 223 17 157 212 274 44 124 78 112 109 Average Queue (ft) 147 37 106 0 71 94 144 11 53 17 32 47 95th Queue (ft) 198 69 193 6 133 174 233 35 104 56 77 93 Link Distance (ft) 104 104 166 223 1147 1147 870 669 669 Upstream Blk Time 27 0 3 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 67 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 550 350 630 350 225 225 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B4 B4 NB Directions Served L L T T L L T T R T T L Maximum Queue (ft) 201 220 359 383 257 500 775 835 728 22 27 349 Average Queue (ft) 115 118 234 259 148 194 457 482 29 1 1 218 95th Queue (ft) 183 192 337 356 226 338 709 744 269 16 19 347 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 870 870 2220 2220 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 550 630 630 600 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 3 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 9 24 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (°%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) NB NB SB SB SB SB SB T T L L T T R 397 374 126 139 241 307 143 202 202 59 70 128 175 5 333 317 113 119 207 270 75 669 669 473 473 3 0 7 2 250 250 0 3 0 7 250 SimTraffic Report , Page 3 I 1 E 11 u [J I I 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -D) - PM 51512011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Driveway Mdvem"ennQOKqN1&1MWWt sB..~s$x��-9� L,�.,�,."_ Directions Served LTR L R LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 27 34 4 61 166 22 Average Queue (ft) 2 10 0 24 70 6 95th Queue (ft) 13 34 3 51 130 21 Link Distance (ft) 883 104 291 406 339 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 1 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Bend Movement. Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 531 Average Queue (ft) 19 95th Queue (ft) 231 Link Distance (ft) 870 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 30 Storage Blk Time (%) 20 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway Movement r ? E , EB,f r w6 , IMB° _..>NB SB - s_ -r Directions Served T TR T TR R R Maximum Queue (ft) 124 35 23 42 75 30 Average Queue (ft) 20 1 1 1 21 2 95th Queue (ft) 81 26 9 16 55 16 Link Distance (ft) 291 104 104 376 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 Network Network wide Queuing Penalty 127 SimTraffic Report Page 4 8fdAssOciates, Inc. Walmart Store 95949-00 Technical Memorandum To: Paul Oehme, City of Chanhassen From: Lucas C. Payne, PE (MN), Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. William D. Matzek, PE (MV, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. ■ 2550 University Avenue W. Date: November21,2011 Suite 238N St Paul, MN 55114 Subj: Walmart Store #5949-00 Preliminary Drainage Analysis The existing Site is located at the southwest quadrant of Powers Boulevard and MN Highway 5 in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. Walmart Stores, Inc. is proposing to build a 117,278 square foot retail store, proposed paved parking lot, stormwater management infrastructure, and utilities. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) has analyzed the existing and proposed drainage conditions of the Site. The analysis of the existing and proposed drainage systems was completed with the assistance of HydroCAD, Version 8.00. Existing Drainage The existing Site is approximately 14.11 acres and 5.31 acres are covered with impervious surfaces. The Site currently has a vacant building that is approximately 154,674 square feet. The existing Site utilizes overland flow into multiple pipe networks around the Site. There are four outfalls from the Site where untreated stormwater is discharged. Outfall 1 takes drainage from the existing parking lot and building and discharges directly into an existing wetland west of the Site through two existing stormwater pipes. Outfall 2 drains into an existing drainage swale at the northeast comer of the Site. The water then flows over land into an existing 18" RCP which eventually discharges into the aforementioned wetland. Outfall 3 takes drainage from the east side of the Site and sheet flows into an existing 15" RCP at the southeast comer of the Site. The stormwater discharges into an existing stormwater system beneath Powers Boulevard. Outfall 4 takes runoff from the south edge of the property. Stormwater sheetflows in the Park Road Right -of -Way and eventually into an existing storm sewer system. Proposed Drainage The proposed Site will consist of a 117,278 square foot building and a paved parking lot. The proposed Site will contain 8.73 acres of impervious surfaces. The proposed drainage system will consist of the construction of a new stone sewer system, two underground stormwater management systems, and four rain gardens. The proposed Site will discharge the majority of the treated stormwater into the wetland west of the Site. Outfall 3 will convey sheet flow from offsite and the easterly edge of the Site into an existing 15" RCP at the southeast comer of the Site. The stormwater discharges into an existing stormwater system beneath Powers Boulevard. Outfall 4 takes runoff from the south edge of the property. Stormwater sheetflows in the Park Road Right - of -Way and eventually into an existing stone sewer system. The amount of dishcharge into the and Walmart #5949-00 Technical Memorandum Park Road Right -of -Way decreases from the existing condition in the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year storms. The Site will comply with all applicable Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, City of Chanhassen, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency applicable standards. Rate Attenuation Summary The proposed Site will increase impervious area by 3.42 acres. The stonnwater management system will provide rate attenuation for the 2-, 10., and 100 -year storms. The following table summarizes the existing and proposed discharge rates from the Site. EXISTING RUNOFF RATES 2 -Year (cfs) 10 -Year (cfs) 100 -Year (cfs) Outfall1 17.92 28.65 33.85 Outfall2 0.82 1.93 3.55 Outfall3 5.29 9.54 15.10 Outfall4 1.73 3.65 6.34 Total Site Discharge 25.76 43.77 58.84 PROPOSED RUNOFF RATES Outfall 1/Outfall 2 14.55 21.87 37.34 Outfall3 0.50 1.13 2.04 Outfall4 0.49 0.74 1.06 Total Site Discharge 15.54 23.74 40.44 Water Quality Summary The Site will utilize two StormTech SC -740 systems, and four rain gardens to meet and exceed the water quality requirements. The City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requires that I inch of runoff from the new impervious shall be treated onsite. Since the Site discharges into an impaired water, treatment will be provided for 1 inch of total impervious throughout the Site. The StormTech systems will provide pretreatment within prefabricated Isolator Rows. The StormTech Isolator Row is a row of StormTech chambers that are encased in geotextile fabric and acts as a sediment trap, prior to discharging into the entire system. A strip of non -woven geotextile fabric is wrapped over the top of the chambers for the entire length of the row, separating the first flush from larger storms. The Isolator Rows have been designed to remove up to 95% total suspended solids (TSS). Additional treatment will occur as water filters through the attenuation chambers and exits the underlying draintile. The Isolator Rows can be accessed via manholes at the ends of the rows and the sediment can be removed utilizing vacuum trucks on an as -needed basis. Four rain gardens will be placed in landscape areas throughout the Site. Rain gardens will provide first flush water quality treatment by biofiltration. Filtration was used in lieu of Walmart #5949-00 Technical Memorandum infiltration due to the existing clay soils onsite. Rain gardens will also provide TSS and phosphorous removal throughout the Site. Below is a table summarizing the water quality treatment provided onsite. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT VOLUME Water Quality Treatment Volume Required Volume (cf) Impervious Area (ac) Volume (cf) 1 inch over impervious area 1 8.73 1 31,690 Water Quality Treatment Volume Provided Volume (cf) StormTech System 1 22,433 StormTech System 2 9,670 Rain Gardens 4,696 Total 36,799 Please contact me at (651) 645-4185 if you have any questions. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Lucas C. Payne, P.E. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 20, 2011, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Walmart Rezoning — Planning Case 2011-11 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. J. :: Dep ,Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 day of 2011. Notary ublic KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. start until later in the evening,depending on the order of theagenda, Request for Rezoning from Industrial Office Park (IOP) to Proposal: Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a commercial Request for Rezoning from Industrial Office Park (IOP) to development of a 120,000 square -foot Walmart Store on Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a commercial approximately 14.10 acres of land. A licant: Walmartc/o Kimle -Horn Associates, Inc. Property 1000 Park Road Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. 1000 Park Road The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. public hearing through the following steps: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses 3. Comments are received from the public. the project. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the project. the City's projects web page at: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/11-11.html. If you wish to the City's projects web page at: talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Questions & Aanenson by email at kaanensonaci.chanhassen.mn.us or Comments: by phone at 952-227-1139. If you choose to submit written Aanenson by email at kaanenson( ci.chanhassen.mn.us or comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in by phone at 952-227-1139. If you choose to submit written advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in Commission. The staff report for this item will be available advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the online on the project web site listed above the Thursday Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industnal. • Minnesota State statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(a). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of theagenda, Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning from Industrial Office Park (IOP) to Proposal: Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a commercial development of a 120,000 square -foot Walmart Store on approximately 14.10 acres of land. Applicant: Walmart, Go Kimle -Horn Associates, Inc. Property 1000 Park Road Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/r)lan/11-11.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Questions & Aanenson by email at kaanenson( ci.chanhassen.mn.us or Comments: by phone at 952-227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions. Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that incluPPas all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request Al the Planning Cgmmission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be openedd for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclal/Industrlal, • Minnesota State Statute 519,99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city, Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff pension named on the notification. CNL FUNDING 2000-A CORE MPLS INDUST PORTF ETAL DONALD E HALLA REVOCABLE PO BOX 1671 1600 DAVE ST #450 TRUST ORLANDO FL 32802-1671 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2447 PO BOX 260888 PLANO TX 75026-0888 ECKANKAR PO BOX 2000 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-2000 RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL CENTER 500 MAPLE ST S WACONIA MN 55387-1791 WILLIAM MATZEK KIMLEY-HORN ASSOCIATES INC. 2550 UNIVERSITY AVE W STE 238N ST. PAUL MN 55114 ISTAR MINNESOTA LLC PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261-4900 TFK MAMMOTH LLC 7801 PARK DR STE F CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9219 LOTUS HOLDINGS LLC 7411 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9722 UNITED MAILING INC 7951 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9502 I- Carver County, MN n oy.� -9 3 u� +2s I(i37-' � Taxpayer Name: ISTAR MINNESOTA LLC � - �� 1f t k = i Taxpayer Address: PO BOX 4900 �r a $ e, Carver County is not responside forany inecmtatiesd herein 85261-4900 Watershed District: WS 064 RILEY PURG oy.� -9 3 u� +2s I(i37-' � Taxpayer Name: ISTAR MINNESOTA LLC � - �� 1f t k Homestead: N Taxpayer Address: PO BOX 4900 �r Taxpayer City St. Zip. SCOTTSDALE, AZ e, Carver County is not responside forany inecmtatiesd herein 85261-4900 Watershed District: WS 064 RILEY PURG , 7 Property Address: 1000 PARK RD h �A r Platname: PARK TWO 2ND ADDITION ,r Property Information Parcel ID: 255660010 AS400 Acres: 14.68 Taxpayer Name: ISTAR MINNESOTA LLC on Systems (GIs), tt is a compuafioo a us!0 m tion aM data from City,County, State. and Federal offices. Thus map is nota F Homestead: N Taxpayer Address: PO BOX 4900 School District: 0112 Taxpayer City St. Zip. SCOTTSDALE, AZ e, Carver County is not responside forany inecmtatiesd herein 85261-4900 Watershed District: WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF CREEK Property Address: 1000 PARK RD Tax Exempt: N Property City: CHANHASSEN Platname: PARK TWO 2ND ADDITION GIS Acres: 14.1 er This map wascreatedusingCanerCounty'aGeographlc Map Scale on Systems (GIs), tt is a compuafioo a us!0 m tion aM data from City,County, State. and Federal offices. Thus map is nota F 1 inch = 641 feet or legally recorded map andsvnended to ue used as a e, Carver County is not responside forany inecmtatiesd herein Map Date 10/13/2011 N W+E S N Joseph Morrison President Phone: 952-470-6460 Fax: 952-380-3969 November 21, 2011 Mr. Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen City Manager 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Gerhardt: �IWCODIRECT° o�wccr www we�iwa uac wo owc c�ce CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 2 1 2011 CHANHASSEN PLMINIidG DFP 7951 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 As we are all aware, the Planning Commission recently voted to deny the Concept Planned Unit Development at the intersection of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard. As the long term lessee of the property owned by Istar, we wish to provide the City Council an important perspective before its vote on November 28th. For the past 35 years IWCO Direct has called Chanhassen home. During this time we've expanded our operations and added jobs along the way. Today we are the third largest employer in Chanhassen, providing 880 jobs in Chanhassen and more than 1,400 jobs in Minnesota. We are proud of our history of working with city leadership to address key issues such as transportation, education, and health care. In short, we fully embrace the city of Chanhassen and understand that a thriving community is good for residents, businesses and local government. That's why we encourage the City Council to carefully consider the potential benefits of the proposed Walmart site. During the past six years, we've been unsuccessful in finding a buyer for this land parcel — until now. Developing this parcel as a vibrant retail destination appears to be its best purpose. It will create an anchor point for Chanhassen's commerce corridor bringing customers not only to Walmart but to the surrounding retail stores and restaurants. If the City Council votes against the development, it likely will take years to find another buyer, delaying the opportunity for an enhanced tax -base. Until then, it will remain an under-utilized asset to Chanhassen from a jobs and tax perspective. Walmart anticipates the new development will provide between 250-300 needed jobs in Chanhassen. The new development will also add to the tax base. As reported in the local papers, in 2011 the Eden Prairie Walmart generated $380,000 in property taxes. To put that in context, IWCO Direct paid $280,394 in property taxes in 2011 on the property in its current, underutilized capacity. In addition, Walmart engaged Kimley-Horn for a traffic study. IWCO Direct reviewed their findings and concluded the proposed plan will improve traffic flow in the area and make it safer for our employees to cross between our buildings on Park Road and Powers Boulevard than the current situation. Residents are currently leaving the city to shop at Walmart stores in nearby cities. Welcoming Walmart to Chanhassen will benefit our residents in many ways. Dollars stay here to provide newjobs, grow the tax base and help make Chanhassen a more vibrant community. We encourage the City Council to vote in favor of the Walmart plan on November 28th. Sincerely, Joe Morrison Corporate Headquarters: 7951 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317-9502 Facility Locations: Downey, CA • Little Falls, MN • Hamburg, PA • Warminster, PA Aanenson, Kate From: Scott Paulson [gcfworld@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:19 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Good morning Kate, My name is Scott Paulson and I met with you a few years ago regarding the proposed Harley Davidson Dealership. At that time you indicated to me that you had 'Big Box' retailers contacting you constantly about building in Chanhassen. You told me that there wasn't a single 'big box' location in town left. Is this still the case? What is the cities stance or Walmart? I believe it would destroy the town and once they come in you can't get rid of them (see Eden Prairie!). Thank you, Scott Paulson Aanenson, Kate From: Matt & Sarah Thomas [Thomas8407@q.comj Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:39 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal-Mart Hi Kate, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning regarding the proposed Wal-Mart development. At the time I was unable to access the documents via Laserfiche. I have once again attempted to download the PDF from the City website and while I couldn't print the PDF's I was able to view them. I hope to stop by City Hall tomorrow to take a closer look at the plan set and obtain some copies. A few quick things; I realize this is simply a concept plan but they don't have much of a narrative to support their request. I'd like to know why they propose the zoning change, what benefit a rezoning and PUD would bring to the City, and why they can't meet the standards within the zoning code? I'd like to see if they could meet the zoning standards and what a 65,000 SF Wal-Mart would look like. The rear of the building, outdoor storage and proof of parking along a busy corridor and entrance to downtown is not a good layout, in my opinion. To garner support for this type of proposal the development should enhance not only the site but the entire area and create a gateway to the downtown. Because of the number of deviations from code that I can only assume they'll need, the development should provide a public benefit and also go above and beyond basic zoning requirements. The "sign on a stick" pylon design shows Wal-Mart does not have the community in mind. As I stated this morning, traffic greatly concerns me. 212 just alleviated the traffic on Hwy 5 and this development would put us right back where we started. I don't know of any Chanhassen residents that have a desire for another big box discount store in town, especially with Target right across the street. So we will have the traffic and road repairs that are brought to us from residents living outside the City. Lastly, Chanhassen contracts through the County for its police protection, and I would like to know how the City would plan to handle the increased service levels this development would likely require. I have heard that crime tends to follow Wal-Mart. That may or may not be true; however, I have had a Police Chief personally tell me not to shop at a particular Wal-Mart after certain hours because it is not safe. My neighborhood has had many, too many, burglaries in the past few years and besides the additional traffic, crime is a fear of mine with this proposal. I am curious if it would be possible to check with other cities to see if they have seen an uptick in crime at their Wal-Mart locations. Chanhassen just doesn't seem to be a good fit for Wal-Mart, especially at this location. I would like to see the City work on enhancing the downtown and drawing in businesses that will compliment what already exists and not allow a monstrosity such as Wal-Mart. I look forward to seeing this proposal at the public hearing. Sincerely, Sarah Thomas 2555 Longacres Drive Aanenson, Kate From: beth.millerl@usbank.com Sent: Friday, October 07, 20118:26 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Please count us as against this development. We will be at all meetings we are able to attend. Beth Miller Program Development Manager Strategic Alliances Consumer Banking Office (612) 973-7834 Cell (952) 232-7291 beth.millerl aQusbank.com U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Aanenson, Kate From: Suzanne Huwald [shuwald@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 10:26 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: proposed Wal-Mart We have been resident's of Chanhassen for over 17 years and I would be extremely disappointed if Chanhassen brought a Walmart to our town. There is absolutely no need for a Walmart in Chanhassen. We live off of Powers Blvd and we have the Target in Chanhassen within 5 minutes of our house, the Target in Chaska within 6 minutes of our house and the Walmart and Target in Eden Prairie within 10 minutes of our house. There is not a need for another big box discount retailer in this area. We desperately need family friendly higher quality restraunts, quality retail and a clean grocery store with low prices and quality produce. Hy -Vee grocery stores are amazing and would be a great addition to Chanhassen. Thank you for your time, Suzanne Huwald From: Bonnie Filko [bonnie.filko@q.com] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:19 PM To: City Council Subject: Wal-Mart Good Afternoon, As a long-time resident of Chanhassen, I love how our community is growing and appreciate the thoughtfulness the City Council has been in reviewing each new development request. In regard to Wal-Mart. We have a Wal-Mart in Eden Prairie already which is only 5 miles or so away. As a citizen, I am not opposed to a large establishment moving in especially as this is close to the 212 highway and will therefore be attractive enough to draw consumers and provide good tax revenue for Chanhassen. Let's look for something that closely matches our needs, and will provide us something new in the area in regard to its goods—and services. We have enough grocery stores, enough banks and enough pharmacies within our city limits. The small strip malls in Chanhassen aren't very attractive, and am sort of surprised they are even still in business. We have enough home improvement stores within a 6 mile radius. I am short on ideas on what would be a good alternative for this land development, but hope it is not Wal-Mart that you determine what is good for our area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Bonnie Filko 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Ann Kloempken [annk2002@juno.com] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:29 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal mart Kate, I was so happy to hear that Walmart might be building in Chanhassen ! It will bring jobs, increased tax revenue, and it could boost the sales of other retail stores and restaurants in Chanhassen. It will bring shoppers in from surrounding areas. Walmart is a great place to shop ! I'm concerned that you will only hear from people who are against the new store, so I wanted to be sure to let you know that I am looking forward to it Ann Penny Stock Jumping 3000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! http://thirdpartyoffers.iuno com/TGL3141/4e938e2bc7a2032ad8m05vuc 1 From: barbalaQ2 aol.com [barbalan2@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:48 AM To: Furlong, Tom Subject: Proposed Wal*Mart Store in Chanhassen Good morning Tom - We have heard that Wal'Mart is interested in locating a store at the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Powers Blvd. Will you please let us know what your position is on this issue? Will you also please let us know what the proposed investment from the City of Chanhassen is for this project (infrastructure, TIF, etc.) Thank you. Alan and Barb Johnson Aanenson, Kate From: dgjinc@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:58 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: WAL-MART Good Afternoon - I live in the Lake Susan Hills neighborhood and have been a resident of Chanhassen since 1991. This is the first time I have felt the need to address the city and let my feeling known about any city projects. I have just heard about the proposed Wal-Mart on Powers and Hwy 5.. I AM 100% OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. I believe it is wrong for our community and personally oppose the general Wal -mart business policy- the way they treat their employees - how Ilocal small business dries up under the shadow of a Wal -mart and how the dynamics of a city change when a huge box store like Wal -mart dominates and dictates the local business climate. I will attend the Nov. 1st planning meeting and alert my neighbors. I hope reason will prevail and this project will be killed. Doug Jacobson 952-937-5381 . . Aanenson, Kate From: Brown, Kevin [kevin.brown@bemis.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:54 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal-Mart Proposal Good morning Kate, I have just caught wind of the Wal-Mart proposal that will be under discussion on November 1. Unfortunately I will be traveling for business on November 1 so my voice will not be heard at the meeting. As such, I am writing to you to represent my voice. As a note, I live in the Springfield neighborhood at Lyman and 101— 559 Greenview Drive. I, like many other I am sure, am not in favor of Wal Mart being located in Chanhassen. As a citizen, I do not like the impact Wal Mart has on the local business community. Local business is part of the charm of small American communities as they help create and maintain the character of the community. Wal Mart's destruction of local businesses is easy to identify and prove. Additionally, Wal Mart's EDLP (everyday low prices) sounds great, but it is part of the reason, as James McMurtry sings, we don't make it here anymore. To me, Wal Mart is simply the distribution network for foreign businesses. Our dollars spent at Wal Mart reinforce the practice of sourcing outside of our country. That I cannot support. I cannot be honest if I don't admit that there are benefits to additional business in Chanhassen. I would hope if this goes through that Wal Mart's impact would be to increase the flow of money into the Chanhassen tax base. Subsequently, this should allow taxes to be flat moving forward. If Chanhassen is providing too much tax incentive to bring Wal Mart to the community then the benefit to the community is being prostituted. Thanks for listening. Kevin Brown Director of Sales Bemis - Wprint Division kevin.brown(a) bemis.com 952-403-1572 - office 773-610-7165 - cell This email and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, copy or use the contents of the email or any attachment. If you have received this email in error, please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system. Aanenson, Kate From: Randi Shapiro[rshapiro@jonathanmontessori.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 20112:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Proposed Walmart Hello Kate, I am a resident of Chanhassen and was shocked to hear about the proposed development on the SW comer of Hwy. 5 and Powers Blvd. First, that area is pretty busy now and I can hardly imagine it with a Walmart. There is a Walmart 10 minutes down the road for those who really plan to shop there. I for one do not support their business ethic, or lack there of I should say. Just because there is free enterprise, I would hope that the planners of Chanhassen could think of a more useful business that would help the Chanhassen small town feel continue and still bring in the tax base they are hoping for. Target is a more discreet business and certainly more ethical than Walmart. Perhaps a restaurant or or a store like Michaels, or a bowling alley for teens to have a good place to go would be a better addition to Chanhassen. I would be sick to have to drive by that business (Walmart) on a daily basis. A big mistake that will change the way Chanhassen is viewed. I doubt that the best small towns in the country have a Walmart in them. Please think VERY carefully! Sincerely, Randi Shapiro 743 Preakness Lane Aanenson, Kate From: royetta.snow@mchsi.com Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 5:59 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart I am very much against having a Walmart built in our town. They are unfair to their employes in the way they are treated and paid, and I believe it will greatly affect the other businesses as well. I do not think they will add to the great town we have now. Royetta Snow 1 Aanenson, Kate From: THOMAS W KRAUS [kraushausl@msn.comj Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:09 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: proposed Wal Mart We have learned that the city council is considering a rezoning proposal for the comer of Highway 5 and Powers Blvd to allow Wal Mart to build a store there. We feel this is a bad use of the property. There is already a business there that employs many people at higher wages that Wal Mart does. Plus the access and egress problems would be great as that is one of the busiest interesections in town. We feel a better place for them to locate would be along 212 somewhere. We feel a Wal Mart store in town would completely distract from the small town feeling of Chanhassen which is one of the main reason we moved here. Please deny this request. Tom & Sharon Kraus 7744 Vasserman Trail Aanenson, Kate From: Linda Hauser [lindamhauser@gmail.coml Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:33 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal Mart Please, please, Say no to a Wal Mart in Chanhassen!!!! Linda Hauser 2089 Clover Ct Chanhassen Aanenson, Kate From: Tom Lindemeier [tlindemeier@mchsi.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:14 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: W almart Hi Kate, My wife and I have been living in Chanhassen for 18 years now and have seen our community go through many changes, most of them have been very positive. This Wal -mart development is a disaster waiting to happen. 1 have been in architecture for 26 years and when you review the traffic plans and overall scale of the -project for that site it should not stand a chance to pass.lf it has to be rezoned it does not belong on that site to begin with I know the city needs the revenue but this is a bad plan. It is going to hurt Target and other businesses which are slow enough the way it is. Eden Prairie is not that far to do to Wal-Mart. Chanhassen Drug moved out after how many years taken over by the big boys. We drive on Powers South to 5 every day numerous times and it is too busy and dangerous the way it is Please vote no for this Sincerely, Tom Lindemeier email: tlindemeier(o)mchsi com Aanenson, Kate From: Waltgrob@aol.com Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:59 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: walmart I am a resident of Chanhassen and do not feel we need or want a Walmart in our community.We have enough competition in our grocery and other stores. Walter G Roberts 2019 Clover Ct Chanhassen,Mn 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Tony Nuss [tlnuss@mchsi.com] Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:37 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Connie Nuss Subject: Proposed Walmart Site Ms. Aanenson-- The purpose of this email is to communicate that I am not in favor of allowing a Walmart store in Chanhassen. As— Community Development Director, please know that I am concerned that it will diminish the small town feel of the city and most importantly will negatively effect business owners in the community. That is one of Walmart's legacies accross this country. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Tony L. Nuss 9140 Springfield Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 952.402.0625 Aanenson, Kate From: Bader, Tom From.Bader@wolterskluwer.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 7:13 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: No Walmart lam opposed to Walmart moving to Chanhassen. Thomas M. Bader — Sales Manager, Business Compliance Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Phone/Fax: 877-347-6108 tom.bader(a)wolterskluwer. com NOTICE: This message (and/or attachment) is a confidential business corn nunication.lf you are NOT the intended recipient, any further review, storage, distribution, or other use of content is prohibited.If you received this message in error, please notify sender and delete the cortespondence.Thank you. At Aanenson, Kate From: Donald Dahlquist [donald.dahlquist@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:35 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal-Mart Proposed Store 10/18/11 Dear Ms. Anenson The purpose of this letter is to request you and the City Council VOTE NO to the Wal-Mart request, to build in Chanhassen, MN. We understand the City Council's responsibility to govern our cities needs and especially revenues to support city needs and delay property tax increases. This is good, this is your charter. However, adding a Big -box Wal-Mart store into our downtown mix we feel is a negative for our community. There is a Wal-Mart only 8 miles east in Eden Prairie. Our good neighbors, the CARVER, MN city council and MINNETONKA, MN city council both voted a proposed Wal-Mart store down in their communities. We need to inquire WHY? Why were they so positively decisive for their existing community businesses? The comment of the possibility of Wal-Mart paying $350,000.00+ in annual taxes to the city comes across as if that was in ADDITION TO tax revenue we currently receive to our fine city. PLEASE understand from past history with a Wal-Mart being built in a city and village community, this is not true. The history of Wal-Mart going into a city and the belief that adding a big -box store will increase consumer spending is also negative thinking. There are only so many dollars consumers have, which in reality is spent at our current establishments OR would be at Wal-Mart. The history of a Wal-Mart being built in a community usually results is the closing of neighboring retail establishments. We are sure you agree, this would be BAD. Whole strips of retail stores closed provides a negative impact on the city's image for any future business. The tax revenue we currently receive from our existing retail businesses will STOP when they close or be reduced so far that the $350,000.00 expected from Wal-Mart will be awash in tax revenue gained. Other arguments are the possibility for more employment. We tend to believe this is false. If existing retail establishments close, some employees will try and be employed at Wal-Mart, so that is awash. The others will just be unemployed. And again the history of Wal-Mart salaries are very low, the laid -off employees from closed businesses who might gain employment at Wal-Mart most likely will not experience increased income as in their previous employment. Again we are being factual and analyzing Wal-Mart history around the country. The closeness of the Eden Prairie Wal-Mart and the placement of it in Eden Prairie in its major retail setting is completely opposite of our village community environment. If we turned down a Fleet Farm years ago to be located on 5 and 41, which would have been twenty -thirty miles away from another Fleet Farm, why would we approve a Wal-Mart that is only 8 miles away from Chan? Thank You for studying the Wal-Mart proposal thoroughly, and concluding the negative impact on our community as well as the reality of few if any real benefits that we might capture. PLEASE vote NO to approving a Wal-Mart store in Chanhassen. Respectfully, Mr. & Mrs. Donald B. Dahlquist 7634 Prairie Flower Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: ml2@mchsi.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:52 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal'mart Is there any benefit to having a Wal*mart in Chanhassen other than taxes? Michael Lalim 2089 Clover Ct Aanenson, Kate From: Taylor Pederson [tcpeders@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 20117:13 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Store Please no Walmart! I grew up in Chanhassen and now my husband and I just bought our first home here. We love the small-town feel, but we worry that adding a Walmart would go against that. We already have a Target store that's doing great. We don't two mega -stores in one square mile. There is already a Walmart 10 minutes away in Eden Prairie anyway. If anything, Chanhassen could use a new restaurant or cafe in the neighborhood. A place that the community could be proud of and stand behind. Walmart has been accused of poor business practices, mistreatment of employees, and pushing out local businesses. Is that something we really want to bring to our beautiful city? Please take this into consideration when discussing this matter. Thank you, Taylor Pederson o 6 At� �A �. 4 '1, 7- E-� "z -47 � MIKE SEIF EIiT yoo^- "Co" 4 ?OW -A;- .b,� Aanenson, Kate From: pschrupp@mchsi.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 5:31 PM To: City Council Cc: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart We would like to add our names to the citizens that are opposed the proposed building of a Walmart in Chanhassen. Chanhassen continues to be named one of the best places to live in Minnesota (and the country). Look at other cities that have earned that honor. The majority of them do not have a Walmart! The proposed location will require new streets,stoplights --- we assume at taxpayer cost. There is a Target right across the corner from this location. If Target loses business and closes, what would you do with that empty location? There is an Office Max across the corner from this locatin. If Office Max loses business and closes, what would you do with that empty location? We realize these are both "big box stores", but their location draws people into town. The increased traffic, perhaps 24 hours a day, will require extra police coverage not only near the store, but in surrounding neighborhoods. While we recognize that we are more suburb than small town, the extra lights from the parking area will add to destroying the "night sky" in our area. There is ample evidence that a new Walmart in town ends up closing down local businesses. The wages and benefits (or lack of benefits) Walmart pays its employees would not support most families that choose to live in Chanhassen --most Walmart employees would drive in to work and leave rather than spending their dollars at other Chanhassen businesses. If road construction allows shoppers easy in and out at Powers and Hwy 5, what incentive would Walmart shoppers have to come into town to shop at other stores or eat at any of the local restaurants? We like that there is still a "downtown" Chanhassen. We don't want to end up like and Eden Prairie with malls and strip malls and no town center. We are heartsick at the thought of a Walmart being the western entryway to our city. While we appreciate that you are trying to grow our tax base, please --please use some creativity. There must be another option that would make a better neighbor than Walmart. Sincerely, Paul and Toni Schrupp October 28, 2011 City of Chanhassen ornIVED Planning Commission 1111LIOE 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 OCT 3 1 2011 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-0147 CITY Of CHANHASSEN Members of the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission: While I realize that a city needs to grow, exactly why do we need a 100,000 square foot plus retail establishment? Is there not already enough retail in Chanhassen? Do we really need a big box store? The rationale we are told is to create jobs and add to the property tax base. So let us take a look at those claims. Will a Wal-Mart create jobs? No doubt about it. Do not get me wrong, I am all for creating jobs but what kind of jobs are we talking about? After all, Wal- Mart is known for paying mostly minimum wage jobs and providing health care for only a small percentage of its store employees. As such, Wal-Mart is not going to create many high paying, middle class jobs. Are a lot of Chanhassen residents going to be applying for these jobs? My guess is probably not, so such a development is not going to do much for job creation for Chanhassen residents. Is this the type of employerthat the City desires? I doubt it Regardless of the jobs concerns, let us look at the property tax base side of the equation. In reviewing the Staff Report, there are numerous infrastructure improvements that will be required including, but not limited to: • An additional left turn lane for westbound Highway 5. • An additional left turn lane for northbound Powers Boulevard. • Addition of turn lanes and a median for Park Road. According to the Staff Report, it will be up to the developer to pay for these improvements. Does the City really believe that Wal-Mart will pay for such infrastructure improvements? That would mark a radical departure from past practices where municipalities pay for infrastructure improvements to get retail development. Given today's economy, I find it hard to believe that Wal-Mart is willing to sink close to a million dollars for the three infrastructure changes recommended. I am sure they will ask the City to pay for these changes which, according to the staff report, are not budgeted for in any current or future infrastructure budgets. I find it interesting that the Staff Report does not recommend the addition of a traffic signal at Powers Boulevard and Park Road. With the traffic volumes projected at opening and into the future, it seems like a traffic light would be mandatory at this intersection, yet none is specified. I cannot even imagine the traffic mess at this intersection without a traffic light. It is literally an accident waiting to happen, again and again and again. And traffic lights are not cheap, particularly when it will have to be timed to a number of other lights in the near vicinity. I am just guessing that a traffic light at Powers Boulevard and Park Road will cost in the range of $200,000. Then there are the environmental issues. According to the Staff Report, because the site is near two surface waters that have environmental issues, the site will require that storm water runoff from the parking lot go through some sort of treatment before that water can enter Riley Creek and Lake Susan. I am sure that Wal-Mart will not be willing to pick up the cost of this and will ask the City to pay for such an improvement. I have no idea what such a water treatment process would cost for such a space, but I City of Chanhassen, Planning Commission Wal-Mart Store Proposal October 28, 2011 Page 2 have to imagine that it is not going to be cheap. Then there is all of the issues of removal of the existing watershed attributes of the site should the development be approved. This will only further exacerbate the issues regarding water quality in Riley Creek and Lake Susan. So, based on my estimate, the City is looking at least at a million plus dollars worth of infrastructure improvements that Wal-Mart will likely demand the City to somehow absorb. Then there is the variance that will be required for entry into the development. According to the staff report, the site will not comply with code as the entrance to the development will be 40 feet short of code between the entrance and the Powers Boulevard and Park Road intersection. Based on the traffic analysis presented, this entry configuration will likely mean that during peak times, traffic will back onto Powers Boulevard in both directions as patrons attempt to enter the facility. As a result, it appears that we will gain a traffic hazard with this plan. If all of the above does not kill this effort, the eight code violations that are documented in the Staff Report should kill it. Some of these code issues are going to be impossible to justify and will likely violate State laws and statutes. So 1 do not know how the City can even consider this proposal realistic. I am sure that Wal-Mart will demand property tax incentives to locate their store in Chanhassen as that is standard operating procedure. So in addition to the infrastructure costs, the City will also likely have to take a hit on property taxes. As a result, the net will likely be that the City will lose money on the deal for at least the near term. If that sounds familiar, it should. That is the same deal the City cut to get the existing downtown development and we are still paying for that. Seems to me that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face if we move ahead with this proposal. But the strangest thing of all about this proposal is that the Staff Report points to a number of building sites along the new 212 corridor that are more than appropriate for such a development. So one has to ask themselves, why does Wal-Mart want to locate its store at Powers Boulevard and Highway 5 when a number of more appropriate sites are available along the 212 corridor? I find it hard to believe that Wal- Mart is negligent and missed all of the code issues they were generating with their proposal. So why is Wal-Mart proposing such a development at this location? Could it be that Wal-Mart deliberately wants to destroy our existing downtown retailers? I think that is the question the Planning Commission and City leaders should be asking the representatives of Wal-Mart. Competition is fine, but moving in with the implicit plan of destroying a community's existing retail environment is reprehensible. It is all the more reprehensible given that, as I recall, we are still paying for our existing downtown through tax incentives and other giveaways that were granted at the time. If Wal-Mart wants to come to Chanhassen, so be it. But bending over backwards, likely paying for infrastructure improvements, granting tax incentives and creating the kind of variances that will be required to build on the proposed site just does not make any sense. Chanhassen has plenty of more appropriate sites for such a retail development. I would recommend that the Planning Commission reject this proposal and direct Wal-Mart to more appropriate locations within the City. 41 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Aanenson From: Mark Fuchs [markjfuchs@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:57 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Proposal Dear Amy Unfortunately we cannot attend the meeting but please know that our household (2 adults, 2 children) all vote to reject the building of the wallmart in Chanhassen. Sincerely, Mark and Carrie Fuchs. Aanenson, Kate From: Patricia Hastreiter [Patty. Hastreiter@mpls.kl2.mn.us] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:19 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: No Walmart in Chanhassen Kate: Please forward this message to the Planning Commission members. Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission Members: We are, unfortunately, unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting tomorrow night but wanted to let you know that we are very much opposed to allowing a Walmart to be built in Chanhassen. We think it would be detrimental to other nearby local businesses. We think it would bring too much traffic to the area. We don't like big box stores, especially Walmart. They pay low wages and make it difficult for smaller businesses to compete. There is already a big box Target store, which seems to sell a lot of the same merchandise as Walmart. We have lived in Chanhassen for 17 years, We like it there, and plan to stay. We enjoy the trails and lakes and the relative quietness of the area. We like the Lakewinds Food Coop and Byerly s. Our top concerns in Chanhassen do not include property taxes. The quality of life and ambiance of the area are much higher priorities to us. We think that Walmart would take some of that away. Sincerely, Patricia and James Hastreiter 6990 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-470-9057 Aanenson, Kate From: Amy Severson [aseverson@nemerfieger.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:19 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Amy Severson Subject: Please! No Walmart in Chanhassen! Importance: High Hi Kate, I am so glad you are the person to contact to protest the proposed Walmart in Chanhassen. You have made such a beautiful city for us, and to think a Walmart could come in and destroy our town is a crime. I support and shop at my downtown stores. Target has been part of my life since I was a child. Please! Don't compromise our town! I will pay more in property taxes to keep it out and I think my neighbors would too. PS yep—I am that Amy, class of'76 and Sarah's mom! Thank You Kate for your consideration to this appeal!! Amy Severson Senior Account Executive 952 278 3123 direct 952 925 1907 fax nemerfieger.com Aanenson, Kate From: Jody Lane jjokoberg@yahoo.com) Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:49 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Stop walmart We live in chanhassen and DO NOT want Wal-Mart coming here! PLEASE pass on your vote to NOT ALLOW WALMART TO BUILD IN CHANHASSEN. We will be at the meeting. Dave and Jody Lane 631 Bighom Drive Aanenson, Kate From: Dave Lane [daveelane@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 2:45 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Do not let Walmart build in Chanhassen. thanks Aanenson, Kate To: Megan Liebl Subject: RE: Walmart in Chanhassen From: Megan Liebl Imailto:meg.liebl(algmail.coml Sent: Monday, October 31, 20114:09 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart in Chanhassen Hello Ms. Aannenson, I am aware that there is a planning meeting regarding the future of Chanhassen tomorrow evening at 7:00 pm. Being discussed is the proposal of allowing a Walmart store to be built and operated on the comer of Hwy 5 and Powers Blvd. As an active and very concerned citizen of Chanhassen, please, please, please vote against this nr000sal. I'm sure you've received an overwhelming amount of feedback asking the same from other residents. After seeing all of the letters to the Chanhassen Villager, talking with neighbors, reading Facebook posts, and other online chatter against this proposal, it's hard to believe the idea is even still on the table. As your constituent, please do your part on behalf of your citizens and residents of Chanhassen and be our voice by voting against the nronosal to build a Walmart in our nice, small town. My husband and I often say to each other, "I just LOVE Chanhassen" while driving through town. It has such the most pleasant, small town feel, yet close enough to larger cities like Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. As you know our city has been ranked very high on multiple Best Places to Live lists. The addition of a Walmart would not only bump our lovely Chanhassen down on those lists, but it would surely put the smaller shops and stores around town out of business. We were so saddened to learn of Chanhassen Center Thug's closing, and now Somebody's House just a few doors down, but this would be just the beginning if a Walmart is thrown into the mix. It would be tragic to see a business like Walmart take business and revenue away from stores like Target, Cub Foods, Byerly's, Lakewinds and all of the smaller shops passing this vote would negatively impact. Not only for the above -stated reasons is a Walmart in Chanhassen a bad idea, but also for these (and beyond): • Increased traffic in a bad location - I cross the intersection of multiple times every day. This area is already congested without a Walmart on that comer. There are pedestrians trying to cross in the crosswalks. Add more traffic there and you're just asking for trouble. • There is a nearby Walmart in downtown Eden Prairie • Poor business practices - Some may say the addition would bring job to the community, but Walmart is notorious for paying as -low -as -possible wages, and giving as few hours as possible to all staff to avoid having to pay for healthcare benefit, etc. • Increased crime rate - Just read this study: http://www.walmartcrimereport.cgm/rgport.pdf . The study states that "Wal-Mart stores had more calls for service than nearby Target stores. For the sample, the average rate of reported police incidents at Wal-Mart stores was 400% hi her than the average rate of incidents at nearby Target stores and 6 times higher for the number of reported criminal incidents defined as "serious or violent." Again, please vote against a Walmart in Chanhassen. We really don't need one, and there would be many more adverse affects than positive implications to building one. Thank you for your work. Megan Liebl, Chanhassen Aanenson, Kate From: Susan.Wuoilett@wellsfargo.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 6:28 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Hi Kate, I wanted to let you know that my husband and I are concerned with the potential new walmart proposal for hwy 5 and powers. I have read the proposal and I was torn for about a week, knowing the added sales tax may be a benefit to the city. Since this walmart will be the furthest west, it will likely draw in people from the western suburbs who currently drive into eden prairie to go to walmart. However, I believe the possible negative side effects outweigh the positive. I am concerned with the crime that Walmarts tend to attract, and the potential harm to the current small businesses and boutiques we have in chan. Although the walmart would bring new job opportunities, I have read the numbers and many of those will simply be removed or relocated from current chan businesses, and all are lower paying jobs. Although I understand the financial benefits are tempting, please vote no to preserve the small town, classy that makes chanhassen special, and made my husband and I relocate from the northern suburbs to live here. Thank you, Susie Wuollett 720 Bighorn Drive, Chanhassen 1 The Community Development Director received calls from the following people stating they are opposed to the Walmart proposal: • Gloria Leone • Jane Osterfeld • Kay Faust Aanenson, Kate From: KIMBERLY MCREAVY [ktmtmcreavy@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:20 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal Mart proposal Hi Kay, I just want to voice opposition for the proposed Wal-Mart which is up for Planning Commission review tonight. My husband and I are against the project for multiple reasons, including increased traffic and potential detriment to existing Chanhassen businesses. Please pass our input along to the Planning Commission as we are not able to attend in person. Thank you, Kim and Tom McReavy 1350 Heather Court Chanhassen Aanenson, Kate From: Cook, Jamie M [JMCook@cbburnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:53 PM Subject: Piz say no to walmart Good afternoon, My husband and I have been Chanhassen residents for many years. (kids attend Chan Elementary) We would like to voice our concerns and do not want the Planning Commission/City Council to allow Walmart to build a faculty off of Hwy 5 and Powers. We feel as many others do --that the charm of Chanhassen could be lost forever! Have you completed a traffic study? I imagine that would costly-- Traffic is major concern for all with the possibility of hundreds of cars a day traveling on Powers and into Chanhassen? How will it affect the events we have at Lake Ann —such as 4th of July and Miracles for Mitch? We have nothing against shopping at a Walmart and believe this type of business/facility would be much better suited if it were located somewhere off of 212 and not in the heart of Chanhassen. The proposed logistics is truly perplexing! We shop at our local stores and can see how such a large conglomerate would really affect these business such as the local hardware store. As Chan residents we are fortunate to say we still have many small businesses and the feel of a small town that's why we live and raise our kids in Chan and not in Plymouth or Eden Prairie. I have no doubt that when Target came to town it was opposed by many too-- but Target it is a smaller store that is not overwhelming for the space nor traffic in Chan - Plus Target that gives back to the community. Will having Walmart affect the money that is given back to the Chanhassen schools? I am sure you are under pressure to hear the many voices of the Chan residents and I will predict they will be loud voices on this topic! Please vote to turn down this proposal. Regards, Jamie and Jeff Cook The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. The sender believes that this E-mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's employer is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Aanenson, Kate From: Don Draper [donrdraper@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:14 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart - Yes I'm very much in favor of a Walmart here. It will be a great convenience, add jobs and opportunity. Please vote to allow it. Thanks, Don Draper Aanenson, Kate To: Tim Amlie Subject: RE: Walmart Building Hi Kate, I had hoped to come to the meeting tonight, but I have a cold coming on that I don't want to spread it or hopefully make it worse. Hopefully you can pass this on. I am in complete support of the proposed Walmart plan. After taking time to drive around the area and seeing that it does not sit next to any residential real estate, I feel it does not bring about problems that so many are voicing via the newspaper or facebook (where I have already posted). Had it been next to housing, I may have a different opinion. Those complaining about traffic may have forgotten about the "mall" that at one time (and hopefully will come back) planned at Lyman and Powers - that would bring traffic onto Powers as well. It is already a 4 lane road which is more than the Super Target sees in Chaska around it. In terms of economic value - it is huge. We have a number of residents in this community that would benefit from jobs from high school age to retirees looking for something. Sales tax revenue AND the property tax revenue would be much greater than what we see from the current building at that site. In a community our size, we need more shopping opportunity. The businesses in downtown Chanhassen are not the type to be affected by a big box store - they are specialty shops. The only real competition will be for Target and quite honestly, they need some. Target could have expanded to a Super Target in our community but decided against. We have the largest retailer in the world knocking on our door in this economy - I think that shows a lot for us. People have complained that we don't have enough good eating establishments in our community... Bringing in this type of retail will bring along those types of businesses (even a Walmart). I grew up between Alexandria and Willmar - both towns have Super Wahnart stores - and the areas directly around them have brought in many eating establishments, etc. because of the area becoming a shopping stop point. It will bring revenue to gas stations and the other stores as well. My family owned a sporting goods store in St. Cloud for many years - it is still operating under new owners. We absolutely feared the big box stores coming to town. We were wrong. People may have purchased items at the big box stores, but when it came to after sale service and second purchases, they came to us. Business was incredible (the new owners have even expanded since we sold off 12 years ago). The bottom line is - I want to spend my money in my community. Those who are against Walmart don't have to shop there. In fact, those who are so against building it should pitch in towards the tax revenue our city would miss out if it isn't built. Additionally, those who would most benefit from this business probably can't even make this meeting or have the ability to voice their opinion... If one does the math in our community of nearly 23,000, rm guessing the percentage of those against (but making a big stink) would be pretty small. Thank you. Sincerely, Tim Amlie 8796 North Bay Drive Aanenson, Kate From: Jim Dimthomasl@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 6:13 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Re: Walmart Sorry, found two spelling mistakes so fixed them .... Jimt On 11/20/20116:10 PM, Jim wrote: Dear Kate Aanenson, I want to express my support for Walmart at the corner of Hwy 5 and Powers. I live 4 blocks from this area and love having Target nearby, hence the support for Walmart. I realize some local merchants such as Ace Hardware are concerned about Walmart. Dr Sobel , West Virginia University Economics Professor, has published a paper which concludes: "Wal -Mart's presence simply has had no impact on the overall size, or profitability, of the U.S. small business sector ". Personally, I would continue shopping at Ace, I love that store. I am surprised by the Planning Commission findings. In particular, why concerns about Riley Creek? The proposal does not appear to change the current impact on the creek, as developed by the previous owner. Also, why is 586 parking spaces a magic number? Target has less than that and uses less than 40% of those spaces for 364 days per year. I noticed there is concern about only two entrances. Target has only two, although one is shared with three other businesses. While I did not live in Chanhassen when Target was approved there seems to be two different standards being applied. The submitter says the proposal was "prepared in accordance with the City of Chanhassen's Code of Ordinances". My question to the city is did you pro -actively work with the submitter because the resounding vote against their proposal implies lack of communication and shared understanding. This year I was asked to pay for paving of Santa Vera Dr. Clearly the city does not have enough funds to pay for paving its own roads - the tax revenue from Walmart would make a big difference to what the city council can sponsor. Jim Thomas 938 Kimberly LN Chanhassen, MN Aanenson, Kate From: Brenda Johnson [bdr6466@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:42 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Re: Say NO to WalMart Hi Kate, I wanted to elaborate if you don't mind. There are many reasons as to why I don't shop at WalMart. Besides the atmosphere WalMart has as a shopping experience, this store as a whole incorporates international vendors as the majority, a very much non -US supporting company. I've also heard that WalMart doesn't treat their employees well, the average rate of pay is very low and they have many ethical issues resovling in a negative "community" as far as the people they hire and the crowd this type of store brings in. I wanted to correct myself below when I stated this will raise the robbery rate. What I meant to convey is the crime rate in towns that incorporate a WalMart are generally higher than those that don't. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion in this matter. Thank you, Brenda From: "Aanenson, Kate"<kaanenson(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us> To: 'Brenda Johnson' <bdr6466()yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2011 8:11 AM Subject: RE: Say NO to WalMart I have received your email and will forward it to the city Council. Kate From: Brenda Johnson [mailto:bdr6466(a_!vahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:06 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Say NO to WatMart Kate, I've been a resident of Chanhassen for 7 years, I'm very proud of this community and feel a sense of comfort and safety in living here. It makes me nervous just thinking of a WalMart coming to this community. The additional traffic is only a portion of the problems this community would be getting with allowing a WalMart here. The clientele it brings scares me. If WalMart comes here I would prefer to stay away from the Chanhassen downtown area and do all my shopping normally done in Chanhassen to the Minnetonka or Eden Prairie areas. And I can see this happening with other residence of Chanhassen as well. There is a WalMartjust 6 miles down Hwy 5 in Eden Prairie which I don't shop in, I know prices are normally better at a WalMart but I refuse to shop there. I don't understand why they would build so close to an existing store. If they want to move west they should be moving much further out where people actually need a big box store. WalMart should be building in a town that needs it, we don't need it or want it. I see no good with bringing this store to an area like this. This town is a safe, comfortable, friendly town. Bringing in a store like WalMart will only bring in the wrong type of people, the robbery rate will rise, the Chanhassen stores will loose business by residence no longer feeling comfortable shopping in the area. Say goodbye to the town that was voted second best town to live in by Money Magazine. Please vote NO to Wa1Mart. Best Regards, Brenda Rice Aanenson, Kate To: Isaac Will Subject: RE: Walmart is not needed in Chanhassen From: Isaac Will fmaitt0saacrwillftmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:42 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart is not needed in Chanhassen Hello, I wasn't able to attend the hearing on the 1 st but I wanted to take a minute to write you personally. I don't believe that the location or the business is necessary in Chanhassen. With the direct impact to local businesses (which I try to support as much as possible), I dread the day that Walmart would reduce my shopping options. am in my early 30's, plan on living in this house for at least the next 15 years and have two kids who will be going through the Chanhassen school system. I love Chanhassen. I love Na's Pad Thai. I already have 3 options for groceries within walking distance, do we really need another? Walmart is not bad, evil or would bring on the downfall of Chanhassen- It is just not needed here. If anything, it has given residents something to rally around. The jobs they need will do little for the community, especially if you take into account the established jobs we'll loose. I am proud of Chanhassen, it really is a great place to live. I just don't think Walmart fits who we are or who we want to be. Plus, throw on the fact that the land is not zoned for their proposed plan, the extra city cost to modify and maintain infrastructure and the spatial separation from the existing shopping district- I just don't see it as a viable opportunity. Thank you for your time! Sincerely, Isaac Will Aanenson, Kate From: Brenda Johnson [bdr6466@yahoo.comj Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:06 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Say NO to Wa[Mart Kate, I've been a resident of Chanhassen for 7 years, I'm very proud of this community and feel a sense of comfort and safety in living here. It makes me nervous just thinking of a WalMart coming to this community. The additional traffic is only a portion of the problems this community would be getting with allowing a WalMart here. The clientele it brings scares me. If WalMart comes here I would prefer to stay away from the Chanhassen downtown area and do all my shopping normally done in Chanhassen to the Minnetonka or Eden Prairie areas. And I can see this happening with other residence of Chanhassen as well. There is a WalMart just 6 miles down Hwy 5 in Eden Prairie which I don't shop in, I know prices are normally better at a WalMart but I refuse to shop there. I don't understand why they would build so close to an existing store. If they want to move west they should be moving much further out where people actually need a big box store. WalMart should be building in a town that needs it, we don't need it or want it. I see no good with bringing this store to an area like this. This town is a safe, comfortable, friendly town. Bringing in a store like WalMart will only bring in the wrong type of people, the robbery rate will rise, the Chanhassen stores will loose business by residence no longer feeling comfortable shopping in the area. Say goodbye to the town that was voted second best town to live in by Money Magazine. Please vote NO to WalMart. Best Regards, Brenda Rice 1 Aanenson, Kate Subject: FW: Contact Request - Admin From: bicobb2O04@vahoo.corn fmailto:1bicobb2O04(@vahoo.com1 Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 20113:15 PM To: Engelhardt, Karen Subject: Contact Request - Admin Website Contact Email Name Barbara Cobb Address 9479 Powers Place Email bicobb2004(a)vahoo.com Unfortunately, my husband and 1 were unable to attend last night's planning commission m eeting to state our opposition to the proposed Walmart plans. On principle, we do not currently shop at Walmart or Sam's Club as we vehemently oppose their business practices; most importantly towards their employees. The fact that they will be just up the road will not change the fact that we will not shop there. The fact that they would be "just up the the road" is also major concern for us. The back of our twinhome is directly on Powers Blvd. Traffic has increased markedly since the opening of 212 which is understandable. Powers Blvd may be a 4 lane road, but it is still a residential area. Despite the posted speed limits, average speeds are closer to between 50 and 55 miles an hour Comments with cars changing lanes to get around the the slower vehicles. It's hard enough to get out of our complex at times and to walk across the road is even harder... especially since our comer has no cross walks. even with croswalks, you take your life in your hands just like the Instant Web employees do. Traffic is certainly not going to decrease with the building of a Walmart. Not only will it increase, but there will be an increase in semi traffic as well. We understand the potential income etc that will bebrought in to the community, but at what cost to the area? I don't agree with Target's practice of putting stores in such close proximity to each other and I certainly don't like the idea of a chain such as Walmart doing the same. We are hoping that you will think seriously before agreeing to this project. Barbara and David Cobb i Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Name City State Zip Country SignedOn Wendy OConnor Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/17/2011 Shelley Kerber Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/17/2011 Mary Yazvec Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Stephanie rutledge Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Jennifer Weiner Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Laurie Hernandez Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kate McGuire Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Mary Pernula Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Carol Anderson Chanhass MN —55317 USA 10/17/2011 Scott Wosje Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Abby Ellis Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Laura Gustayson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Aimee O'Malley Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kristin Walters Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 carolyn thomson chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Laura Doten Shorewooc MN 55331 USA 10/17/2011 kristin stohl victoria MN 55386 USA 10/17/2011 Jeff Anderson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Craig O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Mary beth silbernagel Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Leah Plath Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Vera Tschida Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Cindy Brodigan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Natalie Christenson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Marceline Valenty Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Pam Hrubes Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 jason white Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Laurie Johnson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Elizabeth Kressler Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/17/2011 Amber White Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Mark Johnson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Jenny Pharis Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Ted Ellefson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Todd Neils Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 John L Bell Destin FL 32540 USA 10/17/2011 Vicki Eastwood Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Ross Huseby Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Ingrid Steele Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Judy Anderson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 David Kressler Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Angela Magnuson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Angie Ellefson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Gerald Wolfe Chanhasse MN 55317-45 USA 10/17/2011 Christina Salek Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Molly Ambrose Chanhass MN 1 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Stacy Beno chanhasse MN I 55317 USA 10/17/2011 1030 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Holly White Chanhasse MN 553 USA 10/17/2011 Kelly Koemptgen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Sue Boski Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Susanne Cantlin Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kyla Spencer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kari Okonek Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Meredith Johnson Chanhasse MN 553171 USA 10/17/2011 Sandy McNeill Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Melissa Crow Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 PaulCoroneos Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Jessica Anderson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kristine Beer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Patrick Beer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Karen Walker Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Elise Coroneos ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Debra Ludford chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Cameron Olsen ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 JACKIEJACOBSON CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 kathleen vankrevelen Chanhassc MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 CeCelia Smith Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Leslie Witterschein Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Cheryl Stanton Chanhasse MN I don't war USA 10/18/2011 Christine Anfinson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Johanna Heggelman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Stan Valensky Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Allison Newman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Theresa Bergren Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Emily Brisse Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Sharon Kraus Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Jessica Diaz Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Brian Diaz Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Tamara Sather Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Sue Berger Minneapolis 55419-111 United Sta 10/18/2011 Rick Tonsing Fair Oaks Ta 95628 USA 10/18/2011 Tonya Stier Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Maria Knox Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Jennifer Pauling Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Allison Lang Chaska 1 55318 United Sta 10/18/2011 Erika Carrillo chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Jan Gniffke Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Laurel Kiesow chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Gary Spencer Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Margaret Emerson Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Lisa Patrin Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Katy Anderson Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Ashley Browning Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Lisa Arrington Chanhassen I 55317J United Sta 10/18/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Amy Steffen Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 John and Stacey Bosack Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Karl Wandling chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Victor Escobar Midlothiar VA 23113 USA 10/19/2011 Sarah Dritz Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jennifer Fritz ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kathryn Bader Chanhassf MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Robin Anderson ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Pam Schwarz Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Maria Elgren Chanhase MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Lisa Nebel Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Laura Helmer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Thomas Bader Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Daniel Ryan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kim Klingelhutz Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Susan Fagan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Ana Moritz Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Blair Elgren Chanhasse MN We do not USA 10/19/2011 Debra Lochner Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Susan Hoffa Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 maryself Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Barbara Link Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 kathy kuhl chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Glenn Kaufmann Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Lisa Wing Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Suzanne Huwald Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Alysson Gebauer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 john manuel chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kristie Hennig Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Judy Monn Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Susan Sampson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Christine Meier Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Laurie Usignoli Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Paul Dorn Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jane Dorn Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Annette Snyder-Fossum ChanhassMN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Lance Huwald Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 josephtschida chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jonathan Ortner Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Holly Mell Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Carol Berg Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Julie Swenson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Louise Manno Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 james m nordlund Fargo ND 58102 USA 10/19/2011 Cara Rainey Chanahsse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Caroline Nelson Eden Prairi MN 55347 USA 10/19/2011 Angela Gauer Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/19/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Michael Grabner Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nicole Cleland Richfield MN 55423 USA 10/19/2011 Joan Reynders Chanhasse MN 5517 USA 10/19/2011 David Williams Victoria MN 55386 USA 10/19/2011 Kathleen Albrecht Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jane Anderson Chanhasse MN 55331 USA 10/19/2011 Mary Brink Chaska IMN 55318 USA 10/19/2011 Katie Gutierrez Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Stephanie Saltzman Edina MN 55436 USA 10/19/2011 c callahan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Annette Stock -Lind Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kathy O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Keri Buisman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Janet Rzonca Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Fred Berg Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Sheila Erickson chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 David Stockdale Excelsior MN 553C31 USA 10/19/2011 Karen Hoyle Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 JerryCerchia Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Beth Miller Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Alyce Bell Chanhasse MN 55317-855 USA 10/19/2011 Jean Hess Chanhasse MN We do not USA 10/19/2011 Michelle Williams Victoria MN 55386 USA 10/19/2011 Bruce Helmer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Bev Geffert Carver MN 55315 USA 10/19/2011 Bebe Paulson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Janice Johnson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 scoff Paulson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Ila Wheeler Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Dave Vieau Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Dan Mertes Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Phyllis Wachutka Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Steve Cannon Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Dallas Nelson Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/19/2011 Donald B. Dahlquist Chanhaser MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Alexandra Emerton Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Julie Burns MN MN Bad idea al USA 10/19/2011 SUE RIES CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 mari hart chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kyle Renner ChanhassE MN Walmart m USA 10/19/2011 Valerie Pass ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Leo Hofmeister Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Pamela Olund Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Gloria Lindberg IChanhasselMN 1 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jill Schmid Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nikki Renner IChanhas4MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 kim motschenbacher lChaska IMN 1 55318 USA 10/19/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Adam Erdmann Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/19/2011 Sally Nordmeyer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Barbara Bode Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Susan Von Fruke Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Mary Ann Manuel chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 John Bergo Ehanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Alec McKinley Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Aaron Stroeing Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Tony Evangelista Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Tony Marengo 6anhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nanci Olson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Mark Olson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Douglas Ahmann Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jodi Holden Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nancy Stanger Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/19/2011 damaris hernandez chaska MN 55318 USA 10/19/2011 Heide Ahmann Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Amanda Chase Carver MN 55315 USA 10/19/2011 Nancy Cardwell Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Michael Moritz Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 William Brown Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nadia Janson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Mary Leirdahl Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Laura Brannon CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Courtney Cannon ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Chanh Nguyen ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 gail montana chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Elisabeth Kelly —Washingtc DC 20016 United Sta 10/20/2011 Jessica Olson Minneapo MN 55408 USA 10/20/2011 Jesse Sutton ChanhassE 'EhanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Mike Seifert MN 55317 United Sta 10/20/2011 Bev Gossard chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Jarby Blackmun Ea—nhaser MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Patricia Hawke Victoria MN 55386 USA 10/20/2011 Bonnie Marsh Ehanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Jane Morgan chanhasse MN 'Ehanhasse 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Sarah Ferderer MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 MargaretStandafer Chanhass MN 55317 'USA 10/20/2011 Zhanetta Lundberg Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Barry Mckinney ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kelly Boss Fh—anhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Gordon Buchanan Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 jan chatmas chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kay Paterson Ehnhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Sandy Opheim Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kristin Mattson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kirk Sampson lChanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Brian Tuomala Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Scott Yager Chanhasst MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Alex Fossum Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 James Deno ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Andrea Deno ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Janet Adamski Chanhassf MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 MICHAEL MATTSON CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 dan pavlovich chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Jim Fisher Shorewooi MN 55331 USA 10/21/2011 Katherine Fischenich Victoria MN 55386 USA 10/21/2011 Derek Sorenson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Michael Neiman Minneapo MN 55403 USA 10/21/2011 Joan Skaff Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Max Anderson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 BethAnn Leonard Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 diane freeman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Paul Ryan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Pamela Carlson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Julie Beyer-Fitzgerald Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Pat Loge Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Wayne Mader Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Kevin Fitzgerald Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Julie Littfin Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Lisa McCall Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Deborah Mitchell jChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Veronica Perttu IChanhaSSE MN 553171 USA 10/21/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Kellan Fitzgerald ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Jay Kronick Chanahhs MN 55317 'USA 10/21/2011 Anthony Rockwell Eden Prair MN 55344 USA 10/21/2011 Pamela Murphy EhanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Meghan Maloney St. Louis P -Eh-anhassE MN 55416 USA 10/21/2011 Fred Cuneo MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Joel Jenkins Ehanhasse MN I believe tf USA 10/21/2011 Dorothy Downing -Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Sean Connelly Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Sherill Coumbe Chanhass MN 55331 USA 10/21/2011 Susan Wollan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Jennifer Grabner Chanhass MN 55317 'USA 10/21/2011 Jane Evangelista Chanhasst MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Brad Karels Fhanhassf MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Sally Ryan Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Stacy King Minneapo MN 55417 USA 10/21/2011 Cheryl Fischer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Jackie McCarthy Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Julie Yager Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Patti Ferguson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Tony Ferguson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Amy Sampson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Florence Sheesley Saint Jose MN 56374 USA 10/22/2011 Kristin Berg Prior Lake MN 55372 USA 10/22/2011 AmyJarrard Minneapo MN 55403 USA 10/22/2011 Paul Spencer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Jenny Spencer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Rosemary Soltis Chanhassen 55317 Uganda 10/22/2011 Laurie Sudol Clarkdale AZ 86324 USA 10/22/2011 Scott Hippen Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Marcia Hippen Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Gary Lehman Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Jennifer Doan Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/ 22/2011 Ann Dalhoff MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Liesa Sanya MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Renee Pederson N 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Ted Tigue TChanhassMN MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Amy Kaehler MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Kathy Gavert MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Dwight Gaddis MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 DwightGaddis Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Peggy Stevenson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Diane Swenson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Robb Swenson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Amy Rolland Martinek 55331 MN 55331 USA 10/23/2011 JoAnn Quackenbush Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 AustenEdman R 52 USA 0/0111 KENT LUDFORD CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 KATHLEEN MADER CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Brian Boie Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Mary Sutton Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 john hagedorn chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Tom Smith Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Barbara white Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Sanam Favrow Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Scott Pharis Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Arlan Monderewicz reading PA 19609 USA 10/24/2011 Tina Shear Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Kathy Beery Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Shirley Vinkemeier Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Daniel Mueller ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Andrea Hawley Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Andrea Kremer Hawley Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Susan Bartenetti Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 karen gibney chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/24/2011 joe gibney chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 John Hawley Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Bill Fisher Chanhassc MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Olivia Kressler Chanhassc MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Dawn Erdman Chanhasst MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Emily Rozanski Minneapo MN 55419 USA 10/25/2011 Anne Wicka Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Tarrah Mueller Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Christy Lee shorew MN 55331 USA 10/25/2011 Thomas Faust Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 mark zaebst chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN courtney kramer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Alan Kramer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Rob Martinson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Tammy Brady Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 James Pedersen Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/25/2011 Tracey Reichert Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/25/2011 Travis Quinlan Burnsville MN 55306 USA 10/25/2011 Brittany Liebl Zhanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Hilary Shadler Wayzata MN 55391 USA 10/25/2011 brian liebl chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Samantha Lee Bloomingt MN 55438 USA 10/25/2011 Rhiana Payer ChanhasselMN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Jeff Adams Saint Loui MN 55416 USA 10/25/2011 Kendra Gruman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Jessica Tait Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Lee Thorson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Tracey Dreshfield Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Michael Kamerud Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Linda Kramer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Robert Filippi Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/25/2011 Deborah Shillam Keighley BD22 United Kin 10/25/2011 Allyson Segar-Cohen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Steven Cohen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 craig warner Ehanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Monica Wiant Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/25/2011 Lauri Schauer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Shelley Vandermeide Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Jason Barber Shorewooi MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Barbara Kayati Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Richard Peters Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Peggy Kronick Chaska MN 1 55318 USA 10/26/2011 Debbie Lloyd Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Betsy LePlatt Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Ginny Watkins Minneton MN 55345 USA 10/26/2011 Diane Crannell Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/26/2011 KatjaJeanneret —Chanhasse MN With num USA 10/26/2011 Joan Ahrens Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Neillibson chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Kristilereska chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Susan