The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-18_SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT (2)CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JULY 12, 2004 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Tom Scott, Paul Oehme and Bob Generous PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Steve Lillehaug Andrew Hiscox PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Planning Commission 7500 Erie CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte 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 June 28, 2004 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 28, 2004 b. Consider Adjusting Maintenance and Materials Budget for Street Maintenance d. Consider Approval of LaserFiche Agenda Manager Software Package e. Settlers West, The Pemtom Land Company: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract 3) Approve Cooperative Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie f. Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes; Concerning City Code Amendment to Rezone Property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development, Mixed Use, SW Metro Transit Site. g. Resolution #2004-48: Call for a Public Hearing Regarding the Centennial Hills Apartments Refunding Bonds. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. • CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 12, 2004 9 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Tom Scott, Paul Oehme and Bob Generous PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Steve Ullehaug Andrew Hiscox 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Planning Commission 7500 Erie Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening. Welcome to everybody here and those watching at home. Appreciate you joining us. At this time I would ask if there are any changes or modifications to the agenda as published. If not, the agenda will stand as published. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte 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 June 28, 2004 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 28, 2004 b. Consider Adjusting Maintenance and Materials Budget for Street Maintenance d. Consider Approval of Laser Fiche Agenda Manager Software Package e. Settlers West, The Pemtom Land Company: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract 3) Approve Cooperative Agreement with the City of Eden Prairie f. Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes; Concerning City Code Amendment to Rezone Property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development, Mixed Use, SW Metro Transit Site. �F MEMORANDUM Cl l p 0" l TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CAA NSEN 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner_ I _, PO Bax 147 (�� Chanhassen. MN 55317 DATE: July 7, 2004 Adeninistragon Phone: 952.227 1100 SUBJ: Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes; Fax: 952.227.1110 Concerning City Code Amendment to Rezone Property from Building Inspections Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development, Mixed Use, SouthWest Metro Transit Site Engineering Phone: 95- 0a Attached please find a summary ordinance for SouthWest Metro Transit's Fax: 952z,, 170 Planned Unit Development/Mixed Use located south of the future realignment of TH 312 east of TH 101 and north of Lyman Boulevard. This city code Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 amendment was approved by the City Council on June 28, 2004; however, no Fax: 952.227 1110 summary ordinance was included. Due to the length of the code amendment, staff wishes to publish a summary ordinance for cost savings purposes. Anyone Parc a Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 wishing to review the entire ordinance amendment may do so at City Hall. Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center RECOMMENDATION 2310 Coulter Boulevard Pa2221400 Fax.952sv.14o4 Staff recommends approval of the attached summary Yordinance is recommended. Approval requires a 4/5ths vote of the City Council. Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax 952.221.1110 Public Worts 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227 1310 SeniorCeshr Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Side www.ci.chanhassen mn us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 379 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY The purpose of this code amendment is to rezone property legally described as "All of west half of the northwest quarter of section 24, township 116, range 23, lying southerly of the right-of- way for TH 312 and easterly of right-of-way line of realigned TH 101, and north of the right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard" from RSF, Single Family Residential District to PUD -Mixed Use, Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use with design standards. A printed copy of Ordinance No. 379 is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Manager/Clerk. PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION this 28'h day of June, 2004, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. EW /. 0-111 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor Todd Gerhardt, City Manager/Clerk (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 15, 2004). City Council Summary • ne 28, 2004 0 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR AN ON -SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE, DELOIAS, INC.. DBA FRANKIE'S CHICAGO STYLE PIZZA, PASTA & RIBS, 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address Patrick Shea 7850 Market Square Justin Miller presented the staff report stating Frankie's has a new owner which requires a new liquor license application be submitted. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve an on - sale beer and wine license for Deloias, Inc. dba Frankie's Pizza, Pasta & Ribs at 7850 Market Boulevard contingent upon receipt of the license fee and liquor liability insurance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO REZONE FROM RSF TO PUD -MIXED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SE INTERSECTION OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF HIGHWAYS 2121101 AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18. Public Present: Name Address Kyle Williams 250 3'd Avenue No., Minneapolis Len Simich Southwest Metro Transit Aravind Guttemukkula Benshoof & Associates, Hopkins Bob Worthington Southwest Metro Transit Kate Aanenson provided background information and details of the site plan, with an update on Planning Commission action. Mayor Furlong asked staff to clarify that what is being proposed is what will actually be developed on the site. Len Simich, Executive Director with Southwest Metro Transit thanked city staff and the neighborhood for their input and help in developing this project and stated his belief that this will be a wonderful addition to the city. Councilman Peterson commended staff, Southwest Metro and the citizens for taking the time to make this a better project. Todd Gerhardt stated this was a good example of how the process worked well. Councihnan Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the 0 0 City Council Summary — June 28, 2004 future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MDCE D USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses • The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. • Small to medium-sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • Convenience store without gas pumps • Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self -Service laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. • Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). 0 City Council Summary — June 28, 2004 • C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive-thru Windows • Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and rams 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft and stair well 25 or 3 stories, whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 0 0 City Council Summary — June 28, 2004 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. L Residential Standards 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. r 0 City Council Summary — June 28, 2004 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. h. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. i. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the 7 City Council Summary June 28, 2004 • business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; In. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; L Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. U. Proiect Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. U. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. U. Wall Signs- 0 0 City Council Summary — June 28, 2004 a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. U. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. L5. Buildine Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. i.6 Directional Sims a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) 4 • City Council Summary — June 28, 2004 signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. 0. Prohibited Sims: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area • Menu Signs are prohibited. 10 City Council Summary• ne 28, 2004 • i.8. Sian Desi¢n and permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 — Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). I I 5axifi�aYsat i C tr.a Put s Pop Mm C 12/1&CAfae 12 RM 10 a3 Hr I i i I nth K - ChR-h m llektln{ U it Dmpa 41 City Council Summary — June 28, 2004 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Public Present: Name Address Robert Borsclair 8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie Liv Homeland 8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie Mike Johnson Bridge Lending Group Adrian Haid 7206 Stewart Drive Sam Sabean 14298 Golf View Drive Kate Aanenson provided background information and Planning Commission update. Councilman Ayotte expressed concern with the safety regulations governing water parks and asked staff and the applicant to go above and beyond minimum safety requirements. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on access to the property. Councilman Peterson suggested that a traffic study be done. Mike Johnson with the Bridge Lending Group out of Bloomington, Minnesota spoke on behalf of the applicant and presented their plans for this property. He introduced Adrian Haid, founder of Advance Fitness and Sam Sabean to provide more details. Chairman Sacchet from the Planning Commission pointed out 12 Metropolitan Council Building communities that work Local Planning Handbook Information Summary for Comprehensive Plan Amendments Submit this completed form and the following information for each Comprehensive Plan Amendment: 1. Color Map(s) that show the following (8.5x11 or 11 x17): • Location of the proposed change(s). • Current land use, indicating area(s) affected by the amendment. • Proposed land use, indicating area(s) affected by the amendment. • Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS), if available. 2. Staff report to planning commission or governing body, if applicable. 3. Other relevant information related to the amendment and proposed development. This form can found on the Metropolitan Council's Planning and Technical Assistance website at htto://www.metrocouncil.ora/r)lannina/assistance/resources.htm. Electronic Submission The Metropolitan Council accepts electronic submission of Plan Amendments, in place of paper copies. Council staff will acknowledge receipt of the electronic submission; however, the review process will not begin until the Council receives a paper copy of the materials. In submitting an amendment electronically, please complete one of the following procedures: Email Process • Notify the city's sector representative of the coming electronic submittal. • Mail one (1) paper copy of the plan amendment, this form, maps, staff report(s), and all other relevant material to the Referrals Coordinator at the above address. • Council's receipt of the paper copy serves as the official date that begins the initial 10 -day review period • Email this form and all relevant material to the community's Sector Representative. An updated list of Sector Representatives, their phone numbers and email addresses may be found at htto://www.metrocouncil.ora/Dlannina/assistance/sectorreDs.htm. CD or Disk Process Mail one (1) CD or 3 Y2" floppy disk and one (1) paper copy of the plan amendment, this form, maps, staff report and all other relevant material to the Referrals Coordinator at the above address. Paper Submission Mail seven (7) copies of this form and relevant material, described above, to: Reviews Coordinator Planning and Technical Assistance Unit Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 551 01-1 634 April 2003 Text Change Only Plan Amendments For Plan Amendments that are limited to text changes may only require the information in the Community Profile and Background section (questions 1-5) of this form. Please talk with your Sector Representative before submitting any such Plan Amendments. Council staff may request further information if it is determined that there may be potential impacts to regional systems, forecasts or policies. An updated list of Sector Representatives, their phone numbers and email addresses may be found at htto://www.metrocouncil.ora/r)lannina/assistance/sectorrer)s.htm. Metropolitan Council Review Council staff reviews the information submitted on this form within 10 working days to determine if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is sufficiently complete for Council review. In the completeness review process, Council staff evaluates if sufficient information has been provided to determine the level of impact the amendment may have on regional systems or policies. In the case of electronic submission, receipt of the paper copy serves as the official date that begins the initial 10 -day review period. Once found complete for review, the Council has 60 days to review and take action on the amendment, with the option for extending the review period an additional 60 days, if necessary, after providing you with proper notification. The Council's review of Plan Amendments focuses on compliance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, conformance with Regional System Plans, consistency with the Regional Blueprint and Council policies, and compatibility with adjacent jurisdictions. Waiver of Certain Plan Amendment Reviews In 2000, the Metropolitan Council re -authorized Council staff to waive Council review of "minor' Plan Amendments when the staff review indicates they are in conformance with regional system plans, consistent with the Blueprint and compatible with the plans of adjacent communities. Waivers may be granted for land use changes, MUSA expansions and other amendments under the following conditions: In cases where ❑ Land use and MUSA changes are 40 acres or less; ❑ There is no substantial departure from system plans or system impacts; ❑ There is consistency with other Council policies including housing and density; ❑ There is compatibility with plans of adjacent local government jurisdictions; ❑ There are no possible cumulative impacts; ❑ There is no major local opposition; and ❑ There is a commitment by the jurisdiction to adequately address any outstanding Comprehensive Plan review issues. Contact your Sector Representative to determine if a waiver is appropriate. Your Sector Rep will also assist you in determining how much of this form to complete. An updated list of Sector Representatives, their phone numbers and email addresses may be found at http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/assistance/sectorreps.htm. April 2003 COMMUNITY PROFILE AND BACKGROUND 1. Provide the following community information. Local Governmental Unit Contact Name Number 2. Identify type of amendment: (check all that apply) 3. Provide a description of the amendment. Name of Amendment General Location in acres 4. Indicate official local status of the plan amendment. (Check all that apply.) Action Date of Action, if applicable Acted upon by planning commission Approved by governing body, contingent upon 5. Indicate if adjacent communities and other jurisdictions have been notified (M.S. 473.858, Subd. 2.) (Select one of the follow options) Plan amendment was sent to: (List adjacent local governments, school districts, watershed organizations and other jurisdictions and the date the copies were sent): Plan amendment will not impact adjacent local governments, school districts, watershed organizations and other jurisdictions, based on community's judgement and completion of this form. IMPACT ON LAND USE 6. Describe land use changes in acres, applicable to this amendment site, using the following tables and filling in the community's specific land use categories: Not Applicable Land Use Designation — Residential I Ave. I Pre Amendment I Post Amendment April 2003 Incl. Res. component of Mixed Use Density Acres # Units Acres # Units fill inspecific land use categories) Land Use Designation — Non Residential Uses Site Acres - Pre Site Acres - Post (fill in specific land use categories) I Amendment I Amendment 7. To show whether this plan amendment increases or decreases the community's household, population or employment forecasts, complete the applicable lines of the following table. City-wide Forecasts City-wide Forecasts Pre Amendment Post Amendment NA 2010 2020 2010 2020 Households Po ulation Employment CONFORMANCE WITH REGIONAL SYSTEMS Transportation Traffic 8. To show whether this plan amendment increases or decreases trip generation from the planned land use and transportation element of the community's comprehensive plan, complete the following table using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 6`" Edition. Trip Generation for the Site Trip Generation for the Site Based on Planned Land Use Based on Planned Land Use Pre Amendment Post Amendment Est. average daily traffic Est. peak hour traffic 9. Will these changes require improvements to the existing local and regional road network or interchanges, beyond what is in the community's current transportation plan? Not applicable, no changes in I I Yes, describe improvements and who will Dav for them: April 2003 4 Access 10. If the site has direct access to a principal or "A" minor arterial, is location and spacing consistent with applicable County guidelines or MnDOT's Access Management Guidelines (http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/index.html)? no direct access to a principal or "A" minor arterial. describe: Transit and Other Modes of Transportation 11. Will this amendment enhance access to transit services, increase or decrease the demand for transit services or warrant the extension of new transit service? Not applicable, currently not served by transit nor warrant extension of services. U No, will not affect transit. Yes, list existing routes, describe changes and identify proposed/necessary transit facility 12. Does the plan amendment include Traffic Demand Management (TDM) strategies or land use and urban design measures, if applicable? Not Yes, describe (e.g. car and van pooling, flexible work hours, mixed land uses that discouraqe vehicle trips and promote walking, biking, ridesharina, and transit): 13. Does the plan amendment include pedestrian and bike access and facilities, including crosswalks, bridges, trails, sidewalks, and bike racks, if applicable? Wastewater Treatment 14. What type of wastewater treatment will be utilized to serve the proposed development? Individual Sewaae Treatment Svstems (ISTS). Skip to 18. 15-17. 15. To show whether this plan amendment increases or decreases wastewater flow from currently planned land use and sewer flow projections, complete the following table. Not Applicable, no changes in flow, Skip to 18 Total Community Flow Pre Amendment m d Total Community Flow Post Amendment m d 2000 April 2003 2010 2020 16. Identify interceptor(s) that will be impacted by these changes and indicate if flows will be diverted from one interceptor service area to another? 17. Does the plan amendment include any wastewater flow to an adjacent community? (Note: for new intercommunity agreements, the receiving community must also amend the sewer element of its plan) e No Yes, enclose a copy of the inter -community agreement. Aviation 18. Does the plan amendment affect any airport functions? Not applicable, site not within airport influence area or search area, Skip to 19 No, Skip to 19 Yes, describe relationship to airport safety/noise zones, land use compatibility or other Recreation Open Space 19. Does the amendment include, or is it adjacent to or within 1/2a mile of an existing or planned regional park, reserve or trail, as identified in the Regional Parks and Open Space System Plan (http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/parks/parks.htm)? and 20. Does the amendment include land identified as a valued regional natural resource in the Regional Parks and Open Space System Plan or the Regional Natural Resources Inventory/Assessment (data is available on the MetroGIS map DataFinder website at http://www.datafinder.org/catalog.asp. Click on 'Preliminary Regionally Significant Natural Resource Areas" under the Biology and Ecology heading) ire, I I Yes, identify resource and describe plans and proposed funding sources to protect it: CONSISTENCY WITH COUNCIL POLICY Environmental Resources 21. Will/has an environmental review (Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Environmental Impact Statement or Alternative Urban Areawide Review) be/been completed for the site (check all that apply)? type of review and approximate date of completion and include a summary of April 2003 Surface Water Management 22. Does the plan amendment propose any impacts to wetlands located on the site? Not applicable, no wetlands on the site No impacts to wetlands located on the site Yes. describe the tvoe of wetland. potential impacts and mitigation plans: 23. Will stormwater runoff generated from proposed development be treated on-site? The Council's website contains resources on stormwater management techniques at httl)://www.metrocouncii.org/planning/assistance/resources.htm. Not Runoff will receive no treatment: I I Hunott will be treated off-site, identify off-site treatment facility: n Yes, describe type and level of on-site pollutant removal treatment/mitigation plans: 24. Have conservation oriented design principles, such as rural clustering, low impact development (LID) storm water management techniques and/or native vegetation buffers and landscape design been incorporated into the plan amendment? Water Supply 25. Will the proposed plan amendment increase or decrease projected water use from the community's current water supply plan? Not Applicable No increase or decrease in projected water use from water supply Ian. Yes, provide water supply plan amendment to describe necessary facilities improvements or chances: MNRRA/Critical Area Plan 26. Does the plan amendment include any land within the designated Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) and Critical Area boundaries? Not AoDlicable. not a communitv within MNRRA or CA boundaries. iA or VA Dounganes. Area guidelines and v are being addressed. Housing April 2003 27. Complete the following table if the amendment changes the amount of land available city wide for new medium and high density residential development or redevelopment through 2010. Not Applicable, no sewered residential land use changes. Undeveloped' Acres Pre amendment Undeveloped' Acres Post Amendment Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Land Use with Multifamily Component "Undeveloped" may mean land that is identified for infill or redevelopment. Implementation 28. Will the plan amendment require changes in zoning or subdivision ordinances, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), or other official controls? L 1 Yes, describe proposed changes and timeline: April 2003 Public Wodu 1591 Park Road Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion rezoning Phone: 952.227.1300 the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Fax: 952.227.1310 Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 Senior Center acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Phone: 952.227.1125 incorporating the design standards as specified in the staff report dated June 1, Fax: 952.227.1110 2004. web site wwwachanhassen.mn.us ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated June 1, 2004. 2. Planning Commission minutes and summary minutes dated June 1, 2004. g:Nplan\2004 planning cases\04-18 - sw metro transit rezoning -212 & 101 intmcx;tionlexmutivc summaryAm 5 The City of Chanhassen • 4 growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 0 0 0-4-18 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager � Cl l lp OF(� j�j FROM: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner /� CgAN�SSEN V�p DATE: June 23, 2004 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 g l� y g SUBJ: Request For A Rezoning Of Property From Residential Single . Family To Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Located On The Administration Southeast Intersection of The Future Alignment Of Highways Phone: 227 212/101 And North of Lyman Boulevard, SouthWest Metro 522 27.11100 Fax. ss2s27mg Transit, Planning Case No. 04-18 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 The development was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Fax: 952 227.1170 Commission on June 1, 2004. Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 ACTION REQUIRED Fax 952 227 Park & Recreation City Council approval requires a % vote of City Council. Phone. 952.227 1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 1, 2004, to review the Fax: 952.227.1404 proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed development. The summary and verbatim minutes are item attached to the Planning & Natural Resources staff report. Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 RECOMMENDATION Public Wodu 1591 Park Road Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion rezoning Phone: 952.227.1300 the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Fax: 952.227.1310 Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 Senior Center acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Phone: 952.227.1125 incorporating the design standards as specified in the staff report dated June 1, Fax: 952.227.1110 2004. web site wwwachanhassen.mn.us ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated June 1, 2004. 2. Planning Commission minutes and summary minutes dated June 1, 2004. g:Nplan\2004 planning cases\04-18 - sw metro transit rezoning -212 & 101 intmcx;tionlexmutivc summaryAm 5 The City of Chanhassen • 4 growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. • CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DA* June 1, 2004 CC DATE: June 28, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 29, 2004 CASE #: 04-18 SouthWest Metro Transit BY: Al-Jaff PROPOSAL: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use LOCATION: Southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. APPLICANT: SouthWest Metro Transit 13500 Technology Drive Filen Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 974-3101 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family — RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use ACREAGE: 8.5+ Acres DENSITY: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use and approval of Planned Unit Development Standards. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners beyond 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the request. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. SouthWest Metro Rezoning • June 1, 2004 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone property located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. There is no site plan attached to this application and development of the site is not intended to take place until the realignment of 212/101 is complete. As each element is ready to develop, a site plan will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. Several meetings have taken place with surrounding neighbors to gather feed back and address concerns. The rezoning and PUD Ordinance is a result of this meetings. The purpose of the meeting tonight is to rezone the property and establish a PUD ordinance. BACKGROUND: LOCATION/SITE DATA The site is located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard. The site has an area of approximately 8.5 acres and is currently zoned residential single family, RSF. ®I Subject Site SouthWest Metro Rezonin10 • June 1, 2004 Page 3 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT In 1986, Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie adopted a joint powers agreement establishing the SouthWest Metro Transit Commission (SMTC). The agreement granted the Commission the authority to develop and oversee the local public transit services serving the three cities. The park and ride facility was presented as an opportunity to mitigate congestion and pollution in 1989 as part of the Highway 212 Environmental Impact Statement. In 1990 the SMTC adopted a park and ride study which listed the proposed site as a future park and ride location. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan designates areas around the proposed TH 101fM 212 interchange as mixed use. This category has been established to accommodate either commercial or high density residential developments. The high density category, which includes units with a maximum net density of 16.0 units per acre, accommodates apartments and higher density condominium units. The commercial use is intended to support or complement high density development The commercial uses involve convenience grocery stores, day care facilities, etc., or those uses that meet the daily needs of the residents. The Land Use Plan also identifies a park and ride at the future TH1011TH 212 interchange. SouthWest Metro Rezoning • June 1, 2004 Page 4 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS On February 18, 2004, the City of Chanhassen and SouthWest Metro Transit began a series of three neighborhood meetings. The intent of the Planning Process was to arrive upon a park and ride layout design and a planned unit development that meets the functional needs of transit patrons and compliments the community within the area's limitations. The February 18m Neighborhood Meeting focused on the Project Background and Intent; March 31" dealt with Alternative Design Concepts and Land Use Schemes; and the April 21s` meeting focused on a preferred layout concept, Land Use, and a draft PUD ordinance. Each meeting resulted in a list of questions and suggestions. The questions and concerns were addressed and posted on the City's web site. The suggestions (to the extent feasible) were incorporated into a draft PUD ordinance. The final draft layout that was arrived at reflected a park and ride facility along the north portion of the site, a commercial component in the center and a residential development along the south portion of the site. ry�ti A? ITransit Station !I Parking Deck I 800 cars max i— 100' Buffer ��- Commercial/Retail i16,000 sq, ft. r__ I Housing 16 undslacre max. Enhanced Landsa SouthWest Metro Rezoning • June 1, 2004 Page 5 Access to the site was a concern to the neighbors. Numerous meetings took place with Minnesota Department of Transportation. These meetings resulted in permitting a right-in/out access off of Highway 101 and allowing the full access off of Lyman Boulevard to maintain a 100 -foot setback from the easterly property line. This setback will allow for adequate buffer between the subject site and the residential neighborhood to the east. MNDOT also agreed to a bus slip lane off of Highway 212. AM BUS MOVEMENT PM BUS MOVEMENT SouthWest Metro Rezoninj • June 1, 2004 Page 6 A number of studies were requested by the residents. SouthWest Metro Transit hired consultants to conduct these studies and present them to the neighborhood. They included: 1. PHASE I ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PARK & RIDE DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 101 AND THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 212 ON EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN CHANHASSEN, by Shenehon Company. The study concluded that the development could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the site, and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT — NOISE AND AIR QUALITY, by David Braslau associates, Inc. The study concluded: The proposed Park and Ride facility is planned to serve a maximum of eight buses per hour with parking for 800 motor vehicles. During the AM period buses will enter and depart along the north access to the facility and will therefore have minimal impact on both noise and air quality. During the PM period, buses will enter at the north from TH ]Oland circle the parking ramp to return to TH 101 to reach the TH 212 westbound on-ramp. These buses will travel along the east roadway of the facility and between the parking ramp and the new residential structures to be constructed as part of the project. These buses will have somewhat more impact on noise and air quality, although the impacts will be limited. Noise levels during 6-7AM, which fall under the nighttime period, are expected to exceed the Minnesota noise standards primarily due to traffic on the new TH 212, its ramps, and TH 101. Appropriate construction of the new housing proposed for the site can permit higher noise limits to be applied and therefore can comply with noise standards. Noise levels during the PM Peak Hour are generally under the state noise standards except for the apartments that face the access roadway carrying departing buses. However, the 2 dBA exceedance is within modeling error and may not be a problem if no outdoor uses are planned for the north side of these buildings. The buses alone are not sufficient to cause the noise standards to be exceeded. Contributions from the other roadways are sufficient for this small exceedance of the standards. Predicted air quality (carbon monoxide concentrations) is well below both the 1 -hour and the 8 - hour standard and no air quality problems are anticipated with operation of the facility. As new diesel engine and diesel fuel regulations are implemented, the potential for odor associated with the facility will also decrease. Appropriate equipment will be able to operate at the facility with little or no odor impacts. 3. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT -ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. Levels of service are classified as follows: Southwest Metro Rezonini • June 1, 2004 Page 7 LOS A — free flow LOS B — stable flow, with high degree of freedom LOS C — stable flow, with restricted freedom LOS D — high-density flow with restricted speed and freedom LOS E — unstable flow; at or near capacity LOS F — forced flow; volume exceeds capacity The study concluded that the area surrounding the site will operate as follows: MR'1-26-2889 09:12 BENSHXF t MB 1671 P.02r �S N LBM IIIII s -I'/ La WD Roan cau dD ! 