dreveslibson chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Lynn Speaker Eden Prair MN 55346 USA 10/26/2011 Melissa Young Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Jennifer Jorgenson Chanhassf MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Sara Brown Chanhassf MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Karey White Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Patricia Peterson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Jessica Jorgensen Chanhassc MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Steve Taborek chanhaser MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Laurie Kurmis Chanhasse MN 55345 USA 10/26/2011 Misty Ojanpa Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Debra Pladsen ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 MariBeth Schulke eden prair MN 55347 USA 10/26/2011 Erin Strot Eden Prair MN 55346 USA 10/26/2011 Ryan Brown Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Jason Strot Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/26/2011 becky ludvigson eden prairl MN 55346 USA 10/26/2011 Sara Gorham Shakopee MN 55379 USA 10/26/2011 Lindsay Strot Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/26/2011 McDonald Winton Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Sharon Harris Chanhasse MN We don't USA 10/26/2011 James Walker janesville WI 53548 USA 10/26/2011 John White Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Martha McNeill Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Andrew Lemkuil Chanhasse MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Natasha Reilly Chanhasss MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 David Brackett Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Tom Miller Shorewoo MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Robert Panos Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Katie Kirschbaum Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Dianne Brackett Deephave MN 55391 USA 10/26/2011 Kim Simenson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 branden strot eden prair MN 55346 USA 10/26/2011 Ginny Watkins Minneton MN 55345 USA 10/26/2011 Amy Lemkuil Chanhasse MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Kerry Simenson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Robert Schwartz Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Candace DeCosse Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Chris Oster Chaska MN 55318 United Sta 10/26/2011 Brian Kummrow MINNEFOI MN 55343 United Sta 10/26/2011 Sarah McGinn Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Susan Seward Chanhasss MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Britton McGinn Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Laura Woelfel Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Stuart Powers Richfield MN 55423 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jenna Pederson Edina MN 55343 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jeff Burke Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Rebecca Brick ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Chris Engel ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Debbie Engel Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jill Ramsey chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jared Gehle lChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Nicole Hamad Minneapo MN 55425 United Sta 10/26/2011 Bonnie Houck IVictoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/26/2011 Will McMillan jEclen Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/26/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Anne Marie Lambert Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Patrick Lambert Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Tracy Wilson Maple Gro MN 55311 United Sta 10/26/2011 Pat Potter Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Rhonda Perkins Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/26/2011 Mackenzie McMillan Eden Prairi MN 55346 United Sta 10/26/2011 sally heard chanhassei MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Mark Schumacher Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/26/2011 Katie Johnson Maple Gro MN 55311 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jennifer Niland MPIs MN 55407 United Sta 10/26/2011 charles littfin chanhassei MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Nicole Campion Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 thomas potter chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Karen Cox Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Dan Campion Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Robert Egelston ChanhasLsE MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 MariAna Ebenreiter ChanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Cindy Egelston ChanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Nick Sandstrom ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 karleen lutter Minneapo MN 55410 USA 10/26/2011 tony heard chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jodi Alama Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/26/2011 Kimberly Gehle Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Julie butcher chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Mc Ed Sarawak 94300 Malaysia 10/26/2011 Jason Christensen Chanhasse MN DO NOT Bt United Sta 10/26/2011 Stefano Serpico Rimini 47921 Italy 10/26/2011 Cheryl Bauch Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Erin Karels Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Brook Benson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Stal 10/27/2011 eileen barnes chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Patrick Smith Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jon Maeser Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Heather Christensen Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 SHANNON BURKS CHANHAS MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Amelia Woltjer Nevis MN 56467 United Sta 10/27/2011 Diane Matthews Chaska MN 55318 United Sta 10/27/2011 Neal Klein Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeremy Wherley Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/27/2011 Cindy Warner Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kathleen Cancilla Chanhasse MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Lorinda Hanson Chaska MN 55318 United Sta 10/27/2011 Sonya Benkstein Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 annelutting Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Mike Wellner Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Stephen Pawlyshyn jChanhass IVIN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Brielle Herbst Shakopee JIMIN 1 553791 United Sta 10/27/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Susan Haun-Dorsey Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeanna Simonson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jenny DeRoo Rockford MN 55373 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jay Donohue Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kory Barthelemy Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Troy Prinsen Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Laurie Donohue Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Amy Klitzke Lester Prai MN 55354 United Sta 10/27/2011 Ryan Litfin Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Sarah Klein Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Phillip Kuehne Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Brian Smith Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Ashley Smith Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jennifer Grimm Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Derek Lechner Hopkins MN 55305 United Sta 10/27/2011 Thor Smith Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Matthew Taus Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Dan Piff chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Courtney Spekman Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Dave Howe ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Anne Taus Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Danielle Antonovich ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Christina Hamad ChanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Henry Ohnstad Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Madi Young edinA MN 55439 United Sta 10/27/2011 Debora Hol Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Laura Williams Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Bruce Duncan Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 chris adams Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Valentina Muraleedhar St. Peter MN 56082 United Sta 10/27/2011 Patricia Adams Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Rachel Seppman Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/27/2011 Rielle Perttu ChanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Justin Perttu 1000 Lake Chanhassf MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Rianna Perttu ChanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jordan Perttu ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Thomas Peterson Chanhassc MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Mike Mehr Eagan, MN 55123 United Sta 10/27/2011 Claudine Wildman Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Steve Evangelista Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kristin Terrell Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Phil Standafer Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeff Engebretson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Elizabeth Gangl Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Edward Laurson Denver CO 80235 USA 10/27/2011 Zane Detert Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Julia Braswell Chaska MN 55318 United Sta 10/27/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Anne Fisher Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 susan cohoon Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Dick Uoyd Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 margaret adie chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Lisa Clausen —Fhanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Bonnie gasperlin chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Steven Cohoon Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeff Zahn Ehanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Spencer Schwartz Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Marissa Schwartz Shorewooi MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Barbara Brown Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Bruce gasperlin chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Shelli Dorfe victoria MN 55386 USA 10/27/2011 Shawn Burk Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Robby Drake C-ha—nhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Luke Jackson Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 benjamin dorfe Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/27/2011 Eric Kvam Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Patty Bremer Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Alicia Schimke Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Sue Seifert 6h-a—nhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kelly Hastings Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Julie Greenberg Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kaitlin Bentrup Winona MN 55987 USA 10/27/2011 Nick Hericks Americus GA 31709 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jane Revsbech Fh—anhasse MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Andrew Nelson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 JB - John and Stacey Bos Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Mark fuchs chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Amy Waters Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Mary Rabai Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Eduardo Perez chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Dr. Kevin Burns Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jessica Meilleur Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeffrey Tam Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 elizabeth adams Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Kathy Gillis Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/28/2011 Amy Butterfield Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Bob Butterfield Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Ruth Winterer Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/28/2011 Matt Peters Fh-a—nhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Raymond Brozovich Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Cathy Larson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Michelle Tanner St. Paul MN 55105 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lea Foli lExcelstor IMN 55331 United Sta 10/28/2011 Cindy Yokiel Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Jason Whims IChanhassdMN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN David Wollan Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Jennifer Westerhaus Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 craig anderson chanhasse MN 55318 United Sta 10/28/2011 Patti Michels Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Toni Schrupp Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Stephanie friant chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 John Rock Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Jessica Miller Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lindsay Barthelemy Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lisa Katalinich victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/28/2011 Ben Newton Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 karlene mikesell chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Stephen Sando Edina MN 55424 United Sta 10/28/2011 Debra Bauler Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lena Otolski ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 michael bailey chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Carrie Newton Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Patti Zimmer Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Linda Gallaro Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/28/2011 Jennifer Syverson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Kathryn Goerges minneapol MN 55404 United Sta 10/28/2011 Carol Buesgens Chashasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 nancy wright Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Amy Santella Wayzata MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 David Emerton Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Gerald Cook Chanhasse MN 55318 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lynn Peters Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Don Wallis Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Julie Kolbow Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Dan Revsbech Chanhasse MN 55331 United Sta 10/29/2011 traci peterson Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/29/2011 Mary Ann Walstrom Chanahsse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Caitlin O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 stephanie fisher Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Joseph O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Melissa O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Cynthia Torn Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Beth Benzie ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Lori Larson Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/29/2011 Kevin Hippen chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Taylor Larson Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/29/2011 Patty Besser ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Mike Boyle ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Nancy Boyle ChanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Jamie Nelson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Pete Sperling Chanhasss MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Meghan O'Connor Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Allen Satter Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Nick Greenwood Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/29/2011 alecgibney chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 blanca gibney chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Gail Bach Fhanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Michelle Strain Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/29/2011 James Bach Chanhass M N 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Craig Blechta Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Joseph Merboth Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Janet McFarland Shorewoo MN 55331 USA 10/29/2011 Debra Denzer Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 meranda ludford Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Deborah Benson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Anita Bronson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Kevin Carlson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 cameron economy Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Bonnie Economy Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Rochelle Curtis Chanhassd MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Kristie Wigger Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Michael Yazvec Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 William Schulte Chanhasse MN 55317 United Stal 10/30/2011 Kelly Schulte Chanhass MN 55317 United Stal 10/30/2011 Lori Schmidt Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Linda Boerboom Chanhasse MN 55317 United Stal 10/30/2011 Nancy Hoopes Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Eric Gilliland New York I NY 10014 USA 10/30/2011 Michael Clausen Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Stacy Sand Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 mike winters Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Len Adler Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Anthony Oberstar Los angele CA 90034 United Sta 10/30/2011 Shannon Brooks Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/30/2011 Connie Nuss Chanhassen 55317 Afghani 10/30/2011 Blake Farland Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Sheryl Danks Hutchinso MN 55350 United Sta 10/30/2011 Jodie Siems Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Steven Posnick ChanhasselMN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Alex Westlind Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Edwin Everett Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Nancy Hanousek Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Rebecca Everett Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Dustin Lang Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Martin Schaeferle Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Dennis Rakocy Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Jacki Kurvers Chanhas MN 55317 United Star 10/30/2011 Jeffrey Kressler Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Katherine Johnson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Holly Rakocy Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Pam Kerber Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Linda roslansky Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Michelle Laurent chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Jeanne Pietrini Chanhass M N 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 frank laengle chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 tavis hudson ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Monica Held Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Cindy Robb Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/30/2011 David Enright Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Eric Chellen Shorewoo MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kristen Ryan Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Sue Adler Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Barb Johnson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Eric Rain Chaska MN 55318 United Sta 10/31/2011 Nick Bravos Minneton MN 55345 United Sta 10/31/2011 Pamela Strand Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Shirl Stroeing Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 William Hille Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ben Woolcott Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Lisa Kurvers Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Trish Rinzel Chanhasse MN jimpact on United Sta 10/31/2011 Markus Fischer chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Heidi Garcia Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kelly Lee Greenwoo MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Maureen Kvam Chanhas se MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Lauralee Chellen Shorewooi MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Alissa Abrahamson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 John Davis Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Deaen Held Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Lee and Jennifer Waldrc Chanhassd MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Teri Kocourek chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Amir Dabiran Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Shahsa Moghimi Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Lori Thorne Chanhass MN 55317 1 United Sta 10/31/2011 Amy Severson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Paymon Vasseghi Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ozra Amirahmadi Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Tom Cardle ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ehteram Barghi Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Rob Howard chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 kent borgerson chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kristin Kovic Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Grace Tripp Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Becky Borgerson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kevin Engebretson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 jackie ottoson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN LuAnn Lutgen Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Bill Schubert chanhasse MN -Ehanhassf 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Cara Goin MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Nick Goin Chanhass -Ehanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Rhonda Backus MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Paul Ottoson Fhanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Susan Kucera Chahassen MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Rick Fox Fhanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Nikki Fox-6 MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Susie Wuollett Fhanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Marcos Peluso Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Arkhip Osadchuk Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Irina Osadchuk Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 David Weiby Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Sharon McKinney Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Anita Steckling Chaanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Katie Bastiansen MN MN United Sta 10/31/2011 Pam McCartan Excelsior -Ehanhasse MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Paula Hallau MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kathleen Leisman Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Matthew Thomas Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Sarah Thomas Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Heike Hudson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 nancy clairmont carr Chanhasse MN 55317-912 United Sta 10/31/2011 Nicole Jesse Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Scottlesse Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ann Nye Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Daniel Uner Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Orhan Uner Chanhasse -EhanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Pat Uner MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Brenda Vatland EhanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Keit Osadchuk Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 mark thorne chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ruth Rogers Fort Collin CO 80528 USA 10/31/2011 patrick lynch chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Patrice Blechta Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Dave Schollman chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Daniel Lynch Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Chuck Goers Chanhass MN 55331 United Sta 11/1/2011 Donna Ozuturk Fhanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Ordell & Sonja Leines Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jean Nitchals Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Neil Ellis Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 BarrySteckling Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Robb Hall Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Laura Lehman CEanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Lance Wegner Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Lee Leines Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 11/1/2011 Vicki Taborek Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Holly Stang -Williams Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Philip Williams Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Thomas Newhouse Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 George Webster Chaska MN 55318 United Sta 11/1/2011 Peter Boevers ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Kathy Luce Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jodi Rivera Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Wendy Evenson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Sue Bogan Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Joe Oprosko Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Christoph Leser Chanhasse MN 55317J United Sta 11/1/2011 Jason Lehman Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 James Hastreiter Chanhaser MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Roger Rood Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 11/1/2011 Audra Mollet Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Dan Berg Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Brian BAker Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Leslie Baker Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Colleen Cannon Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Paul Johnson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Amy Diedrich Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Sarah Petersen Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Mike Petersen Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Patricia Hastreiter 5317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Mark Glodoski Chanhasse MN 55331 United Sta 11/1/2011 Virginia Bailey Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Lisa Keenan Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 jeff grover Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 mike Grebin CHANHAS MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 michael boyer chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 cherylniebeling chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jerry Parten Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jamie Cook Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jim Van Asten ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Shirley Humphrey Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Brian leines Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 11/1/2011 Rita Klauda Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Martha Noll chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jeff Cook Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.2271140 Fax:952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.2271400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.2271300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.2271110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us June 30, 2011 Mr. Dave Sellergren Fredrickson & Byron, P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Sellergren: I am sending you this letter to outline the process for a potential submittal for a Walmart store in Chanhassen. Because Walmart is requesting a commercial zoning well in excess of the intended zoning district, I have the following concern: I do not think it is prudent for Wal-Mart to submit a complete application without first receiving conceptual approval from the City Council on the zoning designation. At our two previous meetings we discussed the following issues: Zoning — The size of the proposed building exceeds the maximum square footage for any single use in this zoning district. Therefore, a PUD or zoning amendment is required. 2. Traffic — Kimley-Hom has submitted the traffic study to the City. This study is now at SRF, the City's consultant, for review. To date they have not begun the review due to non-payment. We have requested this be covered by the applicant/Wal-Mart. This review should be completed before doing anything else but it cannot move forward until the payment is received. I would recommend submitting a concept plan for a PUD. The conceptual PUD process is intended to give you direction to your request for Commercial zoning, and limit your expenditures (no formal architectural or site engineering plans), while receiving guidance from the Planning Commission, City Council and the community. While conceptual approval is non-binding, the process allows a better understanding of any potential issues. Following is an excerpt from the city code for conceptual planned unit developments.: Chanhassen City Code 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 Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Mr. Dave Sellergren June 30, 2011 Page 2 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 the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the4rearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten days prior thereto to owners of land within 500 feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to make a report within 60 days after receipt of the application, then the city council may proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a simple majority vote of city council, except for proposals requiring comprehensive plan changes which shall require a four-fifhs vote of the entire city council. y Mr. Dave Sellergren June 30, 2011 Page 3 I am available to discuss the process with you if you have any questions. Please feel free to contact me at 952-227-1139 or by email at kaanensonaci.chanhassen.mn.us. Applications for the city review process can be found on the city's web site at htti)://www.ei.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/comdev/curplan.hbnl. Sincerely, CI OFC SSEN �ie � Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director ec: Roger Knutson, City Attorney Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Paul Oehme, Public Works Director/City Engineer g:lplanl-Wftrsbvdmm11pw,. 11 dor PROPOSED MOTIONS: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept Planned Unit Development." "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends denial of the Concept Planned Unit Development based on the findings of the Planned Unit Development as stated in the staff report." PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) on approximately 14. 10 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard LOCATION: Southwest corner of TH 5 and Powers Boulevard (1000 Park Road). APPLICANT: Walmart iStar Minnesota, LLC c/o Kimley-Horn & Associates c/o iStar Financial, Inc. 2550 University Ave. W. Ste 238N 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27a' Floor St. Paul, MN 55114 New York, NY 10036 William D. Matzek 651-643-0497 Will.Matzek@kimlev-hom.com PRESENT ZONING: Industrial Office Park (IOP) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial and Commercial ACREAGE: Approximately 14 acres DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting a rezoning to permit commercial development on land currently guided for industrial office or community commercial use. In conjunction with the request, the applicant is requesting approval for a general concept plan for PUD for 120,000 square foot Walmart. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. SCANNED Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 2 of 19 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The site is currently zoned Industrial Office Park (IOP). With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the property for either office industrial or commercial land use. In 2009, the city adopted the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district in order to implement the community commercial land use vision. The request for a Planned Unit Development concept plan allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of the conventional zoning districts by creating a unique zoning district rather than asking for variances. The closest conventional zoning district is Community Commercial (see Attachment #1). Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. hi exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against nine criteria. BACKGROUND Concept PUD - What is required? The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and City Council without incurring a lot of expense. There will be a greater level of detail required through the city code and the recommendations and direction in this report. Following are the requirements for conceptual PUD approval. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-517 General concept plan. (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: (1) Overall gross and net density. (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. (6) Staging and time schedule for development. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 3 of 19 (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to make a report within 60 days after receipt of the application, then the city council may proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a simple majority vote of city council, except for proposals requiring comprehensive plan changes which shall require a four-fifths vote of the entire city council. EXISTING CONDEMNS The 14 -acre site contains an existing building with a footprint of 140,020 square feet. There is a mezzanine section in the building creating a total area of 154,674 square feet. The original building was occupied by Victory Envelope. The building has been vacant for several years. With this development proposal the current building is proposed to be tom down. Attachment #2 shows a market value comparison between industrial and commercial use for this site. The site is bordered by TH 5 on the north, Powers Boulevard on the east, a wetland with a stream running through it on the west and Park Road on the south. Access to the site is gained via Park Road. The elevation of the site changes 40 feet from the creek on the western portion of the property to the intersection of Powers Boulevard and TH 5. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 4 of 19 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20, • Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District, • Article VI, Wetland Protection, • Article VII, Shoreland Management district, • Article }XIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District, • Article II, Division 6 of Site Plan Review RETAIL MARKET STUDY The City, in conjunction with the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce, commissioned a Chanhassen Retail, Office and Residential Market Analysis and Development Potential, Prepared by McComb Group, Ltd., June 2006. The conclusions of that study are as follows: • Chanhassen can support additional retail opportunities. • There is insufficient land available for commercial development: ✓ The downtown area would need an additional 12 t acres to adequately accommodate the additional 112,000 square feet of supportable square footage. ✓ The potential lifestyle site at TH 212 and Powers Boulevard has the potential to support 88 acres in 2010, increasing to 113 acres in 2025. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 5 of 19 With the outcomes of the Retail Market Study and through the comprehensive plan update in 2008, two additional commercial areas were created. One is close to downtown on TH 5 and Powers Boulevard, and the other is south of TH 5 in the area of the US Highway 212/Powers Boulevard intersection. The land use in the area of Powers Boulevard and US Highway 212 was guided either Office Industrial or Commercial. Two zoning districts were also created: Community Commercial and the Regional Commercial Planned Unit Development Standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Following is the section of the comprehensive plan regarding community commercial. 2.7.3 Community and General Commercial Definition/Vision: A large-scale commercial and office district with a need for high visibility along Arterial roads. This type of development has a moderate impact on the surrounding environment, including but not limited to lighting, noise and traffic. Location criteria for Community Commercial uses are: access to arterial streets, preferably at intersections with collector and arterial streets; moderate to large-sized sites; public water and sewer service; environmental features such as soils and topography suitable for compact development; and adequate buffering by physical features or adjacent uses to protect nearby residential development. Goods and Services Examples • Furniture and Home Furnishings • Electronics and Appliance Stores • Building Material and Garden Supplies • Auto Parts and Accessories • Sporting Goods A new zoning district CC (Community Commercial) will be created in the City Code to implement this land use. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS PUD Standards Sec. 20-504. - Coordination with other zoning regulations. The development must comply with Article II, Division 6 of Chapter 20 addressing Site Plan Review as well as Articles V, VI and VII (Floodplain, Wetland and Shoreland District). Sec. 20-505. - Required general standards. • Standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 6 of 19 • Location of buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the area and existing natural features; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non -compatible land uses and parking areas. • The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. • Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: commercial or industrial is 70 percent. • Building and parking setbacks from public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD. • PUDs must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established by the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 20, Article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. • Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in the sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants or design standards established in the PUD development contract. • The requirements contained in articles XXIII (Supplementary Regulations -Design Standards) and XXV (Landscaping and Tree Removal) of this chapter may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. • The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE City code requires that developments comply with certain minimum requirements. These requirements are outlined below. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District Size, Portion and Placement Entries: The building has a pronounced entrance with a canopy over the front entry. There are recesses and projections surrounding the front entrance and display windows. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 7 of 19 Articulation: The building has expanses of more than 40 feet in width that should be divided into smaller increments with either fapade modulation, vertical divisions using different materials or variation in the roof line. The proposed building does not comply with this requirement Signs: A pylon sign shall not exceed 80 square feet on a state highway and the area of the sign shall not exceed 20 feet in height. It appears that the proposed pylon sign exceeds the allowed height. There is not enough information to determine if the wall signs are in compliance. Material and Detail The materials on the building include EFIS and precast panels. Tilt -up panels that are grid or brick -like in appearance are required. EFIS can only be used as accent material and may occupy up to 15 percent of the buildings facades. The proposed building does not provide a significantly higher quality of architectural or material detailing than required by city code Color The building color is tan and browns consistent with the requirements of the ordinance Height and Roof Design The tallest part of the building is the front entry which is 35 feet. The building meets the height requirement. All rooftop equipment must be screened. It appears that there is a parapet wall but there is not enough information to determine screening compliance, especially since Highway 5 has a higher elevation than the building. Facade Transparency All facades viewed by the public must contain 50 percent windows and/or doors. All facades that have visibility from the public must meet this requirement. The front or the southern side meets the transparency requirements. The remaining fifty (50) percent of the publicly viewed areas shall have screening by landscaping materials and architectural detailing and articulation that provide texture on the facade. The building design does not meet the requirement. Loading Areas, Refuse Areas. etc. Refuse is located in the rear of the building with screening. Parking The parking plan takes advantage of compact parking stalls at the maximum of 25 percent or 116 stalls. The total parking provided is 528 stalls. The site is deficient 58 parking spaces or 12% of required parking of the required 586 (five spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area). Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 8 of 19 SITE PLAN REVIEW Roadways The property lies south of Highway 5, west of Powers Boulevard and north of Park Road. Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard are classified as Minor Arterials in the City's Transportation Plan and are under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Carver County, respectively. Park Road is a city street and is classified as a Major Collector roadway. The development team performed a Traffic Impact Analysis to estimate the impact the proposed Walmart store would have on the roadway system. The analysis assumes that trips to the site will distribute as shown in Figure 1. T 7 -ST11 T HIGHW 20% AYg 0 - - 18%® 035% site 5 _ BARK ROAD I 22" 0 J m W 3 0 CL Figure I. Anticipated trate distribution for the proposed development Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 9 of 19 The analysis included the existing traffic volumes and estimated growth to the year 2030 due to residential, commercial and industrial growth within the area. The analysis focused on the peak PM volumes since this will likely be the time that has the highest impact to traffic. The additional PM trips generated each hour to the proposed store are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Additional Pbl peak -hour trips generated by the proposed development. ST STRE 39 ' rus s CU ©a P a� 0 Figure 2. Additional Pbl peak -hour trips generated by the proposed development. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 10 of 19 The peak PM hour traffic to the site will include "pass -by" trips, meaning vehicles that are already traveling in a particular direction will stop at the site, and then continue to their ultimate destination. Figure 3 shows the projected peak PM hour traffic volumes to the site for the years 2013/2030. k"'OfftAln U71L I 225!328 �'2441374 2439 P q K W Figure 3. Anticipated peak PM hour traffic volumes to the site (2013/2030) The following roadway improvements have been recommended based on the projected traffic volumes identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis: An additional left turn lane for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard needs to be constructed. 2. The existing left tum signal on Highway 5 needs to be re -timed for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard. Wahnart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 11 of 19 3. An additional left tum lane for northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5 needs to be constructed. 4. Installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Park Road. 5. Increase the length of the left turn on northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5. 6. Installation of turn lanes and a raised median within Park Road. These improvements are not identified in the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan; therefore, the developer should make these improvements if the development is approved. Based on the developer's preliminary drawings, these improvements can be constructed within the existing right-of-ways. Site Access The site currently has two access points on Park Road. The proposed access points are shown in yellow in Figure 4. A comparison of the existing and proposed access points as compared to the City Code requirements is shown in Table 1. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 12 of 19 Table 1. Access Spacing Comparisons Access spacing from an adjacent street — in this instance, Powers Boulevard — is intended to provide drivers sufficient distance to travel past an intersection before making a turn, and to provide sufficient stacking distance for vehicles turning in to the access. Adequate distance between access points is required for similar reasons. Access spacing requirements consider the classification of streets and the land use of the property: spacing for a commercial property along a high volume road is greater than that for a private residence on a low volume road. The developer proposes to shift the eastern access approximately 10 feet west of the existing access; however, the access still would not meet the minimum access spacing requirement from Powers Boulevard. Figure 5 illustrates staffs concerns with the proposed access points and associated roadway modifications. Existing Proposed Minimum Required per Condition Condition Comprehensive Plan Distance from Eastern Access to Powers Boulevard 170 ft 180 ft 220 ft Distance Between Eastern and Western Access 290 ft 250 ft 200 ft Access spacing from an adjacent street — in this instance, Powers Boulevard — is intended to provide drivers sufficient distance to travel past an intersection before making a turn, and to provide sufficient stacking distance for vehicles turning in to the access. Adequate distance between access points is required for similar reasons. Access spacing requirements consider the classification of streets and the land use of the property: spacing for a commercial property along a high volume road is greater than that for a private residence on a low volume road. The developer proposes to shift the eastern access approximately 10 feet west of the existing access; however, the access still would not meet the minimum access spacing requirement from Powers Boulevard. Figure 5 illustrates staffs concerns with the proposed access points and associated roadway modifications. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 13 of 19 Proposed tum lane taper is too close to f Powers Boulevard. Immediately after — _ turning off of Powers Blvd drivers i would have to make a decision whether -.= or not to turn into the site. c y ' Curb radius is too %short. Passenger 11. _ j vehicles will likely hit the curb. Larger vehicles cannot make the turn. Stacking concern: Each tum lane could accommodate one vehicle. Beyond the turn lane there is only stacking for two additional vehicles. 11W'IH l..f1:�.n1 Potential high U -turning movements. Many vehicles using the "right -out' at the eastern access will want to go to Powers Boulevard. Potential weaving issue between vehicles making a right tum out of the east access and vehicles making the right tum in to the west access. Figure 5. Staff concerns with accesses and proposed modifications to Park Road Staff looked at aerials of more than 60 big box retail sites in the metro area. Staff found two sites that have only two access points; the remaining sites had three or more accesses. There is approximately 310 feet between the accesses on "Site A" where both accesses are on the same street. Neither access to "Site A" are close to an intersecting street. The accesses to "Site B" are on different streets; neither is close to an intersecting street. At this point staff has not found a big box retail site within the metro that has similar access issues as the concept plan submitted to the city. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 14 of 19 street. different streets. Parking is currently restricted on the north side of Park Road. The proposed modifications to Park Road would require that the south side of Park Road be a "No Parking" area as well. Employees of the IWCO property currently park on the south side of Park Road. The developer's engineer has discussed the proposed median on Park Road and the potential on -street parking restriction with the owners of the IWCO. Some of the vegetation on the west side of the site would have to be trimmed or removed in order to ensure adequate sight distance at the west access. Grading The concept plan identifies the proposed finished floor elevation of the store to be 931', which is approximately nine feet lower than the ground elevation on the east side of the building. The concept plan includes retaining walls on the west, north and east sides of the property. The developer's engineer has indicated that the maximum height of the retaining walls are approximately 21 Meet on the west side, 16%s feet on the north side and 16'/2 feet on the east side. Portions of the proposed wall encroach into the existing drainage and utility easement Utilities Public water and sanitary sewer is available to the property. If the project proceeds, a utility plan must be submitted showing the existing and proposed services to the property. Water Quality This site is tributary to two surface waters that are included on the Federal Clean Water Act 303d list. Riley Creek is impaired for aquatic habitat with turbidity the identified pollutant. Lake Susan is impaired for aquatic recreation with nutrients as the identified pollutant. Because of these impairments, both waters are considered Improve -1 Surface Waters per Chanhassen's Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 15 of 19 Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The stated goal of Improve -1 waters is to improve the existing water quality trend. To this end, water must be treated to greater than NURP standards and must assure that rates to and within Riley Creek do not increase. The site is proposed to have a significant increase in hardcover with a corresponding loss in vegetative cover, including mature shade trees. Stormwater treatment would need to occur underneath the parking lot. This system would need to be under private management, since this is a system that the city does not maintain. Riley Creek is located on the property and Lake Susan within one-half mile of the subject property. The close proximity of these two waters severely limits other opportunities to achieve the water quality goals. Wetlands and Buffer Areas There exists a large riparian wetland on the property. This wetland is currently classified as Manage 2 in the S WMP. A Manage 2 wetland requires 20 -foot buffers and a 30 -foot setback from this buffer. The conceptual plan shows that a majority of the wetland has less than 30 feet total between the wetland edge and the structural improvements on the site. In some places, this protection is as little as 5 feet. Given that this is a planned unit development, the City should expect an additional level of protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and natural resources. This conceptual plan not only does not provide additional considerations of these resources; it does not even meet the minimum standards required by code. The encroachment into the wetland and buffer setback includes a substantial retaining wall. This wall will limit the functions and values of the wetland as an ecological feature for both plant and animal habitat. Edge features often promote the establishment of invasive plant species at the expense of a diversity of native plants. Further, this wall will act to fragment the area from the east and eliminate any associated upland habitat. When reviewing the entrance to the west, as shown on the conceptual plan, it is apparent that significant tree removal will be required for adequate sight lines at the ingress/egress. This additional tree loss will be further detrimental to both the wetland area and the volume and quality of water running off into Riley Creek. However, in no case may trees which shade Riley Creek be removed. It remains to be seen how this would affect sight lines at this entrance. Additional restrictions on the removal of vegetation will apply given that the western one-third of the site, approximately, lies within the Shoreland Management District for Riley Creek. Significant obstacles may preclude the development of this site as indicated in the conceptual plan. This includes the treatment and conveyance of stormwater runoff, the protection of wetland features and the preservation of natural resources. Landscaping The proposed development is short on interior landscape space to adequately meet minimum parking lot landscaping requirements. All islands and peninsulas shown meet minimum Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 16 of 19 requirements for interior width. The quantity of trees required is based on the amount of vehicular use required landscape area. The plan is deficient in the following ways: • Parking Lot Landscaping: Interior landscape space, trees, islands and peninsulas • Foundation Landscape: Incorporate planters, trees, green space along store perimeter • Bufferyard Requirements: Located on the north, east and south sides • Native Landscaping: Located along the west side of the property in order to restore native vegetation. • Consideration of pervious hard surfaces in lesser used parking lot areas. Building Review 1. Structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. 2. The structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 3. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 4. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 5. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 6. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS The applicant is requesting concept PUD for a retail commercial development Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicants responsibility to demonstrate that the City s expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 17 of 19 Finding: This conceptual plan not only does not provide additional considerations of these resources, it does not even meet the minimum standards required by code. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding: The concept plan does not effectively utilize the site. It encroaches into or eliminates environmental features. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding: The site plan and the design of the building does not meet the standards of Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District. The PUD calls for a higher standard than is found elsewhere in the community. The site plan is deficient in the following ways: • Architectural compliance does not meet the design standard, especially in articulation and facade transparency. • The parking plan is deficient 58 parking spaces or 12% of required parking of the required 586, and utilizes the maximum number of compact spaces. • Areas of the site plan do not meet the 20 -foot parking setback from the exterior lot lines. • The proposed development appears to fall slightly short on interior landscape space to adequately meet minimum parking lot landscaping requirements. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding: The proposed plan does not permit a transition between the highway, the development, and the natural features. It eliminates the stand of trees in the northern portion of property and encroaches into the wetlands. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The development is consistent with the comprehensive plan for commercial use. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 18 of 19 Findine: Pedestrian access to the site via city trails/sidewalk is poor. Access terminates at the Powers Boulevard. There is no internal sidewalk system from Park Road. The site encroaches into the Riley Creek wetland complex on site. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Findine: Not applicable to this proposal. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding: Sustainability elements Walmart implements in their building construction are: • Central Energy Management System, to monitor and control heating, air conditioning, refrigeration and lighting; • Daylight Harvesting, reducing the electric lighting energy consumption up to 75%; • LED Technology, providing up to 52% more efficiency than traditional fluorescent illumination; • White Roofs, reducing the heat island effect with higher reflectivity and emissivity factors; • Non -Ozone Depleting Refrigerants; Heat Reclamation, utilizing the waste heat from on-site refrigeration to supply hot water needs; • High -Efficiency Faucets and Urinals, yielding a 75% reduction in water usage; • Recycled Content Requirements, specifying construction materials containing waste products; • Low -Emitting Materials, specifying interior adhesives, sealants, paints and carpet systems with low-VOC content; • Waste Management Procedures, seeking to recycle, reuse, or salvage non -hazardous waste generated by the Work and to eliminate or minimize the amount of waste going to landfills. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding: The following roadway improvements have been recommended based on the projected traffic volumes identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis: • An additional left turn lane for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard needs to be constructed • The existing left tum signal on Highway 5 needs to be re -timed for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard • An additional left turn lane for northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5 needs to be constructed • Installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Park Road Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 1, 2011 Page 19 of 19 • Increase the length of the left tum on northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5 • Installation of turn lanes and a raised median within Park Road • Proposed tum lane taper is too close to Powers Boulevard • Curb radius entering the site is too short • Stacking concern — Each turn lane could accommodate one vehicle. Beyond the turn lane there is only stacking for two additional vehicles • Potential high U -turning movements — Many vehicles using the "right -out' at the eastern access will want to go to Powers Boulevard. • Potential weaving issue between vehicles making a right turn out of the east access and vehicles making the right tum in to the west access. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt one of the following motions: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept Planned Unit." OR "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends denial of the Concept Planned Unit Development based on the findings of the Planned Unit Development as stated in the staff report." ATTACHMENTS 1. Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 20 — Zoning, Article XVIII -A. — "CC" Community Commercial District. 2. Industrial/Commercial Comparison. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Reduced copy of Preliminary Site Plan dated 9/30/11. 5. Building elevations and perspectives dated 6/21/11. 6. Letter from Tod Sherman of MnDOT dated 8/11/11. 7. Letter from Kate Miner of Carver County Public Works dated 8/19/11. 8. Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Public Hearing. 9. Emails from residents. g:Iplan\2011 planning cries\ I-11 walmart store concept pudlpc staff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: November 1, 2011 CC DATE: November 28, 2011 REVIEW DEADLINE: January 27, 2012 CASE # 2011-11 BY: AF, KA, TJ, JS PROPOSED MOTION: "City Council direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact for Denial of the Concept Planned Unit Development." APPLICANT: Walmart c/o Kimley-Horn & Associates 2550 University Ave. W. Ste 238N St. Paul, MN 55114 William D. Matzek 651-643-0497 Will.Matzek a.kimley-hom.com PRESENT ZONING: Industrial Office Park (IOP) iStar Minnesota, LLC c/o iStar Financial, Inc. 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10036 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial and Commercial ACREAGE: Approximately 14 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting a rezoning to permit commercial development on land currently guided for industrial office and community commercial use. In conjunction with the request, the applicant is requesting approval for a general concept plan for a PUD for a 120,000 square -foot Walmart. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The site is currently zoned Industrial Office Park (IOP). With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the property for office industrial and commercial land use. In 2009, the city adopted the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district in order to implement the community commercial land use vision. The request for a Planned Unit Development concept plan allows the applicant to seek a unique zoning district. The closest conventional zoning district is Community Commercial (see Attachment #1). Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 2 of 20 Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the development plan must result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been 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 against the intent of the PUD and nine specific standards. PLANNING COMNUSSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 1, 2011. The Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend denial of the Concept Planned Unit Development based on the findings that the intent and specific standards of the Planned Unit Development were not met. The verbatim minutes are found in item la. of the City Council packet. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted revisions to the plans. They include the following: • Architecture • Landscaping signage • Parking • Relocation of the retaining wall out of the wetland buffer. In addition, Walmart has agreed to finance the costs of all of the recommended off-site traffic improvements that were listed in the November 15` staff report (see attached response to PUD letter dated 11-21-11). BACKGROUND Concept PUD - What is required? The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and City Council without incurring a lot of expense. There will be a greater level of detail required through the city code and the recommendations and direction in this report. Following are the requirements for conceptual PUD approval. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-517 General concept plan. (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: (1) Overall gross and net density. (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 3 of 20 (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. (6) Staging and time schedule for development. (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to make a report within 60 days after receipt of the application, then the city council may proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a simple majority vote of city council, except for proposals requiring comprehensive plan changes which shall require a four-fifths vote of the entire city council. EXISTING CONDITIONS The 14 -acre site contains an existing building with a footprint of 140,020 square feet. There is a mezzanine section in the building creating a total area of 154,674 square feet. The original building was occupied by Victory Envelope. The building has been vacant for several years. With this development proposal, the current building is proposed to be tom down. Attachment #2 shows a market value comparison between industrial and commercial use for this site. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 4 of 20 The site is bordered by TH 5 on the north, Powers Boulevard on the east, a wetland with a stream running through it on the west and Park Road on the south. Access to the site is gained via Park Road. The elevation of the site changes 40 feet from the creek on the western portion of the property to the intersection of Powers Boulevard and TH 5. o- If t APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20, • Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District, • Article VI, Wetland Protection, • Article VII, Shoreland Management district, • Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District, • Article II, Division 6 of Site Plan Review COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Following is the section of the comprehensive plan regarding community commercial. 2.7.3 Community and General Commercial Definition/Vision: A large-scale commercial and office district with a need for high visibility along Arterial roads. This type of development has a moderate impact on the surrounding environment, including but not limited to lighting, noise and traffic. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 5 of 20 Location criteria for Community Commercial uses are: access to arterial streets, preferably at intersections with collector and arterial streets; moderate to large-sized sites; public water and sewer service; environmental features such as soils and topography suitable for compact development; and adequate buffering by physical features or adjacent uses to protect nearby residential development. Goods and Services Examples • Furniture and Home Furnishings • Electronics and Appliance Stores • Building Material and Garden Supplies • Auto Parts and Accessories • Sporting Goods A new zoning district CC (Community Commercial) will be created in the City Code to implement this land use. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT Sec. 20-501. Intent. "Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Analysis: This plan has not been designed with greater preservation sensitivity than would be required for a more standard zoning district. The proposal meets the minimum requirement for preservation which is required in any district. The site plan includes extensive grading resulting in the elimination of the existing trees canopy except for the area within the protected wetland and upland preservation area. The retaining wall on the west side of the site has been moved to the minimum required setback which does not provide greater protection of the natural resources one would expect of a PUD. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 6 of 20 Analysis This plan has not been designed with greater sensitivity than would be required for a more standard zoning district. The proposal meets only the minimum requirements of development which is required in any district. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Analysis: The site plan and the design of the building does not meet the standards of Chapter 20, Article MR,, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District. The PUD calls for a higher standard than is found elsewhere in the community. The site plan is deficient in the following ways: • The architecture does not meet the 50 percent fagade transparency requirement. • The proposed development meets the minimum requirements for interior landscaping but does not provide t adequate distribution of green space. • The net effect of this proposed plan, including the use of compact stalls and using a reduced parking ratio, will have an effective parking standard of 3.17 spaces per thousand square feet. This is ten percent below city ordinance requirement of 5 spaces per thousand square feet or 586 parking stalls. • The design of the loading berths does not comply with the city code in the following ways: 1. Location. The berths are not separated from alls used for off street parking. 2. Access. The loading berths interfere with vehicular access because truck maneuvering encroaches into required parking drive aisles 3. Design. Truck circulation encroaches and blocks required parking, drive isles and pedestrian access. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Analysis: This plan has not been designed with greater sensitivity than would be required for a more standard zoning district. The proposal meets the minimum requirements of development which is required in any district. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The subject site is guided Office Industrial and Commercial. The development is consistent with the comprehensive plan for commercial use. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 7 of 20 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Analysis: An additional level of protection and preservation of the environmentally sensitive areas and natural resources has not been provided. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Analysis Not applicable to this proposal. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and siting and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Analysis: Sustainability elements Walmart implements in their building construction are: • Central Energy Management System, to monitor and control heating, air conditioning, refrigeration and lighting; • Daylight Harvesting, reducing the electric lighting energy consumption up to 75%; • LED Technology, providing up to 52% more efficiency than traditional fluorescent illumination; • White Roofs, reducing the heat island effect with higher reflectivity and emissivity factors; • Non -Ozone Depleting Refrigerants; Heat Reclamation, utilizing the waste heat from on-site refrigeration to supply hot water needs; • High -Efficiency Faucets and Urinals, yielding a 75% reduction in water usage; • Recycled Content Requirements, specifying construction materials containing waste products; • Low -Emitting Materials, specifying interior adhesives, sealants, paints and carpet systems with low- VOC content; • Waste Management Procedures, seeking to recycle, reuse, or salvage non -hazardous waste generated by the Work and to eliminate or minimize the amount of waste going to landfills. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 8 of 20 Analysis: Walmart has agreed to finance the costs of all of the recommended off-site site traffic improvements that were listed in the November 1st staff"report. • An additional left turn lane for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard needs to be constructed • The existing left turn signal on Highway 5 needs to be re -timed for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard • An additional left turn lane for northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5 needs to be constructed • Installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Park Road • Increase the length of the left turn on northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5 • Installation of turn lanes and a raised median within Park Road However, traff Fc management andpotential for traffic conflict still exists on the site which includes: • The traffic turning movement and trqffic counts for the developer's traffic impact report were taken in February 2011. Staff does not feel these counts area good representation of the traffic counts in the area and are estimated to be 28% low. • Potential high U -turning movements. Many vehicles using the "right -out" at the eastern access will want to go to Powers Boulevard. • Potential weaving issue between vehicles making a right turn out of the east access and vehicles making the right turn into the west access. • The proposed site plan has essentially only 1 %s access points since the east access is only a right Wright out which is minimal for the size of retailfacility being proposed. Truck delivery access is proposed to use the same accesses as the shoppers • The truck turning movements in the parking lot are minimal and could be a problem, especially during higher shopping times during the year and during the winter when some parking spaces are reduced with snow. • Proposed turn lane taper is too close to Powers Boulevard • Stacking concern — Each turn lane could accommodate one vehicle. Beyond the turn lane there is only stacking for two additional vehicles" Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 9 of 20 PUD Standards Sec. 20-504. - Coordination with other zoning regulations. The development must comply with Article II, Division 6 of Chapter 20 addressing Site Plan Review as well as Articles V, VI and VII (Floodplain, Wetland and Shoreland District). Sec. 20-505. - Required general standards. • Standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. • Location of buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the area and existing natural features; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non -compatible land uses and parking areas. • The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. • Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: commercial or industrial is 70 percent. • Building and parking setbacks from public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD. • PUDs must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established by the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 20, Article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. • Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in the sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants or design standards established in the PUD development contract. • The requirements contained in articles XXIII (Supplementary Regulations -Design Standards) and XXV (Landscaping and Tree Removal) of this chapter may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. • The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 10 of 20 ANALYSIS OF PUD STANDARDS Architectural Compliance City code requires that developments comply with certain minimum requirements. These requirements are outlined below. Chapter 20, Article 3XIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District Size, Portion and Placement Entries: The entire front fagade has received additional architectural treatment. The building has a pronounced entrance with a canopy over the front the entrance. The main canopy has been extended over other sections of the building. There are recesses and projections surrounding the front entrance and display windows. The front fagade windows have awnings. Articulation: Facades on the remaining three sides have been revised to incorporate elements such as canopies/awnings, and brick columns. These revisions meet the minimum requirements of the city design criteria. Signs: The sign in the north east corner has been replaced with a monument sign. No details have been provided. Material and Detail The materials on the building include EFIS and precast panels. Tilt -up panels that are grid or brick -like in appearance are required. EFIS can only be used as accent material and may occupy up to 15 percent of the buildings facades. Additional brick has been added. These revisions meet the minimum requirements of the city design criteria. Color The building color is tan and browns consistent with the requirements of the ordinance Heieht and Roof Desi The tallest part of the building is the front entry which is 35 feet. The building meets the height requirement. All rooftop equipment must be screened. It appears that there is a parapet wall but there is not enough information to determine screening compliance, especially since Highway 5 has a higher elevation than the building. Facade Transparency All facades viewed by the public must contain 50 percent windows and doors. All facades that have visibility from the public must meet this requirement. The front or the southern side meets the transparency requirements. Spandrel glass windows have been added to the most southerly Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 11 of 20 portion on the west side of the building. The view from Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard however still does not meet the 50 percent transparency requirement. The building design does not meet the requirement. Loading Areas, Refuse Areas. etc. Refuse is located in the rear of the building with screening. In addition there is a recycling area that is adjacent to the northern retaining wall. There are three loading berths found in two truck wells. These loading berths are found on the north side of the building. The design of the loading berths does not comply with the city code in the following ways: 1. Location. All berths beyond one shall be separate from areas used for off-street parking. The berths are not separated from ails used for off street parking. 2. Access. Each required off-street parking berth shall be so designed as to avoid interference with other vehicular, pedestrian or rail access or use of public street alleys, or other public transportation systems. The loading berths interfere with vehicular access because truck maneuvering encroaches into required parking drive aisles. Design. All loading areas shall consist of a maneuvering area in addition to the berth and shall not use any of that portion of the site containing parking stalls. Maneuvering areas shall be of such size to permit the backing of truck tractors and coupled trailers into a berth without blocking the use of other berths, drives, maneuvering areas or public right- of-way. Truck circulation encroaches and blocks required parking, drive isles and pedestrian access. Parking The 528 parking spaces provided do not meet the city code for ratio of required 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building. Based on an 117,278 square -foot building, 586 stalls are required. The applicant has provided a parking study that they believe demonstrates that Walmart needs only 4.5 stalls per 1,000. However, their recommended ratio excludes the factor of snow storage and effective parking supply. The study defines effective parking supply as the number of occupied spaces at optimum operating efficiency. "Parking lots are typically perceived as full at less than the actual total capacity." (Kimley-Hom Study dated March 32, 2011). The study also states that snow storage may have a significant effect on usable parking supply for three to five months out of the year. The parking ratio recommended in the study does not accommodate snow storage or effective parking. The net effect of this proposed plan, including the use of compact stalls and using a reduced parking ratio, will have an effective parking standard of 3.17 spaces per thousand. This is well below city ordinance. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 12 of 20 The parking provided takes advantage of 19 percent compact parking stalls. City code allows up to 25 percent compact parking; however, these compact stalls are not permitted for high - turnover parking lots. Retail use is a high turnover parking operation. In addition, compact stalls are partially located within the loading and maneuvering area which is prohibited by city code. SITE PLAN REVIEW Roadways The property lies south of Highway 5, west of Powers Boulevard and north of Park Road. Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard are classified as Minor Arterials in the City's Transportation Plan and are under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Carver County, respectively. Park Road is a city street and is classified as a Major Collector roadway. The developer performed a Traffic Impact Analysis to estimate the impact the proposed Walmart store would have on the roadway system. The analysis assumes that trips to the site will distributed as shown in Figure 1. rn NGhWAYS ux ©35% aim 5% PARK ROAD _ Q 12% J O 3 0 C1. Figure 1: Anticipated traffic distribution to the proposed development Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 13 of 20 The analysis included the existing traffic volumes and estimated growth to the year 2030 due to residential, commercial and industrial growth within the area. The analysis focused on the peak PM volumes since this will likely be time that has the highest impact to traffic. The additional PM trips generated each hour to the proposed store are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Additional PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed development. The peak PM hour traffic to the site will include "pass -by" trips, meaning vehicles that are already travelling in a particular direction will stop at the site, then continue to their ultimate destination. Figure 3 shows the projected peak PM hour traffic volumes to the site for years 2013/2030. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 14 of 20 srnffr Sys am= Y�_ n24W. ab XMM �Rw �'a d Figure 3: Anticipated peak PM hour traffic volumes to the site (2013/2030) The developer's engineer estimates that the proposed Walmart will generate 5,300 trips to the site, which is broken down as follows: Powers Boulevard, north of Park Road: 3,869 Powers Boulevard, south of Park Road: 1,431 Park Road, east of store entrance: 5,035 Park Road, west of store entrance: 265 The traffic turning movement and traffic counts for the developer's traffic impact report were taken in February 2011. Staff does not feel these counts are a good representation of the traffic counts in the area and are estimated to be 28% low. However, staff has made some assumptions on traffic counts and included this information with the 2030 estimated traffic based on the Carver County traffic model. The following roadway improvements have been recommended based on the projected traffic volumes identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis, and Carver County and MnDOT reviews: 1. An additional left turn lane for west -bound Highway 5 to south -bound Powers Boulevard needs to be constructed, 2. The existing left tum signal on Highway 5 needs to be retimed for west -bound Highway 5 to south -bound Powers Boulevard, Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 15 of 20 3. An additional left turn lane for north -bound Powers Boulevard to west -bound Highway 5 needs to be constructed, 4. Installation of a traffic control signal at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Park Road, 5. Increase the length of the left tum on north -bound Powers Boulevard to west -bound Highway 5, and 6. Installation of turn lanes and a raised median within Park Road. These improvements are not identified in MnDOT's, Carver County's or the City's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan; therefore, the developer should make these improvements if the development is approved. Based on the developer's preliminary drawings, these improvements can be constructed within the existing right-of-ways. These improvements are based on traffic modeling assumptions added to the developer's traffic impact study. The traffic impact study should be updated to identify the true turning movements in the area during a better representative time period, preferably during the summer months. Site Access The site currently has two access points on Park Road. The proposed access points are shown in yellow in Figure 4. A comparison of the existing and proposed access points as compared to the City Code requirements is shown in Table 1. 15 ;u --r��so.>n,7'1��•zr,'��;a�i.7y- �-�•�%�il��.�v�Gi� � ^ 1393_?�-- PARK accesses. Dimensions to existine conditions shown in white. Pr000,cd condition ,Ixncn in yellow. Table l: Access Spacing Comparisons Existing Condition Proposed Condition Minimum Required per Comprehensive Plan Distance from Eastern Access to Powers Boulevard 170 ft 230 ft 220 ft Distance Between Eastern and Western Access 290 ft 200 ft 200 ft Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 16 of 20 Access spacing from an adjacent street- in this instance, Powers Boulevard- is intended to provide drivers sufficient distance to travel past an intersection before making a tum, and to provided sufficient stacking distance for vehicles turning in to the access. Adequate distance between access points is required for similar reasons. Access spacing requirements consider the classification of streets and the land use of the property: spacing for a commercial property along a high volume road is greater than that for a private residence on a low volume road. Figure 5 illustrates Staffs concerns with the proposed access points and associated roadway modifications. Potential high u-tuming movements. Many vehicles using the "right -out". at the eastern access will want to go to Powers Boulevard. r Potential weaving issue between - vehicles making a T 4 - �o .r right tum out of the east access and _' -- _ vehicles making �1 the right turn into I the west access. M11HIIIIIII� y PARR —--------------------- 1 S Figure 5: Staff concerns with accesses and proposed modifications to Park Road The proposed site plan has essentially only 1 %: access points since the east access is only a right in/right out which is minimal for the size of retail facility being proposed. Truck delivery access is proposed to use the same accesses as the shoppers. Normally delivery trucks should have a separate access point or, at a minimum, restrict parking as much as possible in the delivery truck driving areas. This is the case with the Chanhassen Target and Byerly's stores. The proposed delivery truck route is to have the delivery trucks come into the site at the west access point, travel around the store on the north side and exit through the parking lot on the east side. The truck turning movements in the parking lot are minimal and could be a problem especially during Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 17 of 20 higher shopping times during the year and during the winter when some parking spaces are reduced with snow. Some of these potential delivery truck/vehicle parking conflicts can be minimized with late delivery hours; however, this facility is proposed to be open 24 hours. Staff looked at aerials of more than 60 big box retail sites in the metro area. Staff found two sites that have only two access points; the remaining sites had three or more accesses. There is approximately 310 feet between the accesses on "Site A" where both accesses are on the same street. Neither access to "Site A" are close to an intersecting street. The accesses to "Site B" are on different streets; neither are close to an intersecting street. At this point staff has not found a big box retail site within the metro that has similar access issues as the concept plan submitted to the city. accesses on the same street. Y Figure 7. Big box retail "Site B" with two accesses on two different streets. Parking is currently restricted on the north side of Park Road. The proposed modifications to Park Road would require that the south side of Park Road be a "No Parking" area as well. Employees of the IWCO property currently park on the south side of Park Road. The developer's engineer has discussed the proposed median on Park Road and the potential on -street parking restriction with the owners of the IWCO property. Some of the vegetation on the west side of the site would have to be trimmed or removed in order to ensure adequate sight distance at the west access. Gradine The concept plan identifies the proposed finished floor elevation of the store to be 931', which is approximately nine feet lower than the ground elevation on the east side of the building. The concept plan includes retaining walls on the west, north and east sides of the property. The developer's engineer has indicated that the maximum height of the retaining walls are approximately 12 feet on the west side, 16.5 feet on the north side and 16.5 feet on the east side. ry % is M.r.�� •�•'rK '. Figure 7. Big box retail "Site B" with two accesses on two different streets. Parking is currently restricted on the north side of Park Road. The proposed modifications to Park Road would require that the south side of Park Road be a "No Parking" area as well. Employees of the IWCO property currently park on the south side of Park Road. The developer's engineer has discussed the proposed median on Park Road and the potential on -street parking restriction with the owners of the IWCO property. Some of the vegetation on the west side of the site would have to be trimmed or removed in order to ensure adequate sight distance at the west access. Gradine The concept plan identifies the proposed finished floor elevation of the store to be 931', which is approximately nine feet lower than the ground elevation on the east side of the building. The concept plan includes retaining walls on the west, north and east sides of the property. The developer's engineer has indicated that the maximum height of the retaining walls are approximately 12 feet on the west side, 16.5 feet on the north side and 16.5 feet on the east side. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 18 of 20 Portions of the proposed wall encroach into the existing drainage and utility easement Utilities Public water and sanitary sewer is available to the property. If the project proceeds, a utility plan must be submitted showing the existing and proposed services to the property. NATURAL RESOURCES Shoreland Management Rules This site lies within the Shoreline Management District for Riley Creek; a known impaired water. Riley Creek flows through the western portion of the subject property. Minnesota Rules Chapter 6120 describes how land can be developed within a Shoreland District as well as specific criteria applicable to a Planned Unit Development. The applicant will need to meet these criteria and provide evidence that they are met. It cannot be determined if these are met based upon the information provided. Water Quality This site is tributary to two surface waters that are included on the Federal Clean Water Act 303d list. Riley Creek is impaired for aquatic habitat with turbidity the identified pollutant. Lake Susan is impaired for aquatic recreation with nutrients as the identified pollutant. Because of these impairments, both waters are considered Improve -1 Surface Waters per Chanhassen's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The stated goal of Improve -1 waters is to improve the existing water quality trend. To this end, water must be treated to greater than NURP standards and must assure that rates to and within Riley Creek do not increase. The applicant will need to comply with the requirements of the MPCA Permit No. MN RI00001 - General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES Constriction Permit) and, in particular, Appendix A. Upon review of the memo, they do not meet the requirement that one- half inch of water quality volume from new impervious surface is infiltrated in that they are using filtration exclusively. While this is allowed if conditions do not allow for infiltration, the soil survey shows that a considerable portion of the site is dominated by Lester -Kilkenny, which is a well -drained soil in the hydrologic soil group B, and all of the site to be improved is of the hydrologic soil group C or B. The only time when infiltration is expressly not required under Appendix A of the permit is when the soils are hydrologic soil group D, contaminated or with less than three feet of separation to groundwater. The site is proposed to have a significant increase in hardcover with a corresponding loss in vegetative cover, including mature shade trees. Stormwater treatment would need to occur underneath the parking lot. This system would need to be under private management, since this is a system that the city does not maintain. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 19 of 20 Riley Creek is located on the property and Lake Susan is within one-half mile of the subject property. The close proximity of these two waters severely limits other opportunities to achieve the water quality goals. Wetlands and Buffer Areas There exists a large riparian wetland on the property. This wetland is currently classified as Manage 2 in the SWMP. A Manage 2 wetland requires 20 -foot buffers and a 30 -foot setback from this buffer. A retaining wall is located right at the minimum of the required wetland and buffer setback. Given that this is a planned unit development, the City should expect an additional level of protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and natural resources. This wall will limit the functions and values of the wetland as an ecological feature for both plant and animal habitat. Edge features often promote the establishment of invasive plant species at the expense of a diversity of native plants. Further, this wall will act to fragment the area from the east and eliminate any associated upland habitat. Landscaping The proposed development plan meets the minimum required interior landscape area (20,238 square feet required, 22,076 square feet provided) and minimum required number of islands and peninsulas (42 required, 44 provided). A shift in the locations of the islands and peninsulas may be required to provide adequate distribution of green space throughout the vehicular use area. The islands and peninsulas shown will need to meet minimum requirements for interior width. The quantity of trees required is based on the amount of vehicular use required landscape area and the minimum number required will be 81 trees in addition to the bufferyard plantings. The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan. Additional issues for the development include incorporating foundation landscaping in the form of planters, trees, and green space along store perimeter; locating bufferyard plantings around the north, east and south sides of the property; using native landscaping along the west side of the property in order to restore and enhance the native vegetation; and considering pervious hard surfaces in lesser used parking lot areas. Buildin¢ Review 1. Structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code. 2. The structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 3. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 4. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. Walmart Concept Planned Unit Development November 28, 2011 Page 20 of 20 5. Detailed occupancy -related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 6. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. RECOMMENDATION The request to rezone to PUD does not meet the intent or general standards for a PUD; therefore, staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact for Denial of the Concept Planned Unit Development. ATTACHMENTS 1. Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 20 — Zoning, Article XVIII -A. — "CC" Community Commercial District. 2. Industrial/Commercial Comparison. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Response letter for Concept Staff Report dated 11/21/11. 5. Revised Preliminary Site Plan (2) dated 11/18/11. 6. Revised Building Elevations and Perspectives dated 11/21/11. 7. Natural Resources and Wetland and Upland Preservation Area. 8. Letter from Tod Sherman of MnDOT dated 8/11/11. 9. Letter from Kate Miner of Carver County Public Works dated 8/19/11. 10. Parking Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Assoc. dated 3-2-11. 11. Improvement Exhibits — Park Road and Highway 5 and County Road 17. 12. Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley-Hom and Assoc. dated 5-20-2011. 13. Preliminary Drainage Analysis dated 11/21/11. 14. Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Public Hearing. 15. Letter from IWCO dated 11/21/11. 16. Emails from residents. 17. Resident Petition submitted at Planning Commission Meeting 11/1/11. g:\p1an\2011 planning cases\I I-11 walmart store concept pud\cc staff report.I doc Municode Page 1 of 2 Attachment #I Chanhassen, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> - CITY CODE >> Chapter 20 - ZONING >> ARTICLE XVIII -A. - "CC" COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT >> IARTICLE XVIII -A. - "CC" COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-741. - Intent. Sec. 20-742. - Permitted uses. Sec. 20-743. - Permitted accessory uses. Sec. 20-744. - Conditional use. Sec. 20-745. - Lot reauirements and setbacks. Secs. 20-746-20-750. - Reserved. Sec. 20-741.- Intent. (a) The intent of the community commercial district is to provide for moderate to large sized commercial development. These large-scale commercial and office users need high visibility along arterial roads. While smaller scale ancillary commercial uses may be permitted integral to the principal use, the primary use of a building shall be medium to large type users with a minimum tenant space of 15,000 square feet. The intent of the district is to accommodate larger uses. The creation of multi -tenant, small user, strip centers is prohibited. (b) Location criteria for community commercial uses are: Access to arterial and collector streets, preferably at intersections with collector and arterial streets; moderate to large-sized sites; public water and sewer service; environmental features such as soils and topography suitable for compact development; and adequate buffering by physical features or adjacent uses to protect nearby residential development. (c) The total building area on a single level or floor for an individual use shall be no more than 65,000 square feet. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sec. 20-742: Permitted uses. Arts and crafts supply store. Automotive parts and accessories. Book store. Building supply center. Consumer electronics and appliance store. Drugstore. Furniture and home furnishings. Garden center. Grocery store. Health and dental clinics. Hobby, toy and game stores. Office. Office equipment and supply. Personal services. Sewing and fabric store. Sporting goods. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sec. 20-743: Permitted accessory uses. Antennas. Automatic teller machines (ATMs). http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?clientID=14048&HTMRequest=http%3a%2t%2fl... 10/24/2011 Municode Page 2 of 2 Parking lots and ramps. Signs. Utility services. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sec. 20-744: Conditional use. Screened outdoor storage. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sec. 20-745: Lot requirements and setbacks. Minimum lot area: One acre. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet. Minimum lot frontage: 100 feet. Maximum lot coverage: 70 percent. Maximum building height: Four stories; 50 feet. Setbacks: Building/parking: Front: 25 feet. Side: 10 feet. Rear: 10 feet. Parking setback exemptions: There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. Parking setbacks may be reduced to ten feet along public streets if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that 100 percent screening is provided at least five feet above the adjacent parking lot. (Ord. No. 487, § 1, 11-23-09) Sees. 20-746-20-750.- Reserved. http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?clicntID=14048&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2f%2fl... 10/24/2011 Attachment #2 Industrial / Commercial Comparison Target ISTAR MN LLC Acerage gross 10.08 14.1 Building sq. ft 130,110 154,674 2011 Total Market Value $10,095,600 $5,167,000 2011 Total Tax $350,044 $208,394 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Name and Address: Walmart c/o Kimley-Horn and Assoc 2550 University Ave W. Suite 238N St. Paul, MN 55114 Contact:William D. Matzek Phone:651-643-0497 Fax:651-645-4197 Email: Will. MatzekOKimley-Horn. com Planning Case No. o201 1— I I CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 3 0 2011 f'HANHASSFN PI &LNINn nFP- Property Owner Name and Address: iStar Minnesota LLC c/o iStar Financial I 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, New York 10036 Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Nonconforming Use Permit X Planned Unit Development* It -ISO Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment r Notification Sign $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNAC/VARANAP/Metes & Bounds -$450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE$ 950.00 od GKN a ttt3a� An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECTNAME: Walmart store #5949-00 LOCATION: 1000 Park Road, Chanhassen, MN 55317 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Lot 1, Block 1, of the Park Two 2nd Addition Plat. PIN: 255660010 TOTAL ACREAGE: 14.10 ACRES WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: IOP - industrial Office Park District REQUESTED ZONINGPUD - Planned unit Development PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Industrial office/ Community Commercial REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Commercial REASON FOR REQUEST: The p p op quest a PUD in order to develop an approximately 120,000 SF retail building on said property. The proposed development has been prepared in accordance with the City of Chanhasaen's Code of FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. r /0 - Signature 0 -Signature of Applicant Date Sign a of Fee Owner Date y:yJaMfnmu4kvchpnxm mkw ryplioatim.eoc Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. November 21, 2011 Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Response Letter for Conceptual PUD Staff Report Proposed Walmart, 1000 Park Road Dear Ms. Aanenson, ■ Suite 238N 2550 University Avenue West St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 In response to the November 1, 2011 Staff Report, recommendations from the Planning Commission and from residents, the Walmart development team has revised our proposed Site and Building Plans. In the pages that follow, we respond to concerns raised by the community and in the Staff Report and also offer a brief explanation of our revisions. The Site is currently a vacant industrial building. Retail development at the Site is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Site's unique features present challenges that would be best addressed through the flexibility afforded through a Planned Unit Development ("PUD"). We understand that in exchange for the development flexibility available through a PUD, the City expects that the development will be of higher quality. We believe that our revised development meets that goal: o Walmart has agreed to finance the costs of all of the recommended off-site traffic improvements that were listed in the November In staff report. These traffic improvements will not only relieve traffic concerns related to Walmart, but will also serve the anticipated future growth of Chanhassen through 2030. o The building's fagade not only exceeds code requirements but has been considerably upgraded. The building is smaller than the most common layout of new Walmart stores. Drive-throughs and the garden center have been eliminated. o Landscaping, pedestrian and Site amenities have been enhanced — the typical pylon sign along Highway 5 has been replaced with a decorative monument sign; planters and benches have been added to soften the building's front entrances; proposed interior landscaping exceeds City requirements and the addition of over 180 new trees on Site will increase the tree canopy from 14% in the existing condition to 391/6 for the proposed Site. A new sidewalk along Powers Boulevard is proposed together with a pedestrian staircase at Powers and Highway 5. o The redevelopment will exceed storm water treatment requirements and will increase the quality of the water discharged into adjacent creeks and wetlands. o To further protect the wetlands and creek on Site, Walmart proposes that these areas (approximately one-quarter of the Site) be protected for the future with a permanent conservation easement. Walmart proposes eradicating invasive plant species from the wetland buffer areas. The buffer areas have been increased. o To help achieve some of the benefits described above, Walmart proposes to shrink the size of its parking lot. First, the width of the stalls has been narrowed to 9 feet to match City ordinances. Secondly, there aren't as many stalls. Although the parking ratio is less than the City requires in a typical non -PUD development, our parking study shows that even on "Black Friday," the busiest shopping day of the year, there will be 79 extra parking stalls at the Site. o Walmart's building will use the latest "green" technology — skylights will be interlocked with the interior building lighting system, super high energy efficient HVAC units will be installed together with Central Energy Management, heat reclaimed from refrigeration systems will be used to heat the water used in the store, and LED lighting will be used in the parking lot, for signs and in the refrigeration cases. Walmart has an aggressive recycling program that is used not only after the store is open but also during construction. There are many more items that will be included in this store that will make it one of the most up to date buildings in the State of Minnesota as far as "green" technology. The Walmart team appreciates the opportunity to work with the City of Chanhassen on the proposed development and we ask that the City Council approve the conceptual PUD. With conceptual PUD approval in hand, we will next work on preparing final PUD plans and look forward to refining our plans to meet the City's requirements and goals. Feel free to contact us should you have any questions or would like further information. Sincerely, William D. Matzek, PE, CPESC Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD OA Walmart, Chanhassen, MN Concept Planned Unit Development Revised Plans, November 21, 2011 ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE The November I' Staff Report describes the extent to which the original design met standards for commercial, industrial, and office developments under the City Code. In response, SAIC has proposed new elevations for the proposed building. The new elevations show planters and benches for seating have been added across the front of the building. Material changes have also been made to the front of the building to provide a more significant upgrade. Additional exterior building features such as canopies, window groupings, changes in color, and changes in parapet height have been added to meet the zoning code's requirement that building expanses of more than 40 feet in width be divided into smaller increments with either fagade modulation, vertical divisions using different materials or variation in the roof line. The pylon sign has been redesigned to a monument sign offering more architectural interest. The sign area will not exceed 80 square feet. Materials for the monument sign will match those being used on the building. In addition, a decorative feature has been added that mirrors the City of Chanhassen's signature decorative maple leaf. The building's pre -cast panels will be integrally colored and will have a grid system as well as a pebble texture. The use of EIFS has been limited to accent areas only — mostly on the front of the building. The large EIFS area on the rear of the building shown in the original plans has been replaced with TRESPA panels similar to the front signage area. In addition, the integral colored split -face block has been replaced with Quik Brik in several earthtone colors to provide a more significant upgrade. We have added additional spandrel glass window areas and areas with suspended awnings to meet the requirement for a significant architectural upgrade to the building. The building's parapets have been raised to provide additional screening of rooftop equipment from adjacent sidewalks. The Code requires that all facades viewed by the public must contain 50 percent windows and/or doors. The revised plans show that additional architectural detailing has been added to the sides and rear of the building. SAIC has added spandrel glass window areas to the west side of the building along with suspended canopies on all three sides. The front entrance canopy has been extended to provide more customer shelter along the front of the building. Additional articulation has been added to the sides and rear of the building through the use of extended parapets, color and material changes, and changes in plane. Screening materials for the loading areas and refuse areas will be the same as those used on the building. TRAFFIC We understand that the community is concerned about traffic generated by the new Walmart as well as traffic that will be generated as Chanhassen continues to grow. Walmart wants safe roads around its Site and will pay for the following off-site traffic improvements that were identified by the Traffic Impact Analysis and reviewed by the City, Carver County, and the Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD 3 Minnesota Department of Transportation. These improvements are all based on the projected traffic volumes that were identified in a Traffic Impact Analysis and included within the November 1 Staff Report: 1. Construct an additional left turn lane for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard. 2. Re -time the existing left tum signal on Highway 5 for westbound Highway 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard. 3. Construct an additional left turn lane for northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5. 4. Install a traffic control signal at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Park Road. 5. Increase the length of the left tum on northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound Highway 5. 6. Install tum lanes and a raised median within Park Road. We understand that none of the above improvements are included in the City's Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan and Walmart has agreed to make these improvements at its cost if the development is approved. PARKING Walmart prefers to build only the number of parking stalls needed for a store and has been looking for ways to shrink its parking lots, in part in recognition of the environmental impacts from large parking lots. Prior to our original submittal, we prepared a parking study for this Site based upon other area Walmarts and determined that the Store would need 528 parking stalls. This will result in a 4.5 parking ratio, which will fall short of the City Code's requirement of 5.0 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building area. The proposed 528 stalls includes a 15% contingency factor such that even on the busiest shopping day of the year, "Black Friday," it is anticipated that there will still be an excess of 79 stalls in the parking field. The revised Site Plan provides the number of stalls required by the parking study and the revised Site Plan reduces the number of compact stalls from 25% to 18.6%. We ask that the smaller parking lot be approved as part of the concept PUD approval. SITE ACCESS The Site has two access points on Park Road. The revised Site Plan shows that the eastern access drive has been shifted 50 feet to the west and now exceeds City spacing requirements. In addition, the turn lane taper has been moved west, and the curb radius entering the Site has been increased from 12 feet to 30 feet. To address potential stacking concerns, the west access has been revised to allow for approximately 150 feet of stacking, 20 feet greater than the stacking distance recommended in the Traffic Impact Assessment. Additional stacking has also been provided at the east access that also exceeds the required stacking that the Traffic Impact Assessment recommended. Staff was concerned about potential U-turn movements - many vehicles using the "right -out" at the eastern access may want to go to Powers Boulevard. The Traffic Impact Assessment projects that only 4 vehicles per hour are anticipated to use the "right -out" at the eastern access. To mitigate the potential for U-turns, the median on Park Road will include "No U-turn" signs. The Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD median and lane configurations for the proposed Site also appear to be similar in nature to the intersection of County Road 117 and West 78th Street, which is also located in a commercial area. The Staff Report identified a potential weaving issue between vehicles making a right tum out of the east access and vehicles making the right turn in to the west access. Due to the low volume of drivers projected to make the right turn movements (4 vehicles per hour), weaving is not anticipated to be an issue for this Site. Staff looked at aerials of more than 60 big box retail sites in the metro area and found two sites that have only two access points; the remaining sites had three or more accesses. Every retail Site is different based upon the proposed retail use, size, property configuration and natural features, surrounding streets and corresponding traffic. In the case of Chanhassen, the Traffic Impact Assessment found that the proposed access configuration operates acceptably. There are many "big boxes" in the Twin Cities metro area as well as around the country with one or two access points. Some examples in the Metro include: Costco in Eden Prairie, Best Buy in Eden Prairie, Target in Vadnais Heights, Super Target in St. Louis Park, Sam's Club in Bloomington, Home Depot in Bloomington, Gander Mountain in Woodbury, Fleet Farm in Oakdale, and the Target in Chaska. Additionally, we used the vehicle modeling program, Auto -Tum, to model the proposed truck route and found that truck traffic will not impede proposed vehicular parking areas. The Staff Report notes that parking is currently restricted on the north side of Park Road. The proposed modifications to Park Road will require that the south side of Park Road be a "No Parking" area as well. Employees of the IWCO property currently park on the south side of Park Road. We have discussed the proposed median on Park Road and the potential on -street parking restriction with the owners of IWCO and believe that IWCO supports the project, including the impacts to parking on Park Road. Finally, as to concerns about the west access drive's possible impacts to the vegetation on the western portions of the Site, please note that the proposed access location matches existing conditions. To improve sight distance, some of the existing sumac bushes will require removal or trimming, but no significant trees are anticipated to require removal to improve sight lines. GRADING The updated Site Plan increases the finish floor elevation to 932 feet and reduces the retaining wall heights on the west side of the Site to a maximum height of approximately 12 feet rather than 21.5 feet, which was proposed in the original plans. Note that the proposed retaining walls are all outside of the existing drainage and utility easement. WATER QUALITY; STORM WATER Under existing conditions, 5.3 acres of impervious surfaces discharge storm water to the adjacent wetlands without any treatment. The proposed plan will add approximately 3.4 acres of impervious surfaces, but will incorporate storm water treatment techniques such as rain gardens and underground storm water treatment, all of which will improve the quality of the water discharging from the Site and will exceed City requirements. We are enclosing a Preliminary Drainage Analysis for additional information. Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD i CONSERVATION AREAS — WETLANDS AND BUFFER AREAS The westerly portion of the Site will not be affected by the development. This area, approximately 3.75 acres, includes Riley Creek, wetlands, trees and natural vegetation. Walmart is willing to place the westerly portion of the Site into a permanent conservation easement to assure that these natural features are preserved. The Staff Report raised concerns about encroachments into the required wetland buffer areas. We are grateful for the feedback and have revised the plans accordingly. The revised Site Plan now meets or exceeds the City's buffer requirements. The existing wetland buffers at the Site will be increased if the proposed development is allowed to proceed. The proposed retaining walls have been moved further to the east and are now shorter. Based upon a field investigation as part of the wetland delineation performed onsite and approved by the City Staff, the existing upland buffer adjacent to the existing parking lot contains a significant population of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), a non-native noxious weed species, that is an ecological threat to native habitats. As part of the proposed project, Walmart will remove the invasive species and plant new native species that will improve the function of the wetland buffer. As mentioned above, the proposed westerly access drive matches existing conditions. In order to improve sight distance, some of the existing sumac bushes will require removal or trimming, but no significant trees are anticipated to require removal. Additionally, no trees shading Riley Creek will be removed as part of the project and these trees will be preserved. LANDSCAPING The revised plans address the Staff Report's comments on landscaping in the following ways: o Parking Lot Landscaping: City Ordinances requires 8% interior landscaping in the vehicle use area. For this project, 20,238 square feet of interior landscaping is required. The revised plan included within this submittal provides 22,230 square feet of interior landscaping which exceeds City ordinances. o Foundation Landscaping: Planters have been added to the front of the store and landscaping has been added to the green space along store's perimeter. o Bufferyard Requirements: The proposed Site Plan has been updated to provide a minimum of 20 foot parking setback along the side and rear of the Site while maintaining 100% screening. The front yard setback also exceeds the City's requirement of 25 feet by providing a setback of at least 35 feet. o Native Landscaping: The revised plans do not impact the wetland area or wetland buffers. Walmart will remove the noxious weeds in the upland buffer and plant native vegetation to improve the buffers' functions. o Pervious hard surfaces in parking lot: The Site is comprised largely of clay and fine soils that are not suitable for infiltration. Pervious pavements are not effective under these conditions. There are many methods to treat storm water runoff and the revised plan incorporates such storm water treatment techniques as rain gardens and underground treatment. Please see the Preliminary Drainage Analysis for additional information. Chanhassen Walmart Concept PUD 0 ...............`•_mo i ...`-!'� PARA p �r) C'Hn FYSLA ' ly � 5(IE RAN NOTES ��. ' a.n..p neum.aaM. ua rvva.vvn��[n / • .� °L..;'e 3'.'ue v..�'F. is�v'ta°�°�r°se. mni ie . muNe ie...v wm�wa�`va�vtiera. ra.e.m iii . SITE DATA GNU 'nwos'i.anw r�u n,ae«.-n.ar.. !u�uuwNne. ,•�••'!, GORIER lT�RGl101! vN� �Crt Q ACMv �vpv w:nFiicM va r"u u awMe v1 ALERT TO CONTRACTOR: Y z aw C li 771 AC C IC C C C 11 Oil C�7\ OC AT I INI3 I A I 111�TIIN J _'I -1 AND 11,11 1 1 T C Tlll�IlIITI TYPj CC 10 �'y 0 IlLIAININ,' ' LL 6 C �IICNT B .. :II ---------- ----------- ---------- 1--11DKJ1L AICIA1 U—T-11,,1-1 - CICLINGAREA ,--1E IRIURAL.IIIJILONGSDIEUS1 MAXIMUM BUILDING SETBACK C7"' " " 7' " ' " - - - -1 C., 0MPACT PARMINC. STAt TtC(T IP I 0, qty-y�Yp Walmart STORE 059M91-00 CO2QKNORLNOR 117�BE 2 FFZ78 -XXIF, YA PARK ROAD UAA.1. .1.1 SIT GINGSETEnCN WANATER ATM NA, I - - - — - - - - - - - — - LEGEND CKRGUII EliEFEREEN TREE SMAULDECIOLSOUS TREE ORNAURENTALTREE SHRUBSUPIRENAPAS NADINSAMET MIX TURF C EFUSDING TREE 10 AEMMN N'o- Walmart SITE PLAN CHANHASSEN, MN NOVEMBER 2011 ems;2Tm . 0 . "0FTQ PpIIII' m" bb.- = Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. m C O \/ v '" L �111II 11 w x01 :11:121 all'gj` J E � � 3 IIIA 1� � Walmam:" Market & Pharmacy - 1 � i Walmam:, _ . o�.. Sol a/may_ r ol % Walmart"""o L. ..e . r•" Walmart :;: .A.Novemher 21, 2011 Chanhassen, MN 5949-00 a.om sa..z. io saua,. l cr, [ , Urn• Walmart November 21, 2011 Chanhassen, MN 5949-00 Fmm Snerwe to SWJwns 0 Walmart cam, NovainbPr 21 2011 ' Chanhassen, MN 5949-00 Perspective 1 e r:m" NORTH NATURAL RESOURCES Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 0 75 150 mmmmmmKzzz= Feet RR 1 Legend OProperty Boundary (14.1 acres) Wetland Preservation Area (2.33 acres) ® Upland Preservation Area (1.63 acres) �— PARK ROAD �`. •.rF Leurc� �lFRp Im v ==n NORTH WETLAND AND UPLAND Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 75 150 PRESERVATION AREAS Feet m � ` l y � Fv Im v ==n NORTH WETLAND AND UPLAND Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 75 150 PRESERVATION AREAS Feet Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge �FT{iPN 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113-3174 August 11, 2011 Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Wal-Mart, Mn/DOT Review # Sl 1-036 SW Quad of TH 5 (Arboretum Blvd.) and Powers Blvd. City of Chanhassen/Carver County Control Section 1002 Dear Mr. Generous: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Wal-Mart Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Because of the general nature of this plan Mn/DOT is not able to provide comments concerning issues such as drainage or design. As plans are developed, we would like the opportunity to meet with our partners and to review the updated information. Mn/DOT's staff has reviewed the document and has the following comment: Traffic: The traffic impact analysis only examines the PM peak period. The AM peak period is more critical for this location since there is a heavy westbound left turning movement opposing a high eastbound volume heading inbound in the morning. Additionally, congestion in the AM peak period may become more significant when Wal-Mart begins operating 24 hours per day. Mn/DOT conducted turning movement counts at TH 5/Powers Blvd. on 9/25/08. The turning movement counts completed for this traffic impact analysis have a date of 2/8/11. Mn/DOT's counts were significantly higher, especially the PM eastbound turning movement - 916 vehicles versus 715. This can likely be attributed to the time of year in which the counts were taken. In the 2030 build options the intersection falls into an unacceptable LOS E. Indeed, queues for motorists turning left, block both the northbound and westbound approaches. The TIA recommended monitoring the surrounding growth in the long term in consideration of a dual left for both eastbound and westbound traffic. As stated previously, our concern is for westbound motorists turning left. Based on our 9/25/11 turning movement counts, this problem should be addressed in the short term. Mn/DOT would like to meet with the City of Chanhassen to discuss possible funding options for the needed improvements. An equal opportunity employer Mn/DOT agrees with the TIA recommendation of installing a signal at Powers Blvd and Park Rd (when it is warranted). Along with the signal installation at Park Rd. the three signals on Powers (at Park Rd, TH 5 and W 780' St.) should be interconnected and have cross coordination plans implemented with the current TH 5 system. For questions concerning these comments, please contact David Sheen (651-234-7824) of Mn/DOT Metro's Traffic Section. Permits: Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT tight of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at hhW://www.dot.state.mn.us/uflity/ Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Standard Submittal Statement: As a reminder, there are four submittal options. Please submit either: 1. One (1) electronic pdf, version of the plans. Mn/DOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dotna state.mn.us provided that each separate e- mail is less than 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: Mn/DOT – Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disk. 4. Plans to Mn/DOT's externa] FTP Site. Please send pdf. files to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEd ]anning Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dotnastate.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651)234-7794. f Sincere , Tod Sherman — Planning Supervisor Copy sent via E-Mail: Arash Moin, Water Resources Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Nicole Peterson, Area Engineer David Sheen, Traffic Ann Braden / Metropolitan Council Paul Oehme, City of Chanhassen - Doehme@ci.chanhassen.mn.us August 19, 2011 Carver County 1t 6Cic Works 11minutratd,n Parti§ 113607fighway 212Engineering Suite 1 7fighu ay 94aintenanre Cologne, WX S5322-8016 Equip hent 1faintenance Phone(952)466-5200 Taz(952)466-5223 Suntyingegtapping Paul Oehme, City Engineer City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Walmart TIA Dear Mr. Oehme: After reviewing the Walmart Traffic Impact Analysis we offer the following comments. • We agree that a signal should be installed at CSAH 17 and Park Road. The County would require a full build out of turn lanes on Park Road, requiring right and left turn lanes both eastbound and westbound. We would not allow a split -phasing as shown in the analysis in place of a full build out. • We have requested in the past that the modeling include the signal at 78'" Street to further understand any queuing impacts along CSAH 17. This analysis still does not include that intersection, and it is recommended with a build condition that the signals along CSAH 17 are interconnected and include a cross coordination pattern with TH S. • Due to the large volumes at the intersection at TH 5 and CSAH 17 and the analysis showing that the queues in the 2013 build condition would negatively impact the safety of CSAH 17 and TH 5 by reducing deceleration lengths within the turn lanes, the County recommends that in the build year the full recommended geometric improvements at the intersection of TH 5 and CSAH 17 be constructed. This would include dual left turns on all approaches at the intersection of TH 5 and CSAH 17. As you know, we are in the process of finalizing our development review process and want to thank you for the opportunity to review this project early in the process. We will require further review as the project moves along and look forward to working with you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions, 952-466-5208. Sincerely, Kate Miner, PE Carver County Traffic Engineer Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Men1orandum To: David Cox, AIA Walmart Stores, Inc. From: Brian Smalkoski, P.E., AICP, PTP, PTOE William Matzek, P.E., CPESC, LEED AP Date: March 23, 2011 Subject: Walmart 5949-00 Chanhassen, MN March 23, 2011 ■ sup 23aN 2550 UrhesryA West S. Pal, Urresda 55114 INTRODUCTION Walmart Supercenters follow a variety of design variations, typically ranging from approximately 90,000 to 220,000 square feet. At around 120,000 square feet, the proposed Chanhassen Supercenter represents a relatively compact footprint for a discount store that includes a full-service grocery department. Classified as free-standing discount superstores (Land Use 813) by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Walmart Supercenters typically utilize independent trip and parking generation rates from the more general free- standing discount store classification (Land Use 815), which do not include full- service grocery departments. Parking Generation, 4`h Edition" published in 2010 by ITE, includes only a single parking generation study of a discount superstore. Carried out on a Wednesday in mid-April, the observed peak parking demand ratio for the 220,000 square -foot site was found to be 1.85 vehicles per 1,000 square feet gross floor area (GFA). Due to the lack of available data for Saturday parking generation rates at compact discount superstores, it was necessary to conduct counts at local sites in order to establish reasonable parking generation rates for a typical Saturday in December at the proposed Chanhassen, MN Walmart Supercenter. PARKING STUDY A total of three sites located in the Minneapolis -Saint Paul metropolitan area were selected for analysis. Each site, located in Apple Valley, Bloomington, and Eden Prairie, respectively, was originally constructed as a standard Wahnart store, and underwent expansion during 2009-2010 to allow for the inclusion of a full-service grocery department. With an average size of 142,000 square feet, the three sites studied were 118,000, 121,000, and 188,000 square -foot Supercenters, post -expansion. Parking supply at each site was calculated at 5.0, 5.0, and 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA, respectively, for a weighted average of 4.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. Ten hourly independent field counts were ■ la 651 615 4197 FAX 651 615 5116 SCANNED �^^ Kimley-Horn �L\ and Associates, Inc March 23, 2011 conducted on Saturday, February 19, 2011, at each of the three sites between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Although demand never exceeded the effective supply of parking, snow storage reduced the observed February parking supply at each site by 30%, 32%, and 10%, respectively. The peak hour of demand was unique at each site, with the average peak hour falling between 2 and 3 p.m. The final results of the parking study documented Saturday maximum demand ratios of 2.54, 2.83 and 2.37 vehicles per 1,000 square feet GFA. This represents an average ratio of 2.58 vehicles per 1,000 square feet GFA with a standard deviation of 0.23. Final results of the parking study, formatted to represent standard ITE documentation, are provided in Figure 1. Land Use: 813 Free -Standing Discount Superstore Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. 1,000 sq. R. GFA On a: Saturday (Non -December) statbtk Peak Period Demand Peak Perud 1b0-2fq .m;2A0-3A0 .m;4A0-5A0 m Nulberofs Sias 3 Awmw SB of Study Sties 142000 sq. it GFA Avemp Peak Perud Par Derand 2.58 whclea M 1,000 sq. a GFA Standard Devotion 0.23 Co ffrLmt ofVarbtion 9% Ra 2.37-2.83 w cies M 1,000 sq. t GFA 85(hP=n& 2.74 whcks pet 1,000 sq.AGFA 33rd Percentile 2.48 whicks per 1,000 sq. R GFA Saturday Non -December Peak Period Parking Demand 600 t 500 y 400 >' 300 u 100 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 r= 1,000 W. n. Us ♦ Acral Dan Poo,u Figure 1 - Parking Study Results March 23, 2011 and Assolift kx DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The parking study conducted in February represents a snapshot of potential parking demand for a new site, and it is necessary to take into account additional correction factors, depending on the planning objectives for the site: • Seasonal Variation — Consumer spending fluctuates throughout the year, and much like a shopping center, free-standing discount superstores exhibit changing trip generation rates month-to-month. Figure 2, which represents changing trip generation rates by month for shopping centers in the United States, demonstrates that parking lot design is heavily dependent upon the design month of interest. This is typically either an "average" month, the non -December peak month, or December, the month with peak demand. Monthly Variation in Shopping Center Parking Demand 150x FET�� Fox sox 40 10 k Monty `F° Figure 2 - Monthly Variation in Shopping Center Tratflca • Effective Parking Supply — The Urban Land Institute defines effective parking supply as the number of occupied spaces at optimum operating efficiency"'. Parking lots are typically perceived as full at less than the actual total capacity, generally around 85-95 percent occupancy. To prevent driver frustration and reduce time spent searching for open spaces, it may be necessary to take this factor into account during parking lot design. • Snow Storage — Depending on site location, snowfall may have a significant effect on usable parking supply for three to five months out of the year. It is often necessary to take this into account in the design stage, or develop contingency plans such as contracted snow removal services. ■ -; 's Kimley-Horn ■ : -a %" and Associates, Inc March 23, 201 l Shared Parking — Some sites have the potential to utilize shared parking, particular if the peak hours of demand for each of the land uses have no overlap. Schools and churches, for example, are often compatible for shared parking reductions, and certain retail and restaurant uses may exhibit offset peak hours. All of these factors potentially play a role in the ultimate parking demand for the site, and adjustments to average observed parking demand ratios must follow from specific design objectives for the site and context sensitivity to the surrounding communities. The Chanhassen Supercenter will be located in a suburban industrial setting with no nearby street parking. As such, it may be necessary to plan for peak seasonal demand to prevent yearly parking spillover problems during the holiday shopping season. By planning for absolute peak demand, however, there will be an oversupply of parking for the remaining 11 months out of the year, making the application of additional factors such as snow storage or effective parking supply impractical. In such a case, it is reasonable to take the calculated average observed parking demand ratio, and correct for seasonal variation to obtain a design ratio for a December peak month: Parking Supply Ratio = Observed Demand / Seasonal Factor Seasonal Factor =0.85/1.49=0.57 (February to December Peak) —2.5810.57 = 4.5 In the calculation, a seasonal variation factor of 0.57 is used to account for the time of year in which the parking study was conducted (February) relative to parking demand during the peak month of December. Parking generation rates at shopping centers in February represent about 85% of the demand during a typical month, and 57% of the demand during December. December demand is typically around 149% of the demand for a typical month. These seasonal adjustment factors, when taken together, allow for a final recommendation of a supply ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA, which will provide adequate parking for the peak month during the year, December. K1TWC_LDEV\WALMART70419-0\DOCS\PARK@1G STUDY\Walmart Parking Study Memo Chanhassen Final.docx ' Parking Generation, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. " Smith, Mary S. Shared Parking, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, 2005. Page 14. w Smith, Mary S. Shared Parking, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, 2005. Page 3. I MGENO AO IY j 1�f aaovosao niaaN O 2 e I d w 01-0 .6 �aaw i p�Y �r �\><-��S1WYaNwHa\c�vyv�f\etta\e�r-awe-xp 6 � e n �aY� o-] vast[ MmxlExrz liwa) r. Y v� Syn N �Y� I Q='P 6 7000PARKROAD STORE#5949-0W coma HWY5&CR17 IMPROVEMENT EXHIBIT ==r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 Traffic Impact Analysis Walmart (Store #5949-00) Chanhassen, Minnesota Prepared for: Walmart Stores, Inc. Bentonville, Arkansas Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota OKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. May 2011 116199062 M„ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CITY ''r',{�yIiASSEN Ma( ? t; 2011 ENGINEE-'JING DEPT. I 1 1 Traffic Impact Analysis I ' Walmart (Store #5949-00) Chanhassen, Minnesota 1 1 1 Prepared for: Walmart Stores, Inc. Bentonville, Arkansas Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my d/'t'ect supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State Of Minnesota. By. Brian R.DZ:�malk ci, P.E. License No. 47531 Date: S -LO Z -o l I ' Introduction Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. Walmart (Store 45949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis Chanhassen. Minnesota ' Based on the analysis, the TIA evaluates roadway and/or traffic control mitigation measures to accommodate future traffic levels in the system and whether these mitigation measures are triggered by background growth or the proposed project. 1 [1 L Walmart Stores, Inc. is proposing the construction of a new store, number 5949-00, near the southwest quadrant of the Arboretum Boulevard (Trunk Highway 5) and Powers ' Boulevard (CSAR 17) intersection in Chanhassen, Minnesota (see Figure 1). The project is anticipated to be completed by the year 2013, and will include retail and fiery land uses on a vacant industrial parcel. The proposed development site plan is shown in Figure 2. The purpose of this report is to document the anticipated traffic impacts that the ' change in land use at the proposed Walmart site will have on the surrounding roadway network intersections. This traffic impact analysis (TIA) represents a review of traffic impacts of the project, based on land use and site plan information, and is intended to identify the key traffic ' issues associated with the project. This TIA documents the existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site, estimates the traffic anticipated to be generated by the project, distributes and assigns these trips to the adjacent roadway system, and evaluates the ' traffic operations of key intersections near the site and those providing access to and from the site. In order to have a basis of comparison, a "no -build" analysis was completed for ' each future scenario that includes the general background growth on the adjacent roadways as well as traffic generated by other possible development adjacent to the project. ' Based on the analysis, the TIA evaluates roadway and/or traffic control mitigation measures to accommodate future traffic levels in the system and whether these mitigation measures are triggered by background growth or the proposed project. 1 [1 L I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 9 T, I FIGURE 2: Site Plan 0 50 IOD 2D- M" Krky4iom I Feet\m and Asswates, Inc. PPI„w°al�l Kimley-Hom �SaAnra `_ , and Associates, Inc. Chanhassen, Minnesota ' Study Area The project site is bounded by Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) on the north, Powers ' Boulevard on the east, and Park Road on the south. The proposed development will include an up to 120,209 square-foot Walmart store. Current nearby land uses are a mix , of office and industrial. Access to the site will be provided via the two existing driveways on Park Road, with a southbound turn lane constructed on the west driveway. The segment of Park Road between Powers Boulevard and the west driveway will be ' reconfigured to accommodate westbound right turn lanes at the driveways as well as an eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard and a westbound left turn lane at the west driveway. A center median will divide the two ' directions of travel. Data Collection ' PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 and Wednesday, February 9, 2011 for the following study intersections: , • Arboretum Boulevard (TH 5) & Powers Boulevard • Park Road & Powers Boulevard (12-hour count) , • Park Road & East Driveway • Park Road & West Driveway , Figure 3 displays the existing lane geometry and traffic control for the intersections in the study area. Figure 4 summarizes the existing turning movement volumes for the PM peak hour conditions; volumes were balanced among the four intersections. See , Appendix A for the raw turning movement count data. 1 1 May 2011 4 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Kimle -Horn Walmart (Store 45949-00) y Traffic Impact Malysis and Associates. Inc. Chanhassen. Minnesota ' Trip Generation ' The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, r Edition, was used to calculate the anticipated net new external project trips for the proposed development. A 120,209 square -foot free-standing discount superstore (land use code 813) was used to ' determine the total number of trips generated by the site. Total pass -by trip reduction was determined to be 28%. Of the total calculated pass -by trips, 70 percent, 20 percent, ' and 10 percent were assumed to originate on Arboretum Boulevard, Powers Boulevard, and Park Road, respectively. ' Existing non -vehicular travel was examined in the TMCs and determined to be negligible; therefore, no reductions were [Wade for transit use or pedestrian travel. The trip generation for the proposed project with adjustments for pass -by trips is shown in Table 1. The proposed site is anticipated to generate 554 trips (271 entering, 283 exiting) for the PM peak hour. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- — Vay 2011 1 7 ■ On 'Fable 1 Trip Generation PM Peak Four rass-ty et New 'Fowl Pas Pus -by Flwral o land lo, AS Pus-Oy Pus -by Trips Trips Tri 'luwl Finer Fsit Ibex land the? Size Univ Fornuls Tri Finer wl Tri kitcar U. 813 Free-StandingDiscount Superstore I 12Q2D91 KSF I T=4.611X 554 1 271 1 283 1 28.IPG 1 155 1 76 79 399 1 195 204 5 n I "-J r� ;� Kimle) 1 and A Future Traffic Projections walmart (store #5949-00) Traffic Impact kalysis t Project buildout is expected to be in 2013. Linear growth of 1.8 percent per year was applied to the counts to obtain background traffic for the year 2013. This growth is based on historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) on Powers Boulevard and Arboretum ' Boulevard since 2001. The 2013 no build peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5. To obtain background traffic estimates for 2030, however, it was determined that 1.8 ' The net trips anticipated to be generated in the PM peak hour by the surrounding development were calculated and distributed onto the roadway network (discussed ' below), and added to the 0.5% per year background growth from 2013 to 2030. The resultant total background growth in the study area therefore varies by intersection, ranging from 1.6 percent per year linearly on Arboretum Boulevard up to 4.1 percent per ' year linearly on Powers Boulevard. Total off-site trips are shown in Figure 7. The 2030 no build peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 8. ' s May 2011 percent linear growth per year was an unreasonable estimate over a 17 year period. Instead, average annual growth on Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard was ' obtained from the Carver County Travel Demand Model over the 30 year period from 2000 to 2030 due to its basis in census data, local comprehensive plans, and established ' estimates. A linear growth of 0.5 percent per year was determined and then applied to the balanced 2013 estimates to establish a baseline estimate for 2030. ' Growth from demand model largely represents long term regional trends, however, and does not provide reliable estimates for traffic growth at individual intersections due to the ' development of specific parcels. Based on discussions with the City of Chanhassen, it was determined that traffic from five nearby parcels, using square -footage and development type estimates, would be added to the 2030 baseline estimate to establish a final estimate for 2030 background traffic. One development, located near the Powers ' Boulevard / TH 212 interchange, represents a revision to the original estimates used within the Carver County Travel Demand Model. The assumed PM peak period trips based on single family residential were subtracted from the total trips calculated based on the revised land use scenario (commercial and office), to represent a land use change from the regional demand model rather than an entirely new development. Peak trip generation estimates for each parcel is provided in Table 2, with the location of each site shown in Figure 6. ' The net trips anticipated to be generated in the PM peak hour by the surrounding development were calculated and distributed onto the roadway network (discussed ' below), and added to the 0.5% per year background growth from 2013 to 2030. The resultant total background growth in the study area therefore varies by intersection, ranging from 1.6 percent per year linearly on Arboretum Boulevard up to 4.1 percent per ' year linearly on Powers Boulevard. Total off-site trips are shown in Figure 7. The 2030 no build peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 8. ' s May 2011 Table 2 ORSite Trip Geoeratioo PM Peak Hour Pus Net New Total Pus -by Pus -by kitero&I Land 'fatal Pus -by Pass -by Trips Trip Tri TuWI F'nter FYi1 Ike# Land Use Type Size Units Formula Trim Enter Ut Trim Fnter Fait 814 Specialty Retail Center 22.350 KSF T=2.40(X)+21.48 75 33 42 W. 0 0 0 75 33 42 814 Specialty Retail Center 32.8W KSF T=2.40(X)+21.48 100 44 56 0% 0 0 0 IW 44 56 110 General Light Industrial 221.000 KSF T=0.97(X) 214 26 188 0% 0 0 0 214 26 188 630 Clinic 28.980 KSF T=5.18(X)' 150 62 88 0°/a 0 0 0 150 62 88 710 GenmiCmce 948.000 KSF T= 1.12(X)+78.811.141 194 947 0% 0 0 0 1.141 194 947 820 Shopping Center 406.(100 KSF Lm(T)=0.67 Lm(X)+3.37 1.627 797 830 01Y. 0 0 0 1,627 797 830 210 Sin ic-FamB lRtachcd Housing132.000 Acros T=2.74(X) ��' =�� Ci M 0 0 0 'Uxina drcnional 4ia�ridaiun fmm iripx endx n. cmpWycSPM pok rate 2,945 917 2,028 0'/, 0 0 0 2,945 917 2.028 O I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I „\ V �' ” .41 6 LU • • _ jet f y ~ T/ 7 Y 1 • • 1 _ __ y'?'� r 111 • LU 10 •fit. �Y�.. ''a.221,000 sq. fto * StF . � - � hf> ;rte;•�. .. i ,. -p if i1c' LS:" 7 l ./ • f^ �+P:.� ~j ABY. Nck yi ••: 111 • / - r ` fig►. k) ' 1. 111 • t r . r � I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 H 1 I E 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 0 C] I 1 I I I 11 I tpI�Inlley -Horn Walmart (Store #5949-00) ,'9 Traffic Impact Matysis and Associates, Inc. Chanhassen, Minnesota Project Trip Distribution The project trip distribution is based on selected zone analysis from the Carver County Travel Demand Model, which represents a refined version of the Metropolitan Council's demand model for the Twin Cities region. As shown in Figure 9, the proposed site is located in TAZ 142.3, which includes a region bounded by Hazeltine Boulevard on the west, Arboretum Boulevard on the north, and Powers Boulevard on the east. After assigning trips to the network, vehicles originating from or heading to the TAZ on each of the 10 roadways (or centroid connectors) shown in the figure were measured to calculate a daily distribution for both the 2000 and 2030 analysis years. Results were then interpolated between the two base years to estimate distribution for the 2013 analysis year. By adding trips to and from the north (lines 1, 2, 9, and 10), to and from the east (line 3), to and from the south (lines 4, 5, and 6), and to and from the west (lines 7 and 8), the final directional distribution was established for the site. Figure 10 shows the final assumed trip distribution for the project, with 35 percent to the east, 20 percent to the north, 20 percent to the west, and 25 percent to the south. 10 percent of the trips to the west and 10 percent of the trips to the south were assumed to use Park Road west of the site. Trip distribution for the four surrounding off-site parcels contained within TAZ 142.3 was assumed the same as for the Walmart site, with slight assignment modifications based on location. For the modified parcel located near TH 212, trip distribution was analyzed for TAZ 146, which contains the proposed development, showing that approximately 11% of the trips to and from the development utilized Powers Boulevard. Estimated project trips, shown in Figure 11, were then added to 2013 and 2030 no build traffic conditions, along with corrections for pass -by trips, as shown in Figure 12. The final traffic estimates for the build condition are shown in Figures 13 and 14 for 2013 and 2030, respectively. May 2011 15 _ f i ♦ w ♦ — — — � 4 6 S 142.3 142.1 142.2 .z I I ♦I s t 1 1 0 Soo 1,000 2,000 i OFeet 1 I FIGURE 9: Selected Zone Analysis rA2 Boundary — — cennma W^,Cjor i P ME EM" Kimley-Horn m 1 and Associates, Inc. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 [1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 i 1 1 30 0 i $3 23 Ley N 0 200 200 400 y 0 Feet Nalmarl SIOrc FIGURE 12: Pass -By Trips .x ?M ?eak Hour Traffic Volumes • o 'art o+ t aoae i Kaky-Horn kkhl and Associates, Inc. 1 z: L� t Lard A "s a4w 7; 924 , sz vaJ a.,o.emm • .IxvarJ 255 r 329/ ■ r ' 07 819 v n i R !' r .. 51i 3�7 S � 1 f tiY score F TF OR t � 1 Sw ' 4� 6rt �r»i. V'e, ,1 ' 1 1 I � • _ 1 IL X186 39+ t ' Vark c ry 1J r r I, Pan Roa, • �� t r wa>a 14+ r £ 172 (_y�yy(.9f '• t: � T� • a� •_ a G I p �Y - '7< fjy1 ( �� 1��'h. `- �/ � W o • .fix FIGURE 14: 2030 Build Turning Movement Counts j 0 100 200 400 / Kenley -Han 0' ee °r PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes `� , and Assocales, Inc. PPw' _,lKimley-Hom ► = and Associates, Inc. Level of Service Analyses Walmart (Store X5999-00) Traffic Impact Analysis Intersection level of service (LOS) analyses were performed for each of the intersections within the study area using the signalized analysis methodology found in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and Trafficware's Synchro/SimTraflic version 7. Each intersection was analyzed for PM peak hours for the following scenarios: • 2011 existing traffic conditions, • 2013 no build (without project trips) conditions, 2013 build (with project trips added) conditions, • 2030 no build (without project trips) conditions, and • 2030 build (with project trips added) conditions. One of the primary measures of effectiveness used to evaluate intersection traffic operations, as defined in the HCM, is level of service (LOS)—a qualitative letter grade (A through F) based on seconds of vehicle delay due to the traffic control device at an intersection. By definition, LOS A conditions represent high-quality operations (i.e., motorists experience very little delay or interference) and LOS F conditions represent very poor operations (i.e., extreme delay or severe congestion). This study used the LOS D/E boundary as an indicator of satisfactory traffic operations. Figure 15 displays the LOS thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. ': May 2011 Figure 15. Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Criteria. sew Lkswom e.a 22 C] 1 CJ 1 1 1 I 1 { and Associates, Inc. Walmart (Store #5949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis Chanhassen. Minnesota It was assumed that for the future scenarios an intersection with unsatisfactory operations should be addressed through signal timing modifications, or if that was not possible, through implementation of an intersection or roadway improvement. In order to determine the impacts of the project on the transportation network, a traffic operations analysis was performed on the internal and surrounding roadway network. The analysis process included determining level of service and queue lengths at each of the study intersections for existing, no build and build conditions. Supporting SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix C. For each scenario, five one-hour simulations were conducted in SimTraffic. ' In each of the following sections, a description of potentially unsatisfactory operational characteristics is summarized for each scenario modeled. For each scenario a table is included where the intersection level of service and delay is summarized. The SimTraffic treports were reviewed to identify individual movements that experience unsatisfactory level of service and delay or queue lengths that are anticipated to extend beyond available ' storage lengths. Only in instances where an individual movement experiences an unsatisfactory measure of effectiveness will the movement information be summarized. 1 I 1 1 L� I 1 1011 Existing Operations Table 3 provides 2011 level of service (LOS) results for the existing conditions. All intersections within the study area operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS A. A total of six movements operate at LOS E, with average delays per vehicle summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 63 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 75 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 68 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 73 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 66 seconds At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, the signal is timed such that the through movements on Arboretum Boulevard are maintained at LOS C, with lower LOS on Powers Boulevard, the lower volume side street. All left tum queues are contained within the available storage lengths and no blocking by queues in adjacent lanes is expected. The delays associated with the LOS E or F movements are not associated wit operational problems at the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. May 2011 23 Waf(Store #5949-00) Traffic r and Associates. Inc. Chanhassen. Mniesota Table 3 — 2011 Existing Conditions 2013 No Build Operations Table 4 provides 2013 level of service (LOS) results for the 2013 no build scenario, using background linear growth from 2011 to 2013 of 1.8 percent per year. The simulation assumes the same signal timing plan at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard as under existing conditions. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS A. A total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E, with average delays per vehicle summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 65 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 76 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 68 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 70 seconds At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, the through movements on Arboretum Boulevard are maintained at LOS D or C, with lower LOS on Powers Boulevard, the lower volume side street. All left turn queues are accommodated within the available storage lengths and no blocking by queues in adjacent lanes is expected. The delays ��^� associated with the LOS E movements are not representative of operational problems the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. May 2011 24 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 7011 PM Peak Hour LBh TWn O las W. u.t Appy Orlri l^HRIRIM vee4 Uh Mw t hRa4Rlan rmtrol APgOaN Poauw I JKnI LOS p cos heq�eM Eos IW�gwn Eos W+M cos EB J10' 630 219 c 44 A l03 C M69relum WB 315' 150 348 a 39 A 33.0 C if 0 0 •b B Sib^al s• lI0' )JB 68.1 Il A SOa 0 Posers BlrO Se 100 A.1 66.3 19 A 41.6 D ES 0' 98 A 115 8 5.1 A ).1 A Parted■ Wa 0 104 B 13.1 a 5.1 A 7.3 A 11 A Po Mw TWSC M 40' )S A 09 A 51 A 19 Se 35' ♦6 A L1 A 36 A 33 A EB 0' 06 A 0.1 A 06 A Pork BEe W0 0 16 A Oa A - OJ A 09 A bft� M 0 S7 A JO A 3.3 A M1lwagy B 0 ES 0 02 A 03 A 02 A PaM1 BBB we d z0 A OS A 09 A la A W.t 1WSC hB 0 SS A 79 A 16 A 3A A O'irenaY SB 0' ).1 A 1.1 2013 No Build Operations Table 4 provides 2013 level of service (LOS) results for the 2013 no build scenario, using background linear growth from 2011 to 2013 of 1.8 percent per year. The simulation assumes the same signal timing plan at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard as under existing conditions. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS A. A total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E, with average delays per vehicle summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 65 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 76 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 68 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 70 seconds At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, the through movements on Arboretum Boulevard are maintained at LOS D or C, with lower LOS on Powers Boulevard, the lower volume side street. All left turn queues are accommodated within the available storage lengths and no blocking by queues in adjacent lanes is expected. The delays ��^� associated with the LOS E movements are not representative of operational problems the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. May 2011 24 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 PP" Ij '�n�,-I�n � O and Associates. Inc Table 4 — 2013 No Build Walmart (Store x594300) Traffic Impact Malysis ' 2013 Build Operations Table 5 provides 2013 LOS results for the 2013 build scenario, based on background ' traffic plus trips associated with the Walmart parcel. The simulation assumes the same 2013 No Build - PM Peak Hour signal timing plan at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard as under existing conditions. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS C or better. A total of eight movements are expected to UR Tum follows: ow.AbNmeM • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 66 seconds ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 75 seconds ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 75 seconds MNrxRiee uew4 Leh TMw 1 'bwein IrwtLRpn foMM AWp scenario: e Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 174 seconds ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 260 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 55 seconds ' • Park Road & East Driveway northbound right: 494 seconds 9srn hraMM Deal ILWrnI LOS OeW otter LOS DeJ9en1 I:<J.enlugeenl S 041e9 00" 105 Ell 305' W.S 224 c 46 Ar09r4lum We 265' 35.8 lib D 4.1 D TNi1 P.S D Pe�sOW xB I.S. 342 68.1 33 0 Sa 120' 33.6 696 30D f6 O 110 8 100 A 5.2 jA OSA ParkU& W8 O 93 A 11.5 0 53 P.ow TWY W 35' 3.l A 30 A 5.5A )3 ASB 10' S4 A 32 A l6AP4rtea6 Ea a 06 A 01A Eai1 we O ll A 05 A A u'�3eA93 3WX na O b] A l0 AA 10 A sa o Port EB Oa' 03 A 03 A 86a W-6 2WSC we 0 22 A 04 A 1 0.9 A d��rvn3 W O 52 A 5 A 21 A 32 A 09 A se O 49 A 1 49 A ' 2013 Build Operations Operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2013 no build levels, with increased delay to the westbound left and northbound left movements. The northbound left turn queue is anticipated to extend beyond the 230 foot I May 2011 25 1 Table 5 provides 2013 LOS results for the 2013 build scenario, based on background ' traffic plus trips associated with the Walmart parcel. The simulation assumes the same signal timing plan at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard as under existing conditions. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS C or better. A total of eight movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays for the LOS E movements summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 66 seconds ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 74 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 75 seconds ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 75 seconds The following movements are expected to operate at LOS F under the 2013 build ' scenario: e Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 174 seconds ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 260 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 55 seconds ' • Park Road & East Driveway northbound right: 494 seconds Operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2013 no build levels, with increased delay to the westbound left and northbound left movements. The northbound left turn queue is anticipated to extend beyond the 230 foot I May 2011 25 1 ,_rJ rj"+Iorn `= and Associates. Inc. I Walmart (Store #5949-00) ' Tralfic Impact Analysis Chanhassen, Minnesota left tum lane, with a 95'h percentile queue of 396 feet. The adjacent through lane will also block access to the left turn lane, with a 95'h percentile queue of 563 feet. The westbound left turn queue is expected to fit within the tum lane; however, with a 951h percentile queue of 598 feet and 630 feet of storage length, and a posted speed of 55 mph, left turning vehicles will need to begin decelerating in the adjacent through lane, delaying vehicles making the westbound through movement. At the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, the eastbound left turn movement is expected to operate at LOS F, due to increased volumes during the PM peak hour. Queuing from this movement is expected to block vehicles exiting the east driveway from the south, leading to LOS F on the northbound approach. As a low volume side street approach, it is likely that most vehicles will reroute and utilize the west driveway during the PM peak hour. No tum lane spillback or lane blocking is anticipated from any of the left turn lanes at the intersection. Table 5 — 2013 Build 2013 Build Operations with Signal Installation and Optimization Table 6 provides LOS results for the 2013 build scenario, assuming the installation of a signal at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, as well as optimization of splits at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard. The simulation assumes an optimized timing plan Park Road and Powers Boulevard, with the signal operating with an 80 -second cycle length, half that of the 160 -second cycle at Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, to allow for coordination with the optimized splits at the major intersection. Although signal optimization removes approximately 6 seconds from the major street approaches, the signal remains coordinated along the TH 5 corridor, with minimal increases in delay. May 2011 26 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 2013 Build • PM Peak Hour LeR)vn 09eroti. py Moyemain AppaYlt Onry MBllCM aeue4 Lalt llR MaWkM Cornual APPaaA 9sta Deb, Oaiay Ogle 0.1e Oele Percent" Itednk LOS LOS .4vehl 14adwp LOS I"Pa"Ra LM karI LOB E6 320' 656 25.5 C 50 A 319 C Mtgrebm WB 600' V44 3)l O 40 • 49.3 0 a,d a sw� W 3% 260.1 )36 33 A es.s s1 • o Ptnrwk al yd $B M )A) H9 32 A orae D Ea 220 s5.1 16.5 c 41 A 390 Park Rd& Wa 0' 204 C 22.) C 110 B 144 a UA B Powys 81W T9sC Ra 65' 110 B 1 s A 51 A 36 A so 4O )0 A 36 A 53 A 46 A Ea O 21.5 C 13 A 234 C Part Rdb WB D 06 • 01 A OJ • H.6 C IWsC O 493.5 493.5 &I.,M SB 4 • 4.7 a Ea a 1 31 A 27 1 A I 19 ♦ 1 1 1 A Part"b Wa 2S 2.1 A 02 A OS A 0.9 • 86 A Wet TrX M Cl A t9 A 64 • 6.l Or., SB 20D 189 [ 3A • 1a.4 C 2013 Build Operations with Signal Installation and Optimization Table 6 provides LOS results for the 2013 build scenario, assuming the installation of a signal at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, as well as optimization of splits at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard. The simulation assumes an optimized timing plan Park Road and Powers Boulevard, with the signal operating with an 80 -second cycle length, half that of the 160 -second cycle at Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, to allow for coordination with the optimized splits at the major intersection. Although signal optimization removes approximately 6 seconds from the major street approaches, the signal remains coordinated along the TH 5 corridor, with minimal increases in delay. May 2011 26 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 LJ 1 1 11 • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 71 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 71 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 69 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 62 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 71 seconds The following movement is expected to operate at LOS F under the 2013 build scenario with signal installation: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 87 seconds Operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2013 no build levels, with increased delay to the southbound through movement. With the signal timing modified, queuing and blocking issues are eliminated. The 951h percentile queue for both the northbound left turn and through movements is reduced to 232 feet, which is easily accommodated within the taper of the 230 foot storage length. The 95'" percentile westbound left tum queue is reduced to 340 feet, which leaves nearly 300 feet in the tum lane for vehicles to decelerate. At the signalized intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. With the signal in place, queues are anticipated to clear during most cycles, allowing the northbound right -tum movement at the east driveway to operate at LOS A. The delays associated with the LOS E or F movements are not associated with operational problems at the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. No geometric improvements are recommended, and the cycle length at Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is expected to remain at 160 seconds to maximize the coordinated westbound and eastbound through movements. May 2011 27 Kimle -Hom walman (Store 115949.00) Y Traffic Impact Analysis — . .._ . and Associates, Inc. Chanhassen, Minnesota All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the two unsignalized intersections on Park Road operating ' at LOS A. Similar to the no build scenario, a total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays for the LOS E intersections summarized as follows: 1 L 1 1 1 1 LJ 1 1 11 • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 71 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 71 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 69 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 62 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 71 seconds The following movement is expected to operate at LOS F under the 2013 build scenario with signal installation: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 87 seconds Operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2013 no build levels, with increased delay to the southbound through movement. With the signal timing modified, queuing and blocking issues are eliminated. The 951h percentile queue for both the northbound left turn and through movements is reduced to 232 feet, which is easily accommodated within the taper of the 230 foot storage length. The 95'" percentile westbound left tum queue is reduced to 340 feet, which leaves nearly 300 feet in the tum lane for vehicles to decelerate. At the signalized intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. With the signal in place, queues are anticipated to clear during most cycles, allowing the northbound right -tum movement at the east driveway to operate at LOS A. The delays associated with the LOS E or F movements are not associated with operational problems at the signal, but are due to relatively low demand and long cycle lengths. No geometric improvements are recommended, and the cycle length at Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is expected to remain at 160 seconds to maximize the coordinated westbound and eastbound through movements. May 2011 27 PPP"' _,lKimley-Horn and Assmate$. Inc. Table 6— 2013 Build with Improvements Waknalt (Store 05949-00) Traffic Impad Malysis Chwhasseri. Mmesota AiY�amal A: OpmtNm✓Sgtl Sy/lAAAM✓wak WNta MpmwtmMa SyW FYtlabi•PahWPo+ia 2030 No Build Operations Split optimization was assumed under the 2030 no build scenario due to the significant increase in volume from surrounding off-site development, although the cycle length was assumed to remain at 160 seconds. Without split optimization, the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is anticipated to operate at LOS F, with queues propagating throughout the network. Table 7 provides 2030 LOS results for the no build scenario, using background linear growth from 2013 to 2030 of 0.5 percent per year, plus additional traffic associated with five parcels within the study area. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS C or better. A total of 13 movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E movements summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 66 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 71 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 76 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 43 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound through: 37 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 48 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound right: 41 seconds The following movements are expected to operate at LOS F under the 2030 no build scenario: May 2011 28 2013 Build Wllh Signal - PM Peak Hour lfa Turn 0 anaN OY MOvlmtnt Ara,frn DNrtl Met kkm Nfef aska, MwvQMt CentNl ARPgftlt 961h NIP, LOS DNw lOi OeW l06 alk, LOS DO" LOS Pa'..if I+NNhl l+fd h -h) I INyNh Ea 315 20.8 Sob C 5.1 A 364 D Whm a` Wa 340' 21.3 414 D 41 A 343 D •vd• SMF us 230 662 62.1 44 A 43.2 D 4L2 0 Vawt•W A 105' 10 821 3.3 A S3 ■ 0 EB 196 273 C 223 C 37 A 200 B ftn"A Was a 10.2 D 324 0 122 8 21.2 C 131 fi P. LOWW vpwi 115' 220 C 96 A 60 A 13.4 B 10 50 133 B fib A 60 A 6.B A EB 0 23 A 03 A 2.3 A Fart Rd WS D 06 A 06 A 06WA 12 A East 2\MSC A• O a6 A 36 DnreWfY SB 0' 2.3 A 23 EB 0' 19 A 26 A 01 A 0.9 9at4 Rd6 WB 35' i] A 02 A 06 A 0.9AI A W., TWSC R• 0' 5.9 A 14 A 11 A 42 DnrenoY SB 95' 9S A IS A a3 AiY�amal A: OpmtNm✓Sgtl Sy/lAAAM✓wak WNta MpmwtmMa SyW FYtlabi•PahWPo+ia 2030 No Build Operations Split optimization was assumed under the 2030 no build scenario due to the significant increase in volume from surrounding off-site development, although the cycle length was assumed to remain at 160 seconds. Without split optimization, the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is anticipated to operate at LOS F, with queues propagating throughout the network. Table 7 provides 2030 LOS results for the no build scenario, using background linear growth from 2013 to 2030 of 0.5 percent per year, plus additional traffic associated with five parcels within the study area. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak period, with the three unsignalized intersections operating at LOS C or better. A total of 13 movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E movements summarized as follows: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 66 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 71 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 76 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 43 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard eastbound through: 37 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 48 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound right: 41 seconds The following movements are expected to operate at LOS F under the 2030 no build scenario: May 2011 28 I 1 1 1 Kiml1e�y�"'r-Horn Walmart (Stare 65949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis and Associates. Inc. Chanhassen. Minnesota • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 96 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 116 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 96 seconds • Park Road & Powers Boulevard westbound through: 61 seconds • Park Road & East Driveway northbound left: 115 seconds • Park Road & East Driveway northbound through: 102 seconds • Park Road & East Driveway northbound right: 100 seconds At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, the through movements on Arboretum Boulevard are maintained at LOS D or C, with lower LOS on Powers Boulevard, the lower volume side street. The northbound left turn queue is anticipated to spillback from the 230' left turn lane with a 95111 percentile queue of 332 feet. Access to the left tum lane is also anticipated to be blocked, with a 95i11 percentile queue of 394 feet in the adjacent through lane. Lane blocking may also occur on the westbound approach, with a 630 foot left tum lane and a 673 foot 95i11 percentile queue in the adjacent through lane. The 95'h percentile queue for the eastbound left turn is 470 feet, compared to a storage length of 550 feet. While the 95th percentile queue is contained within the storage length, there is little length remaining in which vehicles can decelerate. This results in left turning vehicles decelerating in the adjacent through lane, causing additional delay. Table 7 — 2030 No Build .n P. AauM.9Agle]61p•I iPAIOMWYvn itll4Y. 2030 Build Operations Table 8 provides 2030 LOS results for the build scenario, using the previously calculated 2030 background traffic volumes plus trips associated with the Walmart site. As with the 2030 no build scenario, split optimization was assumed at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, with coordination maintained using a 160 -second cycle. May 2011 29 ---_- 2070 No Build• PM Peak Noun ------ -- u.r-M lM iwn*7W D .Ib AbMn.at R t APMea[rt orenl mnnAn6]n IhxnDbn Cenral A pprwN 9sln'O.Iry GIs/ ow'" O.Iry h.nmE.s ..a/wa1 los ..dwM los Iwt/r IDs J d..a los E6 470' 359 D 49 • Aai 0 M6.rANm We N.1 D AA A Al.l 0 ■M6 Signal AZA 0 .ya.]I YN M IID' A 0 66 A SO7 D sa IIP 9S S IA A sat Is P I68 106 0 16.6 .art A66 Wa D 60.5 AOi AI.1 P. erg 1925[ Na AS' 116 a It A 52 A 27 A%60 SIAI]A 6I AA IS o2S.S D 161 C ISIwe P OS A P] A & C M 0' IIS.A 102.0 I00I Dnr.rr se a P..M& IS 7 26 A 26 A Wrn Wa 0' 1.6 A OS A 09 ♦ YnveAtr i9IX K tl 6.4 A L5 A 22 A 6.9 A 22 A H tlI II I A 62 A .n P. AauM.9Agle]61p•I iPAIOMWYvn itll4Y. 2030 Build Operations Table 8 provides 2030 LOS results for the build scenario, using the previously calculated 2030 background traffic volumes plus trips associated with the Walmart site. As with the 2030 no build scenario, split optimization was assumed at the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, with coordination maintained using a 160 -second cycle. May 2011 29 P" i F1 Kim = Y and I Walmart (Stons #5949-00) ' Traffic Impact Analysis Chanhassen. Minnesota While the intersection of Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard is anticipated to operate at LOS D, as under the 2030 no build scenario, both of the driveways on Park Road are expected to operate at LOS F. This is the result of queuing on the eastbound approach at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard as in the 2013 build scenario. With the increase in traffic volumes between 2013 and 2030, the eastbound Park Road queue at Powers Boulevard is anticipated to block both the east and west driveways on Park Road. At the Arboretum Boulevard intersection, LOS is maintained at a similar level to the 2030 no build scenario, but the travel demand at this intersection is, in effect, metered by the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard. A total of 20 movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F. Table 8 — 2030 Build InpaynyWAOpdmaPamalSps� $Ida ®Maalunstl Ebawf 2030 Build Operations with Signal Installation Table 9 provides 2030 LOS results for the build scenario, assuming the installation of a signal at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard. The simulation assumes an optimized timing plan at Park Road and Powers Boulevard, with the signal operating with an 80 -second cycle length, half that of the 160 -second cycle at Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, to allow for coordination with the optimized splits at the major intersection. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the two unsignalized intersections on Park Road operating at LOS A. Similar to the 2030 no build scenario, a total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E intersections summarized as follows: May 2011 30 1 11 1 1 1 2070 8W Id • PM Ps;k Hour L413)ur. O atlom Mowmant AN,a33k OwIY MtaaeaM u.ta LaR ilvw 1 bOFaLOIen CNgaN Agrorla 9518 Dally DNay WLw MIA, DNry h Mk I4JWkl LOS LOS aaJuelal 1-4WH LOS 1 +ala LOS Nwd LM EB AN' 1010 Ql D 55 A $5.6 IVO9RWm WB 635' )5.6 S63 SO A 21 D D BIW; OPaI 1e 325' 060 590 AS A 400 0 511 Pomya- SB 115' 766 91.6 3S > SU ES IN 1911 265 D 94 • 12)9 Put Ad; WB P 1551 173.1 1296 1101 29.3 D MW S 71VPPawo M 80' 111 0 2.4 A 55 A 00 A IS )O 0. B 34 A 52 A •1 A Ea tl 116.2 405 1855 Par4b; we O 06 A 1.1 A O] A lis) hat TMS[ y2 tl 5]29.1 3091.5 Dnunw9 y tl 92 A 9.2 1 A EB tl 305) 2S19 2989 2551 Part SO; WB Itl 22 A 01 A OS A OJ A 35II WMl 1 WX A9 0' 6))3 9650 899.1 Mraa9y 50 500' 14689 111111111511111111120 A 1436) InpaynyWAOpdmaPamalSps� $Ida ®Maalunstl Ebawf 2030 Build Operations with Signal Installation Table 9 provides 2030 LOS results for the build scenario, assuming the installation of a signal at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard. The simulation assumes an optimized timing plan at Park Road and Powers Boulevard, with the signal operating with an 80 -second cycle length, half that of the 160 -second cycle at Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard, to allow for coordination with the optimized splits at the major intersection. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during PM peak period, with the two unsignalized intersections on Park Road operating at LOS A. Similar to the 2030 no build scenario, a total of six movements are expected to operate at LOS E or F, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E intersections summarized as follows: May 2011 30 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1J 1 A lY 11 Kimley-Horn 1 I and Associates. Inc Walmart (Store #5949-00) ^Traffic Impact Analysis • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 72 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 65 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 79 seconds The following movements are expected to operate at LOS F under the 2030 build scenario with signal installation: • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 104 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 122 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 113 seconds As with the 2030 build scenario, operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are expected to remain around the 2030 no build levels. Left turn lane spillback is anticipated on the northbound approach, where the 95h percentile queue is 395 feet. The left turn lane will also be blocked by the 479 foot queue in the adjacent northbound through lane. Some blocking will also occur on the westbound approach, which has a 630 -foot left turn lane but the 95th percentile queue in the adjacent lane is 795 feet. Also, there is little space for deceleration in the eastbound and westbound left tum lanes. The 951" percentile queues for the westbound and eastbound left turns are 605 feet and 465 feet, respectively, compared to storage lengths of 630 feet and 550 feet, respectively. At the signalized intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard, all movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. With the signal in place, queues are anticipated to clear during most cycles, allowing the northbound right -tum movement at the east driveway to operate at LOS A. Table 9 — 2030 Build 6]elpaa�Ia. W... aM0I60'Wfte raa.M I h9aanM8 err MY.Od,a M ad NTr-a a May 2011 31 1010 Builtl with Signal • PM Peak how lea ]urn owatbm AAw6nwM Owrr lntlrWbn react US Mw MMeaN MNr+M4n lanM1N 9uh Mb m.wh am" WIN WIN MAN ft ontM .aa lm .W.h los w/N los ..qwh los aeh LOS 665' 1060 W.0 0 S5 A SSJ MOareNm 605' )i.0 S2.fi 0 69 A 690 D aM6 Fantl1. 53s 0 P. ab 1221 66.5 66 A 503 D 1E. 120' ]e5 1129 SA A .a.3 E00' 10.6 C 19.2 B l3 A 212 C VartMA A 650 0 508 0 264 C 326 < Vaner.•b LL^tl160' JSI 0 1s7 B 6S A 162 B IL2 B 100' 29A C 23 A 6.S AA 0 26 A 09 A 26 A a 0' 0] A 06 A 06 A hl 0 Is.l 1 C is C 21 A Dnwo9 Sa0' 5.0 1A S.0 A 9artWl FB 0' 2] A 0> A IA A 0.9 A wB Io 2.5 A 0.3 A OS A 09 A Watt ]µ5C M 0 71 1 A 65 A SA A $5 A SA A ONwara9 Sa EST -' 121 1 9 34 1 A 136 B 6]elpaa�Ia. W... aM0I60'Wfte raa.M I h9aanM8 err MY.Od,a M ad NTr-a a May 2011 31 lh I Kimley-Horn waTra ficI pact Analysts ' Nk- = and Associates. Inc. Chanhassen, Minnesota 2030 Build Operations with Signal Installation and Dual Left Turn Lanes Table 10 provides 2030 LOS results for the build scenario, assuming the signal ' installation, split optimization, and the construction of double left tum lanes on both the eastbound and westbound approaches on Arboretum Boulevard. All intersections within the study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better ' during PM peak period, with the two unsignahzed intersections on Park Road operating at LOS A. Similar to existing conditions, a total of six movements are expected to , operate at LOS E, with average delays per vehicle for the LOS E intersections summarized as follows: ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard eastbound left: 80 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard westbound left: 67 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound left: 77 seconds ' • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard northbound through: 57 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound left: 76 seconds • Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard southbound through: 76 seconds ' As with the 2030 build scenario, operations at the Arboretum Boulevard intersection are ' expected to remain around the 2030 no build levels. Left tum lane spillback and blocking is still anticipated on the northbound approach, with a 95ih percentile queue of 347 feet for the left turn movement and 333 feet for the through movement. The left tum lane is ' 230 feet long and could not be lengthened without shortening the southbound left tum lane at the Park Road and Powers Boulevard intersection. Lane blocking is also anticipated on the westbound approach where the left turn lane is 630 feet long and the 95th percentile queue in the adjacent through lane is 709 feet. With the addition of the tum lanes, approximately 300 feet of storage length is available for deceleration in the eastbound and westbound left tum lanes. ' 1 May 2011 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 Kimley-Horn I and Associates, Inc. Table 10 — 2030 Build with Improvements WaIniart (store #5949-00) Traffic Impact Maiysis I,A+m+wYA OOnmaaLm d99W $'ee6ANbel,n wJlbra 4,pvMr4,Y9 SpW FYpyiM oPYe fN{Erf I^PeWmerYC 6gloN W4M IMOMwwen MRwera 6rpgwrwfD WeaOONNIhIMOMo'aruna,N/Ma May 2011 33 2030 Build will, Signal - PM Peak Hour Le9)Wn wuer;36 ll I b, M. ..t ft ACW� Owri Mlert*O IltrLetlbn UMrtl AppoaEl 99th hrrenlh LOS 00" LOS wh BeW wEB LOS MW l02 0e1W l05 390' 19.t 0 SA A 450 O WB 1w 438 0 46 A 42.1 0 !M9 Bwse Linal l45' 5)2 64 A 389 D430 0 120' )94 33 A so4 0 E8 200' C 19) B 4.1 A 216 C >ar4 RJB WB O D 49.5 D 25.1 C 31.3 CQ3 1.aM Pa W 135' C 160 8 fib A 184 BSB B 105' C ) 6 A ).3 A 97 A FB 0' 29 A 11 A 28 A 9arxW9 WB 0' Ol A 06 A OJ A bat nxsc M 0' 219 C II9 C 2I A Drlee, Se Cr 4.3I A 1 4.3 1 A FB 0' 91 A 2_ A OS A 0.9 Rar4 RJB WB 35' 24 A .3A 96 A 0.9 A W., OrIYYvnY 19r5[ NB 0 1 6.fi A )1 A 90 I A 5.6 A 47 A Ss IID' 1 114 1 B 1 26 1 A SLI B I,A+m+wYA OOnmaaLm d99W $'ee6ANbel,n wJlbra 4,pvMr4,Y9 SpW FYpyiM oPYe fN{Erf I^PeWmerYC 6gloN W4M IMOMwwen MRwera 6rpgwrwfD WeaOONNIhIMOMo'aruna,N/Ma May 2011 33 ARM Walmart (sae #594400) Traffic Impact Analysis I Signal Warrant Analysis ' As demonstrated in the previous section, signal installation has the potential to ' significantly improve operations on Park Road, and the following section discusses signal warrant analysis methodology using the 13 -hour count conducted at Park Road and ' Powers Boulevard. Under the 2013 build scenario, which includes background traffic plus Walmart trips, a , total of six hours are met for Warrant I and two hours are met for Warrant 1B. Additionally, two analysis hours are within 20 vehicles of satisfying Warrant IA. In all cases, the heaviest side street approach is the eastbound approach to the intersection, ' excluding right -turning vehicles. Table l I presents the results for Warrants IA and I B. Table 11 — 2013 Signal Warrant Analysis ' Pawera&vtl Park Roetl WarrantI W..'"Z Warmnl3 NB 58 Tra Mc ®iraMc to 1B Time Penatl (Ma orA rwcneq (Minor roacn7 Maw Vol. Minor Vol. Mel? Ma'w Vol. Minor Vol. Matl Minor VW. Meti Nind Vol. Mati 6:00-]00 400 et 6110 Z00 900 1W 61) ]Op -6.011 Bfi9 59 600 300 900 tOD 214 463 ' 600.900 761 M 6011 300 900 100 326 SNI 1]:00-M 1107 2n fi00 i00 vFD 900 100 VE9 aae ' 19.00-1900 861 :06 800 Z00 VES 900 100 604 lbva Met I 0 0 11Mua Rat M 8 8 a a 1;onJ1c„ MM NO NO NO NO In order to add in the additional trips associated with the surrounding parcels, daily trip ' generation values were calculated based on each site's anticipated ITE Land Use code, as shown in Table 12. Hourly distribution assumptions were then applied to each rate, and ' the calculated trips were then added to the appropriate approach at the Park Road and Powers Boulevard intersection based on the trip distribution values previously discussed. By 2030, including all background traffic associated with general regional growth as well t as the five parcels identified, both Warrants IA and 1 B are anticipated to be met, as , shown in Table 13. 1 1 May 2011 34 7= = = m m m==== s m � = = m m m m Table 12 Off -Site Trip Generadon Daily Pus -by Net New % 'total Pass -by Pass -by Ddernal land Total Pass -by Pus -by Tripe Trips Tri Taal Fitter FY11 Use land Ube Size Units Formula Tri Fater Flit TrimF-nter wl 813 Frcc-Standing Discount Superstorc 120.209 KSF Ln(T) - 1.35 Ln(X) 1 2.11 5,300 2,650 2.650 N/A 0 0 0 5,300 2,650 2.650 814 Specialty Rctad Center 22.350 KSF T 44.32(X) 991 496 495 WA 0 0 0 991 496 495 $14 Spcctahy RctaJ Center 32.800 KSF T -44.32(X) 1,454 727 727 WA 11 0 0 1,454 727 727 110 General Light Industrial 221.000 KSF T = 7.47(X) - 101.92 1,549 775 774 WA 0 0 0 1,549 775 774 630 Clink 28.980 KSF T- 31.45(X) 911 4% 455 WA 0 0 0 911 456 455 710 Cenral Office 948000 KSF Lm(T) = 0.77 Ln(X) 3.65 7,539 3710 3,769 0^i 0 0 0 7,539 3,770 3,769 820 Shopping Ccntcr 406.000 KSF Ln(T) = 0.65 Ln(X) * 5.83 16,884 8,442 8,442 0% 0 0 0 16,884 8.442 8.442 210 Sinic-Fanu1 0.[ached Housmg 1 132.0001 Acres I T=26.04X i,lA7 1 1, 11) 1 1.71n 1 031. 1 0 1 0 0 ;.a;7 171" 31,191 15,597 15,594 WA 0 0 0 31,191 15,597 15,594 ®�lCim-Hom Walmart (Sim -00) ' Traffic Impactt Analysis and Associates, Inc. Chanhassen, Minnesota Table 13 — 2030 Signal Warrant Analysis Powers Blvd RB. S8 Traffic Time Period (Major Approaches) Park Road EB Traffic (Minor Approach) I Major Vol. to I Minor Vol. Warrant I Met? Major Vol. 1B Minor Vol. Met? 6:00 - 7:00 480 93 600 200 900 900 100 700-803 7:00 - 8:00 1090 73 600 200 100 900 100 ON 8:00 - 9:00 1176 105 600 200 900 100 YES 9:00 -10:00 841 126 600 200 1000 -1100 900 100 800 10:00.11:00 856 198 6110 200 TOB 900 100 20D 11:00-12:00 1060 279 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 1200-13:00 1309 273 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 13:00 - 14:00 1129 229 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 14:00 - 15:00 1098 231 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 15:00-16:00 1322 292 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 16:00-17:00 1353 327 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 17:00.18:00 7672 345 600 200 YES 900 100 YES 18:00 - 79:00 7034 291 600 200 VES 900 100 YFS Hours Met Hoios Required Condition Met? 8 8 YFS 9 8 YES In order to identify the sensitivity of the signal warrants to the timeline of surrounding development, a 2015 analysis was conducted including all traffic associated with the two additional parcels on Park Road (Land Use Code 814). By adding the trips associated with these parcels to the trips generated by the Walmart site and general background growth of 0.5 percent between 2013 and 2015, it is anticipated that Warrant IA will be met, as shown in Table 14. Table 14 — 2015 Signal Warrant Analysis Time Perbd Poven MW M • se TmMC a'w rwNeM Park Rosa ® T.M. Minor oaNl MawVol. IA Minor VW. Wartanll Mat? Na ixVd. Wamamx I W.. 3 1M Minor VN. Me0 k6nor VN, Mat? Minix VW. Met? 600-700 415 89 800 200 900 100 700-803 901 n 600 x00 900 100 00-900 ON 1M 800 200 900 100 900-1000 $x8 125 800 200 900 100 1000 -1100 5n0 198 800 200 900 100 11.00-1200 TOB 275 800 20D YES 900 100 12:00 -13 W MBI 289 am 100 YES 900 100 13.00 -14 W 718 ZIS 600 200 YB 900 100 14:00 - 15 W n0 x2M 800 200 YES 900 100 t 5:00. 18.00 977 288 600 100 YES 900 100 ITS 18:00-1700 1013 323 GOO 200 YES 900 100 YES 1700.18.00 1213 Mt 600 10D YES 90o 100 YES 10.00-1900 72a 2B8 800 200 YES 900100 ba MM Hors RaVr,ao C tm Mm? a B YE9 3 a MO 4 4 I I �1 1 I I 1 Given that trips associated with the Walmart site will nearly satisfy Warrant I in 2013, ' that additional development on Park Road will likely generate sufficient traffic to satisfy Warrant I in the short term, and that a signal at the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard will significantly improve local operations with additional traffic on ' Park Road, signal installation is recommended as part of the development of the Walmart site. , May 2011 36 I 1 LJ 1 1 1 [1 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Walmart (Store #5949-00) Traffic Impact Analysis With the construction of Walmart Store #5949-00 near the southwest quadrant of the Arboretum Boulevard (Trunk Highway 5)/Powers Boulevard (CSAR 17) intersection in Chanhassen, Minnesota, it is recommended that the intersection of Park Road and Powers Boulevard be converted from side street stop control to signal control. Without stopping the northbound and southbound traffic on Powers Boulevard, there will not be enough gaps for the eastbound traffic on Park Road to enter the intersection. Queues on Park Road will, in turn, prevent vehicles from exiting from the east driveway onto Park Road. In addition, the splits at the signal for the Arboretum Boulevard and Powers Boulevard intersection should be retimed to efficiently serve the new turning movement distribution. By incorporating the recommended modifications, the street network will operate at similar levels to existing conditions. In the long term, the City should monitor the growth of the surrounding area. If the area develops as anticipated by the City, consideration should be given to adding a second left turn lane on the eastbound and westbound Arboretum Boulevard approaches to Powers Boulevard. Queues for these movements are not expected to spill out of the turn lane, but with the forecasted growth and development, would result in left turning drivers decelerating in the adjacent through lane and causing delays for through movements. Dual left turn lanes would shorten queues as well as delays. May 2011 37 11 1 [l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1� 1 1 APPENDIX I 1 Appendix A Raw Turning Movement Volume Counts 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �� &01 TRAFFIC DATA IN(. Arboretum Blvd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 1 Powers Blvd Arboretum Blvd Powers BNd Arboretum Blvd Southbound Westbound - ort o nd_ _ _ Eastbound Start. Time Rghl ThrU L1R Pada App.Toul Rath Th- LM Paas App. RpM ThN LM Pens gpp,Total R9M Thru� Lea Peas App. TOW IM. Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 1. LO 1. Factor 1 0 1.0 1.0 04:00 PM 53 45 16 0 114 52 256 21 0 329 41 69 12 0 122 7 191 43 0 241 806 04:15 PM 60 39 22 0 121 54 253 27 0 334 28 64 13 0 105 2 166 46 0 214 774 04:30 PM 52 39 19 0 110 57 285 24 0 366 41 51 12 0 104 6 184 29 0 219 799 04:45 PM 48 43 21 0 112 67 293 31 0 391 30 69 18 0 117 6 146 41 0 193 813 Total 213 166 78 0 457 230 1087 103 0 1420 140 253 55 0 448 21 687 159 0 867 3192 05:00 PM 59 56 28 0 143 78 286 31 0 395 55 79 24 0 1589 218 72 0 299 995 05:15 PM 63 45 25 0 133 60 319 29 0 408 36 60 15 0 111 9 178 55 0 242 894 05:30 PM 44 59 37 0 140 64 344 46 0 454 29 65 16 0 110 5 173 52 0 230 934 05:45 PM 54 45 30 0 129 82 298 27 0 407 29 k 14 87 8 160 38 0 206 2 Total 1 220 205 120 0 5451 284 1247 133 0 1664 1 149 241 89 0 4661 31 729 217 0 977 1 3652 Grand Total 433 371 198 0 1002 514 2334 236 0 3064 289 501 124 0 914 52 1416 376 0 1844 6644 Apprcn % 43.2 37 19.8 0 16.7 75.7 7.7 0 31.6 54.8 13.6 0 2.8 76.8 20.4 0 Total % 6.3 5.4 2.9 0 14.6 7.5 34.1 3.4 0 45.1 4.2 7.3 1.8 0 13.4 0.8 20.7 5.5 0 26. Class 1 430 364 195 0 989 511 2304 230 0 3045 278 496 123 0 897 50 1378 372 0 1800 6731 %Class 1 99.3 98.1 98.5 0 98.7 99.4 98.7 97.5 .7 96.2 99 99.2 0 98.1 96.2 97.3 90.9 0 97.6 98. Heavy Vehicles %H"W vemclea 0.7 1.9 1.5 0 1.3 0.6 1.3 2.5 0 1.3 3.8 1 0.8 0 1.9 3.8 2.7 1.1 0 2.4 1.7 " Y TRAFFIC DATA INC. Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 Arboretum Blvd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen. MN File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 2 M oven Blvd In Tota 1579 889 2]88 1 77 25 150 584 195 0 27 1 7 ht Thru Left Pods .� 1 Y n * E— 2/82 04 2/8/201045 PM 1— 2 3 e rc 1 cl.ae 1 �� d m Q Nvl e e H V a V \ �4n a -coo r Left Th h R Ped 725 /% 277 B 0 1 5 11 0 124 501 289 01 611 7 6 14 '511 91 out In Total M Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South TRAf FI( DATA 1N(. St Louis Park. MN 55416 Arboretum Blvd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen. MN -- - - -� Powers Blvd Southbound Start Time I Rght I Thru I Left I Peas APP. TOW Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 cnn ou Arboretum Blvd Powers Blvd westbound Northbound Thru I LM I Pods I ADP. Total I Raht I Thru I Left I Peds File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 3 Thru I Left I Pods I APP. Total I Int. Total . __....— _..... 05:00 PM _ ..... 59 56 28 0 143 78 286 31 0 395 55 79 24 0 158 9 218 72 0 299 995 05:15 PM 63 45 25 0 133 60 319 29 0 408 36 60 15 0 111 9 178 55 0 242 894 05:30 PM 44 59 37 0 140 64 344 46 0 454 29 65 16 0 110 5 173 52 0 230 934 05:45 PM 64 45 30 0 129 82 298 27 0 407 29 44 14 0 87 6 180 38 0 206 829 Total Volume 220 205 120 0 543 284 1247 133 0 1664 149 248 68 0 466 31 729 217 0 977 3852 % Apo. Total 40.4 37.6 22 0 17.1 74.9 8 0 32 53.2 14.8 0 3.2 74.6 22.2 0 PHF .873 .869 .811 .000 .953 .866 .906 .723 .000 .916 .677 .785 .719 .000 .737 .61 .836 .753 .000 .817 .918 4 . f Y TRAFFIC DATA INC. Arboretum & Powers (Heavy Vehicles) Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park. MN 55416 File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No : 1 05:00 PM 1 Powers Blvd 0 - 1 Arboretum Blvd 3 1 Powers Blvd 4 1 0 Arboretum Blvd 05:15 PM 0 1 0 Southbound 1 1 3 Westbound 0 5 3 0 Northbound 05:30 PM 0 0 0 Eastbound 0 0 3 Start Time R hl Thru Left Pads App. Total Rqhl Thai Las Pads App. Total RqM ThN LM Pa4a App. To1N Rght Thru LM Pact App. Total Mt. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1. 0 13 04:00 PM 1 3 1 0 5 0 7 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 2 0 a 2 0 10 24 04:15 PM 1 1 2 0 4 1 4 1 0 6 1 1 1 0 3 0 7 1 0 8 21 04:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 5 13 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 10 Total 2 6 3 0 11 2 18 3 0 23 5 3 1 0 9 0 22 3 0 25 68 05:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 4 1 0 0 05:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 5 3 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 1 2 0 0545 PM 0 0 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 Tolal 1 1 0 0 2 1 12 3 0 18 8 2 0 Grand Total 3 7 3 0 13 3 30 6 0 39 it 5 1 Apprch °/. 23.1 53.8 23.1 0 7.7 76.9 15.4 0 &1.7 29.4 5.9 Total % 2.7 62 2.7 0 11.5 2.7 26.5 5.3 0 34.5 9.7 4.4 0.9 0 1 0 5 0 0 5 11 0 3 2 3 0 0 5 14 0 3 0 5 0 0 5 12 0 1 0 3 1 4 8 0 8 2 16 1 0 101 45 0 17 2 38 4 0 44 113 0 4.5 86A 9.1 0 0 15 1.8 33.6 3.5 0 38.9 1111111 1111111, 11111111111 111111111' 11111111111 11111111, 11111111111 111111111, 11111111111 1111111111111, 111111, 1111111111, 11111. 111111111, 1111111/ 1111111111. 1111111111. 111111111/ aw W1 TRAMC DATA INC. Arboretum & Powers (Heavy Vehicles) Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No : 2 ower. Blvd ut TLM aal 1 31 71 31 01 RgIn Thru Left Peds �J 1 Li Nath E F2-13—/2-0-11-0-4 00 PM Lt4201t Ob:45 PMrC B rc 'SS a ti +1 ? r Left Thru R M Peds © 71 Out In Total M FRA [ O A FAA ION # Arboretum & Powers (Heavy Vehicles) Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Powers Blvd : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Southbound :3 Start Time I Rght I Thru I Left I Peds I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for En Ore Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 0 8 04:00 PM 1 3 1 0 5 04:15 PM 1 1 2 0 4 04:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 2 8 3 0 11 Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241131 Arboretum & Powers Site Code : 1241131 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No :3 Arboretum Blvd Westbound Powers Blvd Northbound at ThN LM PMa App. TOW Rgnr i Tnru 1 Laa Pads App. Tout 0 7 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 2 1 4 1 0 8 1 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 3 1 4 2 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 2 18 3 0 23 5 3 1 0 9 Arboretum Blvd Eastbound N I Tru Left I Pada I App. Total I Int. TOtel 0 a 2 0 10 24 0 7 1 0 5 21 0 5 0 0 5 13 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 22 3 0 25 68 aTraffic Data Inc. � J,� Y� r9nrrlr DATA JAI(. Rt St I nuis Park MN 55416 Park Rd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN (:mune Printpd_ Class 1 Fite Name : 1241132 Park & Powers Site Code : 1241132 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 1 07:00 AM 17 Powers Blvd 9 0 70 0 Park Rd 1 0 2 Powers Blvd 55 13 0 74 Park Rd 0 1 0 3 149 Southbound 14 56 5 0 Westbound 2 0 1 Northbound 3 4 74 21 E tbound _ 4 0 Start Time R hl Thro Left Peds App. Total Rgm Thru Lan Paoa App. Total Rght Trru LM Peas App. Total Rght Thu LM Pads _ App Iota[ Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 20 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 159 1.01 1.0 1.01 1.0 _ - 06:00 AM 2 30 0 0 32 23 0 15 1 39 1 10 4 0 15 15 2 35 0 52 138 06:15 AM 4 27 4 0 35 4 0 7 0 11 3 32 9 0 44 4 1 13 0 18 108 06:30 AM 8 33 4 0 45 2 0 0 0 2 5 26 9 1 41 2 0 2 0 4 92 06:45 AM 13 54 5 0 72 2 1 2 0 5 10 40 22 0 72 2 0 5 0 7 156 Total 27 144 13 0 184 31 1 24 1 57 19 108 44 1 172 23 3 55 0 61 494 07:00 AM 17 44 9 0 70 0 1 1 0 2 6 55 13 0 74 2 0 1 0 3 149 07:15 AM 14 56 5 0 75 2 0 1 0 3 4 74 21 1 100 4 0 6 0 10 188 07:30 AM 17 56 6 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 7 85 1s 1 111 3 0 3 0 8 196 07:45 AM 20 121 18 0 159 2 0 i 0 3 13 67 32 3 115 7 0 5 0 IZ 289 Total 1 88 277 38 0 3831 4 1 3 0 6 1 30 281 64 5 400 1 16 0 15 0 31 1 822 08:00 AM 13 81 17 0 111 3 1 0 04 13 55 24 0 92 8 0 6 0 14 221 08:15 AM 16 70 12 0 98 5 0 2 0 7 5 50 24 2 81 2 0 2 0 4 190 08:30 AM 15 49 9 0 73 4 1 2 0 7 7 29 12 2 50 2 2 6 0 10 140 08:45 AM 8 43 9 0 8o 4 1 2 6 13 8 56 17 3 82 3 1 2 0 6 161 Total 1 52 243 47 0. 3421 16 3 6 8 31 1 31 190 77 7 3051 15 3 18 0 34 1 712 09:00 AM 26 28 9 0 63 5 0 1 08 2 35 10 1 48 1 1 4 0 8 123 09:15 AM 10 34 5 0 49 5 0 1 0 6 1 29 11 5 48 2 1 0 0 3 104 09:30 AM 9 26 3 0 38 8 3 0 0 11 4, 51 8 1 62 3 0 3 0 6 117 09:45 AM 12 11 8 0 38 7 0 1 0 5 3 39 5 2 49 1 1 3 0 5 100 Total 1 57 106 25 0 1881 25 3 3 0 31 1 10 154 32 9 205 1 7 3 10 0 20 1 444 10:00 AM 8 21 5 0 32 7 3 0 7 17 2 33 4 0 39 2 2 6 0 10 98 10:15 AM 6 30 8 0 44 6 0 3 1 10 0 17 5 3 25 0 0 4 0 4 83 10:30 AM 9 26 5 0 40 6 1 1 2 10 3 25 1 0 29 4 0 7 1 12 91 10:45 AM 11 29 3 3 46 7 3 2 0 12 7 32 6 4 49 3 3 8 0 14 121 Total 1 32 106 21 3 182 1 26 7 6 10 49 1 12 107 16 7 142 1 9 5 25 1 401 393 11:00 AM 9 25 2 5 41 4 1 2 0 7 1 38 9 8 52 3 0 8 0 9 109 11:15 AM 6 25 3 3 37 4 1 3 0 8 1 59 2 1 63 7 0 20 0 27 135 11:30 AM 11 38 4 0 53 10 0 6 0 16 2 62 0 3 87 12 1 15 0 28 164 11:45 AM 9 36 10 0 55 13 0 2 0 15 3 87 5 2 77 11 2 14 0 27 174 Total j 35 124 19 8 1861 31 2 13 0 46 1 7 224 16 12 259 33 3 55 0 91 1 582 12:00 PMI 21 49 2 0 72 I 15 1 9 0 25 5 67 1 3 76 4 1 20 0 25 198 12:15 PM 18 69 5 0 89 5 0 1 0 6 3 53 5 1 62 5 1 8 0 14 171 12:30 PM 23 65 8 0 96 5 5 2 0 12 2 56 10 1 69 6 2 17 1 26 203 12:45 PM 19 50 7 0 IIIc- 76 6 3 4 0 13 5 41 10 2 58 8 3 5 0 16 163 va ova oo n ass a1 0 14 n !SR 15 2n 28 7 285 23 7 50 1 61 735 TRAFFIC DATA INC. Park Rd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241132 Park & Powers Site Code : 1241132 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No :2 02:00 PM 6 Powers Blvd 6 0 60 5 Park Rd 3 0 9 Powers Blvd 41 2 1 48 Park Rd 1 4 0 9 126 Southbound 6 46 5 0 Westbound 5 1 3 Northbound 9 1 _ 4 Eastbound 47 6 4 Start Time Rght ThN Left ted ApP. Tole R9M TT u LM Peae App. Trial R9M TTN Le8 Pedf App. Total Rght ! 1.0 5 Thru t.0 1 Lea 1.0 13 Peds 1,0 1 App. Tout 20 Int. Total Fedor 1.0 1.0 1. 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1. 1.0 1.0 15 01:00 PM 17 61 11 0 89 4 2 1 0 7 3 49 4 3 59 175 01:15 PM 9 41 5 0 55 1 1 1 1 4 3 43 10 4 60 5 3 3 0 11 130 01:30 PM 15 50 10 0 75 2 2 2 0 6 1 36 8 2 47 4 0 5 0 9 137 01:45 PM 4 35 8 0 45 2 2 0 0 4 2 32 3 1 36 2 1 8 0 11 94 Total 45 187 32 0 264 9 7 4 1 21 9 180 25 10 204 1 16 5 29 1 51 540 02:00 PM 6 48 6 0 60 5 1 3 0 9 4 41 2 1 48 4 1 4 0 9 126 02:15 PM 6 46 5 0 57 5 1 3 0 9 1 42 4 0 47 6 4 2 0 12 125 02:30 PM 4 56 2 0 62 8 1 0 1 8 1 47 5 3 56 4 3 8 0 15 141 2:45 PM 10 55 8 73 6 4 2 0 12 1 34 5 2 42 1 1 5 0 7 134 Total 1 26 205 21 0 252 1 22 7 8 1 38 1 7 164 16 8 1931 15 9 19 0 431 526 03:00 PM 6 48 3 0 57 4 0 0 0 4 1 101 8 1 109 14 2 14 0 30 200 03:15 PM 11 54 5 0 70 7 1 4 0 12 3 72 3 0 78 7 1 5 0 13 173 03:30 PM 4 56 4 0 64 6 1 1 0 8 1 83 10 0 94 8 1 9 0 18 184 03:45 PM 2 55 7 0 64 3 0 5 0 8 2 77 3 3 85 8 4 9 0 21 178 Total 1 23 213 19 0 255 1 20 2 10 0 32 1 7 333 22 4 3661 37 8 37 0 82 735 04:00 PM 10 52 60 68 7 1 8 0 16 4 78 5 2 89 13 0 17 0 30 203 04:15 PM 3 58 3 0 84 4 1 4 0 9 2 68 6 0 76 13 1 9 0 23 172 04:30 PM 8 55 5 0 68 5 2 5 0 12 2 95 7 0 104 17 0 13 0 30 214 04:4 PM 17 65 3 0 85 18 1 5 0 24 1 88 8 2 99 is 1 14 9 11 239 Total 1 38 230 17 0 2851 34 5 22 0 81 1 9 329 26 4 3681 59 2 53 0 1141 828 05:00 PM 15 73 6 0 94 27 2 8 0 37 2 115 14 0131 24 1 17 0 42 304 05:15 PM 9 64 14 0 87 15 3 16 0 34 4 88 11 0 103 15 1 18 0 34 1 258 05:30 PM 27 73 11 0 111 8 0 7 0 15 6 93 29 1 129 17 1 10 0 28 283 05:45 PM 16 50 4 0 70 8 1 7 0 16 4 76 16 0 96 14 1 9 0 24 2 06 Total 1 67 260 35 0 362 1 58 6 ,.,. __- 38 0 102 1 16 372 70 1 4591 70 4 54 0 1251 1051 52 0 89 2 0 71 33 2 46 0 81 256 06:00 PM 4 42 6 0 52 31 1 20 0 06:15 PM 3 43 1 0 47 9 1 6 0 16 2 53 2 0 57 13 0 12 0 25 145 06:30 PM 2 46 1 0 49 3 0 3 0 6 1 45 7 1 54 11 1 4 0 16 125 PM 11 49 0 0 60 2 0 1 0 3 1 52 10 0 63 4 0 7 0 11 137 _06:45 Total 1 20 180 8 0 2081 45 2 30 0 77 1 4 219 21 1 245 1 61 3 69 0 1331 863 Grand Total 1 568 2508 317 11 3404 352 55 183 19 809 176 2858 475 74 36131 384 55 487 3 929 8525 Apprch % 18.7 73.7 9.3 0.3 57.8 9 30 3.1 4.9 79.8 13.3 2.1 41.3 5.9 52.4 0.3 Total % 1 6.7 29.4 3.7 0.1 39.9 4.1 0.6 2.1 0.2 7.1 2.1 33.5 5.6 0.9 42 4.5 0.6 5.7 0 10.9 Ar TRAFFIC DATA INC. Park Rd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241132 Park & Powers Site Code : 1241132 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 3 Powers BW Out In Total 36O7, 1 3404 l 71011 8 0 Jt ROM Thru Left PWa 3 �5 221 r North 2/&2011 08:00 AM N 3 a 2/8/2011 08:65 PM Class 1 v a aro +, ? r IML R M Poll 7 75 J58J 8 58 Out In Total ��'' .� fff ffl• f TRAFFIC DATA INC. Park Rd & Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241132 Park & Powers Site Code : 1241132 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 4 Powers Blvd Park Rd Powers Blvd�WgWtTh ark Rd k Southbound Westbound NoM and stbound tart Time Rght Thru Left Peds I App Total I ROM Thru I LM I Peds App TOW ( Rpm Thru I LM I Peds I App. TOW Ien Peds App. TOW lol. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 AM to 07:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for En re Intersection Begins Of 07:00 AM 3 149 07:00 AM 17 44 9 0 70 0 1 1 0 2 6 55 13 0 74 2 0 1 0 07:15 AM 14 56 5 0 75 2 0 1 0 3 4 74 21 1 100 4 0 5 0 10 188 07:30 AM 17 68 6 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 7 85 18 1 111 3 0 3 0 6 196 07:45 AM 20 1 1 18 0 159 2 0 1 0 3 13 87 32 3 115 7 0 5 0 12 2 9 Total Volume 88 277 36 0 383 4 1 3 0 8 30 281 84 5 400 16 0 15 0 31 822 �■�.' Traffic Data Inc. TRAFFIC 0Ar' 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, East Driveway Chanhassen, MN f ..... OAnwA_ M... 1 File Name : 1241133 Park & East Driveway Site Code : 1241133 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No : 1 Park Rd 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 Park Rd 2 05:15 PM 0 East Driveway 0 0 0 Park Rd 14 9 05:30 PM 0 0 Southbound 0 0 0 39 Westbound 0545 PM 0 0 Northbound 0 0 0 Eas and 9 Total 1 0 Start Time Rght Thru Left Peda App. Tod RW Thu Lart Pada qpp, Total RqM Thu LM Pada App. Trial R9M Thu Lan Pada App. Told Mt. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 79.2 1. 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 1. 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 19 4 0- 1 1 6 0 25 0 0 25 50 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 5 1 18 0 0 19 34 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 18 3 0 0 0 3 0 26 0 0 26 45 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 3 0 29 6 0 1 2 9 1 29 0 1 31 59 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 7 0 74 18 0 2 3 23 2 98 0 1 101 198 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 9 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 18 0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 9 Total 1 0 0 0 0 01 0 104 38 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 45 Apprth % 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 79.2 20.8 Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 9.5 0 309 0 1 0 10 0 36 0 23 5 0 1 0 6 0 25 0 57 4 0 1 0 5 0 26 0 32 7 0 1 0 8 1 18 0 142 1 25 0 4 0 291 1 105 0 218 43 0 6 3 52 3 203 0 82.7 0 - 11.5 5.8 1.4 98.1 0 45.5 9.1 0 1.3 0.6 10.9 0.6 42.7 0 0 38 75 0 0 25 54 0 0 26 88 0 a 19 59 0 0 106 1 277 0 1 207 475 0 0.5 0 02 43.6 TRAFFIC DATA INC. Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, East Driveway Chanhassen, MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241133 Park & East Driveway Site Code : 1241133 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 2 Ut In Tota — 0 Rght Thm LM Pers 4- 1 Y J NO lh u 2/8/2011 01',00 PM a 2MI2011 05:45 PMClogs I O1 " r�N a g Nu L r M Th R h P s 43 1 L -- out In re1.i w M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M� M M w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w �Traffic Data Inc. a:'1 Y/ T R AF f I C DATA x t. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park MN 55416 Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, East Driveway Chanhassen. MN File Name : 1241133 Park & East Driveway Site Code : 1241133 Start Date : 2/8/2011 Page No 3 Park Rd East Driveway Park Rd F Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Let Peds App. Total FightTnru I LM Pees App. Total RyM Tnry LM Pees App. Total Rent Inn Len Pees I App. Total I int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 -1 " in PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 3 0 29 6 0 1 2 9 1 29 0 1 31 69 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 2 0 30 9 0 1 0 10 0 36 0 0 36 76 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 9 0 23 5 0 1 0 6 0 25 0 0 25 54 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 39 18 0 57 4 0 1 0 5 0 26 0 0 26 1115 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 32 0 139 24 0 4 2 30 1 116 0 1 118 287 % App. Total 0 0 0 Q 0 77 23 0 80 0 13.3 6.7 0.6 98.30 0.8 PHF 1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .686 .444 .000 .510 .667 ODO 1. 0 .250 .7 .2 .250 .619 .815 _4 Traffic Data Inc. �: Yl rea�Fl[ Hata lNt. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name :1241134 Park &West Driveway Site Code : 1241134 Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, West Driveway Start Date : 2/9/2011 Chanhassen, MN Page No 1 Park Rd West Driveway Park Rd outhbound Wastbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time M ThN Laft Pads App. To al Ram Thru Les Pals App. Total Rpm Thru LM Paas App Total Ra11t Thru Las Pae+ App. Total IM. Total Factor 1. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 _ _ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 1 0 2 0 3 0 25 0 0 25 41 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 3 0 1 0 4 1 14 0 0 15 32 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 14 2 0 0 0 2 0 31 0 0 31 47 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4 0 19 5 0 9 0 5 1 18 0 0 19 43 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 8 0 59 11 0 3 0 14 2 88 0 0 90 153 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6 0 29 4 1 3 0 8 0 20 0 0 20 57 05:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 17 10 0 27 4 0 1 0 5 0 21 0 0 21 54 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 12 0 34 5 0 2 0 7 3 18 0 0 21 62 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 2 0 15 2 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 10 27 Total 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 74 30 0 105 j 15 1 6 0 221 3 69 0 0 72 1 200 Grand Total 0 0 1 0 1 1 125 38 0 164 26 1 9 0 36 5 157 0 0 162 363 Apprch % 0 0 100 0 0.6 76.2 23.2 0 722 2.8 25 0 3.1 96.9 0 0 Total % 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 34.4 10.5 0 452 72 0.3 2.5 0 9.9 1.4 43.3 0 0 44.6 lc�la-i;'f Y TRAFFIC DATA 1NC. Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, West Driveway Chanhassen. MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241134 Park & West Driveway Site Code : 1241134 Start Date : 2/9/2011 Page No 2 Out In TM I 0 RqM 7hru Ls11 Pods North 2/9/2011 04:00 PM 2/9/2011 05:65 PM r� n 1class1 g �o v Loft a Thru R M Pods l3 38 79 Out In Total wail TRAFFIC DATA INC. Park Rd & 1001 Park Rd, West Driveway Chanhassen. MN Traffic Data Inc. 3268 Xenwood Avenue South St Louis Park, MN 55416 File Name : 1241134 Park & West Driveway Site Code : 1241134 Start Date : 2/9/2011 Page No : 3 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM t0 05:45 PM - Peak 1 Or 1 Southbound Park Rd Westbound West Driveway I Northbound Park Rd I Eastbound Start Time I Rght I Thru I Left I Pada I App. Tole I Rafti I Thru I Left I Pa40 I APD. Total I RpM I TMu I LM I PWa I App. TdaiI Fight I Thru I LM I Pads I App. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM t0 05:45 PM - Peak 1 Or 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4 0 19 5 0 0 0 5 1 18 0 0 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 8 0 29 4 1 3 0 8 0 20 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 17 10 0 27 4 0 1 0 5 0 21 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 12 0 34 5 0 2 0 7 3 18 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 77 32 0 1091 18 1 8 0 25 1 4 77 0 0 Int. Toted 19 43 20 57 21 54 21 82 81 218 I I 11 1 1 I I 1 11 I 1 Appendix B Volume Development Sheets I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / �!]7.!!=§ _ _�■! _, r ar•,r =1,- - - �§�: !§.:„ - � § k!| \�\l;Iy:!=!■: /}}` _. _ _. ! •=-s,. � - _ .l- �• - ))2-.�: ._.. � !!!y=51 lzl 1 141 Pl - _.�>�' _��. _■�; _ ■;y�l�.\; _;<, .. ! R ;| _z, - |\! ar•,r =1,- - - �§�: !§.:„ !_, § k!| /}}` •=-s,. � - _ .l- �• - ))2-.�: ._.. � Pl ■;y�l�.\; _;<, .. ! - |\! .;;l�.l----l. .-l•! I / I I I I I I I I I I I I \ @ ;;-,._..:■, =,E, ._ §._..1�. . .. . .. . @ -1 gl ! � �.,...-- _ _ _ )!• � !!` ;.,.,. , 2|i §§§�§ ..1 . 1 })\ fI});Z}� ; ()j)�zj})�)�!)�\}� I / I I I I I I I I I I I I \ @ §._..1�. . .. . .. . @ )!• � !!` ;.,.,. , [!:!` §§§�§ })\ fI});Z}� ; 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 I I I _!.l:=:l _, - �• ! ,l.b =<��_■_ __■; .: ! -- - - .- 2];.. §cc \ -- ,■;_ _ !l:l.,=-�� .. ! -- \\� ]-, ! §�.;! �_!! • //I)!!!.}! .- 2];.. §cc \ -- \\� \;;�■�..!<:lr;`/);!; I I I I I I [] I I I I I \ I I I I I I � -_ „ ■. _.�. _ I IT tj §.;..;,_. -- . | --- - .. !.- �§:l..l�:! _ ,+, „ E ,■g: ! E§.,.,.-.. !` \} � y.IT ,l=.. - |;;i.;, )! ;_ i - ®!�|1 !M II ;!•§!!||�))/})!�l�z= I I I I I I [] I I I I I \ I I I I I I � -_ „ ■. _.�. _ I IT §.;..;,_. -- . | �§:l..l�:! _ ,+, „ E !` \} � y.IT ,l=.. )! ;_ i - ®!�|1 !M II I I I I I I [] I I I I I \ I I I I I I I 1 Appendix C SimTraffic Reports 1 1 CI 1 11 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2011 Existing - PM 4!6/2011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay I Ven (s) 9.8 11.5 5.1 104 131 5.2 7.4 0.9 5 1 4.6 3 1 3.6 Vehicles Entered 62 3 77 38 7 75 64 377 11 32 279 76 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay I Veh (s) 3 7 Vehicles Entered 1101 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay i Veh (s) 63.0 21 9 4.4 75.0 34.8 3.9 73.8 680 3.2 73.1 66.3 29 Vehicles Entered 209 730 30 135 1225 274 74 293 148 106 210 223 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance bV movement Movement All Delay i Veh (s) 36.0 Vehicles Entered 3657 Denied Entry Before 0 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT ` NBL NBT ' NBR SBL All Delay ' Veh (s) 02 03 2.0 05 5.5 7.9 2.6 7.1 1 0 ' Vehicles Entered 96 4 33 81 7 1 24 2 248 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Delay l Veh (s) 0.6 0 1 1.6 0.4 5.7 3.0 0.9 Vehicles Entered 122 1 34 112 3 21 293 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 1 2011 Existing - PM 4/6/2011 Total Network Performance 1 Delay / Veh (s) 44.5 1 Vehides Entered 3884 Denied Entry Before 0 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 SimTraffic Report 1 Page 2 1 I 11 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2011 Existing - PM 4/612011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served LTR LTR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 86 83 48 4 39 3 23 Average Queue (ft) 35 35 13 0 7 0 1 95th Queue (ft) 67 65 38 3 26 2 9 Link Distance (ft) 99 166 128 1152 358 674 69 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 48 60 95th Queue(ft) 309 220 253 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 512 33 130 187 209 90 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Link Distance (ft) 350 2014 225 871 225 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WS NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T T L T T R L T T L L Maximum Queue (ft) 337 270 296 274 550 578 36 160 201 217 112 119 Average Queue (ft) 183 129 156 128 340 358 2 69 127 139 48 60 95th Queue(ft) 309 220 253 225 492 512 33 130 187 209 90 102 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 674 674 Upstream Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard ' Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) ' Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 1 1 T T 198 183 88 104 149 158 473 473 SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report ' 2011 Existing - PM 4/6/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Driveway ' Movement WB NB $B Directions Served Directions Served LTR LTR LR ' Maximum Queue (ft) 29 39 30 19 Average Queue (ft) 2 19 2 95th Queue (ft) 14 43 15 ' Link Distance (ft) 292 412 357 Upstream Blk Time (%) ' Storage Bay Dist (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) ' Storage Bay Dist (ft) ' Network Summary Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway Movement WB NB ' Directions Served LTR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 45 Average Queue (ft) 5 19 ' 95th Queue (ft) 26 45 Link Distance (ft) 99 387 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1 ' I 1 L1 SimTraffic Report , Page 4 I 1 1 1 I 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2013 No Build - PM 4'6/2011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance bV movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay / Veh (s) 11.0 100 52 9 7 115 5.2 7.3 1.0 5.5 5.5 3.2 3.6 Vehicles Entered 57 4 76 36 8 73 66 413 14 28 288 79 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 3 7 Vehicles Entered 1142 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay / Veh (s) 645 22.4 4.6 759 37.8 4.1 74.2 68.4 3.3 73.6 69.5 3.0 Vehicles Entered 226 740 28 138 1298 273 79 295 171 112 221 239 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 37 5 ' Vehicles Entered 3820 Denied Entry Before 0 L 1 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL All Delay / Veh (s) 03 00 2 2 0.4 5.2 6.7 2.7 49 0 9 Vehicles Entered 91 4 32 88 4 1 24 1 245 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: Park Road & East Drivewav Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR AN Delay / Veh (s) 0.6 0 1 1 7 0.5 6.7 3.0 1.0 Vehicles Entered 114 2 37 117 4 22 296 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sirr is Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2013 No Build - PM Total Network Performance Delay I Ven (s) 46 6 Vehicles Entered 4050 Denied Entry Before 0 4/6/2011 SirnTraffic Report Page 2 ' EB EB EB WB WB WB Queuing and Blocking Report B4 B4 NB NB NB 2013 No Build - PM L T T 416/2011 1 T R T T L T Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard 345 314 330 Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB ' Directions Served LTR LTR L T L R 145 Maximum Queue (ft) 101 94 48 4 50 12 1 Average Queue (ft) 38 34 95th Queue (ft) 71 64 11 37 0 4 7 29 1 5 307 Link Distance (ft) 99 166 268 1152 598 624 184 Upstream Blk Time (°h) 0 25 143 207 207 Link Distance (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2014 2014 871 871 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 2220 225 225 674 Storage Blk Time (%) ' Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard 1 1 I Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B4 B4 NB NB NB Directions Served L T T L T T R T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 345 314 330 347 672 686 209 16 34 156 225 235 Average Queue (ft) 193 145 171 132 368 393 14 1 1 77 132 139 95th Queue (it) 307 242 268 264 598 624 184 11 25 143 207 207 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 2220 2220 674 674 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 3 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard 1 L 1 SB Directions Served SB Maximum Queue (fl) ' Average Queue (ft) T 95th Queue (R) ' Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 186 Queuing Penalty (veh) 52 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 95 Storage Blk Time (%) 108 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 L 1 SB SB SB SB L L T T 123 142 186 199 52 65 95 111 108 118 160 174 473 473 250 250 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report ' 2013 No Build - PM 41612011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Driveway Movement_ WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 30 35 12 Average Queue (ft) 3 19 1 95th Queue (ft) 17 43 9 Link Distance (ft) 292 412 357 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway Movement WB NB Directions Served LTR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 62 36 Average Queue (ft) 7 17 95th Queue (ft) 34 42 Link Distance (ft) 99 387 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 4 SimTraffic Report Page 4 I 1 1 1 1 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2013 Build - PM 416/2011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay / Veh (s) 55 3 16.5 4.2 20.4 22.7 11.0 11 0 1.5 5.3 70 3.6 5.3 Vehicles Entered 276 5 125 31 7 77 121 406 17 34 285 282 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay / Veh (s) 134 Vehicles Entered 1666 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NET NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay I Veh (s) 65.6 25.5 5.0 174.4 37.1 4.0 260.1 73.6 3.8 74.7 74.9 3.2 Vehicles Entered 214 715 100 227 1275 287 149 343 263 108 265 222 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay / Veh (s) 51 4 Vehicles Entered 4168 Denied Entry Before 0 3: Park Road & West Drivewav Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Delay / Veh (s) 32 2.7 19 2.1 02 05 61 89 6.4 189 3.4 86 Vehicles Entered 12 106 6 65 85 88 12 1 22 267 10 674 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement P EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All Delay i Veh (s) 23 5 1 3 06 0 8 493 5 4 7 24 6 Vehicles Entered 389 1 234 175 24 2 825 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2013 Build - PM 4i6n011 Total Network Performance Delay I Veh (s) 67 7 Vehides Entered 4538 Denied Entry Before 0 L I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I SnTraffic Report ' Page 2 I I 1 I Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Build - PM 4/6/2011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LTR L T T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 189 94 103 92 6 25 4 56 4 46 Average Queue (ft) 144 33 44 30 0 1 0 12 0 3 95th Queue (ft) 218 62 88 64 4 7 3 41 3 24 Link Distance (ft) 104 104 166 20 1147 1147 396 563 669 Link Distance (h) Upstream Blk Time (%) 55 0 0 871 871 1035 1035 669 Queuing Penalty (veh) 112 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 350 350 225 225 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B17 B17 NB NB NB Directions Served L T T L T T R T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 345 266 296 593 596 601 27 208 207 336 507 452 Average Queue (ft) 187 155 179 367 360 377 1 7 7 260 272 226 95th Queue (ft) 318 248 275 598 533 541 20 152 151 396 563 456 Link Distance (h) 2014 2014 871 871 1035 1035 669 669 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 2 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 40 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0 0 66 2 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement SB SB SB ' SB, Directions Served L L T T ' Maximum Queue (n) 114 123 187 262 Average Queue (ft) 50 61 98 151 95th Queue (ft) 93 103 164 229 ' Link Distance (ft) 473 473 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 ' Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 [- C SimTraffc Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Build - PM 4/6/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Driveway 1 Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB B14 B14 Directions Served LTR L R LTR LT R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 73 30 8 55 219 88 26 26 Average Queue (ft) 8 7 0 21 82 10 3 2 95th Queue (ft) 42 27 4 48 202 75 34 27 Link Distance (ft) 883 291 406 339 339 116 116 ' Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway Movement EB EB WB WB NB. SB ' Directions Served T TR T TR R R Maximum Queue (ft) 140 227 27 56 232 30 Average Queue (ft) 65 71 1 4 82 2 95th Queue (ft) 176 271 14 32 247 14 Link Distance (ft) 291 104 104 376 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 19 0 1 2 0 ' Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 29 Queuing Penalty (veh) 55 ' Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penally: 267 ' 1 SimTraffic Report ' Page 4 1 I 1 11 1 1 1 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2013 Build (Improvements A -B) - PM 5/6/2011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WIRT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay/ Veh (s) 27 3 27 3 37 40 2 37.4 12 2 27 0 96 60 13.3 6-8 6.0 Vehicles Entered 279 5 129 30 7 77 121 406 17 34 280 277 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay / Veh (s) 132 Vehicles Entered 1662 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NET NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay / Veh (s) 70.8 30.6 5.1 71.3 41.4 4 1 68.7 62 1 44 71.0 87.1 3.3 Vehicles Entered 215 713 99 224 1265 287 150 344 265 107 269 223 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement`s NI Delay / Veh (s) 41 2 Vehicles Entered 4161 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement maw EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT" WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Delay i Veh (s) 29 06 02 2 1 0.2 06 5.9 74 3.9 85 25 4 1 Vehicles Entered 13 105 5 63 85 91 11 1 22 266 10 672 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR At Delay / Veh (s) 23 0.5 0.6 0.6 86 23 1.7 Vehicles Entered 391 1 235 175 23 3 828 Total Network Performance Delay / Veh (s) 53.7 Vehicles Entered 4522 SimTraffc Report Page 1 Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 129 32 53 ' Queuing and Blocking Report 195 68 2013 Build (Improvements A -B) - PM 5,6/2011 68 69 104 104 166 ' Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard 18 Movement EB EB WB NB NB NB NB ` SB SB. ' SB SB T Directions Served L TR LTR L T T R L T T R 0 Maximum Queue(ft) 185 105 136 134 98 136 28 66 90 95 75 387 Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 129 32 53 57 43 62 4 17 16 26 35 195 68 103 114 85 115 21 48 55 68 69 104 104 166 1147 1147 669 669 18 0 0 T T L 38 1 0 376 304 318 350 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard 350 225 225 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB S8 SB SB Directions Served L T T L T T L T T L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 376 304 318 387 689 700 263 257 268 106 123 197 Average Queue (ft) 185 173 192 208 404 423 140 149 155 50 63 104 95th Queue (ft) 313 270 292 340 590 602 232 232 239 97 106 176 Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 669 669 473 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 230 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 2 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 3 1 0 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard .64iihenl` SB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 288 Average Queue (ft) 166 9% Queue (ft) 248 Link Distance (ft) 473 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 I I 1 1 1 SimTraffc Report ' Page 2 I I 1 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2013 Build (Improvements A -B) - PM 516/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Motet EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR L R LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 26 37 7 51 118 22 Average Queue (ft) 2 5 0 21 58 6 95th Queue (ft) 14 25 4 47 97 22 Link Distance (ft) 883 291 291 406 339 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Dri Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served T TR T TR R R Maximum Queue (ft) 103 42 14 39 52 30 Average Queue (ft) 12 2 1 2 18 2 95th Queue (ft) 55 28 11 18 45 15 Link Distance (ft) 291 104 104 376 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 51 1 1 1 SimTraffc Report Page 3 SimTraffic Performance Report 2030 No Build (Improvement A) - PM 514/2011 1 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement EBL EBT EBR WBL , WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 46 Delay I Veh (s) 426 36.8 30.6 47.7 605 405 8.6 1.9 52 8.4 3.3 3 7 437 Vehicles Entered 113 5 105 64 6 151 87 767 30 86 415 122 0 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement AD Delay / Veh (s) 11 6 Vehicles Entered 1951 Denied Entry Before 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay I Veh (s) 95.6 35.9 4.9 65.9 44.1 4.4 1157 71.0 46 76.3 95.5 34 Vehicles Entered 261 803 51 267 1390 292 164 437 427 120 294 236 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay I Veh (s) 474 Vehicles Entered 4742 Denied Entry Before 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR- WBL WBT- NBL NBT NBR SBL All Delay I Veh (s) 2 6 00 2 6 0.5 6.4 3.5 T2 62 2.2 Vehicles Entered 171 4 36 147 7 1 25 2 393 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Delay 1 Veh (s) 25 5 16 2 1.9 0.5 115.4 102 0 18.6 Vehicles Entered 198 1 34 178 4 25 440 Denied Entry Before 1 I 1 I &rnTraffic Report ' Page 1 ' SimTraffic Performance Report ' 2030 No Build (Improvement A) - PM 514/2011 Total Network Performance Delay I Veh (s) 61.7 Vehicles Entered 5065 Denied Entry Before c 11 1 1 1 I I I I I I I ' SirnTraffic Report Page 2 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 1 2030 No Build (Improvement A) - PM 5/4/2011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard , Movement EB WB B8 NB NB NB SB SB B4 Directions Served LTR LTR T L T R L R , Maximum Queue (ft) 119 237 54 57 20 14 69 22 498 Average Queue (ft) 90 116 3 18 1 0 28 3 408 95th Queue (ft) 135 218 23 43 7 8 62 14 ' Link Distance (ft) 99 166 223 226 1152 95th Queue (111) 469 335 358 Upstream Blk Time (°h) 27 10 228 61 72 332 394 350 ' Queuing Penalty (veh) 63 0 2014 871 871 2220 2220 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 674 674 350 350 225 225 0 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 , Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard 630 Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B4 B4 NB NB NB Directions Served L T T L T T R T T L T T Maximum Queue (it) 498 369 409 412 726 728 209 81 94 320 408 402 Average Queue (ill 279 215 239 238 442 467 21 4 5 187 234 226 95th Queue (111) 469 335 358 370 673 697 228 61 72 332 394 350 ' Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 2220 2220 674 674 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 , Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 2 14 4 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 7 30 7 3 ' Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement SB SB SB SB r Directions Served L L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 130 135 282 301 Average Queue (it) 61 69 152 170 , 95th Queue (ft) 111 119 247 265 Link Distance (ft) 473 473 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 8 ' I I I SimTraffic Report Page 3 I'J I I I I I I I L] I Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 No Build (Improvement A) - PM 542011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 47 49 31 Average Queue (ft) 7 7 21 2 95th Queue (ft) 54 31 46 14 Link Distance (ft) 894 292 412 357 Upstream Blk Time (°h) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Movement EB WB NB Directions Served LTR LTR LR Maximum Queue (ft) 217 63 136 Average Queue (ft) 63 7 39 95th Queue (ft) 212 37 117 Link Distance (ft) 292 99 387 Upstream Blk Time 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary ' Network wide Queuing Penally: 133 r r r r r r I L SimTraffc Report Page 4 SimTraffic Performance Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A) - PM 5152011 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR -NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR t Delay 1 Veh (s) 1913 265 9.4 155.1 173.1 129.6 127 2.4 5.5 101 3 4 5.2 ' Vehicles Entered 144 4 74 56 8 136 137 764 33 84 403 318 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Delay ! Veh (s) 51 4 Aioveinent;� Ap = Delay I Veh (s) 29.3 Vehicles Entered 2161 Denied Entry Before 0 ' 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR t Delay i Veh (s) 105.0 47.1 5.5 75.6 56.3 5.0 86.0 59.0 4.5 76.6 91.4 3.5 Vehicles Entered 246 782 108 378 1395 304 192 405 444 121 307 235 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All Delay ! Veh (s) 51 4 Vehicles Entered 4917 Denied Entry Before 0 , 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBi -- E13W,''rNBC' WS. WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All Delay i Veh (s) 283.7 253.9 2989 2 2 02 0 5 677 3 9650 1468 9 2 0 251 2 Vehicles Entered Denied Entry Before 11 167 0 0 3 0 73 0 136 0 88 0 13 0 1 0 24 0 47 0 1 0 564 0 ' 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All Delay i Veh (s) 186 2 40.5 06 1 1 57291 9 2 125 7 Vehicles Entered 222 1 295 166 17 3 704 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I r� SimTraffic Report ' Page 1 tSimTraffic Performance Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A) - PM 5,5,2011 Total Network Performance ' Delay I Veh (s) 1991 Vehicles Entered 5317 Denied Entry Before 4 1 1 1 1 SinnTraffic Report Page 2 1 SimTraffic Report ' Page 3 1 ' Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A) - PM 5/5�2011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard 1 Movement EB EB WB B8 NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LTR T L T R L T R ' Maximum Queue (ft) 206 115 253 225 107 8 13 91 4 57 Average Queue (ft) 178 38 207 119 36 0 1 35 0 5 95th Queue (ft) 190 89 304 295 81 4 7 71 3 30 ' Link Distance (ft) 104 104 166 223 1147 669 Upstream Blk Time (%) 99 1 69 30 Queuing Penalty (veh) 244 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (h) 350 350 225 225 ' Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) ' Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B4 B4 NB NB NB Directions Served L T T L T T R T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 486 405 419 779 864 874 690 312 342 330 347 363 Average Queue (ft) 280 255 277 374 530 550 64 20 27 195 180 185 95th Queue (h) 488 370 390 635 832 852 430 174 226 323 316 310 , Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 871 871 2220 2220 669 669 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 ' Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 1 5 7 10 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 7 19 21 23 4 3 ' Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Moveriien%=-'' SB SB SB SB SB t Directions Served L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 124 138 260 308 219 Average Queue (ft) 57 67 141 188 16 t 95th Queue (ft) 107 117 234 299 137 Link Distance (ft) 473 473 Upstream Blk Time I%) ' Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 15 ' 1 SimTraffic Report ' Page 3 1 ' Queuing and Blocking Report ' 2030 Build (Mitigation A) - PM 5/5/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Drivewav 1 Movement EB B15 WB WB NB B13 SB SB B14 B14 ' Directions Served LTR T L R LTR T LT R T T Maximum Queue (ft) Maximum Queue (fl) 592 54 35 9 359 58 420 82 136 131 0 Average Queue (ft) 355 26 5 0 190 17 389 19 117 91 138 95th Queue (ft) 862 149 22 6 424 119 500 149 168 181 Queuing Penalty (veh) Link Distance (ft) 883 257 1 291 406 277 339 339 116 116 Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 6 t 10 4 94 0 93 63 ' Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Bend 1 Movement EB Directions Served T Movement Maximum Queue (ft) 370 WB Average Queue (ft) 13 B10 95th Queue (ft) 194 Directions Served Link Distance (ft) 871 T Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 T Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Maximum Queue (ft) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 307 ' Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 447 180 30 ' ' Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty 914 SimTraffic Report Page 4 1 Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway Movement EB EB WB WB NB B10 SB Directions Served T TR T TR R T R Maximum Queue (ft) 150 307 12 75 447 180 30 ' Average Queue (ft) 149 290 0 4 293 34 2 95th Queue (ft) 154 363 6 30 526 138 15 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) 291 74 104 104 0 376 45 257 0 339 Queuing Penalty (veh) 344 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 t Storage Bilk Time (%) 97 Queuing Penalty (veh) 226 ' Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty 914 SimTraffic Report Page 4 1 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 1 Movement Al Delay I Veh (s) 17.2 ' Vehicles Entered 2435 Denied Entry Before 0 , 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 1 SimTraffic Performance Report SBR Delay! Veh (s) Delay I Veh (s) 104.0 48.0 5.5 72.0 52.6 4.9 2030 Build (Mitigation A -B) - PM 64.5 6.6 78.5 112.9 50 11 169 0 0 Vehicles Entered 243 515/2011 108 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 1385 311 224 476 526 119 MWiMM" w- --' EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT '" SBR 0 Delay I Veh (s) 306 192 42 45 0 508 26.4 35 2 15.7 6.5 29 0 7.3 6.5 ' Vehicles Entered 310 5 168 63 8 146 136 769 32 85 399 314 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 1 Movement Al Delay I Veh (s) 17.2 ' Vehicles Entered 2435 Denied Entry Before 0 , 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Delay! Veh (s) Delay I Veh (s) 104.0 48.0 5.5 72.0 52.6 4.9 122.1 64.5 6.6 78.5 112.9 50 11 169 0 0 Vehicles Entered 243 787 108 372 1385 311 224 476 526 119 312 238 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All ' Delay I Veh (s) 53.3 Vehicles Entered 5101 Denied Entry Before 0 ' 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR 'Wk'' ` `VST WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All ' Delay! Veh (s) 2 7 0 7 14 2.5 0.3 0 5 7.2 6.5 50 12 8 3.0 5 1 2 Vehicles Entered Denied Entry Before 11 169 0 0 3 0 73 0 138 0 88 0 12 0 1 26 0 0 267 0 10 0 798 0 ' 0 0 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All 1 Delay Veh (s) 26 09 0 7 06 181 5.0 2.1 Vehicles Entered 459 2 297 165 24 2 949 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 SinnTraffic Report Page 1 ' SimTraffic Performance Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -B) - PM 5:512011 Total Network Performance ' Delay i Veh (s) 69 3 Vehicles Entered 5551 Denied Entry Before 0 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 11 SimTraffffc Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report , 2030 Build (Mitigation A -B) - PM 5/512011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard ' Movement EB EB WB B8 NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB T Directions Served L TR LTR T L T T R L T T R ' Maximum Queue (fl) 182 92 225 25 158 190 273 45 134 314 78 107 369 Average Queue (ft) 143 38 109 1 72 90 140 11 52 25 30 52 95th Queue (ft) 199 71 196 13 142 162 223 35 101 164 66 93 ' Link Distance (ft) 104 104 166 223 871 1147 1147 2220 2220 669 669 669 Upstream Bilk Time (°b) 26 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 32 ' Queuing Penalty (veh) 65 0 0 630 600 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 0 350 6 350 225 30 4 225 ' Storage Blk Time (%) 2 15 18 72 10 6 ' Queuing Penalty (veh) Boulevard & Powers Boulevard ' Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB B4 B4 NB NB NB T Directions Served L T T L T T R T T L T T ' Maximum Queue (ft) 500 398 420 758 873 882 423 84 132 350 522 492 369 Average Queue (ft) 267 255 277 368 518 545 22 3 7 265 268 250 95th Queue (ft) 463 360 382 605 795 832 229 37 62 395 479 435 ' Link Distance (ft) 2014 2014 250 871 871 2220 2220 669 669 Upstream Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 32 ' Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 630 600 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 4 6 30 4 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 15 18 72 10 6 ' Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement NB SB SB S8 SB SB B6 B6 Directions Served R L L T T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 82 123 148 355 382 148 39 64 Average Queue (ft) 3 57 66 170 222 24 1 3 95th Queue (ft) 60 107 119 311 369 172 16 40 Link Distance (ft) 473 473 1834 1834 Upstream Bilk Time (%) 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 32 1 C 1 SimTrafric Report ' Page 3 1 I LI' I 1 1 I I I 1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -B) - PM 5'5/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Drivewa Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR L R LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 32 34 9 54 195 22 Average Queue (ft) 2 13 0 24 75 6 95th Queue (ft) 16 38 6 50 146 21 Link Distance (ft) 883 291 406 339 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Bend Movement EB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 372 Average Queue (ft) 13 95th Queue (ft) 195 Link Distance (it) 871 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served T T TR R R Maximum Queue (ft) 110 10 22 63 30 Average Queue (ft) 17 1 1 20 2 95th Queue (ft) 71 9 9 51 16 Link Distance (ft) 104 104 376 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 225 SimTraffic Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL SimTraffic Performance Report WBR NBL NBT NBR 2_030 Build (Mitigation A -D) - PM SBT SBR 51512011 Delay I Veh (s) 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 39.8 5.4 66.7 ' M6vement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 76.2 Delay I Veh (s) 31 1 187 4 1 43.6 49.5 25 1 34.8 160 6.6 27.6 76 7 3 ' Vehicles Entered 308 5 167 62 9 146 138 765 32 86 397 315 311 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 312 235 Denied Entry Before 0 1 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement 0 0 0 0 Movement --'.IF :_ Wi - All 0 0 0 0 Delay I Veh (s) 17 3 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard ' Vehicles Entered 2430 by movement Denied Entry Before 0 Movement , 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Delay I Veh (s) 79.5 39.8 5.4 66.7 43.8 4.6 76.7 572 6.4 76.2 76.4 3.3 Vehicles Entered 244 787 106 373 1385 311 223 471 525 120 312 235 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Performance by movement Movement All ' Delay I Veh (s) 430 Vehicles Entered 5092 Denied Entry Before 0 ' 3: Park Road & West Driveway Performance by movement Move`rnent'1',� ` EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBR All ' DelaylVeh(s) 29 0.7 05 2.4 03 0.6 66 72 50 11.4 2.6 47 Vehicles Entered Denied Entry Before 11 0 167 0 3 0 74 0 137 0 88 0 12 0 1 0 26 0 266 0 10 0 795 0 9: Park Road & East Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR NBR SBR All Delay I Veh (s) 28 1 1 0.7 0.6 21 9 4.3 2.2 Vehicles Entered 456 2 297 166 24 2 947 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' I 1 Sin -Traffic Report ' Page 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -D) - PM 5!5/2011 Total Network Performance Delay / Veh (s) 59.6 Vehicles Entered 5542 Denied Entry Before 0 ' SinnTraffc Report Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -D) - PM 5/5/2011 Intersection: 1: Park Road & Powers Boulevard Movement EB EB _ WB B8 NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LTR T L T T R L T T ' R Maximum Queue (ft) 187 86 223 17 157 212 274 44 124 78 112 109 Average Queue (ft) 147 37 106 0 71 94 144 11 53 17 32 47 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 198 69 193 6 104 104 166 223 27 0 3 B4 67 0 0 L 133 174 233 35 1147 1147 350 350 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard 104 56 77 93 669 669 225 225 movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B4 B4 NB Directions Served L L T T L L T T R T T L Maximum Queue lift) 201 220 359 383 257 500 775 835 728 22 27 349 Average Queue (ft) 115 118 234 259 148 194 457 482 29 1 1 218 95th Queue (ft) 183 192 337 356 226 338 709 744 269 16 19 347 Link Distance (ft) 250 2014 2014 250 870 870 0 2220 2220 0 Upstream Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 2 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 550 630 630 600 230 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 3 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 9 24 Intersection: 2: Arboretum Boulevard & Powers Boulevard Movement NB NB SB SB SB SB SB Directions Served T T L L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 397 374 126 139 241 307 143 Average Queue (ft) 202 202 59 70 128 175 5 95th Queue (ft) 333 317 113 119 207 270 75 Link Distance (ft) 669 669 473 473 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 2 0 7 1 1 1 1 1 SimTraffic Report , Page 3 LJ' �J I I 1 1] I I 7 1 f1 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build (Mitigation A -D) - PM 5!5/2011 Intersection: 3: Park Road & West Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR L R LTR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 27 34 4 61 166 22 Average Queue (ft) 2 10 0 24 70 6 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (°�) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 4: Bend 13 34 3 51 883 291 406 100 130 21 339 339 Movement EB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 531 Average Queue (ft) 19 951h Queue (ft) 231 Link Distance (ft) 870 Upstream Blk Time 1%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 9: Park Road & East Driveway Movement's EB EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served T TR T TR R R Maximum Queue (ft) 124 35 23 42 75 30 Average Queue (ft) 20 1 1 1 21 2 95th Queue (ft) 81 26 9 16 55 16 Link Distance (ft) 291 104 104 376 339 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 127 SimTraffic Report Page 4 a W Ire, Walmart Store #5949-00 Technical Memorandum To: Paul Oehme, City of Chanhassen From: Lucas C. Payne, PE (AN), Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. William D. Matzek, PE (AM, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. ■ 2550 University Avenue W. Date: November 21, 2011 Suite 238N St. Paul, MN 55114 Subj: Walmart Store #5949-00 Preliminary Drainage Analysis The existing Site is located at the southwest quadrant of Powers Boulevard and MN Highway 5 in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. Walmart Stores, Inc. is proposing to build a 117,278 square foot retail store, proposed paved parking lot, stormwater management infrastructure, and utilities. Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. (KHA) has analyzed the existing and proposed drainage conditions of the Site. The analysis of the existing and proposed drainage systems was completed with the assistance of HydroCAD, Version 8.00. Existing Drainage The existing Site is approximately 14.11 acres and 5.31 acres are covered with impervious surfaces. The Site currently has a vacant building that is approximately 154,674 square feet. The existing Site utilizes overland flow into multiple pipe networks around the Site. There are four outfalls from the Site where untreated stormwater is discharged. Outfall 1 takes drainage from the existing parking lot and building and discharges directly into an existing wetland west of the Site through two existing stormwater pipes. Outfall 2 drains into an existing drainage swale at the northeast comer of the Site. The water then flows over land into an existing 18" RCP which eventually discharges into the aforementioned wetland. Outfall 3 takes drainage from the east side of the Site and sheet flows into an existing 15" RCP at the southeast comer of the Site. The stormwater discharges into an existing stormwater system beneath Powers Boulevard. Outfall 4 takes runoff from the south edge of the property. Stormwater sheetflows in the Park Road Right -of -Way and eventually into an existing storm sewer system. Proposed Drainage The proposed Site will consist of a 117,278 square foot building and a paved parking lot. The proposed Site will contain 8.73 acres of impervious surfaces. The proposed drainage system will consist of the construction of a new storm sewer system, two underground stormwater management systems, and four rain gardens. The proposed Site will discharge the majority of the treated stormwater into the wetland west of the Site. Outfall 3 will convey sheet flow from offsite and the easterly edge of the Site into an existing 15" RCP at the southeast corner of the Site. The stormwater discharges into an existing stormwater system beneath Powers Boulevard. Outfall 4 takes runoff from the south edge of the property. Stormwater sheetflows in the Park Road Right - of -Way and eventually into an existing storm sewer system. The amount of dishcharge into the CC" Walmart #5949-00 Technical Memorandum Park Road Right -of -Way decreases from the existing condition in the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year storms. The Site will comply with all applicable Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, City of Chanhassen, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency applicable standards. Rate Attenuation Summary The proposed Site will increase impervious area by 3.42 acres. The stormwater management system will provide rate attenuation for the 2-, 10-, and 100 -year storms. The following table summarizes the existing and proposed discharge rates from the Site. EXISTING RUNOFF RATES 2 -Year (cfs) 10 -Year (cfs) 100 -Year (cfs) Outfall1 17.92 28.65 33.85 Outfall2 0.82 1.93 3.55 Outfall3 5.29 9.54 15.10 Outfall4 1.73 3.65 6.34 Total Site Discharge 25.76 43.77 58.84 PROPOSED RUNOFF RATES Outfall 1/Outfall 2 14.55 21.87 37.34 Outfall3 0.50 1.13 2.04 Outfall4 0.49 0.74 1.06 Total Site Discharge 2S.S4 23.74 40.44 Water Quality Summary The Site will utilize two StormTech SC -740 systems, and four rain gardens to meet and exceed the water quality requirements. The City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requires that I inch of runoff from the new impervious shall be treated onsite. Since the Site discharges into an impaired water, treatment will be provided for I inch of total impervious throughout the Site. The StormTech systems will provide pretreatment within prefabricated Isolator Rows. The StormTech Isolator Row is a row of StormTech chambers that are encased in geotextile fabric and acts as a sediment trap, prior to discharging into the entire system. A strip of non -woven geotextile fabric is wrapped over the top of the chambers for the entire length of the row, separating the first flush from larger storms. The Isolator Rows have been designed to remove up to 95% total suspended solids (TSS). Additional treatment will occur as water filters through the attenuation chambers and exits the underlying draintile. The Isolator Rows can be accessed via manholes at the ends of the rows and the sediment can be removed utilizing vacuum trucks on an as -needed basis. Four rain gardens will be placed in landscape areas throughout the Site. Rain gardens will provide first flush water quality treatment by biofiltration. Filtration was used in lieu of Walmart #5949-00 Technical Memorandum infiltration due to the existing clay soils onsite. Rain gardens will also provide TSS and phosphorous removal throughout the Site. Below is a table summarizing the water quality treatment provided onsite. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT VOLUME Water Quality Treatment Volume Required Volume (cf) Impervious Area (ac) Volume (cf) 1 inch over impervious area 1 8.73 31,690 Water Quality Treatment Volume Provided Volume (cf) StormTech System 1 22,433 StormTech System 2 9,670 Rain Gardens 4,696 Total 36,799 Please contact me at (651) 6454185 if you have any questions. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. C 11 Lucas C. Payne, P.E. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 20, 2011, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Walmart Rezoning — Planning Case 2011-11 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. OW I ::;dr ii Subscribed and sworn to before me thist2eday of , 2011. r. Notary ublic •'"%� �. KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota My �gnmisslon Exp�es Jan 31,2415 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning from Industrial Office Park (IOP) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a commercial Proposal: development of a 120,000 square -foot Walmart Store on approximately 14.10 acres of land. A licant: Walmart, c/o Kimle -Horn Associates, Inc. Property 1000 Park Road LOCatIOn: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/11-11.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Questions & Aanenson by email at kaanenson(fti.chanhassen.mmus or Comments: by phone at 952-227-1139. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions. Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. Al the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete, Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Offen developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning from Industrial Office Park (IOP) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a commercial Proposal: development of a 120,000 square -foot Walmart Store on approximately 14. 10 acres of land. Applicant: Walmart, c/o Kimle -Hom Associates, Inc. Property 1000 Park Road Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn. us/serv1Dlan/1 1-1 J.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson by email at kaanenson(cDci.chanhassen.mn.us or Questions & by phone at 952-227-1139. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the PI nning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation, The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings. land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council, If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. CNL FUNDING 2000-A PO BOX 1671 ORLANDO FL 32802-1671 ECKANKAR PO BOX 2000 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-2000 RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL CENTER 500 MAPLE ST S WACONIA MN 55387-1791 WILLIAM MATZEK KIMLEY-HORN ASSOCIATES INC. 2550 UNIVERSITY AVE W STE 238N ST. PAUL MN 55114 CORE MPLS INDUST PORTF ETAL 1600 DAVE ST #450 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-2447 ISTAR MINNESOTA LLC PO BOX 4900 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261-4900 TFK MAMMOTH LLC 7801 PARK DR STE F CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9219 DONALD E HALLA REVOCABLE TRUST PO BOX 260888 PLANO TX 75026-0888 LOTUS HOLDINGS LLC 7411 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9722 UNITED MAILING INC 7951 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9502 Carver County, MN } r j{rS 1665 9 939.17 7699 16631 150 1675 ;r'Tfrnr�__�>— _ �y` .yam... � `� •+ . K v •r {. - - 'x • �, Y 4. moi* t _ ,,, w �a`� w , • -• .Cr . Property Information Parcel ID: 255660010 AS400 Acres: 14.68 Taxpayer Name: ISTAR MINNESOTA LLC Imormaaon Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of mfoimation and data from Homestead: N Taxpayer Address: PO BOX 4900 School District: 0112 Taxpayer City St. Zip: SCOTTSDALE, AZ surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to 6e used as a 85261-4900 Watershed District: WS 064 RILEY PURG reference. Garver County is not nepomnblefor any inaccuracies BLUFF CREEK Property Address: 1000 PARK RD caNained erem. Tax Exempt: N Property City: CHANHASSEN Platname: PARK TWO 2ND ADDITION GIS Acres: 14.1 Disdamer This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Map Scale Imormaaon Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of mfoimation and data from 1 inch = 641 feet various City,County, State, and Federal ofscas. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to 6e used as a reference. Garver County is not nepomnblefor any inaccuracies Map Date caNained erem. 10/13/2011 N W +E S Joseph Morrison President Phone: 952-470-6460 Fax: 952-380-3969 November 21, 2011 Mr. Todd Gerhardt Chanhassen City Manager 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Gerhardt: �O!,WCODIRECT- CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 2 1 2011 -uANWAccFN PLAVNIIA;^ r.7- 7951 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 As we are all aware, the Planning Commission recently voted to deny the Concept Planned Unit Development at the intersection of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard. As the long term lessee of the property owned by Istar, we wish to provide the City Council an important perspective before its vote on November 28th. For the past 35 years IWCO Direct has called Chanhassen home. During this time we've expanded our operations and added jobs along the way. Today we are the third largest employer in Chanhassen, providing 880 jobs in Chanhassen and more than 1,400 jobs in Minnesota. We are proud of our history of working with city leadership to address key issues such as transportation, education, and health care. In short, we fully embrace the city of Chanhassen and understand that a thriving community is good for residents, businesses and local government. That's why we encourage the City Council to carefully consider the potential benefits of the proposed Walmart site. During the past six years, we've been unsuccessful in finding a buyer for this land parcel — until now. Developing this parcel as a vibrant retail destination appears to be its best purpose. It will create an anchor point for Chanhassen's commerce corridor bringing customers not only to Walmart but to the surrounding retail stores and restaurants. If the City Council votes against the development, it likely will take years to find another buyer, delaying the opportunity for an enhanced tax -base. Until then, it will remain an under-utilized asset to Chanhassen from a jobs and tax perspective. Walmart anticipates the new development will provide between 250-300 needed jobs in Chanhassen. The new development will also add to the tax base. As reported in the local papers, in 2011 the Eden Prairie Walmart generated $380,000 in property taxes. To put that in context, IWCO Direct paid $280,394 in property taxes in 2011 on the property in its current, underutilized capacity. In addition, Walmart engaged Kimley-Horn for a traffic study. IWCO Direct reviewed their findings and concluded the proposed plan will improve traffic flow in the area and make it safer for our employees to cross between our buildings on Park Road and Powers Boulevard than the current situation. Residents are currently leaving the city to shop at Walmart stores in nearby cities. Welcoming Walmart to Chanhassen will benefit our residents in many ways. Dollars stay here to provide new jobs, grow the tax base and help make Chanhassen a more vibrant community. We encourage the City Council to vote in favor of the Walmart plan on November 28th. Sincerely, Joe Morrison Corporate Headquarters: 7951 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317-9502 Facility Locations: Downey, CA • Little Falls, MN • Hamburg, PA • Warminster, PA Aanenson, Kate From: Scott Paulson [gcfworld@gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, October 06, 20117:19 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: W almart Good morning Kate, My name is Scott Paulson and I met with you a few years ago regarding the proposed Harley Davidson Dealership. At that time you indicated to me that you had 'Big Box' retailers contacting you constantly about building in Chanhassen. You told me that there wasn't a single 'big box' location in town left. Is this still the case? What is the cities stance or Walmart? I believe it would destroy the town and once they come in you can't get rid of them (see Eden Prairie!). Thank you, Scott Paulson Aanenson, Kate From: Matt & Sarah Thomas [Fhomas8407@q.com] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:39 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal-Mart Hi Kate, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning regarding the proposed Wal-Mart development. At the time I was unable to access the documents via Laserfiche. I have once again attempted to download the PDF from the City website and while I couldn't print the PDF's I was able to view them. I hope to stop by City Hall tomorrow to take a closer look at the plan set and obtain some copies. A few quick things; I realize this is simply a concept plan but they don't have much of a narrative to support their request. I'd like to know why they propose the zoning change, what benefit a rezoning and PUD would bring to the City, and why they can't meet the standards within the zoning code? I'd like to see if they could meet the zoning standards and what a 65,000 SF Wal-Mart would look like. The rear of the building, outdoor storage and proof of parking along a busy corridor and entrance to downtown is not a good layout, in my opinion. To garner support for this type of proposal the development should enhance not only the site but the entire area and create a gateway to the downtown. Because of the number of deviations from code that I can only assume they'll need, the development should provide a public benefit and also go above and beyond basic zoning requirements. The "sign on a stick" pylon design shows Wal-Mart does not have the community in mind. As I stated this morning, traffic greatly concerns me. 212 just alleviated the traffic on Hwy 5 and this development would put us right back where we started. I don't know of any Chanhassen residents that have a desire for another big box discount store in town, especially with Target right across the street. So we will have the traffic and road repairs that are brought to us from residents living outside the City. Lastly, Chanhassen contracts through the County for its police protection, and I would like to know how the City would plan to handle the increased service levels this development would likely require. I have heard that crime tends to follow Wal-Mart. That may or may not be true; however, I have had a Police Chief personally tell me not to shop at a particular Wal-Mart after certain hours because it is not safe. My neighborhood has had many, too many, burglaries in the past few years and besides the additional traffic, crime is a fear of mine with this proposal. I am curious if it would be possible to check with other cities to see if they have seen an uptick in crime at their Wal-Mart locations. Chanhassen just doesn't seem to be a good fit for Wal-Mart, especially at this location. I would like to see the City work on enhancing the downtown and drawing in businesses that will compliment what already exists and not allow a monstrosity such as Wal-Mart. I look forward to seeing this proposal at the public hearing. Sincerely, Sarah Thomas 2555 Longacres Drive Aanenson, Kate From: beth.millerl@usbank.com Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 8:26 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Please count us as against this development. We will be at all meetings we are able to attend. Beth Miller Program Development Manager Strategic Alliances Consumer Banking Office (612) 973-7834 Cell (952) 232-7291 beth.millerl Qusbank.com U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Aanenson, Kate From: Suzanne Huwald (shuwald@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 10:26 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: proposed Wal-Mart We have been resident's of Chanhassen for over 17 years and I would be extremely disappointed if Chanhassen brought a Walmart to our town. There is absolutely no need for a Walmart in Chanhassen. We live off of Powers Blvd and we have the Target in Chanhassen within 5 minutes of our house, the Target in Chaska within 6 minutes of our house and the Walmart and Target in Eden Prairie within 10 minutes of our house. There is not a need for another big box discount retailer in this area. We desperately need family friendly higher quality restraunts, quality retail and a clean grocery store with low prices and quality produce. Hy -Vee grocery stores are amazing and would be a great addition to Chanhassen. Thank you for your time, Suzanne Huwald From: Bonnie Filko [bonnie.filko@q.com] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:19 PM To: City Council Subject: Wal-Mart Good Afternoon, As a long-time resident of Chanhassen, I love how our community is growing and appreciate the thoughtfulness the City Council has been in reviewing each new development request. In regard to Wal-Mart. We have a Wal-Mart in Eden Prairie already which is only S miles or so away. As a citizen, I am not opposed to a large establishment moving in especially as this is close to the 212 highway and will therefore be attractive enough to draw consumers and provide good tax revenue for Chanhassen. Let's look for something that closely matches our needs, and will provide us something new in the area in regard to its goods—and services. We have enough grocery stores, enough banks and enough pharmacies within our city limits. The small strip malls in Chanhassen aren't very attractive, and am sort of surprised they are even still in business. We have enough home improvement stores within a 6 mile radius. I am short on ideas on what would be a good alternative for this land development, but hope it is not Wal-Mart that you determine what is good for our area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Bonnie Filko 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Ann Kloempken [annk2002@juno.com] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 7:29 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal mart Kate, I was so happy to hear that Walmart might be building in Chanhassen ! It will bring jobs, increased tax revenue, and it could boost the sales of other retail stores and restaurants in Chanhassen. It will bring shoppers in from surrounding areas. Walmart is a great place to shop ! I'm concerned that you will only hear from people who are against the new store, so I wanted to be sure to let you know that I am looking forward to it Ann Penny Stock Jumping 3000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! http://thirdpartyoffers.iuno.com/TGL3141/4e938e2bc7a2032ad8m05vuc 1 From: barbalan20aol.com [barbalan2@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:48 AM To: Furlong, Tom Subject: Proposed Wal*Mart Store in Chanhassen Good morning Tom - We have heard that Wal'Mart is interested in locating a store at the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Powers Blvd. Will you please let us know what your position is on this issue? Will you also please let us know what the proposed investment from the City of Chanhassen is for this project (infrastructure, TIF, etc.) Thank you. Alan and Barb Johnson Aanenson, Kate From: dgjinc@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:58 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: WAL-MART Good Afternoon - I live in the Lake Susan Hills neighborhood and have been a resident of Chanhassen since 1991. This is the first time I have felt the need to address the city and let my feeling known about any city projects. I have just heard about the proposed Wal-Mart on Powers and Hwy 5.. 1 AM 100% OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. I believe it is wrong for our community and personally oppose the general Wal -mart business policy- the way they treat their employees - how Ilocal small business dries up under the shadow of a Wal -mart and how the dynamics of a city change when a huge box store like Wal -mart dominates and dictates the local business climate. I will attend the Nov. 1st planning meeting and alert my neighbors. I hope reason will prevail and this project will be killed. Doug Jacobson 952-937-5381 . . Aanenson, Kate From: Brown, Kevin [kevin.brown@bemis.comj Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:54 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal-Mart Proposal Good morning Kate, I have just caught wind of the Wal-Mart proposal that will be under discussion on November 1. Unfortunately I will be traveling for business on November 1 so my voice will not be heard at the meeting. As such, I am writing to you to represent my voice. As a note, I live in the Springfield neighborhood at Lyman and 101— 559 Greenview Drive. I, like many other I am sure, am not in favor of Wal Mart being located in Chanhassen. As a citizen, I do not like the impact Wal Mart has on the local business community. Local business is part of the charm of small American communities as they help create and maintain the character of the community. Wal Mart's destruction of local businesses is easy to identify and prove. Additionally, Wal Mart's EDLP (everyday low prices) sounds great, but it is part of the reason, as James McMurtry sings, we don't make it here anymore. To me, Wal Mart is simply the distribution network for foreign businesses. Our dollars spent at Wal Mart reinforce the practice of sourcing outside of our country. That I cannot support. I cannot be honest if I don't admit that there are benefits to additional business in Chanhassen. I would hope if this goes through that Wal Mart's impact would be to increase the flow of money into the Chanhassen tax base. Subsequently, this should allow taxes to be flat moving forward. If Chanhassen is providing too much tax incentive to bring Wal Mart to the community then the benefit to the community is being prostituted. Thanks for listening. Kevin Brown Director of Sales Bemis - Milprint Division kevin.brown(a) bemis.com 952-403-1572 - office 773-610-7165 - cell This email and any attachments may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, copy or use the contents of the email or any attachment. If you have received this email in error, please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system. Aanenson, Kate From: Randi Shapiro[rshapiro@jonathanmontessori.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Proposed Walmart Hello Kate, I am a resident of Chanhassen and was shocked to hear about the proposed development on the SW comer of Hwy. 5 and Powers Blvd. First, that area is pretty busy now and I can hardly imagine it with a Walmart. There is a Walmart 10 minutes down the road for those who really plan to shop there. I for one do not support their business ethic, or lack there of I should say. Just because there is free enterprise, I would hope that the planners of Chanhassen could think of a more useful business that would help the Chanhassen small town feel continue and still bring in the tax base they are hoping for. Target is a more discreet business and certainly more ethical than Walmart. Perhaps a restaurant or or a store like Michaels, or a bowling alley for teens to have a good place to go would be a better addition to Chanhassen. I would be sick to have to drive by that business (Walmart) on a daily basis. A big mistake that will change the way Chanhassen is viewed. I doubt that the best small towns in the country have a Walmart in them. Please think VERY carefully! Sincerely, Randi Shapiro 743 Preakness Lane Aanenson, Kate From: royetta.snoW@mchsi.com Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 5:59 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart I am very much against having a Walmart built in our town. They are unfair to their employes in the way they are treated and paid, and I believe it will greatly affect the other businesses as well. I do not think they will add to the great town we have now. Royetta Snow 1 Aanenson, Kate From: THOMAS W KRAUS [kraushaus1 @msn.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:09 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: proposed Wal Mart We have learned that the city council is considering a rezoning proposal for the corner of Highway 5 and Powers Blvd to allow Wal Mart to build a store there. We feel this is a bad use of the property. There is already a business there that employs many people at higher wages that Wal Mart does. Plus the access and egress problems would be great as that is one of the busiest interesections in town. We feel a better place for them to locate would be along 212 somewhere. We feel a Wal Mart store in town would completely distract from the small town feeling of Chanhassen which is one of the main reason we moved here. Please deny this request. Tom & Sharon Kraus 7744 Vasserman Trail Aanenson, Kate From: Linda Hauser [lindamhauser@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 10:33 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal Mart Please, please, Say no to a Wal Mart in Chanhassen !!!! Linda Hauser 2089 Clover Ct Chanhassen Aanenson, Kate From: Tom Lindemeier [tlindemeier@mchsi.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:14 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Hi Kate, My wife and I have been living in Chanhassen for 18 years now and have seen our community go through many changes, most of them have been very positive. This Wal -mart development is a disaster waiting to happen. I have been in architecture for 26 years and when you review the traffic plans and overall scale of the project for that site it should not stand a chance to pass. If it has to be rezoned it does not belong on that site to begin with I know the city needs the revenue but this is a bad plan. It is going to hurt Target and other businesses which are slow enough the way it is. Eden Prairie is not that far to do to Wal-Mart. Chanhassen Drug moved out after how many years taken over by the big boys. We drive on Powers South to 5 every day numerous times and it is too busy and dangerous the way it is. Please vote no for this Sincerely, Tom Lindemeier email: tlindemeier(a)mchsi.com Aanenson, Kate From: Waltgrob@aol.com Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:59 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: walmart I am a resident of Chanhassen and do not feel we need or want a Walmart in our community.We have enough competition in our grocery and other stores. Walter G Roberts 2019 Clover Ct Chanhassen,Mn 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Tony Nuss [tlnuss@mchsi.comj Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 9:37 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Connie Nuss Subject: Proposed Walmart Site Ms. Aanenson-- The purpose of this email is to communicate that I am not in favor of allowing a Walmart store in Chanhassen. As Community Development Director, please know that I am concerned that it will diminish the small town feel of the city and most importantly will negatively effect business owners in the community. That is one of Walmart's legacies accross this country. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Tony L. Nuss 9140 Springfield Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 952.402.0625 Aanenson, Kate From: Bader, Tom [Tom.Bader@wolterskluwer.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 7:13 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: No Walmart lam opposed to Walmart moving to Chanhassen. Thomas M. Bader Sales Manager, Business Compliance Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Phone/Fax: 877-347-6108 tom. bader(a)wolterskluwer.com NOTICE: This message (and/or attachment) is a confidential business communication -If you are NOT the intended recipient, any further review, storage, distribution, or other use of content is prohibited.lf you received this message in mor, please notify sender and delete the correspondence.Thank you. Aanenson, Kate From: Donald Dahlquist [donald.dahlquist@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:35 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal-Mart Proposed Store 10/18/11 Dear Ms. Anenson The purpose of this letter is to request you and the City Council VOTE NO to the Wal-Mart request, to build in Chanhassen, MN. We understand the City Council's responsibility to govern our cities needs and especially revenues to support city needs and delay property tax increases. This is good, this is your charter. However, adding a Big -box Wal-Mart store into our downtown mix we feel is a negative for our community. There is a Wal-Mart only 8 miles east in Eden Prairie. Our good neighbors, the CARVER, MN city council and MINNETONKA, MN city council both voted a proposed Wal-Mart store down in their communities. We need to inquire WHY? Why were they so positively decisive for their existing community businesses? The comment of the possibility of Wal-Mart paying $350,000.00+ in annual taxes to the city comes across as if that was in ADDITION TO tax revenue we currently receive to our fine city. PLEASE understand from past history with a Wal-Mart being built in a city and village community, this is not true. The history of Wal-Mart going into a city and the belief that adding a big -box store will increase consumer spending is also negative thinking. There are only so many dollars consumers have, which in reality is spent at our current establishments OR would be at Wal-Mart. The history of a Wal-Mart being built in a community usually results is the closing of neighboring retail establishments. We are sure you agree, this would be BAD. Whole strips of retail stores closed provides a negative impact on the city's image for any future business. The tax revenue we currently receive from our existing retail businesses will STOP when they close or be reduced so far that the $350,000.00 expected from Wal-Mart will be awash in tax revenue gained. Other arguments are the possibility for more employment. We tend to believe this is false. If existing retail establishments close, some employees will try and be employed at Wal-Mart, so that is awash. The others will just be unemployed. And again the history of Wal-Mart salaries are very low, the laid -off employees from closed businesses who might gain employment at Wal-Mart most likely will not experience increased income as in their previous employment. Again we are being factual and analyzing Wal-Mart history around the country. The closeness of the Eden Prairie Wal-Mart and the placement of it in Eden Prairie in its major retail setting is completely opposite of our village community environment. If we turned down a Fleet Farm years ago to be located on 5 and 41, which would have been twenty -thirty miles away from another Fleet Farm, why would we approve a Wal-Mart that is only 8 miles away from Chan? Thank You for studying the Wal-Mart proposal thoroughly, and concluding the negative impact on our community as well as the reality of few if any real benefits that we might capture. PLEASE vote NO to approving a Wal-Mart store in Chanhassen. Respectfully, Mr. & Mrs. Donald B. Dahlquist 7634 Prairie Flower Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: ml2@mchsi.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:52 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal'mart Is there any benefit to having a Wal*mart in Chanhassen other than taxes? Michael Lalim 2089 Clover Ct Aanenson, Kate From: Taylor Pederson [tcpeders@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19,20117:13 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: WalmartStore Please no Walmart! I grew up in Chanhassen and now my husband and I just bought our first home here. We love the small-town feel, but we worry that adding a Walmart would go against that. We already have a Target store that's doing great. We don't two mega -stores in one square mile. There is already a Walmart 10 minutes away in Eden Prairie anyway. If anything, Chanhassen could use a new restaurant or cafe in the neighborhood. A place that the community could be proud of and stand behind. Walmart has been accused of poor business practices, mistreatment of employees, and pushing out local businesses. Is that something we really want to bring to our beautiful city? Please take this into consideration when discussing this matter. Thank you, Taylor Pederson I 6,VD veo /40 e cu ve_ Axle' c E Ze X3Cog1 MIKE SEITI:RT _ you^- fix" A ?AeA-V— Aanenson, Kate From: pschrupp@mchsi.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 5:31 PM To: City Council Cc: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart We would like to add our names to the citizens that are opposed the proposed building of a Walmart in Chanhassen. Chanhassen continues to be named one of the best places to live in Minnesota (and the country). Look at other cities that have earned that honor. The majority of them do not have a Walmart! The proposed location will require new streets,stoplights --- we assume at taxpayer cost. There is a Target right across the corner from this location. If Target loses business and closes, what would you do with that empty location? There is an Office Max across the corner from this locatin. If Office Max loses business and closes, what would you do with that empty location? We realize these are both "big box stores", but their location draws people into town. The increased traffic, perhaps 24 hours a day, will require extra police coverage not only near the store, but in surrounding neighborhoods. While we recognize that we are more suburb than small town, the extra lights from the parking area will add to destroying the "night sky" in our area. There is ample evidence that a new Walmart in town ends up closing down local businesses. The wages and benefits (or lack of benefits) Walmart pays its employees would not support most families that choose to live in Chanhassen --most Walmart employees would drive in to work and leave rather than spending their dollars at other Chanhassen businesses. If road construction allows shoppers easy in and out at Powers and Hwy 5, what incentive would Walmart shoppers have to come into town to shop at other stores or eat at any of the local restaurants? We like that there is still a "downtown" Chanhassen. We don't want to end up like and Eden Prairie with malls and strip malls and no town center. We are heartsick at the thought of a Walmart being the western entryway to our city. While we appreciate that you are trying to grow our tax base, please --please use some creativity. There must be another option that would make a better neighbor than Walmart. Sincerely, Paul and Toni Schrupp 1 October 28, 2011 City of Chanhassen RECEIVED Planning Commission 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 OCT 3 1 2011 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-0147 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Members of the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission: While I realize that a city needs to grow, exactly why do we need a 100,000 square foot plus retail establishment? Is there not already enough retail in Chanhassen? Do we really need a big box store? The rationale we are told is to create jobs and add to the property tax base. So let us take a look at those claims. Will a Wal-Mart create jobs? No doubt about ft. Do not get me wrong, I am all for creating jobs but what kind of jobs are we talking about? After all, Wal- Mart is known for paying mostly minimum wage jobs and providing health care for only a small percentage of its store employees. As such, Wal-Mart is not going to create many high paying, middle class jobs. Are a lot of Chanhassen residents going to be applying for these jobs? My guess is probably not, so such a development is not going to do much for job creation for Chanhassen residents. Is this the type of employer that the City desires? I doubt it. Regardless of the jobs concerns, let us look at the property tax base side of the equation. In reviewing the Staff Report, there are numerous infrastructure improvements that will be required including, but not limited to: • An additional left turn lane for westbound Highway 5. • An additional left tum lane for northbound Powers Boulevard. • Addition of tum lanes and a median for Park Road. According to the Staff Report, it will be up to the developer to pay for these improvements. Does the City really believe that Wal-Mart will pay for such infrastructure improvements? That would mark a radical departure from past practices where municipalities pay for infrastructure improvements to get retail development. Given today's economy, I find it hard to believe that Wal-Mart is willing to sink close to a million dollars for the three infrastructure changes recommended. I am sure they will ask the City to pay for these changes which, according to the staff report, are not budgeted for in any current or future infrastructure budgets. I find it interesting that the Staff Report does not recommend the addition of a traffic signal at Powers Boulevard and Park Road. With the traffic volumes projected at opening and into the future, it seems like a traffic light would be mandatory at this intersection, yet none is specified. I cannot even imagine the traffic mess at this intersection without a traffic light. It is literally an accident waiting to happen, again and again and again. And traffic lights are not cheap, particularly when it will have to be timed to a number of other lights in the near vicinity. I am just guessing that a traffic light at Powers Boulevard and Park Road will cost in the range of $200,000. Then there are the environmental issues. According to the Staff Report, because the site is near two surface waters that have environmental issues, the site will require that storm water runoff from the parking lot go through some sort of treatment before that water can enter Riley Creek and Lake Susan. I am sure that Wal-Mart will not be willing to pick up the cost of this and will ask the City to pay for such an improvement. I have no idea what such a water treatment process would cost for such a space, but I City of Chanhassen, Planning Commission Wal-Mart Store Proposal October 28, 2011 Page 2 have to imagine that it is not going to be cheap. Then there is all of the issues of removal of the existing watershed attributes of the site should the development be approved. This will only further exacerbate the issues regarding water quality in Riley Creek and Lake Susan. So, based on my estimate, the City is looking at least at a million plus dollars worth of infrastructure improvements that Wal-Mart will likely demand the City to somehow absorb. Then there is the variance that will be required for entry into the development. According to the staff report, the site will not comply with code as the entrance to the development will be 40 feet short of code between the entrance and the Powers Boulevard and Park Road intersection. Based on the traffic analysis presented, this entry configuration will likely mean that during peak times, traffic will back onto Powers Boulevard in both directions as patrons attempt to enter the facility. As a result, it appears that we will gain a traffic hazard with this plan. If all of the above does not kill this effort, the eight code violations that are documented in the Staff Report should kill it. Some of these code issues are going to be impossible to justify and will likely violate State laws and statutes. So I do not know how the City can even consider this proposal realistic. I am sure that Wal-Mart will demand property tax incentives to locate their store in Chanhassen as that is standard operating procedure. So in addition to the infrastructure costs, the City will also likely have to take a hit on property taxes. As a result, the net will likely be that the City will lose money on the deal for at least the near term. If that sounds familiar, it should. That is the same deal the City cut to get the existing downtown development and we are still paying for that. Seems to me that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face if we move ahead with this proposal. But the strangest thing of all about this proposal is that the Staff Report points to a number of building sites along the new 212 corridor that are more than appropriate for such a development. So one has to ask themselves, why does Wal-Mart want to locate its store at Powers Boulevard and Highway 5 when a number of more appropriate sites are available along the 212 corridor? I find it hard to believe that Wal- Mart is negligent and missed all of the code issues they were generating with their proposal. So why is Wal-Mart proposing such a development at this location? Could it be that Wal-Mart deliberately wants to destroy our existing downtown retailers? I think that is the question the Planning Commission and City leaders should be asking the representatives of Wal-Mart. Competition is fine, but moving in with the implicit plan of destroying a community's existing retail environment is reprehensible. It is all the more reprehensible given that, as I recall, we are still paying for our existing downtown through tax incentives and other giveaways that were granted at the time. If Wal-Mart wants to come to Chanhassen, so be it. But bending over backwards, likely paying for infrastructure improvements, granting tax incentives and creating the kind of variances that will be required to build on the proposed site just does not make any sense. Chanhassen has plenty of more appropriate sites for such a retail development. I would recommend that the Planning Commission reject this proposal and direct Wal-Mart to more appropriate locations within the City. Sincerel Jeffrey B115R 41 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Mark Fuchs [markjfuchs@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:57 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Proposal Dear Amy Unfortunately we cannot attend the meeting but please know that our household (2 adults, 2 children) all vote to reject the building of the wallmart in Chanhassen. Sincerely, Mark and Carrie Fuchs. Aanenson, Kate From: Patricia Hastreiter [Patty. Hastreiter@mpls.k12.mn.us] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:19 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: No Walmart in Chanhassen Kate: Please forward this message to the Planning Commission members. Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission Members: We are, unfortunately, unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting tomorrow night but wanted to let you know that we are very much opposed to allowing a Walmart to be built in Chanhassen. We think it would be detrimental to other nearby local businesses. We think it would bring too much traffic to the area. We don't like big box stores, especially Walmart. They pay low wages and make it difficult for smaller businesses to compete. There is already a big box Target store, which seems to sell a lot of the same merchandise as Walmart. We have lived in Chanhassen for 17 years, We like it there, and plan to stay. We enjoy the trails and lakes and the relative quietness of the area. We like the Lakewinds Food Coop and Byerly's. Our top concerns in Chanhassen do not include property taxes. The quality of life and ambiance of the area are much higher priorities to us. We think that Walmart would take some of that away. Sincerely, Patricia and James Hastreiter 6990 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-470-9057 Aanenson, Kate From: Amy Severson (aseverson@nemerfieger.comj Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:19 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Amy Severson Subject: Please! No Walmart in Chanhassen! Importance: High Hi Kate, I am so glad you are the person to contact to protest the proposed Walmart in Chanhassen. You have made such a beautiful city for us, and to think a Walmart could come in and destroy our town is a crime. I support and shop at my downtown stores. Target has been part of my life since I was a child. Please! Don't compromise our town! I will pay more in property taxes to keep it out and I think my neighbors would too. PS yep—I am that Amy, class of '76 and Sarah's mom! Thank You Kate for your consideration to this appeal!! Amy Severson Senior Account Executive 952 278 3123 direct 952 925 1907 fax nemerfieger.com Aanenson, Kate From: Jody Lane pokoberg@yahoo.comj Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:49 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Stop walmart We live in chanhassen and DO NOT want Wal-Mart coming here! PLEASE pass on your vote to NOT ALLOW WALMART TO BUILD IN CHANHASSEN. We will be at the meeting. Dave and Jody Lane 631 Bighorn Drive Aanenson, Kate From: Dave Lane [daveelane@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 20112:45 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart Do not let Wahnart build in Chanhassen. thanks Aanenson, Kate To: Megan Liebl Subject: RE: Walmart in Chanhassen From: Megan Liebl fmailto:mea.lieblClomail.coml Sent: Monday, October 31, 20114:09 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart in Chanhassen Hello Ms. Aannenson, I am aware that there is a planning meeting regarding the future of Chanhassen tomorrow evening at 7:00 pm. Being discussed is the proposal of allowing a Walmart store to be built and operated on the comer of Hwy 5 and Powers Blvd. As an active and very concerned citizen of Chanhassen, please, please, please vote against this Proposal. I'm sure you've received an overwhelming amount of feedback asking the same from other residents. After seeing all of the letters to the Chanhassen Villager, talking with neighbors, reading Facebook posts, and other online chatter against this proposal, it's hard to believe the idea is even still on the table. As your constituent, please do your part on behalf of your citizens and residents of Chanhassen and be our voice by voting against the proposal to build a Walmart in our nice, small town. My husband and I often say to each other, "I just LOVE Chanhassen" while driving through town. It has such the most pleasant, small town feel, yet close enough to larger cities like Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. As you know our city has been ranked very high on multiple Best Places to Live lists. The addition of a Walmart would not only bump our lovely Chanhassen down on those lists, but it would surely put the smaller shops and stores around town out of business. We were so saddened to learn of Chanhassen Center Drug's closing, and now Somebody's House just a few doors down, but this would be just the beginning if a Walmart is thrown into the mix. It would be tragic to see a business like Walmart take business and revenue away from stores like Target, Cub Foods, Byerly's, Lakewinds and all of the smaller shops passing this vote would negatively impact. Not only for the above -stated reasons is a Walmart in Chanhassen a bad idea, but also for these (and beyond): • Increased traffic in a bad location - I cross the intersection of multiple times every day. This area is already congested without a Walmart on that comer. There are pedestrians trying to cross in the crosswalks. Add more traffic there and you're just asking for trouble. • There is a nearby Walmart in downtown Eden Prairie • Poor business practices - Some may say the addition would bring job to the community, but Walmart is notorious for paying as -low -as -possible wages, and giving as few hours as possible to all staff to avoid having to pay for healthcare benefit, etc. • Increased crime rate - Just read this study: htto://www.walmartcrimereport.com/report.i)df . The study states that "Wal-Mart stores had more calls for service than nearby Target stores. For the sample, the average rate of reported police incidents at Wal-Mart stores was 400% higher than the average rate of incidents at nearby Target stores and 6 times higher for the number of reported criminal incidents defined as "serious or violent." Again, please vote against a Wa/mart in Chanhassen. We really don't need one, and there would be many more adverse affects than positive implications to building one. Thank you for your work. Megan Liebl, Chanhassen Aanenson, Kate From: Susan.Wuolieft@welisfargo.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 6:28 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: W almart Hi Kate, I wanted to let you know that my husband and I are concerned with the potential new walmart proposal for hwy 5 and powers. I have read the proposal and I was torn for about a week, knowing the added sales tax may be a benefit to the city. Since this walmart will be the furthest west, it will likely draw in people from the western suburbs who currently drive into eden prairie to go to walmart. However, I believe the possible negative side effects outweigh the positive. I am concerned with the crime that Walmarts tend to attract, and the potential harm to the current small businesses and boutiques we have in chan. Although the walmart would bring new job opportunities, I have read the numbers and many of those will simply be removed or relocated from current chan businesses, and all are lower paying jobs. Although I understand the financial benefits are tempting, please vote no to preserve the small town, classy that makes chanhassen special, and made my husband and I relocate from the northern suburbs to live here. Thank you, Susie Wuollett 720 Bighorn Drive, Chanhassen 1 The Community Development Director received calls from the following people stating they are opposed to the Walmart proposal: • Gloria Leone • Jane Osterfeld • Kay Faust Aanenson, Kate From: KIMBERLY MCREAVY [ktmtmcreavy@msn.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:20 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Wal Mart proposal Hi Kay, I just want to voice opposition for the proposed Wal-Mart which is up for Planning Commission review tonight. My husband and I are against the project for multiple reasons, including increased traffic and potential detriment to existing Chanhassen businesses. Please pass our input along to the Planning Commission as we are not able to attend in person. Thank you, Kim and Tom McReavy 1350 Heather Court Chanhassen Aanenson, Kate From: Cook, Jamie M [JMCook@cbburnet.coml Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 20114:53 PM Subject: Plz say no to walmart Good afternoon, My husband and I have been Chanhassen residents for many years. (kids attend Chan Elementary) We would like to voice our concerns and do not want the Planning Commission/City Council to allow Walmart to build a faculty off of Hwy 5 and Powers. We feel as many others do --that the charm of Chanhassen could be lost forever! Have you completed a traffic study? I imagine that would costly-- Traffic is major concern for all with the possibility of hundreds of cars a day traveling on Powers and into Chanhassen? How will it affect the events we have at Lake Ann --such as 4th of July and Miracles for Mitch? We have nothing against shopping at a Walmart and believe this type of business/facility would be much better suited if it were located somewhere off of 212 and not in the heart of Chanhassen. The proposed logistics is truly perplexing! We shop at our local stores and can see how such a large conglomerate would really affect these business such as the local hardware store. As Chan residents we are fortunate to say we still have many small businesses and the feel of a small town that's why we live and raise our kids in Chan and not in Plymouth or Eden Prairie. I have no doubt that when Target came to town it was opposed by many too-- but Target it is a smaller store that is not overwhelming for the space nor traffic in Chan - Plus Target that gives back to the community. Will having Walmart affect the money that is given back to the Chanhassen schools? I am sure you are under pressure to hear the many voices of the Chan residents and I will predict they will be loud voices on this topic! Please vote to turn down this proposal. Regards, Jamie and Jeff Cook The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. The sender believes that this E-mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's employer is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Aanenson, Kate From: Don Draper [donrdraper@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:14 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart - Yes I'm very much in favor of a Walmart here. It will be a great convenience, add jobs and opportunity. Please vote to allow it. Thanks, Don Draper Aanenson, Kate To: Tim Amlie Subject: RE: Walmart Building Hi Kate, I had hoped to come to the meeting tonight, but I have a cold coming on that I don't want to spread it or hopefully make it worse. Hopefully you can pass this on. I am in complete support of the proposed Walmart plan. After taking time to drive around the area and seeing that it does not sit next to any residential real estate, I feel it does not bring about problems that so many are voicing via the newspaper or facebook (where I have already posted). Had it been next to housing, I may have a different opinion. Those complaining about traffic may have forgotten about the "mall" that at one time (and hopefully will come back) planned at Lyman and Powers - that would bring traffic onto Powers as well. It is already a 4 lane road which is more than the Super Target sees in Chaska around it. In terms of economic value - it is huge. We have a number of residents in this community that would benefit from jobs from high school age to retirees looking for something. Sales tax revenue AND the property tax revenue would be much greater than what we see from the current building at that site. In a community our size, we need more shopping opportunity. The businesses in downtown Chanhassen are not the type to be affected by a big box store - they are specialty shops. The only real competition will be for Target and quite honestly, they need some. Target could have expanded to a Super Target in our community but decided against. We have the largest retailer in the world knocking on our door in this economy - I think that shows a lot for us. People have complained that we don't have enough good eating establishments in our community... Bringing in this type of retail will bring along those types of businesses (even a Walmart). I grew up between Alexandria and Willmar - both towns have Super Walmart stores - and the areas directly around them have brought in many eating establishments, etc, because of the area becoming a shopping stop point. It will bring revenue to gas stations and the other stores as well. My family owned a sporting goods store in St. Cloud for many years - it is still operating under new owners. We absolutely feared the big box stores coming to town. We were wrong. People may have purchased items at the big box stores, but when it came to after sale service and second purchases, they came to us. Business was incredible (the new owners have even expanded since we sold off 12 years ago). The bottom line is - I want to spend my money in my community. Those who are against Walmart don't have to shop there. In fact, those who are so against building it should pitch in towards the tax revenue our city would miss out if it isn't built. Additionally, those who would most benefit from this business probably can't even make this meeting or have the ability to voice their opinion... If one does the math in our community of nearly 23,000, Pm guessing the percentage of those against (but making a big stink) would be pretty small. Thank you. Sincerely, Tim Amlie 8796 North Bay Drive Aanenson, Kate From: Jim Uimthomas1@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 6:13 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Re: Walmart Sorry, found two spelling mistakes so fixed them .... Jimt On 11/20/20116:10 PM, Jim wrote Dear Kate Aanenson, I want to express my support for Walmart at the corner of Hwy 5 and Powers. I live 4 blocks from this area and love having Target nearby, hence the support for Walmart. I realize some local merchants such as Ace Hardware are concerned about Walmart. Dr Sobel, West Virginia University Economics Professor, has published a paper which concludes: "Wal -Mart's presence simply has had no impact on the overall size, or profitability, of the U.S. small business sector ". Personally, I would continue shopping at Ace, I love that store. I am surprised by the Planning Commission findings. In particular, why concerns about Riley Creek? The proposal does not appear to change the current impact on the creek, as developed by the previous owner. Also, why is 586 parking spaces a magic number? Target has less than that and uses less than 40% of those spaces for 364 days per year. I noticed there is concern about only two entrances. Target has only two, although one is shared with three other businesses. While I did not live in Chanhassen when Target was approved there seems to be two different standards being applied. The submitter says the proposal was "prepared in accordance with the City of Chanhassen's Code of Ordinances". My question to the city is did you pro -actively work with the submitter because the resounding vote against their proposal implies lack of communication and shared understanding. This year I was asked to pay for paving of Santa Vera Dr. Clearly the city does not have enough funds to pay for paving its own roads - the tax revenue from Walmart would make a big difference to what the city council can sponsor. Jim Thomas 938 Kimberly IN Chanhassen, MN Aanenson, Kate From: Brenda Johnson [bdr6466@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:42 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Re: Say NO to WalMart Hi Kate, I wanted to elaborate if you don't mind. There are many reasons as to why I don't shop at WalMart. Besides the atmosphere WalMart has as a shopping experience, this store as a whole incorporates international vendors as the majority, a very much non -US supporting company. I've also heard that WalMart doesn't treat their employees well, the average rate of pay is very low and they have many ethical issues resovling in a negative "community" as far as the people they hire and the crowd this type of store brings in. I wanted to correct myself below when I stated this will raise the robbery rate. What I meant to convey is the crime rate in towns that incorporate a WalMart are generally higher than those that don't. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion in this matter. Thank you, Brenda From: "Aanenson, Kate" <kaanenson o)ci.chanhassen.mn.us> To: 'Brenda Johnson' <1bdr6466(cDyahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2011 8:11 AM Subject: RE: Say NO to WalMart I have received your email and will forward it to the city Council. Kate From: Brenda Johnson fmailto:bdr64660:yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 20119:06 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Say NO to WalMart Kate, I've been a resident of Chanhassen for 7 years, I'm very proud of this community and feel a sense of comfort and safety in living here. It makes me nervous just thinking of a WalMart coming to this community. The additional traffic is only a portion of the problems this community would be getting with allowing a WalMart here. The clientele it brings scares me. If WalMart comes here I would prefer to stay away from the Chanhassen downtown area and do all my shopping normally done in Chanhassen to the Minnetonka or Eden Prairie areas. And I can see this happening with other residence of Chanhassen as well. There is a WalMart just 6 miles down Hwy 5 in Eden Prairie which 1 don't shop in, I know prices are normally better at a WalMart but I refuse to shop there. I don't understand why they would build so close to an existing store. If they want to move west they should be moving much further out where people actually need a big box store. WalMart should be building in a town that needs it, we don't need it or want it. I see no good with bringing this store to an area like this. This town is a safe, comfortable, friendly town. Bringing in a store like WalMart will only bring in the wrong type of people, the robbery rate will rise, the Chanhassen stores will loose business by residence no longer feeling comfortable shopping in the area. Say goodbye to the town that was voted second best town to live in by Money Magazine. Please vote NO to WalMart. Best Regards, Brenda Rice Aanenson, Kate To: Isaac Will Subject: RE: Walmart is not needed in Chanhassen From: Isaac Will rmailto:isaacrwillCalamail.coml Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:42 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Walmart is not needed in Chanhassen Hello, I wasn't able to attend the hearing on the 1 st but I wanted to take a minute to write you personally. I don't believe that the location or the business is necessary in Chanhassen. With the direct impact to local businesses (which I try to support as much as possible), I dread the day that Walmart would reduce my shopping options. am in my early 30's, plan on living in this house for at least the next 15 years and have two kids who will be going through the Chanhassen school system. I love Chanhassen. I love Na's Pad Thai. I already have 3 options for groceries within walking distance, do we really need another? Walmart is not bad, evil or would bring on the downfall of Chanhassen- It is just not needed here. If anything, it has given residents something to rally around. The jobs they need will do little for the community, especially if you take into account the established jobs we'll loose. I am proud of Chanhassen, it really is a great place to live. I just don't think Walmart fits who we are or who we want to be. Plus, throw on the fact that the land is not zoned for their proposed plan, the extra city cost to modify and maintain infrastructure and the spatial separation from the existing shopping district- I just don't see it as a viable opportunity. Thank you for your time! Sincerely, Isaac Will Aanenson, Kate From: Brenda Johnson [bdr6466@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:06 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Say NO to WalMart Kate, I've been a resident of Chanhassen for 7 years, I'm very proud of this community and feel a sense of comfort and safety in living here. It makes me nervous just thinking of a WalMart coming to this community. The additional traffic is only a portion of the problems this community would be getting with allowing a WalMart here. The clientele it brings scares me. If WalMart comes here I would prefer to stay away from the Chanhassen downtown area and do all my shopping normally done in Chanhassen to the Minnetonka or Eden Prairie areas. And I can see this happening with other residence of Chanhassen as well. There is a WalMart just 6 miles down Hwy 5 in Eden Prairie which I don't shop in, I know prices are normally better at a WalMart but I refuse to shop there. I don't understand why they would build so close to an existing store. If they want to move west they should be moving much further out where people actually need a big box store. WalMart should be building in a town that needs it, we don't need it or want it. I see no good with bringing this store to an area like this. This town is a safe, comfortable, friendly town. Bringing in a store like WalMart will only bring in the wrong type of people, the robbery rate will rise, the Chanhassen stores will loose business by residence no longer feeling comfortable shopping in the area. Say goodbye to the town that was voted second best town to live in by Money Magazine. Please vote NO to WalMart. Best Regards, Brenda Rice I Aanenson, Kate Subject: FW: Contact Request - Admin From: bicobb20M4 Yahoo.com rmai Ito: bJcobb2004(cbvahoo.com1 Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 20113:15 PM To: Engelhardt, Karen Subject: Contact Request - Admin Website Contact Email Name Barbara Cobb Address 8479 Powers Place Email bicobb2004navahoo.com Unfortunately, my husband and 1 were unable to attend last night's planning commission to eeting to state our opposition to the proposed Walmart plans. On principle, we do not currently shop at Walmart or Sam's Club as we vehemently oppose their business practices; most importantly towards their employees. The fact that they will be just up the road will not change the fact that we will not shop there. The fact that they would be "just up the the road" is also major concern for us. The back of our twinhome is directly on Powers Blvd. Traffic has increased markedly since the opening of 212 which is understandable- Powers Blvd may be a 4 lane road, but it is still a residential area Despite the posted speed limits, average speeds are closer to between 50 and 55 miles an hour Comments with cars changing lanes to get around the the slower vehicles. It's hard enough to get out of our complex at times and to walk across the road is even harder... especially since our comer has no cross walks. even with croswalks, you take your life in your handsjust like the Instant Web employees do. Traffic is certainly not going to decrease with the building of a Walmart. Not only will it increase, but there will be an increase in semi traffic as well. We understand the potential income etc that will be brought in to the community, but at what cost to the area? 1 don't agree with Target's practice of putting stores in such close proximity to each other and I certainly don't like the idea of a chain such as Walmart doing the same. We are hoping that you will think seriously before agreeing to this project. Barbara and David Cobb Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Name City State Zip lCountry SignedOn Wendy OConnor Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/17/2011 Shelley Kerber Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/17/2011 Mary Yazvec Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Stephanie rutledge Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Jennifer Weiner Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Laurie Hernandez Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kate McGuire Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Mary Pernula Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Carol Anderson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Scott Wosje Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Abby Ellis Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Laura Gustayson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Aimee O'Malley Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kristin Walters Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 carolyn thomson chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Laura Doten Shorewooi MN 55331 USA 10/17/2011 kristin stohl victoria MN 55386 USA 10/17/2011 Jeff Anderson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Craig O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Mary beth silbernagel Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Leah Plath Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Vera Tschida Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Cindy Brodigan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Natalie Christenson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Marceline Valenty Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Pam Hrubes Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 jason white Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Laurie Johnson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Elizabeth Kressler Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/17/2011 Amber White Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Mark Johnson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Jenny Pharis Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Ted Ellefson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Todd Neils Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 John L. Bell Destin FL 32540 USA 10/17/2011 Vicki Eastwood Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Ross Huseby Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Ingrid Steele Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Judy Anderson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 David Kressler Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Angela Magnuson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Angie Ellefson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Gerald Wolfe Chanhasse MN 55317-450 USA 10/17/2011 Christina Salek Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Molly Ambrose Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Stacy Beno Ichanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 IDE5O 040 b'►� Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Holly White Chanhasse MN 553 USA 10/17/2011 Kelly Koemptgen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Sue Boski Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Susanne Cantlin Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kyla Spencer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kari Okonek Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Meredith Johnson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Sandy McNeill Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Melissa Crow Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 PaulCoroneos Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Jessica Anderson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/17/2011 Kristine Beer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Patrick Beer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Karen Walker Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Elise Coroneos Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Debra Ludford chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Cameron Olsen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 JACKIE JACOBSON CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 kathleen vankrevelen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 CeCelia Smith Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Leslie Witterschein Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Cheryl Stanton Chanhasse MN I don't war USA 10/18/2011 Christine Anfinson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Johanna Heggelman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Stan Valensky Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Allison Newman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Theresa Bergren Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Emily Brisse Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Sharon Kraus Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Jessica Diaz Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Brian Diaz Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Tamara Sather Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Sue Berger Minneapolis 55419-111 United Sta 10/18/2011 Rick Tonsing Fair Oaks ICA 95628 USA 10/18/2011 Tonya Stier Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Maria Knox Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Jennifer Pauling Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Allison Lang Chaska 1 55318 United Sta 10/18/2011 Erika Carrillo chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Jan Gniffke Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Laurel Kiesow chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Gary Spencer Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Margaret Emerson Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Lisa Patrin Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Katy Anderson Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Ashley Browning Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Lisa Arrington Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Amy Steffen Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 John and Stacey Bosack Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/18/2011 Karl Wandling chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/18/2011 Victor Escobar Midlothiar VA 23113 USA 10/19/2011 Sarah Dritz ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jennifer Fritz ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kathryn Bader ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Robin Anderson ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Pam Schwarz Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Maria Elgren Chanhasei MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Lisa Nebel ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Laura Helmer ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Thomas Bader Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Daniel Ryan Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kim Klingelhutz Chanhassf MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Susan Fagan Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Ana Moritz Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Blair Elgren Chanhasse MN We do not USA 10/19/2011 Debra Lochner Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Susan Hoffa Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 mary self Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Barbara Link Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 kathy kuhl chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Glenn Kaufmann Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Lisa Wing Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Suzanne Huwald Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Alysson Gebauer ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 john manuel chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kristie Hennig ChanhassMN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Judy Morn Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Susan Sampson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Christine Meier Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Laurie Lisignoli Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Paul Dorn Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jane Dorn Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Annette Snyder-Fossum Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Lance Huwald ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 josephtschida chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jonathan Ortner ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Holly Mell ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Carol Berg Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Julie Swenson ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Louise Manno Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 james m nordlund Fargo ND 58102 USA 10/19/2011 Cara Rainey Chanahss MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Caroline Nelson Eden Prair MN 55347 USA 10/19/2011 Angela Gauer Chaska IMN 55318 USA 1 10/19/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Michael Grabner Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nicole Cleland Richfield MN 55423 USA 10/19/2011 Joan Reynders Chanhasse MN 5517 USA 10/19/2011 David Williams Victoria MN 55386 USA 10/19/2011 Kathleen Albrecht Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jane Anderson Chanhasse MN 55331 USA 10/19/2011 Mary Brink Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/19/2011 Katie Gutierrez Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Stephanie Saltzman Edina MN 55436 USA 10/19/2011 c callahan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Annette Stock -Lind Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kathy O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Keri Buisman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Janet Rzonca Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Fred Berg Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Sheila Erickson chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 David Stockdale Excelsior MN 553C31 USA 10/19/2011 Karen Hoyle Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jerry Cerchia Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Beth Miller Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Alyce Bell Chanhasse MN 55317-855 USA 10/19/2011 Jean Hess Chanhasse MN We do not USA 10/19/2011 Michelle Williams Victoria MN 55386 USA 10/19/2011 Bruce Helmer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Bev Geffert Carver MN 55315 USA 10/19/2011 Bebe Paulson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Janice Johnson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 scott paulson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Ila Wheeler Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Dave Vieau Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Dan Mertes Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Phyllis Wachutka Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Steve Cannon Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Dallas Nelson chaska MN 55318 USA 10/19/2011 Donald B. Dahlquist Chanhaser MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Alexandra Emerton Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Julie Burns MN MN Bad idea al USA 10/19/2011 SUE RIES CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 mari hart chanhassei MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Kyle Renner Chanhass MN Walmart USA 10/19/2011 Valerie Pass Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Leo Hofmeister Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Pamela Olund Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Gloria Lindberg Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jill Schmid Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nikki Renner Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 kim motschenbacher Chaska IMN I 55318 USA 10/19/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Adam Erdmann Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/19/2011 Sally Nordmeyer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Barbara Bode Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Susan Von Fruke Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Mary Ann Manuel chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 John Bergo Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Alec McKinley Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Aaron Stroeing Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Tony Evangelista Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Tony Marengo Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nanci Olson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Mark Olson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Douglas Ahmann Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Jodi Holden Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nancy Stanger Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/19/2011 damaris hernandez chaska MN 55318 USA 10/19/2011 Heide Ahmann Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Amanda Chase Carver MN 55315 USA 10/19/2011 Nancy Cardwell Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Michael Moritz Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 William Brown Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/19/2011 Nadia Janson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Mary Leirdahl Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Laura Brannon CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Courtney Cannon Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Chanh Nguyen ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 gail montana chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Elisabeth Kelly WashingtDC 20016 United Sta 10/20/2011 Jessica Olson Minneapo MN 55408 USA 10/20/2011 Jesse Sutton Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Mike Seifert Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/20/2011 Bev Gossard chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Jarby Blackmun Chanhase MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Patricia Hawke Victoria MN 55386 USA 10/20/2011 Bonnie Marsh ChanhassMN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Jane Morgan chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Sarah Ferderer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 MargaretStandafer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Zhanetta Lundberg Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Barry Mckinney Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kelly Boss Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Gordon Buchanan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 jan chatmas chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kay Paterson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Sandy Opheim Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kristin Mattson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kirk Sampson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Katie Lloyd Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 John Kreger Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Leland O'Brien Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Amy Olson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Mary Gallardo Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Marshane Lindstrom Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/20/2011 Nancy Hall chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kersten Herold ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Bev Bell ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Stacy Lee Scholder ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Peter McCall ChanhasSE MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Kim Schaeferle Chanhassf MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 k h Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 KristiKahana Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Cathy Holmes Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Nancy Lynch Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Cindy Seal Victoria MN 55386 USA 10/20/2011 Barb Brown Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Jordan Perttu Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/20/2011 Beth Adams Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Todd Michels Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Brian Tuomala Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Scott Yager Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Alex Fossum Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 James Deno ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Andrea Deno ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Janet Adamski ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 MICHAEL MATTSON CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 clan pavlovich chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Jim Fisher Shorewoo MN 55331 USA 10/21/2011 Katherine Fischenich Victoria MN 55386 USA 10/21/2011 Derek Sorenson ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Michael Neiman Minneapo MN 55403 USA 10/21/2011 Joan Skaff ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Max Anderson ChanhassE M N 55317 USA 10/21/2011 BethAnn Leonard ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 diane freeman ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Paul Ryan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Pamela Carlson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Julie Beyer -Fitzgerald Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Pat Loge Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Wayne Mader Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Kevin Fitzgerald Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Julie Littfin Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Lisa McCall Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Deborah Mitchell Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Veronica Perttu Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Kellan Fitzgerald ChanhassMN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Jay Kronick Chanahhs MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Anthony Rockwell Eden Prair MN 55344 USA 10/21/2011 Pamela Murphy Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Meghan Maloney St. Louis P MN 55416 USA 10/21/2011 Fred Cuneo Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Joel Jenkins Chanhasse MN I believe tH USA 10/21/2011 Dorothy Downing Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Sean Connelly Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Sherill Coumbe Chanhasse MN 55331 USA 10/21/2011 Susan Wollan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Jennifer Grabner Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Jane Evangelista ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Brad Karels ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Sally Ryan ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/21/2011 Stacy King Minneapo MN 55417 USA 10/21/2011 Cheryl Fischer Chanhassc MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Jackie McCarthy Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Julie Yager Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Patti Ferguson Chanhassn MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Tony Ferguson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Amy Sampson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Florence Sheesley Saint Joser MN 56374 USA 10/22/2011 Kristin Berg Prior Lake MN 55372 USA 10/22/2011 Amy Jarrard Minneapo MN 55403 USA 10/22/2011 Paul Spencer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Jenny Spencer Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Rosemary Soltis Chanhassen 55317 Uganda 10/22/2011 Laurie Sudol Clarkdale AZ 86324 USA 10/22/2011 Scott Hippen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Marcia Hippen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Gary Lehman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Jennifer Doan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/22/2011 Ann Dalhoff Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Liesa Sanya Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Renee Pederson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Ted Tigue Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Amy Kaehler Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Kathy Gavert Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Dwight Gaddis Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Dwight Gaddis Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Peggy Stevenson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Diane Swenson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Robb Swenson Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Amy Rolland Martinek 55331 MN 55331 USA 10/23/2011 JoAnn Quackenbush Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Austen Edman IRiver Falls WI 54022 USA 10/23/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Dana V. Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Nico Haight Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Julie Lohse Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/23/2011 Emily Fliss Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/23/2011 Gennadiy Vavrenyuk Tacoma WA 98433 USA 10/23/2011 Beth Fliss Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/23/2011 Brandi Crotty Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/23/2011 Austin Johnson Saint Bonif MN 55375 USA 10/23/2011 Shelly Franceschi Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Melissa McNeill Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Margaret DiMarco Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Paul Palmer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Joseph Wise Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/24/2011 Jessica Roschen Minnesota MN 56001 USA 10/24/2011 Robert Schaefer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Maureen Grebin Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Debbie Kaplan Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Jeanne MacFarlane Excelsior/ MN 55331 USA 10/24/2011 KENT LUDFORD CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 KATHLEEN MADER CHANHAS MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Brian Boie Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Mary Sutton Chanhass( MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 john hagedorn chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Tom Smith Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Barbara white Chanhassc MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Sanam Favrow Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Scott Pharis Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Arlan Monderewicz reading PA 19609 USA 10/24/2011 Tina Shear Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Kathy Beery Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Shirley Vinkemeier Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Daniel Mueller Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Andrea Hawley Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Andrea Kremer Hawley Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Susan Bartenetti Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 karen gibney chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/24/2011 joe gibney chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 John Hawley ChanhaSSE MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Bill Fisher ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Olivia Kressler ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Dawn Erdman ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/24/2011 Emily Rozanski Minneapo MN 55419 USA 10/25/2011 Anne Wicka Chanhassc MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Tarrah Mueller Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Christy Lee shorewoo MN 55331 USA 10/25/2011 Thomas Faust IChanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 mark zaebst Ichanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN courtney kramer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Alan Kramer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Rob Martinson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Tammy Brady Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 James Pedersen Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/25/2011 Tracey Reichert Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/25/2011 Travis Quinlan Burnsville MN 55306 USA 10/25/2011 Brittany Liebl Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Hilary Shadier Wayzata MN 55391 USA 10/25/2011 brian liebl chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Samantha Lee Bloomingt MN 55438 USA 10/25/2011 Rhiana Payer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Jeff Adams Saint Louis MN 55416 USA 10/25/2011 Kendra Gruman Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Jessica Tait Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Lee Thorson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Tracey Dreshfield Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Michael Kamerud Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Linda Kramer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Robert Fiiippi Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/25/2011 Deborah Shillam Keighley BD22 United Kin 10/25/2011 Allyson Segar-Cohen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Steven Cohen Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 craig warner Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Monica Wiant Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/25/2011 Lauri Schauer Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/25/2011 Shelley Vandermeide Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Jason Barber Shorewoo MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Barbara Kayati Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Richard Peters Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Peggy Kronick Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/26/2011 Debbie Lloyd ChanhassMN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Betsy LePlatt Chanhass MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Ginny Watkins Minneton MN 55345 USA 10/26/2011 Diane Crannell Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/26/2011 Katja Jeanneret Chanhass MN With num USA 10/26/2011 Joan Ahrens Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Neiliibson chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Kristi Jereska chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Susan dreveslibson chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Lynn Speaker Eden Prair MN 55346 USA 10/26/2011 Melissa Young ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Jennifer Jorgenson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Sara Brown IChanhasse, MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Karey White IChanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Patricia Peterson lChanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Jessica Jorgensen IChanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Steve Taborek chanhasen MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Laurie Kurmis Chanhasse MN 55345 USA 10/26/2011 Misty Ojanpa ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Debra Pladsen ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 MariBeth Schulke eden prair MN 55347 USA 10/26/2011 Erin Strot Eden Prair MN 55346 USA 10/26/2011 Ryan Brown Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Jason Strot Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/26/2011 becky ludvigson eden prairl MN 55346 USA 10/26/2011 Sara Gorham Shakopee MN 55379 USA 10/26/2011 Lindsay Strot Chaska MN 55318 USA 10/26/2011 McDonald Winton Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Sharon Harris Chanhasse MN We don't USA 10/26/2011 James Walker janesville WI 53548 USA 10/26/2011 John White Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Martha McNeill Excelsior MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Andrew Lemkuil Chanhasse MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Natasha Reilly Chanhasss MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 David Brackett Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Tom Miller Shorewoo MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Robert Panos Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Katie Kirschbaum Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Dianne Brackett Deephavei MN 55391 USA 10/26/2011 Kim Simenson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 branden strot eden prairl MN 55346 USA 10/26/2011 Ginny Watkins Minnetonl, MN 55345 USA 10/26/2011 Amy Lemkuil Chanhasse MN 55331 USA 10/26/2011 Kerry Simenson Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Robert Schwartz Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 Candace DeCosse Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Chris Oster Chaska MN 55318 United Sta 10/26/2011 Brian Kummrow MINNETOI MN 55343 United Sta 10/26/2011 Sarah McGinn Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Susan Seward Chanhasss MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Britton McGinn Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Laura Woelfel Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Stuart Powers Richfield MN 55423 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jenna Pederson Edina MN 55343 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jeff Burke Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Rebecca Brick Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Chris Engel Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Debbie Engel Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jill Ramsey chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jared Gehle ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Nicole Hamari Minneapo MN 55425J United Sta 10/26/2011 Bonnie Houck Victoria IMN I 55386J United Sta 10/26/2011 Will McMillan Eden Prair MN I 55346J United Sta 10/26/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Anne Marie Lambert Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Patrick Lambert Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Tracy Wilson Maple Gro MN 55311 United Sta 10/26/2011 Pat Potter Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Rhonda Perkins Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/26/2011 Mackenzie McMillan Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/26/2011 sally heard chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Mark Schumacher Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/26/2011 Katie Johnson Maple Gro MN 55311 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jennifer Niland Mpls MN 55407 United Sta 10/26/2011 charles littfin chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Nicole Campion Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 thomas potter chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Karen Cox ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Dan Campion ChanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Robert Egelston ChanhassE MN 55317 USA 10/26/2011 MariAna Ebenreiter ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Cindy Egelston ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Nick Sandstrom Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 karleenlutter Minneapol MN 55410 USA 10/26/2011 tony heard chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Jodi Alama Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/26/2011 Kimberly Gehle Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Julie butcher chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Mc Ed Sarawak 94300 Malaysia 10/26/2011 Jason Christensen Chanhasse MN DO NOT BI. United Sta 10/26/2011 Stefano Serpico Rimini 47921 Italy 10/26/2011 Cheryl Bauch Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/26/2011 Erin Karels Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Brook Benson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 eileen barnes chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Patrick Smith Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jon Maeser Chanhassen 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Heather Christensen s MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 SHANNON BURKS S MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Amelia Woltjer MN 56467 United Sta 10/27/2011 Diane Matthews MN 55318 United Sta 10/27/2011 Neal Klein ss MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeremy Wherley ]Ne MN 55386 United Sta 10/27/2011 Cindy Warner ss MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kathleen Cancilla ss MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Lorinda Hanson MN 55318 United Sta 10/27/2011 Sonya Benkstein ss MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 anne Jutting Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Mike Wellner Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Stephen Pawlyshyn Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Brielle Herbst Shakopee MN 55379 United Sta 10/27/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Susan Haun-Dorsey Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeanna Simonson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jenny DeRoo Rockford MN 55373 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jay Donohue Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kory Barthelemy Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Troy Prinsen Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Laurie Donohue Chanhasse MN 553171 United Sta 10/27/2011 Amy Klitzke Lester Prai MN 55354 United Sta 10/27/2011 Ryan Litfin Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Sarah Klein Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Phillip Kuehne Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Brian Smith Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Ashley Smith Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jennifer Grimm Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Derek Lechner Hopkins MN 55305 United Sta 10/27/2011 Thor Smith Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Matthew Taus Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Dan Piff chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Courtney Spekman Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Dave Howe Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Anne Taus Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Danielle Antonovich Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Christina Hamad Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Henry Ohnstad Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Madi Young edinA MN 55439 United Sta 10/27/2011 Debora Hol Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Laura Williams ChanhassIMN MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Bruce Duncan ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 chris adams ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Valentina Muraleedhar St. PeterMN 56082 United Sta 10/27/2011 Patricia Adams ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Rachel Seppman Eden PraiMN 55346 United Sta 10/27/2011 Rielle Perttu ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Justin Perttu 1000 Lake ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Rianna Perttu ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jordan Perttu ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Thomas Peterson ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Mike Mehr Eagan, 55123 United Sta 10/27/2011 Claudine Wildman Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Steve Evangelista Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kristin Terrell Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Phil Standafer Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeff Engebretson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Elizabeth Gangl Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Edward Laurson IDenver CO 80235 USA 10/27/2011 Zane Detert ]Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Julia Braswell IChaska MN 55318 United Sta 10/27/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Anne Fisher Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 susan cohoon Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Dick Lloyd Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 margaret adie chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Lisa Clausen Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Bonnie gasperlin chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Steven Cohoon Chanhasse MN 55317J United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeff Zahn Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Spencer Schwartz Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Marissa Schwartz Shorewooi MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Barbara Brown Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Bruce gasperlin chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Shelli Dorfe victoria MN 55386 USA 10/27/2011 Shawn Burk Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Robby Drake Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Luke Jackson Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 benjamin dorfe Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/27/2011 Eric Kvam Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Patty Bremer Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Alicia Schimke Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Sue Seifert Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kelly Hastings Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Julie Greenberg Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Kaitlin Bentrup Winona MN 55987 USA 10/27/2011 Nick Hericks Americus GA 31709 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jane Revsbech Chanhasse MN 55331 United Sta 10/27/2011 Andrew Nelson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 1B -John and Stacey Bos Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Mark fuchs chanhasse MN 55317 United Stai 10/27/2011 Amy Waters Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Mary Rabai Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Eduardo Perez chanhassei MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Dr. Kevin Burns Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jessica Meilleur Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/27/2011 Jeffrey Tam Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 elizabeth adams Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Kathy Gillis Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/28/2011 Amy Butterfield ChanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Bob Butterfield ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Ruth Winterer Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/28/2011 Matt Peters ChanhaSSE MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Raymond Brozovich Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Cathy Larson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Michelle Tanner St. Paul MN 55105 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lea Foli Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/28/2011 Cindy Yokiel Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Jason Whims Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN David Wollan Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Jennifer Westerhaus Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 craig anderson chanhasse MN 55318 United Sta 10/28/2011 Patti Michels Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Toni Schrupp Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Stephanie Friant chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 John Rock Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Jessica Miller Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lindsay Barthelemy Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lisa Katalinich Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/28/2011 Ben Newton Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 karlene mikesell chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Stephen Sando Edina MN 55424 United Sta 10/28/2011 Debra Bauler Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lena Otolski Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 michael bailey chanhassei MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Carrie Newton Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Patti Zimmer Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Linda Gallaro Chanhasse MN 55317 USA 10/28/2011 Jennifer Syverson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Kathryn Goerges minneapol MN 55404 United Sta 10/28/2011 Carol Buesgens Chashasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 nancy wright Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Amy Santella Wayzata MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 David Emerton Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/28/2011 Gerald Cook Chanhasse MN 55318 United Sta 10/28/2011 Lynn Peters Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Don Wallis Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Julie Kolbow Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Dan Revsbech Chanhasse MN 55331 United Sta 10/29/2011 traci Peterson Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/29/2011 Mary Ann Walstrom Chanahsse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Caitlin O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Stephanie fisher Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Joseph O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Melissa O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Cynthia Torn ChanhassMN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Beth Benzie Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Lori Larson Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/29/2011 Kevin Hippen chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Taylor Larson Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/29/2011 Patty Besser Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Mike Boyle Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Nancy Boyle Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Jamie Nelson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Pete Sperling Chanhasss MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Meghan O'Connor Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Allen Satter Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Nick Greenwood Eden Prair MN 55346 United Sta 10/29/2011 alec gibney chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 blanca gibney chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Gail Bach ChanhassE MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Michelle Strain Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/29/2011 James Bach Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Craig Blechta Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Joseph Merboth Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Janet McFarland Shorewoo4 MN 55331 USA 10/29/2011 Debra Denzer Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 m erandaludford Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Deborah Benson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Anita Bronson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Kevin Carlson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 cameron economy Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Bonnie Economy Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Rochelle Curtis Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Kristie Wigger Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/29/2011 Michael Yazvec Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 William Schulte Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Kelly Schulte Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Lori Schmidt Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Linda Boerboom Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Nancy Hoopes Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Eric Gilliland New York NY 10014 USA 10/30/2011 Michael Clausen Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Stacy Sand Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 mike winters Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Len Adler Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Anthony Oberstar Los angele CA 90034 United Sta 10/30/2011 Shannon Brooks Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/30/2011 Connie Nuss Chanhassen 55317 Afghanista 10/30/2011 Blake Farland Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Sheryl Danks Hutchinso MN 55350 United Sta 10/30/2011 Jodie Siems Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Steven Posnick Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Alex Westlind Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Edwin Everett Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Nancy Hanousek Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Rebecca Everett Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Dustin Lang Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Martin Schaeferle Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Dennis Rakocy Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Jacki Kurvers Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Jeffrey Kressler Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Katherine Johnson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Holly Rakocy Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Pam Kerber Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Linda roslansky Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Michelle Laurent chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Jeanne Pietrini Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 frank laengle chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 tavis hudson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Monica Held Chanhasse MN 55317J United Sta 10/30/2011 Cindy Robb Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 10/30/2011 David Enright Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/30/2011 Eric Chellen Shorewoo MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kristen Ryan Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Sue Adler Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Barb Johnson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Eric Rain Chaska MN 55318J United Sta 10/31/2011 Nick Bravos Minneton MN 55345 United Sta 10/31/2011 Pamela Strand Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Shirl Stroeing Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 William Hille Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ben Woolcott Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Lisa Kurvers Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Trish Rinzel Chanhasse MN impact on United Sta 10/31/2011 Markus Fischer chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Heidi Garcia Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kelly Lee Greenwoo MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Maureen Kvam Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Lauralee Chellen Shorewoo MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Alissa Abrahamson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 John Davis Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Deaen Held Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Lee and Jennifer Waldrc Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Teri Kocourek chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Amir Dabiran Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Shahsa Moghimi Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Lori Thorne Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Amy Severson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Paymon Vasseghi Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ozra Amirahmadi Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Tom Cardle Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ehteram Barghi Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Rob Howard chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 kent borgerson chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kristin Kovic Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Grace Tripp Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Becky Borgerson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kevin Engebretson Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Jackie ottoson Chanhass MN 55317J United Sta 10/31/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN LuAnn Lutgen Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Bill Schubert chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Cara Goin Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Nick Goin Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Rhonda Backus Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Paul Ottoson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Susan Kucera Chahassen MN 55317J United Sta 10/31/2011 Rick Fox Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Nikki Fox Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Susie Wuollett Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Marcos Peluso Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Arkhip Osadchuk Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Irina Osadchuk Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 David Weiby Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Sharon McKinney Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Anita Steckling Chaanhass MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Katie Bastiansen MN MN United Sta 10/31/2011 Pam McCartan Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Paula Hallau Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Kathleen Leisman Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Matthew Thomas Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Sarah Thomas Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Heike Hudson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 nancy clairmont carr Chanhasse MN 55317-912 United Sta 10/31/2011 Nicole Jesse Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 ScottJesse Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ann Nye Excelsior MN 55331 United Sta 10/31/2011 Daniel Uner Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Orhan Uner Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Pat Uner Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Brenda Vatland Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 KeitOsadchuk Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 mark thorne chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Ruth Rogers Fort Collin CO 80528 USA 10/31/2011 Patrick lynch chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Patrice Blechta Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 10/31/2011 Dave Schollman chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Daniel Lynch Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Chuck Goers Chanhasse MN 55331 United Sta 11/1/2011 Donna Ozuturk Chanhasse MN 55317J United Sta 11/1/2011 Ordell & Sonja Leines Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jean Nitchals Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Neil Ellis Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Barry Steckling Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Robb Hall Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Laura Lehman IChanhassIMN 1 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Lance Wegner IChanhassdMN 1 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Say No to rezoning Powers Blvd and Park Road in Chanhassen, MN Lee Leines Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 11/1/2011 Vicki Taborek Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Holly Stang -Williams Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Philip Williams Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Thomas Newhouse Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 George Webster Chaska MN 55318 United Sta 11/1/2011 Peter Boevers Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Kathy Luce Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jodi Rivera Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Wendy Evenson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Sue Bogan Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Joe Oprosko Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Christoph Leser Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jason Lehman Chanhass MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 James Hastreiter Chanhaser MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Roger Rood Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 11/1/2011 Audra Mollet Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Dan Berg Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Brian BAker Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Leslie Baker Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Colleen Cannon Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Paul Johnson Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Amy Diedrich Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Sarah Petersen Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Mike Petersen Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Patricia Hastreiter 5317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Mark Glodoski Chanhasse MN 55331 United Sta 11/1/2011 Virginia Bailey Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Lisa Keenan Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 jell grover Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 mike Grebin CHANHAS MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 michael boyer chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 cheryl niebeling chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jerry Parten Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jamie Cook Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jim Van Asten Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Shirley Humphrey Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Brian leines Victoria MN 55386 United Sta 11/1/2011 Rita Klauda Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Martha Noll chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 Jeff Cook Chanhasse MN 55317 United Sta 11/1/2011 YKIN I it Name CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Walmart C/o Kimley-Horn and Assoc _2550 University Ave W. Suite 238N St. Paul, MN 55114 Contact: William D. Matzek Phone:651-643-0497 Fax:651-645-4197 Email: Wi11.Matzek@Kimley-Horn.com Planning Case No.,=Z 1 1— ) ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 3 0 2011 L,,;Nr; nPP' Property Owner Name and Address: iStar Minnesota LLC c/o iStar Financial I 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, New York 10036 Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit X Planned Unit Development' -150 Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign$200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB K, r�)e y _ Noy rt TOTAL FEE $950_ 00TCAA1,ttt3a,I An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/1" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 10/04/2011 15:29 Receipt No. 00168860 CLERK: bethanya PAYEE: Kimley-Horn & Assoc., Inc. PO Box 33068 Raleigh NC 27636-3068 Planning Case 2011-11 Walmart Concept PUD/Rezoning ------------------------------------------------------- Sign -------------- ------ ------- Sign Rent 200.00 Planned Unit Development 750.00 Total Cash Check 002111324 Change 950.00 0.00 950.00 0.00 SCANNED KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC., INC. I Voucher No. Vendor ID Invoice Number Invoice Date 29/2011 Subtotals Totals Check Notes 476509 FRIDAY DELIVERY TO JASON COOPER IN TWC 002111324 Invoice Amount Net Amount Paid 50.00 $950.00 $950.00 $950.00 $950.00 SCANNED ❑�❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Transmittal Remarks: Kate: 2550 University Avenue West Suite 238N SL Paul, Minnesom 55114 TEL 651 645 4197 FAX 651 645 5116 I've attached the full size conceptual site plans as well as the architectural renderings for conceptual PUD review. You will also find attached, the reduced copies and digital copies of both the site plans and architectural plans. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Thank you, Will Copy to: File Signed . tl.,� F,OR WilliarnMatzelcP.E. V,twc_ldevlwalmart170419-0\docs\transmittals\20110930_concep ual pud submittal.doc SCANNED ❑�❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Transmittal CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 3 0 2011 CHANHASSEN PLAWJiNG DEP' Date: September 3e, 2011 Job Number: Project Name: Wahnart Store #5949-00 To: Citv of Chanhassen Attn: Kate Aanenson 7700 Market Boulevard, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 160633001 2550 University Avenue West Suite 238N St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 TEL 651 645 4197 FAX 651 645 5116 We are sending these by ❑ U.S. Mail ❑ FedEx ® Hand Deliver ❑ Other: We are sending you ®Attached ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Other: ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ® Prints/Phms ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Orders Copies Date No. Description 5 09/30/11 1 Conceptual Site Plan (Full Size) 1 09/30/11 2 Conceptual Site Plan (8 Y2 x 11) 5 0621/11 3 Colored Architectural Renderings (Full Size) 1 06/21/11 4 Colored Architectural Renderings (8'h x 11) 1 09/30/11 5 Conceptual PUD Application 1 09/30/11 6 PUD Application Check 1 0621/11 77 Digital Copy of plans 1 09/30/11 8 Cover Letter These are transmitted as checked below.- [] elow.❑ For your use ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Copies for approval ❑ As requested ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Copies for distribution ® For review and comment ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ❑ Corrected prints k:\twc_Idev\walmarft70419-0\docs?transmittals120110930_conceptual pud submittal.doc SCANNED September 30'", 2011 Ms. Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Conceptual PUD Application Review Walmart Store #5949-00 1000 Park Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Aanenson: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. IN Suite 238N 2550 University Avenue West St, Paul, Minnesota 55114 ITV OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 3 0 2011 ; HANHASSEN PLAtNNG DEPT Kimley-Horn is excited about the opportunity to work with the City of Chanhassen on the redevelopment of the 1000 Park Road property. Per your recommendation, we compiled a conceptual PUD submittal for City review. The proposed redevelopment of an existing 14.11 acre light industrial/office site with an approximately 120,000 square foot Walmart retail store. Construction is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2012 be completed for a grand opening in 2013. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you for reviewing the attached application and corresponding materials and we look forward to working with you on the project. Sincerely, I William D. Matzek, PE, CPESC Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ScN1NF^ Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers CITY OF CHANHASSEN State of Minnesota) CARVER &HE NEPIN 1'VLi/ Limit- /1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING )SS. PLANNING CASE NO. 2011-11 t COUnof Carver y ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Com. SubsmW and sworn before me on mission will hold a public hearing /'; on Tuesday, November 1, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized Cbanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- Blvd. Thepurposeof thishearingis lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: to consider a request for a Rezoning from Industrial Office park (IOP) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal laws, onapproximately14.10acresof land newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable as located at the southwest corner of amended. Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard Park (B) The notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 1.5 6_7 Road). Applicant: Wal - mart, Go Kimley Horn and Associ- printed public was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said ates, Inc. Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit- Said notice was cut from the columns of A Plan showing the location of the Proposal is available for the newspaper specified- Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both being kind in the public review on the City's web site at wwwri inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as the and size of type used composition and publication of the Notice: yannirr-ri.ntml or at City Hall during regular business hours. All abcdefglWklmnopgrstuvwayz interested persons are invited to at - lend thispublic hearingandexpress their opinions with respect to this 1'VLi/ Limit- /1 Proposal. Kate en AICP gy:= Laurie A. Hartmann , Community Develoopmpmentt DDi rector Email: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen. nm Phone: 952-227-1139 SubsmW and sworn before me on Vil(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, October 20, 2011: No. 4567) /'; _ _ this day of r t +i VJt/ 2011 JYMME JEANNEITE BARK 5 NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA No P bbc ttS W COMMISSION EXPIRES 01131113 m . RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.59 per column inch SCANNED CITU OF CNANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director December 12, 2011 Walmart Findings of Fact and Decision Planning Case 2011-11 As directed by the City Council, Staff has prepared the attached Findings of Fact and Decision for your review and approval. g:\p1an\2011 planning cases\I ]-H I walmartstore concept pud\cc staff report 12-12-1 l.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Walwart for Concept Plan Approval to Rezone Property from Industrial Office Park (IOP) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) On November 28, 2011 and December 12, 2011, the Chanhassen City Council met at regularly scheduled meetings to consider the above referenced application. On November 1, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application, preceded by published and mailed notice, and has recommended denial of the application. The City Council now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard and has a street address of 1000 Park Road, Chanhassen Minnesota The legal description of the property is Lot 1, Block 1, Park Two 2°d Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. 2. The property is guided for both Office Industrial and Commercial in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The property is zoned Industrial Office Park (IOP). 4. Section 20-501 of the City Code explains the purpose and intent of PUD zoning. In return for greater flexibility than allowed in standard zoning, "the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts." The Applicant has the burden of proving that these expectations will be met as evaluated against certain specified criteria The criteria and our findings with respect to them are: Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. This development plan has not been designed with greater preservation sensitivity than is required by a standard zoning district. The proposal meets the minimum requirement for preservation required in all zoning districts. The development plan includes extensive grading resulting in the elimination of the existing tree canopy, exceptfor the area within the protected wetland and undeveloped preservation area. The retaining wall on the west side of the site has the minimum required setback and does not provide greater protection of the natural resources expected for a PUD. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. There is no mix of land uses and there is no assembly of land into large parcels. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned development. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. The development plan does not reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. The development plan and the design of the building does not even meet the minimum standards of City Code Chapter 20, Article ,MJI, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office Development District. The development plan is deficient in the following ways: • The architecture does not meet the 50 percent facade transparency requirement. • The proposed development does not provide adequate distribution ofgreen space. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the City. The proposed development is located along Trunk Highway 5, which is a significant City corridor. The proposal meets minimum requirements. The development plan has not been designed with greater sensitivity than required for a standard zoning district. Development which is consistent with the comprehensive development plan. The subject site is guided Office Industrial and Commercial. The Comprehensive Development Plan states: "A new zoning district CC (Community Commercial) will be created in the City Code to implement this land use. " The Community Commercial zoning district has now been established to implement the commercial guiding. The development plan does not meet the requirements for the Community Commercial district because the footprint of the proposed building exceeds 65, 000 square feet. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the City. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park development plan and overall trail development plan. Not applicable. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. Not applicable. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. This criterion is satisfied. Use of traffic management and design techniques including the provision of transit and pedestrian linkages to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Where appropriate, the use of transportation demand management strategies may be required within a project. The development plan would result in serious traffic conflicts, including: U-turns. Most of the traffic to the site will come from Powers Boulevard and Highway 5. Many vehicles using the "right -out" at the eastern access of the site will make a U-turn movement to return to Powers Boulevard and Highway 5. This will create traffic conflicts and the potential for serious accidents. • Weaving between vehicles making a right turn out of the east access and vehicles making the right turn into the west access. The development plan has essentially 1 %: access points because the east access is only a right in/right out, which is minimal for the size of retail facility being proposed. Truck delivery access is proposed to use the same access points as the shoppers. 5. The proposed development does not meet the intent of PUD zoning. The development would not result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive land use than would be the case with the use of a standard zoning district. PUD zoning is not meant to be used as a mechanism to simply circumvent the restrictions in standard zoning districts. 6. Chapter 20, Article XXIV of the City Code provides minimum requirements for parking and loading berths. The PUD development plan is not in compliance with the following requirements: Off-street parking requirements - City Code, Sec. 20-1124(2)(s) The 528 parking spaces provided do not meet the City Code for ratio of 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building. Based on a 117,278 square -foot building, 586 stalls are required. The Applicant has provided a parking study that it believes demonstrates that the Applicant needs only 4.5 stalls per 1,000. However, the Applicant's recommended ratio excludes the factor of snow storage and effective parking supply. The study defines effective parking supply as the number of occupied spaces at optimum operating efficiency. "Parking lots are typically perceived as full at less than the actual total capacity." (Kimley-Hom Study dated March 32, 2011). The study also states that snow storage may have a significant effect on usable parking supply for three to five months out of the year. The parking ratio recommended in the study does not accommodate snow storage or effective parking. The net effect of this proposed development plan, including the use of compact stalls and using a reduced parking ratio, will have an effective parking standard of 3.17 spaces per thousand. This is well below the requirements of the City ordinance. The minimum parking requirements cannot be ignored because of anything that may be unique to the Applicant because zoning runs with the land and the property could be sold to another retailer. The parking provided takes advantage of 19 percent compact parking stalls. The City Code allows up to 25 percent compact parking; however, these compact stalls are not permitted for high -turnover parking lots. Retail use is a high turnover parking operation. In addition, compact stalls are partially located within the loading and maneuvering area which is prohibited by City Code. Off-street loading facilities - City Code, Sec. 20-1142 et seg. The design of the loading berths does not comply with the City Code in the following respects: a. Location. All berths beyond one shall be separated from areas used for off-street parking. The berths are not separated from areas used for off-street parking. b. Access. Each required off-street parking berth shall be so designed as to avoid interference with other vehicular, pedestrian or rail access or use of public street alleys, or other public transportation systems. The loading berths interfere with vehicular access because truck maneuvering encroaches into required parking drive aisles. C. Design. All loading areas shall consist of a maneuvering area in addition to the berth and shall not use any of that portion of the site containing parking stalls. Maneuvering areas shall be of such size to permit the backing of truck tractors and coupled trailers into a berth without blocking the use of other berths, drives, maneuvering areas or public right-of-way. Truck circulation encroaches and blocks required parking, drive aisles and pedestrian access. The current zoning of the site, IOP, is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and allows reasonable use of the property. 8. The Applicant has failed to document sufficient reasons to rezone the property to PUD. DECISION Concept Planned Unit Development approval is denied. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council the 12th day of December, 2011. CITY OF CHANHASSEN M. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager/Clerk Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor A CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 06/08/2012 9:43 AM Receipt No. 00189819 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Kimley Horn and Associate Inc 2550 University Ave Ste 238N Saint Paul MN 55114 - Planning Case 2011-11 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 27.00 Total Cash Check 1169 Change 27.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 :N ED City of Chanhassen Wo7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 anoF (952) 227-1100 MMER To: William Matzek Kimley-Horn & Associates 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N St. Paul, MN 55114 Invoice Re: Walmart Concept PUD— Planning Case 2011-11 SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 10/20/11 upon receipt NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for November 1. 2011. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #2011-11. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Chanhassen City Council Meeting — December 12, 2011 Mayor Furlong: Or 3. Councilwoman Ernst: Either one. Mayor Furlong: 3. 1. Councilwoman Ernst: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other items? With that is there a motion to adopt items 1(a) through (k)? Councilman McDonald: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 28, 2011 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated November 28, 2011 Receive Commission Minutes: -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated November 22, 2011 C. Resolution #2011-65: TH 101 Improvements, Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer Trail: Approve Resolution Accepting EA/EAW and Making a Negative Declaration on the Need for an EIS. d. Resolution #2011-66: 2012 Street Improvement Project: Accept Feasibility Study and Call for Public Hearing. e. Approval of 2012 Police Contract with the Carver County Sheriff's Office. f. Approval of Lease Extension for Old Village Hall, Seattle Sutton. g. Resolution #2011-67: Approval of Resolution Accepting Voluntary Donation for City Services in Lieu of Paying Taxes, Mount Olivet Rolling Acres. h. Pioneer Pass 2"" Addition: Table Final Plat, Plans and Specifications and Resolution Reapportioning Assessments. Approval of Requests for Temporary On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, Chanhassen Rotary Club: 1) February Festival, February 4, Lake Ann 2) Fourth of July Celebration, July 3 & 4, City Center Park j. Approval of Findings of Fact for Denial of the Concept Planned Unit Development, Walmart. *Councilwoman Ernst abstained on this item. SCANNED Chanhassen City Council Meeting — December 12, 2011 k. Repeal Chapter 10, Article VIII of Chanhassen City Code Concerning Rental Dwelling Licensing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0 except on item 10).* VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, we do have one resident and commissioner that would like to talk about an upcoming event here in Chanhassen. Mayor Furlong: Well I guess we can slow it down. They must move slower at the county meetings than they do here. Commissioner Workman, good evening. Tom Workman: Good evening Mayor and City Council. Thank you. I was talking about surgeries out in the hall with a neighbor. Not mine. I am here on behalf of the Chanhassen Lions Club here in Chanhassen. A couple years ago I asked them if we couldn't sponsor an event in town that we don't presently have, and they said good if I did all the work and so I've been sort of at this in the details along with the City's parks department. Mostly Jerry Ruegemer. He says Ruegemer on his voicemail, I say Ruegemer. But it is a Polar Plunge and to be, Knutson has already signed up so. In fact I was in the lake today. I went out, there's about 5 to 6 inches on the beach where we'll be having it. 1 drilled a couple of holes. Got into my bare feet on the ice. Crawford was my photographer and so look for that so but it's now it's about gettingjumpers and that's why I'm here tonight to tell the city and I don't know if that will pick it up. Can I put this on? Laurie Hokkanen: Sure Todd Gerhardt: Right on the picture. Tom Workman: Wow, that looks perfect. There is a website that people can go to sign up and so let me tell what that is. That's very clear. Chanlionsplunge.com. Chanlionsplunge.com for the attorneys in the room. But as I said the details are all coming together. Thanks to the City of Chanhassen and Jerry to let us get set up down there. Don't know how it's all going to turn out. Sometimes it's a little bit weather related. If it's 14 below and a howling wind, even Laufenburger won't show up but 1 think you're signed up. Councilman Laufenburger: You can take that to the bank. Tom Workman: So but anyway it's going to be a lot of fun. I've been going for yeas up to Lake Minnetonka where they have a really good one and really successful one and I thought this is good. We can maybe do even do a little bit better but keep the money maybe even a little closer to home for the Lions and all of our charities. The Lions or the Lions. The fire department is going to be helping us. We'll probably have about 6 firemen down there. Fire people to help anybody who may have an issue. There will be an ambulance on site so now the Mayor's coming and so we're, I am counting on every one of you to be down there so, nothing else going on really on New Year's Day. I'm not a big New Year's Eve guy and so I always started doing this, started as kind of a tradition. Chanhassen Legion's going to be helping out with discounts on their buffet and some Bloody Mary's or whatever else you want over there, so it's going to be a great community event. I'll stop taking your time. If you have a question for Commissioner Workman, county business, our budget is due to be finalized tomorrow. We'll probably have less than you in our room. We've kept it like you, pretty tight and no real, no real issues on our budget. We are going to be talking a little bit about zebra mussels tomorrow. We had some Lotus Lake 4 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2011 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjomhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Roger Knutson, Greg Sticha and Sharmeen AI-Jaff PUBLIC PRESENT: Jim & Julie Wagle 8411 Egret Court Jason, & Karey White 1000 Butte Court Clara Winters 1001 Butte Court Thomas & Kathy Bader 8571 Drake Court Adele Pint 1641 Koehnen Circle Scott B. Haas 7264 Pontiac Circle Ryan & Susan Hoffa 970 Lake Susan Hills David Kressler 1750 Valley Ridge Trail No. Matt Blewett 2396 Harvest Way Christoph Leser 8110 Marsh Drive Steve Taborek 8022 Cheyenne Avenue Jenny Pharis 1815 Valley Ridge Trail So. Doug Jacobson 1 121 Dove Court Sarah Thomas 2555 Longacres Drive Anita Steckling 8320 West Lake Court Barb Vanderploeg 7706 Vasserman Kathy Peterson 7713 Vasserman Place Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue Craig O'Connor 1702 Valley Ridge Charles Littfin 7609 Laredo Drive Dennis & Holly Rakocy 880 Kimberly Lane Ronald K. Tonn 8300 West Lake Court George Beniek 412 West 76" Street Ken Wencel Lake Susan Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Paul & Jackie Ottoson 7080 Harrison Hill Trail Jesse Sutton 8417 Rosewood Drive Ellis Thomas 406 West 76`h Street Chris Johnson Nez Perce Mary Rabai 7340 Frontier Trail Shelley Kerber 6025 Whitney Circle, Shorewood Ben & Sheila Allrich 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Jane Revsbech 2155 Murray Hill Court Stephanie Fisher 1451 Heron Drive Mark Arrington 870 Lake Susan Hills Drive Linda Landsman 7329 Frontier Trail SCANNED Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Elizabeth Kressler 1750 Valley Ridge Trail No. Gloria Cox 6990 Shawnee Lane Jean Allard 8425 Rosewood Drive Marc Dubinsky 2013 Clover Court Kurt Kuhlmann 8445 Powers Place Laura Helmer 8596 Drake Court Kyla & Lucia Anderson 1440 Heron Drive Rosemary Soltis 8429 Rosewood Drive Steve Hansen 7920 Kerber Boulevard Chris Maiden 2116 Emerson Avenue Chris Berrens 2504 Girard Avenue Laurie Johnson 1807 Valley Ridge Trail No. Judy Anderson 8584 Flamingo Drive Wendy O'Connor 1702 Valley Ridge Trail No. Brad Karels 8105 Dakota Lane Jeff & Carol Anderson 991 Butte Court Kate McGuire 7973 Autumn Ridge Lane Abby & Neil Ellis 2332 Stone Creek Drive Scott Hadden 8345 Keller Pond Drive, Victoria Jack Fess 6280 Ridge Road Dan Mertes 8671 Flamingo Drive Cathy Holmes 8453 Rosewood Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Joyce Arlt 8434 Burlwood Drive Frank Butkowsky Byerly's Chanhassen Patty Horton 800 West 781h Street Gary Hein 1011 Lake Susan Hills Drive Larry Pastorek 7071 Shawnee Lane Debra & Kent Ludford 8615 Valley View Court Juliene Furst 8574 Powers Place Mary Ann Carr 8547 Powers Place Connie Kurtz 8554 Powers Place Martin Schaeferte 1111 Dove Court Joe & Bernadette Morrison 10053 Trails End Road Ben Lohs 7951 Tartan Curve, Eden Prairie Lee Kaufman 300 Hidden Lane Alan Young 7580 Walnut Curve Rebecca & Edwin Everett 6301 Near Mountain Boulevard Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Rick Dorsey 14215 Green View Court, Eden Prairie Frank Ernst 840 Cree Drive Brad Bohlman 8667 Stonefield Lane Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much and welcome. We appreciate everybody who's joined us here in the council chambers as well as other members of our, residents who have joined us in our senior center this evening and for those watching at home. We're glad that you joined us this evening. At this time 1 would ask members of the council if there are any changes or modifications or amendments to the agenda. If not we'll proceed with the agenda as published. Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Chief John Wolff: Good evening Mayor, good evening council members. Just a brief presentation tonight. We are currently in the process of evaluating our mid -manager line officer positions so lieutenants and captains. We have 14 applications we're reviewing for 9 open positions. All the positions are open and also the command staff. The chief officers are developing our year end plans for 2012 to ensure we're meeting service needs of all of our customers. All of our constituents. Recently 24 members of the department were involved with combined training with the Southwest Fire Group which is a combination of fire departments in eastern Carver County and southwest Hennepin County, over at the Edina Fire Training Facility. There were well over 200 fire fighters from the various organizations attending this. It was our first opportunity to actually participate in this event and very worthwhile. Six different sessions over 3 days and as 1 said 24 of our members were involved with this. A couple recent calls. We had a fairly large brush fire down at Powers and Pioneer. We needed assistance from Victoria and Chaska Fire to contain the fire. We had a small garage fire that was discovered by a homeowner and it had involved the exterior of the building. With a quick response from the sheriffs department they were able to get extinguishers on that fire. The reason why 1 mention this fire because nothing really serious happened. There was minimal damage. The week prior Eden Prairie had a very similar fire which ourselves and about 6 other jurisdictions also visited or went to and it was a complete, it was a complete destruction of the home. No injuries to homeowners. Three fire fighters were injured in that event. None of them were from Chanhassen so it's a real small or thin line between a minimal situation and a serious situation. I really would like to close with some holiday fire safety tips. The winter season, whether it's the holiday time or otherwise is the busiest time of year for fires. It's a 2 to I relative to the summer, spring and fall. Major causes for this are heating. Heating and cooking believe it or not, so about half of the fires that we see are either heating related, portable space heaters or things like that, or cooking fires. When you throw in the holiday decorations and Christmas trees, the holiday season can be very dangerous so we just want to encourage our citizens to be very careful with natural Christmas trees. Keep them, keep the water in the stands. Make sure that they don't get dry. When they do get dry, you really need to remove them. It's very similar to gasoline when a Christmas tree is exposed to any kind of fire. It's the whole thing will be going up in 30 to 45 seconds and that becomes a real problem, it becomes a very serious fire situation. Almost half of the holiday fires are started by candles so managing where you put candles relative to decorations is real important. The majority of those fires occur in the family room, den or living room area so keep decorations away from heat sources and keep the Christmas trees nice and wet and hopefully everyone will have a safe and happy holiday season. Mayor Furlong: Excellent. Thank you Chief. Any questions for Chief Wolff this evening? No? Very good, thank you Chief. Just prior to getting the law enforcement updates I bypassed visitor presentations so I'll start with visitor presentations this evening. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Wendy O'Connor: Hello Mayor. Hello City Council. My name is Wendy O'Connor. I've recently, along with my neighbor started an organization called Chanhassen First. Back in October we were alerted to the fact that there was a rezoning request. Mayor Furlong: And this will be on our agenda tonight so, you spoke at the public hearing I think. Wendy O'Connor: 1 did not speak at the public hearing. Mayor Furlong: Okay, generally visitor presentations is for items not on our agenda this evening so. Wendy O'Connor: So you don't, you want me to wait? Chanhassen City Council —November 2S, 2011 Mayor Furlong: Well we're not planning to take public comment because the public hearing took place so if you can make it brief. Wendy O'Connor: We're not speaking. Mayor Furlong: Why don't you make it brief then and we'll just take it at this time. Wendy O'Connor: Well, is that okay? It's up to you. 1 mean I just. Mayor Furlong: Yep. As I said, visitor presentations are typically for items not on our agenda this evening and we'll be dealing with this later and the public hearing did take place earlier this month at the Planning Commission. Wendy O'Connor: Okay. Okay, so none of our residents are speaking? Mayor Furlong: We're not planning to take public comment this evening, that's correct. Wendy O'Connor: Okay, alright. Audience: Wendy, this is your opportunity. This is your only opportunity to speak. Wendy O'Connor: Well I think that if they had a public hearing... Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Again if there are people that would like to speak not relatin_ to an item on tonight's agenda, good evening Mr. Scott. Audience: Mayor, we cannot hear very well. Mayor Furlong: Nann could we, or Laurie could we. Laurie Hokkanen: We have a few assisted listening devices. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and let's check the volume in the council chambers and then there are some devices over here as well and I'll try to speak into the microphone better. Joe Scott: Do you want me to wait? Mayor Furlong: No, why don't you go ahead and start and just speak a little bit louder. Joe Scott: I will. Mr. Mayor, councilors, city staff, Joe Scott, 935 Bavaria Hills Lane in Chaska and I'm hereto represent Buy Chanhassen. First of all 1 wanted to thank all you guys for helping us out over the last 2 years to get the effort going and just wanted to let you know a piece of news is that this Thursday on December V we're going to launch of website, buychanhassen.com and what we're attempting to be is the Goggle of all things that happen in Chanhassen so we've been working with local, not for profits, businesses, city, school district to have all the events in one place so thank you all very much and that's really all I have to say unless you have some questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any questions for Mr. Scott? Councilman Laufenburger. How was your Small Business Saturday Mr. Scott? Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 WALMART: REOUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A 120,000 SQUARE FOOT WALMART STORE ON APPROXIMATELY 14.10 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND POWERS BOULEVARD (1000 PARK ROAD). APPLICANT: WALMART, C/O KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Mayor Furlong: I guess just to start out with, to explain how we anticipate this item going this evening. We're going to start out with a staff report which will be presented by Kate Aanenson, our Director of Community Development in Chanhassen as well as probably Paul Oehme who is our City Engineer and others as appropriate. Then we'll hear from the applicant, or their representatives. Likely to discuss any changes in their application that took place since the Planning Commission that occurred earlier this evening. I suspect that the council may have some questions for staff or the applicant or both and we'll take those as well. As I mentioned earlier during visitor presentations, we're not anticipating taking any public comment this evening. The public hearing did take place at our Planning Commission meeting on November 1'. Earlier this month. Tonight's council packet did include verbatim minuteswhich the council has and by that I mean every word is recorded and taken down and typed out and so that was a part of our council packet in preparation for tonight's meeting so all of us have had an opportunity to read everybody's comments. We also have received, and I believe most of them went to the entire council but I know I've received numerous emails and comments. Some phone calls. Conversations in the grocery aisles and other places so I think there's, while I personally and I don't know about other council members, haven't been able to respond to every email. Know that they've been received and each one has been read as well. Following staff and the applicant's presentations we'll bring the item back to council for comments and a motion and appropriate action, so Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Mayor, due to the fact that I work for Target Corporation, I'll be recusing myself from this discussion. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. So with that let's start with a staff report. Ms. Aanenson, good evening. Kate Aanenson: Good evening. Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. Again as you stated mayor, the developer's requesting a rezoning to permit a commercial development on land currently guided for industrial office and community commercial use. In conjunction with the request the applicant is requesting approval of a general concept PUD for 120,000 square foot Walmart. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop the site and the use of the PUD also allows for greater variety of uses and transfers within the site. In exchange for that flexibility the development plan must result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would be the case with any other of the more standard zoning districts. So with that I'll give you a little bit of background on kind of the process. I think mayor you tried to frame this up a little bit but again I want to go through the concepts. I've had quite a few phone calls and I want to make sure everybody understands the process, again kind of reiterating. The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and the City Council without incurring a lot of expense. I think at the Planning Commission there was some concern about whether or not plans were detailed to the satisfaction of the residents, but again this is a concept plan and with that concept plan the Planning Commission does hold the public hearing and as you indicated, the verbatim minutes from that meeting are included in the packet, as well as revised plans that were included. We did include the traffic study and the parking study. The petitions that were handed out at the Planning Commission meeting. Also the emails and any additional emails that were received prior to the, this packet going out so, and that's listed in the attachments, if anybody has questions on exactly what was included in that. So again the updated staff report is what we'll be reviewing here tonight. The changes that were from, that the applicant has put in the letter and that letter Chanhassen City Council — November 28, 2011 is also attached in your packet and I'm sure that they'll want to go through that, and then also there was an additional letter from IWCO direct, the property owner. So those are some of the attachments that are in there. Oh sorry, and then just want to clarify again the Planning Commission did hold that hearing on the November 1'. So the site itself is located at the intersection of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard. This site was the original Victory Envelope site and has been a vacant building located on this site. The elevation changes on this property significantly, and you'll see that in the architecture. Changing from Highway 5, the highest point down to the creek, approximately 40 feet so there's a significant change in elevation that impacts. Again the site has been vacant for a number of years. There currently is a building on there of 154,000 square feet that would include the mezzanine, so again it's a 14 acre site. Natural resources. This was an enhanced plan that was submitted after the Planning Commission which shows the natural features on the site, and this is one of the issues that the staff was concerned with in the Planning Commission recommendation and that's the fact of the natural features on the site. The creek that goes through it and the wetland. So this is within the shoreland management district of Riley Creek. Also an impaired water and it flows through the western side of the property, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 6120 describes how this property can be used. Again because this is conceptual we don't have all the information on that but in our opinion, as I go through this you'll see that it meets the minimum setback standards. There's not that enhanced that we were looking for. So again for the water quality as we talked about, there are two tributaries. The site is tributary to two surface waters that 1 included, Riley -Purgatory Creek and Lake Susan so we talked about that. The concern there again which we don't have enough information is the impact to that. A storm water report, a couple page report was included in one of your attachments too and that was detailed in your staff report in a little bit more detail. Again the issue that we had at the Planning Commission, so this picture here on this property here shows the site boundaries and the existing trees, so all the trees would be removed except for that which is in the wetland buffer area. So because there is a wetland in there. There is a wetland setback and then a wetland buffer so the majority of this retaining wall is adjacent to, at the minimum. There are parts that are outside that minimum. It's pretty much at the minimum it can be in order to accomplish the parking that needs to be on the site. Again that was one of our major concerns and the Planning Commission felt the same way on that issue. So the concern again with the wall there, it's kind of fragmenting that natural feature by putting up that wall and what that would do to impact the natural function and the diversity of the plant species within there. Then the landscaping itself, it meets the minimums. There needs to be some reshaping of the islands to meet the City standards and the like but it's at the very minimum as required for landscaping itself. The landscaping up here is just outside that retaining wall and then the rest of this is outside the perimeter which would be on the Highway 5. Oh I'm sorry, l wanted to talk about something else on this site. I'm song. So on this site one of the issues that we had, and it's a little bit tough to see at this scale but one of the bigger issues that we had on this site, which has been kind of a point when we've, when the applicant has redrawn the parking to move this retaining wall. That was really the biggest change from the Planning Commission on this report. The retaining wall was moved outside because originally the retaining wall was in the buffer area so it's moved outside but it's at the minimum, and in order to do that the parking configuration changed. While the ratio of parking stalls changed slightly, the biggest change would be then the circulation, or the number of parking stalls. The point I want to address here is the loading and refuse areas. So the trucks that are coming into the site are coming around, let's see if you can see this mouse here. Coming around the building itself, and the way our city ordinance reads is that if there's a number of loading berths that they should, the location be separated from the parking stalls itself. If you look at other similar sized buildings in the city we have, there's not parking behind in conflict with the loading docks. So access, location and design. Access, each required spot should not interfere with the parking stalls itself. If you see how the trucks come around the building, they're awfully tight to these stalls in and of itself and if any car is not completely in the stall, you're awfully close or touching that. Even coming around the building so that's of great concern. Again one of the deficiencies that we found is just the overall design of the loading configuration, not consistent or compliant with the city code, and again that would include just the encroachment of the truck aisles coming around. Not just in the back area but also as they come around, Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 trying to swing these movements to get back out onto the site. The other issues we had, and I did include this in the attachments to, was their parking study so based on this size square building of 120,000, 528 parking stalls were needed to be provided. So the applicant provided a parking study that believes that Walmart's belief that they only need 4.5 per 1,000. However their parking ratio recommended the study did not accommodate snow storage or effective parking. Because this is a retaining wall around the perimeter of the site, snow storage and the loss of some of those stalls when they're already at a diminished ratio was a concern. And as an addition, the biggest concern with the parking ratio was that the city, our city ordinance, City of Chanhassen ordinance says you can use compact stalls but they should not be used in a situation where you have high turnover parking. For example in an office park you might be able to do that but when you have a turn over, compact stalls are not recommended or prohibited by the city code. Paul Oehme: Thanks Ms. Aanenson. Mayor, City Council members. I'll just briefly talk about the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. The applicant did complete a traffic impact study for the proposed development. Staff has reviewed the report and has commented on the report, and that is also included in your packet. City staff has also met with Carver County representatives and Minnesota Department of Transportation representatives on this proposed site to, since some of the traffic impacts do impact their associated infrastructure as well so. Just like to talk about some of the impacts first to Park Road, which is on the south side of the, on the proposed development. This location here does show the access points of the development. The proposal is for one full access and one half access point, which is a right-in/right-out on the east side. Staff does feel that this is a minimum amount of access points for this size of facility. Typically we've looked at over 60 retail sites within the metro area and most of the facilities of this nature, this size retail do have you know more than 3, sometimes access points and access typically for delivery and service trucks are segregated from the shopping parking facilities. The parking stalls. Under this case they are not separated so that is definitely a concern for us. Since the Planning Commission meeting the applicant has moved the east access point, which is shown here, another several feet to the west allowing for additional storage here. That was one of our concerns at the Planning Commission level. And also has increased the stacking length of the turn lanes on the westbound, or the west access point, exiting point so, and that's at a minimum length that was shown in the traffic report. I think the turning, the stacking lengths of this turn lane, these turn lanes are about 150 feet and that's what the minimum amount required that's shown in the staff report, or in the traffic report. The staff does still have some concerns with the traffic flow on park road. For instance the, since these east and west access points are so close together there's a potential for some weaving or for conflicts for shoppers exiting at the east access and shoppers trying to get into the west access point. At this location also potentially, since U turn movements, turn around movements at Park Road here potentially could be an issue since there's only one left tum lane out of the site to Powers Boulevard so this sort of movement is another concern for us as well. Next. Lock up? There you go. Start it over. Okay, so is that the next slide? Okay, next slide. Alright, so moving on. Yep, next slide please. There you go. So meeting with, reviewing the traffic study and meeting with MnDOT and Carver County representatives the, if the proposal were to move forward there are several improvements necessary we feel on Trunk Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard that would, are recommended to be made if this proposal moves forward. For example currently westbound 5 to southbound Powers Boulevard only has one left turn lane. Under the traffic impacts for this site is recommended that another left turn lane be installed on 5 in conjunction with the project. Also northbound Powers Boulevard to westbound 5, currently there's only one left turn lane there. That, another tum lane should be added along, in conjunction with this project as well. Also the length of these turn lanes we feel should be increased in size to facilitate stacking and to facilitate conflicts for through movements on Powers Boulevard northbound so those improvements are necessary we feel. And then also signal timing would be necessary as well so. Improvements to Powers Boulevard, again Powers Boulevard. Mayor Furlong: Looks like Park Road. 10 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Paul Oehme: Or I'm sorry, Park Road. I'm sorry, Park Road. Currently there is no median on Park Road. Under this development's proposal it's recommended that a center median be constructed. This would, is necessary so the east access point at the site, you can't make that left hand tum movements onto Powers Boulevard. If that movement would occur it's felt that that there's just too many conflicts in that access point. It's too close to the intersection of Powers Boulevard and would just back up and create problems, traffic problems at that intersection. Also in conjunction with the improvements, signal at Power Road and Powers Boulevard is recommended for this proposal so. And the proposal, all these improvements associated with Park Road, Powers and Trunk Highway 5 are currently not in the City's CIP and are recommended to be paid through and by the developer if the project were to move forward so. With that staff did find some deficiencies in some of the traffic analysis that the developer did complete. For example the traffic counts that were completed were taken in February which is not the ideal time to take traffic counts since they are typically lower than the average summer usage. Staff figures there's probably about a 20% less traffic counts in their report than we would anticipate during the summer months but staff did take that in consideration with and talked with MnDOT and Carver County and at this time we feel that the improvements associated with 5, Powers and Park can accommodate the improvements. Can accommodate the traffic associated with the development so with that I'll turn it back to you. Kate Aanenson: Then finally just kind of review some of the architectural changes that were made. Again one of the challenges for the PUD is the enhanced architectural expectations. There was some changes made to it. This is all four sides. I'll just kind of quickly kind of go around some of them. This would he the front of the building with some benches added and some plantings. Extension of the awning over the front. The materials changing a little bit. Again this another view of the front so this would be coming in off of Park Road. Again another view of the front. Councilman Laufenburger: Excuse me Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, is this the revised picture? Kate Aanenson: Yes, these are slightly revised. Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: So this is revised from the November I". Kate Aanenson: Yep, minor changes, yes. Thank you for that clarification. Again in this area here then would be the tree planting and the benches and awnings over the front. The top picture is actually looking again the front from a distance and then the bottom picture would actually be driving eastbound on Powers Boulevard looking at, this was the issue we had before where there wasn't enough articulation. There's still a transparency issue that's required when you have a site that's visible from Highway 5 with the Highway 5 Overlay District so transparencies, there was some additional articulation given but the transparency part of it is still not met. And then I think at the Planning Commission there was a pylon sign in the comer. This was redesigned to be a monument sign at the corner here. Again some additional on those sides where you can see, as required, some breaks in those large expanses of buildings. Some additional articulation was added. Then again it's the transparency issue again so the requirements of the standards of the PUD, there's the 9 criteria and one of the criteria then would also be the architecture so again the site planning and building architecture should reflect a higher design standard. This doesn't exactly meet even the standards in and of itself but it's not of a higher quality and I think the issue, that was one of the issues the Planning Commission also went back to so the higher standard, including the transparent articulation is still not met. So with that the Planning Commission at their meeting on Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 November 1 s' voted 7 to 0 to recommend denial of the concept PUD based on the findings that the intent and the specific standards of the PUD were not met. So again the, in some areas the City's expectation that the development will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with other more standard zoning district as we pointed in the, some of the areas where they met their minimum or didn't meet the standards of the ordinance. So with that mayor, members of the council then the proposed motion would be that the City direct the staff to prepare the Findings of Fact and Conclusions for denial of the concept PUD. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions from council for staff at this point? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yes. Kate I hope you'll forgive me, I know that if I was talking to Paul about roads he would be really happy so I'm hoping that you're going to be happy about talking about planning tonight. I want to take us back in time to 2009 when this changed to CC and if you could refresh council's memory and maybe those in the audience too why we changed it and what our reasoning was and what our intent was. Kate Aanenson: Sure. When we looked at the downtown itself, the downtown area, what we consider kind of between entrance of 101 heading towards Powers Boulevard. There wasn't a lot of available land left. In looking at that to strengthen our core of the downtown we wanted to provide those neighborhood kind of needs that we say, kind of the business services that meet your daily needs. We wanted to increase the area for potential commercial development so actually we created a zoning district for this, we left it either. It could be industrial or it could be a commercial and we created a new zoning district, Community Commercial and we set standards in place for that. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And how did we go about setting those standards for that? Kate Aanenson: We spent a lot of time. We brought in a consultant. We spent some time talking about what we felt would be you know, what would be a compliment to the downtown and kind of strengthen the core and again looking at size and scale of what would be an appropriate use for the property. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so then can you tell me what those conclusions were from that study? Because I hate to be putting you on the spot or maybe I can talk to Paul about some roads while you think about the answer. Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, in the community commercial zoning district, actually I did make it one of the attachments in your packet, if I can just go to that quick because I don't have it off the top of my head. The intent was to provide a medium sized to larger sized development but that no, the minimum square foot would be 15,000 square feet and that the maximum square foot for that use would be, let me make sure I'm ready this, 65,000 square feet. Kind of looking at that providing additional space for that. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And how did we come to the conclusion that 65,000 square feet was the largest we wanted to go? Kate Aanenson: Well we worked with a consultant. We kind of went through an analysis of kind of looking at what the impacts would be to Powers Boulevard. Kind of looking what would be in downtown. What would compliment that. What would be, I think we kind of did taste preferences and some of those studies looking at that. 12 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilwoman Tjomhom: And I think from that study though we concluded that we were thinking that with that size of establishment it would be a furniture store, or it would be a sporting goods store, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Well I think we left that kind of like if. Councilwoman Tjomhom: As an example. Kate Aanenson: ...as examples, right. We didn't, we just said that the total building area on any single level would not be more than 65,000 square feet. Assuming that if it was something else, that it would be stacked. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And then with that 65,000 square feet, if that was the max, what was the parking that was going to be allowed then? Kate Aanenson: Well if it was retail, it's all driven by the city ordinance as would this application would be so if it was straight retail then we use 5 per 1,000. If it's some other combination. I mean it's still, industrial is still an appropriate use. It could have came in as an office, which has also been you know kind of a compliment with some supporting commercial which we talked about too. An office that might have embedded within it some commercial. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And this is a question for anyone at staff that dares answer it I guess. Since 2009 we changed this zoning, how much interest have we had on this property as far as businesses or office industrial establishments coming in? Kate Aanenson: Probably pretty little interest. On this particular site you're talking about. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Correct. Kate Aanenson: Correct, that's correct. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And is this the, is this the only site we have in town where we have this instance of it being CC and 65,000 square feet? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yes, well there's a couple other parcels with it that we guided CC. It's not just this piece. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Right. Kate Aanenson: Yep, that's correct. And again it was a unique, new commercial zoning district. Yep. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions for staff? Councilman Laufenburger: 1 do Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate regarding the parking study that was done. Walmart or Kimley-Horn did the parking study, is that correct? 13 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Kate Aanenson: That's correct Councilman Laufenburger: And that, the results of their study seems to be significantly different than our ordinance, or at least looks like they're saying they have enough parking of the right type and according to our ordinance we say they don't. How long has our parking ordinance been in place? Kate Aanenson: It's been in place with those ratios for quite a while. I think the last change we made was we actually increased the stall width a number of years ago based on some overall dissatisfaction. Councilman Laufenburger: Dings. Doors. Things like that. Kate Aanenson: Some of the commercial developments in town so we made them a little bit wider and so that's probably been the biggest change to the standard. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so clearly we have evidence that those parking restrictions and etc has been successful in the past? Kate Aanenson: Yes and I would also add there's other instances where we do do shared parking but we demonstrate that and this was another instance where, in this particular site there's nowhere else to share except on a public street. There's no overflow for some other, as sometimes we have developments that have cross access agreements. Where they have a common driveway between properties but in this circumstance there is nowhere else to go and our concern too was based on the number of compact stalls, it was already compromised and then the fact that you've got the retaining walls with the snow further compromised that so we felt that was really, didn't meet the standard. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Kate. Mr. Oehme, you referenced a traffic study. Who was that traffic study conducted by? Paul Oehme: Kimley-Horn and Associates completed it. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so Kimley-Horn did that but you spoke about some changes to Powers Boulevard, Park Road, Highway 5. Is there now agreement between the parties that the changes that you've identified on 5, Powers, Park, etc, would those changes be adequate enough to satisfy even what you would describe as a 28% low parking study? Paul Oehme: Based upon you know MnDOT's, our conversation with MnDOT and Carver County's analysis, what they performed, plus the City did hire SRF, another consulting firm to review our findings and our recommendations. Based upon all those entities we feel that the improvements on Park Road, Powers Boulevard and Trunk Highway 5 that are being proposed would be adequate to handle the traffic. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And you said this before but just clarify for me. You said that none of the changes that would be necessary if this project moves forward, none of them are in the CIP. For our audience what's the CIP? Paul Oehme: Yeah I'm sorry. The Capital Improvement Plan. That's the annual capital infrastructure plan that the City puts out annually and it looks out in the future 5 years to budget for and look at potential projects as years come up so it's a budgetary and planning toot that the City uses. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay so none of these, none of these suggested changes that now, after all the parties are in agreement on, none of them are part of the CIP for at least 5 years? 14 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Paul Oehme: None of them are part of the City's capital improvement plan or the County's capital improvement plan or MnDOT's. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Alright, thank you Mr. Mayor. That was my questions. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have. Councilman McDonald: I've got a few. Mayor Furlong: Let's go to Mr. McDonald first and then Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilman McDonald: Okay. I'll yield to Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: No, you go ahead. Councilman McDonald: Okay. l guess I've got you know a couple different areas I want to go to Ms. Aanenson. What we'll start with is the concept PUD. 1 guess I'm not familiar with that and all the time 1 spent on the Planning Commission and everything, this is the first time I've seen this. Why a concept PUD? Kate Aanenson: Well typically a concept PUD is to get, as stated in the ordinance itself, is to get some general direction from the council whether or not you feel that the PUD is the appropriate. That you're getting something for giving the flexible in zoning so the concept PUD, instead of spending all the money on the stormwater calculations, engineering for the building, that you would look at it in a generalized concept to say whether or not that this merits those 9 findings that are in the PUD and whether or not they would merit giving it, considering going to the next level which would mean going back to the Planning Commission and back to the City Council for the project itself. Councilman McDonald: Well one of the biggest criticisms I heard at the Planning Commission meeting and through a lot of the emails I've been receiving is the lack of detail that Walmart provided to us but what it sounds like is you're not going to get a lot of detail with a concept PUD so why didn't we go straight to a PUD so we could get out that kind of detail? Kate Aanenson: Well I think the question then is up to the applicant on whether or not they wanted to pursue that route to gauge what, again they're asking for the flexibility. Are they getting the, are they providing that to you as opposed to the standard zoning district, which they also could have pursued. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Who's idea was it to go with the concept PUD? Was it the city staff or was it the applicants? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the city staff and the applicant both agreed to that process. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Now based upon what you would expect from a concept PUD, which is mainly just, you know it's throwing something out there, which is very vague and hoping to get some comment back on it. Would you say that Walmart provided what you would expect from a concept PUD? Kate Aanenson: Yes. 15 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilman McDonald: Okay. And the other question I was kind of wondering about was, when was the City first approached by Walmart to actually put this in because I've only known about it for a month. Kate Aanenson: Well they didn't submit an application until sometime in October. They were looking at some traffic studies. I think when they first approached us we had some concerns about whether or not it would fit on the site. Councilman McDonald: There was a letter in our packet that was dated in March, which was correspondence going to the City. Was that? Kate Aanenson: That's the traffic study part of it. Councilman McDonald: Okay. So there was some activity back in March that Walmart was interested in that site or at least in the city? Kate Aanenson: Right. But let me also say that when we meet with applicants, we meet sometimes a year or two and they may never submit. They give us information and you know lots of times that's proprietary information. They're just checking out the market. Doing some market studies and they may never come forward so I think in this circumstance, just to see what the traffic study showed, we are working through that. Whether or not they choose to go forward after that is up to them. Councilman McDonald: Okay. And I know we've had public hearings on all of this and we've heard definitely from the public. What I'm most, you know I guess curious about is what input have we heard from the businesses? And by that I mean the business council which would be like the Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce, Buy Chanhassen, local businesses and those types of things. Kate Aanenson: They, some of those did speak at the public hearing. Some of those business owners in town did speak at the public hearing. Councilman McDonald: Okay but as far as Buy Chanhassen which represents most of the businesses in town, you haven't heard from them? Kate Aanenson: Right. I think again looking through the application as part of the normal process that, that we would proceed as we would with any other application. Councilman McDonald: Okay. So should this go forward that would be one of the things that you would expect to happen is that there would be input from the businesses at a more formal level as to the impact. Kate Aanenson: Well I guess we were comparing it to whether or not it met the zoning ordinance. The PUD requirements. Councilman McDonald: Okay. How about, have you heard anything from law enforcement or the fire department? Have they made any comments on these plans at this point? Kate Aanenson: No. But antidotally again at the Planning Commission we did discuss where the Target trade area is. It's you know you go into Excelsior, Waconia so that's the primary area that you'd be looking at. People gave numbers that were from other states, other regions. 1 mean our police, our sheriff's office will tell you that it's the local area, what our crime rate is here now would be continued to he the statistic that we would use. 16 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilman McDonald: Okay but I guess what I'm concerned about is you know one of the things I've received in all my emails is that there's a lot of concern about crime going up and I guess you know that would be a question that we would need to ask the law enforcement, is that their experience? Is that what they would expect? And then at that point what we can begin to look at is, what's the impact upon our city budget. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. When you add retail to your core you're going to probably see a similar amount of crime. Councilman McDonald: Okay, so this is something that we would normally plan for anyway. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. The other thing, going back to, was it 2008-2009? Councilwoman Tjornhom: 2009. Councilman McDonald: 2009. What got us going down this road was, it was the McComb's study as I recall. Is that right? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman McDonald: And one of the results as I remember from that was that you know we had a large retail capacity within this area. Am I remembering that correctly? Kate Aanenson: A large trade area. Councilman McDonald: Trade area, okay. Which would be conducive to bringing in certain businesses and to improve the I guess the commercial aspects of the city. Kate Aanenson: Well what the McComb's study looked at is two things. We looked at where our trade area was. Kind of what's our neighborhood, kind of that convenience area which we consider the downtown core, which is you know your daily needs. Your grocery stores. Those sort of things. Then the potential for a larger regional draw. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So I think part of the concern was, or we wanted to make sure that we had opportunities to expand in the core so we weren't competing with a regional draw and keeping those trips that we have downtown, that are daily needs, in the downtown core. Councilman McDonald: Okay, so as a result of this though we did kind of make a decision and that was part of the rezoning was to enhance the downtown area and also the trade areas of bringing in businesses to the city. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. The other thing I'm a little curious about too is we're saying that the square footage on the site should be about 65,000 square feet yet the current building on there is 140,000 17 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 square feet and I recall a plan at one time of allowing someone to move into that building and take it over. I think that was the furniture concept that we had looked at. Kate Aanenson: We haven't looked at any concept there. Again they've asked for the PUD to get flexibility to relief from the requirements of any district so. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess my point is though that if someone wanted to come in and if I WCO could rent out the building to someone that would do retail, we would be right back in this same predicament because if they wanted to keep the building and use that structure, they've already exceeded the square footage that we would allow. Kate Aanenson: But they still have to meet all the other city standards which would be parking. If it was retail at that standard they would have to meet that. Councilman McDonald: Okay but at that point you're still dealing with an existing site though. Kate Aanenson: But they would still, if there's a change in use they would still have to meet all the other parking standards that would apply. We wouldn't issue a building permit for a change in use or obviously there'd have to be some remodeling to go to a retail and at that point we would. Councilman McDonald: So then are we forcing a situation where the only person who can go in there on that site would have to raze that building? Kate Aanenson: No. If they came in and used it as it is today, as an office industrial use and it met the standards, that happens all the time in the city. Where people go in. Change out buildings and if they have enough of the, the main criteria would probably be parking. If they meet that. Councilman McDonald: Okay, so if it went back to one of the uses that we had for commercial business there probably would not be a problem? Kate Aanenson: Again it would still have to meet all the standards. I couldn't say unless I saw what the use was. Councilman McDonald: Well I said probably. You know it would probably come a lot closer to meeting the standards because it was existing and there had been a business in there at one time with both manufacturing and office. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, are you talking about office industrial type use? Councilman McDonald: Office industrial type, yes. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Again this building has a large share of warehouse. Warehouse takes minimal parking so office also does require a little bit higher level of parking so. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mr. Oehme, I've got some questions concerning traffic. We talked a little bit about the infrastructure improvements and everything that would be required here, which I guess you know Walmart has agreed to, and none of that is in our plan for 5 years and actually right now it's not even in there for 6 years because we're not looking at making those improvements. Is that correct? Paul Oehme: That's correct 18 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilman McDonald: Okay. And the thing I understand from all of this is that roughly we're looking at a million and a half dollars as an estimate to do those improvements. Is that a fair statement? Paul Oehme: That's roughly the scope and size of it. Councilman McDonald: Okay. And with those improvements I believe you've already stated that those begin to meet what you feel would be the minimal requirements for an establishment like this to come into that particular site. Paul Oehme: 1 believe it does, and it also looks out into the future too. Councilman McDonald: Okay because at that, if we intend to develop that area of the city, no matter what we do we're looking at having to do some improvements to the infrastructure. The roads, turning lanes and those types of things. Paul Oehme: Absolutely and it all depends upon timing and staging and what development is being proposed. Councilman McDonald: Okay. And 1 guess you know I got a side question. I'm not sure you can answer this. Maybe Ms. Aanenson can but typically if you have those improvements already in place, isn't it much more conducive to bringing in development instead of having them to come in and build it from the ground up? I'll accept your opinion. You don't have to base it upon anything. Kate Aanenson: No I'm just, in a perfect world the improvements would be in place first but as we know with development, development often brings the required infrastructure improvements with it. Councilman McDonald: Right, and then from there more development generally will take place. Kate Aanenson: That would be correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. The other thing going back Mr. Oehme on traffic. You know one of my great concerns is definitely Park Avenue I believe. What is our experience, and I would point out to the example of what they're looking at as far as a right out on that eastern entrance. You'd be able to go down to where the barrier ends. They would put up No U Turn signs so that people could not turn there but I kind of draw your attention to Galpin and CVS. I believe we have the same situation there where we have a median and we have No U Turn signs. What's our experience with that? Paul Oehme: Not good. That's been a problem for the City, and actually Galpin's Carver County so. We have had problems enforcing that in that location and also the No U Turn at Coulter too I think over at the gas station there and too there's some problems associated with that. Councilman Laufenburger: Century. Paul Oehme: Century, I'm sorry. Century, yeah. So those two examples are, hold true here too I think. Councilman McDonald: Okay, so as part of going forward with this, I mean that would be one of my great concerns is definitely you know getting people in and out. Is it possible to resolve that you think in working with the applicant on getting something done? Again that would be more of a detailed approach but if that were a restriction upon you know getting final approval, do you see enough cooperation to be able to resolve that? IE Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Paul Oehme: Well I think the applicant is willing to work with us. They have been trying to address some of our concerns, even from Planning Commission stage to City Council stage here. Unfortunately I think this site is really tough to work with in terms of access. I mean we only have access points on Park Road and for a size facility like this you like to see at least 2, maybe even 3 access points or roads associated with access points around the facility so you know, it's tough right now for me to envision a better scenario than we have right now. We can always go back to the drawing board and look for other solutions but right now 1 think this is the best plan that we can come up with. We don't want to have another access point off of Powers Boulevard. The grades don't work there, slip on lanes or anything like that. And access off of 5 would not work at all either so just because of. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess going back to one of our earlier premises in this is that we've made the decision that we're going to develop this area. We've come up with a number of ideas of what it could be. No matter what we come up with we have to make improvements down thereto make it work. Whether or not we put a restriction on it about size is not material at this point but in working with the applicant 1 guess what I'm looking for, you know in an ideal world you're right. This probably isn't a good site but we haven't identified any other sites within the city to be able to fit something such as this that would still benefit the core downtown area so we're kind of stuck with this and what I'm getting here is that while it's not the best site, it is a feasible site. Improvements have been made to make it a better site. There's probably additional improvements that do need to be made. Paul Oehme: Correct and I think it comes back to what was originally in our comprehensive plan and what we looked at back in 2009. A 65,000 square foot facility or there about's. I mean I think that's the size of facility that really works best for this site so. Councilman McDonald: But then what 1 come back to is that that evidently is not working because nobody's coming forward to build a 65,000 square foot site. If we want to develop down there, aren't we faced with a situation that we need to make this work and if what you're telling me is that it's possible, then we could deal with the other issues. If it's not possible to again deal with traffic and make the site a viable retail space, then we don't need to worry about whether it's 65,000 or 120 because it can't get past the first hurdle of traffic. Kate Aanenson: Well I think the traffic regarding Powers Boulevard and Highway 5 may be addressed by the applicant. I think the larger issue is about the functionality of the internal site and if it doesn't function well then it's not going to do well. We've learned that from experience. We've also learned from experience that if it doesn't fit, if we're creating something deficient then maybe we should wait for something else to come along and something better, just because in these times right now, I think having deficient parking and poor internal circulation is a critical issue for a design. We don't have anything else like this where we have the loading berths in the back adjacent to parking and, as the City Engineer indicated I think we could resolve the Highway 5 and the Powers Boulevard issue. It's this access point here where it's very narrow off of Park Road and again because of the size of the building demanding that type of parking ratio and the access points requiring the circulation to be so tight coming around the building, it causes some functionality problems. For internal circulation. For pedestrians walking to the site and for cars parking, getting in and out of the site. Councilman McDonald: So what I'm hearing is that while we may be able to deal with the external problems, you feel the biggest problem is going to be the internal traffic, solving that problem. Kate Aanenson: Correct. 20 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilman McDonald: Okay, and I guess the question I would have at that point to you then would be that based upon your experience of working with the applicant, do you think this is a solvable problem or do you think this is an insolvable problem? Kate Aanenson: I'll let the applicant answer that question. Councilman McDonald: Well I'm looking for your opinion too because a lot of what I vote on is going to be based upon what you tell me. Kate Aanenson: We pointed out the deficiencies. It's at the minimum for a PUD and the PUD says, you know they could have gone with a different zoning district. They asked for the PUD, the flexibility and the staffs position based on that criteria, they're at the minimum. We're not getting that higher and better and again for the internal circulation and the like, I just don't think that's a good way to go. Long term wise for the city. Councilman McDonald: But again those are deficiencies and what we would expect of a PUD is what you just outlined. Something a little bit better that addresses all these issues or the PUD is not going to fly. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council, staff is recommending denial based on our findings in the report so just want that into the record. Councilman McDonald: That was on the screen too. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman McDonald: So 1 think it's very clear what staff is recommending. What I'm trying to get at is how did you arrive at that and how do I make a decision whether I vote yea or nay on this and what am I voting for? I mean again I appreciate the input of staff but I do not vote based upon what staff tells me so we need to get that on the record also. I will use that for my input but I will make an independent decision on whether this is going forward or not so just so everybody knows where I'm coming from on this. I guess, I guess that pretty much covers all the questions I have concerning the site. I would have similar questions for the applicant whenever they come up also. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Are you done Councilman McDonald? Councilman McDonald: For right now. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Councilman McDonald really 1 think is focusing on the planning part of this whole issue and for me it's more of a philosophical debate and whether or not, you know what direction we want to go with this as far as if it's a right fit for our town. If it's the right direction we want to go and part of my experience, I can't say I do very well up here all the time and I've learned a lot. I have but one thing I've learned is that when Paul puts in a road he has a public hearing and we meet with the public and before we get to this point and so there could be 2 or 3 public meetings when it comes to something being proposed and this probably isn't a question for you. Maybe it's for the applicant but why wasn't there ever a public hearing or was there and what is your take on what happened with that? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Well a neighborhood hearing we sometimes do if it's a development that's coming in asking for a different request. I think again the comments that we've got, we're trying to keep 21 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 them related to the site plan itself and if the applicant wanted to meet with the neighbors to try to resolve a design. We haven't, we do that in residential particularly. I don't think we've done it that much in the commercial development. I can't think of an industrial park. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well and you know when it comes to a road, we're proposing to change the road and so I guess when it comes to this, they're proposing to change something and so I guess I just feel that things go a lot smoother when the most information possible is obtained by those who are participating in the process and so I just, I wasn't sure who was responsible for making sure that happened. The applicant or City of Chanhassen. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. Staff did not keep the applicant from meeting with the residents or neighbors or businesses. You know it's always up to the applicant. We do not have a requirement where the applicant has to meet with neighbors or businesses. Sometimes they will do it on their own but we do not have a requirement. Our only requirement was to hold the public hearing at the Planning Commission level. Sometimes we will suggest it but it's really up to the applicant's discretion. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else on this? Councilman Laufenburger Councilman Laufenburger: Yes. Mr. Mayor I think that Councilwoman Tjornhom raises a good point and that is that I would assume that any applicant, Walmart or whoever might want to come into town would do some sort of evaluation of the impact that they would have on the community and I recall that one of the representatives from Walmart mentioned that, I think it was Lisa who said that she actually went to some of our retail outlets and talked with some of those citizens so there must have been some input there. Now that might have been farther down the planning process. 1 want to go back to the property Kate. How, give us a history on this property. When was it active and when was it used for commerce and when did it stop being used for commerce? Kate Aanenson: It's been vacant for a number of years. Again it was part of the Victory Envelope. Part of a trio of buildings that were put together. Councilman Laufenburger: Originally built in what timeframe, do you know? Kate Aanenson: '86. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, built in '86 and how long has it been vacant do you think? From my records the owners of IWCO might be able to say. I have it vacant for several years, yeah. And they've leased it. Used it for storage. Had some leasing of the site. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor. Councilman Laufenburger: So. Oh, go ahead. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. Teleplan moved out approximately 6 years ago and since that time Instant Web Companies has a lease arrangement with iStar who is the LLC that owns the property and so, and Instant Web Companies has used this for basically storage and warehouse storage and it has not been used for manufacturing or office for the past 6 years. Councilman Laufenburger: So iStar owns the property? Todd Gerhardt: Correct. 22 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilman Laufenburger: So the responsibility of finding a tenant for iStar, or excuse me, for the building is really iStar's responsibility isn't it? Todd Gerhardt: A tenant or future owner. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Was iStar made aware of the fact that we zoned it for commercial, community commercial? Kate Aanenson: Yes. I believe so. Councilman Laufenburger: And the time when 6 years ago when it was vacant for the 3 years up til 2009 or so when we zoned it community commercial it was zoned industrial, right? Kate Aanenson: (Yes). Councilman Laufenburger: Did we have a lot of people coming by the City and say can we look at that building? Kate Aanenson: No, but as a general, yeah. No we haven't. Councilman Laufenburger: Would that be a normal practice or would they, would they come to the City or would they go to the owner? Kate Aanenson: It can come a lot of different ways. Councilman Laufenburger: Alright. That was my last one. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I just want to follow up, a number of my questions have been responded to with the other questions from the council but Ms. Aanenson with regard to the parking ratios that we have and Mr. Oehme with regard to the traffic studies, it's my sense that the ratio, I think you mentioned, what's the ratio for commercial parking Ms. Aanenson? Kate Aanenson: 5 per 1,000. Mayor Furlong: 5 spots per 1,000. Kate Aanenson: Square feet, correct. Mayor Furlong: And what is that ratio based upon? I assume it wasn't arbitrary. Kate Aanenson: No it's, it's pretty much standard uses. There's the International Traffic Manual. There's all types of standards that you can get from the American Planning Association and those sort of things so it's a pretty standard number. Mayor Furlong: Okay, but since it's a per 1,000 square feet of commercial space then it obviously scales based upon the scale of the facility as well. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: The commercial facility. 23 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And my sense is that that ratio of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet also varies by type of use of a building. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So whether it's commercial it might be one ratio, the 5 per 1,000. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Office industrial could be something else. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Or it is something else? Kate Aanenson: It is. Yes. They're all different. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and so depending on how that, the use of the facility varies depending upon the number of spaces. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Commercial people are going to be coming and going on a regular basis. Customers. Office industrial. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: More people coming in the morning and leaving. Kate Aanenson: Or warehouse storage which is the least amount of parking where it's mostly storage, correct. Mayor Furlong: And I think the natural progression then Mr. Oehme is that the traffic volumes flow vary too based upon the use and based upon the size of the facility from a particular property. Paul Oehme: Yeah, absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Okay, alright. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not then I would invite representatives from the applicant, Walmart or their representatives to come forward. Good evening. Lisa Nelson: Good evening. Good evening. Can everyone hear me okay? Good. My name is Lisa Nelson and I'm with Walmart Public Affairs and I am here with our team tonight to present our new and improved plan for the store. I'm here with all of our folks here, pretty much in the first and second row. All of them from Minnesota except myself. I'm just over the river from Wisconsin. Most of you have seen the Planning Commission meeting or gone through the minutes or the transcript so you know what we said about our corporation at that meeting so I won't go through all that again. If you have questions about specifics with jobs, wages, benefits, health care, that kind of thing we'd be happy to answer those questions but we were able to get a lot of really good information and feedback from citizens and 24 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Planning Commission members and staff as well at that meeting to revise our plan to make it much better. To make it meet your code and exceed your ordinances and your codes and to really put forward a plan that we think can really improve the area and can be really great for Chanhassen. We do know that your approval tonight is conceptual in nature. It is not a final approval. It's a concept plan and it's about the big picture, and that's really what we were looking to do at the Planning Commission meeting and we have spent a lot of resources to get to where we are tonight because that's what we were asked and that's what we've delivered tonight. We've got a little bit beyond I think what you might require for a concept planned unit development but we don't mind doing that because we want to make sure that this proposal is the best that it can be. We know that the details will still need your approval. That being said there are two areas that present the biggest challenges to the development of that parcel. Whether we do it or not, under your current plan and that is the building size and the parking, as I think you're talking about here. We feel that parking in the current plan is sufficient for the use that we're proposing and we also feel that the building footprint is sized appropriately for this market or trade area if you will. If these are areas where you offer no flexibility then we would need to know that because that's our plan. This is the building size really is where we need to be and the PUD allows the flexibility for those two issues. For us or any other applicant and in terms of the site functionality, we have done this before and we would not propose a site or a store plan that would not allow us to function safely for our associates and our customers and for our fleet, so we know we can execute this plan successfully and in a very, very safe way. We are seeking to serve our customers in the Chanhassen area, either here or somewhere in the region. We know through leakage at the store that this can be a really successful project. Whether it's here. Where it's nearby, we are looking to serve our customers here. That's our goal. That's our goal with this proposal and that's our goal in looking at this market. It's a really great site and while the parameters of your current plan present a challenge to us, and to you and to any other applicant, we're here because we believe that you have the vision to see what's possible and the many benefits that a Walmart development can bring to your community. So with that I'm going to introduce our Land Use Attorney, Sue Steinwall who's going to introduce the rest of our team so we can go through any of the details and answer any of your questions. And again I apologize I didn't go through the whole corporate spiel. If you do have questions though we are here and we will answer any of your questions. Sue. Sue Steinwall: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Sue Steinwall and 1 am a land use attorney and I'm at the firm of Fredrikson and Byron in Minneapolis. We've represented Walmart I'd say probably about 10 years now on various projects in Minnesota and in Wisconsin. It's my pleasure to be here this evening and the good news that I have for you is that even though I am a lawyer I promise to be quick about my remarks here. I'm with our architect Jackie Cook -Haxby with SAIC who's going to answer your questions and point out how this Walmart that we're proposing is going to be a very attractive building. And also I have our engineers from Kimley-Hom Associates, Will Matzek and Andrew Payne and the back-up row from Kimley-Horn as well in case there are specific questions. Much of what I was going to say actually has been covered through the Q and A between staff and council. Our request is for approval of a concept plan. A concept PUD. Many of the details have yet to be spelled out. Stormwater, traffic. Many of them have been and we've been working on this site for quite some time but our request would be that the concept that we, you know receive the guidance and the reviews and the comments from the City as we were expecting from concept PUD approval, and that then we move on for our final planning process. So it's a two step process. Then the second step basically gives the City the second bite of the apple as it were. Certainly we can, certainly we can, you know to answer one suggestion. You know a neighbor, you know we can do a neighborhood meeting and we certainly have done that before in other communities so during stage 2 we could certainly do, you know meet with the community and provide an opportunity to get more input. We were able to revise our plans based on much of the input that we received in early November. Finally to comment a bit on the kind of the exchange that is expected in a PUD. We are certainly asking for flexibility from certain zoning standards, including the size of the building and parking as Lisa mentioned. In exchange the building is going to be the most attractive Walmart in the state of Minnesota. We are, our client is, has agreed to pay for the 25 Chanhassen City Council — November 28, 2011 offsite traffic improvements that were detailed earlier. And I think you know I guess the other thing that I wanted to mention, I guess this is the appropriate time to put this before you but as Lisa mentioned, we wouldn't be here if we didn't know that there are a lot of folks in the Chanhassen trade area already shopping at Walmart and that this is an area that we would like to serve. Certainly there's an increase to your tax base but our statistics show that the Eden Prairie store does a land use business with folks from the Chanhassen trade area driving all the way over to Eden Prairie. The statistics that I have is it's about $10 million dollars a yearjust in Chanhassen residents alone, but they're spending it in Eden Prairie so we think that your city as well as other merchants would like to keep the traffic here and keep the dollars in your city. I'm going to ask Jackie Cook -Haxby to walk you through our architectural plan next and then following that Will Matzek will answer your questions and also talk about the revisions to the concept plan that we've made to date but certainly it's an ongoing process. Thanks very much. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Jackie Cook -Haxby: Mayor, council, Jackie Cook -Haxby with SAIC which is based in St. Paul. I however live I.1 miles from this building right here. Right around the corner so this is try shopping area and I am very proud to present this Walmart. I would be shopping at this Walmart. I do not shop at the Eden Prairie one because 1 don't like the traffic over in that area so. This is a Walmart like we have not built here in Minnesota. 1 can tell you that because we built a lot of them here in Minnesota, both in the last 8 years. This store has significant upgrades to it. Some of them are the glass windows along the front. The normal Walmart store does not have the amount of glass that this store does. It would have the glass entry and a little bit of transparency on either side of the entrance. There would be no other attempt at transparency because that is not part of how Walmart does it business. The majority of the Walmart floor is around the perimeter is a stock room or a freezer/cooler area and your code, Section 20-1068 allows that if that is the case we can take other alternatives to satisfy the architectural requirement for upgrades, which we have done by adding canopies that resemble those along the front of the store. I would argue that the architecture of the store is very similar and picks up concepts from not only the City Hall, the library but some of the newer retail you find along Highway 5. Some of the retail that is west of the Target building. At the time that the Target building was built I was actually a project architect for Target Corporation so the lady in the next cube to me built that, but we have added the extended canopy across the front. We've added several or two large planting areas across the front. We have added on the right side, which would be facing Highway 5 as you're going west, we have added a non -transparent window area. That would be spandrel glass, and by the way some of the glass on the front of the store is also spandrel because of the fact that a lot of it is a storage area or a cooler/freezer area where you'd be looking at the backs of coolers and freezers and stock racks. We have not added that on the north side, nor have we made any attempt on the north side to add transparency. It is partially a LEED, sustainability type issue. That's facing north. We're in the north. It's not a good, actually my house doesn't even have windows on the north side of it to conserve the energy. And this is a very LEED efficient or a sustainable type store so we have a number of those features within it. The white roof to defeat the heat island effect. We have a number of skylights on the roof that are interlocked with the lights inside the building so that when the sun is very bright outside, the lights, the light use inside the store is almost non-existent except for the non -sales areas where they don't have the skylights. Then when the dark comes on then the lights come back up very slowly so you really don't notice the transition. We take the heat that comes off of the refrigeration equipment and that's used to heat the hot water in the store. All of the toilets and water fixtures are low flow. There are any number of sustainability items within the store and we do our best to make the walls the highest R value that we possibly can as well as the roof to comply with those types of initiatives. So all in all we've removed the EIFS from the back of the store. That is not the TRESPA panels that are on the front of the store, which is a high finish, very expensive product that we use for the back of our signs. We have eliminated any integral colored split faced block on the store and it is now all a brick type product. We have added awnings, plyasters. Changed colors. In short it is probably the best looking Walmart in the state of Minnesota. It is nowhere near a prototype. We have far exceeded what 26 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 your code calls for. We have far exceeded what Walmart normally would build and frankly I had to send a guy over to argue it with Walmart central in order to get this approved, which is a very lengthy process too so we believe that we have met and exceeded all of the conditions that were set for in the initial plan review letter. And with that being said, if you have any questions or questions afterward, yeah. Will Matzek will take over the civil issues. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Do you want that on the overhead. If you'd set it, or either way. Or just set it right over the picture by the microphone there. Will Matzek: Sure, we can just start with that 1 guess. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Hokkanen, could you move the microphone so it's not over the, I don't know if we can get the overhead on that Nann. Kate Aanenson: Yep, I got it. Will Matzek: Will Matzek. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Will Matzek: I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. As far as the site plan goes that we have done a number of improvements to the site plan since we were here before Planning Commission and a great deal of those improvements have been to really focus on conserving the wetland and natural area on the western portion of this site, as well as improve pedestrian connectivity and site access. In getting into a few of those items, you'll notice that we did improve pedestrian connectivity on this plan. We've added a walk connection and stairs connection on the east side on Powers Boulevard certainly to allow for a very good access for pedestrians in that location as well as a main walkway through the center of the store, or through the center of the parking area that will then also connect out to the intersection at Park and Powers Boulevard where we're proposing a signal with good pedestrian access to improve that area. We've also improved our setbacks throughout the entire site. We now exceed ordinances in the front yard of the parking field. We're at 35 feet or greater as opposed to the requirement of 25 feet and then we meet or exceed around the entire periphery of the site as well and you'll notice that we have a great deal of trees throughout this site plan, both in the interior parking field as well as the perimeter. City ordinances require around 80 trees to be planted on a site of this size and we're proposing 180 trees, increasing the canopy on this site from existing conditions at 14% approximately all the way up to 39% based upon the calculations outlined and how you perform those and the city ordinances. And we've also certainly concentrated on stormwater as well. We've added a rain garden type features and a couple of the parking islands as well as at the front of the site to treat stormwater in those locations on the surface as well as will be providing treatment underground, which is not outlined on the plan here. Just for clarify purposes. We've certainly heard much discussion from a parking scenario on the site. We do acknowledge that, and with this site plan are not able to meet the 5.0 ratio. We have a 4.5 at this site. We've performed a parking analysis for this site based upon other Walmart's in the area and based upon that we've determined that really a 4.5 will operate sufficiently and well at this site, even on a Black Friday, busiest shopping day condition, and I know there was some discussion about snow storage, concerns of that nature. We do have, we had mentioned you know the green areas that can be used for snow storage but also you know Walmart is more than willing to haul snow off of the site if, when you get a large snow event, that is very common in the retail world. Particularly in metro areas. That's done in many, many sites and Walmart is more than willing to do that sort of scenario to ensure that there is sufficient parking at this site. No one wants to make sure that there's enough parking at this site more than Walmart because that would certainly hurt their bottom line. As far as the compact stalls, I know there was some discussion as far as what we are providing versus that it should in low turnover areas. We 27 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 are proposing compact stalls for this site. However they are for associate parking stalls so those folks who would park in the compact stalls will actually be working at the store so they're not the true customers coming in and out so Walmart, and we feel very comfortable that these compact stalls can work for them at this site and it does function. From a stormwater perspective, as I mentioned we have added the rain gardens. We're treating stormwater underneath the site as well in chambers. This is very common as well. We've done many of these types of stormwater treatment systems and these systems with, that we'll be incorporating. It actually exceeds city ordinances. I know in the staff report it was outlined that infiltration would he desired to actually infiltrate the stormwater into the ground. If that was a good use we would certainly agree and implement that. However in this case we have very clay soils which do not infiltrate stormwater well and it's a hydrologic Class D so what we are doing is to the extent that is practical for this site in accordance with the city ordinances, as well as the MPCA requirements, and in fact we're actually exceeding the stormwater treatment for the site. Existing today there's over 5 acres of impervious surfaces on this site with, have no treatment at all and so the addition of the treatment system on this site will certainly be an improvement to the conditions. With the natural resources, switch the graphic here. We have certainly been very sensitive to the wetland on the, the natural area on the western portion of this site, in this area here. We have, as I mentioned with our site improvements we've actually stayed out of those areas and exceeded the city requirements. Walmart is sensitive to that natural area. We would actually, are more than happy to provide a conservation easement in that area, which certainly will protect those natural resources and is I think certainly a great benefit to the city as well as the watershed in that vicinity. Additionally much of the upland vegetation that is referenced, currently today is actually invasive species as part of this development. We would remove these invasive species on the upland area adjacent to the site and restore them with native species, and you can also see just from the, this aerial overlay that this location here is very, very similar to what's out there today from an existing pavement area, so we feel that we've really done a great deal to conserve those natural resources in the area and in fact be improving them with many of the items that we're proposing. From a traffic scenario, 1 do understand that truck access is certainly important. Staff has gone through and discussed a number of concerns related to that. Walmart of course wants a site that functions for them. They do want a site that can get ingress and egress with their trucks and certainly for their customers and so we have designed a site that we have modeled in Autoturn, which is a modeling program. The trucks certainly do, are able to traverse the site and not impede upon the customer's stalls and so trucks would enter the site here. Traverse the site and go back out. This is very similar to many other retail sites. I think every retail site is a little bit different and so some certainly have more accesses. Some have less. I can show a few other examples just in the metro area that show that this type of scenario does function for other retailers. For instance in Bloomington there's a Home Depot with one access. As you can see in the outline in red this is how the trucks work and there's also a Sam's Club nearby. There's also just one access with that, at that location. Eden Prairie, a similar scenario to what we have as well with a Costco, larger use. Much like the Sam's Club and Home Depot, are larger than what we're proposing here as part of this development. You can see in red that it is very similar. Target here in Vadnais Heights. Also very similar type scenario and there are other ones as well throughout the metro and around the country but these are just a few of the examples I wanted to show. These retailers feel comfortable with this scenario and once again we acknowledge that you know every site is different and so this site has some challenges. We've designed it to a point where we feel very comfortable with the access that we have, both internally and externally. And from a traffic standpoint as well, I know there's discussion about that. That Walmart is willing to fund these traffic improvements for the off sites around this site on Highway 5, Powers and Park. The overall traffic scenario for these improvements, Walmart's really only responsible for about 25% of that traffic and so in the future as Chanhassen continues to grow out to 2030, these improvements that are proposed as part of the project will help Chanhassen grow for the future. The improvements will be in place and will really make a difference 1 think as far as handling those types of improvements that would be required, whether Walmart develops here or really anybody else. If there's any other questions I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise if you have questions for others on the team, feel free to. 28 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Mayor Furlong: You ready for questions now? Okay. Alright. That's fine. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. McDonald? Councilman McDonald: Well Mr. Laufenburger wants to. Mayor Furlong: I happened to be looking your way when I saw the hand go up so. Councilman McDonald: Okay, first question I've got concerns the PDU. Who's best suited to answer that? Mayor Furlong: PUD? Councilman McDonald: PUD. Sue Steinwall: I guess I'm Miss PUD Councilman McDonald: Okay what I'd like to know is, as I had stated, you know this idea of a concept PUD is, 1 just don't see them that much and I've been doing this for a while. Why did you choose to go that way instead of a PUD and what I'm looking for is that most applicants that come in on a PUD, we give them a lot of advice before it ever goes to the Planning Commission as far as what's going to be required. What it's going to take to probably pass it so a lot of things can get ironed out before it even makes it to the Planning Commission. And then before it gets to the council it gets ironed out even more. You've got you know fewer things to take care of. What you're putting us through here is, by the time we get done you're going to have a PUD because I think to satisfy everybody you're going to have to answer a lot of detailed questions so I'm wondering why did you start with a concept PUD and we're going to wind up you know getting pretty close to what I would consider a PUD. Sue Steinwall: That's a fair question Councilman McDonald. As Ms. Aanenson said it was, you know it was a mutual agreement. I've done quite a few of these projects and not every city has the two step process. Our, 1 have a cough drop, I'm sorry. Councilman McDonald: That's okay. Sue Steinwall: As an attorney for a client that is frequently you know go, go. Let's get this done. The concept of doing the concept PUD was not particularly well received by my client but after a lot of back and forth's with staff we accepted the recommendation that staff gave us and proceeded under you know, proceeded with the concept. We thought we'd get good feedback and then we would proceed to step two. Councilman McDonald: Okay, and I take it by what I've seen here that you are willing to go that extra step and really get us toward what we would consider more of a final plan, even though we're not there yet but. Sue Steinwall: Yep, I mean absolutely. I mean we've done quite a bit in the last month between Planning Commission and this meeting tonight and with back and forth and feedback from the City and with staff and further feedback from the community, you know that's the way we like to develop our stores is with you know in a dialogue situation so yes. Yes, to answer your question. Councilman McDonald: Okay. By the way I use the old cough drop trick myself. That kind of helps you in court to keep your mouth going whenever... 