0I RAMPS IT r' - CD4fgz �--1 $ai �I L AA II y 4 11D TM Vll1 RAMPB T r 2011 NO -BUILD n BUILD ZZ FF XX= 2 y L -A3 R9NRi OUT `aa P LAA LBtS ;sl ZII I`2I1I te �gl�� LYMpN BLVD. ^ 'r`+ aL—AA t -1i4 }NA �Tppr aA� NAS BB/C� AA �o8AA I:j FFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE SOUTHWESTLPZPOSED METRO TRANSITTRANSIT- WEEKDAY A.M. ENTED FACILITY BD6400F&ASSOCUTES,INCHANHASSEN LEAK HOUR SERVICE LEVELS OF SouthWest Metro Rezoninfe • June 1, 2004 Page 8 'av-_'6-22aJ 0912 BE19100F 8 RSSUC. 552 238 1671 P. 03/03 p 1i8 Ill s+ Y w go N t— AIA `lT�' 111312 NOWWH RAMPS N NOi i05cuE cc� =-I 991 WEEKDAY P.M. �BENSH" a ASSOCIATES, INC. AIA PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ,..., ,.,,.,1.1.1111,�1s..F, 14 312 SOUTH RAMPS 22�1 BUILD I )OU)D( `a 1 L -n3 RHN740Vf @ yy d�(7 't—BIBdIA LL ppp Lmp FNA j 4A� I� NA NA �pTI NA 1s NIA—�s �Loip� DID NA �. Pdf�iz AIA NA rdSaa o SOUTHWEST 'TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 8 METROTRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - WEEKDAY P.M. �BENSH" a ASSOCIATES, INC. ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ,..., ,.,,.,1.1.1111,�1s..F, REZONING SouthWest Metro Transit is requesting to rezone the property from RSF, Residential Single Family, to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use. Future Highway 212 will run along the north edge of the site. Realigned Highway 101 will run along the west portion of the site. A residential neighborhood zoned Residential Single family is located east of the site and Lyman Boulevard and a residential neighborhood zoned Planned Unit Development is located south of the site. All properties located at the intersection of future Highway 212/101 are guided mixed use which permits high density residential and neighborhood oriented commercial. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 9 The 2020 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Mixed Use Development. Appropriate zoning for this land use is PUD -Mixed Use, Neighborhood Commercial, and High Density Residential. Staff has prepared a Planned Unit Development Ordinance that will regulate and set standards for the development of this site including permitted uses, landscaping, setbacks, signage, building materials, architectural standards, parking, etc. The Land Use Plan also identifies a park and ride at the future TH101/TH 212 interchange. This site is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to PUD -Mixed Use. PUD FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The proposed Planned Unit Development has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the land use plan and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. It complies with providing mixed use (residential and neighborhood commercial) and a transit facility at the intersection of realigned Highway 101 and future Highway 212. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The proposed uses are and will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area through the implementation of the design standards, landscaping buffers, architecture, etc. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed uses will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance such as design standards, signage, durable materials, uses, etc. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Finding: A study conducted by Shenehon Company found that the proposed uses will have no measurable negative impact on the property values of the nearby residences. It could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the site and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. SouthWest Metro Rezonjo • June 1, 2004 Page 10 e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Finding: The site is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Based upon studies conducted by Benshoof and Associates, traffic generation by the proposed uses is within capabilities of streets serving the property- LANDSCAPING roperty LANDSCAPING The landscape plan for the SouthWest Metro Park and Ride will need to use landscape to accomplish the following: improve the appearance of the site, buffer between proposed development and neighboring properties, and reduce noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. Specifically, landscaping will be required for screening of any trash storage areas, loading areas or large, unadorned building walls. Parking lots will also have landscaping requirements. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, should be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells should be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. The City anticipates undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101. These areas shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. The City would like to see native landscaping incorporated into the design wherever possible. One issue that needs to be pointed out deals with the existing evergreens on the site. The intent is to save these trees. The slopes along the north portion of the site are steep (not a bluff) and will require a retaining wall. In order to minimize impact on the existing evergreens, the applicant requested reducing the building setback along Highway 101 to 35 feet (PUD Ordinance requires 50 feet) and increasing the building setback along the easterly property line to 115 feet (PUD Ordinance requires 100 feet). Staff supports this request and the PUD ordinance drafted by staff reflects this request. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 11 Along the Easterly Property Line TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS Maintaining and creating new pedestrian/bicycle routes to the proposed SouthWest Metro Transit Station is very important. The construction of new Highway 101 south will include the installation of a ten -foot trail adjacent to the subject property. The Transit Station project must install a trail/sidewalk adjacent to Lyman Boulevard from Highway 101 east to a street crossing at Summerfield Drive. Appropriate and adequate internal sidewalk connections must also be planned to allow convenient and safe non -vehicular traffic throughout the site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: The Ranning ConwpAssiefi Feeeawnends appfeval 9 City Council approves rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MDCED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. SouthWest Metro Rezonini • June 1, 2004 Page 12 b. Permitted Uses • The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. • Small to medium-sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • Convenience store without gas pumps • Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self -Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. • Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive-thru Windows • Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the I01 access Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and rams 1 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 1 100 Feet SouthWest Metro Rezonini • June 1, 2004 Page 13 Boundary Building and Parking Setback Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft and stair well 25 or 3 stories, whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. SouthWest Metro Rezonini • June 1, 2004 Page 14 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. f. Residential Standards Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. SouthWest Metro Rezonino • June 1, 2004 Page 15 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. h. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. Ii. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; b. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs SouthWest Metro Rezoning • June 1, 2004 Page 16 which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. U. Proiect Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 1.2. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. L3. Wall Signs: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. i.4. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. SouthWest Metro Rezoning • June 1, 2004 Page 17 e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. L5. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. L6 Directional Signs a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. 0. Prohibited Signs: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area • Menu Signs are prohibited. SouthWest Metro Rezonino • June 1, 2004 Page 18 i.8. Sign Design and permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 — Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). S>aar�ati®IL IL I Mora ce 12/18CAAIK i tz rt lu Ill lea Br I Flgu 36 - h" lighting Unit Dedpt 41 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. SouthWest Metro Rezoninf • June 1, 2004 Page 19 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Application. 3. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 4. Property value and impact study by Shenehon Company. 5. Traffic Study for proposed Transit -Oriented Facility in the City of Chanhassen. 6. Environmental Assessment -Noise and Air Quality. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-18 - sw metro transit rezoning -2l2 &. 101 intersection\staK report.l .doc • CPTY OF CHANHASSEN 0 CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 2121101 and north of Lyman Blvd. Applicant:. Application of Southwest Metro Transit Planned Unit Development On June 1, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of SouthWest Metro Tranist for Planned Unit Development property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Residential Single Family. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Mixed Use. 3. The description of the property is: the area bounded by Highway 212 to the north, Highway 101 to the west, Lyman Boulevard to the south, and residential neighborhood to the east. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. 0 0 C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report #04-18 dated June 1, 2004, prepared by Sharmin Al-Jaff, et al is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 0 day of June 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING 0" ATTEST: Secretary Its Chairman �r�tq p CITY OF CHANHASSEN �Lli�l}; �Op� 7CHANHASSEN MN 55300 MARKET RD b11611i11lJIlffiI (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Southwest Metro Transit Commission ADDRESS: 13500 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN TELEPHONE (Daytime) 952-974-3101 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 3 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT OWNER: Minnesota Department of Transportation ADDRESS: 1500 County Road B2 Roseville, MN TELEPHONE: 651-296-3000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit x Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign _ Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 0 0 PROJECT NAME Southwest Village LOCATION NE comer of new Highway 101 and Lyman Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A portion of the highway right of way easement according to official map of MnDOT SP 1017 (TH212) TOTAL ACREAGE -8.5 WETLANDS CREAGE8.5WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO x --To be verified PRESENTZONING RSF REQUESTED ZONING PUD - Mixed Use PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION—Mixed-Use- REQUESTED ESIGNATIONMixed-UseREQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Mixed -Use REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Transit Oriented Development 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 the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten 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 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. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensiops are approved by the applicant. of of Application Received on Fee Paid Date Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 0 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on May 20, 2004) 0 0 CITY OF CHAN IASSEN 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 May 20, 2004, 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 Rezoning or property from RSF to PUD -Mixed (Southwest Metro Transit) - Planning Case No. 04-18 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by sending a notice addressed to such owner, and depositing the notices 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. 4, CA L�� t Liv -- K n J. n e lharW Deputy Clerk Subscribed and swom to before me this:;2� day of 12004. Notary Publi ,.AAAAAAAAAAAAAwap KIAA 'c:rry,,:SEN Noc;, , IA��iv nnesota ry Mycomri � 'X;':_: L141/2005 WV VVV WVVVVVe gAplan\2004 planning casest04-I8 - sw metro transit rezoning -212 & 101 intersection\04-18 affidavit.doc m v.G g3 y o�og on8ti3a 95<0< HUM $5. maB bg PEP a 2 a N c cr 0 N CD Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday,June 1 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request fora rezoning of property from Residential Single Proposal: Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Planning File: 04-18 Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit Property The southeast intersection of the future alignment of Location: Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. 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 . 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952.227-1134 Comments: or e-mail saliaff ®ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. 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 t 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 recommendatlo 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 commerciaUindustrlal. • 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 Stall person named on the nottfication. ABBA J TREGOBOV & SUSANA PMACgLEKSANDR SHTEYMAN ALOYSIUS R & MARY A CHENEY 8714 CHANHASSEN NHLBOV 9148 SUNNYVALE DR 9079 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN 31 D6 N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 AMIT & MARY RATHOD AMY J SCHUETTE ETAL ANDREW C & KIMBERLY J 920 LAKE SUSAN DR 8990 QUINN RD DAHLGREN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 PO BOX 68 8631 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0068 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ANDREW G & PAMELA J JOE ANDREW RICHARDSON ANTHONY T & SHELLY A DENUCCI 563 SUMMERFIELD DR 8665 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 287 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 ARLETTA L BRAGG & VIOLA RAUPARTHUR J & KATHLEEN L DORDEL BARRY L & KATHY RIUTTA 8628 CH LE 1030 LAKE SUSAN DR 8621 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 ANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHA BENJAMIN R K & DONNA M BOBBIE D MORLOCK BRADLEY A & JENNIFER K HIBBS JOHNSON 5020 PAGE AVE NE 364 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN HLS DRS ST MICHAEL MN 55376-8951 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 CHA BRIAN & ALYSSA M CARLSON BRIAN & APRIL DEWOLF BRIAN & STACEY DOUVILLE 408 SUMMERFIELD DR 9150 SPRINGFIELD DR 616 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 BRIAN D & SUSAN L HART BRIAN R WALETSKI & ELLEN M NIPP BRIAN SCOTT BALDWIN 8670 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8644 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 980 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 BRIAN W & KELLY L AUDETTE BRIAN W & KRISTIN A HOULE BRUCE & MICHELLE L REINHART 510 SUMMERFIELD DR 880 LAKE SUSAN DR 294 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9648 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7608 BRUCE A & SHEILA M TANQUIST BRUCE C & LINDA P THALACKER BRYAN D & NICOLE C EDWARDS 8569 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 367 PARKLAND WAY 8905 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 BRYAN J & LISA C VAN NINGEN CERESE M KNUDTSON CHARLES E & LISA L PEDERSON 8686 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8589 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 8841 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 CHRISTIAN F & AMY C CASPERSEN 580 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHRISTOPHER & DEBORA K HOL 8687 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHRISTOPHER T & AIMEE J ADAMS 8690 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CRAIG L & PATRICIA A MULLEN 611 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 CYNTHIA ANN MILLER 891 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9161 DANIEL J & CYNTHIA M RYAN 8666 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 DANIEL P & MARY F JOHNSON 9101 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 DANIEL W RYAN LIVING TRUST C/O DANIEL W & SALLY A RYAN 9025 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 0 CHRISTINE L HAUSKINS 1111 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9342 CHRISTOPHER DESCHNEAU & ELIZABETH DESCHNEAU 901 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9654 CORY M & PAMELA S WATKINS 595 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CURT A & LINDA K KOBILARCSIK 9149 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 DANG VAN & FONG-YUN NGUYEN 9185 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 DANIEL M & MELISSA L HERZOG 8790 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 DANIEL R & RUTH A SHERRED 525 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 DARRELL D & PATTI BARNETT 9131 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 0 CHRISTOPHER & ANN DUPPLER 9174 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 CHRISTOPHER J PATKA & CHRISTINE A PATKA 444 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 CRAIG JAY & ELAINE C HEITZ 1011 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 CURTIS A & SUSAN M SPERLING 8525 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 DANIEL J & BOBBIE J POTHIER 500 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7622 DANIEL P & MARTHA J NEWELL 900 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 DANIEL S & JENNIFER K RUBIN 9140 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 DARRIN M & TANYA M JUVE 539 GREENFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 DAVID & THERESA ANDREWS C/O S DAVID & ROCHELLE ALBERTI SURI-PRICEWATERHOUSE DAVID A & LISA M HAPPE 1071 LAKE SUSAN DR 650 3RD AVE S 604 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 SUITE 1300 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-4333 DAVID A PEER DAVID G & C RUTH SOMMERS DAVID G & NANCY A SOLIDAY 8861 LAKE SUSAN CT 396 SUMMERFIELD DR 291 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7628 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7608 0 DAVID HADDEN DAVID I & JENNIFER A WILLIAMS DAVID L & TERESA L BLOOMQUIST 8649 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 500 SUMMERFIELD DR 960 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 DAVID L ANDERSON & HEATHER M BERGERUD 290 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 DAVID W & LAURA L BEISE 9171 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 DENNIS H & RUTH L LAUFENBURGER 8673 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 DIZA P BRAKSMAYER 472 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 DOUGLAS J KOCH & MEGAN M DAWSON KOCH 9136 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 DOYLE L & BARBARA A VOSS 8646 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 DZUNG H & HONG T NGUYEN 1081 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 ERIC C & DANA R HUSEMOEN 1091 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 DAVID M SMITH & PATRICE N LUNDGREN-SMITH 8568 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 DAVID W & SUSAN M RETTERATH 1010 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 DENNIS J & CHARLENE P HANSEN 8658 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 DOST NIAZ 8581 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 DOUGLAS M & CORAE R KRUSE 549 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7642 DUANE J & DEBORAH A WEIDENDORF 8760 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 EARL S & TINA M STRAIT 8624 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 ERIC G & DEBRA A RAYMOND 355 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 DAVID S & JANICE A LUNDQUIST 8705 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 DENNIS A & STEPHANIE A UNZE 1080 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 DENNIS P & CAROLYN T MCGRATH 628 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7544 DOUGLAS J & LYNETTE M W HOOLEY 9100 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 DOUGLAS S & DOMINICA B BERNARD 515 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 DYLAN C & MAGGIE A NISKA 574 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 EDWARD S & NANCY J COUGHLIN 587 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ERIC S & JULIE A OYEN 615 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 ERIC S & LISA M HAMBORG FRANK J & JENNIFER SISSER FRANK T & MARY LOU WHALEY 9108 OVERLOOK CT 8702 MARY JANE CIR 851 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9161 FREDERICK C RIESE & VALAIRE P GANG WANG & LIHUA QIN GARRY & TRACI DOLLERSCHELL RIESE 600 LYMAN BLVD 9128 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN HASSESUNNYVALE 55 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 PO BOX 88 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0088 GARY A SKALBERG GARY D & DANISE L MCMILLEN GARY F & PHYLLIS H HABERMAN 510 LYMAN BLVD 9151 SUNNYVALE DR 9036 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7622 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 GEORGE J JR & LISA A CEASER GERAINT D POWELL & JULIE L GLEN M & JOAN M GERADS 1091 LYMAN CT W ICK -POW ELL54g GREENVIEW DR 1071 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 GORDON E & ARLENE M SCHULZ GORDON S & PAMELA J JENSEN GRANT & KELLY MORRISON 1100 LYMAN CT 356 PARKLAND WAY 1060 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 GREG ALLAN MILLER GREGG D GUTSCHOW & BARBARA GREGG R & GERALDINE BARETTE 8801 LAKE SUSAN CT J CLAYTON 8695 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 8691 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 GREGORY J & SUSAN L HENKEL GREGORY J DEBENEDETTO & GREGORY L & LORI A PHELPS KELLY E DEBENEDETTO 8699 MARY JANE CIR 1031 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 8593 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 GREGORY M BAGLEY GREGORY R RENBERG HAESEOK CHO & JIEUN CHUNG 8573 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 282 GREENLEAF CT 9170 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 HARLAN C LEOPOLD HEATHER L ODDEN HUBERT H & VICKY L MCKENZIE 8553 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 1121 LAKE SUSAN DR 1021 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9342 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 HUSSAM HASSOUN JACK J & KRISTIN A RAYMAKERS JACK J & LAUREL A SCHNABEL 8537 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 640 SUMMERFIELD DR 9167 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 JAIME W & LISA H LAUGHLIN JAMES & ANDREA SWEENEY JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL 376 SUMMERFIELD DR 296 GREENLEAF CT 291 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7628 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 JAMES A CURRY 6105 EDEN PRAIRIE RD #17 EDINA MN 55436-1250 JAMES G & KRISTI S ST MARTIN 9082 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 JAMES M & CHERYL DOUGLAS 8650 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 JASON J GILBERTSON & KATJA JEANNERET 583 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 JEFFREY A & LISA J SCZUBLEW SKI 432 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 0 JAMES ALAN SUBAK 1060 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 JAMES JONATHON SOMMERS & KAREN D ROGGE 8683 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 JAMI D WALKER 8517 CHANHASSEN HLLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JAY K & KELLY S SELTUN 1040 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 JEFFREY A & MICHELLE M REITAN 8900 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 JEFFREY C OLMSCHEID & BARBARA EID JEFFREY M & PATRICIA J YEAGER 9900 LAKE L AKE SUSAN DR 55317-9653 1120 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 5CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 JEREMY M & SARAH E SINDELAR 921 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9654 JOHN A & BARBARA H DAHL 586 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 JOHN F MILLER 1071 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 JEREMY R & SHEILA K CARTER 1081 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 JOHN C & NANCY A BLOOD 575 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 JOHN G & KAREN L WEDIN 9101 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 0 JAMES C & CHRISTINE ERICKSON 8691 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 JAMES L & JOANNE M WOLF 8585 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JANET T W ISDORF 8639 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 JAY P & SHERI A WEISSER 8541 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JEFFREY A & TANYA L SCHNEIDER 8702 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 JEFFREY S & KRISTEN J COOK 8750 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 JOHN A & ANNETTE R WALTERS 622 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 JOHN D & CHRISTINE LOVE-JENSEN 1050 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 JOHN H MEYERS & JACQUELINE C PRESCOTT MEYERS 1011 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 JOHN K & LESLIE G CADLE JOHN K & TRACIE L ROSSMAN JOHN M & MARY ANN MANUEL 301 SHOREVIEW CT 351 PARKLAND WAY 463 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7633 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 0 0 JOHN P & KAREN J ENGELHARDT JOHN P & KRISTEN L SANDERS JOHN P & MARIE M DEVINS 8645 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 559 GREENVIEW DR 486 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7642 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 JOHN P & SANDRA R THOMPSON JOHN R & JODI A ANFINRUD JOHN T JENSEN II 8635 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 295 SHOREVIEW CT 3815 39TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7608 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55410-1057 JOHN W & JOANE K ANDERSON JONATHAN D & SARA E WORRE JOSEPH W & BRENDA N NEVE 8654 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 300 SHOREVIEW CT 9137 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7633 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 JOSHUA & TAMARA REDING JOSHUA E & CORA L CONKLIN JUDSON E & JILL C SNELL 419 SUMMERFIELD DR 8990 QUINN RD 8694 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 KAREN L VANDERBOSCH KEITH A & JULIE C MENZEL KEITH E & LISA L SCHWEGLER 483 GREENVIEW DR 9116 SUNNYVALE DR 619 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7636 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 KEITH M & JENNIFER L MELES KENT B & LORI BETH WARNBERG KEVIN P & MOLLY K MCORMICK 9117 OVERLOOK CT 1111 LYMAN CT 9054 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 KEVIN R & LYNN C ARNAL KEVIN W & DEANNA J HANSON KEVIN W & QI LI LINDERMAN 8661 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 9163 SUNNYVALE DR 610 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 KHANH & KHIEM LE KLAY C & LESLIE A AHRENS KRISTIN PETERSON LEBRE 631 SUMMERFIELD DR 9108 SUNNYVALE DR 477 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 KURT A & SARAH J FERDERER KYUNG-SHIK PARK LARRY S & LISA MARIE EYRE 1090 LAKE SUSAN DR 1080 LAKE SUSAN DR 1100 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 LAWRENCE C & ELIZABETH KLEIN LESLIE E TIDSTROM LISA K MOORE 9170 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 8679 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8682 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8606 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 E 0 LONG DINH NGUYEN & ELIZABETH LONG LI & YING Z WANG LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION CHI PRAM 8557 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 935 WAYZATA BLVD E CHANHASSEN MN 55 55317-9406 LAKE SUSAN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 WAYZATA MN 55391-1899 CHA MANATH LENGSAVATH & DOUANGCHAYLENGSAVATH 1061 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 MARK A & ANNMARIE T SCHULTZ 598 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK A & REBECCA L ERICKSON 1110 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 MARK E & JANICE G LAVEN 8641 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 MARK J & CONNIE C KELLER 8831 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 MARK R & STACEY G LAKOSKY 8533 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MATTHEW G & ELIZABETH MASON 9198 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 MATTHIAS H & ANDREA VANDOORN 8674 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 MANDALSA D BHIKHAI & RAJUNDRANAUTH BHIKHAI 1051 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 MARK A & JODI L BARGMANN 466 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7634 MARK A & SUSAN E FROMMELT 9162 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 MARK E & JOANN M REICHOW 8653 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 MARK M & MICHELLE K GARRISON 592 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK S & TRACY L KURVERS 8560 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MATTHEW R & JODI L NILSEN 1051 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 MICHAEL A & SHARRI P ROGERS 540 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK & KRISTINA SCHWENDINGER 8708 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 MARK A & KAELIN M SCHOLLE 568 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK C & LISA A ANDERSON 9111 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 MARK E GEMPLER & JULIE A WOLTER 8620 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 MARK R & JODI L SOTEBEER 8565 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MATTHEW C & STACEY M B HUDNUT 420 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 MATTHEW W & KELLI M BROWER 8955 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 MICHAEL B & CATHERINE ANDERSON 8709 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 MICHAEL C GRASSEL & RENEE M MICHAEL D & SUSAN M OLSON MICHAEL D TIMM RGER 9125 SP 8612 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 1101 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN SPRINGFIELD MN 5553317-7629 RINGFIELD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 CHA 0 0 MICHAEL G & KAREN L MCNEIL MICHAEL J & DARCI L GUANELLA MICHAEL J & MICHELLE M KELLOGG 8695 MARY JANE CIR 8821 LAKE SUSAN CT 9124 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 MICHAEL L & KELLY D AUER MICHAEL P & SUSAN E DEEGAN MICHAEL R &JENNIFER A 910 LAKE SUSAN DR 9162 SPRINGFIELD DR BRENDAN HA 55 CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 CLAKE SUSAN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 MICHAEL R SMITH & DONNA J MICHAEL T & JEANINE HARRIER MICHAEL W WEBER 09 SUMMERFIELD 551 SUMMERFIELD DR 8851 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 5553317-7647 409 SUMMERFIELD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 NANCY BRYDLE NANCY FULTS NEIL E & SUSAN L ANDERSON 568 GREENVIEW DR 8913 QUINN RD 429 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7642 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 NORMAN & JACQUELINE ENGEL PATRICIA JOHNSON PATRICK A & LAURENE FARRELL 8699 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8715 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 801 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8333 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9161 PATRICK F MORRLEY &PAMELA PATRICK L & KIM M MISMASH PAUL & TONYA HENDRICKSON WEEKS MOGFIE 591 SUMMERFIELD DR 9028 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN SPRINGFIELD 53 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 PAUL A ANDERSEN PAUL A HARRIS PAUL A LARSON & KATHERYN E 8615 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8640 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N POW ELL -CARSON HA 55 DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CLAKE SUSAN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 PAUL C SCHNETTLER & KATE D PAUL D & DENISE M ENBERG PAUL E & ANDREA M D STURM WARD SCHN DR 8608 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 8572 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 5553317-7645 599 SUMMERFIELDIFIELD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 PAUL J & MARY A LAUERMAN PAUL J NESBURG & KATHERINE A PAUL K & CARLA J HOFFER 9155 SPRINGFIELD DR SCOTT 8698 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 9093 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 PAUL W & ANA E MORENO PETER D & TIFFANY M MCINTOSH PHILIP P & NANCY E DENUCCI 603 SUMMERFIELD DR 550 SUMMERFIELD DR 9186 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 RANDY L & STEPHANIE C WAIBEL RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR & 421 LYMAN BLVD JULIANNE E ORTMAN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8656 8698 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 RICHARD C & SUSAN M AMBERSON RICHARD J CHADW ICK 8549 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 9530 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8681 RICHARD W JR & LISA L SIMMONS RICKI JON DREW ULKU & 530 SUMMERFIELD DR WENDELYN ELISE ULKU CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 1020 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 ROBERT & JILL SKUBIC ROBERT A & KATHRYN M STEWART 8619 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8545 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT B MARTINOVICH & PATRICIA A MARTINOVICH ROBERT C & SUSAN SUMMERFIELD J DAHLIN 8592 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 535 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ROBERT G & DIANNE MWICROBERT G & SUSAN L DAUB 8629 CHANHATERMANSSEN 9159 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ROBERT J & KATHY J BEERY ROBERT R & TAMELA J MERRILL 9132 SUNNYVALE DR 8662 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 ROBIN J & DEANNE J ANDERSON RODERICK W & ROBIN K FRANKS 562 SUMMERFIELD DR 8694 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 ROGER K & JOYCE L SCHONE RONALD A & GAIL D ISKIERKA 1010 BARBARA CT 569 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 0 RALPH E & STACEY M SPRAINER 501 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 RAYMOND J ROOB JR & CHAE SUK ROOB 8584 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RICHARD L & LINDA C NELSON 1070 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 RICKY JOSEPH BARTHEL & KAREN ANN BARTHEL 1090 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 ROBERT B & WENDY A DUFF 520 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ROBERT F & KAREN L ANDERSON 8561 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT J & BEVERLY M AMICO 9061 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7632 ROBERT W SMITHBURG & MARCIA R ELAND 8657 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317.9651 ROGER F & DENISE K KIEFER 1030 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 RONALD G & JOYCE L HORR 8513 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 0 PHOULITHAT PHANDANOUVONG &VAT R STEVEN & MAURA BARNETT PHA NOUVONG 8709 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8529 CHANHASSEN ANHASSSEE N HLS DRS CHNHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8333 CHA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RANDY L & STEPHANIE C WAIBEL RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR & 421 LYMAN BLVD JULIANNE E ORTMAN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8656 8698 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 RICHARD C & SUSAN M AMBERSON RICHARD J CHADW ICK 8549 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 9530 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8681 RICHARD W JR & LISA L SIMMONS RICKI JON DREW ULKU & 530 SUMMERFIELD DR WENDELYN ELISE ULKU CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 1020 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 ROBERT & JILL SKUBIC ROBERT A & KATHRYN M STEWART 8619 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8545 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT B MARTINOVICH & PATRICIA A MARTINOVICH ROBERT C & SUSAN SUMMERFIELD J DAHLIN 8592 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 535 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ROBERT G & DIANNE MWICROBERT G & SUSAN L DAUB 8629 CHANHATERMANSSEN 9159 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ROBERT J & KATHY J BEERY ROBERT R & TAMELA J MERRILL 9132 SUNNYVALE DR 8662 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 ROBIN J & DEANNE J ANDERSON RODERICK W & ROBIN K FRANKS 562 SUMMERFIELD DR 8694 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 ROGER K & JOYCE L SCHONE RONALD A & GAIL D ISKIERKA 1010 BARBARA CT 569 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 0 RALPH E & STACEY M SPRAINER 501 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 RAYMOND J ROOB JR & CHAE SUK ROOB 8584 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RICHARD L & LINDA C NELSON 1070 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 RICKY JOSEPH BARTHEL & KAREN ANN BARTHEL 1090 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 ROBERT B & WENDY A DUFF 520 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ROBERT F & KAREN L ANDERSON 8561 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT J & BEVERLY M AMICO 9061 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7632 ROBERT W SMITHBURG & MARCIA R ELAND 8657 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317.9651 ROGER F & DENISE K KIEFER 1030 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 RONALD G & JOYCE L HORR 8513 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RONALD - LILEK & MARY MBENRONALD S & DEBBIE L WRENHOLT RUDOLFO A & ELIZABETH A GOMEZ 9155 SUNNYVALE991 LAKE SUSAN DR 350 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN SUNNYVA55 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9655 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 RUSSELL G BAHENSKY SAUMIL R BRAHMBHATT & FALGUNI SCOT T & NICOLE J JOYNT 8552 CHANHASSEN HLS DRS S BRAHMBHATT 9113 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 1130 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 SCOTT A & MICHELE M WALKER 9031 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 SCOTT W & BERNADETTE M PAULSON 634 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 SHANNON G & MICHELLE A KERN 607 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 SCOTT R & LAURIE J SIMONSON 1051 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 SCOTT W & CINDEE M WALZ 9117 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 SHAWN P & TAMARA J AUSTIN 1101 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9342 SPRINGFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSN STACEY L JOHNSON C/O CONCIERGE ENTERPRISES 930 LAKE SUSAN DR 7100 MADISON AVE W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55427-3602 STEPHEN C & JUDITH A SLACK 8675 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 STEVEN D & CHRISTY A POPPEN 505 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 STEVEN L P & KELLY J SCHWEN 557 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 STEVE J & MARY A PANENO 8564 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 STEVEN D & DEBORAH L FUHRMAN 1031 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING 281 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 SCOTT T & KRISTEN M LINEHAN 513 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 SEONGWOO PARK & MIN JEONG HAN 8580 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 SO VAN LY & SUSAN YKUN UNG 8509 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 STATE OF MINNESOTA -DOT 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD MAILSTOP 631 ST PAUL MN 55155-1899 STEVEN A & COLLEEN M SAPP 8669 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 STEVEN H & RUTH M VANCE 8588 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 STUART E & JULIE M BODMER 991 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 SUZANNE M LAND TAE KYUN KIM TERRELL L & COLLEEN K HELLAND 8604 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 556 SUMMERFIELD DR 491 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 TERRI MARIESON BERG TERRY LEE & MARI T BERANAK THEODORE J & ANN L SMITH TRUSTEE TRUST 8576 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 9166 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN HLS DRS CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHA THOMAS A & CARRIE S COLE THOMAS B & JENNIFER L BOWMAN THOMAS E & MARY P KELLIN 528 GREENVIEW DR 8577 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 940 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 THOMAS E & SARAH MARIA LYNN THOMAS H & FELICIA R LINDQUIST THOMAS J & JULIE K PETERSON 1050 LAKE SUSAN DR 9107 SUNNYVALE DR 881 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9649 THOMAS M & CHERYL A ELENZ THOMAS P & NICOLE M O'BRIEN THOMAS P HAGMAN & SUSAN M 8636 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 449 SUMMERFIELD DR BARTENETTI CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 625 SUMMERFIELD CHANHASSEN MN 55353 17-7644 THOMAS S & LEANNE M KELLY TIM & JANE BORNE TIMOTHY D & PATRICIA L BESSER 9100 OVERLOOK CT 9158 SUNNYVALE DR 400 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8655 TIMOTHY J & SHARI D HOEFT TIMOTHY J LOVETT TIMOTHY P & HOPE A JACKSON 8600 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 8052 PARELL AVE NE 8632 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ELK RIVER MN 55330- CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 TIMOTHY S & TAMARA S MILLER TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE TODD E & VERONICA L SCHULZ 579 SUMMERFIELD DR 275 GREENLEAF CT 1070 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 TODD M & ANNE J HINRICHS TONY L & CONNIE S NUSS TRINH D NGUYEN 439 SUMMERFIELD DR 9140 SPRINGFIELD DR 1001 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 TROY & JENNIFER HOLASEK TROY A & JEANNETTE M RENNER UTPAL R VAIDYA & LEENA UTPAL 8556 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 525 GREENVIEW DR VAIDYA CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 861 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9649 VINCENT M HOWARD WANDA FAYE DENT WARREN E V & SANDRA H 15643 MESSINA ISLE CT 8678 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N SWEETSER HA SPRINGFIELD DR DELRAY BEACH FL 33446-9761 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55353 17-7629 WILLIAM E BENSON 8596 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 11 YANG GEUN PAK & SOO OK PAK 1041 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 Mr. Robert Worthington Southwest Metro Transit 13500 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 0 KEITH COLLINS CB RICHARD ELLIS SUITE 770 7760 FRANCE AVE BLOOMINGTON MN 55435 Mr. Jim W. Sand Sand Companies, Inc. 366 South Tenth Avenue PO Box 727 Waite Park, MN 56387-0727 FILE No.894 0420 '04 14:57 0:Shenehon Company FAX:6120 1635 PAGE 2 April 20, 2004 Mr. Len Simich, A1CP Southwest Metro Transit 13500 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: PHASE I ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL TMPACTS OF PROPOSED PARI{ & RIDE DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY #101 AND THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY #212 ON EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Dear Mr. Simich: As requested, we have prepared a phase I analysis of the potential impact of the proposed park & ride development on property values of residential properties along the south side of Lyman Boulevard, near Highway #101. As part of our phase I analysis involving the Park & Ride, we have reviewed the existing and historical zoning, the current and historical City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, proposed site plan of the Park & Ride and the adjacent freeway, and inspected the site and surrounding neighborhood. In addition, we have had conversations with individuals from the planning commission and prominent real estate agents serving the southwest metropolitan area to further understand the proposed development and As potential impact on nearby residential values. After reviewing this information, we also analyzed the appreciation rates of residential properties in like -kind neighborhoods near similar park & ride developments in contrast to the appreciation rates within their corresponding cities to further examine the effect of a park & ride on value; if any. The proposed park & ride development shows a common development pattern for an area abutting a major interstate. Similar neighborhoods throughout the state have commercial Properties immediately adjacent to major interstates with arterial roads, similar to Lyman Boulevard, separating them from residential developments. The residential developments generally begin with high density multi -family residential properties along the arterial road, gradually transitioning to single-family homes further away from the arterial road and the interstate. The commercial developments benefit from both the high visibility and serve as buffers to the residential uses from the freeway noise and view. The multi -family further buffers the single-family residential from freeway issues, and from the commercial areas. Furthermore, a 100 -foot landscaped buffer between the townhomes and the rest of the neighborhood is part of the site's design to further alleviate any impacts on the nearby single- family homes. Recognizing the forthcoming development of Highway #212 through the subject neighborhood, the 10 -acre parcel on which the park & ride is proposed is a prime site for commercial development, The park & ride development plan follows the typical development pattern, while minimizing the potential negative impacts of commercial use on the nearby single-family homes. FILE No.894 04/20 '04 1458 0:Shenehon Company FAX_612& 1635 PAGE 3 Mr. Len Simicb, AICD April 20, 2004 Page 2 The zoning of the subject property is currently RSF, or Single -Family Residential District. However, dating back to the 1991 comprehensive plan, the site has been guided for mixed-use development. According the Chanhassen city planner, mixed-use development areas are primarily designed for neighborhood commercial or high density multi -family residential. The Proposed park & ride development includes approximately 10,000 t015,000 square feet of commercial space and a 45 to 50 unit townhouse complex. The proposed townhouses are high end "row homes", and would likely sell for between $200,000 and $250,000. The commercial space would likely be primarily comprised of a daycare facility and a small retail area serving the park & ride users and the neighboring community. Therefore, the proposed park & ride falls well within the bounds of a mixed-use development and is generally a very low impact use. In addition, the park & ride has been designed in such a way that there will be very minimal impact on the traffic counts of the residential neighborhoods nearby. The buses will have direct access on to Highway #212 from the park & ride and will generally have no need to drive through the nearby neighborhoods. To further understand the impact of the proposed development, we contacted a number of Prominent real estate agents who serve the Southwest metro market and are familiar with the subject neighborhood. Their responses were consistent in that they all believe that, given the alternatives, the proposed development is the most uaintrusive for nearby homeowners. Also, the park & ride would provide convenient transportation for the nearby homeowners into the downtown areas and throughout the metropolitan area. One of the agents pointed out that the park & ride would produce higher levels of traffic in the area only twice a day during the work week, in the morning and in the evening, whereas a retail development would generally increase levels of traffic consistently throughout the entire day including the weekends. It is their general opinion that homes adjacent to park & rides are generally more desirable than homes adjacent to commercial developments. In addition to the research described above, we examined the appreciation rates of properties in like -kind neighborhoods surrounding three similar park & ride facilities. Specifically, we looked at the Apple Valley Transit Station, Palomino Hills Park & Ride (Apple Valley), and the Savage Park & Ride. Using the Multiple Listing Service database, we found sales and resales of residential properties surrounding each of these park & rides and determined the appreciation rates accordingly. We then found the average appreciation rates for the cities in which the properties are located by using the average sale prices over the same time period. To fully understand the impact on property values, we examined the appreciation rates of properties before and after the park & ride was developed. We found in all cases that the appreciation rates of properties were actually greater after the park & ride was developed when compared to the city averages. In addition, we looked at individual properties that sold both before and after the park & rides were developed and found that they showed similar appreciation rates to the rest of the market. Our findings consistently showed that there was no measurable difference between the average appreciation rates of residential properties near park & rides and the average appreciation rates of all residential properties in their respective cities. FILE No.894 0420 '04 1458 0:Shenehon Company FAX:6120 1635 PAGE 4 Mr. Len Simich, AICD j April 20, 2004 Page 3 After reviewing all of the pertinent information, interviewing various real estate agents, and analyzing appreciation rates of properties in similar: areas, it is our opinion that the proposed Park & ride development will have no measurable negative impact on the property values of the nearby residences. Any diminution in value that could take place in the future is due solely to the construction of Highway 11212, In fact, the proposed park & ride development could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, Preventing higher impact development on the sight, and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to call us at (612) 333-6533. Sincerely, SHENEHON COMPANY Stephen T. Hosch, MAI Senior Vice President FILE No.896 0421 '04 08:17 0:Shenehon Company FAX:612W 1635 PAGE 2 ""All SHENEHON COMPANY IS A Busmv..s$ AND {ZEAL E.STAIIS VALUATION PIAM serving DOCK the public and private sectors. Our geographic concentration is in the Midwest, however, our services continue to expand throughout the country. ■ The purpose of Shenehon Company is to prepare appraisals and market studies of real estate, businesses and intangible rights, and to provide our clients with the specialized knowledge necessary to solve the many valuation problems that arise in the marketplace. A Our reputation of quality valuations is a tradition that began in igz9, when the late p.E. Shcnchon founded his real estate appraisal firm. In 1946, his son, Howard, joined the firm, and in the mid-ig5o's, assumed man- agement responsibilities. Since that time, the company has expanded to in- clude not only the appraisal of real estate, but also the valuation of business enterprises. 2 Shenehon Company continues that tradition by providing its Oems with quality work prepared by an experienced staff of appraiscrs/analysu with a wide variety of expertise in the real estate and business valuation fields. This knowledge is achieved by incorporating extensive and continuous educa- tion with actual field experience. A The top associates have earned designa- tions from the following organizations: Counselors of Real Estate (CRE); Appraisal Institute (nm); Institute of Business Appraisers (cEA); and the Amer- ican Socitty of Appraisers (ASA). These designations arc highly recognized in the appraisal field. Other m(rappraisers are candidates for membership in the above-mentioned organizations as well as members of additional boards and associations. The firms appraisers are licensed in the State of Minnesota as well as other states throughout the country. Several members of the firm have earned postgraduate mascer's degrees in either real estate or business adminis- tration. A In addition to appraisal responsibilities, staff members serve as review appraisers, mbitratos, commissioners, special magistrates, mediators, and lecturers at various seminars and courses for a number of educational organizations. Several staff members have also published articles in local and national trade journals. The company has also earned a highly -respected repu- ration in the area of litigation, with several sta(T members involved in numcr- nus landmark court decisions. It I FILE No.896 0421 '04 08:18 :Shenehon Company 1 40 REAL ESTATE Agricultural Facilitie Airplane Hangus Amuscmcat Parks Aparcrnmu Auto Rcpair Facilities Auto Dealerships Bank Facilities Bars and Liquor Sw= Bowling Alleys Car Washes Casinos Cement Plants Cemeteries Child Carc Centers; FAX:61241 1635 PAGE 3 -QUALI'I Y VALUATIONS. EXCH"I ioNAL SERVICE. AND A LONO-SI'ANDIN(i 1)1:()ICAI'ION'1'0 IN'EFGR11'Y HAVE: BEEN TIIE CORN ERS'lONES lll'l)N WHICH WE HAVE llUll:f OUR FIRM' Churches Cold Storage Buildings Condominiums Conference Ccntcrs Conmmirutcd Propertim Cnrporax Hcadquartms Dcpartmcnt Stores Farms Food Proomsing Plants Food Score Foundrics Fungal Humes Gasoline Stations Golf Coupe Grain Elmtm Gravel/Sand Operations Greenhouse/Nurseries Healds/Fimes Clubs Hutorical Propmics Hospitau Hotels/Motcls Industrial Facilities Institutional Buildings Jails L. FILE No.896 04/21 '04 08:18 :Shenehon Company Labo stories Landfills Lawn and Gatdcn Facilities LumbcrYanis Marinas Medica) Facilities Mini Sclf Storagc Properties Mining Properrics Museums Mobile Home Parks Nursing Homes Office Buildings OfficdShowrooms Offia Condominiums Outdoor Advertising Signs Puking Ramps and Ganges Public Buildings Racetracks Radio/TV. Stations Ready -Mixed Concrete Properties Recrcrcional Propertics/Rcsorts Rehabilitation Facilities Restaurants Right -of -Ways Salvage Yards Schools Senior Housing Facilities Service Stations Shopping Centers Ski Resorts Subdivisions and Land Development Subsidized Hosing heaters Trude Plazas Truck1crminals FAX :612 ,�4 1635 PAGE 4 Vansil Land Ncw Cm�ctruction Wedattds and wildlife Sale and Purchase Preserves Special Assrsamenr Benefit Analysis Tax Appals CONSULTING - Tu Increment Krustwing Studies C,ondrmnations Development of Land and Buildings BUSINESS Envimnmenral Issues ENTERPRISES Estate Frceus Feasibility Studies Advertising Companies Fomclusure Agriculnrml Businesses land Use Studies Amusement Parks Ltascvs. buy ArWysis AppatclCompanics Market Value in Use Architorural Firms Arenas Auto Dealerships and Franchise OF IiF.AI F.STAI'E Bakeries C)N F:�I'fRILN(F Banks INNUVAI'IVE Bars and Liquor Stores Boat Manufaaumis 'OUR UNIQUE. COMBINATION AND BUSINESS VALUATION ALLOWS Ili TO PROVIDE SOLUTiONSTO DIFFICl11.1 VAI.IIATI0N ISSIirs. 3. FILE No.896 04211'04 08:18 :Shenehon Company FAX:612 1635 PAGE 5 iu I Bowling Centers Brokerage Companies Car Washes Casinos Cement/Gravel/Sand Companies Coal Leases and Mina Communication Companies Computer Companies Construction Companies Construction Machinery Companies Contracts and Compensation Studies Convenience Stores Curtain Manufacturers Fhy Care Operations Development Compania Distribution Companies Dog Food Manufacturer Drug Stora Dry Cleaners and Laundries Electrical Companies Employment Sgrch Companies Engineering Cnmpanim Equipment Companies Fabrication Companies Feed Mills Food Processors Footwear Compania Franchism Framer Warehouses Cnsolhte and Auto Repair Gnnpanies General and Limited Partnership Interests GolfCoarsm Crain Elevators Hair Salons I Iardware Store, Heakh/Fiaim Clubs Hur Ttearing Operations 'ADAPTING OLD THEORIES FOR Nr:W Ai,m.1(::A•TIONS' . Holding Compania Home Health Care Services Hotcls/Mords Industrial Companies Insurance Companies Invotmcnt Compania Laboratoriesand Research Companies Landfills Land Development Companies Lumber Mills Lumberyards Machinery Companies Management Companies Manu Facmrers Represenatim Manufacturing Companies Marinas Meat pr c ors Medial practices Medial Service Compania Metalworking Machinery Compania Milling Compania Mortgage Companies Moving and Storage Companies Music Compania Nun-pm6t Companies Nursing Homes Optical Sores Outdoor Advertising Signs Prinring Compania Processing Compania Produce Compania ProFcssiunal Practices and Agencies Publkhing Companies RV. Parks Radio Station' 14. Radio Towers Ranches ReacipMixed Concrete Companies Real Estate Brokerage and Management Companies Remurana Retail Shops Retail and Wholesale lire Centers River/Showboats Sales Representative Companies Salvage Yards Sawmills Service Companies Shoe Companies Sign Companies Ski Wbres Software Companies Technology Companies Tclephone Service Compania Television Stations Theaters Tool and Die Operations Transportation G.mpanies Travel Agencies Treamtcnt C:enten Trucking Companies Utility Companies Veterinary Climes Video Stores Warehousing Companies Waste Disposal Companies Wholesalers FILE No.896 04/21 '04 0819 1wenehon Company FAX:612 3635 PAGE 6 S HEN EHON COMEANY SENIOR ASSOCIATES rTnE TO OOTTOMI: JOHN SCHMICF, WILL HE0.rEa. JOHN ELAHLat Y. JUDY WALDRLE, 000 STRACHOTA. JOE LAr RAY, DOE DROWN. STEVE HOSCH. DARRELL KOEHLING E R, ROE IN ROZELLE. SCOT TORKELSON. AND DENNIS DINGHAM INTANGIBLE PROPERTY RIGHTS Access Rights Air Rights Contracts Contracts for Deed Customer or Subscription Lisa Damage Analyses Development Agtee rents Development Rights Easements Forestry Rights Prancbists General and Limited Partnership Interests Going Concern Goodwill Leasehold Interests Licenses Lost Pmfir Analysis Minority lntcresn Patents Royalties Tac Increment Financing Agreemenra Trademarks Visibility Rights Water Rights Zoning Changes Is. FILE No.896 0421 '04 08:19 Iitenehon Company FAX:612 36635 PAGE 7 OUR CLIENTS 3M A.S.B. capital Managyment ABiant Trcbsy tares Ina American Etpras Financial Group AmeriPridc Scrvirm Inc. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minnapolis Arthur Andascn LLP Aspen Waste Systema, Inc. Associated Bank of Minnaon Augsburg College AVR, Inc. Bat Buy, Inc. BNC National Bank of Minnanta Boise Cascade Corporacion Boston Scientific SciMed Breck Srho 3I Bremer Bank .riggs and Morgan Brookfield Properria (US) LLC Browning -Faris Industria Cargill, Inc. Cul,•nn Companies, Inc. Carvx County Cuholic Charities of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis Century Bank. NA CinLank, NA City of Bloomingmn Cary of edina Gey of line, ukes City of Rehhekl City of Roseville Cold Spiny, Granite Company CAJtage CC,,cnnr �mek-Inllum C; piH Group C rd C..tmraron Daa.d: P. ,ark Dorsey & Wbirney, LLP Emst &Young Fahrnn, Inc f'arn„rc & Benson, T.LP Hina Intcrcsts Fust National Bank of Waseca Firsrat Frauenshuh Compania GE Capin) C• rporuinn GMAC Cotttmcrcial Mortgage Gram Inc C rassman Dealerships HealthEast Care System Hennepin Courny Hillaat Development Holiday Companies Honeywell International Toa Internal Revenue Service Jim Lupien Old.ntobile KKE Archircas Koch Petroleum Group LP. Kraus -Anderson Concoction Lend Lease Real Estate Lutheran Brotherhood Malt -O -Meal Marquette Batik McGough Companies Medvotdc, Inc. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Metropolitan Airports Conunissio,t Miller & Schroeder Financid, Inc Minneapolis Community Development Agency Minne:pobs 1 icart Institute Fouadatiot. Minneapolis Para & tCCGtnri"n LOani Minnesota DrynrtmentnF Irattsportation Mu u.l of N -w Y,rk Lo Natioml Pravt loduetrial Nordgniv Cign Company Northlond/Marqucttc (apical Group Northwest Airline' MA Opus Group of Compania Park Nicellet Medical Center Prudential PCG/PMCC R.J. St6nccn & Co. Reliant Energy Minnegasco Richfield Bank &Trust Co. Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP Run dark Construction & Design RREEF Ryan Compania U.S., Inc. Schmitt Music SmrTribune SurModia, Inc. TOLD Development U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc USS. Bureau of Mina U.S. Deparctrtent of Justice US. Department o° the Treasury U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Realty Advisors, LLC Union Labor Life L,surance CO. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. University of St. Thomas Universiry of Minnesota FILE No.896 0421 '04 08:19 Ifhenehon Company FAX:612 344635 PAGE BIOGRAPHICAL DATA AND EDUCATION Born and raised in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and graduated from Columbia Heights High School. Attended U St. Cloud State University and graduated with a bachelor of science degree in real estate with an emphasis in appraisal. OSuccessfully completed numerous real estate appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute, and have attended several seminars covering specialized appraisal topics, some of which are highlighted below: Legal Issues in Valuation - March 2003 2nd Annual RERC Industry Outlook - Jamrary 2002 Real Estate Outlook for 2003 - December 2002 Real Estate Outlook 2002 - December 2001 Eminent Domain - October 2002 Eminent Domain - October 2001 Commercial Real Estate Financing - March 2002 7, W PROFESSIONAL OUALIFICATIONS OR ASSOCIATION$ Certified General Real Property Appraiser Licensed Appraiser - State of Minnesota, Liceue #4002903, Expires August 31, 2005 Member - Appraisal Institute (MAI) The Appraisal Institute conducts a mandatory program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. I am currently certified under the Appraisal Institute education program through December 31, 2006. Member - Minnesota Shopping Center Association (MSCA) PROFESSIONAL F)WRIENCE Shenehon Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota Senior Vice President - Director of Real Estate, since November 2003; Shareholder Senior Vice President - Co -Director of Real Estate, September 2002 -November 2003; Shareholder Vice President - Cc -Director of Real Estate, April 2001 -September 2002; Shareholder Appraiser/Analyst from June 1991 to March 2001 Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare professional valuations and market analysis of real estate said intangible property rights. Assignments involve numerous types of commercial, multiple family, industrial, and special purpose properties. The specific purposes of these assignments have included highest and best use studies, mortgage fruaucing, condemnation, tax abatement proceedings, feasibility analysis. iavesuneat maweling, potential sales and purchases, lease and rental analyses, bankruptcy proceedings, charitable donations, internal management decisions, special assessment appeals, gift tax, and allocation of purchase price, Court experience involves testifying at commission hearings and depositions, preparation of affidavits, and providing litigation support. AUTHOR/CO-AUTHOR OR GUEST SPEAKER OF: "Challenging Issues in Commercial and Industrial Valuation," Commercial Real Estate Financing Conference, March 13, 2002 "Market Valuation At Appraisals," Minnesota Commercial Association of Realtors, January 22, 2002 "Fundamentals of Special Assessments in Appraisal," Valuation Viewpoint, Spring 1999 "A Perspective on Subdivision Appraisal,- V8111ation Viewpoint, Winter 1997 PARTIAL CLIENT LIST Anim Hospitals & Clinics City of Miunctoaka Anthony Osdund & Baer City of New Hope City of Asswiricd Bank Roseville Barin Gury & Steffen City of Shoreview Best Buy Corporation Crown Bank Breese law Firm CSM Corporation Briggs & Morgan Faegre, & Benme Builders Dau. & Finance Fredrikson & Byron CwsiB H.C.D. City of Coon Rapids Honsa & MicWts City of Faget Hennepin County Regional City of Minneapolis Railway Audwrity Hinshaw & Culbertson Internal Revemae Service Kelly & Faw sit Kraus-Anderaon Lmwrd, Street & Demand Lindquist & Vennum Lundgren Brother; Constx %wtlon Malkerson Gilliland & Martin Metropolitan Airports Commission Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Opus Group of Cos. Peterson, Fram & Bergman Rinke Noonan Robert Moir Co. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service United States Justin Department University of MUMVIOU Uoivmsity of Sr- Thnrrn; WarChol, Berndt & Haitk Wells Fargo & Co. Williams Pipe Line Company FILE No.896 04%21 '04 0820 Iitenehon Company FAX=612 3635 PAGE I N O J U Z" w O< =a W ds Z� W w Z x� ) m BIOGRAPHICAL DATA AND EDUCATION Born and raised in Milwaulum W iscoaain. Graduated from Marquette University High School in MBwauikec. Relocated to the Twin Cities and graduated from the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. Awarded a bachelor of area degree in fnanea with honorable distinction. Holds a permanent membership in Delta Epsilon Sigma, a National College Honor Society. Awarded a master of business administration degree from the University of Minnesota. Awarded the distinguished alumni award by the University of St. Thomas for Corporate and Community Responsibility. inducted into the College of Fellows in the institute of Business Appraisers. Successfully completed numerous appraisal courses and seminars which have been sponsored by the Appraisal Institute, the intiam As, the Minnesota ssociation of Professional Appraisers (MAPA), the American Society f Rea] Butane Counselors,the Hennepin County Bar Association, NAIOP, the American Institute of CPAs, and other professional groups. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OR SOCIA NS Counselor of Real Estate - American Society of Real Estate Counselors (CRE) Member - Appraisal Institute (MAI) - Certified through DoomW 31, 2007 Member - Institute of Business Appraisers (MCRA) (BVAL) (Fellow) Industrial Organization Economist Associate - American Bar Association (ABA) Member - National Association of Industrial and Office Properties - Minnesota Chapter (NAlOp) Member - Urban Land Institute (ULI) Member - Building Owners and Maoagers Assn-hdou - Greater Minneapolis Chapter (ROMA) Member - Commissioner of Commerce Task Force for Appraiser Licensing - 1990 NAIOP Judges Panel for Building Awards Member - Lambda Alpha International - Honorary Land Economics Society CERTEnED AIM LICENSED APPRAISER 31, 2005 Licensed Appraiser - State of Minnesota, License 94000882, Expires August Licensed Appraiser - State of Arizona, License #30727, Expires January 31, 2004 Licensed Appraiser - Stare of Wisconsin, License #585-010, Expires Dmembe 31, 2005 Licensed Appraiser - State of South Dakota, License #585CG-2004R, Expires September 30, 2004 Licensed Appraiser - State of Colorado, License #CG40027370, Expires December 31, 2005 Licensed Appraiser - State of Florida, License IRZA002662, Expires November 30, 2004 pROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE She r ehon Company, Shareholder, since October 1980; President since 1985. Patchin Appraisals, Inc.. Manager from February 1978 to September 1980. Shenebon-Goodhmd and Associates, Inc., Appraiser from May 1975 to February 1978. Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare professional valuations and market analysis of real estate, business enterprises and intangible property rights. Assignments have involved numerous types of real estate properties and businesses. These assignments have included highest and best use studies, mortgage financing/recapitlEation, condemnation, marriage dissolution, economic loss analysis, tax abatement proceedings, feasibility analysis, investment counseling, potential sales and purchases, lease and rental analyses, banhvptey proceedings, charitable donations, internal management decisions, easements, special assessment appeals, allocation of purchase price. going public or private, lost profits analyses, estate planning, gift tax, FSOPIESOT, rights.cf-way, valuation of limited and general partner interests in real estate and business partnerships,' and insurance indemnifi(ation. Teaching experience has been with the Board of Realtors in the University of Minnesota Extension and as an adjunct professor and lecturer at the University of St. Thomas and the University of Mimiesora degree programs. Court experience involves testifying at various commission. hearings, district courts, rax courts, and federal courts throughout the U.S. Writing experience includes mmkerous published articlesoven various local and national trade journals. AybirJation and commissioner experience involves acting as a court app arbitrator, commissioner or magistrate on umnurous real estate and business valuation disputes- Investment experience has involved a variety of business and real eatax assets. Appraisal experience bas been throughout the U.S. (over 25 states) and Canada. PARTIAL_CLIENT LIST 3M Corporation bquiuble Life 1 wi Allis= Jbepre A Bmson Amimicau Express - IDS Fedaal Asisnon Anaauoa AmenVridesa.icn retinal It a eBank Rank V Moneran Fm Churn lima Ben Buy Firam Cargill GE Capital Cwhobc Caanaa Gerald Musa natams CiWM CMAC Mongage Cio of Muaapolis MUD CSM COrporuim Marna Bak Demame But TNM C--P-V 11..pu A Ramwy Coundw Dumaomo Grow 1=mai Revenue serxe Dorsey A whnrary ).P. Morgan Bink Faton Curpmation Xrsm Andmaon Maa-0-Marl Marq� 11-a me"W LynrhHobbrd Mebopoatia Abpons Cum>mni= Muniingw= National preset opus Group of Co Pacific Gas A Gemk pnncipsl Fimuoal Grasp ash, Malting GomP.Y REEF Rym C.mp Sao Dlcgo Gas A Ckwk sd mia Music Stilled Life Systems S.Modia Tataat Unwed Saint Army Uwi d Slater Fa A arddlifv verses smea J.+O— D,Aaonme Unad slaw Pon ofBm UOim,q of mnrr n UOlversrty 0 St. TDOnns W.R. Drax Compaq www. Drug stom wryaosre woo peso A Co. will m. Eo Croup Xccl EWO YMCA 0 0 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT -ORIENTED FACILITY IN CITY OF CHANHASSEN Prepared for: SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT Prepared by: BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. May 2004 r CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ii SUMMARY PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND Proposed Development Characteristics ............................................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNED FUTURE ROADWAY CHANGES.......................................................... 3 TRAFFIC FORECASTS TripGeneration........................................................................ 4 Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................. 4 TrafficVolumes....................................................................... 