0 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Sue Steinwall: It was getting pretty cottony. Councilman McDonald: ...so don't worry. I perfectly understand. Now in the latest improvements what I read in there is that you're willing to do an infrastructure improvements. However there's no dollars put on that. We have an estimate of about $1.5 million. Are you, you know in a position to say yes. That's what Walmart would sign up for. Sue Steinwall: I think what Walmart would sign up for is those list of 6 improvements. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Sue Steinwall: And if it costs $1.5, so be it. If it costs less than 1.5, all the better. Councilman McDonald: Okay, all the better. And as part of doing anything, if we were to come up with some other things to help improve stuff, you would evaluate that and probably be in favor of again improving the traffic flow, you know if you agree with you know things we come up with. I'm not asking for a commitment. Just you know as a general concept. Sue Steinwall: Yeah, I certainly can't say you bet, whatever you want but. Councilman McDonald: No, well I'm not asking for a blanket order. And I guess, the other question I've got, I'm not sure if you can answer this or if it's somebody else but let's talk about the 4.5 versus the 5 parking spots per 1,000 feet. And Ms. Aanenson can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding was, you could have met that with the first plan where the retaining wall and everything was pushed out a little bit, is that true? Sue Steinwall: I believe that's not true Councilman McDonald: Okay. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It never met the parking standards. Councilman McDonald: It never met the parking standards. Sue Steinwall: We were always at 4.5, correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. And the other question 1 guess I would have, because again you know Walmart's a very savvy company from the consumer standpoint and you know knows how to I think address consumer needs. Why didn't you approach the City and again hold some meetings? I mean this is not the first city where you've had a problem with yeah, anti Walmart. I know in St. Paul when the store went up there, there was a lot of problems. The one on University. Sue Steinwall: Oh I worked on that one. That was an old K -Mart and. Councilman McDonald: Right. Sue Steinwall: Right. Councilman McDonald: But what I mean is that within the community there are sometimes a problems you have to overcome. l would think that that would have been on your radar. Why didn't you set something up? Did someone tell you not to? Was it you know advice that you don't have to worry about 30 Chanhassen City Council — November 28, 2011 it? I'm just curious as to because that's something standard that a lot of people do and I advise a lot of people when they come in here, you've got to sell the town first and then come and try to sell City Council and the Planning Commission. Sue Steinwall: Well hindsight's always 20/20 and I think that the, you know we were aware coming in that we had a lot of folks from Chanhassen shopping at Walmart already so I think that we were, I know I was surprised by the turnout that we had at Planning Commission. We got here late. We didn't have a place to sit so we were all surprised by the community interest in this particular project. If we had to do it all over again, would we have done things differently? Yes, for sure but, and a neighborhood meeting would have been a great idea but it was you know, it was our decision and we you know chose to move forward based on what we, based I would, you know based primarily on the shopping statistics that we had in our pocket. Councilman McDonald: Okay well I take hindsight being 20/20 and lessons that you've learned, going forward before we ever got to any kind of a final plan you would hold neighborhood meetings and be receptive to at least. Sue Steinwall: Yes, we can commit to that. Councilman McDonald: Okay. I guess at this point Mr. Mayor that's all the questions I currently have. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions, Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: I do. Ms. Steinwall, 1 appreciate the straight forward way in which you answered the questions so I'll make these easy. You have how many discount stores in Minnesota? Sue Steinwall: Oh, that's not easy for me. Lisa? Councilman Laufenburger: 43, is that right? Lisa Nelson: Yeah, 49 supercenters, 13 discount stores and 13 Sam's Clubs. Mayor Furlong: If you could come up and speak to the microphone. That way people at home can hear as well, I'm sorry. Thank you Ms. Nelson. Lisa Nelson: Okay, we have 49 supercenters. We have 13 stores and we have 13 Sam's Clubs. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, how would characterize Eden Prairie? Is that a store or a supercenter? Lisa Nelson: Eden Prairie would be called a supercenter, yes. Mayor Furlong: Let me also ask you to move to the podium. We have a camera. I don't know if we can pick it up the view there so, that's just for showing documents on the table, thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: So Eden Prairie would be a supercenter. How would you describe the Chanhassen facility? Supercenter or discount store? Lisa Nelson: We're trying to get away from the vernacular of the word supercenter. All of our stores are Walmart stores so eventually we hope that all of our stores will have a full offering of what you would find in a Walmart store which would be grocery, pharmacy, and general merchandise. 31 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilman Laufenburger. Okay. Can you explain this term leakage a little bit more? When I think of leakage, my retail background leakage is when things leave the store and they shouldn't be. Lisa Nelson: That's shrinkage. Councilman Laufenburger: Oh shrinkage, excuse me. Lisa Nelson: I got ya. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so what's leakage Lisa? Lisa Nelson: Leakage is a community number that shows how many dollars are leaving your community to go to another community and being spent there. So about 70% of our transactions at Walmart are used in the form of payment with a 5 digit zipcode on them. Councilman Laufenburger: Credit card, check. Lisa Nelson: Yep. Credit card or check, about 70%. So it's more or less depending on the area and then we can see, at each store we can do a printout where the dollars are coming from so that's where that number comes from. That leakage number. Councilman Laufenburger: So I believe Ms. Steinwall said $10 million dollars in sales annually at the Eden Prairie store are being spent by people who register with a zipcode in Chanhassen, is that correct? Lisa Nelson: That is correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Here's your perfect opportunity to fudge on that if you want Lisa. Lisa Nelson: No, no, no. I'm not going to fudge the number. That number came from our attorney for a reason but that is mainly proprietary information. Those sales. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, I won't share it with anybody... Lisa Nelson: But we know customers are leaving Chanhassen to go to Eden Prairie. They're leaving to go to even Shakopee so, and that's a valuable number for you to just know how many dollars we're capturing of your market anyway and if those dollars could be spent here, those folks would not be contributing to the traffic problem on 5. They wouldn't be using fuels. They would be supposedly right, saving money in their community and putting it back into their local economy, and that's what we're hoping to do. Councilman Laufenburger: Well you opened the door for us to ask questions about Walmart so, I've heard this phrase twice. Keeping dollars in the city. How do you keep the dollars in the city? You just explained keep those dollars being spent here. But if they're spent at Walmart, how do we keep them in the city? Lisa Nelson: Well thank you for asking that question. That gives me the opportunity to talk about some of the benefits of having a Walmart in your community. When, of course when we build a store we're going to create jobs and a lot of the folks that are going to work at that store are going to come from here and we're looking. Audience: No. 32 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Mayor Furlong: Please, let's... Lisa Nelson: In our efforts to hire folks, in our efforts to hire folks we can certainly make an effort to target folks from this area by using local chambers. Local job centers, that kind of thing, but there'll be 250 to 300 associates that work at this store. So they of course will be earning money that will be put back into the economy. We'll be paying property taxes. We'll be collecting sales taxes on behalf of the State of Minnesota which will be distributed again in state aides back to your community hopefully, and then of course. Councilman Laufenburger. We don't count on that but please continue. Lisa Nelson: No, 1 wouldn't either. I wouldn't either if I were you. And then also we're helping your customers save money so when your local family can save dollars at a Walmart store, and there is a study by Global Insight, which is a company that looks at the grocery basket. It looks how much the average family of 4 can save on groceries. We show that we can save a family of 4 $2,500 a year by just the general basket of needs that every family would have. Toilet paper. Basic food, that kind of thing. So if every family can spend that much, and it might be more here, we don't know but that family will have more money to spend back in the local economy. Going out to eat. Going to the Dinner Theater. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. The statement was made that you've built 8 Walmarts in Minnesota in the last few years, did I hear correctly? . Jackie Cook -Haxby: No, I've worked on Walmarts for 8 years. Councilman Laufenburger: Oh. How many new stores, Walmart stores have been built in Minnesota in the last 5 years? Lisa Nelson: Well I'd have to check but we do have several active projects right now. We have Brooklyn Center. We have Roseville, Lakeville, Burnsville, Brooklyn, did I say Brooklyn? Blaine. Brooklyn Center. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, but none that have been completed in the last 5 years as far as. Lisa Nelson: Most of, many of them have been approved and are under, some of them are under construction. Councilman Laufenburger: It's interesting, from the time that an approval is given, how long until you open the doors? Lisa Nelson: Usually about a year. It takes us about a year depending on the site. Now don't hold me to the fire on that because at this site we have demolition to do and site work that needs to be done, quite significant because of the grade is as your city staff outlined so there is some work that needs to be done there. I wouldn't be the best person to answer that question. Councilman Laufenburger: Going back to this keeping dollars in the community, I did some simple math. 13 point, excuse me. 14.5 billion I think was the number that you quoted Minnesota sales, is that correct? Lisa Nelson: Correct. 33 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilman Laufenburger: I just divided it by 70, that's roughly $20 million dollars a store. Is that a reasonable number per store? Lisa Nelson: It all depends on the market and I have Sharon Power here who is our regional manager who would give you more information about sales at specific stores but let's say $20 million. Councilman Laufenburger. Just follow my math here. Let's say $20 million. Lisa Nelson: On the low end. Councilman Laufenburger: And you said roughly 70% is credit card or checks so that means 301/o of your transactions are cash. So what local bank in Chanhassen is going to receive the benefits of those cash deposits every night? Lisa Nelson: That's a good question. That is a good question. I'm stumped. Councilman Laufenburger: What local bank in Eden Prairie receives the cash deposits every night? Lisa Nelson: From Walmart? Councilman Laufenburger: In Eden Prairie. Would Sharon know that? Lisa Nelson: I'm not sure. I could find out. Sharon Power: I could find out for you. I don't know that level of detail but we can certainly find out. Councilman Laufenburger. We're going to vote inside of an hour Lisa Nelson: Let me say one more thing sir. That in terms of community impact, in all of the communities where we have Walmart stores, we give back to the community in a large, in a big, big way. Not only in associate giving and store giving through the, through programs that we allow to happen on our property, but also through cash donations and if you go to any of our Walmart stores there's a board in the front of the store, as you're check out and it shows what local organizations have received those, and we're really, that's something we're really proud about at Walmart is how much we give back to the communities that we call home. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Mayor 1 think I have just a couple more questions. In the letter dated November I ', which I think was from Mr. Matzek and there was discussion about the size of this store. Now I believe you said there's two lynch pins. Footprint and parking, correct? Lisa Nelson: Correct Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So I found an article on, an article dated October 10 and it was, of this year and it was quoting some Walmart executives and it talked about the different concepts that Walmart has. Marketside, which is I think about a 16,000 square foot footprint. An express store. About a 15,000. A neighborhood market, about 42,000 and then it identified this next level which was a discount store about 108 to 120,000. And in Mr. Matzek's letter it said that this footprint is smaller than most of the new stores that are being developed but in this article it said, and I'm quoting the article. Majority of Walmart new stores up to 120 this year and 135 in fiscal 2013 will continue to be supercenters. New supercenters are set to be 90,000 to 120,000 square feet. Supercenters used to average 185,000 square feet so I'm trying to understand the validity of the statement that this is smaller than most 34 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 of the other stores. It doesn't sound like it based on the information which was quoted from the Walmart executive. Lisa. Lisa Nelson: Right. Most of the stores we're building in this area are about 120 to 150 and we've really stopped building stores bigger than 150. There really aren't, you can't find any of the 220, 220,000 square foot stores anymore. There is a trend in our company to build stores smaller and this is, this definitely reflects that. That 117,000 square foot footprint that this store reflects the smaller store formats that we are doing nationwide. Now what you're seeing there with the marketside and with all those other formats that we're trying out, we have stores that we're building in Chicago that we can't build anything bigger than 16,000 square feet and it really is more like a convenience grocery store that fits into that footprint and serves that public. In this area, and there's a very comprehensive metric that our real estate team goes through to figure out what is, what is the appropriate store size for this market and the appropriate store size for this market, so that you can have the grocery, pharmacy and the general merchandise, what we could sell here, is about 120,000 square feet. So that's the size that we'd like to build here and the smaller format's generally for more urban, dense areas. Now we're trying all sorts of things all over the country and dabbling with smaller store formats but this market here, because of the way that it's situated and the trade area that it's in, 120 is appropriate and that was come up through a metric that is very, been very successful at Walmart. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And I, just one last question Mr. Mayor. 1 think the most recent correspondence indicated that a garden center or drive thru was removed. Was that part of the original concept? Lisa Nelson: I'm seeing from our architect correct. Councilman Laufenburger: It was. And how many square foot did that remove from the original presentation then? Mayor Furlong: If you could come to the podium please ma'am. Kate Aanenson: I don't think it was ever on there myself. Lisa Nelson: And it's not that significant. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Laufenburger: So Ms. Aanenson says it was never on there. Kate Aanenson: It's never, this floor plan from the original application has never wavered and I've never seen an entrance or anything to the. Jackie Cook -Haxby: No. We never formally submitted that. When we initially came in and talked about it we had that on there but we never really presented it to you. It's about 9,000 square foot. It's not a change in this particular response. Councilman Laufenburger: So this is, the square footage of this store is no different than what was presented at the Planning Commission meeting? Jackie Cook -Haxby: That is correct. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, yeah 35 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. That's all I have Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have one simple question for Lisa. After all the questions you've had from the Planning Commission and from this council talking about planning and my question's basic and simple. Walmart saw this parcel of land and you decided to come here tonight and present this to us. Why us and why this parcel of land? Because it'd be easy for you to go somewhere else so why did you choose Chanhassen? Lisa Nelson: Well I was not the one who chose Chanhassen. We do have our broker here but I can tell you when we look for available land to develop, there's a lot of factors that go into that and one of those things is where can we be successful and where is retail appropriate and where is there a willing seller and a willing buyer and what does the market dictate. It is dictated mainly by the market and what your zoning will allow and from our analysis we would not be pursuing this today if we did not think that a PUD was appropriate or that what we wanted to do on this site could work and be functional from our operational perspective. So, and if you want to add anything to that Mike. Mike Sims: Yeah. Be happy to. Lisa Nelson: Mike actually selected the land. Mike Sims: I work with Walmart Real Estate Manager. I'm Mike Sims, President of Mid-America Real Estate. 1 handle Minnesota for Walmart. To Lisa's point, the growth that had been occurring in Chanhassen obviously in the west side metro until the last 4 years when we saw a complete stoppage of residential growth but just the fact that it's an underserved trade area and it captures surrounding markets as well and just the site characteristics of the property along Highway 5 and the retail synergy that is to the north so in our opinion this was just a very strategic market that is underserved. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Just a question regarding the, and this may be for Mr. Matzek. The parking and traffic flow, and I guess I'm just curious with regard to the traffic flow in this particular site. Given the size of the facility that's being proposed with effectively only one fight/left entrance and egress and the other is a right-in/right-out. Given that 1, now I'm going to dabble in a traffic study and I know I'm going to screw something up but it looked like that most of the traffic for this site with the traffic flow is coming off of Highway 5 and certainly off of Powers Boulevard. Is that, my memory correct there? Will Matzck: Yeah, that's correct Mayor Furlong: I guess my question is to you, and I certainly understand that from the applicant's standpoint you don't want a site that isn't going to function for your business. I understand that. At the same time from a traffic study standpoint, is there enough? Is this, is this functional for this size building given that if most of the traffic is coming off of 5 and off of Powers Boulevard, I'm going to assume that most of it is also going back to 5 and to Powers and so how does that flow? They can come in. They have two right in's but there's only one way to tum left out of that and just looking at the site plan they're coming down an aisle with some of the parking coming right on it. Help me understand from a functionality standpoint how this is going to work. 36 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Will Matzek: As far as the one access point, full access point, we certainly did a traffic analysis that was reviewed by certainly city staff as well as their consultant and they generally concurred with our findings but we found that the level of service at both of those access, ingress and egress points operated very well at a level of service A or B at both of those locations. And as far as you know folks becoming accustomed to you know going to the full access point, that's very typical as far as folks understanding you know that that's where you go to you know make your full movement to leave the site, and we can accommodate that through signage. There's many other retail sites that have this kind of configuration where you have just one or even 1 1/2 access points and folks become very accustomed to that, as everyone is mentioning. That folks in Chanhassen we're anticipating will shop this store certainly repeatedly with good experiences and so we would anticipate this to function very well. We do not anticipate there being an issue, and our traffic study had outlined that really there'll be only 4 right out's per hour going out of that right-in/right-out so very minimal traffic will be leaving the site through the right out. Mayor Furlong: So if only 4 are going right out then all the rest of the traffic is doing a left out. Will Matzek: Yes, that's correct generally speaking I believe. Yeah, Brian Smallkowski, our traffic engineer is also here. He can probably answer a little more in detail if you'd like but that is the case. Mayor Furlong: No, I appreciate the answer. Thank you Will Matzek: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Well 1 have a question Mr. Mayor. Is anyone from Instant Web Company here to speak on this? Mayor Furlong: That I don't know. There was a letter from Instant Web Company in our packet. Councilman McDonald: Right. Okay then I guess. Will Matzek: There was a representative from IWCO that was here but it looks like he's left. Councilman McDonald: Wow, just when the fun gets going. Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions then for, follow up questions for staff? Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah I do have one for staff. Kate or Paul, there was a comment about offering, to offer a conservation easement. Can you just explain what does that do and is it of any value? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure. Councilman Laufenburger: I realize I'm asking you to make a judgment. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it may or may not have any value. It'd be their responsibility to make sure that it's protected and kept clean or they can give it to the City or make it our responsibility to make sure that yeah, it's maintained so. Councilman Laufenburger: And what invasive species are there? 37 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Kate Aanenson: Probably buckthorn probably the biggest one out there but there may be some other as far as the survey goes. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And then I think the last question I have for staff is, Mr. McDonald raised the question very clearly and that is, is in fact this concept PUD, is this a final decision? Kate Aanenson: Let's talk about process again. Councilman Laufenburger: Please. Kate Aanenson: We'll go back a little bit. So if the applicant would have came in the underlying zoning, which was they could request, it would need a significant amount of variances and staff was reluctant to give those variances so the only other track for them would be to go through a concept PUD and again the concept PUD is really to have a discussion but because the traffic seemed to be a critical issue, that needed to be more developed because we were at if we wouldn't have got comments from MnDOT or Carver County, we may not have even taken it back to you. It would have been such that they would chosen to say no, we're not going to go any further with that. At that point we tried to have the dialogue but obviously there's been a division in the discussion of kind of where the concept is going and then so they've gone even further on the concept to try to refine it so it really moved beyond just a concept discussion of what we usually see in a concept level. It's really evolved into more to try to respond to some of the questions that kind of move. Again the staffs position on that concept is that we're expecting something different and that was where our recommendation came from. Councilman Laufenburger: Is the cost to the applicant for a, just a PUD, is the cost and the application fee and anything they've paid to the City, is that any different with a concept? Kate Aanenson: No. The cost for the review isn't the same. It's their cost of spending a lot of the engineering and that sort of thing and actually the traffic study and a lot of the work that they've put into it is their cost. Again it's kind of a little bit beyond what we would see for a typical concept. Councilman Laufenburger: Well as Councilman McDonald has pointed out, it seems to me that they've spent a, I don't do development like Walmart does but it sounds like they've spent a lot of money to try to figure out whether this would work and their conclusion was that it does. Kate Aanenson: Right, well. Councilman Laufenburger: That's what it appears like anyway Kate Aanenson: Well I think again now, now we've kind of split because the staff was concerned again based on the parking ratio. If we keep going back to their 4.5 but we believe it's more an effective ratio of probably closer to 3. Maybe 3 1/4. Councilman Laufenburger: Especially considering, albeit yes they'll take the snow away. Kate Aanenson: Again talking about circulation. Conflicting traffic movement with truck circulation. Those sort of things. The loading in the back. Conflicting with turn movements. Whether it's employees or not. The compromise of the compact parking, which helps them get to that 4.5 so if you looked at that, if it wasn't compact the effect would be closer to the 3.2. Again we have no cross access parking which we do in similar situations downtown, and most of the business districts downtown. Councilman Laufenburger: Like Target. 38 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Kate Aanenson: Byerly's. Councilman Laufenburger: M&I Bank, Byerly's. Kate Aanenson: Even on Villages on the Pond, they all have cross access agreements so it's a little bit more challenging on this site and I think that's why we said you demonstrate to the city's satisfaction that you can make it work and our point is we're saying we still think that it's at the minimum at best in some deficiencies. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So back to my original question, where does this go after the concept PUD, if it's approved tonight? Kate Aanenson: They would still have to come back to a public hearing at the Planning Commission. That would be the full blown engineering plans. Stormwater calculations. All the street designs. All that. All the civil engineering. Detailed architectural plans and more specifics. Specific landscaping plans, and all that so. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Kate. That was the last question 1 had Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Other questions. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: If I could follow up on that question then. In order to get to the PUD and get back to the Planning Commission, they would need to work with staff, is that correct Ms. Aanenson? Kate Aanenson: If it was to go through another level. Councilman McDonald: Like the next stage would be to submit a full blown PUD and they would need to work with staff in order to put that together? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman McDonald: And as part of that, you would still have the opportunity for input to make changes, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It still would have to meet city ordinance. Again the goal here is to give them guidance. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff or for the applicant? No. With that then, without objection we'll close the public record and bring it back to council for comment. Thoughts and comments. Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. First of all I want to give high regard to Walmart for bringing your team here. 1 expect Ms. Power maybe will have an answer for me a little bit later on that question, okay. But I respect you for doing what obviously is a difficult task in preparing everything that you need to so, and 1 thank you for regarding Chanhassen in much the same way that 23,000 citizens of Chanhassen regard it as well. As a wonderful place to live, shop, raise a family. But I want to say a special congratulations to the citizens. Wendy you chose not to speak tonight but 1 know that you and your organization of Chanhassen First mobilized in incredible ways using technology and 1 just applaud 39 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 you on all of that. My email has been active. As of 5:00 when I closed it down today, 126 emails. A number of phone conversations and 50 plus conversations in the grocery lines, as you pointed out so clearly Chanhassen cares. The Chanhassen citizens care about the community so I just applaud that. As much as I would like to evaluate this based on many ancillary things like is Walmart a good citizen or not a good citizen? Will they bring the rightjobs? Will they not bring the right jobs? Fortunately I don't have to make that decision. My decision is based on the validity of this plan and how it fits our comprehensive plan and as Ms. Aanenson has pointed out for my perspective, there's 9 criteria that were established for a concept PUD, and I just want to re -state just preliminarily that the use of the PUD zoning allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, which Walmart chose to take advantage of, the development plan must result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning district such as Community Commercial. And it is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations will be realized as evaluated against the intent of the PUD and the 9 specific standards so I'm just, Mr. Mayor indulge the council for just a second here. I'm going to kind of give a grade on these 9 criteria if you don't mind. Preserve desirable site characteristics. I would call that a minimum. Yes, I -understand that they're going to add trees for canopy but they're also going to take down some trees that have been there a long time and so I would say meets minimum requirements. Number 2 is effective land use open space and again 1 would call that a minimum. Number 3, high quality design and building architecture. With all respect to Jackie, I certainly appreciate what you're saying, though the other 49 stores in the state of Minnesota may not agree with you that this is the most beautiful one but from my standpoint I look at yes, the outside of the building. Fagade transparency. Minimum requirement on landscaping. Setback. Parking at least 10% below requirements. No compact for high turnover parking. Loading berths do not comply. 1 would call number 3, high quality design and building architecture deficient. Number 4. Sensitive development of transitional areas. Again I would say that's a minimum so we've got 2 minimums and one deficiency. 5, consistent with the comp plan. The planning director has said that it's guided for commercial, community commercial in the comp plan and yes this is community commercial, but from my perspective that footprint which Lisa is looking for and can't be compromised, that's a little bit outside of bounds so I would say that's a comply. Number 6, parks and open spaces. I would call that a minimum. Number 7, housing. I don't think you're going to build any houses on this property, is that correct Lisa so that does not apply. Number 8, energy conservation. I read closely what you're doing in the building and Jackie your comments are making it a LEED compliant building. 1 think that's great and I think the majority of the benefit will accrue to Walmart. Lower cost water. Lower cost electricity. Nothing wrong with that. There will be public benefit but mainly it's to benefit Walmart. 1 would say that's comply and maybe even more than comply. Traffic area. The fact that Walmart is prepared to finance all the costs, and by the way Ms. Steinwall you were prepared to commit to the neighborhood meetings. Why couldn't you commit $2 million dollars in traffic improvements? Sue Steinwall: Because I like myjob. Councilman Laufenburger: But we do have a million and a half so let's say that's a comply. So of that, of those 9 I've got 1, 2. Two what I would call comply. One is not applicable and then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are meet minimum requirement and one is highly deficient and from my standpoint, I don't think that satisfies my requirement of the applicant demonstrating that the City's expectations for higher quality. Significantly higher quality, more sensitive proposal is demonstrated. And what I'm wondering about that is, why would Walmart go to all this expense and work without striving to satisfy a high quality, more sensitive proposal. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts. Comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom. 40 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you. Thank you for your comments Denny. I thought they were interesting and so I think you did your homework. When we go back to the start of all this, that's where I'm looking at it I guess. First of all I want to say that I've been on the council for 7 years and we've lived through many issues. Many, many issues but this is the one and only time 1 can think of where I have received so much feedback and so much, so many comments and suggestions and pleadings for saying please don't vote for whatever, and so I want you to know that, I mean this is a citizen representative body here tonight where we represent you and I understand that. But I also represent the city of Chanhassen and so when I heard that there was a store coming in and we were going to have a tax base and we were going to have jobs and, probably not the type of jobs that we all have or want to have but they were socioeconomic jobs where a teenager could get a job or a senior citizen could get hired. That kind of made my heart go pitter patter. I thought you know we need jobs and we need income and we need a healthy economy. But at the same time you know is the right fit for our community and so then tonight when I asked Kate Aanenson about the zoning in 2009, how it changed and if there had been any offers during that time or any interest in the parcel and she says no. That tells me that one, of course the economy is bad but also maybe it's not zoned correctly. You know maybe we need to go back and look to see what we need to do as a council to make that parcel viable that we can find something that will compliment our downtown, and I'm not saying it's this project. But I'm saying that as a council member 1 look at what's healthiest for our economy and for our citizens and so is the land not zoned appropriately. Is there something we need to look at? Is there something keeping other businesses from not coming into it? If everyone's following me what I'm saying, that maybe we need to go back once again to the Planning Commission and look at it again and say is this working? I asked Walmart why they're here tonight because they obviously don't fit in this parcel of land and they said it. It's because we're a viable community. We're a healthy community and we're spending, what was it? $10 million dollars in Eden Prairie and I mean we should be spending that here. We should be spending that here in our businesses and our stores. That creates a healthy downtown. We talk about a lifestyle center out on 212 and that worries me sometimes because I don't want people going out there and that area developing when we should be concentrating on our downtown because our businesses are what brought us here today and so I would propose that we table all of this. We roll it back and we re-evaluate where we are with the zoning and if it's pertinent to today and where we want to go as a city. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Well so is there a motion on the table then? Councilwoman Tjomhom: 1 would make a motion to table it so we can study it further, the zoning and to see if it is even something we should look at but I think this is happening so fast. This came in in October. It went to the Planning Commission in 4 hours and now it's here and this is a huge decision because if we deny this, then we have to deny it for everybody and if there's an opportunity that comes in that is good for us, then we can't go that route so I want to make sure before we say yea or nay to anything we are very confident that we are doing the right thing and so that's my perspective and where I'm coming from on this issue. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Did you make a motion to table at this point? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yes, I make a motion to table it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, there's a motion to table. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: I'll second the motion. 41 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded to table. That's non -debatable. We'll proceed with the vote. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to table Planning Case 2011-11 for Walmart. Councilwoman Tjornhom and Councilman McDonald voted in favor. Mayor Furlong and Councilman Laufenburger voted against. The motion failed with a tie vote of 2 to 2. Mayor Furlong: The motion receives 2-2 so it is not agreed to so let's continue with our discussion at this time. Councilman McDonald: Okay, well I also look at this from the standpoint of you know we made a decision that this part of town needed to have some kind of commercial retail in it. We rezoned it. We held public meetings. We discussed it. We looked at what was going to be viable to help our downtown. This store will do that because what it will do, it will bring further development to an area that we've been trying to get developed and will put in place all the infrastructure that we need to develop that area at no cost to the citizens of this city and that is significant because at some point we're. going to have to pony up those costs if we want to see anything happen. I had hoped to hear from the owner of the property because they did send us a letter pretty much saying that they have done everything they can to help promote that site. To get someone in there. To rent it. To sell it. To have someone to take it over and there are no takers. You're hurting a good company. A lot of the emails I got concerned about how we need to take care of companies within this town. Instant Web is a very core company within this town. They've been here for a long time. Provide a lot of jobs and they do contribute to the community so I have to listen to them whenever they tell me that this is an opportunity that has come along that you know serves the community. They are good stewards of the community and again it takes care of a problem for them. Maybe it saves a couple of jobs. Everybody's in favor of us continuing to have employment, manufacturing. That's what Instant Web does so I think it accomplishes that goal. I do have concerns though about it and my biggest concern is definitely the traffic. I brought up the whole thing about the right out. I'm not in favor of that because 1 know the problems that we've had with the drug store down on Galpin. CVS and the other areas and we're not going to put a police officer down there to give tickets to U turns but the problem that it creates is those people coming out the western exit that do want to turn left, we're going to create a problem. I think there's solutions to that and I believe that staff, maybe with input from council and also with further discussions can resolve that, and at that point I think I would feel a lot better about the site. The internal movements that Ms. Aanenson brought up, 1 am sensitive to those and she's got a point so I think that's also an area that needs to be looked at. As far as the other aspects of it, as Mr. Laufenburger has stated, what our decision kind of comes down to is, is it good for the City? Does it fit with the comprehensive plan? Do we get enough out of this to make it attractive for the City to go and approve this? Even with an approval tonight this is not a done deal and it will have to come back again with a PUD which would have to address all of those issues. I mean a lot's been said about a concept PUD versus a PUD and a lot of individuals have concern because of the lack of detail. That's what a concept PUD is. We got what we asked for. I think now what we're asking for is you have to give us more detail. We're interested but you know we're not ready to you know commit at this point. 1 just believe that there are enough good things about this for it to go forward to get to a detailed plan that can be further evaluated by the Planning Commission and by City Council and then at that point to see if it fits. 1 realize this is not the best fit on this site but again after 6 years, nobody's coming to this site. We have no place else to develop to the western end of this town except through this corridor. The land to the north across 5 is privately owned and it is not going to be developed so there is no hope there that any of that is going to be available for development. In order for the downtown area to thrive we need anchors on S. We need to draw people to this area. This will do it. Next week we're going to dedicate a parking garage behind the Dinner Theater. That is put there again to help draw people to the downtown area. To also encourage development of the downtown area and to redevelop that part of downtown so that we have more shops, pedestrian ways, and things that will again attract people to 42 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 downtown Chanhassen. You can't ignore $10 million dollars a year and you can't ignore the amount of traffic that something like this brings here. I've evaluated all this stuff and I've looked at all the arguments of how we're going to kill businesses. I don't believe it. You can laugh but you need to show me the studies. You're not going to affect Target. Target competes with Walmart head to head. They do quite well. They don't need our help. Office Max is the same way. They're competing with Target. They're competing with a lot of other stores. They do quite well. Again a business knows how to compete. That's their job. That's why Walmart's looking at this spot and I think we benefit greatly by having something like this but again until I see a final PUD, I'm not willing to vote yea. I'm just willing to vote fine, spend the time. Spend the money. You need to talk with staff and there are some deficiencies that we have identified that need to be addressed before you're going to get a final PUD through. That's where I'm at. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah Mr. Mayor, I think Ms. Power might have gotten an answer to my question, is that correct? Sharon Power: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: The question I asked is what local bank in Eden Prairie receives the cash proceeds at the end of every day. Sharon Power: US Bank is the one that our Eden Prairie store goes to. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I appreciate the thoughts and comments. 1 also want to start out by recognizing and thanking the Walmart team and representatives for coming and for all the work that you did. When I hear that the concept PUD is intended to make it easier and not quite the expense and then I also hear that you put, had to go through a lot of that anyway, I want to just extend our thanks and appreciation for the work that you did in answering the questions and sometimes you know these projects are like onions. You peel back one layer and you've got another one that raises more questions so thank you for all your time and effort. I also want to recognize and thank all the citizens that have been involved and have gained an interest and perhaps opened up the comprehensive plan for the first time, or for at least the first time in a while and looked at the thoughts and comments and everything that has gone into that. Our Planning Commission as well and city staff, I really appreciate all their efforts on this. It is everyone that's been involved in the process. Sometimes this public process can seem long. It can seem awkward. It can seem cumbersome but ultimately it's a process that is intended to be inclusive and to get everything out on the table and I think that has been accomplished here. Whether or not individually we may agree or disagree with the outcome, I think it's clear that the public process here has been an open and complete process for the application and that's our goal and objective. Our evaluation here as a council, similar to that at the Planning Commission was not about who was making the application but whether or not the application itself was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Whether it made the zoning ordinances. If there, and whether or not it met the PUD requirements. Ultimately, from a comprehensive plan standpoint you've heard talk about community commercial tonight as a zoning, or a guidance that was created with our update in the 2008 comprehensive plan. That comprehensive plan again is a 2030 comprehensive plan so every 10 years the city will update the comprehensive plan. Look at land use. Parks. Transportation. Open space. Natural preserves. Every 10 years but we're always looking out 20 plus years ahead so the current comprehensive plan that we're talking about is a 2030 comprehensive plan and in 8 years the council and Planning Commission will update a 2040 plan but at this point it's a 2030 plan, and it's a plan. It's a, it says here's our vision collectively as a community of 43 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 how we want to see our city grow and develop and the recognition of the need for more commercial activities was one of the aspects that came out of that planning process back in 2008-2009 timeframe and it was one that had citizens involved. There were many open houses. A lot of the businesses were involved. It was a collective desire to move forward and this community commercial was part of that. The intentions then of what that community commercial meant really comes out through the zoning and one of the aspects that we heard here tonight was the, one of the components of that zoning is the size of buildings that we saw as a city. That we saw as a community. What was the intention of this community commercial, and that was for building sizes 15,000 to 64,000 I believe. We've heard tonight about the concept PUD. What a PUD's supposed to provide in terms of higher level of, higher quality of development and more sensitive. You know the onus sometimes legally is on different parties. In this case it's on the part of the applicant to demonstrate that they have achieved and exceeded the various points that are required from the, for the PUD or in this case concept PUD. And I do again want to thank Walmart, the applicant for listening at the Planning Commission. Hearing those comments by the commissioners and by the citizens as well in terms of updating the plan. Practically I think that there are still significant deficiencies with regard to the application relative to the PUD standards and I think that's a challenge. With regard to the applicant's offer to mitigate some of the off-site traffic issues, we really appreciate that. I think that's important and is consistent with what we see but I'm still very concerned with the challenges on site. The parking deficiencies for me. I think some of the challenges off-site on the roads with regards to traffic flow are in large part because of the size of the proposed development and I think too, with the on-site issues for traffic and traffic flow parking they're also in large part a function of the size of the proposed development. Long term our comprehensive plan, as I said, it's a 2030 plan. It's not a 2013 plan. I think that over the years it's been our experience as a city, as a community that following the plan has created a lot of success and I have seen and we've seen many examples of that. There have been opportunities to change the plan. To modify it over the years. There needs to be a compelling reason to do so in my opinion. The responding to the applicant that happens to be in front is always a, it's always important that we give them full thoughtful consideration but if they don't meet it then I think again it's on them to justify that there needs to be a compelling reason to change. One of my concerns, and I appreciate Councilwoman Tjornhom's thoughts and comments about the possible need to review some of the aspects of either the plan or the zoning, I think that's reasonable. There are timeframes that we're working under here obviously with regard to approval or of any application and I believe we have basically until the end of January, if I'm not mistaken. There's 60 days that we have. I think that ends the end of this month and then we have 60 more days that we can take. I'm not sure, and I guess explaining my no vote on the tabling. Is not disagreeing with your position that we need to perhaps review this, but it's just with the timeframe with regard to this application. I don't know if the 2 months is sufficient time to accomplish that. So I do see some inconsistencies here with this application, with the community commercial guidance and the comprehensive plan. Not that it's not commercial. It is commercial but with regard to the inconsistencies associated with the zoning and how the zoning ordinance and specifically the building size kind of spoke to the intention of that. Of that guiding. They are, I don't think they meet the intention or the general standards of a PUD, and I think getting comments back to Ms. Nelson with regard to the building size and one of your comments that I caught was that it was sized for the market or the trade area and that it was sized for where you need to be, and I fully respect that and understand that as you operate your business. What I think we have here though is that this site, this property isn't able to support that. I mean to, that it's the size of the development I think exceeds the reasonable use of this particular property under this zoning guide so I think that's, you know for some more feedback, I mean there are a lot of areas where there's some deficiencies or minimum standards from that but I think what it gets down to is, and this was mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting as well. Is the size of the facility, or the size of the proposed building and the use with regard to this property and the particular aspects of this property where I think it also shows challenges and deficiencies so you know, I guess ultimately for these reasons I do not support the concept application and would certainly support the staffs recommendation on the, for a motion this evening. Any other thoughts or comments. Councilman Laufenburger. 44 Chanhassen City Council —November 28, 2011 Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, I'm reminded of just one of Ms. Nelson's opening comments and that is, there's two things that she really wants to hang on and that is the footprint and parking and frankly the parking is predicated by the requirement for the footprint and it just, it's not a match. Just doesn't seem to be a match. So Mayor I'd like to make a motion. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: I move that the Chanhassen City Council direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the Concept Planned Unit Development. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City Council direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact consistent with denial of the Concept Planned Unit Development for Planning Case 2011-11, Walmart. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Given the, though we don't have much to go on our agenda this evening, let's just take a short recess subject to the call of the Chair. The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman McDonald: ...way down to Chanhassen Station. There's 9 stop lights or something. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Not that I'm counting. Councilman McDonald: But we have eliminated a vast majority of those stop lights. 1 think we got it down to 2. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Two, yep. Councilman Laufenburger: Let me tell you, south of 5 we don't have near that problem with stop lights. Councilman McDonald: Well and we've got a station for you south of 5 now. Mayor Furlong: No I think that's, so the ribbon cutting for Chanhassen Station is on the 9'h but service starts on Monday the 12'h, is that correct? Councilman McDonald: Yes that is correct. Mayor Furlong: And if people are interested in finding out about the schedule, I assume that's on the Southwest Transit website. 1 assume it's published. 45 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 2011 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Tom Doll, Kathleen Thomas, Kevin Ellsworth, Kim Tennyson and Lisa Hokkanen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT: Mark Giancola 8441 Rosewood Drive Mary Rubai 7340 Frontier Trail Marjorie & Jesse Knight 2014 Clover Court Steven L. Cohen & Allyson Segar-Cohen 7022 Sandy Hook Circle Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Dan Mertes 8671 Flamingo Drive Brad Karels 8105 Dakota Lane Anne & Bill Fisher 1321 Lake Drive West #225 Dorothy Downing 7200 Juniper Avenue, Excelsior Linda Landsman 7329 Frontier Trail Larry Pastorek 7071 Shawnee Lane Gary Theis 1696 Valley Ridge Trail North Sarah Thomas 2555 Longacres Drive Julia Seper 1081 Lake Lucy Road Janice Schulter 8691 Chanhassen Hills Drive North Candance G. Carlson 7720 Arboretum Village Circle Karen Walker 7591 Walnut Curve Sandra Resnik 7370 Kurvers Point Brenda Witzig 9520 Washington Boulevard #3 Joyce Arlt 8434 Burlwood Drive Dan Mahady 1020 Butte Court John Kunitz 6441 Bretton Way Joe & Desiree Nozling 8410 West Lake Drive Jackie & Doug Jacobson 1121 Dove Court Scott & Marcia Hippen 7017 Cheyenne Trail Bob & Susan Seward 8031 Cheyenne Trail Sheryl Mickelsen 981 Pontiac Lane Adele Pint 1641 Koehnen Circle Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive Kirsten McBeken 1401 Field Creek Circle, Victoria Steve Taborek 8022 Cheyenne Avenue Mark Arrington 870 Lake Susan Hills Drive Tonya Stier 9200 Ellendale Lane Kristi Strang 1701 Valley Ridge Trail South Kurt Kuhlmann 8445 Powers Place Alan & Barb Johnson 700 Lake Susan Hills Drive John & Jennifer Bentz 9840 Deerbrook Drive Kelly Woods 850 Lake Susan Hills Drive Patrick Rutledge 7568 Walnut Curve Shelley Kerber 6025 Whitney Circle Chris Robinson 7900 Market Boulevard+�0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 1, 2011 David Enright 795 Ponderosa Drive Kurt Weimer 6211 Dogwood Avenue Susan & Rian Nobel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Irene Oberstar 2170 Baneberry Way West Rick Dorsey 14215 Green View Court, Eden Prairie Ted Lamson 680 Lake Susan Hills Drive Christine Meier 8437 Rosewood Drive Robby Vimig 26380 Shorewood Oaks Drive, Shorewood Margaret DiMarco 1131 Dove Court John Prondzinski, Ridgeview Medical Center 500 So. Maple Street, Waconia John & Kari Davis 8200 West Lake Court Bary McKinney 8046 Cheyenne Avenue Edwin Everett 6301 Near Mountain Boulevard Tim Bloudek 1171 Homestead Lane Pat & Tom Potter 6531 Devonshire Drive Lauren Kopp 8020 Hidden Circle Emily Mattran 8210 West Lake Court Tim Polivany 181 Fox Hollow Drive Wayne Skoblik 409 Del Rio Drive Jean & Dale Rusch 2856 Century Trail Rich Gavert 7701 Frontier Trail Scott B. Haas 7264 Pontiac Circle Barry & Anita Steckling 8320 West Lake Court Paul & Darlene Ryan 8310 West Lake Court Lee Kaufman 300 Hidden Lane Linda Boerboom 8261 West Lake Court J. Wagle 8411 Egret Court Bruce VonOrnum 8150 Hidden Court Kathi Cadmus 8426 Stone Creek Court Jane Gharbi 1401 Crest Drive Curt Kobilaresik 9149 Springfield Drive Sue Bogan 7757 Buttercup Court George Beinik 412 West 76h Street Debra Pladsen 1490 Heron Drive Lana & Doug Haberman 520 Pleasant View Road Dave Mayer 8726 Flamingo Drive Karen Zellner 7616 Frontier Trail Christoph Leser 8110 Marsh Drive Colleen Cannon 8110 Marsh Drive Darlene Loving 7112 Pontiac Circle Ronald & Cynthia Torn 8300 West Lake Court James Hastreiter 6990 Tecumseh Lane Brian Boie 1577 Bluebill Trail Chris Johnson Chanhassen G. Dye 1331 Lake Drive West Ben Newton 1560 Lake Susan Hills Joseph O'Connor 811 Lake Susan Hills Drive Gloria J. Cox 6990 Shawnee Lane Tom Kraus 7744 Vasserman Trail Terry McGinley 920 Lake Susan Hills Drive Ellis Thomas 406 West 76'" Street Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 John & Stacey Boshacker 7428 Bent Bow Trail Scott Paulson 634 Summerfield Lane Mark Ploof 7040 Tecumseh Lane Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Kathleen Haas 7264 Pontiac Circle Jackie Ottoson 7080 Harrison Hill Terrace Lori Tollberg 6981 Pima Lane Tim Boyce 8941 Audubon Road Tana Erickson 8941 Audubon Road Bob Ayotte Chanhassen Michael & Virginia Bailey 7472 Saratoga Drive Charlie & Julie Littfin 7609 Laredo Drive Mark Flodoski 2204 Sommergate Katie Mahannah 92 Shasta Circle East Holly White 8657 Valley Ridge Court Irina Osadchuk 7301 Pontiac Circle Carmen Ried 8301 West Lake Court Ross Huseby 1431 Heron Drive Ana Moritz 860 Lake Susan Hills Drive Jane Revsbech 2155 Murray Hill Court Jack Krueger 7606 Kiowa Avenue Greg & Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard Jay Donohue 6561 Troendle Circle Larry White 8657 Valley Ridge Court Bill & Kelly Schulte 8420 West Lake Drive Stephanie Fisher 1451 Heron Drive David & Elizabeth Kressler 1750 Valley Ridge Trail North Christine Callahan 8595 Drake Court Katherine Peterson 7713 Vasserman Place Kent Ludford 8615 Valley View Court Mike Boyer 2370 Bridle Creek Circle David & Kristy Brackett 1320 Lake Susan Hills Drive PUBLIC HEARING: WALMART: REOUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A 120.000 SQUARE FOOT WALMART STORE ON APPROXIMATELY 14.10 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND POWERS BOULEVARD (1000 PARK ROAD). APPLICANT: WALMART, C/O KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CASE 2011-11. Aller: Welcome. I'm calling to order the Planning Commission meeting for the City of Chanhassen today, November 1, 2011. The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council. We suggest you follow the item on hand today with the City Council for final action. That date is tentatively November 28, 2011. Public input will be accepted when the Planning Commission opens the public hearing portion of this item. Any persons wishing to speak should come up to the podium. State your name and address for the record. We have a number of individuals here tonight. We also have overflow in the senior center which are watching this live as well. Those individuals over there are certainly welcome to come to the podium when the public hearing is open to give and provide their comments to the commission. The item will be introduced. Staff will make the presentation of it's report. The applicant may come forward and make a developer presentation. I'll then open a public hearing for input. After individuals have spoken, we will close the public hearing. Commission members may make comment. 1 will request a motion and we will act on a Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 motion or take other action. For purposes of this evening, because of the large number of individuals present we'd like to limit your comments to approximately 3 minutes. We don't want to cut you off but we'd like to have everyone pay attention to the individuals and give respect to the individuals who speak before you. Listen to what they have to say. Hopefully we're not repeating comments over and over and over and over again so that we can make sure that everyone gets an opportunity to speak tonight. So we thank you for paying attention. Being respectful to other speakers and with that we'll go ahead and open with the staff presentation. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I just want to also, or maybe a housekeeping item. Typically we try to end by 10:30 Chairman so we may take a bio break somewhere in there. Kind of gauge how long the meeting's going just so the audience knows kind of can anticipate that coming. Aller: Yes, in our official by-laws we are expected to close at 10:30. If it's close we may extend that. We may take a motion at that time to take other action, extend or to continue for further information which would go directly to the City Council if necessary. Thank you. Aanenson: Alright, thank you. Audience: Can you turn up the mic's so we can hear you? Very hard Aanenson: Again thank you. This request is for a conceptual planned unit development on approximately 14 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard. The Planning Case is 2011 -1I. I'd like to start off by kind of going back in time and talking about when we updated the last element of, the last iteration of the comprehensive plan, which is our 2030 plan, and kind of get some historical context to the commercial zoning district in the city of Chanhassen. This is also found in the staff report and all these documents are also online. The comprehensive plan, the City's zoning ordinance and the McComb's study which I'll also talk about. So for background, the retail market study done in 2006 was kind of a pre -cursor to kind of putting in place the City's commercial land use. So the City has maintained a long standing policy of directing commercial development into the central business district. Chanhassen historically maintains an active business community. With the construction of 312 the City saw an opportunity to re-examine the commercial opportunities in the downtown core of the city so in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce they contracted with the McComb's Group to study the retail opportunities. The study found that the city could support an additional potential regional mall and continue to have a healthy downtown business district. So with that I'm going to kind of outline some of the elements that the McComb's study looked at. So they examined the existing shopping patterns and potential retail areas in Chanhassen and they were evaluated determined their suitability for development. So that would be vacant parcels. Also some parcels that could be used for redevelopment. The shopping areas competitive with Chanhassen were and commercial areas were also identified and evaluated to determine competitive impacts on future development. Retail development. Owners and managers of businesses in Chanhassen were interviewed to obtain their observations on retail trends, competitive pressures, where their customers lived and other information pertinent to the study, including opinions about downtown Chanhassen's strengths and it's weaknesses and ideas for possible impacts of the downtown, with the downtown in the new potential 312 commercial area. So businesses in the downtown Chanhassen were asked to participate in a survey of their customers and some of the businesses did participate in that survey to find additional information about why people shop where they did in the downtown core. This information was helped to identify the Chanhassen's trade area. Developers, brokers and realtors and interested developers were also interviewed by the McComb's Group to talk to them about what they saw as future development potentials, and that also included not only retail but some of the industrial parks. So from this the estimated future demand for retail of Chanhassen was compared to kind of the surrounding cities. The outcome of that study said that there was additional potential for downtown commercial development, potentially 12 acres and that there was in the 312 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 interchange at Powers Boulevard and the new 312, that there could be up to 88 to 113 retail acres for development. So with that this is again from the 2006 McComb's Study where they identified the trade area for the city of Chanhassen. So there's kind of concentric rings here. The smallest area would be the convenience trade area and that's where we consider kind of the neighborhood trade area. Maybe gas stations and the like. So this area kind of delineates kind of just the core, maybe the southern part of Chanhassen. The next ring would be the middle ring would be the downtown. This is kind of where people that would come to the downtown, where they would be traveling from. So it kind of cuts through Lake Minnetonka. As far west as Waconia. Again when this was done there wasn't a Target yet in Waconia so that trade area has probably changed a little bit, and then also as far east as Eden Prairie. Then that bigger ring showed potential if the City was to do a lifestyle center which was documented based on rate of growth, household income for potential regional lifestyle center which had different implications and through the comprehensive plan process we spent a lot of time talking about differentiating the uses there that would be different than what would be the daily needs of the downtown commercial area. So with that, that information then was put into the comprehensive plan and when we had all the meetings on the commercial districts this was a map that was put out at all the open houses and the like so what this map created was the distinct districts that we have in the city. The downtown, which is the area shown as A. The downtown community commercial district. B would be those neighborhood areas for example along 7 and 41. Those convenience areas where you can get gas and some other convenience commercial. The newest one being down on Lyman Boulevard and 101 with the Kwik Trip. And then C would be the community commercial. The new district that we'll be talking about a little bit more in detail tonight and that was to provide additional opportunities to strengthen the downtown core. And then finally the potential for a regional mall at the intersection, interchange of 312 and Powers Boulevard, just south of Lyman. Again that's shown as the area D. And again there was specific criteria that we put in place for that potential regional mall about, that it be different than the downtown core and that it not be a series of strip or kind of big box retail. That kind of we said we wanted to provide opportunities for those sort of things to happen closer to the core. So with that, this is the downtown zoning districts in which we're going to kind of focus on and we're going to zoom into this specific area but this was prior to the rezoning of the downtown core with the existing districts where we have highway business is more kind of auto related. The neighborhood business district was actually where Park Nicollet and some of those uses are. St. Hubert's south of Highway 5 which has some commercial. Hotels, restaurants, and then the St. Hubert's school. The PUD where Target/Cub is and then the BG, Office Max and the like and then the IOP and the community commercial would be that area shown in green. So with that the adoption of the comprehensive plan we stated that we would move forward and rezone some of the core of the downtown to actually up zone and allow for greater intensity. So the City changed the general business to central business district because that provides for more intense development of those uses. Currently Southwest Transit is constructing a ramp behind the Dinner Theater. That also will allow for additional development in that, and redevelopment in that area which we anticipate. So the community commercial district. So when we finished the comprehensive plan we said we will now develop two new zoning districts. A potential regional mall and the community commercial district. To be clear this property has dual guiding. It can either be office industrial or it can be community commercial. The intent of the community commercial by the zoning district, as stated in the zoning district that we created, was to provide for large scale commercial developments, because we were out of space for that in the downtown core. That these large scale commercial or office users you know needed high, needed visibility from collector roads. And then we also said that the minimum could be 15,000 square feet and that the largest could be no bigger than 65,000 square feet so again it was to provide that opportunity for some larger scale users. So now I want to take some time and talk about this specific application and how it relates to what 1 just presented. So the applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a PUD. The site again is currently zoned industrial office park. With the adoption of the 2030 plan in 2008 the City Council guided this property for either community commercial or for the office industrial but they saw the opportunity for some additional retail. The request for a planned unit concept allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of the conventional zoning district by creating a unique district rather than asking for variances of the underlying zoning district. So the closest conventional district to this would be the community commercial. So the planned unit development offers Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 flexibility to develop a site through relaxation of some of the normal zoning district. The use of the PUD allows for greater variety of uses. Construction of phasing a potential lower development costs. In exchange for that flexibility the City has an expectation that the development will result in significant higher quality and more sensitive proposal that would have been the case. Using the other more standard zoning districts. So it is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate to the City's expectations that they are to be realized against the criteria of the PUD. So the PUD standards itself, they still have to meet, this PUD request still has to meet the City's architectural standards. It still has to meet the flood plain, wetland, shoreland districts and as stated in the staff report they have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. They also have to demonstrate that they offer the higher quality of architecture as stated and any other design standards cited in that section including the landscaping, parking and the like. So again the uniqueness of each PUD will be related against those 9 criteria. So the site itself. This is a 14 acre site with an existing building, footprint of 140,000 square feet. There actually is a mezzanine on this building so the total square footage on that current site building is 154,700 square feet. The original building was occupied by Victory Envelope and the building has been vacant for a number of years. They have leased space in there but it's predominantly vacant. With this proposal the current building would be tom down. Again to be clear, just to make sure everybody knows where we are, this would be Highway 5 and this would be Powers Boulevard so access would be via Park Road. Again the elevation changes significantly on this parcel so if you're up on Highway 5 at this point, it's about 950. If you drop down about 40 feet down to, at the bottom of the creek here, about 910 so there's significant grade change on the site. The site itself is adjacent to a creek and a wetlands. The wetlands is classified as a Manage II in our storm water management plan and a Manage Il requires a 20 foot buffer and a 30 foot setback from this is required so the concept plan shows a majority of the wetland less than 30 feet. So this is in this area here, does not meet the required setback. So again it's pinched pretty tight. This red is a retaining wall so the retaining walls, in order to meet the topography, this is graded significantly so the retaining walls would be to provide for that. And I'll go through that in a minute but so the wetland again is impacted. So the encroachment into the wetland, the buffer setback again is caused by the retaining wall and again the values of the wetland are, we believe are impacted by the retaining wall itself into that encroachment of the wetland. In addition there's tree loss which would be further detriment to the wetland and the volume and quality of water running into this creek. So as I stated the grading proposed, the finished floor elevation, that's this area here, is proposed to be 931 which is approximately 9 feet lower than the ground elevation on the east side of the building. The concept plan includes the retaining walls. Up to 21 feet on the west side and 16 1/2 feet on both the north and the east side. So that would be this area shown in red here. Next thing I'd like to talk about is the architectural compliance. Again even though they're going for the PUD they do have to meet the City's architectural standards. So the city code requires that the development comply with certain minimum requirements and as stated the design standards which are found in the city code. So for material and design, the materials on the building include the EFTS and pre -cast panels. Tilt up panels that are grid or grid like in appearance. EFIS can be used as an accent material. It may occupy no more than 15% and the concern that we have with the building is that it's significant, it does not provide the significantly higher architectural standards that we would anticipate with a PUD. The color of the building does meet the City's requirements. So size, portion and placement as part of the architecture review. The entry does have a pronounced, is pronounced with a canopy over the front entry. There are recesses and articulation in the building. Projections around the windows and the like. The highest point of the roof is about 35 feet. The building needs to make sure that their rooftop equipment, again this is conceptual review so there's not all the engineering's on that so it appears that there is a parapet wall that would be screening. From information from the applicant it does appear that they are proposing that and, or minimal rooftop equipment on the top. I think I just talked about the height of the building. So this is again the continued front of the building. Again I think there's some things that you can do to enhance again to meet the architectural standards. A little bit more articulation on the front. Facade transparencies, all views from the public must be 50% windows and doors and there are some perspectives that don't. This southern perspective, the one in the bottom, excuse me, would be a perspective heading east on Highway 5 and in this area where you've got the trash enclosure you've got some areas that it would be viewed that would also have to have different architectural on them to meet the requirements because they again are viewed by the public. 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 Parking. So if you look in this area and go back to the original site plan, the parking plan takes advantage of compact parking stalls of maximum of 25% or 116 stalls. The concern that the staff has is that the parking requirements do allow compact stalls but they really shouldn't be in a place with high turnover and so if you're in an office building where you don't have as much traffic going in and out. So not only deficient in parking spaces by 12%, they maximize the number of small parking stalls which would be a concern when you have a lot of high turnover in a parking lot. The refuse screening does meet code as far as it being in the rear of the building and appropriately screened. So we talked about this, another exposure. This would be Highway 5 kind of heading south on Powers where again there's areas that are viewed from the public that aren't, need to be either fagade modulation or smaller increments of that instead of the large expanses of the tilt up's. So again this wouldn't comply. And then the sign itself does not meet the city code, but again this is conceptual review so those things sometimes change over. With that I'm going to turn it over to the City Engineer and let him kind of go through the traffic. Oehme: Thanks Ms. Aanenson. Good evening Commissioner Aller, commission members. Aller: Good evening. Oehme: I'd like to touch on the traffic analysis that was completed for the project. As part of the application the developer was required to complete a traffic impact analysis. As part of the report on traffic turning movements and traffic counts were gathered. So based on Carver County traffic modeling and the City's traffic analysis zoning estimates for traffic distributions were also calculated. Carver County and MnDOT have commented on this report and that is included in your packet. The City also completed an independent traffic impact analysis so this first slide here just shows, based upon that analysis, where the traffic distributions potential for the site would come from. So an example, Highway 5 here is shown. In this location 35% of the traffic wanting to potentially go to the site would come off of 5. Make a left turn on Powers and then come in down through Park Road here. So and likewise 5% at east bound Park Road. So using that information, also analysis was taken to the next step using the Institute of Transportation Engineering Trip Generations. Peak trip generations were calculated. This is a typical analysis that's done for these type of developments and put in all developments. Here's the potential traffic distributions E here shown for the site and during the p.m. peak hours so for example 142 trips would potentially make that right hand tum off of Powers Boulevard into Park Road. So this slide shows the total estimated traffic volumes for the peak p.m. hours. Again we, traffic analysis you try, you look at the peak impact time periods for these type of developments and analyze your traffic on those type of situations. Also included in these, in this analysis was the pass by traffic. That's the traffic that potentially is going down S. Sees a sign for this particular location. Stops in. You know buys product at this potential, at this site and then would move on so about 28% we're estimating would, of traffic would potentially be this pass by traffic. So this, these numbers show what the p.m. peak traffic would be for 2013 potentially when this site development would be open, and then also we projected out into the 2030 timeframe too. The 2030 volumes also include for potential parcels that could be developed or redeveloped in the commercial community district in this area and the, and also include the potential regional lifestyle center that is just south of Lyman. That potential traffic was included in the 2030 analysis as well. The total anticipated trips for the site, for this development is, could be as high as 560 trips in the hour of the p.m. peak so 500 trips. That includes the traffic entering the site and then also the trips exiting the site. Just briefly talk about access to the site. This slide shows the existing access to the site, which is the aerial photo here. There's the west access as it's shown and the east access is shown here. The proposed curb line is shown here in yellow. Here's the new parking area. The drive aisles here and the shifting of the easterly access point. This access point is proposed to be a right-in/right-out. Based upon the traffic analysis the amount of volume of traffic that potentially come in and exit this location, if it would be left here without a right-in/right-out would create detrimental impacts to the intersection of Park Road and Powers. Right hand turn lane is also proposed at this location. The access is, the east access is planned to be shifted to the west as much as possible to create more turn lane at this location. This shift however is not enough or not recommended enough. Staff would prefer that that access be shifted over farther to gain more Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 1, 2011 stacking in this turn lane and decrease some conflicts at that location. Again a raised median is proposed at, in the center of Park Road to prohibit traffic exiting at this location from making a left hand turn onto Park Road and onto Powers Boulevard. So with that, this slide shows potential conflicts and traffic issues that staff has identified. Just touch briefly on some of the proposed turn lane taper at this location. Powers Boulevard immediately after the turn off of Powers Drive would have to make a decision whether or not to turn at this location. The access we feel is just so close to the intersection of Powers that there might be some conflicts there. Some hesitation in terms of getting onto the access point. Turning radiuses are too short at these locations. Potential U tum impacts at this location. Really there's 1 1/2 access points for this site which is significantly less than we see for these type of developments. For example the Walmart that's being built in Brooklyn Center right now, I think they have 5 access points. And these type of facilities you like to separate the delivery vehicles from the patrons wanting to use the facility, Walmart. Unfortunately there's only two access points here. The delivery vehicles would have to access the west access point here. Drive through the parking lot in back of the facility. Make the deliveries and then also, and then exit through the parking lot through the east access point here. This development is potentially a 24 hour facility so there would have, there would be potentially some conflicts with those delivery vehicles on occasions. The queuing or the back up at the west access is also a concern for us in the traffic analysis. There's potentially at those peak p.m. peak times a back up of about 150 feet into the parking lot that would impact some of the parking stalls at this location here so there'd be some conflicts of people trying to get out of the facility and people trying to back out of the, back out of their stalls. With that, if the proposed development moves forward there also are some recommendations that staff would like to recommend in terms of additional infrastructure that would be needed at Powers and Trunk Highway 5. Based upon the analysis again additional left tum for westbound Highway 5 to southbound 5 would be required. That was one of MnDOT's major comments in their report to staff. Staff is also, would like to see additional left turn lane on northbound 5 to westbound 5. Or northbound Powers to westbound 5 there and then also the stacking lane increased as much as we can there. There's some conflicts about backing up on Highway 5. On Powers at the p.m. peak period where potentially traffic could not get onto the turn lanes going westbound on 5. A traffic signal would be required at Park Road and Powers Boulevard for level of service issues and also pedestrian movements. That would be a requirement as well. So with that in summary, the size of the development poses traffic challenges to our roadway systems here in this area. Staff is also concerned about some of the internal traffic movements within the site based upon our analysis. With that I'll turn it back to you Kate. Aanenson: Alright. So finally again in the staff report are the 9 findings for a PUD. I'm going to go through each of those. Again if anybody has a copy of the staff report but I'll summarize those. Again I just want to remind the Planning Commission that this is a concept PUD so because it's concept we don't have everything detailed and often, one of the choices is to ask for additional information to move it forward or decide that it's too deficient to make it work so deficiencies as laid certainly is the management and design techniques to reduce potential traffic conflicts, as the City Engineer has pointed out. Again the staffs opinion is that does not provide additional preservation of desirable site characteristics. We talked about the wetland and the creek. Then also the plan and the design of the building does not meet the standards. That would also include the parking and the sensitive to transitional areas, and also we didn't spend a lot of time but the internal pedestrian access is poor. We talked about the signal to get over there to the site off of Park Road and coming the other way on Park Road but once you get into that, there is an internal sidewalk. Maybe we can just zoom in. So internally there's a sidewalk in the middle going up to the front door but there's a sidewalk along the perimeter but it's closer to the car overhang and I think it's a little bit problematic to make it more pedestrian friendly to walk to the site so those again are some of the concerns that we have on the site itself so I think this kind of gives you a better understanding of the surrounding situation of the environmental sensitivity. So with that there's two motions that the Planning Commission has. You can approve the concept development if they somewhat you hear from the public hearing and gives the applicant some direction to go. Again it's concept which means just for everyone, they would still have to come back. They'd have to go to City Council first to get approval from the City Council. This is only a recommendation, and then if the City Council gave them a recommendation to proceed with some specific, they would have to come back with a Chanhassen Planning Commission—November 1, 2011 more detailed plan and have another public hearing so it would be, that'd be one choice or the Planning Commission could recommend denial of the concept based on the Findings of Fact as stated in the staff report so with that Chairman I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Aller: Thank you. Just real quick Mr. Oehme, on that parking scenario. If we were to move the lane farther west as the planning department and your office would indicate or desire, wouldn't that cause additional problems as well? Wouldn't that remove parking spaces? Oehme: Potentially the parking stalls could be, if 1 understand your question, can be moved over to the east side of the parking. The conflict then occurs if we move the easterly access point farther to the west. There's conflicts between those two access points then and then the westerly access point, the stacking of the turn lane there too is shrunk so there's some other issues associated with moving those two access points closer together. Aller: So it would actually create additional shortages and problems. Oehme: There could be, yep. Aller: Okay. And then the traffic turn lanes and modifications that would be required and recommended by MnDOT, were they expected to be in place or implemented at some time in the future according to the 2030 plan? Oehme: They did not really specify time periods but 1 mean their recommendation would be to put the turn lanes in and it will be the City's expectation that those improvements be made prior to any development of this size going in at this location. Aller: Okay. Mr. Ellsworth, you have any questions? Ellsworth: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. I have quite a few actually, and I apologize for my voice today. I'm recovering from a cold but I'll try to speak into the microphone. Kate, you mentioned the two zoning, the IOP and the commercial, community commercial. In the summary it talks about the City Council guided the property for either. Is that the same as saying that both apply? Aanenson: Yes, both apply. That's correct. Ellsworth: Okay, that's what I thought but. Aanenson: So your determination could be the IOP is still legitimate and no reason to change it. Ellsworth: Alright. And then you talk about next steps if it was approved. That was one of my questions. When you talk about the 9 criteria in the proposal summary, those are really the 9 on page 5 and 6, even though they're not labeled that. Required general standards. Aanenson: Sorry Chairman. Actually the findings would be starting on page 16 so what you're, what they're requesting is the PUD so the findings start on page 16. Ellsworth: The findings do but the, I guess I was looking at the criteria. Evaluated against the 9 criteria. Those are what started. Aanenson: Those are the 9 criteria starting on page 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 Ellsworth: Okay. Aanenson: So it is the, is the preservation of desirable features. Is it more efficient use of the land. Those would be the findings. Ellsworth: Okay, thank you. And then if the improvements that we talked about just now were to be made and would have to be made prior to development going in, I presume there's no cost share with the City. That's all born by the developer or is there a cost share typically with that? Oehme: There's nothing in our capital improvement plan associated with this development. Ellsworth: Yeah. So there's nothing in the plan so therefore the City would not be putting any money into any kind of road improvements should a development like this go in, is that a fair statement? Oehme: There's nothing in our plan for any of these improvements. Ellsworth: Okay, but capital plans can be changed. Oehme: They can and it's up to the council. Ellsworth: Okay. Oehme: I should be more clear. It's up to the council if they want to change our plan, they obviously have the authority to do that but right now we have nothing planned to help offset the infrastructure costs associated with any improvements in this area, Park Road, Powers or 5. Ellsworth: Understood. Thank you. And a typical development or improvement like this, would the City or has the City in the past shared in those costs? Oehme: I'm trying to think. I'm not aware of any. Not since I've been here I don't think in the last 7 years. Ellsworth: Okay, thank you. That was one of the questions I had. We didn't talk much about water today and I noticed Terry wasn't here so I won't be, try to dig too deep but on page 15 we talk about the stated goal of the, it's to improve one waters to existing, to improve the existing water quality trend. A couple questions in that. How is the water handled today at that site? There's a couple, not culverts but outlets down at the bottom of the hill. I presume it flows over to the Lake Susan holding pond and those areas that we talked about, I don't know a couple meetings ago. The current water handling now. Storm water. Oehme: Yeah, I believe it goes to the pond up on the northwest. Ellsworth: Oh, the ponds adjacent to the site. Oehme: Adjacent to the site, correct. Right there. Ellsworth: Alright. And then when you talk about increasing the quality, the water must be treated to greater than NURP standards, and I forgot what NURP stands for. NURP. It must assure that rates to and within Riley Creek do not increase. Can you talk a little bit about how they would do that or you know you got some mention about the challenges in there that would be a private management system underneath the parking lot. That's all very confusing. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 Oehme: They have not really proposed any storm water improvements at this time. We don't really know exactly what they're thinking. We're anticipating that when they do underground storage underneath the parking lot, there's some cisterns or chambers, grid chambers. Storm water management systems that other developments like this have put in the past. For example the Cub Foods up in Shorewood has these type of facilities. These systems and they're more maintenance. More cost to put in but, and if you have a limited site, stormwater NURP standards, those are the only systems that you really can put in to treat the water so, especially with the amount of impervious surface that's being proposed tonight. Ellsworth: Yeah. And in any development that would go in here, any big building like that would be under the same constrictions and same restrictions, correct? Oehme: Correct. Ellsworth: Okay. And then we talk about the significant obstacles may preclude the development of this site as indicated in the conceptual plan. And again that, this site is zoned for, I think the maximum was 65,000 dollars into the, or 65,000 square feet under the commercial, and again I forgot what that's called. Commercial, community commercial, and that seems that would be more fitting for that size because of the issues that we're running into with larger buildings and so any site. Aanenson: What it says is, it says on one floor Ellsworth: On one floor. Aanenson: On one floor so if you went two stories that would free up parking space too so the intent was that you could go more vertical, then it would give you the exposure on Highway 5. Ellsworth: Okay. Aanenson: I don't think we talked about it but because of the elevation change, I think this might be a good one to show you. The building is sitting down. We talked about the change in grade so it's actually recessed quite a bit so you're just seeing the top of the profile because of the retaining walls as you would be driving by so one of the things we talked about in the commercial study is somebody on that site might want the visibility. A user would want that traffic that you can see the use coming. Ellsworth: Alright. That's all the questions I had for staff at this time Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you Paul. Aller: Thank you. Commissioner Doll. Doll: I'm just wondering what your opinion is regarding getting a semi through this parking lot. To me looking at this it just, I don't even know how you make a tum. It appears that there's a hard concrete or a hard bituminous on the outside perimeter and that, I don't know how it makes that first left turn and squiggles back there and then it comes down to the south and then if a car's turning into the right and a semi's coming out, you have potential for back up. I mean does this work? Oehme: I mean we have the same concern as you do. Doll: Okay. Oehme: They're, l mean they showed the, again the traffic circulation for delivery trucks again going through the west access point, up and around. Staff did put turning movement templates for larger truck traffic. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 wheeler truck traffic and these radiuses do meet minimum standards but again it's the conflicts with parked vehicles. Those type of things that are our concern. You know it's very tight. Doll: Okay. And what is the kind of the process of Walmart or a big box coming in and looking at a site like this and you know knowing that they're going to have to adjust. It doesn't seem like they kind of took the site into consideration before this. I'm confused about the size of this thing and where it's sitting. Aanenson: Yeah I guess I'd ask, have you ask the applicant that. Doll: Okay. 1 have no further questions. Aller: Commissioner Thomas. Thomas: Actually I'll have questions for the applicant so I'll just wait Aller: Commissioner Tennyson. Tennyson: One question. Could you explain a little bit about the difference between what you called regular commercial in the report and community commercial. I think I've been a little stuck on that. Aanenson: Sure. There's actually, the City has a couple different zoning districts for commercial. Maybe I can go back to, sorry. So there's right now the City has, this is in the comprehensive plan so we have the central business district, which is the core of the downtown. We also have along some fringes of the core, we have business highway which is kind of the auto related part. Then we also have neighborhood commercial, and again these are zoning districts, and that's kind of where you meet your daily needs which would be also kind of more convenience, your gas stations and some other support things. There's offices in some of those too. And then the community commercial was to compliment again the downtown, and looking at the studies and saying there's not much room downtown. We're kind of looking at the redevelopment to strengthen the downtown. Again looking at if something was to, large was to go. When I say large I mean talking about a lifestyle center and it was clear during that process that we would have been in piecemeal a lot of development. There was going to be one large master plan that we provide additional commercial, which was created, a new zoning district. The community commercial zoning district. And then the lifestyle center which was specific zoning districts. Tennyson: So the application here would vary basically the type of commercial... Aanenson: Correct. Why they're asking for a PUD, the closest district would be a CC but the PUD allows you that flexibility to create the district. That's why you have to meet those 9 criteria. Are you giving a more sensitive development. Higher architecture. Those sort of things so you can get ask for really for those types of, and we have a number of commercial PUD's in the city. Tennyson: Okay, thank you. Aller: Ms. Hokkanen. Hokkanen: Yes, I have one or two questions about traffic. I was surprised when 1 read the report, the study about most of the traffic coming from the east to the west and was there morning traffic? Any numbers on morning traffic for the traffic going from the west to the east which is heavier in the morning with the traffic from the east to the west, with a Walmart in Eden Prairie, are they expecting people coming home from the west to stop on their way home from work or any numbers on that? 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 1, 2011 Oehme: When we looked at the traffic analysis it just, the numbers just appeared that the p.m. peak hours are the most, will be the heaviest used. Typically these type of facilities when people are coming home after work, they want to stop in. Get supplies and go again so that's the type of usage that we're anticipating in the afternoon to be the most so. Hokkanen: In this letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation they were saying how critical this morning peak period is and there's no really information on that but they're concerned about that. Oehme: Yeah and I mean they're concerned about it too but I think the p.m. peak numbers that we've looked at, it kind of trumps the a.m. Hokkanen: It does, okay. Otherwise my other questions have been answered. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: Nothing right now. Aller: Okay. Thank you very much. At this point in time we'll ask the developer/applicant if they want to come forward. Make a presentation. Please state your name and your representation for the record please. Lisa B. Nelson: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members. My name is Lisa B. Nelson. I live at 205 North Lincoln in Thorpe, Wisconsin. Just over the river but I was born in Duluth. So we're excited to be here tonight to talk about this proposal and I'm also here with our entire Walmart team here in the back. The people standing back here. All from Minnesota and they all live in the area so we're all very familiar with Chanhassen and the unique amenities that you have here in Chanhassen. The high quality of life that you enjoy. We also have a divisional office in Bloomington and that's really important. We have kind of decentralized our company a little bit so where a lot of the functions that used to be in Bentonville, Arkansas they're not located right here in Bloomington for this division and I'm happy to have with us tonight Sharon Power who's the regional manager for 97 stores and she lives right next door in Eden Prairie. So Sharon's here tonight because she's going to shop this store if it's built so. And then Luke and Will and Will are engineers. Will Matzek is going to speak right after I do and I'm going to give you just a little bit of background about Walmartjust because we're not here and today I spent the day talking with neighbors, talking with folks around the community, just around the intersection mainly at the Perkins and the Taco Bell and just trying to get a sense for what people thought was important and you know there seems to be some gap in knowledge about our company. Just a little bit so I just want to take, if I might, just a little bit. Give you a little bit of history. In the 1970's a lot of the retailing community started to go towards these larger discount retailing stores, so you started to see Targets and K -Marts and Walmart and in fact you know here in Minnesota is home to a lot of great retailers. Sam Walton believed that everyone should have access to low prices. Not just folks who lived in the city but people who lived in rural areas and that really was the start of his business. That's how he built his business by serving customers and letting people know that everyone should have access to low prices so they don't have to leave their community to do that. Here in Chanhassen we know people are shopping our stores because we analyze leakage information. Leakage, about 70% of our transactions are done through a check or a credit card. We have a 5 digit zip code so we kind of look to see where people are coming from and shopping at various stores in the area and we know a lot of folks in this area are shopping at Chaska, and Shakopee and Eden Prairie and what we're proposing is that we keep those dollars right here in Chanhassen. As you know Walmart is one of the most successful companies in the world. We're quite large. In Minnesota we have 75 facilities across the state. We're one of the state's largest private employers. We also have about 1,040 some suppliers in this state, which is a very, very large number of suppliers here that account for $13.4 billion dollars of merchandise and services and impact on the Minnesota economy, so that's huge, right? Let me talk a little bit about our proposal here. This store is 120,000 square feet and will provide 250 to 300 jobs. We all know in this economy it's very, very difficult 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 for many folks who have lost their jobs or who are looking for jobs. There'll be a lot of discussion around jobs. What kind of jobs these are? What do they pay? What kind of benefits are there? I expect there to be a lot of discussion about that and we are happy to answer any of those questions. Sharon oversees all of the stores again in this area so those store managers in Eden Prairie, etc they all funnel up to Sharon. Our average hourly wage in Minnesota for full time hourly associates is $12.15 an hour. We do offer full time and part time associates benefits. Healthcare benefits and we do have a match for our 401K up to 6%. This store again 250 to 300 jobs right here in Chanhassen. And many times when we have a store that opens in a community and we are advertising for 300 positions let's say, we have 4,000 to 5,000 applicants so there are a lot of folks who are looking for these jobs and who want these jobs. We're going to talk about traffic. Willis going to, Will and his team are going to talk about traffic and I'm going to just say that in terms of traffic our team will work with the City and they have been working with the City to address a lot of the concerns that you're going to hear tonight or that have already been identified by your city staff so we are able to mitigate many of those traffic concerns. Another question we often get when we're working on sitings is regarding crime. Usually the crime statistics of our store will mirror the crime statistics of your community and based on your website you have very low crime in Chanhassen so we would expect that at the store. But you should know and we can give you some references in this regard, is that we do work with our local communities in a very, very integrated way with local police departments to make sure that we're cooperating fully in any issues or problems that there may be at the store. We have digital cameras on our property. We digitally record just about everything that takes place on our property and we cooperate fully with local law enforcement so usually if a crime is committed on our property, we're very successful at closing those cases. We're here to answer your questions tonight and we're happy to answer any of them. Many of them that you've already asked we have people itching to answer the question but more importantly we're here to listen. We want the project to be successful for your community and you know the engineers can talk about the technicalities of water. Managing water. Managing traffic. The architecture and those technicalities we will meet your code. We will do what you need us to do and we'll go beyond that when we hear from your neighbors and from your constituents so we're here to listen tonight too and hopefully we can gather some really good information from neighbors about how we can make this a project that works for everyone. We're very, very excited to come to Chanhassen. It's a very, very exciting project. We look forward to working with you so I know I was speaking really fast but I know there's a lot of people that want to speak so I'm going to turn it over to Will. Aller: Thank you. Thank you for that overview. Will? Will Matzek: Yes. Aller: What's your last name sir? Will Matzek: Matzek. Aller: Mr. Matzek. And what is your capacity with Walmart? Will Matzek: Sir, I am the engineer of record for the project and have been working with staff so far as well as the, as well as MnDOT and Carver County. Aller: Thank you. If you could, we've heard a good general overview of Walmart and 1 think a lot of the individuals here are very proud of their community and have participated in the past in the creation of our plan. Our 2030 plan where this community wants to be and what kind of development it wants to have and we've set the development pattern and the zonings for a reason and that was with their input and the input of a lot of engineers and individuals and a lot of discussion so I would like you to address if you could the findings in the report and the concerns that our planning division has come up with because that's where 1 think we need to focus the conversation tonight. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 Will Matzek: Certainly. I appreciate that and thank you for the opportunity to speak. We're here really to you know get input from the commission and the community. We are very, very early on in this process and really that is why we are here and wanting to get the input as this is certainly an opportunity that Walmart wants to be a part of this community and we all on the team certainly take that very seriously and just appreciate that chance and we'd like to take the input tonight and then certainly I think there's some updates that we can do from both an engineering standpoint as well as an architectural standpoint that we can do to mitigate some of the concerns from staff as well as the input we receive tonight so certainly I can touch on a number of the concerns and if there's specific questions, feel free to ask. From a traffic standpoint I know there was quite a bit of discussion about that. We have certainly been working with staff as well as MnDOT and Carver County initially on a traffic study and but yet we're still very early on in the process. Generally we have concurrence as far as the various improvements that may be necessary here for not only the Walmart store but also looking out into the future for future development in this area to account for that traffic. Actually all the way out to 2030 so we're looking beyond just this one particular store. We looked at the area as a whole in the analysis with traffic and as I had mentioned we generally have concurrence on the improvements that would be required and we'll certainly be working with the various, not only the City but also the County and MnDOT on the best way to implement the improvements to account for the new traffic generation from the store but also into the future so we have a broader vision and so we're matching up with the comprehensive plan. From an internal traffic standpoint, with truck traffic, I know that was a question. We have performed an analysis using a program called auto turn, which is a very widely used program that utilizes truck modeling software essentially to look at the footprint of the trucks that would be serving this site. The trucks that will be serving the site can certainly safely mitigate through the site and the trucks are really the life blood of any store. We need to get our merchandise to the store and so that is certainly one of our chief concerns as well as customer traffic and ensuring that there is an adequate truck path that works for both the trucks as well as customers and so we can certainly provide that information here in the future. That is, as mentioned, we're very early on and so we can provide that input as we proceed and then from an access management standpoint with the two access locations, we have modeled that within our traffic modeling software. We've worked with, as I mentioned the City, County and DOT and the access points as we have them proposed actually do function very well. They operate at a very good level of service. I do know there was some concern as far as the location and how close the easterly most access was to Powers. We think we can work with staff to find an acceptable solution to that to move that over a little bit such that it will comply with the ordinances and we think we can come up with a very suitable solution to that issue as we proceed. We can also work with staff and with the input here tonight to improve some of the site layouts and making sure that we will work with staff to improve the buffer area adjacent to the wetland. With the proposed retaining walls on site we are staying out of the wetland entirely, which is certainly positive. We're very sensitive to the natural resources but we'll take the input from staff and see if we can't improve upon that buffer to meet and/or exceed the ordinances. From a water quality standpoint, we will currently the site does discharge into that wetland area and so we will be looking to add underground treatment facilities that will improve the water quality and improve the discharge rate leaving the site so, but with the proposed development there will be an improvement from a natural resources standpoint from water quality so certainly a very positive thing from that front. I believe I've touched on a number of the items that you had outlined but if there is anything in particular in question I'd be happy to answer those. Aller: I guess have you done your own independent traffic study then? Is that the model that you're talking about? Will Matzek: Yes sir we have so, in working with both the City and County and MnDOT we did perform a traffic study and generally the conclusions, they didn't teach me this in engineering school, sorry. But generally you know we concur and so now it's a matter of working through the details of how you implement these types of solutions and the real design of it. You know in concept we all believe we're on the same page but we need to take it a step further as we proceed. is Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 Aller: When you say you're on the same page, you agree with MnDOT and the engineering department that these extra tum lanes are needed and the requirement for the, for instance the stacking lane to move farther west? Will Matzek: Yeah, we generally, like I said have concurrence on these things. Now we need to actually get into the real design. We wanted to get the input from commission as well as the community here before we proceed too far. That was what you know we want the opportunity to make sure that we're hearing concerns and that we can address everybody as best we can. Aller: Yeah and I'll go ahead and ask Commissioner Ellsworth's next question which is, is it your intention to pay for the interchanges or to request funds from the City? Will Matzek: Our intention is to mitigate concerns as best we can and we'll work through that as we proceed. You know the real design has not been done yet so we'd like the opportunity to work with staff on the real design as well as the County and MnDOT to ensure that we have a good design that works and work through those responsibilities but normally you know we're very early on so we want to cooperate with all the agencies to ensure we're meeting concerns there. Undestad: One question? Just a quick question Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: What's the hard surface coverage on the way you have this laid out right here? Will Matzek: I believe it's approximately 9 acres. Undestad: No, but the total percentage of hard surface versus the normal. Will Matzek: Versus the site. I believe. Aanenson: It does meet the requirement. It's 70% and you do meet that. Will Matzek: I believe that's correct, yes. Aller: Any other questions at this time? Commissioner Ellsworth. Ellsworth: Thank you Mr. Chair. Will, Mr. Matzek. I guess I just have the basic question, if Walmart's coming in, you know I'd bring my very best for this. It seems like there's so many deficiencies in this plan and so many things pointed out by staff and I'm uncomfortable with you standing there saying well, you know we're going to work with staff and we'll work some of this stuff out and so and it's like well, well why didn't you do that and then come to us and then we'd be in a lot different position and the audience might be in a lot different position as well but now there's all kinds of these unknowns, at least in my opinion. Unknowns about where this might go and how this might turn out and when we talk about you know moving the wall or making this different or getting further away for a larger buffer and so on, all that tells me is that the area's going to shrink and is that something Walmart is willing to do to actually shrink this store to meet some of those requirements that you talked about meeting? Will Matzek: As far as you know we mentioned we are early on but you know we have met with staff and with the staff report, this was the first formal comments that we had received. As with any ordinances there can be different interpretations on how you read it and you know our intent is to meet the ordinances. Staff 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 1, 2011 has outlined a number of concerns and we're open to working with staff. We very much are. We want to be part of the community and mentioned this is you know a conceptual PUD so we are early on and I think that is, it was my understanding of the intent of the meeting and so certainly there are ways to improve and we're open to that and so 1 know that's not necessarily the answer you want to hear but we're open to hearing this feedback and dialogue and making some modifications and presenting it again if that's something that you would like to see. We're here to work with the community really. Aller: Okay. And just very respectfully I think to Commissioner Ellsworth's point is very well taken. What you're asking for is not to meet conditions but actually to go around certain zoning conditions by requesting a PUD which is why I was asking about the 2030 plan. In our 2030 plan this type of arrangement as outlined in your concept is not acceptable so the question is why should we allow you to modify or ask us to modify our zoning requirements to allow Walmart to come in and build? Develop. Will Matzek: Sure. Okay, well I think that from a number of standpoints we are in line with the comprehensive plan as far as the services that this store would provide and I think that a number of those items really truly are met and the intent is met I think by the comprehensive plan. I think maybe the bigger issue that I'm hearing is maybe the size of the store. 1 will say that this is actually one of the smaller footprints that Walmart does do. I think a lot of folks are used to you know a 200,000 square foot type building. Walmart has you know reduced that size for this type of a site and that it is smaller and really I think as well, 1 think the retail environment is a little bit different now than maybe perhaps when the comprehensive plan was set. You know the square footage, I know there's a limit on that and I recognize that we do exceed that but at the same time I think that you know with the cooperation between the Walmart team and certainly staff that we can find suitable ways to solve these issues to make it a worthwhile development at this location. Aller. Okay, thank you. Anything else? Ellsworth: No thank you. Aller: Commissioner Doll. Ellsworth: Thank you Mr. Matzek. Will Matzek: Thank you. Doll: I'm just wondering. Will Matzek: Oh I'm sorry, I should say too that Jackie Cook -Haxby our architect is also here too to speak and to answer any questions as well before we move on... Doll: Why this site? Why doesn't Walmart. Will Matzek: 1 think that Mr. Mike Sims with MidAmerica Real Estate will be a person that can answer this particular question. Doll: Okay. I just want to be on record that you're kind of putting us in a hard position here for what we're being asked to determine here with what we got on paper here. It doesn't meet the requirements that were asked. I just don't understand it. It seems kind of a like a waste of time. Mike Sims: Maybe that'll just rest on there. I won't touch it. I, good evening. I'm Mike Sims. I'm with MidAmerican Real Estate. I'm the broker for Walmart here in Minnesota. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission—November 1, 2011 Aller: Thank you Mr. Sims. Mike Sims: As it relates to your question specifically why this site, we would tell you that in this corridor on the north side of 5 there are not parcels that can accommodate a box of this size so from a pure looking in the Chanhassen trade area, this is the best site for our intended use. I looked at this site 5 years ago for Lowe's. 1 also do the Lowe's work. At that time for 150,000 foot store and any retailer that's looking to locate in Chanhassen would tell you that this is you know the best site available for retail. If I can answer any other questions as it relates to the retail aspect. Thank you. Aller: Thank you Mr. Sims. Any other questions? Another representative? Lisa B. Nelson: I think that will conclude our presentation for right now unless you have other questions of us. We do have the architect here. We do have our traffic engineer and Will and I can ask any questions about the company. I can answer them. You know I know you're going to get a lot of feedback from the public but we are here. There is one site that you can go to, www.walmartfacts.com. It is audited and it has all of our corporate facts on that website. It will have all the information from Minnesota as well so you can refer to that. The one thing that you will miss without Jackie coming up here to do any kind of architectural presentation is our commitment to sustainability. This store will be absolutely sustainable in terms of the design elements that go into the actual store. You'll see the daylight harvesting, which is taking in the natural light and having light fixtures that adjust, etc. There'll be a lot of elements in this store that you'll be really proud of as a community so just wanted to, there's a lot there to talk about if you're interested. Aller: Well I just want to make it clear that it wouldn't be on us to miss her presentation. We'd like to hear anything that you have to say that will educate our community on why Walmart is wanting to come into Chanhassen and what they would do for our community. Lisa B. Nelson: And as Will stated, we looked at this meeting really as very preliminary where we're looking at a concept here and there's still a lot of room for us to make changes to this plan. We had a meeting before this and Will was outlining some of the very changes that the City Engineer recommended so there's, and as we hear you know like I said, there's a lot of technical things. We can meet any of your codes. We can meet your, what you need us to do technically but hearing from neighbors and hearing the antidotal how traffic really moves. How people really are going to drive through there. How people want to shop. What they want to experience. Those are things we want to hear too so it's a two way conversation. We don't want to just come in here and say this is our plan and it's this or nothing. We're coming in and saying we want to have a two way conversation with you and we are very flexible. A lot of the, we have a lot of flexibility at Walmart and we definitely want to be a good company to work with. Aller: Understanding that is there anybody else from Walmart you'd like to have come up and speak. Thank you. Lisa B. Nelson: Jackie, want to talk about your. Jackie Cook -Haxby: I try to avoid the microphone whenever possible. I'm Jackie Cook -Haxby. I'm with SAIC and I actually live right around the comer on Green Ridge Drive. Also in Eden Prairie but this is my shopping area so I shop all the stores that are in this area. The architecture. I think maybe. Aanenson: Is this okay? Jackie Cook -Haxby: One of the side shots with the back shots maybe. Yeah, that'll work. We did indeed read your ordinance and one of the reasons that we did not put, or I did not direct my staff to put any windows 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 on the sides and the back in this bottom elevation is that number one, it's significantly below grade. Number two, those are all warehouse functions or cooler/freezer functions. As a matter of fact the pop out on the bottom right hand corner that you can see that has a little lighter brick inbetween some columns actually is the compressor unit for the refrigeration and we tried to locate those more towards the areas that are not going to be occupied by anyone else. So in reading your code I noticed that there was a comment in there that when the functions of the building don't allow transparency or windows, entrances, doors, that type of thing, there were a possibility of some other exceptions including architectural features. It being more or less hidden by the shrubbery that's going to be, or landscaping that's going to be right on Highway 5, I debated putting anything on that side. It's not that I can't. It's not that I won't. I just didn't notice that it would, in viewing it and driving it I didn't think it was going to be viewable so that's why it's not there. Talking a little bit about the materials of the building. Being from this area of course I have surveyed the areas. I do note that Target is painted block. It also has some non -transparent windows on it. It has a single entrance. Some of the newer buildings, like the Office Max I think it is and a few of the others do have more of a brick type atmosphere and we've tried to use a little bit of all the materials. We are indicating that the primary main wall construction is going to be a pre -cast and it is a textured pre -colored, pre -cast product. We have included additional windows. Some of them non -transparent on the front. We have used some quick brick, which is a larger brick element and made out of concrete but fired like brick to provide accents around the building. We've also included a second wall sign on the back to add a little more interest to the back side of the building. Again realizing that most of it is not going to be visible because you're going to be zooming by there. I know I do at about 60 miles an hour if the stop light's green, and the trees are up so. As to the sustainability of the building, at least to briefly address that. One thing that we're doing is one of the most sustainable features according to the education is re -using a site that has already been vacant for some time. Yes, we're taking down the existing building. The existing building was not something that we could convert to a retail store so we have to take it down but we are re -using a site that is already developed. Therefore we're not going out and taking a green field site. We're not destroying somebody's crop land. We're not taking part of the Arboretum. We're staying in a site that's already developed. We have the white roof which is reflective and will create less of a heat island effect. We have the sky lights, and there are a lot of them. There's probably um, maybe 100 or better sky lights on top of this building that will be tied in to the lights inside the building with a sensor and so when it's bright daylight out, the lights inside the building go way down. When it's evening or an overcast day, the lights come up. The heat off the refrigeration units is recycled so that it goes into heating all the water. We have of course all the low BOC refrigerants and that type of thing. The low water usage toilets and sinks. Any number of things. We use fly ash in the concrete. These are all features that are fairly standard and again at walmartfacts.com you can see a light of our sustainable things. The other thing we do is we are very heavy into the recycling. Not only during the, while the store is in use but when we're building it so we try very hard not to take anything to the dump. We have a recycling program during construction and that material is all recycled that comes off the building that we don't use to build it. Also during, while the store is in operation we use two types of recycling. We have the cardboard and paper recycling which is bound up and it is picked up and then we also have now gone to with the stores that have grocery in it, we have the recycling of all the green goods and that type of thing that can't be sold or are spoiled and so those are recycled also. Any questions? Aller: Commissioners? Okay, thank you. Appreciate your time. Lisa B. Nelson: The one thing that we did not mention is our community involvement and I just want to mention that because it's significant in Minnesota. In the communities that we call home, our stores are stores of the community. They give back to local organizations. You could call any of our stores to find out and Sharon could provide to us, if you were interested in that information, what kinds of organizations in the communities that where we have stores, where we are investing our dollars. Our charitable dollars. In Minnesota last year we gave $14.5 million dollars back to the communities that we call home and we do that mainly to local organizations, community based organizations. Little League teams, PTO's, fire departments, police departments, any kind of civic type of organization that we could support that would make our IE Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 connection with the community more real. We're very, very interested in that. And when Jackie was talking about the things that we recycle out of our stores, we have a very, very comprehensive sustainability, a very proactive sustainability plan inside our stores. We have some very, very hefty sustainability goals at Walmart that we're going to meet to create zero waste, to be 100% supplied by renewable energy and lastly to help sell sustainable products to all of our customers so you know for example last year we had a goal to sell 100 million CFL's to our customers and we thought well could we do this in one year? Could we sell 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs and we did. We did it by October 1'. We made some key changes in the area of laundry detergent, working with our suppliers. Telling them we don't want it watered down anymore. We want it concentrated. It costs less fuel. Takes up less space. It's easier for folks to carry. And now that change has gone across the sector. Across the retail sector. It's difficult to find watered down laundry detergent because we asked our suppliers to work with us on becoming more sustainable. So 1 think having a Walmart in your community will do a lot of things. It will add tax value. It will add to your, it will help you create some values so that you can afford to do the things that your community wants to do. I think it will bring that low price leadership that your neighbors need and want. They're already shopping at a Walmart somewhere in this area. I think the job creation is significant. 250 to 300 jobs is very, very significant and I think the community investment that we will make as a company and what we will do to give back to Chanhassen will be amazing and you will be impressed by it so we're here to answer questions but we're here to listen too so I'm going to stop talking. Thank you very much. Aller: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Okay, at this point in time I'm going to, if we're going to have side conversations please take them out in the hall. At this point in time we're going to open up the hearing for public hearing, which means public comment. Please take turns. Come up to the podium. We're going to try to limit the statements to 3 minutes and hopefully we won't be repeating comments. If you agree with someone and they've said it all then maybe it's better that we just go ahead and continue but I do not want that to be taken as an intent to stop you from coming forward and giving any information or comment on this matter that you feel that you would like to so, with that I'm going to open the public hearing. Scott Hippen: May I step forward? Aller: Please. Scott Hippen: My name is Scott Hippen, 7017 Cheyenne Trail. I am against Walmart moving into 1000 Park Road. I'm also the person who clapped when the representatives of Walmart concluded their reactions because I believe that they deserve our respect. I appreciate their interest in our community. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, City Engineer, Madam Director of Community Development and representatives of Walmart. The first page of the report, last sentence says a PUD, planned unit development must be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, and I believe that is taken from the Chanhassen City Code and when you read the Chanhassen City Code you will see that primary goal of the code of a comprehensive plan. The primary goal of the Chanhassen comprehensive plan is to contain growth of Chanhassen with the support of Chanhassen residents. Residents of Chanhassen do we have support for this motion to move Walmart into 1000 Park Road? I believe we don't. Thank you. It is according to the Municipal Land Development Act of Minnesota that requires municipalities to use it's comprehensive plan as a guideline so I ask that the commissioners take that into consideration and I will point out page I believe 19. Sorry, page 17 of the report. On number 5 asks, is the development consistent with the comprehensive plan and I would say that it is not because you do not have the support of Chanhassen residents and that we have the power, the commission and the residents of Chanhassen to control the growth of our community and I would ask that the board, I'm sorry. The commission make a recommendation to City Council to put a moratorium on big box store development in Chanhassen until we have a chance to vet out what part of our community we would like to have a big box store in so that we can be in control. So that we're no longer wasting our time with these, as Mr. Doll said, putting us, a big box store putting us into a difficult position. Would also like to take you to page 8, 9, pages 8, 9 and 10. These numbers on this chart were developed oh 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission—November 1, 2011 about a foot of snow ago in February of 2011 and the week of the Monday the 7'h. It was the coldest week in Chanhassen for our winter last year. These numbers are not reliable for determining the traffic impact. These numbers ignore peak traffic seasons and they ignore the a.m. hours. And they look like they're only going one direction which is also in the direction of the big box store parking lot. It ignores how the traffic is going to flow out. 100% of the traffic comes out of the traffic, of Walmart and it goes either north or south on Powers Boulevard. The impact analysis also ignores the impact on Auburn Road, the businesses on Park Road, on Lake Road. Will, the gentleman from Walmart said that trucks are their life line to successful business. Well Walmart would be cutting off the life line to other businesses on Park Road. Making it difficult for them to have successful commerce. They will be harassed by the additional traffic. Also we have a soccer field just adjacent to the proposed property. Chanhassen Athletic Association I'm sure is not happy about sharing it's space with the traffic impact of Walmart. I ask that the commission deny Walmart it's request for a planned unit development on the basis that it is inconsistent with our comprehensive plan. It does not have the support of Chanhassen residents. And I thank Walmart again for coming in here and I ask everyone to remain respectful of them as well as to the commission and thank you for your time. Aller: Thank you. Sarah Thomas: Mr. Chair, Planning Commission members, thank you. My name is Sarah Thomas. 1 live at 2555 Longacres Drive with my husband and 4 children who wanted to come but we figured it'd be a late night and in case you're not sure there are two other full rooms with people here. I'm asking for you, on behalf of myself and our family to request, we're asking for you to deny this request. I have learned through my studies that the downtown area per the comp plan was approved to be guided to allow for some retail, however not to the degree that is being proposed. Quite honestly I am shocked that this proposal is in front of us. I completely understand that it's concept and that Walmart doesn't want to put the money towards all the specifics of a plan but I feel that there are too many deviations in what we've seen as was stated to come forward with grounds for you to approve something of this nature this evening. I'm not hearing words from Walmart or the staffs review that Walmart has gone above and beyond the code or that they're exceeding the ordinance. If anything I'm hearing the staff as well as Walmart, well Walmart noting that they will try to meet the code but staff saying that there are concerns and challenges and that what's being proposed is detrimental and doesn't meet the code. 1 see few if any design features that are very technological such as rain gardens, French drainage systems, permeable pavement, things that if Walmart wanted to give a benefit to the city I think should be part of their concept plan. If approved I'm wondering what would happen when the big box leaves. I was recently in St. Cloud and I saw that the Walmart and Sam's Club is vacant because they built bigger stores closer to the freeway so I didn't quite understand the broker's comments about why this site. It sounded to me like he was saying this site was too small for a Lowe's and too small for other big box retailers. His comments were not clear to me. I would also like to hand something out, Paul if you wouldn't mind that it's one item that really hasn't been touched on tonight. I'll go quickly but this information that I have is in relation to the taxes. What you'll see in the handout is some tax information. The value is slightly increased for the new Walmart to mirror the per square foot value of the Target in Chanhassen so the chart is going to outline the 2011 property taxes generated by a currently office warehouse which is the $208,295. Please note that, do you have enough? Aanenson: Yeah, we're going to put it up there. Sarah Thomas: Okay. Please note that due to fiscal disparities in the statewide commercial industrial tax the total amount, excuse me, annual amount that the City of Chanhassen received in 2011 is only $18,062. The comparison values on nearby Walmart's should be more than reasonable for the purposes of reviewing this tonight. Walmart is proposing to tear down the current building which is the $3.5 million dollar value and construct a new Walmart. After construction the total taxes would be estimated to $325,871. City taxes being $28,269. If you're following the math the important point is that the difference between what is there now and what Walmart is proposing is $10,207. This figure should negate the benefits that Walmart stated 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 1, 2011 that they will bring to town. I believe there are many strains that Walmart's coming to town would bring in relation to traffic and the environment as well as police protection which was brought up by Walmart. I didn't see that information in the staff report but I do believe that there will be increased crime, whether that be petty theft, I'm not sure but we know that it just comes with the people. The Villager article that I recently read stated that the Eden Prairie Walmart generates $380,000 in property taxes a year. Unfortunately the general public doesn't understand the way that our tax system works. Only $38,000 of this money went to the City of Eden Prairie. Unfortunately I realize it's hard to believe but it's our current tax system in Minnesota and the metro area and that is what it is. So I'd like you to be advised and the public to know that those who were thinking that Walmart was beneficial because of taxes, $10,000 just doesn't seem like we should roll out the red carpet and allow all of these deviations to come into our city. I know a lot of other people want to speak. I had a lot more that I wanted to say but I am quite pleased with staff's review of the proposal. I guess one other thing was in relation to the jobs and I just question how many of those jobs will be Chanhassen residents. $12.00 an hour jobs don't seem to me to be head of household type jobs. I know where kids need jobs but those kids can drive to Carver or wherever Walmart wants to go. I know Carver was proposed at one point in time in Carver. I'm not sure why that fell apart but I don't think there are that many people in Chanhassen that would view that to be that favorable to allow it in this location and again to allow that number of deviations so I thank you very much for your time and good luck with your decision. Tim Bloudek: Good evening. My name is Tim Bloudek. I live at 1171 Homestead Lane. I'm a 25 year resident of Chanhassen. I am also against the rezoning to allow Walmart to access to our city in the business climate. You know I don't have a lot of facts and figures. I just have some opinions. Some observations and Walmart said they're here to listen, as I assume you are. You know I don't believe that we need what Walmart has to offer. It is certainly a duplication of supply chain. We have many of the services that we need in duplicate and triplicate and more in certain cases. You know traffic has been discussed. I believe that's an issue. You know I just don't believe that there's any real benefit in the quality of life that Walmart would bring. I am happy to be in the top, one of the top 10 cities in the United States. We did it without Walmart. I think we'll be. I think we'll be fine you know as we go forward. It certainly doesn't fit with my view of what the community needs or wants in a retail district. I just don't believe Walmart needs to be, Chanhassen needs to be one of the thousands of locations that Walmart has worldwide. I do admire Walmart in their logistic prowess. Their ability to generate profit for their shareholders. I commend them for the sustainability efforts. They do a very fine job in that area and you know I commend them for their charitable efforts. For me 1 just don't want what they have to offer in our city and I would ask Walmart to not waste our time or their time and resources in pursuing the city of Chanhassen site. Thank you. Ellis Thomas: My name is Ellis Thomas. I live at 406 West 76h Street. I've been a member of this community since 1967 when you drove in from the east, there was a population that said Chanhassen, 240 so there's been some changes that's taken place in my tenure in this community. One of the disadvantages of being the fourth speaker is that many of the first 3 speakers said what I had in my mind when I thought when I was going to come up here so my, I don't have a lot of statistics. Mine is more or less an emotional plea and that is I'm proud of this community the way it is. I'd like to commend you, the council, the mayor, although 1 don't see him. I'd like to commend the staff for developing a community that I can be proud of and that I can be proud to have people come and visit. I go to other communities and I said boy are they missing it and I won't miss those, I won't mention those names because I don't want to offend anybody but I'm proud of this community and like the gentleman, l believe Tim was his name said, you know we live in a community that's within the top 10 of the United States and we got here without Walmart. And 1 see, I've heard horror stories. I won't mention them. You know it's hearsay but I hear a lot of mom and pop outfits going belly up when Walmart comes into the community and I sort of thing Chanhassen has a lot of mom and pop type outfits. You take a look at an organization like Target. Okay, I go down to Target. If you go to Target you'll probably see me, but I know those people down there. It's just a friendly environment. It's a large communication but it's friendly and you can pretty well get what you want. If you don't, why there's other places you can go. Cub is a nice store. Byerly's. There's all, Ace Hardware. My goodness those people 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 have been in business for years and years and years and you know if you want to go to some other place that sells something cheaper, go do it. Of course you're going to end up spending money on the gas to get there so you've got the convenience of these stores. Please, don't bring in Walmart. Those guys they just come into a community and we're not going to be in the top 10 anymore if they're here. That's my feeling. Brad Karels: Brad Karels, 8105 Dakota Lane. 5 year resident of Chanhassen. I'd like to thank the commission, the folks from Walmart and mostly I'd like to thank everyone from the community who showed up. Everyone in the other room. Thanks for coming out. I know we're short on time. I'll try to keep this brief and stay on point. I'd like to speak specifically to the environmental impact of the site, specifically to one issue that was not addressed that has very little to do with zoning or code or anything else and that's non point source water pollution, which in some people's opinion is the leading cause of water pollution in the United States. I don't want to read but I want to stay on point and make sure I cover all my points. I apologize. One single acre of impermeable surface can generate at most 25,000 gallons of runoff during a 1 inch storm, and here we're looking at about 9 acres of impermeable surface if I read that correctly. Runoff from these impermeable surfaces leads to erosion, flooding and the flow pollutants such as oil, fertilizer, pesticides and heavy metals into our waterways. We have Riley Creek running through the property and we're adjacent to a wetland. There's some planned improvements but there's no way to control non point source water pollution. The United States Institute of Traffic Engineers determined that on average, an average sized Walmart attracts 850 automobiles per hour and most of them are open 24 hours a day so that's 850 hourly opportunities for cars to leave pollutants behind on the impermeable surface to be washed into our waterways long after they've departed and I very much doubt that a little retaining wall 15 feet from the wetlands going to do much good. There's also solid waste concerns. Discarded food wrappers, cups, bits of plastic, and the like all easily carried by wind across their parking lot directly into the creek, the surrounding community, onto the highway and into other parts and recreational areas and there's not much again the organization can do about that kind of pollution entering our community. The proposed occupant has a long history of environmental violations, many which directly related to the Clean Water Act. They've paid millions in fines and civil penalties for their reckless practices and even though they pay the damage is already done and now they could be doing that damage here and I would really prefer to see that not happen. In Connecticut they were heavily fined for threatening rivers and streams with chemical pollution and their then Attorney General Richard Blumenthal noted that Walmart's environmental record seems as low as their prices. He went on to say that in that state they had systematic repeated violations across the state. In summary our hope is that we will not see any of this blatant disregard for the environment here. As a community we seek assurances from this body that every aspect of the local ecosystem will be considered and that those resources, if they cannot be guaranteed protection, that this rezoning not be recommended to the City Council. Thank you. Todd Neils: Good evening. My name is Todd Neils and I'm a 30 year resident of Chanhassen, having grown up with it and eventually moving my family back so 1 could raise them in the town in which I grew up in. I've had the opportunity to address both Park and Rec Commission as well as City Council on a number of different issues over the years but this is my first time with the Planning Commission and I appreciate your time. I'm here tonight to talk about the assumed tax benefit of big box stores such as Walmart is supposed to bring. I heard the Mayor on Channel 5 and he was talking about, about $380,000 in additional tax revenue and hundreds of jobs that this big box store will provide. I'd like to briefly address 3 points. First, according to public record the parcel of land which Walmart wants to occupy paid $208,394 in property taxes in 2011. This is a 5.4% increase over 2010 and really only means a true economic benefit is $171,606. Second, the Civic Economics Group published a study commissioned by the Andersonville Development Corporation in October, 2004. This study shows that locally owned businesses generates 70% locally, more local economic impact per square foot than big box retailers. This group analyzed locally owned restaurants, retail stores, and service providers on Chicago's north side and compared them to national big box retailers competing in the same category. The bottom line of the study is that for every $100 spent on independent retailers in our community it creates $68 in additional local activity while spending the same $100 at that big box retailer 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 1, 2011 only provides $43. This is a 36% less in overall economic impact on the local community. Another study for the Institute for Local Self Reliance and Friends of Mid -Coast Maine in September showed that 3 times as much money stays in the local economy when you buys goods and services from locally owned businesses. This survey found that businesses with combined sales of $5.7 million dollars in 2002 spent 44.6% with the surrounding two counties with an additional 8.7% spent within the state. This is 53.3% spent when shopping locally. The analysis estimates that a national big box retailer operating would return only 14.1% of it's local economy in the form mostly of payroll. The rest leaves the state flowing to out of state suppliers or back to corporate headquarters. My third and final point is the creation of jobs. The Center for Urban Research and Learning at Loyola University in Chicago commissioned in December, 2009 shows that opening of a Walmart on the west side of Chicago in 2006 led to the closure of one-quarter of the businesses within a 4 mile radius. They tracked 306 businesses. Checking their status before Walmart opened and 1 to 2 years after. By the second year 82 of those businesses had closed locally. Businesses within close proximity had a 40% chance of closing. Sales tax and unemployment data provided by the State of Illinois for Walmart zipcode and surrounding zipcodes confirmed that the overall sales and employment in the neighborhood did not increase, but actually dipped from trend line. They noted there is no evidence that Walmart sparked any significant net growth in economic activity or employment in the area. A second study by the Review of Economics and Statistics in February, 2005 shows that job creation is a myth. This study examines the impact of arrival of a Walmart store on retail and wholesale unemployment. Or employment, pardon me. It looks at 1,749 counties that added a Walmart between 1977 and 1998. It finds that Walmart's arrival, while boosting employment by 100 jobs in the first year, far less than 200 to 400 jobs the company says it's stores create because it's arrival causes existing retailers to downsize and lay off employees. With the potential additional of $171,606 in additional income, taking into account additional potential police calls, traffic, congestion, coupled with loss of local retail, the numbers for this big box retailers just don't add up. Thank you. Annie Fisher: My name is Annie Fisher. I've lived in Chanhassen nearly 25 years. I currently reside at 1321 Lake Drive West which is one block directly south of Park Road where this new Walmart is proposed to go in. I don't have many facts like other people. I do have a lot of concerns when I leave these things. My first concern is just the general traffic. We've touched on that. I drive at that intersection in and out every single day. It's a busy intersection and furthermore I see a lot of families, pedestrians, bike riders going on those streets. They're not safe right now as it is. We don't need that further traffic to add to that. Secondly I don't need to go into detail on the local business competition. It won't provide jobs. We know that. My next concern is the heighten crime rate. With this being a 24 hour development I don't feel comfortable living two blocks away from something that's open 24 hours, and that's, Walmart has a proven higher crime rate than Target in terms of incidents that involve the police. Not to mention the property values. I don't feel comfortable living there. Again it's going to drive crime, traffic. It's not good for our property. What I'd like to state is that I don't think Walmart offers anything that our community doesn't already provide and if we do need something Walmart has, I'm fine sacrificing 10 minutes to go down the road to Eden Prairie than to sacrifice the safety of our community. Again 1 don't have many facts but the few terms I've heard thrown around tonight are things like it does not meet requirements, there are many deficiencies, or it meets minimum standards and I'm proud to live in this community and I don't think we got in the top 10 by meeting minimum standards so with that. Bill Fisher: My name is Bill Fisher. I live at 1321 Lake Drive West, Apartment 225. I'm also a board member of the Powers Ridge Homeowners Association. That was my wife. Thank you board members. Thank you Walmart. Thank you community for coming out. I also work for a local business, Lakewinds. Our store is probably about a quarter of the size one proposed and we have four access points. I am a truck driver for the store. That's my biggest concern, in and out. I don't think, I think your deficiencies have laid out the access points to handle the type of traffic. It's something we don't need. It doesn't fit. I think what they won't tell you in the plan is they want to be on the eye of the competition because that site works for them because they can see the competition across the street. I can see more vertical development on that corner. Something with a condo and some restaurants and you know a couple shops there but they want to be 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission—November 1, 2011 in sight of the competition you know. I don't think your engineers have addressed not having enough access points. Why don't you have a, pick a site where you can have 6 or 7 entry points and a separate truck way like most of the other stores in the area have. I think the community's come out in force and I think we'll say thank you but no thank you to Walmart. Thank you for your time. David Kressler: My name is David Kressler. I live at 1750 Valley Ridge Trail North. I moved with my family here in 1997. Moved back to the East Coast for a year and a half and moved by family back here again in 2003. We sell for less always. I know you know that slogan. It's Walmart's. It's seen on trucks and every highway across the country. It's a business model that succeeds for the company but it can destroy communities. How does Walmart sell for less always? Well one is, one way is that they have restrictive and unforgiving supplier relationships. They force lower prices from vendors in order to remain in that partnership. They control events of the supply chain such as delivery dates and requirements to their benefit and to their partner's disadvantage. I would recommend that you check out the scene from Walmart, the high cost of low price where the Walmart farming partner loses a good portion of his crop and profit because of Walmart's control over scheduled pick up, delivery and inspection dates. A second way is hiring part time, low wage workers. There's little in the way of affordable benefits for these people and there's little or no hope of advancement for them. There are other pure business advantages such as volume contracts, worldwide partner basis and the ability to use significant loss leader practices that are part of many different businesses, but the other ones are extremely important to our community. What does selling for less always bring about? Well the outcome that I'm most concerned about, living here in Chanhassen is the well documented assault on small local businesses. Bicycle and toy stores, small hardware stores, pharmacies, hair salons, party supply outlets, tire and auto supplies, just to name a few. They can all be negatively affected and possibly put out of business. And if you hadn't noticed all of these types of businesses exist here in Chanhassen. Finally there's a negative effect on service providers such as lawyers and accountants that are a part of the small business community. Walmart does not use those people. Our business, our local businesses do. I'm not against Walmart's right to exist and even to succeed but I do not support their business model and I do not believe that Walmart is a good match for the city of Chanhassen. I firmly believe that there are other better options that will allow Chanhassen to grow while maintaining the characteristics that have repeatedly placed it among the best places to live in America. I hope the planning committee will recommend against Walmart's proposed development in Chanhassen. Elizabeth Kressler: Good evening, my name is Elizabeth Kressler. I live at 1750 Valley Ridge Trail North here in Chanhassen. I'm also representing the 1,030 people that signed our petition on change.org. I have a sample for council of 840 signatures that you can look at. The majority of them are Chanhassen residents. Everything that everybody has said, while I came up here to say a lot of what everybody already has said but 1 also invite you to look at big box retail. It is a site with many, many reports on it and one of them, Mr. Neils had referenced a report that was very recent and it involved closures of stores and loss of jobs and real estate and it's just not recent that this has been happening. In Iowa, the University of Iowa conducted a study and between 1983 and 1993 there was 7,326 Iowa businesses that went under because of Walmart. 555 grocery stores, 291 apparel stores, and 298 hardware stores, all in the state of Iowa. All due to the fact that Walmart moved in to their small town. I'd like you again to take a look at those, at that site and the majority of those reports I would say 98% of them are all based on what happens when Walmart comes in. Thank you very much. Christine Callahan: Hi, I'm Christine Callahan. I live at 8595 Drake Court in Chanhassen. We built our house in 1994 so I've been here for a good deal of the growth. I'm not going to talk about Walmart so you can rest easy. I would like to address the Planning Commission and your role in planning. This site as we've already talked about is not zoned for what Walmart wants to do. What Lowe's might want to do. What Home Depot might want to do so I would draw your attention to the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan which I believe guide the planning decisions. The first one is to develop and maintain the City's land use plan so it is utilized as a fundamental tool for directing the community's growth, and I think that's why 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 you have 3 rooms full of people tonight because people want to participate in the City's direction and growth. Another goal is Chanhassen will continue to encourage the location of commercial uses in the central business district. Commercial development outside the central business district and it's fringe should complement the central business district. Clearly this sort of business won't complement the downtown. The City will maintain a comprehensive and up to date set of ordinances to ensure that development is consistent with the plan while resulting in high quality, sensitively designed projects. So this is part of our comprehensive plan. In 2008 the City spent a lot of money, a lot of time planning a regional mall out by Highway 212 on Powers. This is a question to the Planning Commission. Has anyone studied the impact of this project on that project? Aanenson: Yes. That's why the two places were guided. There is no additional property in the downtown, anywhere guided for this type of use in the city right now. Christine Callahan: Okay. Aanenson: There is no other site for them to go in the city that's got the current zoning in place. The downtown, the regional commercial district says it has to be master planned. The intent is that to be a unified development so it's again a completely different draw. Different types of uses. I think when we had the open houses it was clear from the residents what their expectations were. That it not be big box users. That it be a truly lifestyle center with entertainment component mix so that's why additional commercial was attached to the downtown core. This community commercial district. Christine Callahan: Okay. I appreciate your answer and I think that it also points to my comment that then this isn't the place for a big box retail. That the citizens of Chanhassen have laid out a plan that doesn't include this kind of business, whether it's Walmart or anyone else and I think that if we're not going to end up like, sorry for the reference, Apple Valley or Roseville, cities that don't have a downtown. They have sort of a sprawling business district that isn't confined to one pedestrian friendly area. I think we need to keep the zoning the way it is. Thank you. Colleen Cannon: Good evening. Aller: Good evening. Colleen Cannon: My name is Colleen Cannon. I live at 8110 Marsh Drive and I've been a Chanhassen resident for 15 years. Just two quick things. I wanted to call the committee's attention, there are a lot of opinions here tonight and I have mine as well but I just thought you might be able to use a little more data so I wanted to call your attention to a study that was done by Kenneth Stone, Professor of Economics at Iowa State University and it's entitled the Economic Impact of Walmart Supercenters on Existing Businesses in Mississippi, and just to take a couple of seconds to read a couple of the conclusions there. First, Walmart Supercenters in Mississippi captured most of their food sales from existing food stores in the host county and existing businesses at the end of 5 years lost about 20% of their generated income. Furniture stores in host county experienced an increase in sales for the first 3 years but declined in years 4 and 5. Building material stores in host counties experienced average losses of 8% to 15% for the first 5 years after the opening of a superstore. The Walmart supercenters capture substantial amounts of miscellaneous retail trade from host counties ranging up to 12% by the fifth year, etcetera. You get the idea so I just thought you might want to factor some of that in because they're going to be taking business from businesses that I think we all appreciate and really enjoy like Byerly's. I'm originally from New York. I brought my parents here. They'd never seen anything like Byerly's. You wouldn't believe the expressions on their faces. I think it's a real, it's something that we should be proud of having in Chanhassen so that's the first thing I want to say. Second thing I would just want to say real quick is that we have an exchange student from China with us this year and I was so proud to be able to bring him tonight to show him the democratic process in action so thank you so much. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission—November 1, 2011 Dave Enright: My name is Dave Enright, 795 Ponderosa Drive. Just got a very quick comment I guess. We started the planning session mentioning and talking a lot about the limited physical area of this site and I'm now, finally I was sitting in the other room with about 100 other people and I'm now looking at this plan and my question is, is more so now, I just moved to Minnesota about 4 or 5 years ago and even I know it snows a lot here so my question is, where does all the snow go? You talked about the parking spaces and the trucking, I'm trying to figure out here where the 2 or 3 feet of snow go so I just wanted to state that for the record. That's all. Thanks. Aller: Okay, the line's, please come forward. Scott Hadden: Hello. Well maybe we saved the best for last. We'll see. My name is Scott Hadden. I live in Victoria and I've actually, I'm an optometrist and I've worked inside the Bloomington Walmart Vision Center for 17 years since that store opened and I do not work for Walmart. I'm an independent contractor there. None of the Walmart folks know I'm here. I haven't talked to any of them. Just heard the meeting was tonight and I would be the lease holder in this Chanhassen store and I just a couple of myths as far as for the community that I just wanted to throw out my concept because I've spent more time in a Walmart than this whole room combined I'm sure. You know looking at the websites and the Chanhassen Villager, somehow there seems to be a stereotype that everybody that comes into Walmart is low income, petty thief, you know all these kind of things as I've heard some really disturbing comments and in East Bloomington the economics are much different than Chanhassen but I see people of every socioeconomic level. I see people whose names you would all recognize. Retired professional athletes. Corporate executives. Performers. You know executives. There's all different socioeconomic levels and I love it. I love, I see low income. I see middle income and I see high income and I think that's what's great about our country. Second thing, I saw somewhere that somebody said they don't go into Walmart come out feeling clean. My goodness. Walmart's put hundreds of millions of dollars, and I'm sure Lisa here would say in remodeling. I saw a retail consultant as a patient and he came in and he's like wow. You know you're going to look like Target and have the low prices of Walmart, you're going to get everybody. And the third thing is, and really I think the biggest concern for the community is the impact Walmart has on small businesses. Again the Bloomington store opened in 1995 and there's a little hardware store right in the corner. Still there. Still open. A bakery right between. There's a Home Depot that opened too by the way two blocks the other way and a bakery, who I do see the owner of the bakery and his, a bunch of his staff, his managers patients and he was really concerned about the impact Walmart was going to have on him. His business, he bought the building behind him and expanded his business so I think, I think the key take away and you know there's always going to be competition. The companies that embrace competition and grow and thrive and adapt are the ones that are going to be successful, whether it's Walmart that comes in or another retailer down the road, there's always going to be competition and I think it's competition that makes us all great so anyway I know you've got a lot of tough decisions. I'm sure the smart people at Walmart and for the City will come out with ways to work this out but thanks for listening and hope 1 see you guys in the future for eye glasses. Bill Shubert: I'm Bill Shubert. t have been in Chanhassen for 5 years this round. 1 was here about 15 years ago for another 5 years. Was able to move back to the area. I have a few things, first of all for everybody to remember, there were arguments against Byerly's when Byerly's moved in. It worked out well. People you know but that's thanks to the commissions, the people all working together and identifying what has worked well. That said, I don't think this would work well. I apologize but point of order, am 1 able to ask questions of the Walmart people? Aller: Why don't you ask me the question and then... Bill Shubert: Alright. The statement, there were a number of statements by the Walmart staff to 250 to 300 jobs. The follow up statement to that was $12.15 an hour for full time positions. What percentage of those Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 positions are going to be full time when they say 250 to 300 jobs? We've already heard a statement that the reality of, you know there's a net job component. In an effort to prove the community worth Walmart also stated the benefit of trying to concentrate products to help reduce what's delivered. It's easier for the person to take it away. That would also note that that is, 1 would also be supporting the smaller shelf size and giving them more retail space available so whether it was beneficial for the customer or beneficial for Walmart, one should decide. That of course supports the previous individual's statement of Walmart forcing suppliers to do what they would like. Two last points. First, they were kind enough to do to the State $14.5 million dollars in charity in Minnesota. That is commendable. 1 would like to know, a straight number is wonderful but I would like to know what was the percentage of profit in Minnesota, percentage of revenue when you look at that $14.5 million dollars. Is that 1%, 7%, 12%? So giving back to the State of Minnesota of course I hope everybody here has in their heart charitable giving and knows that there is fortunately a tax benefit with it. The last item was the question that everybody's had on their mind, why here? Almost an unfortunate say was the response by the realtor who had stated it is the best location for the retailer. Now think about that carefully. What we need to do here is decide what is the best location for our community. Thanks. Katherine Peterson: My name is Katherine Peterson. I live at 7713 Vasserman Place. We have lived in Chanhassen 6 years. We moved here because we like the rural feel that we have in this community. I have no facts and figures about things. All I have is the reality of what I have seen, what Walmart has done to my hometown of Litchfield. Drive one hour and 15 minutes west of here and you will drive down Main Street that is practically a ghost town. There are no small businesses. Very few I should say. Very few small businesses left and I would hate to see that happen in Chanhassen. Thank you. Aller: Another person coming up. Thank you. Margaret DiMarco: Hi. I have just a quick comment. My name is Margaret DiMarco. I live at 1131 Dove Court here in Chanhassen. I've been here about 14 years and my neighborhood is on Powers Boulevard and there's two entrances to our neighborhood off of Powers Boulevard and I'm very concerned about the traffic level that's going to take place on that road. I was taking a look at your traffic analysis and just in 2013 we're looking at 2 cars per minute during the high peak time of day, and that's the time of day where I'm going to be taking my kids to swimming or some kind of sport practice and I already have today a hard time getting out of my neighborhood so I'm thinking the City's going to have to end up putting stop lights in to accommodate that traffic level so 1 just wanted to make that comment so that you'd be aware of that as well as everything else that's said here tonight. Thank you. Aller: Thank you Ms. DiMarco. Okay, is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Please do so. Anyone in the other rooms that would like to come around, please come forward. Deb Lloyd: Hello. My name's Deb Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I've lived in Chanhassen for 31 years and I've been experienced speaking to the Planning Commission many, over a course of many years but I haven't seen this commission recently. I've never seen in 7 years of sitting and addressing this group so many participants from the community and I really applaud them for coming out because that's what America's all about. Speaking up. With respect to what your job is, and that's looking at this plan presented to you tonight. I did have a couple different points that no one else has addressed yet. One is this Carver County map. It has shading in this area which I kind of wondered about. It didn't address anything specifically in the staff report so 1 was really curious about is this orange and I did a little study and there actually aren't any businesses tonight that have really commented about the effects coming down Park Road so it turns out that like all these parcels basically highlighted, except this one, are all paying, they're all owned by the same people. So IWCO or 1 Star Minnesota's Inc taxes on all those parcels which may be why you're not hearing much from the immediate neighbors like you normally would. And then pertinent to the comprehensive plan and this proposal, like someone did say already, Walmart did not put it's best efforts forward on this. Usually when there's a PUD that comes to you, it's because they're asking for something 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 exceptional and they're giving something in return. This is so deficient. It's the most deficient proposal I've ever seen come in 7 years of watching what's come forward. Also what's not in here, this is a bit of history maybe for some of you. Mark, maybe you sat through this but we had a gentleman who owned property in Chanhassen who was denied camping on his own property. He made it kind of a long term homestead granted but he was denied camping on his own property. Walmart allows for RV's to park overnight in their parking lot. Now to me that's a campground in Chanhassen and I think that needs to be brought forward. And one other thing, talking about sensitivity. This was zoned for a 60,000 square foot facility. We're looking at double that. Now I know Kate said this proposal is 30% pervious surface but boy my eye doesn't say that. It looks like more than 70% impervious and that has to be calculated infinitely because of the effect that will have negatively on the creek and the sensitive site that we're talking about. Thank you for your time. Aller: Thank you. Kent Ludford: Good evening Aller: Good evening. Kent Ludford: My name is Kent Ludford, 8615 Valley View Court. Everybody has already commented on all my thoughts about tonight's meeting. Questions. I drive from my home, just off of Audubon, down Audubon. Park Road. Tum left to go up Powers. Wait for the light. Go up to 78th Street and go to my place of business. I do that 13 days on, get 2 days off. Start all over again. But my thinking is, if I understood what they were telling me, it's right-in/right-out. That right out then takes them to Audubon. Back to 5 or Audubon south to get back to Powers to get on the freeway. When I get now any morning 7:15 in the morning 1 pull up to that intersection. I need to wait til the stop lights have changed. I can get a pass both, cleared both ways. Go up to the stop lights. Stop lights at 7:15 in the morning will allow about 6 cars to go through before they change back to yellow. If there's a truck or a school bus sitting there and you're the sixth car, mostly likely you'll have to wait another 3 minutes for the lights to change again. Now this is a normal Monday through Friday, 7:30 in the morning so I'm thinking to myself we're going to make a right in, a right out all the way down to Park Road. Two lanes. You've got a beautiful soccer field. Kids love that. It's an evening thing. I guess from what I'm hearing most of their traffic is evening. I can see that field getting 3 feet high in grass. They can't use it. The City put up no parking signs. The street's too busy. There's only one places the parents park on the street. That nice, beautiful soccer field will be abandoned because they can't use it. Unless they want to walk from the generous Walmart's parking lot to walk over to play soccer. 1 have been doing this route for quite a few years. I own a business in Chanhassen. I own the Ace Hardware store. We moved into Chanhassen May 16, 1983. We moved into the Frontier Lumber's, or part of the Dinner Theater complex. It was Frontier Lumber and Herb was getting older. Wanted to retire so I bought him out just the hardware store. I love this town. I donate as much as I can to this town. If I made their kind of money I would be giving them $14 million a year too but I think for dollar for dollar what I'm grossing here compared to them, I do a fairly nice job for the city. Just want to add that we're here for the long haul. We've been in business here for 28 years. I'm second generation. My father started us out in 1950 and we moved here after leaving North Minneapolis to New Hope and now here. I want to stay here. I have to apologize to Walmart. I do. I can't talk about your business. I don't understand your business. I'm a small merchant but I have never walked into one of your stores ever in my life so I can't relate to how you operate and 1 apologize for not helping you out. So I am the second generation and I have run it the entire time it's been in Chanhassen. Last Saturday I reached that golden age. I'm now 66 years old. I could retire so I figure to me retirement is leaving my 65 hour a week job and I'll cut back and go to about 40. But my son works for me. He'll be third generation. He's taking over. I would like to cut back but I know to know it's survivable for my son and his family. My nephew, who is now 40 something, has worked for me since he was in high school. He'll be part of the new ownership and I want them to survive and be here for another 29 years but that's all extra. My concern is Park Road. The viability of that soccer field for our kids and the traffic flow. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 If that light doesn't change, it's going to take an awful long time to get 6 cars at a time northbound on Powers. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Mike Boyer: Hello. My name's Mike Boyer, 2370 Bridle Creek Circle. I'm actually a fairly recent resident of Chanhassen having moved here a few years ago. Returned to Minnesota from the East Coast. I'm not going to go into a description of what the Walmart that came to Horsham, Pennsylvania did to a reasonably affluent small community there too. Walmart decided, I just want to I guess appeal to your prudence on one thing. I noticed that in the city plan that the economic study that evaluated just how much retail we would support was conducted in 2006. I think they concluded that we needed about 110,000 additional square feet of retail around the center of town. This is 120,000 square feet. Well I don't know about you but I've noticed that a lot of consumer spending habits have changed in the last few years. The recession has been pretty impactful. Because of that wouldn't one think that perhaps it would be prudent to move incrementally or in smaller pieces instead of expanding to a point beyond what the plan actually said ideally we could have supported in more favorable economic times. It leads to one of two consequences if we over expand is one, we'll either see damage to all the other local businesses, or we're going to change our sleepy, self servicing community to something that has to become appeal to all the folks in the area around who are going to become Eden Prairie or Roseville where everybody travels to us because we're just a shopping destination. Just consider please how much retail we could effectively support given the change in spending habits. Thank you. Robby Vimig: My name is Robby Vimig. I live at 26380 Shorewood Oaks Drive in Shorewood but I've been an employee of Target for a year and a half. The thing I'm really worried about is the Walmart, from what I'm hearing is it's going to be 24/7. The thing I'm worried about is the loss of profits from the stores that aren't open that Walmart will be taking due to it being opened 24/7 and I just really wanted to keep my job at Target so that's just all I really wanted to say. Kristy Brackett: My name is Kristy Brackett. I live at 1320 Lake Susan Hills Drive in Chanhassen. That's two blocks away from the proposed site. I have two small children who, we do a lot of activity in that area. Lots of walking. The traffic on Powers Boulevard with the semi's coming through in the middle of the night are going to impact our house probably quite significantly. We already can hear quite a bit in that area so the noise pollution would be a big thing for us. I also have a concern about school bus safety. Our particular neighborhood will be bused to and from Chan Elementary which comes right through that intersection. It's already a really difficult intersection to get through so I can see that as being a potential problem and safety for my children. I also wanted to bring up, I didn't hear anything about lighting for this Walmart. I noticed that other Walmart's that the lighting is pretty significant and tall. I can see that impacting our neighborhood quite significantly as well and we already get quite a bit from the high school that just went in on Friday nights so I'm imaging being sandwiched between those two pretty big lighting fixtures so I don't know, I didn't get to read the whole report but I would hope that that would be addressed in some sort of lighting fixtures if that was something that you could look at. If there's an ordinance about that. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. David Brackett: My name is David Brackett. My wife just spoke. We live at 1320 Lake Susan Hills Drive. We are roughly two blocks away from this giant building and everybody's spoken about the traffic issues. Everybody's spoken about the environmental issues and so on but what hasn't really been I don't think officially addressed is that Walmart has been known as a predatory company. They come in. They clean out. They go after Target. They go after other businesses. That's what they do. There's no reason for them to be in that spot other than to look at Target and to take them down and to take down everybody else in this town. No offense to Walmart but I've studied business. I'm a business student. I've been involved with study groups that have actually studied Walmart and this is what they've done since the early 90's and it's just the 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission —November 1, 2011 way they are and they're going to ruin this town. We will lose our marking. We will no longer be considered a small town. We won't even be in the top 10. We'll probably be in the bottom 10. Thank you. Aller: Is there anyone else who would like to come forward at this time and speak? Give it a couple seconds. Anybody coming from the other rooms? Okay, we're going to close the public hearing at this time. I'd like to thank each and every one of you for coming tonight and participating in this process. Providing us with your input. At this time I'll ask commissioners for discussion. Undestad: Well you're looking at me. I'll jump in here. Aller: There you go. Undestad: Obviously we've heard all about Walmart tonight and so I'm not going to talk about any, obviously the laundry list of things to do for a project like this. This proposal. The whole package. Nor am I going to talk about Walmart. What I'm going to come back to is our site. This specific site. Where we were at. What we decided. What we wanted to do with this site, which is why we came to the 60,000 square foot. Audience: Mark, you're hard to hear. Undestad: That's me. No, I was just talking about you know the specific site. Not so much Walmart but I think even if Mr. Ludford wanted to put 120,000 feet on here we'd probably have to say no. It's the size of the project. The size of the site. All the issues that were already brought out on the City's list and again when we looked at this whole area for that commercial business we talked about limiting the size of a so called big box to 60,000 feet for this reason. You know who gets there first. Is it Lowe's? Is it Home Depot? Is it you know whoever? One of those on there and that's it. The rest of the businesses, the rest of the property around this, we don't get to do the same thing 1 think we originally set out to do. Going with you know 120,000 foot, grade it all down, throw it all in and go. So again you know it's not specifically Walmart, although I know Walmart's a big name and it's what everybody's focusing on. To me I think it's more the site. The size of the site and no matter who's bringing a project like that in, I don't think it's what we had in mind for that site to begin with. Aller: Anyone? Ms. Hokkanen. Hokkanen: I agree with Mark on the whole concept of the, taking the Walmart aside or out of the picture. The traffic. The issues that have been brought up. I'm concerned with the deficiencies and the number of deficiencies that have been brought to our attention that maybe could have been resolved before bringing it to the Planning Commission so I kind of agree. How can we approve it at this point given what has been presented to us? That's about all I have to say. Tennyson: Yeah, I agree with both of the commissioners there. It just seems like it's trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It's not the right site and nobody's really explained how it can be made to work with parking and the particularly the wetland and creek issue, with the creek running right there so. Thomas: Go ahead Ellsworth: Yeah, okay. There's been a lot of emotion in the room tonight. That's very clear. It's actually very exciting to see the community turn out and have this kind of conversation but 1 think a few of the speakers really hit it well when they talked about the comprehensive plan. I think that's the focus. That's the focus for this body and it's what the board, or the City Council is looking to us to recommend to them based on how this fits or does not fit within the comprehensive plan, and that's been brought up a few times and I think the points have been very salient. We've heard comments like it doesn't fit. It's too big. You look at 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission—November 1, 2011 the plan and look at some of the deficiencies that staff has pointed out and to me at least it's clear, it doesn't fit and then when we have to figure out how to make it fit and request a planned unit development and have different requirements and raise the aesthetics, they clearly, this Walmart missed the mark. It simply did not come in above and that's why I asked earlier, l said well didn't you bring your best game? Why wouldn't you bring your best game for this and so I think the property, and please don't applaud. It's not a popularity contest today, though I appreciate the emotion in the room, but certainly the site is zoned for commercial and that's what's ultimately going to go there and we should all expect that and anticipate and that is the reflection of the community through the process of the comprehensive plan and that reflects the values of the community. And so now what type of building or development goes in there certainly is the debate and the discussion and we have I think lots of good guidance in the comprehensive plan. I spent a fair amount of time going through the comprehensive plan. Looking at the goals and looking at this proposal and trying to reach some sort of conclusion and I certainly concur with the other commissioners that this is not the right project for this. 1 applaud Walmart for their interest in our community and I think it bodes well for us and reflects well on us as a community that they'd like to come here. I think their effort though falls very short and that's how I plan to vote. Aller: Commissioner Doll. Doll: I agree with all of the commissioner statements and it'd be nice in the future when a site would to be developed that we would get more, as much input or more input from the community. It was really good to see the people come out. As this is I don't see it. Thomas: Now it's my turn? Aller: Your tum. Thomas: Okay, fabulous. 1 too do agree with the Planning Commissioners. 1 realize it's a concept PUD plan and like we just said eventually it will be a commercial retail site. That's should be expected but I have to follow the comprehensive plan and that's our guidance here. It's not like the other commissioners said, a popularity contest. It's not about who comes to town. It's about how it's designed to fit in our community and it's about how it follows the comprehensive plan and what we set forth and I know it's up to interpretation but at the same time when the City sets forth these findings of facts and says this is what we need, I can't look at a plan that comes in here and says this is what we need but we don't have it yet and 1, that's what 1 have to follow by. I have to follow by our rules and our governing laws to ensure that what gets put forth in the city of Chanhassen is acceptable and follows the rules and regulations because if any one of you came and asked for a permit to do something that was outside of what you could do on your property, we would be the governing body and you would expect us to follow the same rules and laws for you and that's all we're trying to do so with what's put forth right here, I can't approve it is as it is because we've got missing findings of facts that need to be settled first and that would require for whoever ever goes on that site so that's all I have to say. Aller: Okay. As I said in the beginning I think the big issue before us, as I was concerned, is what kind of neighborhoods do we want to create in the city of Chanhassen. What kind of development do we want to bring here and it's been said many times before all kinds of bodies and all kinds of businesses that if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. We have a plan. It's been working out very well. 1 think the leadership with the mayor and the City Council in doing that and with the assistance and support of planning has brought us to where we are today where we're consistently in the top places to live in the country and obviously you as a community are very proud of that. We are very proud of that and in looking at this I don't see anything that says to me we should step outside the plan so I would not support it as presented. So with that I will hear and entertain any motions. 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission—November 1, 2011 Doll: I have a motion. Aller: Commissioner Doll. Doll: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends denial of the concept planned unit development based on the findings of the planned unit development as stated in the staff report. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Doll moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends denial of the Concept Planned Unit Development based on the Findings of the Planned Unit Development as stated in the staff report for Planning Case 2011-11. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Aanenson: Chairman, maybe we can take just 5 minutes and let the room clear and then we can go through the rest of the meeting. Aller: We can go through the rest of the meeting. So we'll take a 5 minute recess. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 2011 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Aanenson: The City Council updates would be, there was no agenda items for the 26th so we haven't had anything but I do want to point out, we do not have a meeting scheduled for your November 15`s. We did have one item that we're doing a PUD amendment on and that actually got moved to December 6th. We also do anticipate a replat of subdivision and that's Boulder Cove, which is north of Highway 7 so that's actually coming in probably as a smaller lot subdivision as opposed to a twin and three homes so that will come in as a replat so that will be in January so your next for sure, the one meeting we usually have in December. Aller: December 6'h. Aanenson: Yeah, because usually we get too close to the holidays and band concerts and everything else so. Aller: And that's Primrose. Aanenson: That's Primrose and another amendment to the PUD for fast food and then the Boulder Cove would be, and something else still may come in for the January meeting but that's all I have for right now. So you'll have a week off. Aller: Nothing further? Entertain a motion to adjourn 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission — November 1, 2011 Ellsworth moved, Doll seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 34