8 RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC OBJECTIVES Impacts at Subject Intersections (Objective A) .................................... 11 Impacts on Lyman Boulevard East ofTH 101 (Objective B) ................... 12 Recommended Access Plan (Objective C) ....................................... 15 Traffic Study for Proposed i- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen Traffic Study for Proposed ri- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 PROJECT LOCATION.......................................................... 2 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR PARK/RIDE................................... 5 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR RETAIIJDAYCARE ......................... 6 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR RESIDENTIAL ............................... 7 5 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES .............................. 9 6 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ............................... 10 7 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................. 13 8 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................. 14 9 RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN .......................................... 16 Traffic Study for Proposed ri- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen 0 9 SUMMARY Benshoof & Associates, Inc. completed a traffic study for the Southwest Metro Transit's proposed transit -oriented facility in Chanhassen. This study is to determine impacts of this development on the surrounding roadways. Based on discussions with City, Mn/DOT, and Southwest Metro staff, the following are the three principal objectives of this traffic study: A) Examine traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections during the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours: • TH 101rM 312 north ramps • TH 101/TH 312 south ramps • TH 101/proposed right turn access • TH I01/Lyman Boulevard • Lyman Boulevard/proposed full access • Lyman Boulevard/Summerfield Drive B) Examine impacts of the proposed development on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101 for the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. C) Develop a recommended access plan for the proposed development. Traffic forecasts and analyses were completed for the 2011 no -build and the 2011 build conditions during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. Results from the traffic analyses indicated that the proposed development will not cause any significant negative impacts at the subject intersections and on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101. A recommended access plan was developed that would best meet the needs for the proposed development users and other motorists using the surrounding roadway network. Traffic Study for Proposed iii- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen 9 0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to present the results of the traffic study completed for the proposed transit -oriented facility in the City of Chanhassen. The site for this facility is located north of Lyman Boulevard and east of the future realigned TH 101. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed site. Based on discussions with City, Mn/DOT, and Southwest Metro staff, the following are the three principal objectives of this traffic study: A) Examine traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections during the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours: • TH 101/TH 312 north ramps • TH 101/TH 312 south ramps • TH 101/proposed right turn access • TH 101/Lyman Boulevard • Lyman Boulevard/proposed full access • Lyman Boulevard/Summerfield Drive B) Examine impacts of the proposed development on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101 for the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. C) Develop a recommended access plan for the proposed development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed development was initially envisioned to consist of a park/ride facility and other supporting uses such as convenience retail and residential. Based on discussions among neighbors, Southwest Metro Transit, City, and Benshoof & Associates staff, a preferred development concept was developed. This concept was principally based on needs for the area, benefits of multi -use developments, and trip generating characteristics of the various possible uses. The following are the characteristics of the preferred development concept (referred to as proposed development elsewhere in the report), which were used in this traffic study: • Park/ride - 800 parking spaces • Daycare - 8,000 SF (square feet) • Convenience retail - 8,000 SF • Housing - 48 dwelling units The proposed site will be served by a total of three access points — a right tum access on TH 101, a full access on Lyman Boulevard, and a "buses only" access on the TH 312 south ramps. The Proposed development is expected to be complete by 2010. Consistent with normal practice, traffic analysis were completed for one year after full completion of the development, i.e. 2011. Traffic Study for Proposed 1- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen E SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 1 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - ORIENTED FACILITY PROJECT LOCATION �BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES, INC. IN CHANHASSEN TRANSPORTATION ENGINEESSANOPLANNEPS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNED FUTURE ROADWAY CHANGES The proposed site presently is undeveloped. South of the proposed site is Lyman Boulevard, a two-lane City street with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Lyman Boulevard west of TH 101 is a County roadway. As shown in Figure 1, TH 101 is a north -south roadway with an offset at Lyman Boulevard. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) currently has plans to realign the north leg (north of Lyman Boulevard) of TH 101 to remove the offset at Lyman Bouelvard. This change will create a four -legged TH 101/Lyman Boulevard intersection. Mn/DOT plans to construct TH 312 in the next few years. With the new TH 312, an interchange will be built at TH 101. This interchange will create two ramp intersections on TH 101 north of the site. These planned future changes will result in the following geometrics and traffic controls at intersections on TH 101: TH 1011TH 311 north ramps. This intersection will provide one eastbound left turn lane and one shared througb/right turn lane on the west approach, two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right tum lane on the east approach, and one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane on the north and the south approaches. Traffic signal control will be provided at this intersection. TH 101/771312 south ramps. This intersection will provide one left turn lane and one right turn lane on the east approach, one left tum lane and two through lanes on the north approach, and one right turn lane and two through lanes on the south approach. Traffic signal control will be provided at this intersection. TH 1011Lyman Boulevard. This intersection will provide one eastbound left turn lane, one through lane, and one right tum lane on the east and the west approaches and one left tum lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane on the north and the south approaches. Traffic signal control will be provided at this intersection. Geometrics and traffic controls at the subject site access intersections were established through traffic analyses and are presented later in this report. Traffic Study for Transit -Oriented in Chanhassen -3- May 2004 0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS TRIP GENERATION 0 Trip generation estimates for all proposed uses were developed based on data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. Trips resulting from this process are called gross trips. Due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed development, a significant portion of the development trips are expected to occur internal to the site (e.g., a trip between residential and day care uses). Based on rrE data and experience on other similar projects, a five percent reduction was applied to gross trips to determine net development trips that will use the surrounding roadway network. Trips for retail uses normally are classified into the following two trip types: New Trips — Trips solely to and from the subject development Pass -By Trips — Existing "through" hips on adjacent streets (TH 101 and Lyman Boulevard) that will include a stop at the subject development in future Although the convenience retail will generate a few passby trips, these trips would be very low compared to the total trip generation for the site. Therefore, no reduction was applied for passby trips for the proposed development. Table 1 shows the trip generation estimates. Table 1 Weekday Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use Size Units A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Park/Ride 800 Spaces 637 494 Daycare 8,000 SF 102 106 Convenience Retail 8,000 SF 51 51 Housing 48 DU 27 44 GROSS TOTAL 1 817 695 NETT -Nn M1.1 776 660 .q--% ww uip oy nvc PICOnL TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution percentages for the proposed development were established based on discussions with City and Southwest Metro Transit staff regarding market areas for the various types of uses. It is expected that traffic patterns for the various proposed uses will be different. Therefore, separate distribution percentages were developed for the different uses. These percentages are presented in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the distribution Percentages presented in Figures 2, 3, and 4. This trip assignment resulted in development traffic volumes at the subject intersections. Traffic Study for Proposed 4- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen C� APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 3000' SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 2 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT ORIENTED FACILITY TRIP DISTRIBUTION WBENSHOOF &ASSOCIATES, INC. INCHANHASSEN FOR PARKMIDE TRANSPORTATIONENOINEERSAND PLANNERS 0 SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FORI IGURE 3 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSITORIENTED FACILITYOR RETAIRIBUTION UDAYCARE IWTRANSPO BENSHOOF &ASSOCIATES, INC. IN CHANHASSEN RIP RTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS LBENSHOOF WEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 4 TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT- ORIENTED FACILITY TRIP DISTRIBUTION ASSOCIATES,INC. INCHANHASSEN FOR RESIDENTIAL ENGINEEflSANOPLANNEflS E TRAFFIC VOLUMES As described earlier, traffic forecasts and analyses were completed for one year after full completion of the proposed development, i.e. 2011. To develop background traffic volume projections for 2011 at the subject intersections, Mn/DOT's projections presented in "TH 212 Design -Build Preliminary Engineering Design," September 2003 were obtained. This document presents 2007 and 2025 traffic volume projections at the subject intersections. Using these projections and existing daily volumes in the 2002 Mn/DOT flow maps, a.m. and p.m. peak hour background volumes for 2011 were extrapolated. Development volumes established earlier were added to the 2011 background (2011 no -build) volumes to determine 2011 build volumes. A.M. and p.m. peak hour volumes for the 2011 no -build and the 2011 build conditions at the subject intersections are presented in Figures 5 and 6. In addition to volume projections at the subject intersections, Figures 5 and 6 show two-way volumes on Lyman Boulevard between TH 101 and the proposed access and east of the proposed access. Traffic Study for Proposed 8- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen m O7 N � O w �r o U. W~ 10/10 10/10 109/1 TH 312 NORTH RAMPS N NOT TO SCALE 10/10 10/10 11/11 _N oC O � r rCnr n m co co mo 000 `\j 112/112 11/240 TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS T� 2011 NO -BUILD M�I 2011 BUILD co rn I co N XX/XX N O a N y 4125 R-IN/R-OUT Tf LO(0 co co �0 N U Q 00 O U Q Z Z_ J D O ONf� mNv40/43 co LLL C O m �1/1 N CI rim 39/68 40/83 L ° --/28 LO `l) < 98/122 4/4 v m LYMAN BLVD. 119/119 F— 391/423 -/276 2/3 40/93 238/238 227/235 —� 67/67 o 9/11 n d v ITN r W O LL 2 W 7 y SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 5 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - ORIENTED FACILITY WEEKDAY A.M. LWSENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES, INC. IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR VOLUMES R ANSPORT AT10NENGI NEERSAND PLANN ERS W Q o F� N Lo N r w ~ O N N r' 22/22 10//0 J 358/380 TH 312 NOT TO SCALE NORTH RAMPS 10/1 o 10/10 10/10 o c0 0 r�o m Ln n �o `O 82/82 10n2 TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS T� 2011 NO -BUILD 2011 BUILD yr I I n co N v XX/XX v C m m y -/268 R-IN/R-OUT T� �rn � C \ Lu U Q L n U Q Z Z vn D O N �� -- 39/42 O N w t `D N n v 212 V N v cr)40/107 T v m T N � 1 198/290 263/267 10/10 LYMAN BLVD. �i E— 277/277 27 329/338 /101 5/6 T sono 166/166 140/157 152/152 "co m 21/25 'T ¢ v 7� a �WCo o w O LL Q W co y SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 6 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - ORIENTED FACILITY WEEKDAY P.M. BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. � IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR VOLUMES TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERSAND PLANNERS RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC OBJECTIVES IMPACTS AT SUBJECT INTERSECTIONS (OBJECTIVE A) To determine traffic impacts of the proposed development at the subject intersections, capacity analyses were completed using the Synchro 6 analysis software. These analyses were completed for the 2011 no -build and build conditions during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hour volumes using the planned future geometrics and traffic controls presented earlier. For analysis purposes, exclusive lanes were used for all turn movements at the site access intersections, and stop control was used on the driveway approaches. At the Lyman Boulevard/Summerfield Drive intersection, existing geometrics and traffic control, which include one lane on all approaches and stop signs on the north and the south approaches, were used. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of what each level of service means: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. For most agencies in the Twin Cities area, level of service D represents the minimal acceptable level of service for regular daily operations. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include: long queues, stop -and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized Study for in Chanhassen -11- intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. Most agencies in Minnesota consider that LOS D represents the minimal acceptable LOS for normal peak traffic conditions. Results of the capacity analyses are presented in Figures 7 and 8 for the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours, respectively. As shown in these figures, all movements at all the subject intersections will operate at LOS D or better for both the 2011 no -build and the 2011 build conditions during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary in terms of LOS at the subject intersections. IMPACTS ON LYMAN BOULEVARD EAST OF TH 101 (OBJECTIVE B) In addition to capacity analyses at the subject intersections, this traffic study examined impacts of the proposed development on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101. As shown in Figure 5, the two- way a.m. peak hour volume on Lyman Boulevard between TH 101 and the proposed access for the 2011 no -build and build conditions is 357 vehicles and 708 vehicles, respectively. This represents an increase of 351 vehicles in traffic volume on Lyman Boulevard west of the proposed access. However, east of the proposed access, the a.m. peak hour volume for the 2011 build condition is 396 vehicles, which is only 39 vehicles (11 percent) more than the 2011 no - build volume of 357 vehicles. Similarly, with the proposed development, the change in the two- way p.m. peak hour volume on Lyman Boulevard east of the proposed access is only 30 vehicles (7 percent) more than the 2011 no -build volume of 443 vehicles. Although the proposed development would cause a significant increase in traffic volumes on Lyman Boulevard west of the proposed access, there would only be a small increase (11 percent during the a.m. peak hour and 7 percent during the p.m. peak hour) in traffic volumes on Lyman Boulevard east of the proposed access. Since all homes along Lyman Boulevard are accessed east of the proposed access, where there would only be a small increase in traffic volumes, the proposed development would not cause any significant negative impacts on these homes. Traffic Study for Proposed -12- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen D/D __� W C/C 4= — C/C� no r� Lx Wr aao BB R-IN/R-OUT D/D D/D __� `� Tr C/C C/C� Quaa ¢U a U A/A D/D TH 312 NORTH RAMPS TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS NN 1 NOT TO SCALE 2011 NO -BUILD 2011 BUILD XX/XX a a -B R-IN/R-OUT T I� a¢ as m W o Q U ¢ Z Z_ J � B/B�D/D_ U. A/A D/D �i A/A LYMAN BLVD. A/A DCS A/A � B/ A/A� A/Ao o a ora A/A m m Co mmm ¢ 0 0 W O LL Q W r � U) I SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 7 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - ORIENTED FACILITY WEEKDAY A.M. �BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR TgANSPOgTATIONENGINEEPSANGPUNNEflS LEVELS OF SERVICE 0 0 D/D:-� W C/C C� C/C o ¢ ¢ oma Lx W� aaU A/A R-IN/R-OUT C/C D/D:-� C/C C/C o ¢ ¢ oma ¢U a U A/A �— C/C TH 312 NORTH RAMPS TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS N t NOT TO SCALE 2011 NO -BUILD 2011 BUILD XX/XX aI y -B R-IN/R-OUT T� ¢ ¢ as to W o Q U ¢ Z Z_ J C3 O amV BiB LL m�? mmm t___A/A C/CLYMAN C/C A/A BLVD. `� <j�'�A T T C/C A/A A/A A/A � oU¢ ama A/A mmm Comm 0 0 J W O LL w W SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 8 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT ORIENTED FACILITY WEEKDAY P.M. IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR WBENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. LEVELS OF SERVICE TPANSPONTATIONENGINEEFSAND PLANNEPS 0 0 RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN (OBJECTIVE C) To provide adequate operations within and around the proposed site, a recommended access plan was developed. The following items were considered in developing an access plan that would best meet the needs of development users and other motorists using the surrounding roadway network: • Traffic volumes on Lyman Boulevard and TH 101 upon completion of the proposed development. • Stacking space to adequately accommodate the 95`" percentile queues at the access intersections and at the TH 101 intersections with Lyman Boulevard and TH 312 south ramps. • City's requirement of a 100 -foot buffer between the full access on Lyman Boulevard and the adjacent property(s) to the east. • Mn/DOT guidelines for tum lane lengths. The recommended access plan is shown in Figure 9. Principal features of the access plan include location and geometrics for the right tum access on TH 101 and the full access on Lyman Boulevard. As indicated in Figure 9, the right turn access can be provided anywhere between the two locations shown. These locations represent a 75 -foot `window" in which the right turn access can be provided without reducing the tum lane lengths for the northbound right turns on TH 101 at the right tum access and at the TH 312 south ramps below the minimum lengths that are needed to adequately serve these movements. Traffic Study for Proposed -15- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen Tu vR Im ITN RAPRS Q=f nRAUMMnlMn QnI R PQAIMf1QT I f1CATIf)M N t MPRd01MTE SCALE o Iso TN aIz souTN RAMPS RECOMMENDED NORTHERNMOST LOCATION FOR RIGHT TURN ACCESS ON TH 101 I I I I nR ev r -IL NOTE: THE RIGHT TURN ACCESS ON TH 101 CAN BE PROVIDED ATONE OF THE TWO LOCATIONS SHOWN ABOVE OR ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN THESE TWO LOCATIONS. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANIPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT -ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN FIGURE 9 RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN 0 1 Chanhassen Park and Ride Chanhassen, Minnesota ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Noise and Air Quality Prepared for the LSA Design, Inc. by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 17 May 2004 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 NOISE IMPACT IMPACTS .............................. .............. _.............................................. 4 2.1. Noise Sources.................................................................................................................. 4 2.2. Methodology and Assumptions....................................................................................... 4 2.3. Noise Model Results........................................................................................................ 6 3.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ................. ............... ............................................................ 10 3.1. Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................................... 10 3.2. Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results............................................................................. 11 3.3. Diesel Engine Emissions for Model Year 2007 and Later ............................................ 12 4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................... 13 David Braslau Associates, Inc. List of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of the Site Relative to the TH 212/TH 101 Interchange ..................... 2 Figure 1.2 Schematic of Bus Movements at the Facility....................................................... 3 Figure 2.1 Roadway Geometries and Receptor Locations ................................................... 5 Figure 2.2 L10 Contribution by Roadway Group................................................................. 8 Figure 2.3 L10 With and Without the Park and Ride Facility ............................................ 9 David Braslau Associates, Inc. List of Tables Table 2.1 Predicted AM (6-7 am) Noise Levels (dBA)........................................................ b Table 2.2 Predicted PM (5-6 pm) Noise Levels (dBA)........................................................ 7 Table 3.1 Predicted 1 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) ........................... 11 Table 3.2 Predicted 8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) ........................... 11 David Braslau Associates, Inc. 1.0 INTRODUCTION This environmental assessment addresses potential noise and air quality impacts from the proposed Chanhassen Park and Ride facility to be located in the southeast quadrant of the future TH 12/312 interchange in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The facility will serve eight buses during the AM and the PM peak hours, with a maximum of two buses idling for approximately five minutes as it discharges or picks up passengers. Because of the interchange configuration, buses during the AM period will enter and depart along the northern access serving the facility. During the PM period, buses will circle the parking ramp area to return to TH 101. The two-level parking ramp will accommodate up to 800 vehicles. It is assumed for a worst case scenario that all these vehicles will access TH 101 from Lyman Avenue and use the roadway along the east side of the park and ride to access the parking ramp. In addition to transportation - related land uses, new residential development within the site is proposed. These may include for -sale condominium and rental units. Location of the site relative to the TH 101 interchange and adjacent residential land uses is shown in Figure I.I. A schematic of bus movements through and around the facility is shown in Figure 1.2. Section 2.0 of the report addresses noise impacts associated with the proposed facility. Section 3.0 of the report addresses air quality impacts (primarily Carbon Monoxide) associated with the facility. Section 4.0 of the report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this assessment. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 1 wolf x cAll =I �a�I.�1f1ERF.F_J�. t�l� 1 ua wn huu ruK LSA Design, Inc. David Braslau Associates, Inc. I�� I m_� AM BUS PM BUS Chanhassen Park and Ride ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT nnvuunmmc i FIGURE 1.2 Schematic of Bus Movements at the Facility 2.0 NOISE IMPACT IMPACTS 2.1. Noise Sources A number of roadways in the area as well as the Park and Ride facility will contribute noise to adjacent land uses. These include the future TH 212 Eastbound and Westbound lanes as well as the on- and off -ramps associated with the highway. Traffic along TH 101 and to a much lesser extent traffic along Lyman Avenue will also contribute to noise. Sources of noise from the Park and Ride facility will include buses entering and leaving the facility. It is assumed that buses will not use the high idle mode when waiting, picking up or discharging passengers, so that bus idling is not anticipated to add significantly to the noise level. In addition to buses, up to 400 vehicles may enter or leave the parking ramp during the peak AM or peak PM hour, traveling along Lyman Avenue and the roadway along the east side of the Park and Ride facility. 2.2. Methodology and Assumptions The assessment compares noise levels with the Minnesota noise standards for residential land uses shown in Table 1.1. The L10 metric represents the noise level not to be exceeded for 101/0 or six minutes of an hour. The L50 metric represents the level not to be exceeded for 50% or 30 minutes of an hour. Table 2.1 Minnesota State Noise Standards Noise Area Classification Daytime (0700-2200) Sound levels in dBA Nighttime (2200-700) Sound levels in dBA Noise Metric L10 L50 L10 L50 1 residential 65 60 55 50 2 commercial 70 65 70 65 3 industrial 80 75 80 75 Source: Minnesota Rules 7020.0040 The FHWA highway noise model has been used to estimate noise levels for the AM and PM periods at sensitive locations adjacent to the facility as well as future residential uses that are to be constructed in conjunction with the facility. For the model, a specialized vehicle representing a bus has been used. This source assumes a higher noise level at lower speeds as the bus accelerates and a lower noise level as the bus reaches higher speeds, which is a reasonable representation of noise from buses expected to use the facility. Since these sound levels are based upon extensive data collected from urban transit buses, projected noise levels associated with buses that will actually use the facility may be overstated. The roadway geometries and receptor locations use for the noise analysis is shown in Figure 2.1. AM and PM traffic volumes obtained for a previous study of air quality at interchanges along TH 212 were used in the model. As noted above, for the AM period, buses are assumed to enter the north access directly from TH 101, pick up passengers and then enter the eastbound on ramp to TH 212 directly. For the PM period, buses are assumed to enter the north access from TH 101 but then circle the parking ramp to the south to return to TH 101. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 4 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment I N 1 SITE 05 2 0 30 4 0 0 6 LSA Design, Inc. FIGURE 2.1 Chanhassen Park and Ride ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Roadway Geometries David Breslau Associates, Inc. and Receptor Locations • 0 An extensive buffer east of the facility is proposed that will provide approximately a 100 foot deep belt of evergreens of different sizes to provide a dense area of vegetation that will reduce sound levels approximately 3 dBA. The bus waiting area and parking ramp will provide some shielding of noise to the south, where a day care facility and residential units are proposed. 2.3. Noise Model Results Predicted noise levels for the AM or 6-7 am period are presented in Table 2.2. It should be noted that these noise levels are due primarily to background traffic, since bus activity during this time period will occur at the northern access roadway only. Table 2.1 Predicted AM (6-7 am) Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor Site L10 Standard L50 I Standard #1 Bus Waiting Area 69.5 70 60.3 65 #2 Day Care Playground n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. #3 Apt/Condo north 62.2 55 59.2 50 #4 Apt/Condo south 61.2 55 58.4 50 #5 Home north 58.9 55 55.2 50 #6 Home south 57.0 1 55 54.4 50 The bus waiting area, which will be exposed to bus noise, falls under the NAC -2 land use classification and is expected to comply with the noise standard for this type of land use. The Day Care Playground is normally not intended for use from 6 to 7 am. However, all of the residential land uses are expected to exceed the nighttime noise standards because ambient noise from the interchange, TH 101 and motor vehicles accessing the parking ramp. Receptor Site #5 Home (north) which is located immediately east of the parking ramp will experience only a limited increase in noise from the facility since no buses will be using the east roadway to travel south and back to TH 101, as will occur during the PM period. Throughout the Metropolitan area, residential land uses adjacent to transportation facilities are normally exposed to noise levels over the "nighttime" standards during the 6-7 am period. Exceptions to the Minnesota rules will permit construction of residential land uses at this site providing certain conditions are met as noted below. Under exceptions contained in Minnesota Rules, commercial noise standards (NAC -2) or an L50 of 65 dBA can be applied to a residential land use providing the provision in the rules can be met. The applicable provisions of Minnesota Rule 7030.0050 are presented below. Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a land use may be changed in the following ways if the applicable conditions are met. B. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 2 shall be applied to a building in a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met: (1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least 30 dB(A); David Breslau Associates, Inc. Page 6 (2) the building has year-round climate control; and (3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities. Any new home or residential unit constructed to comply with the Minnesota energy code will likely comply with the first two conditions listed above. Outdoor areas associated with homes are not normally intended for use between 6-7 am when the highest "nighttime" levels occur. Therefore, it is expected that residential land uses can be constructed on the site that will comply with the Minnesota noise standards. Predicted noise levels for the PM (5-6 pm) period are presented in Table 2.3. Table 2.2 Predicted PM (5-6 pm) Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor Site L10 Standard L50 Standard #1 Bus Waiting Area 69.4 70 60.0 65 #2 Day Care Playground 68.7 70 59.6 65 #3 Apt/Condo north 67.2 65 59.2 60 #4 Apt/Condo south 63.0 65 59.5 60 #5 Home north 63.1 65 55.4 60 #6 Home south 59.3 1 65 55.4 60 Both receptor #1 and #2 are classified under NAC -2 and will therefore comply with the noise standards. Only the apartments or condominiums that are located along the access roadway used by buses to return to TH 101 will experience a noise level over 65 dBA. However, with appropriate design, planned outdoor uses that are located south of the buildings, rather than on the access roadway, should ensure compliance with the daytime standards. The contribution of individual roadways was also evaluated for the PM Peak Hour, where buses travel through the facility rather than only on the north access roadway. The relative L10 contributions for individual roadways or roadway groups are presented in Figure 2.2. Only #3 Apt/Condo (north) is estimated to exceed the NAC -1 (residential) daytime standard (Receptors #1 and #2 fall under NAC -2). However, it can be seen that this exceedance is not caused directly by passing buses but indirectly by the sum of noise from buses as well as a large number of other sources, especially TH 212 EB and TH 101. Therefore, buses are not the sole reason for this slight exceedance of the noise standard. A comparison of predicted L10 levels at the six receptor sites with the Park and Ride facility and the predicted ambient level (i.e. without the bus facility) in 2025 is shown in Figure 2.3. It can be seen that sites #1, #2, #3 and #5 will experience the greatest increase in level (3 to 5 dBA) since there are closest to buses that will pass through the facility. Sites #4 and #6, as well as areas south of Lyman are expected to experience increases of less than 1 dBA. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 7 Chanhassen Park and Ride 70 65 60 55 m ° 50 0 J 45 40 35 30 Bnvironmcntal Assessment All Bus TH212 EB EB ON TH101SB TH101NB TH212WB TH101S Lyman LSA Design, Inc. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIGURE 2.2 LIO Contribution by Roadway Group • • ®#1 Bus Waiting Area L10 daytime standard = 65 dBA 0#2 Day Care 0#3 Apartment North ❑#4 Apartment South 0#4 Home North ®#5 Home South -G r; n I' !� F a� 'I i.. I u I {{ 41' op All Bus TH212 EB EB ON TH101SB TH101NB TH212WB TH101S Lyman LSA Design, Inc. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIGURE 2.2 LIO Contribution by Roadway Group • • Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 72 70 ■TH212+Bus Facility 68 ■TH212-No Bus Facility 66 64 m ° 62 0 J 60 58 56 54 52 - — #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Receptor Site LSA Design, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIGURE 2.3 L10 With and Without the Park and Ride Facility David Braslau Associates, Inc. • 3.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 3.1. Methodology and Assumptions The air quality analysis of Carbon Monoxide, the most common pollutant considered for local impact analysis of transportation systems, is based upon an extended model developed as part of the Environmental Assessment update for the TH 212 corridor. That model, as was done for the noise analysis discussed above, considered the entire interchange and related roadways. The addition of the bus and automobile access roadways (as well as the parking ramp) completed the model used here for analyzing potential air quality impacts of the Park and Ride facility. The roadway system and receptor site locations for the air quality analysis was identical with that shown in Figure 2.1 Since detailed traffic volumes were available for the 2007 projection year, that year was also selected for the analysis of the Park and Ride facility. Buses using the facility as well as automobiles traveling to and from the parking ramp were superimposed on this background traffic to determine overall air quality levels. For the air quality analysis, it was assumed that, during the PM Peak Hour, eight buses entered the facility from TH 101 and circled the parking ramp to reach TH 101, where they traveled north to the westbound on-ramp for TH 212. To ensure a conservative estimate of Carbon Monoxide concentrations and a worst case scenario, it was assumed that the eight buses idled for the entire hour. It was also assumed, as a worst case scenario, that 400 vehicles, or half the parking capacity, depart the parking ramp depart during the PM Peak Hour, exiting to the east roadway, then traveling south to Lyman Avenue and back west to TH 101. Worst case Carbon Monoxide concentrations were estimated at each of the six receptor sites along with the wind direction that yielded these concentrations. In addition to the roadway emissions model, an area -source model was used to estimate emissions and concentrations associated with the parking structure. The EDMS (Emission and Dispersion Modeling System) model developed for the Federal Aviation Administration permits the evaluation of parking lots of this type and was used for this analysis. The wind direction yielding worst case roadway concentrations at each receptor was then used to determine the concentration (with that wind direction) at each of the receptor sites. These two values were then combined and added to an assumed background concentration that was determined from extensive MnDOT monitoring data around the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The analysis was performed for both a I -hour and an 8 -hour period, since the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm is much more critical than the 1 -hour standard of 30 ppm. The 8 -hour concentration was estimated using an adjustment factor of 0.70 that is the commonly accepted practice for highway air quality studies. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 10 3.2. Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results The predicted 1 -hour Carbon Monoxide concentrations are presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Predicted 1 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Rece for Site Roadway Parking Background Total #1 Bus Waiting Area 0.65 0.50 1.13 2.28 12 Day Care Playground 0.46 2.08 1.13 3.67 23 Apt/Condo north 0.69 1.47 1.13 3.29 #4 Apt/Condo south 0.47 1.14 1.13 2.74 #5 Home north 0.48 0.50 1.13 2.11 #6 Home south 0.51 1.07 1.13 2.71 MPCA Standard I I9.00 30.00 Note: ppm = parts per million It can be seen that the maximum Carbon Monoxide concentration is approximately 12% of the 1 -hour standard and all concentrations are well below the 1 -hour standard of 30 ppm. The predicted 8 -hour Carbon Monoxide concentrations are presented in Table 3.2. The 8 -hour parking concentrations are considerably lower than the 1 -hour, since little activity is assumed for the seven hours prior to the PM Peak Hour. The maximum 8 -hour concentration is approximately 18% of the 8 -hour standard, but all concentrations are also well below the 8 -hour standard of 9 PPM. Table 3.2 Predicted 8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Receptor Site Roadway Parking Background Total #1 Bus Waiting Area 0.46 0.11 0.79 1.35 #2 Day Care Playground 0.32 0.44 0.79 1.55 #3 Apartment north 0.48 0.31 0.79 1.59 #4 Apartment south 0.33 0.24 0.79 1.36 #5 Home north 0.34 0.11 0.79 1.23 #6 Home south 0.36 1 0.23 1 0.79 1.38 MPCA Standard I I9.00 Note: ppm = parts per million Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on Carbon Monoxide concentrations are anticipated from the proposed Park and Ride facility. The issue of potential particulate emissions and odor is discussed below. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 1 I 3.3. Diesel Engine Emissions for Model Year 2007 and Later New emission standards have been adopted for diesel engines manufactured and fuel sold for model years 2004 to 2006. For the Model Year 2007, the standards are more stringent. Actual particulate emissions will depend upon the make and model year of the buses to be used at the Park and Ride facility. Since the facility will be operated in conjunction with the new TH 212, it is anticipated that particular emissions from buses using the facility will be lower that with current equipment. Since odor associated with diesel exhaust is primarily related to particular emissions, it is anticipated that odors associated with bus activity at the Park and Ride facility will be even lower than might occur at existing park and ride facilities. Standards for model year 2007 and later heavy-duty highway engines include two components: (1) emission standards, and (2) diesel fuel regulation. The fust component of the regulation introduces new, very stringent emission standards, as follows: • PM - 0.01 g/bhp-hr • NOx - 0.20 g/bhp-hr • NMHC - 0.14 g/bhp-hr The PM emission standard will take full effect in the 2007 heavy-duty engine model year. The NO, and NMHC standards will be phased in for diesel engines between 2007 and 2010. The phase-in would be on a percent -of -sales basis: 50% from 2007 to 2009 and 100% in 2010 (gasoline engines are subject to these standards based on a phase-in requiring 50% compliance in 2008 and 100% compliance in 2009). Effective 2007 model year, the regulation also eliminates the earlier crankcase emission control exception for turbocharged heavy-duty diesel engines. Crankcase emissions from these engines are treated the same as (i.e., added to) other exhaust emissions. Manufacturers are expected to control crankcase emissions by routing them back to the engine intake or to the exhaust stream, upstream of the exhaust emission control devices. The diesel fuel regulation limits the sulfur content in on-higbway diesel fuel to 15 ppm (wt.), down from the previous 500 ppm. Refiners will be required to start producing the 15 ppm S fuel beginning June 1, 2006. At the terminal level, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard as of July 15, 2006. For retail stations and wholesale purchasers, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard by September 1, 2006. Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel has been introduced as a "technology enabler" to pave the way for advanced, sulfur -intolerant exhaust emission control technologies, such as catalytic diesel particulate filters and NO, catalysts, which will be necessary to meet the 2007 emission standards. EPA's review in 2003 of industry progress shows that engine manufacturers are on target to introduce new engines in 2007; diesel particulate filters that reduce harmful PM emissions by more than 90% will be used by all manufacturers; NOx control will be accomplished using proven technologies, some of which are in production today; and engine manufacturers will conduct early protoype testing with trucking customers in 2005. In 2007, these new clean engines operating on the 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, reduce PM emissions by more than 90%, will substantially contribute to air quality improvement, help states meet Clean Air Act goals and further protect public health and the environment. (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#progreport2) David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 12 4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed Park and Ride facility is planned to serve a maximum of eight buses per hour with parking for 800 motor vehicles. During the AM period buses will enter and depart along the north access to the facility and will therefore have minimal impact on both noise and air quality. During the PM period, buses will enter at the north from TH 101 and circle the parking ramp to return to TH 101 to reach the TH 212 westbound on-ramp. These buses will travel along the east roadway of the facility and between the parking ramp and the new residential structures to be constructed as part of the project. These buses will have somewhat more impact on noise and air quality, although the impacts will be limited. Noise levels during 6-7 AM, which fall under the nighttime period, are expected to exceed the Minnesota noise standards primarily due to traffic on the new TH 212, its ramps, and TH 101. Appropriate construction of the new housing proposed for the site can permit higher noise limits to be applied and therefore can comply with noise standards. Noise levels during the PM Peak Hour are generally under the state noise standards except for the apartments that face the access roadway carrying departing buses. However, the 2 dBA exceedance is within modeling error and may not be a problem if no outdoor uses are planned for the north side of these buildings. The buses alone are not sufficient to cause the noise standards to be exceeded. Contributions from the other roadways are sufficient for this small exceedance of the standards. Predicted air quality (carbon monoxide concentrations) are well below both the 1 -hour and the 8 -hour standard and no air quality problems are anticipated with operation of the facility. As new diesel engine and diesel fuel regulations are implemented, the potential for odor associated with the facility will also decrease. Appropriate equipment will be able to operate at the facility with little or no odor impacts. y:\jobs\2004jobs\204019\report\chanhassenpark&ride-report-revised.doc David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 13 CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES .LUNE 1, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjomhom, Rich Slagle, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE HIGHWAYS 2121101 AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18. Public Present: Name Address Len Simich Aravind Guttemukkula Kyle Williams Bob Worthington Dave Soliday Curt Kobilaresik Craig Mullen Richard Simmons Terry Helland Southwest Metro Transit Benshoof & Associates, Hopkins LSA Design Southwest Metro Transit 291 Shoreview Court 9149 Springfield Drive 611 Summerfield Drive 530 Summerfield Drive 491 Summerfield Drive Sharmeen A]-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the traffic study as it relates to left turning movements. Aravind Guttemukkula with Benshoof and Associates addressed traffic study questions. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification on the date of 2011 being used by the traffic engineers in their study. Commissioner Tjomhom asked what will be done to Planning Commission mammary —June 1, 2004 0 mitigate noise. Kyle Williams with LSA Design explained how the noise study was conducted. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification regarding the neighbors concerns, berming and the proximity of the daycare related to noise and air quality. Chairman Sacchet asked about specifics in the plan related to land use and signage. Len Simich, Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit presented the applicant's case. Commissioner Slagle asked Mr. Simich to comment on the diesel engine law that was in the news recently and Southwest Metro Transit's bus fleet. Commissioner Tjomhom asked for clarification on who will control the townhouse and commercial development on the site. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Richard Simmons, 530 Summerfield Drive asked the commission to delay action on the rezoning based on two issues. One, it's premature and two, because it's premature, the findings in the staff report should not be relied upon. He provided reasons why he felt this way. Terry Helland, 491 Summerfield Drive expressed concerns with placing a park and ride on this site and if it was the right location. Commissioner Slagle asked Len Simich to expand on the issue of this being the right site or if another site would be more suitable for a park and ride. Commissioner Claybaugh asked about the walking and trail system associated with the site. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion, the following motion was made. Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses • The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low PA Planning Commission Scary — June 1, 2004 • intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. • Small to medium-sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • Convenience store without gas pumps • Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self -Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. • Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive-thru Windows • Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Boulevard 50 feet -Lyman Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and rams 50 feet Project Property Line 100 Feet -Easterly Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 1 story Planning Commission Omary—June 1, 2004 • Boundary Building and Parking Setback Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft 25 or 3 stories, and stair well whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 4 Planning Commission Amary — June 1, 2004 • 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. f. Residential Standards 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to W Planning Commission Stnmary — June 1, 2004 • screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. h. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. L Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; b. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; Planning Commission Sonlary—June 1, 2004 • g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. U. Project Identification Simi: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. i.2. Monument Simi: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. L3. Wall Simts• a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. U. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. Planning Commission Summary — June 1, 2004 • d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. i.5. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. L6 Directional Sims a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. 0. Prohibited Sims: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. Planning Commission Somary — June 1, 2004 • • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area • Menu Signs are prohibited. i.8. Sign Design and permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 — Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). C tw F gala Pott Model CP 12/18-CAMK 12 Ft lit 10 ohBr t Flgu 36 - Clunhu llghting Unit DmVI 41 Planning Commission Su3nmary—June 1, 2004 • 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. AU voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. BUILDING ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 17,000 SQUARE Public Present: Name Address Greg & Kelly Hastings Glenn M. Gerads 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 1071 Barbera Court Sharmeen A]-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification on the side yard setback and if the eaves are included in that calculation. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the amount of encroachment. The applicants, Greg and Kelly Hastings explained their case along with passing out 10 0 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjomhom, Rich Slagle, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -MIXED USE LOCATED ON Public Present: Name Address Len Simich Aravind Guttemukkula Kyle Williams Bob Worthington Dave Soliday Curt Kobilaresik Craig Mullen Richard Simmons Terry Helland Southwest Metro Transit Benshoof & Associates, Hopkins LSA Design Southwest Metro Transit 291 Shoreview Court 9149 Springfield Drive 611 Summerfield Drive 530 Summerfield Drive 491 Summerfield Drive Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff? No questions from staff? Kurt. Papke: I'll start. In the traffic study it appears that most of the issues are with the left turns. Most of the C's and D's are left turns. Could you explain and most of them are in Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • conjunction with 101. It's the north ramp to 101. You know south ramp to 101. Lyman to 101, etc, etc. Could you just review for the record where there will be left turn arrows on the stop lights? Just so we're all cognizant of how that will be controlled. And what the, you know how will that impact the level D of service that we see here? Al -Jaffa May I turn this question over to Aravind? Sacchet: You may. A]-Jaff: It's his area of expertise... You'll get much better answers from him Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Do you want to have him come up right now. Sure. Do you mind pulling the microphone towards you please. Aravind Guttemukkula: My name is Aravind Guttemukkula. I'm from Benshoof and Associates where we are a traffic engineers and planning firm. We did the traffic study for this, as Sharmeen had indicated. And the level of service D talking about the left turns at intersections on 101, specific plans weren't developed by MnDot yet for how the phasing and timing's going to be for analysis purposes we assumed that all of left turns were offered as protected only, meaning a left turn arrow. That's the safest kind of movement, and that is probably the most restrictive type of movement compared to the protected per mass. You know both left turn arrow and a green ball. Papke: Okay, so it will be left turn on green arrow only? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Papke: What most likely... Aravind Guttemukkula: That's correct. Sacchet: Craig? Claybaugh: Yes, I had some additional, if you don't mind stepping back up here. With respect to the study on page 7. I was looking at the assumptions and what I was found was... 100 vehicles, 8 buses per hour. What I was looking for was a relative time line. Not time of day but date. Is that based on demands for when it opens? Is that based on demands through what, through 2015 or where's that 800 motor vehicles fit, if you can put a date to it, a year to it. Aravind Guttemukkula: For forecasting analysis purposes we assumed that the development will be complete in 2010. So we analyzed, we, it's our normal practice to analyze one year after full completion. Expected full completion. So that's the numbers, the volumes, everything that you see in this report are for 2011. 2 Planning Commission Reting — June 1, 2004 0 Claybaugh: Okay. So you're using 2010 basically demands due to population through Chanhassen and the rest of it, is that a fair statement? Aravind Guttemukkula: You mean the trip generation? The number of trips that are expected. Claybaugh: Based on our, what would be our projected population in 2010. Aravind Guttemukkula: Our distribution, our generation is, trip generation is based on the institute of transportation engineer's data that was collected at numerous other similar facilities in the country. Claybaugh: The question I was trying to get at is 2010 obviously, that area isn't going to be developed anywhere near capacity and my question is, as that area develops and population comes to fruition, what does this study look like? Aravind Guttemukkula: Our, that runs traffic volumes without the proposed development accounts for the growth between now and 2011. That is correct. It accounts for. Claybaugh: So 2011 is it? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Claybaugh: And when, if I can direct this to Sharmeen, in terms of city's forecast, do we expect the area that's going to impact this most heavily to be fully developed? Al -Jaffa Majority of the development will begin as soon as, and again you can't force developers to do this but. Claybaugh: No I understand but I mean are we talking that the area from the city's standpoint might be closer fully developed or 90 percent developed by 2017? 2020 or are we talking 2014? Al -Jaffa This area is in the MUSA. Therefore 2007 is when 212/101 is proposed to be completed. Probably 2010. Claybaugh: So you feel that the area would be fairly well developed so there'd be a good correlation between the time slot for the study and what the demands would be? Al -Jaffa Yes Claybaugh: Okay. That's all I was after. Sacchet: Since we have you up there, level D. Sharmeen made a comment. Can you explain level D of the traffic. 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 Aravind Guttemukkula: Level D. Sacchet: Yeah, D like David. Because it's awfully far into the alphabet if F means dead stop. Aravind Guttemukkula: D, most agencies in Minnesota consider D to be acceptable. And at a signalized intersections, a D corresponds to an average of 35 to 55 seconds per vehicle. Sacchet: Is that in addition to when you could go? I mean you have to like wait for one batch to go through the light and then you have to wait another one or how do you? Aravind Guttemukkula: Level of service D represents that all, I mean we cannot look at just level of service and answer the question. We also look at the cuing which is just doing the level of service, from our analysis... clear than one cycle. Sacchet: Okay, so with the level D they should still be able to go through in one cycle? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Sacchet: That was my question. That's a good answer. Okay. We might be able to get back to you. We're still in questions to staff and we'll have the applicant present so we may have more for you. I don't know, does anybody else has a traffic question right now? Papke: Did your planning assumptions take into account the construction of the new secondary school, which would be what, about a mile west or so of there right off of Lyman. Is that taken into account that people dropping their kids off at school and coming to the parking lot and that kind of scenario. Aravind Guttemukkula: The ones that you, the representative 2011 no built, you know the cover development were projected based on traffic forecasts completed by MnDot for 2025 and 27 for the 312 project. We used their estimates which were based on regional growth, regional traffic land model. Papke: So it was a total basis ... no individual antidotal situations taken into account. Aravind Guttemukkula: Right. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Any more questions of staff? Tjomhom: I just have one question Sharmeen. Some of the residents it looks like were having concerns about noise and in the report it shows that the noise level will be exceeded during certain times of the day. What happens with that? Is that just there and I mean what does that mean and what happens to the poor neighbors? 4 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 Al -Jaffa It says noise levels during 6:00 to 7:00 a.m., which falls under the nighttime period are expected to exceed the Minnesota Noise Standards primarily due to traffic on the new 212. So it's not because. Tjomhom: So the freeway, not the bus station. Al -Jaffa Correct. Tjomhom: Okay. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: I'd like to dovetail that question. It's kind of an ambiguous term. Is there any way that they can express that as a percentage that the park and ride would add the additional burden above the noise from 212? Did they come at it from that direction at all, rather than. I mean there's other transit stations. There must have been some studies available with respect to the additional noise burden that's added by a facility like this when you have Eden Prairie's as an example. Al -Jaffa Okay, if you turn to probably the last 3 pages of your report. The entire staff report. So it would be the third sheet from the end of your staff report. Basically it looks at the site with a bus facility and without a bus facility. The changes are minimal as far as, okay where. As far as the noise. Claybaugh: What would be the extenuating factor on what I'll say vertical column number 5 where there's the significantly differential in the relation to just the 212 noise. Any specific explanation for that? Al -Jaffa The times that we need to be concerned with is. Sacchet: They're locations right? Kyle Williams: I'm not David Brasloff, but I'd Kyle Williams with ISA Design but we did work with David and not only did we have his charts but these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 identify spots on the site. Number 5 was what he is referencing in his summary where he talks about the apartments. It's a misnomer the apartments. These are for sale townhomes, but he talks about the departing buses in the p.m. going by, going around the comer between the commercial and the residential. He was most concerned about those houses there. We're most concerned about the houses just easterly that exist. He was also presuming buses would stop at the corner. The preferred cycling has buses moving so all the stop/start buses are along the northerly part of the site, and further he identifies the p.m. is when that noise would take place and as David describes, the a.m. is always the most concerned because that's the wake up factor. When buses and people are most affected. So the start stopping on the a.m. is always on the north side. There are no buses that come onto the site except on the p.m. on occasion. It's only when buses are going south bound back onto 212. So that is the discrepancy, and just for your reference. The human 5 Planning Commission meeting — June 1, 2004 • ear can pereeive the difference of 3 db's. 3 decibels. Other than that it's really not perceptible. And so the difference there is what, 58 to 65. So it's a perceptible. There's a perceived increase in noise on the site. On 6 it was the most concerning for us because that was a resident right at the corner of Lyman and the entrance to the site. And that was our biggest concern. Sacchet: So 5 is actually a residential part within the development, just to be really clear. Kyle Williams: Yes. And if we had the diagram, I think I can. Yeah. 5 is right here. And so buses are coming up here and then cutting through the site, and that's why, they're going around that corner is what he was concerned about. And again he was presuming stopping and starting which we've explained and designed out of that. Sacchet: Does that answer your question Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. It led to a follow-up question and that was with respect to, assuming there's a berm there. The berm that was designed there is functioning to mitigate that noise already. I assume there's been some. Kyle Williams: The berm actually would have some effect. Berms typically, landscape berms typically don't make any difference at all unless they're 100 foot deep and very dense. This is and will be 100 feet, very dense so it will mitigate some of the noise. But I think David was looking really at right by the buses, not on the other side of the berm. Claybaugh: Thanks. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from staff? Rich. Slagle: I've got a few. Sharmeen, there were 3 meetings I think you mentioned, a chance for the neighbors and so forth to interject. Would it be a fair statement that as time went on the neighbors concerns were addressed and their fears lessened from staff's perspective? Al -Jaffa Yes. That is a fair statement. However, I mean they still prefer to see the site remain similar to what it is today, or have single family detached units. But again, I mean we truly made an effort, be it Southwest Metro. Be it the city. We truly made an effort to work with the residents and take their concerns into consideration and develop a planned unit development that meets or addresses these concerns. Slagle: Okay, thank you. Next question. 100 foot buffer the gentleman just mentioned that if it's 100 feet and it's dense it will mitigate noise. Obviously without conditions on a process that faces us tonight on what we decide, but when those conditions come forward if we approve this, is it your anticipation that that berm and then my second question is on the south side, to the north of Lyman, I don't think that's 100 feet. Maybe 50 feet. Would those be, for lack of a better term, heavily, like I'd like to underline Planning Commission Meting — June 1, 2004 • heavily a couple times, treed with evergreens and so forth, or will that be what I would consider sort of a normal berming that we see sometimes with developments? A]-Jaff: The intent is to have a, I'll show you the concept that I did not include with your. Yes, Kyle put up pink houses in Chanhassen. There is an existing row of trees that are approximately 100 feet. The intent is to extend those further out. I believe they stop somewhere in this area. Okay. These are intended to extend, be extended. And then another buffer will be added along the southern portion of the site. Furthermore, and I believe Southwest Metro has met with some of the neighbors and this is something again between Southwest Metro and the neighborhood where they intend to add the vegetation along. Slagle: On the south side? Al-Jaff: Correct. North of the homes. Existing homes out there. Slagle: Okay. And you'll just sort of be an observer of that? Al-Jaff: Sure. Slagle: Okay. Last question. And I understand the premise of having a daycare there, with the idea that obviously people can drop their kids off, go to work, come back, pick them up. Was there ever a discussion centered around whether, what I will call the air quality is healthy, normal enough to have kids, especially small kids who's lungs I would guess are somewhat developing in an environment that is literally surrounded by automobiles. I mean I don't know the answer but. Al-Jaff: You see a lot of daycare facilities within areas that are close to traffic oriented type of developments. However, based upon this study that we received, I mean it does not address daycare or children per se. But it says that the levels are acceptable. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: I have a question or two also Sharmeen. I want to be very clear. This type, in the staff report says that in 1990 there was an adoption of a park and ride study. Does that mean that actually, has been planned for 14 years? And now, what I'm interested to know beyond this is, obviously most of the development that has occurred around that area has happened after 1990 I would expect, or yeah I would expect so. When people would come in to build a house there in that proximity, would that be up to them to do some research and see what's planned? I mean I would expect that a builder would have to disclose there's going to be a highway planned. Would there be a similar element that is going to be a transit component there or would that be their's or how would that be handled? 7 Planning Commission feting — June 1, 2004 • Al -Jaffa If somebody would stop at City Hall and ask us that question, we would share the comprehensive plan with them and at that point if you look at the land use plan for instance it's going to show a mixed use type of. Sacchet: So it's been mixed use all along? Yeah. Al -Jaffa It's always been mixed use. The question will come up, what is mixed use. Sacchet: What does it mean? Yeah, then you would give them more details. Al -Jaffa Correct. Sacchet: And ultimately the main impact is the highway, not a bus stop next to it. And I have two really detailed questions. In the proposed language for the PUD standards, I have two really small questions. We don't need to belabor that but it has a list of prohibited signs, and one of the private signs is a menu sign. What's a menu sign? Al-Jaff: If you will find what's the special of the day... Sacchet: So it means menu as menu of a restaurant? Okay, that's what I want to be clear about. And then on the next page, which is on that page IS in the staff report talks about light fixtures and it gives an example. It says fixtures shall conform with Figure 36 of Chanhassen lighting unit design. Are we actually telling them what kind of a fixture they have to put in there? Al-Jaff: Yes we are. Sacchet: We're actually telling them specifically we want this fixture? Al -Jaffa Yes. Sacchet: Okay. I just want to be clear about that. Alright, that's all my questions. Al -Jaffa And they agreed to it. Sacchet: And they like it too? Well that's, we're lucking out then. That's good. That's all my questions. Papke: One last follow on question. What's that light fixture matching, if anything. Why that light fixture? Sacchet: We looked at some options and this was the one that was selected. Alright, somebody must have liked this fixture very much. Alright. Tjornhom: It's a very nice fixture. 3 Planning Commission #eeting — June 1, 2004 • Sacchet: Alright, thank you. We've belabored that one enough I would think. If there are no more questions from staff I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you have anything to add or give us more of an overview. Aspects you want to point out to us. This is your turn. If you want to state your name for the record. Len Simich: My name is Len Simich. I'm Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit. I'm not going to belabor the plan or anything like that. If there's questions, we'd be happy to answer. Just a couple of things, comments from Southwest Metro's perspective. This has been something in the works for a long time. Not only do we see this as a benefit for the city of Chanhassen, but for the area that we serve, and we're an organization that developed out of three cities. Chanhassen being one of those and we know once this highway comes through, population is going to follow. I mean we've seen that happen in other areas, and this is just one element that we think will be very beneficial to the communities we serve at giving folks options other than just driving alone. As we've stated over and over at the public meetings, our intent is to be a very good neighbor here. What we do, we always do first class. We're not looking at coming in, putting something up that we can't be proud of. Majority of my staff lives in the communities that we serve so we're not going to come in and do something that we wouldn't want in our back yard, so that's number one. Number two, we're going to continue to work with the neighbors. Try to work with them. Hopefully overcome any of their fears of what's coming in the site. We see it as a benefit quite frankly. It's going to provide a lot of good buffer between them and the highway that's going to be there. From a noise standpoint, I think it's going to help versus really have any negative impacts because of those townhome design that we put in, and the location, as well as the landscaping. I think it's going to be a benefit to everybody involved. In terms of the uses, I just did want to mention. Daycare is one that has been used at other transit facilities and we're looking at a total transit oriented development and what that means is transit's going to be the focal point but it's really a livable community within that 10 acre plot there. We're really looking at all aspects that are going to really benefit those that live there and those that come into utilize our services, so the type of commercial use, we would gear it both for the neighborhood and the transit users. Daycare is one of those, but we're not locked into daycare. We've just completed a community survey of the three communities that we did by Decision Resources. Daycare did not rank that high. Transit, bringing more transit into this community did rank very high, but other types of services they would like to see ranked higher than daycare. So that's one. We still haven't thrown the daycare idea out. It's one that we think fits well but we'll look at some other things as we go along. With that, I think that concludes my comments but if there's, like I said, any specific questions we could answer. I do have some members of our team here as well. Sacchet: Thanks Len. Questions from the applicant? Rich. Slagle: Thank you very much, by the way. Question on page 12 of the environmental assessment. Referring to the diesel engine law, which I think was in the news a week or two ago. At least the idea that diesel engines would become cleaner, and I note in here that it talks about it will depend, as far as particulate emissions would depend on the N Planning Commission Nl-eeting — June 1, 2004 • make and the model of the year of the buses to be used. I mean is it your hope and intent to have what I'm just going to call, I mean your buses are great now but are they going to be modem fuel savvy, environmental savvy buses when it comes to this year? Len Simich: That is correct. I mean a lot of this is going to come down eventually in terms of law. We're actually getting out in front of it and looking at cleaner fuels and things that are either added to the bus or put on at the time of construction of the bus that will help in terms of the clean air aspect of it. These are already required in certain states like California, so it's not brand new technology but we're going out in advance of this with a lot of our newer purchases. One thing we have going for us is our fleet. We're not that old of a transit agency and we, by the time this opens, all of our older vehicles will have been retired out of the fleet, so what we're dealing with, what you see today in terms of our big coaches, and we're bringing on by the time this opens up, another 22 new vehicles. So our fleet will be very modern. Slagle: Okay. That's it for me. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Any plans fora bank in there? I had to ask. Len Simich: You never know. Sacchet: Never know. Tjomhom: I have a question. I didn't realize that you don't just build the bus stations. You obviously then do, or you control the townhouse development. Is that what's going to be going in or something similar to that also? Len Simich: Yeah, that's a good question. One of the advantages, and we pointed out during the neighborhood meetings with Southwest Metro. From a developer to come in, as long as they meet your code and your ordinances and so forth, you kind of lose some of that control. What we did in Eden Prairie is we retained all that control through our covenants, and we have actually sold a majority of that property off to a developer. But before anything moved forward, it not only had to go through our review process and we were tied very closely with the city. Then it went onto the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. So it really, you know we could really direct the use in there. The type of use, to give you an example. We had one restaurant that wanted to come in that we didn't feel that it met the character of what we were trying to do there and so we politely asked them that no, that's not what we want. So the developer had to go find another one. So we hold a lot of those type of controls. Architecturally, Kyle Williams here, he's the designer of our station. Our parking ramp, but he also had a big hand in designing those buildings that sit over in Eden Prairie. You can travel anywhere, you know Culver's is a fast expanding restaurant across the Midwest. You won't find another one that looks like our facility over in Eden Prairie. For them to go away from their blue roof and things like that was a major undertaking, but they wanted to be there bad enough 10 Planning Commission Veeting — June 1, 2004 • so they made those changes. The Ruby Tuesdays. While it looks similar to some, it's a one of a kind. Krispy Kreme, same thing. So all of these, we've made them to conform to what we wanted at that site, and we would do the same at this one as well. Tjomhom: What kind of feel is it that you're wanting it to have? Len Simich: Well I think, we still are working that through with the city. Kyle, can you come up? Some of the things that came out of the neighbor was more of a, I don't know if they talked more of a country living or he knows that better than I do. Kyle Williams: Well, this is a different site. This is not Eden Prairie and every site has it's own characteristic. We're in a residential area with a big highway on the other side. So I mean that's the evolution of the site plan is you take the transit towards the highway and bring residential towards the residential. So I would expect the intent and what we talked a little bit about Len, a little bit with the neighborhood, is take some of the materials and character of Southwest, because it's an identify for Southwest Metro and bring it over to the site, not necessarily duplicate the imaging. But duplicate the character and the quality and make it more of a residential character scale building. We did a few sketches for the neighbors, and they seemed to be fairly well received. But the intent is just, I think that simply, and again we haven't designed it yet but not to copy what's at Eden Prairie but really adapt it for this site and make it a character of Southwest Metro but still a Chanhassen project. Sacchet: Just to clarify Sharmeen. We would see those plans. Al -Jaffa Absolutely. They would have to go through. Slagle: Actually can we see the renditions now? Kyle Williams: I can show you, it was just some of the character of the row houses. This would be those facing the homes. The development just to the south. Again, these depict two story homes with all parking below so you walk up half a flight to get to the first floor. It's becoming very popular. It has a mixture of two story walk up's and also single flat home and this can be accommodating this kind of scheme. Again all the parking would go below. This was a quick sketch of just one of the units. We take some of the brick and pre -cast concrete... Southwest Metro with stucco and again of course the picture was that you would go typically residential. This was a very quick sketch of an image of the station. Again some of the building characteristics of the Southwest station. The brick and pre -cast concrete. The parking deck itself would have some brick and pre- cast. A mixture of those materials. Metal roof with some curves. Again we're not duplicating the cascading curves of the Southwest station but again we'd probably take a curved roof rather than a pitched roof on the station, so that's the kind of thing we're thinking about. To take some of the character of the Southwest station without duplicating it. One other sketch looking from the north, looking back. This is the bus going eastbound on 212. The housing just east of the site and housing to the south. This is where the station would be. The buses coming and go, but again kind of a long linear 11 Plannin- Commission Meeting—June 1, 2004 • station. More of a train like station because that's what works well in these bus facilities because the buses stack up and people line up to get on the bus so the long linear facility works well. So those were some of the quick sketches we did just to give an idea to the neighbors of what it might be, and again Sharmeen gave me a hard time for my pink buildings but this was shown as a diagram for the neighbors to get an idea of what they might see when we develop this. This was housing here, commercial and at one time we were proposing a 3 level deck, and that evolved into a more refined sketch from the same view, again rather looking at pink boxes, they'd be looking at townhomes. And then you see just one level of the deck beyond and houses would be a medium. The diagram that Sharmeen showed before was just that. It was a diagram with blocks. We've been asked by the neighbors to look at some traffic calming devices. To de-emphasize the attractiveness of using Lyman as the main access point. Encourage people to come on 101 and there's some techniques we can use. We can squiggle the roads a bit and make it a little bit more difficult for people to get into the site off Lyman to encourage them to come up 101, and so those are things that we will develop when we get into the site planning and you will see those items when we come through for approval. Sacchet: More questions from the applicant? Craig, you have questions? Claybaugh: No. Sacchet: I have two quick questions. You mentioned that you might be considering maybe even more than the child care, some other uses. Do you want to specify a little bit what you're envisioning? Len Simich: Well the ones that came through during the survey, coffee ranked number one obviously. Dry cleaning was another one that ranked very high. Those type of service related uses did rank very high. So those are the types of things we would look at, make sure that they fit within the neighborhood use. Acceptable to the neighborhood. Acceptable to the city before we actually move forward. We're not talking a lot of commercial. About 16,000 square feet. If you've been to our Eden Prairie site, it's really basically the same size as those two multiple tenant buildings that have the Bare Rock and the Noodles and Chipotle and so forth. That's what we're really talking about. That's the extent of the commercial on the site so it's not that much that we're going to be able to do a lot. A bank, it might be a good use, so those are some of those type of things. Sacchet: And then I wanted to ask you the draft PUD that staff put together. It puts a pretty good frame around things. Style, use. Even down to the type of light fixture. Everything is fine with you? Do you have any particular aspects that you'd rather not see in there or what's your take there? Len Simich: No. We're perfectly fine with everything that was in there. Our intentions all along were to work very closely with the city. We found that worked very well in Eden Prairie so there's no surprises on either hand so there's certain things that they would like to see in there and we're perfectly fine with that. 12 Planning Commission N eeting — June 1, 2004 • Sacchet: Excellent. Slagle: I have one more. And I apologize for not remembering this but it was brought to my attention that one of the residents had a question on hours and potential commercial use and I think what they were saying without saying it was, what would happen if a restaurant went in there that had liquor and would be able to be open til 11:00, 12:00, 1:00? Any thoughts on that? Len Simich: I would guess the biggest thought would be that's not the type of use we're trying to attract into this site so. You know without tying our hands completely, that's not the direction we'd be going. It'd be very similar to like the one in a sense declined to bring into our Eden Prairie site. While we're going into this, there's a lot of different goals. Of course our number one goal is let's get the transit station in. Provide the transit. Two is, you know we will create another revenue stream with the development aspects of this. But that's not the driving factor so like in the case of Eden Prairie where we could have probably brought in a user that paid more than another user, it didn't fit and that's what we'd be looking at. What fits. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Well this is a public hearing. I'd like to invite anybody who wants to come forward. Address this issue. Tell us what you have to add to the picture. If you want to state your name and address. Is there anybody who would like to speak up about this or have you already said everything there is to say at the neighborhood meetings? Seeing nobody, wow. That's a very quick public hearing. Ah, there's somebody. Alright. If you want to state your name and address for the record please. Richard Simmons: My name is Richard Simmons. I live at 530 Summerfield Drive, and I didn't finish writing up my notes but I'm asking that you delay approval of the rezoning and I think number one. On two grounds. Number one, it's premature. Number two, because it's premature, the findings of the staff report should not be relied upon for your purposes. To put this into context over the scope of the public meeting, the size of the project is, the size or content of the project has changed over time. Originally it, prior to the meeting, prior to the meetings there was no public plan. Or there was no plan for a parking ramp. No plan per se. By the first meeting it was that the park and ride would occupy a small portion of the property on the north comer. By the second meeting it had grown and by the third meeting it had grown even larger as MnDot had moved one of the access points. The, and at the same time I also have to admit that I was at fust really opposed to this project. As the project changed and developed over time, and became what's described in the appraisers report as the park and ride facility on the northern portion of the property, a commercial zone in the middle and a residential zone on the southern part, I became less and less opposed and this was to me the best of the, the best of the possible alternatives, if there's going to be something there that's like this, this is probably one of the better, for me at least, one of the better things that could be there, and 13 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • I'd like to see things like dry cleaning and coffee shops and things that help me on my way to work. But in the final meeting what occurred to me was, in looking at the final document or the draft, rezoning draft, and listening to the presentations was the use of the words might, could, you know possibly. This is what this could possibly look like at this point. And as we stand here today, there's no guarantee that what was presented is one of the possible plans, which is, and it's throughout this document is the description of the broken off essentially into thirds. Is that's actually what's going to be built. And it was pointed out to me that Southwest Metro is a great partner in this and is a great partner in the City of Chanhassen and does a tremendous job and I'm not questioning any of those. But I've also gotten advice from my attorney, from my business attorney, in my business dealings that we have contracts and we have agreements because we're friends and we want to maintain those friendships and we want to make sure that we understand a lot of what's going on and what's going into this process and what's actually going to be built and so there are no surprises in 5 years from now when this is going to be built and the representations that are made today that it will be broken up, you know similar into those thirds. That that's actually what's going to be there because at the third meeting one of the plans that was presented was commercial property in the southwest corner. At the intersection of 101 and Lyman, which is absent from the final report. And when asked is this what's going to be built? You know the answer was, it's going to be whatever the market can bear at that time. So ideally I'd like to see some guarantees or some commitments that this is what's going to be built. That this is what we can look forward to going up, and it will be something that will compliment the surrounding existing properties rather than detract from them. Because in my opinion it's premature, looking at the reports that were prepared and support the staff report. For example the traffic report assumes the best case development of that property, and it assumes a specific mix of the, of residential, of daycare, of park and ride, and if that isn't built, what is the effect at that point? What is the effect of noise at that point? The appraisers report goes to great lengths to say, I was asked to assume the following. Describes this great buffer zone, but if that's not built, then what does that do to the appraisers report and so my concern is that we, at some point very soon here, commit this is what we're going to do. It's going to look very much like this, or very much in keeping with this rather, while the discretion of the city of Chanhassen is at it's greatest. As opposed to here's the general framework of what's going to be built and a lot of things could fit into that. Will it be a restaurant with a liquor license on the comer or will it be a very nice looking row of townhouses? There's about $60 million dollars worth of property that's going to be affected by this and I think to the degree that the city of Chanhassen looks skeptically at variances and looks carefully at what kind of development goes forward, that some care should be taken to say this is what's going to be and commit to going forward on that basis. Sacchet: Thank you. I just want to clarify. I didn't quite catch your reasoning why you think it's premature. Richard Simmons: Oh, it's premature in the sense that there are a lot of, there's a lot of representations made in terms of what is going to be built which, it's my understanding that there is nothing that commits that any of those properties be built. That there's 14 Planning Commission Ming — June 1, 2004 0 nothing that commits it could be any residential space in that entire district. That it's not all commercial. That it's not a large, that there's nothing like this in the metro area as we stand today. There's very little like this in the Midwest. Where a transit oriented development's being created in a residential area, and so because there's, that's why. Sacchet: I understand because we use the word premature in a very specific context in the planning, but understand how you use it. Richard Simmons: I mean it's just in a colloquial sense, not as a term... Sacchet: Right. Sharmeen, do you want to address just to what extent this concept that is put in front of us, I mean could it just be totally ripped apart and if there's no residential or something. I mean doesn't the PUD specify the percentage that can be commercial and stuff like that? Al-Jaff: What I did under permitted uses was, I specified commercial and transit uses. This is on page 12. Under the first paragraph. Tail end of it. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential shall be located south of the 101, Highway 101 access, so we've specifically stated what portions of the site will handle what type of use. This was one of the site plans that was presented at the last Southwest Metro neighborhood and city meeting. This was one of the alternatives that showed a residential component along the southeast comer of the site and a commercial component to the southwest portion of the site, and then you still have the transit component to the north. And the neighborhood in general said we really don't like this. Sacchet: Yeah, and with the PUD part that you just quoted, this would not really be acceptable anymore. Al -Jaffa This would not be an option and again, I mean this was the reason why that line was added into the PUD ordinance was to address this concern that was voiced by the neighborhood. They don't want this. We made sure that it doesn't happen. Sacchet: Now in terms of, so we have a pretty clearly defined framework and in terms of what can be done, obviously will be reviewed once the specifics are carried forward, so at this point we have a general framework that takes these aspects into consideration. Al -Jaffa Yes. And then as far as design standards for instance, what is this building going to look like? We have established standards above and beyond that we also have the city's requirements as far as what do you envision in a building. I mean we do expect relief. High quality materials on the building. That you don't have just large masses of walls with no breaks on them, so all of these things will be taken into consideration. Sacchet: And there was another main concern this resident expressed, is that he has the impression that in terms of traffic study the best case was considered. I'm not exactly sure that's accurate. Is that something that we could clarify? I don't know whether our 15 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • traffic expert may want to make a statement to that, because that is significant. Thank you. Aravind Guttemukkula: I guess just one example how we've considered the most conservative option with this concept. You know there was commercial, little bit of residential and little bit of. Sacchet: When you say conservative, can you explain what you mean? Aravind Guttemukkula: Conservative high. Sacchet: You mean high not low? So it's not the best possible case. It's actually in some ways the worst possible case then? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. I'm song, we looked at scenario that generates a conservatively high number of trips so that we come up with a conservatively high volumes... In one sense we know it's the worst case scenario. For example I mean in terms of the number of spaces, we were told at that time that 800 is the maximum. On the other, we were looking at more like 600 but we want to look at the worst case and what if it's 700 or 800. Sacchet: So you would look at the highest number? You would take the higher one for your calculations, okay. Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. So that answers my question. Thank you. Well this is still a public hearing. Is there anybody else who's like to come forward? This is your chance. If there is nobody. Yes, there is somebody. Got to threaten you guys with closing the public hearing to get you guys to stand up. Terry Helland: We're all excited to come up here. My name is Terry Helland. I live at 491 Summerfield and I'm here because of two reasons. One is, I think we've all heard the phrase perception is reality and one of the things that strikes me, I was at 2 of the 3 meetings. I didn't make the last meeting, but it's interesting that shortly after the first meeting that the house closest to this development went up for sale, and I don't know if that was coincidence or not but it has since been sold. And additionally I think there were some statements that this development could potentially increase property values. There aren't any assurances of that or any studies saying that specifically, and in addition the noise may be helped or mitigated by this type of use versus another type of mixed use. And while the land use development shows this as a mixed use, it is currently zoned as residential, and I think from my perspective in the neighborhood, there is concerns about safety and there's a lot of kids in the neighborhood and the traffic is going to be impacted on Lyman. There's some bike paths in that area, and there's going to be added development with that, and I think Southwest Metro has done a good job of involving the community and asking the right questions and I do applaud them on the developmental 16 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • pieces but I guess I'd like to ask this crew to think, is this really the best site for this development. As I look at it, I know there's a matter of convenience and that Southwest Metro owns this site and that helps it. When I drive by and drove by tonight, I still saw a for sale sign at the comer on the other portion of this site, and I do wonder if the site across the way to the west of 101 wouldn't be a better site. It'd be buffered on the north by the freeway. On the east by 101. It wouldn't be directly adjacent to any of the residences to the east. There's a couple residences across Lyman to the south but I guess when you look at rezoning a property, and this is an important aspect for Chanhassen to think about, is it a matter of convenience or is it the best site, and that's what I'd like to make sure that is considered. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good point. I assume you were emphasizing that the house went on sale more than it was actually sold because the fact that it did sell quickly I think actually. Terry Helland: That goes back to the fact that, I'm an architect and I did look and find out, I did a tuciary look and found out that it was zoned residential in that area. I didn't look and understand there was a land use plan that was out there and so I probably didn't ask all the questions. Sacchet: You were aware of the highway coming through. Terry Helland: I was aware of the highway. Sacchet: But not the transit station. Terry Helland: But not the transit station. So yeah, it's a matter of I touched the topsoil but I didn't get down to the clay so to speak. Now the new owner, did he touch the topsoil or go down to the clay? Sacchet: That's a good question. That's out of our scope though. You know, it's a tricky thing also with, is this the best site. I mean we can't dictate somebody what they can do and not do on their property. We can only look, does it conform with ordinances. I mean a resident has a right of ownership which is held very highly in the United States Constitution for that matter. Terry Helland: Well I agree with that. I think the other aspect through the planning portion was that while the Eden Prairie facility just opened, it is bounded by mostly by mixed use and there's some high density housing that's just going up with it. The Eagan facility was referenced but I think I haven't personally been there but my understanding is it's kind of on the river bluff and there's residential across a highway. There's not a similar, and I know they were challenged in finding a similar situation, let alone in the Midwest or throughout the country of this kind of a use, so I think there are some potential challenges with this and some unknowns. And I agree with Richard that I think personally I'd like to see more conditions placed on this relative to how the land is used in assuring you know that the land is used for this. This intended purpose so that if it 17 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • was, I mean I personally, my first choice would be like the homeowners before, would be residential or at worst case maybe some mixed residential. Not high. High density. Sacchet: Are you familiar with the framework that we're actually asked to look at here? I mean the PUD. The planned unit development framework because it's very specific in terms of what can be done. How it has to be done. It goes into a lot of details to the point of what kind of materials, and I was kind of pulling on what type of light fixture. I mean it goes into quite a bit of detail and Sharmeen pointed out, also in terms of what can be done where. It's not rigid. It's not meant to be rigid. It's meant to be a concept at this point. Terry Helland: I understand that but that's not to say 5 years from now you're not at this same kind of meeting and there's not a discussion about putting in a restaurant that you know could stay open until 1:00 at night, which would be a concern of the local. I mean what this does is starts to open the door, and who's to say that 5 years from now the door doesn't get to be wider. Sacchet: Okay. Terry Helland: And it's a concern. Sacchet: Thank you. Sharmeen. To count one aspect this neighbor brought up is the safety aspect. Can we say anything about safety? Al-Jaff: Traffic safety, it will be a signalized intersection. Sacchet: So we actually would have more signals than we would have otherwise, so we can take that as an assistance to safety. Al -Jaffa As far as access to the site, because this is a transit facility, MnDot agreed to allow a right-in/right-out off of 101 as well as an access for buses only, a ramp for the buses on 212. Sacchet: So they're separated. Al -Jaffa Correct. These are things that we don't believe will be available to us had we stuck to a non -transit oriented development. We believe that the only access would have been a full access off of Lyman Boulevard, and again Justin Miller. Sacchet: Oh if it would be a different development. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: The full access of that whole parcel would be from Lyman only. A] -Jaffa That's correct. Would be entirely off of Lyman Boulevard. W Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • Sacchet: So that'd actually help off load some of that then. Al -Jaffa Justin Miller, the Assistant City Manager was at the meetings with MnDot and that was part of the discussion. To provide access, the right-inhight-out off of 101. Another thing that I wanted to point out to the Planning Commission is please bear in mind that as each building component comes in for development, they have to go through a site plan approval. You will see those site plans. You still have to approve them. Sacchet: And they will be public hearings? AI -Jaffa There will be public hearings. Typical site plan approval process. Sacchet: Anybody can come. Al-Jaff: People within 500 feet will be notified. Now for the PUD purposes, we went far beyond the 500 feet. I mean we truly covered large neighborhoods. Sacchet: So if you, like the fear that was expressed that 5 years from now some of these standards could be relaxed and all of a sudden there is a liquor shop or a restaurant that's open until 2:00 in the morning with dancing out on the patio, what have you, at that point there would be a public hearing where we would look at the PUD framework. At the city's framework and the neighborhood would be invited to come give their comments. Al -Jaffa Absolutely. Within 500 feet. I can guarantee you that neighbors within 500 feet will be. Sacchet: So I'm afraid we're not going to be dancing til 2:00 in the morning out there. Slagle: Mr. Chair, if I can ask a couple of things. One is, Sharmeen I think, given the sensitive nature and the uniqueness of this proposal, if it does get approved I would at least ask for staff s consent to continue to send notification identical to what you did here. Because I know in the past we've sort of blanketed neighborhoods. Collectively thought of them as one area. The other question, and I don't want to open up a hornet's nest but I think this gentleman that was up here asked a fair question and one that has been on my mind since I started reading about this, and Justin I don't know if you want to touch upon it but I mean to be proper planners, is this a case of the applicant owns the property wherein the overall scheme of things the property to the west, which is not bordered by families, so forth, would be a better fit for this? I'm curious to know what your thoughts are. AI -Jaffa That's the question that came up at several of the meetings and one of the options that was expressed to Southwest Metro was, would you consider swapping property with. Slagle: Whomever. With whomever. 19 Planning Commission Meting — June 1, 2004 • Al-Jaff: It's the property here or the parcel here. And Len Simich, the Director of Southwest Metro did look at this option. Access was an issue and then the fact that funding? Len Simich: Yes. Slagle: I mean I think it's a fair question to ask. Al-Jaff: Absolutely. Sacchet: It's a valid question. Do you want to address that please? Len Simich: Sure. In terms of the site, either site probably would work. Both have advantages, one over the other. The big issue there was the funding, or lack thereof to go in at today's market value to purchase that site. What we always envisioned and wanted from the get go was at the intersection of two major highways. 101 and the new 212. So this site happened to fit within MnDot. What we're doing is getting MnDot excess right- of-way. That's what the site is. I have a payback provision to MnDot on anything we develop. In terms of the housing, I've got to pay fair market value for whatever that property is worth, so in that case it's one versus the other but for our use specific, we would have to purchase that additional properties and the funding it at today's value. I'm assuming it's over $100,000 an acre today versus when they bought it probably at $2.00 a square foot so it's a little bit different. That's the only major disadvantage. In terms of use, both have some advantages. Slagle: So technically MnDot is the owner of the property at this point? Len Simich: Correct. MnDot still owns the property. Will convey it over to us after we go through all the, and we're, I get you we're better than halfway through the process with MnDot. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Thank you, that helps. Did you have something Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah I did. I might be reading too much into it but with respect to the neighbors comments on safety. I don't think it was necessarily restricted to vehicular. I think there's a pedestrian component to it with the adjacent neighborhood there and introducing some commercial convenience stores and such. And if you could just discuss what points perhaps were tackled by the city staff and Southwest Metro. A] -Jaffa Are we looking at potentially theft? 010 Planning Commission Sting — June 1, 2004 • Claybaugh: No. I'm not looking at potentially theft. I'm looking at kids potentially coming from the adjacent neighborhoods, sure exactly. And just how are they going to address that particular issue because once it comes to fruition, that will be a concern. Sacchet: Are we to that level of concern already or to what extent has that been looked at? Do you want to. Claybaugh: Just in very general terms. You don't need to get into anything specific. Len Simich: I touched on it briefly in my presentation. Part of the whole idea of a transit oriented development is to have a very walkable site and we're going to maintain the trail that's along 101. That will be part of the whole concept, but also the interior park portion of the site. We're doing a number of things to make it from a connectivity standpoint very open and usable for the pedestrian, and Kyle touched upon it in terms of our traffic calming. You know much to the chagrin of our traffic engineers, instead of having just a straight shot through, we're trying to make it as unattractive as possible off of Lyman. Slow up, slow that traffic up. Looking at ways, whether we have it meander through the site, or we've even thrown out the idea of a traffic circle so we haven't gotten down to the complete details but what we're going to do is A, it's going to be very walkable. And B, we're going to slow those speeds down and calm them as much as we can. Sacchet: Thank you. Yes Sharmeen. Al -Jaffa There's another thing that we attempted to do through the design elements within the PUD. For instance the larger signage that lists all the users is going to be located off of 101 as a right-in/right-out only. The access off of Lyman Boulevard is going to be a 24 square foot low profile basically pointing at the residential element of the development, so we've also attempted to put less focus on the full access off of Lyman and encourage traffic to access off of 101. Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Well the public hearing is still open. Do I have to threaten to close it for somebody else more to come up, or are we done? Do we have anybody else who wants to address this item? This is your chance. If I see nobody, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to commissioners for comments, discussion. You want to start Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. I'm personally prepared to support the application. Number one, I believe it's a very necessary component for the community. Number two, it's consistent with the comp plan, and number three, to, at least on some level in general terms, address the residents that spoke concern. It is a measured process so the traffic studies that apply to this particular layout, when they come in for site plan approval, go through the preliminary process. Again, they're going to have to update those studies and they're going to have to make them relative to the design that they're putting in front of us at the time so. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. Kurt. 21 Planning Commission Oting — June 1, 2004 • Papke: I'm very supportive of this proposal. I had the opportunity to attend one of the early public reviews and I've been very impressed with how well Southwest Metro has responded to the concerns. I think you've come miles from where you first started out. The first proposal had the buses coming all the way down to Lyman and it just didn't look real good, but I think you've made tremendous progress. You've listened to the community and I think you've done a great job of designing this. I think we've, I'd really like to commend Southwest Metro for this so I'm very supportive of this proposal. I think it's, this is the best spot for it. The improvements that were made were to a great extent the utilization of the bus slip and that would not be possible, as far as I'm aware, at any other site, and I think that's, you know it's a great design. So I'm very supportive of this. Sacchet: Rich, no comment? Tjomhom: No. Sacchet: No comment. I don't really have much to add. I'm terribly biased about this project. Having grown up in Europe where you have so much public transportation that you may choose not to have a car because you have so many options of getting around with public transportation that you literally don't need your own transportation. I find that increasing the offering of public transportation in this environment here is so sorely needed and I really want to commend the applicant for, as it was expressed, I think the applicant made tremendous efforts to accommodate all the concerns that were brought up by the city, by the neighbors. I understand that there is some apprehensions on the neighbors side, and I want to encourage you to come back as this process goes forward and as we get the specific site plans and building plans and all and give your input because we do listen to you. It's a team effort and I think having an applicant that shows this much willingness to work together is really fantastic. I want to thank you for all that. That's my comment to this so with that I'm willing to take a motion please. Claybaugh: I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of 212 and 101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from residential single family to planned unit development, mixed use incorporating the following design standards. Sacchet: As given in the staff report? Claybaugh: As given in the staff report, yes. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. 22 Planning Commission Nl�eting — June 1, 2004 • Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses • The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. • Small to medium-sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • Convenience store without gas pumps • Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self -Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. 23 Planning Commission Meting — June 1, 2004 • • Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive-thru Windows • Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback -Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access 212 excluding transit shelters and rams 50 feet -Highway -Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft and stairwell 25 or 3 stories, I whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 24 Planning Commission Meting — June 1, 2004 • 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. f. Residential Standards 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 25 Planning Commission Wing — June 1, 2004 • 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. h. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. i. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the 26 Planning Commission N1Eeting — June 1, 2004 • business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; b. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. U. Project Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. U. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 0. Wall Signs• 27 Planning Commission Ating — June 1, 2004 • a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. W. Festive FlmdBanners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. L5. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. L6 Directional Signs a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) 0 Planning Commission Acting — June 1, 2004 signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. 0. Prohibited Sisns: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area • Menu Signs are prohibited. i.8. Sign Desists and permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting Q9 Planning Commission feting — June 1, 2004 • Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 — Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). I mldavlm •AWme Sege Ia.. Is. C.mGd rot s.i. Pb Nadel Cr 12/I&CA/M 12RM 10 Ist Br F%u 36 - Ce. h. 1Jhtln{ Uml D-ip 41 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for Planning Commission ating — June 1, 2004 • the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: Thank you very much for all your comments. Good luck with your project. With that we come to our second item on our agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: FOOT LOT, ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT 9217 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, GREG & KELLY HASTINGS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19. Public Present: Name Address Greg & Kelly Hastings Glenn A Gerads 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 1071 Barbera Court Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions. Claybaugh: The overhangs, what are they? Seeing as how the variance goes to the overhangs. Sacchet: It sounds quite a bit. I mean 2 feet is a pretty big overhang. Greg Hastings: I think it's just matching existing. Sacchet: It is currently that much? Greg Hastings: It's right down from the windows so it's just a different design. Claybaugh: But the side yard setback with respect to the variance is measured from the property line to the overhangs? Sharmeen? Al -Jaffa Pardon me, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? Claybaugh: For our purposes, the side yard setback is measured from the property line to the eaves, correct? 31 • • City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve an on - sale beer and wine license for Deloias, Inc. dba Frankie's Pizza, Pasta & Ribs at 7850 Market Boulevard contingent upon receipt of the license fee and liquor liability insurance. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO REZONE FROM RSF TO PUD-MIICED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SE INTERSECTION OF NO. 04-18. Public Present: Name Address Kyle Williams 250 and Avenue No., Minneapolis Len Simich Southwest Metro Transit Aravind Guttemukkula Benshoof & Associates, Hopkins Bob Worthington Southwest Metro Transit Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you indicated, this is a rezoning request of property that is located on the future new 101 adjacent to the proposed 212 and existing Lyman Boulevard. The site is 8.3 acres. This action does require the super majority of the council so it would be 4 votes of the council to rezone. It is currently zoned residential single family and to rezone it to commercial does take the 4/5 majority. Planning Commission and the staff is recommending approval of this application. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on June I' and did recommend 5 to 0 to approve the proposed recommendation. This project is being advanced now based on the fact that the new 212 is moving forward and the staff feels that in working with Southwest Metro and with 212 being under construction, that the timing on this is the appropriate to work through the rezoning at this time. While the site is zoned RSF, it has been asked by the neighbors why is it being, you know why can't it stay RSF. It is guided as mixed use for the official control on that is not consistent with the land use. Proposed land use. There are other official controls that could be selected for the zoning on this piece of property. Again that would be residential, up to 16 units an acre, or neighborhood business. So in looking at this plan, because Southwest Metro was the applicant, again which is consistent with the land uses, or zoning in there, we felt it'd be appropriate to work through the design issues on the site. In conjunction with that, originally when this site was looked at, the only access to the site was off of Lyman 10 ` City Council Meeting Tune 28, 2004 is Boulevard. The staff was concerned about that, as was Southwest Metro so again it, the timing of working through the site plan issues was appropriate. A little history on how Southwest Metro got this site. Again, back in 1986 we formed Southwest Metro, the City of Chanhassen, Chaska and Eden Prairie. Southwest Metro did a study of facilities, long term facilities. A site was indicated as needed in this area as 212 was being advanced. The land use plan, as I indicated, was mixed use so there are other zonings that could come into place. Because Southwest Metro is driving the project we wanted to work with the neighbors. One, working with MnDot. Provide other access to make it more acceptable for traffic circulation. Resolving some access issues, and also give the neighbors assurance of what ultimately this would look like because timing with the 212 re -build is certainly critical to this site as Southwest Metro ... working with MnDot. So knowing that there was concerns from the neighbors as we heard during the 212 process, the staff facilitated with Southwest Metro some neighborhood meetings back on February 18`s was our first meeting. A series of 3. Again we set up a web site and took in a lot of questions and tried to work through each of those questions. Our next meeting, the first meeting focused on kind of why we were pursuing this process and we had a second meeting on March 315` dealing with alternative designs, and then ultimately on April 21" where we gave the preferred layout. Again the goal of this was to do a PUD which would limit the uses that could be on the site, and also come up with some architectural standards. Again, trying to create a good neighborhood use. Again as we indicated, one of the concerns that staff had, as did Southwest Metro , originally MnDot gave the only access to the site here because Southwest Metro was the lead agency on this, the park and ride certainly was a component that MnDot wanted to have on the project. We were able to secure the access point here off of 101 where the buses and the majority of the traffic would be coming into the site. And that certainly was a goal with us again trying to be a good neighbor. Just kind of going through some of the summary points. The site plan, the design itself, where the green area is, this is a 50 foot buffer, 100 foot buffer. This would be a residential use. Commercial use and the park and ride itself. Pushed back, up against the slip off lane. Ultimately this was the site design. Can you zoom in a little bit? Thank you. Site design itself. As we worked through the different issues with Southwest Metro and listening to the neighbors, Phase I, environmental analysis was done and another environmental assessment looking at noise and air quality and also a traffic study, and we went through with the neighborhood meetings, kind of knocking off the concerns that were with that, and I think working with MnDot and creativity of the team that Southwest Metro put together, ended up with a really good design and buffer treatment and that is reflected not only with the design of the building but the circulation. Here is how it works. The bus movement without even coming down onto 101. Slipping onto the lane of 212. Actually slipping back onto the access... some of the neighbors. Again there is residential on the site. This would be the circulation of the bus movement in the afternoon. There will be some residential but looking into the site, as I indicated, putting together the PUD, there is some apartments that are adjacent to the neighbors. Again we'll put together architectural standards there creating the buffer and then commercial inbetween so there will be access into the site. And the goal there based on visual cuing for cars that try to steer most of the cars to come off of 101 except for the people that are living on the apartments. They could get access via Lyman Boulevard. Again working with the design team that Southwest Metro put together, character of the station itself. 11 0 0 City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 The decking. Putting the first underground parking facility half under ground, reducing the height and the bulk. I think the visual impacts on the neighbors on the south side of Lyman should be pretty limited. As a matter of fact I think it'd be very difficult to see it based on the issues that are in front of that. So again the goal that we were trying to achieve, because this will not be built for a couple years, is to gain assurances from the neighbors of how it will look like and the treatment that will occur. Again, just to be clear when this project does advance that it does have to come back for site plan review, so each project again will hold a specific public hearing and they will be held against the standards that are adopted in the PUD, and that's what we're recommending for your approval. I can go through the specific PUD itself but unless there's questions, I'd be happy to answer those but again limiting the uses as I went through. The height, the bulk, the treatment, landscaping, buffering, those were all addressed. Again the architectural standards, so the goal again was to represent approximately how it's going to look and then hold those hearings as it moves forward in the next couple years. So with that we are recommending approval of the PUD and the rezoning as stated in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you'd have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. There's one point of clarification. This came up at the Planning Commission, was assurances, if you will, that what we're talking about tonight and seeing tonight in terms of the plan layout and maybe not the pictures or the schematics but the plan layout. How are we as a city comfortable that what we're talking about tonight is what's going to be there a few years down the road? Kate Aanenson: Well again with the PUD this is the standards put in place. Where it can be located. It does state the park and ride has to be here and actually as it turned out the best access for them works onto that north side and that's really again the beauty of working with someone that owns the entire piece. Putting the park and ride furthest to the north. Taking better use of the access. Is there some flexibility in here? Yes, and we want to make sure that it's not going to, the buildings may not look exactly like that but if they looked a little bit different but still met the design of the pitched roof, the other things that they have. The quality of materials, that they still met those standards and that was the goal that we're trying to say. It's hard to predict the market but we wanted something that's very similar and that was the goal, but not to say it's going to look exactly like this. Mayor Furlong: Right. I think one of the major concerns that I heard was traffic flow, and I think initially when this concept started before that Fust public hearing I think you mentioned buses would be driving on Lyman Boulevard. That's no longer the case. In fact all of it's going to be on the north side coming off of 101 or the slip lanes so. And the PUD, the contract essentially that we're entering into. Make sure that that's what happens. Kate Aanenson: Right. And again I just wanted to, that's a good point, and just to reiterate the fact that Southwest Metro was working with MnDot. If it was just a regular development deal, I'm not sure we would get the same, because we didn't want to give the access off of 101. That was too close to some of the staging areas but because it was 12 0 0 City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 transit and buses we actually end up with a really good design for the neighbors. Much more successful than if it could have been just straight, all business. I'm not sure that we would have gotten that access off of 101. Mayor Furlong: Good to hear. Thank you. Any other questions? For staff. If not, I see Mr. Simich is here. The Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit. Would you like to say a few words? Len Simich: Sure. Mayor, members of the council. First of all thank you for this opportunity to be here this evening and to partner with the city on what I believe is going to be a wonderful project. Everyone involved in this project, including the neighborhood groups have worked extremely hard over the past 6 months to bring this project forward and to really construct what I believe will be a quality project. Six months ago I didn't think I'd be here this evening this quickly, but with everybody's commitments, diligence and a little compromise from everyone involved, I think we have a plan that we can all be proud of once it's completed. I think we all understand how this city and points west are going to be impacted over the next 10 to 20 years and while this anticipated growth is going to cause some challenges, I think it also provides us with some great opportunities, especially with the construction of the new Highway 212 and the project that we're proposing this evening. As you heard, our project is a mixed use transit oriented development. The entire concept has been designed around and influenced by transit services and our transit station. All uses within the project will be integrated by a series of pedestrian walkways and a commitment to scale and quality architecture will create a unique character that refines and blends the most positive facets of suburban life with the character, warmth and vitality of an urban town. We anticipate the number of benefits derived from the project to be many. For us it will be another revenue stream that's going to be increased passengers. It's going to allow us to provide a much better system of service to the City of Chanhassen. The City also will benefit from efficient land use, from improved services, increased tax base and increased property values. Our plan is to create the kind of place not only to effectively provide our service but we want to create a place where people can gather, live and raise their families, all in one location. Thanks again for this opportunity and I will, I'd welcome any questions you may have about the project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? No? Very good, thank you. I see Mr. Sacchet is going the opposite way I am. Chair of our Planning Commission. Is there anything you'd like to add from a Planning Commission standpoint that we haven't heard or seen in the packet. Uli Sacchet: I don't think there is much to add... Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Very good. With that I'll bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Peterson: I have to agree with... I think it was about compromise and it was about passion to do the right thing and we came a long way. I think that's to be 13 City Council Meeting —June 28, 2004 • commended. Everybody involved. Citizens and staff and Southwest Metro's staff have a better product than what we came in with, which is always good to have so great to have it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any other thoughts? Councilman Ayotte: Everything's been said. I'm ready to go. Mayor Furlong: Well everything except what I'm going to say. Councilman Ayotte: Indigo. Mayor Furlong: No, and I just want to piggy back on Councilman Peterson's comments and to commend Len and his group and Kate and especially Sharmeen A]-Jaff on our staff. I asked for earlier today, asked for the approximate number of people that came to the three meetings and the first meeting in February there were about 50 residents there. The second meeting there were 75. By the third meeting there were 15 and 2 people spoke at the public hearing that was held at the Planning Commission. And while this may not be a perfect project in everyone's eyes, I think it, personally I think it's an excellent project but ultimately what that tells me is that people were listening and working with each other. There was no heavy handedness here. My way or the highway, no pun intended. And that's why this project works and that's why this will be I believe a great asset to our city, so I thank everybody that was involved in that process, especially the residents that came forward and took time away from their families to come out to those meetings. To ask the questions. To demand good answers, and to really, as Councilman Peterson said, come up with a better project and ultimate result than perhaps what we would have had otherwise so, now everything's been said that needs to be said. Todd Gerhardt: Well almost. I've got to throw a few words in... I want to thank my staff, Southwest Metro, the neighborhood, but the key thing I think everybody talked about was the process and the process really worked here. Everybody got educated and learned from it and will continue to use this process as we work through other difficult situations in the community and I thank everybody for being involved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Well said. Is there anything else that needs to be said? Okay. Very good. If there is no discussion, our motion starts on page what? Usually I have that marked. Kate Aanenson: It's on page 11. Mayor Furlong: 11. Kate Aanenson: Right under recommendations. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a single motion here or are there two? 14 0 0 City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 Kate Aanenson: Yes there is. Mayor Furlong: A single motion for the rezoning and the PUD? Kate Aanenson: Okay, thank you. Would somebody like to say the motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I'd recommend the City Council approve rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards, a through 1. Mayor Furlong: On page 19. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSrr ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet 15 0 0 City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. • Small to medium-sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • Convenience store without gas pumps • Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self -Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. • Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive-thru Windows • Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and rams 50 feet Project Property Line 100 Feet -Easterly Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft 125 or 3 stories, 16 0 0 City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 Boundary Building and Parking Setback and stairwell I whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with 17 0 0 City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. f. Residential Standards 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. Im City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. h. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. i. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; b. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting M 0 0 City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. H. Project Identification Sim: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. U. Monument Sim: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 0. Wall Sims: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. U Festive FlaQs/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. RTI • • City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004 e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are tom or excessively wom shall be removed at the request of the city. L5. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. L6 Directional Sions a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. 0. Prohibited SiEns: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area • Menu Signs are prohibited. 21 City Council Meeting One 28, 2004 0 i.8. Sion Desiza and Permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 — Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). caw Ah S. P. Model CP 11/18 -CALM 11PtM 10 I..h Br i i i f Elgws JL - '�••��•••�• (i.�Hnt Uml Dmf tl City Council Meeting Ane 28, 2004 0 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Public Present: Name Address Robert Borsclair 8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie Liv Homeland 8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie Mike Johnson Bridge Lending Group Adrian Haid 7206 Stewart Drive Sam Sabean 14298 Golf View Drive Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Advance Fitness is requesting conceptual approval to develop approximately 22 acres to develop a health fitness club, restaurant, bank, office and a hotel. The site is zoned A2 and is guided for industrial office park. Some of the uses that are on this district is why they're asking for a PUD is that they would not be consistent with the industrial office park. This is a rezoning request and it does require, under the conceptual, we're doing a conceptual PUD. That does require a 4/5 vote. Whereas tonight it would require all 4. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this application on April 22°d and did recommend approval. Since it went to 23 CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JUNE 1, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjomhom, Rich Slagle, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE METRO TRANSIT, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18. Public Present: Name Address Len Simich Aravind Guttemukkula Kyle Williams Bob Worthington Dave Soliday Curt Kobilaresik Craig Mullen Richard Simmons Terry Helland Southwest Metro Transit Benshoof & Associates, Hopkins LSA Design Southwest Metro Transit 291 Shoreview Court 9149 Springfield Drive 611 Summerfield Drive 530 Summerfield Drive 491 Summerfield Drive Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the traffic study as it relates to left turning movements. Aravind Guttemukkula with Benshoof and Associates addressed traffic study questions. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification on the date of 2011 being used by the traffic engineers in their study. Commissioner Tjornhom asked what will be done to Planning Commission Summary — June 1, 2004 • mitigate noise. Kyle Williams with LSA Design explained how the noise study was conducted. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification regarding the neighbors concerns, berming and the proximity of the daycare related to noise and air quality. Chairman Sacchet asked about specifics in the plan related to land use and signage. Len Simich, Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit presented the applicant's case. Commissioner Slagle asked Mr. Simich to comment on the diesel engine law that was in the news recently and Southwest Metro Transit's bus fleet. Commissioner Tjornhom asked for clarification on who will control the townhouse and commercial development on the site. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Richard Simmons, 530 Summerfield Drive asked the commission to delay action on the rezoning based on two issues. One, it's premature and two, because it's premature, the findings in the staff report should not be relied upon. He provided reasons why he felt this way. Terry Helland, 491 Summerfield Drive expressed concerns with placing a park and ride on this site and if it was the right location. Commissioner Slagle asked Len Simich to expand on the issue of this being the right site or if another site would be more suitable for a park and ride. Commissioner Claybaugh asked about the walking and trail system associated with the site. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion, the following motion was made. Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MDCED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low 2 Planning Commission fulmmary — June 1, 2004 • intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. • Small to medium-sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • Convenience store without gas pumps • Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self -Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. • Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive-thm Windows • Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Planning Commission • ary — June 1, 2004 • Boundary Building and Parking Setback Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft 25 or 3 stories, and stair well whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have vaned and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 4 Planning Commissionfummary— June 1, 2004 • 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. f. Residential Standards 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to Planning Commissionfummary — June 1, 2004 • screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. b. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. L Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimise the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; b. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; 0 Planning Commissiontum ary— June 1, 2004 • g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. U. Proiect Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. L2. Monument Sian: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. U. Wall Signs: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. L4. Festive Flaas/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. 7 0 0 Planning Commission Summary — June 1, 2004 d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. L5. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. L6 Directional Signs a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. V. Prohibited Signs: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. Planning Commissiontummary— June 1, 2004 • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area Menu Signs are prohibited. i.8. Sign Design and permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 — Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). I sr>, &O= 21 • Annm.. cpm .nm. !M CmtN Pat 9aia PW Model CP 12fl$-CA/BX 12 Pt Ht to 1.6 B. Figure 76 - Cha h LghM Unit Dade 41 Planning Commission Su mary—June 1, 2004 0 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The officelpersonal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 17,000 SOUARE FOOT LOT, ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT 9217 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, GREG & KELLY HASTINGS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19. Public Present: Name Address Greg & Kelly Hastings Glenn M. Gerads 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 1071 Barbera Court Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification on the side yard setback and if the eaves are included in that calculation. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the amount of encroachment. The applicants, Greg and Kelly Hastings explained their case along with passing out 10 0 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjomhom, Rich Slagle, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -MIXED USE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF HIGHWAYS 212/101 AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18. Public Present: Name Address Len Simich Southwest Metro Transit Aravind Guttemukkula Benshoof & Associates, Hopkins Kyle Williams LSA Design Bob Worthington Southwest Metro Transit Dave Soliday 291 Shoreview Court Curt Kobilaresik 9149 Springfield Drive Craig Mullen 611 Summerfield Drive Richard Simmons 530 Summerfield Drive Terry Helland 491 Summerfield Drive Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff? No questions from staff? Kurt. Papke: I'll start. In the traffic study it appears that most of the issues are with the left turns. Most of the C's and D's are left turns. Could you explain and most of them are in 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 conjunction with 101. It's the north ramp to 101. You know south ramp to 101. Lyman to 101, etc, etc. Could you just review for the record where there will be left tum arrows on the stop lights? Just so we're all cognizant of how that will be controlled. And what the, you know how will that impact the level D of service that we see here? Al-Jaff: May I tum this question over to Aravind? Sacchet: You may. Al-Jaff: It's his area of expertise... You'll get much better answers from him. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Do you want to have him come up right now. Sure. Do you mind pulling the microphone towards you please. Aravind Guttemukkula: My name is Aravind Guttemukkula. I'm from Benshoof and Associates where we are a traffic engineers and planning firm. We did the traffic study for this, as Sharmeen had indicated. And the level of service D talking about the left turns at intersections on 101, specific plans weren't developed by MnDot yet for how the phasing and timing's going to be for analysis purposes we assumed that all of left turns were offered as protected only, meaning a left tum arrow. That's the safest kind of movement, and that is probably the most restrictive type of movement compared to the protected per mass. You know both left turn arrow and a green ball. Papke: Okay, so it will be left tum on green arrow only? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Papke: What most likely... Aravind Guttemukkula: That's correct. Sacchet: Craig? Claybaugh: Yes, I had some additional, if you don't mind stepping back up here. With respect to the study on page 7. I was looking at the assumptions and what I was found was ... 100 vehicles, 8 buses per hour. What I was looking for was a relative time line. Not time of day but date. Is that based on demands for when it opens? Is that based on demands through what, through 2015 or where's that 800 motor vehicles fit, if you can put a date to it, a year to it. Aravind Guttemukkula: For forecasting analysis purposes we assumed that the development will be complete in 2010. So we analyzed, we, it's our normal practice to analyze one year after full completion. Expected full completion. So that's the numbers, the volumes, everything that you see in this report are for 2011. 2 Planning Commission Meeting—June 1, 2004 • Claybaugh: Okay. So you're using 2010 basically demands due to population through Chanhassen and the rest of it, is that a fair statement? Aravind Guttemukkula: You mean the trip generation? The number of trips that are expected. Claybaugh: Based on our, what would be our projected population in 2010. Aravind Guttemukkula: Our distribution, our generation is, trip generation is based on the institute of transportation engineer's data that was collected at numerous other similar facilities in the country. Claybaugh: The question I was trying to get at is 2010 obviously, that area isn't going to be developed anywhere near capacity and my question is, as that area develops and population comes to fruition, what does this study look like? Aravind Guttemukkula: Our, that runs traffic volumes without the proposed development accounts for the growth between now and 2011. That is correct. It accounts for. Claybaugh: So 2011 is it? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Claybaugh: And when, if I can direct this to Sharmeen, in terms of city's forecast, do we expect the area that's going to impact this most heavily to be fully developed? Al-Jaff: Majority of the development will begin as soon as, and again you can't force developers to do this but. Claybaugh: No I understand but I mean are we talking that the area from the city's standpoint might be closer fully developed or 90 percent developed by 2017? 2020 or are we talking 2014? Al-Jaff: This area is in the MUSA. Therefore 2007 is when 212/101 is proposed to be completed. Probably 2010. Claybaugh: So you feel that the area would be fairly well developed so there'd be a good correlation between the time slot for the study and what the demands would be? Al-Jaff: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all I was after. Sacchet: Since we have you up there, level D. Sharmeen made a comment. Can you explain level D of the traffic. Planning Commission Meeting—June 1, 2004 • Aravind Guttemukkula: Level D. Sacchet: Yeah, D like David. Because it's awfully far into the alphabet if F means dead stop. Aravind Guttemukkula: D, most agencies in Minnesota consider D to be acceptable. And at a signalized intersections, a D corresponds to an average of 35 to 55 seconds per vehicle. Sacchet: Is that in addition to when you could go? I mean you have to like wait for one batch to go through the light and then you have to wait another one or how do you? Aravind Guttemukkula: Level of service D represents that all, I mean we cannot look at just level of service and answer the question. We also look at the cuing which is just doing the level of service, from our analysis... clear than one cycle. Sacchet: Okay, so with the level D they should still be able to go through in one cycle? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Sacchet: That was my question. That's a good answer. Okay. We might be able to get back to you. We're still in questions to staff and we'll have the applicant present so we may have more for you. I don't know, does anybody else has a traffic question right now? Papke: Did your planning assumptions take into account the construction of the new secondary school, which would be what, about a mile west or so of there right off of Lyman. Is that taken into account that people dropping their kids off at school and coming to the parking lot and that kind of scenario. Aravind Guttemukkula: The ones that you, the representative 2011 no built, you know the cover development were projected based on traffic forecasts completed by MnDot for 2025 and 27 for the 312 project. We used their estimates which were based on regional growth, regional traffic land model. Papke: So it was a total basis ... no individual antidotal situations taken into account. Aravind Guttemukkula: Right. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Any more questions of staff? Tjornhom: I just have one question Sharmeen. Some of the residents it looks like were having concerns about noise and in the report it shows that the noise level will be exceeded during certain times of the day. What happens with that? Is that just there and I mean what does that mean and what happens to the poor neighbors? M Planning Commission Me ting—June 1, 2004 • AI-Jaff: It says noise levels during 6:00 to 7:00 a.m., which falls under the nighttime period are expected to exceed the Minnesota Noise Standards primarily due to traffic on the new 212. So it's not because. Tjomhom: So the freeway, not the bus station. Al-Jaff: Correct. Tjomhom: Okay. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: I'd like to dovetail that question. It's kind of an ambiguous term. Is there any way that they can express that as a percentage that the park and ride would add the additional burden above the noise from 212? Did they come at it from that direction at all, rather than. I mean there's other transit stations. There must have been some studies available with respect to the additional noise burden that's added by a facility like this when you have Eden Prairie's as an example. Al-Jaff: Okay, if you turn to probably the last 3 pages of your report. The entire staff report. So it would be the third sheet from the end of your staff report. Basically it looks at the site with a bus facility and without a bus facility. The changes are minimal as far as, okay where. As far as the noise. Claybaugh: What would be the extenuating factor on what I'll say vertical column number 5 where there's the significantly differential in the relation to just the 212 noise. Any specific explanation for that? Al-Jaff: The times that we need to be concerned with is. Sacchet: They're locations right? Kyle Williams: I'm not David Brasloff, but I'd Kyle Williams with LSA Design but we did work with David and not only did we have his charts but these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 identify spots on the site. Number 5 was what he is referencing in his summary where he talks about the apartments. It's a misnomer the apartments. These are for sale townhomes, but he talks about the departing buses in the p.m. going by, going around the comer between the commercial and the residential. He was most concerned about those houses there. We're most concerned about the houses just easterly that exist. He was also presuming buses would stop at the comer. The preferred cycling has buses moving so all the stop/start buses are along the northerly part of the site, and further he identifies the p.m. is when that noise would take place and as David describes, the a.m. is always the most concerned because that's the wake up factor. When buses and people are most affected. So the start stopping on the a.m. is always on the north side. There are no buses that come onto the site except on the p.m. on occasion. It's only when buses are going south bound back onto 212. So that is the discrepancy, and just for your reference. The human 5 Planning Commission Meeting ting — June 1, 2004 • ear can perceive the difference of 3 db's. 3 decibels. Other than that it's really not perceptible. And so the difference there is what, 58 to 65. So it's a perceptible. There's a perceived increase in noise on the site. On 6 it was the most concerning for us because that was a resident right at the comer of Lyman and the entrance to the site. And that was our biggest concern. Sacchet: So 5 is actually a residential part within the development, just to be really clear. Kyle Williams: Yes. And if we had the diagram, I think I can. Yeah. 5 is right here. And so buses are coming up here and then cutting through the site, and that's why, they're going around that comer is what he was concerned about. And again he was presuming stopping and starting which we've explained and designed out of that. Sacchet: Does that answer your question Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. It led to a follow-up question and that was with respect to, assuming there's a berm there. The berm that was designed there is functioning to mitigate that noise already. I assume there's been some. Kyle Williams: The berm actually would have some effect. Berms typically, landscape berms typically don't make any difference at all unless they're 100 foot deep and very dense. This is and will be 100 feet, very dense so it will mitigate some of the noise. But I think David was looking really at right by the buses, not on the other side of the berm. Claybaugh: Thanks. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from staff? Rich. Slagle: I've got a few. Sharmeen, there were 3 meetings I think you mentioned, a chance for the neighbors and so forth to interject. Would it be a fair statement that as time went on the neighbors concerns were addressed and their fears lessened from staff s perspective? Al -Jaffa Yes. That is a fair statement. However, I mean they still prefer to see the site remain similar to what it is today, or have single family detached units. But again, I mean we truly made an effort, be it Southwest Metro. Be it the city. We truly made an effort to work with the residents and take their concerns into consideration and develop a planned unit development that meets or addresses these concerns. Slagle: Okay, thank you. Next question. 100 foot buffer the gentleman just mentioned that if it's 100 feet and it's dense it will mitigate noise. Obviously without conditions on a process that faces us tonight on what we decide, but when those conditions come forward if we approve this, is it your anticipation that that berm and then my second question is on the south side, to the north of Lyman, I don't think that's 100 feet. Maybe 50 feet. Would those be, for lack of a better term, heavily, like I'd like to underline 0 Planning Commission Me ting — June 1, 2004 • heavily a couple times, treed with evergreens and so forth, or will that be what I would consider sort of a normal berming that we see sometimes with developments? Al-Jaff: The intent is to have a, I'll show you the concept that I did not include with your. Yes, Kyle put up pink houses in Chanhassen. There is an existing row of trees that are approximately 100 feet. The intent is to extend those further out. I believe they stop somewhere in this area. Okay. These are intended to extend, be extended. And then another buffer will be added along the southern portion of the site. Furthermore, and I believe Southwest Metro has met with some of the neighbors and this is something again between Southwest Metro and the neighborhood where they intend to add the vegetation along. Slagle: On the south side? Al-Jaff: Correct. North of the homes. Existing homes out there. Slagle: Okay. And you'll just sort of be an observer of that? AI-Jaff: Sure. Slagle: Okay. Last question. And I understand the premise of having a daycare there, with the idea that obviously people can drop their kids off, go to work, come back, pick them up. Was there ever a discussion centered around whether, what I will call the air quality is healthy, normal enough to have kids, especially small kids who's lungs I would guess are somewhat developing in an environment that is literally surrounded by automobiles. I mean I don't know the answer but. Al-Jaff: You see a lot of daycare facilities within areas that are close to traffic oriented type of developments. However, based upon this study that we received, I mean it does not address daycare or children per se. But it says that the levels are acceptable. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: I have a question or two also Sharmeen. I want to be very clear. This type, in the staff report says that in 1990 there was an adoption of a park and ride study. Does that mean that actually, has been planned for 14 years? And now, what I'm interested to know beyond this is, obviously most of the development that has occurred around that area has happened after 1990 I would expect, or yeah I would expect so. When people would come in to build a house there in that proximity, would that be up to them to do some research and see what's planned? I mean I would expect that a builder would have to disclose there's going to be a highway planned. Would there be a similar element that is going to be a transit component there or would that be their's or how would that be handled? Planning Commission IvTeeting — June 1, 2004 • Al-Jaff: If somebody would stop at City Hall and ask us that question, we would share the comprehensive plan with them and at that point if you look at the land use plan for instance it's going to show a mixed use type of. Sacchet: So it's been mixed use all along? Yeah. AI-Jaff: It's always been mixed use. The question will come up, what is mixed use. Sacchet: What does it mean? Yeah, then you would give them more details. A]-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: And ultimately the main impact is the highway, not a bus stop next to it. And I have two really detailed questions. In the proposed language for the PUD standards, I have two really small questions. We don't need to belabor that but it has a list of prohibited signs, and one of the private signs is a menu sign. What's a menu sign? AI-Jaff: If you will find what's the special of the day... Sacchet: So it means menu as menu of a restaurant? Okay, that's what I want to be clear about. And then on the next page, which is on that page 18 in the staff report talks about light fixtures and it gives an example. It says fixtures shall conform with Figure 36 of Chanhassen lighting unit design. Are we actually telling them what kind of a fixture they have to put in there? Al-Jaff: Yes we are. Sacchet: We're actually telling them specifically we want this fixture? AI-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. I just want to be clear about that. Alright, that's all my questions. Al-Jaff: And they agreed to it. Sacchet: And they like it too? Well that's, we're lucking out then. That's good. That's all my questions. Papke: One last follow on question. What's that light fixture matching, if anything. Why that light fixture? Sacchet: We looked at some options and this was the one that was selected. Alright, somebody must have liked this fixture very much. Alright. Tjornhom: It's a very nice fixture. E Planning Commission feleting — June 1, 2004 • Sacchet: Alright, thank you. We've belabored that one enough I would think. if there are no more questions from staff I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you have anything to add or give us more of an overview. Aspects you want to point out to us. This is your turn. If you want to state your name for the record. Len Simich: My name is Len Simich. I'm Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit. I'm not going to belabor the plan or anything like that. If there's questions, we'd be happy to answer. Just a couple of things, comments from Southwest Metro's perspective. This has been something in the works for a long time. Not only do we see this as a benefit for the city of Chanhassen, but for the area that we serve, and we're an organization that developed out of three cities. Chanhassen being one of those and we know once this highway comes through, population is going to follow. I mean we've seen that happen in other areas, and this is just one element that we think will be very beneficial to the communities we serve at giving folks options other than just driving alone. As we've stated over and over at the public meetings, our intent is to be a very good neighbor here. What we do, we always do first class. We're not looking at coming in, putting something up that we can't be proud of. Majority of my staff lives in the communities that we serve so we're not going to come in and do something that we wouldn't want in our back yard, so that's number one. Number two, we're going to continue to work with the neighbors. Try to work with them. Hopefully overcome any of their fears of what's coming in the site. We see it as a benefit quite frazikly. It's going to provide a lot of good buffer between them and the highway that's going to be there. From a noise standpoint, I think it's going to help versus really have any negative impacts because of those townhome design that we put in, and the location, as well as the landscaping. I think it's going to be a benefit to everybody involved. In terms of the uses, I just did want to mention. Daycare is one that has been used at other transit facilities and we're looking at a total transit oriented development and what that means is transit's going to be the focal point but it's really a livable community within that 10 acre plot there. We're really looking at all aspects that are going to really benefit those that live there and those that come into utilize our services, so the type of commercial use, we would gear it both for the neighborhood and the transit users. Daycare is one of those, but we're not locked into daycare. We've just completed a community survey of the three communities that we did by Decision Resources. Daycare did not rank that high. Transit, bringing more transit into this community did rank very high, but other types of services they would like to see ranked higher than daycare. So that's one. We still haven't thrown the daycare idea out. It's one that we think fits well but we'll look at some other things as we go along. With that, I think that concludes my comments but if there's, like I said, any specific questions we could answer. I do have some members of our team here as well. Sacchet: Thanks Len. Questions from the applicant? Rich. Slagle: Thank you very much, by the way. Question on page 12 of the environmental assessment. Referring to the diesel engine law, which I think was in the news a week or two ago. At least the idea that diesel engines would become cleaner, and I note in here that it talks about it will depend, as far as particulate emissions would depend on the 6 Planning Commission Peeting—June 1, 2004 • make and the model of the year of the buses to be used. I mean is it your hope and intent to have what I'm just going to call, I mean your buses are great now but are they going to be modern fuel savvy, environmental savvy buses when it comes to this year? Len Simich: That is correct. I mean a lot of this is going to come down eventually in terms of law. We're actually getting out in front of it and looking at cleaner fuels and things that are either added to the bus or put on at the time of construction of the bus that will help in terms of the clean air aspect of it. These are already required in certain states like California, so it's not brand new technology but we're going out in advance of this with a lot of our newer purchases. One thing we have going for us is our fleet. We're not that old of a transit agency and we, by the time this opens, all of our older vehicles will have been retired out of the fleet, so what we're dealing with, what you see today in terms of our big coaches, and we're bringing on by the time this opens up, another 22 new vehicles. So our fleet will be very modern. Slagle: Okay. That's it for me. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Any plans for a bank in there? I had to ask. Len Simich: You never know. Sacchet: Never know. Tjornhom: I have a question. I didn't realize that you don't just build the bus stations. You obviously then do, or you control the townhouse development. Is that what's going to be going in or something similar to that also? Len Simich: Yeah, that's a good question. One of the advantages, and we pointed out during the neighborhood meetings with Southwest Metro. From a developer to come in, as long as they meet your code and your ordinances and so forth, you kind of lose some of that control. What we did in Eden Prairie is we retained all that control through our covenants, and we have actually sold a majority of that property off to a developer. But before anything moved forward, it not only had to go through our review process and we were tied very closely with the city. Then it went onto the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. So it really, you know we could really direct the use in there. The type of use, to give you an example. We had one restaurant that wanted to come in that we didn't feel that it met the character of what we were trying to do there and so we politely asked them that no, that's not what we want. So the developer had to go find another one. So we hold a lot of those type of controls. Architecturally, Kyle Williams here, he's the designer of our station. Our parking ramp, but he also had a big hand in designing those buildings that sit over in Eden Prairie. You can travel anywhere, you know Culver's is a fast expanding restaurant across the Midwest. You won't find another one that looks like our facility over in Eden Prairie. For them to go away from their blue roof and things like that was a major undertaking, but they wanted to be there bad enough 10 Planning Commission Meeting —June 1, 2004 • so they made those changes. The Ruby Tuesdays. While it looks similar to some, it's a one of a kind. Krispy Kreme, same thing. So all of these, we've made them to conform to what we wanted at that site, and we would do the same at this one as well. Tjomhom: What kind of feel is it that you're wanting it to have? Len Simich: Well I think, we still are working that through with the city. Kyle, can you come up? Some of the things that came out of the neighbor was more of a, I don't know if they talked more of a country living or he knows that better than I do. Kyle Williams: Well, this is a different site. This is not Eden Prairie and every site has it's own characteristic. We're in a residential area with a big highway on the other side. So I mean that's the evolution of the site plan is you take the transit towards the highway and bring residential towards the residential. So I would expect the intent and what we talked a little bit about Len, a little bit with the neighborhood, is take some of the materials and character of Southwest, because it's an identify for Southwest Metro and bring it over to the site, not necessarily duplicate the imaging. But duplicate the character and the quality and make it more of a residential character scale building. We did a few sketches for the neighbors, and they seemed to be fairly well received. But the intent is just, I think that simply, and again we haven't designed it yet but not to copy what's at Eden Prairie but really adapt it for this site and make it a character of Southwest Metro but still a Chanhassen project. Sacchet: Just to clarify Sharmeen. We would see those plans. Al -Jaffa Absolutely. They would have to go through. Slagle: Actually can we see the renditions now? Kyle Williams: I can show you, it was just some of the character of the row houses. This would be those facing the homes. The development just to the south. Again, these depict two story homes with all parking below so you walk up half a flight to get to the first floor. It's becoming very popular. It has a mixture of two story walk up's and also single flat home and this can be accommodating this kind of scheme. Again all the parking would go below. This was a quick sketch of just one of the units. We take some of the brick and pre -cast concrete... Southwest Metro with stucco and again of course the picture was that you would go typically residential. This was a very quick sketch of an image of the station. Again some of the building characteristics of the Southwest station. The brick and pre -cast concrete. The parking deck itself would have some brick and pre- cast. A mixture of those materials. Metal roof with some curves. Again we're not duplicating the cascading curves of the Southwest station but again we'd probably take a curved roof rather than a pitched roof on the station, so that's the kind of thing we're thinking about. To take some of the character of the Southwest station without duplicating it. One other sketch looking from the north, looking back. This is the bus going eastbound on 212. The housing just east of the site and housing to the south. This is where the station would be. The buses coming and go, but again kind of a long linear 11 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • station. More of a train like station because that's what works well in these bus facilities because the buses stack up and people line up to get on the bus so the long linear facility works well. So those were some of the quick sketches we did just to give an idea to the neighbors of what it might be, and again Sharmeen gave me a hard time for my pink buildings but this was shown as a diagram for the neighbors to get an idea of what they might see when we develop this. This was housing here, commercial and at one time we were proposing a 3 level deck, and that evolved into a more refined sketch from the same view, again rather looking at pink boxes, they'd be looking at townhomes. And then you see just one level of the deck beyond and houses would be a medium. The diagram that Sharmeen showed before was just that. It was a diagram with blocks. We've been asked by the neighbors to look at some traffic calming devices. To de-emphasize the attractiveness of using Lyman as the main access point. Encourage people to come on 101 and there's some techniques we can use. We can squiggle the roads a bit and make it a little bit more difficult for people to get into the site off Lyman to encourage them to come up 101, and so those are things that we will develop when we get into the site planning and you will see those items when we come through for approval. Sacchet: More questions from the applicant? Craig, you have questions? Claybaugh: No. Sacchet: I have two quick questions. You mentioned that you might be considering maybe even more than the child care, some other uses. Do you want to specify a little bit what you're envisioning? Len Simich: Well the ones that came through during the survey, coffee ranked number one obviously. Dry cleaning was another one that ranked very high. Those type of service related uses did rank very high. So those are the types of things we would look at, make sure that they fit within the neighborhood use. Acceptable to the neighborhood. Acceptable to the city before we actually move forward. We're not talking a lot of commercial. About 16,000 square feet. If you've been to our Eden Prairie site, it's really basically the same size as those two multiple tenant buildings that have the Bare Rock and the Noodles and Chipotle and so forth. That's what we're really talking about. That's the extent of the commercial on the site so it's not that much that we're going to be able to do a lot. A bank, it might be a good use, so those are some of those type of things. Sacchet: And then I wanted to ask you the draft PUD that staff put together. It puts a pretty good frame around things. Style, use. Even down to the type of light fixture. Everything is fine with you? Do you have any particular aspects that you'd rather not see in there or what's your take there? Len Simich: No. We're perfectly fine with everything that was in there. Our intentions all along were to work very closely with the city. We found that worked very well in Eden Prairie so there's no surprises on either hand so there's certain things that they would like to see in there and we're perfectly fine with that. 12 Planning Commission • ting — June 1, 2004 • Sacchet: Excellent. Slagle: I have one more. And I apologize for not remembering this but it was brought to my attention that one of the residents had a question on hours and potential commercial use and I think what they were saying without saying it was, what would happen if a restaurant went in there that had liquor and would be able to be open til 11:00, 12:00, 1:00? Any thoughts on that? Len Simich: I would guess the biggest thought would be that's not the type of use we're trying to attract into this site so. You know without tying our hands completely, that's not the direction we'd be going. It'd be very similar to like the one in a sense declined to bring into our Eden Prairie site. While we're going into this, there's a lot of different goals. Of course our number one goal is let's get the transit station in. Provide the transit. Two is, you know we will create another revenue stream with the development aspects of this. But that's not the driving factor so like in the case of Eden Prairie where we could have probably brought in a user that paid more than another user, it didn't fit and that's what we'd be looking at. What fits. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Well this is a public hearing. I'd like to invite anybody who wants to come forward. Address this issue. Tell us what you have to add to the picture. If you want to state your name and address. Is there anybody who would like to speak up about this or have you already said everything there is to say at the neighborhood meetings? Seeing nobody, wow. That's a very quick public hearing. Ah, there's somebody. Alright. If you want to state your name and address for the record please. Richard Simmons: My name is Richard Simmons. I live at 530 Summerfield Drive, and I didn't finish writing up my notes but I'm asking that you delay approval of the rezoning and I think number one. On two grounds. Number one, it's premature. Number two, because it's premature, the findings of the staff report should not be relied upon for your purposes. To put this into context over the scope of the public meeting, the size of the project is, the size or content of the project has changed over time. Originally it, prior to the meeting, prior to the meetings there was no public plan. Or there was no plan for a parking ramp. No plan per se. By the first meeting it was that the park and ride would occupy a small portion of the property on the north comer. By the second meeting it had grown and by the third meeting it had grown even larger as MnDot had moved one of the access points. The, and at the same time I also have to admit that I was at first really opposed to this project. As the project changed and developed over time, and became what's described in the appraisers report as the park and ride facility on the northern portion of the property, a commercial zone in the middle and a residential zone on the southern part, I became less and less opposed and this was to me the best of the, the best of the possible alternatives, if there's going to be something there that's like this, this is probably one of the better, for me at least, one of the better things that could be there, and 13 Planning Commission •eting — June 1, 2004 • I'd like to see things like dry cleaning and coffee shops and things that help me on my way to work. But in the final meeting what occurred to me was, in looking at the final document or the draft, rezoning draft, and listening to the presentations was the use of the words might, could, you know possibly. This is what this could possibly look like at this point. And as we stand here today, there's no guarantee that what was presented is one of the possible plans, which is, and it's throughout this document is the description of the broken off essentially into thirds. Is that's actually what's going to be built. And it was pointed out to me that Southwest Metro is a great partner in this and is a great partner in the City of Chanhassen and does a tremendous job and I'm not questioning any of those. But I've also gotten advice from my attorney, from my business attorney, in my business dealings that we have contracts and we have agreements because we're friends and we want to maintain those friendships and we want to make sure that we understand a lot of what's going on and what's going into this process and what's actually going to be built and so there are no surprises in 5 years from now when this is going to be built and the representations that are made today that it will be broken up, you know similar into those thirds. That that's actually what's going to be there because at the third meeting one of the plans that was presented was commercial property in the southwest comer. At the intersection of 101 and Lyman, which is absent from the final report. And when asked is this what's going to be built? You know the answer was, it's going to be whatever the market can bear at that time. So ideally I'd like to see some guarantees or some commitments that this is what's going to be built. That this is what we can look forward to going up, and it will be something that will compliment the surrounding existing properties rather than detract from them. Because in my opinion it's premature, looking at the reports that were prepared and support the staff report. For example the traffic report assumes the best case development of that property, and it assumes a specific mix of the, of residential, of daycare, of park and ride, and if that isn't built, what is the effect at that point? What is the effect of noise at that point? The appraisers report goes to great lengths to say, I was asked to assume the following. Describes this great buffer zone, but if that's not built, then what does that do to the appraisers report and so my concern is that we, at some point very soon here, commit this is what we're going to do. It's going to look very much like this, or very much in keeping with this rather, while the discretion of the city of Chanhassen is at it's greatest. As opposed to here's the general framework of what's going to be built and a lot of things could fit into that. Will it be a restaurant with a liquor license on the corner or will it be a very nice looking row of townhouses? There's about $60 million dollars worth of property that's going to be affected by this and I think to the degree that the city of Chanhassen looks skeptically at variances and looks carefully at what kind of development goes forward, that some care should be taken to say this is what's going to be and commit to going forward on that basis. Sacchet: Thank you. I just want to clarify. I didn't quite catch your reasoning why you think it's premature. Richard Simmons: Oh, it's premature in the sense that there are a lot of, there's a lot of representations made in terms of what is going to be built which, it's my understanding that there is nothing that commits that any of those properties be built. That there's 14 Planning Commissionfeeting — June 1, 2004 • nothing that commits it could be any residential space in that entire district. That it's not all commercial. That it's not a large, that there's nothing like this in the metro area as we stand today. There's very little like this in the Midwest. Where a transit oriented development's being created in a residential area, and so because there's, that's why. Sacchet: I understand because we use the word premature in a very specific context in the planning, but understand how you use it. Richard Simmons: I mean it's just in a colloquial sense, not as a term... Sacchet: Right. Sharmeen, do you want to address just to what extent this concept that is put in front of us, I mean could it just be totally ripped apart and if there's no residential or something. I mean doesn't the PUD specify the percentage that can be commercial and stuff like that? A]-Jaff: What I did under permitted uses was, I specified commercial and transit uses. This is on page 12. Under the first paragraph. Tail end of it. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential shall be located south of the 101, Highway 101 access, so we've specifically stated what portions of the site will handle what type of use. This was one of the site plans that was presented at the last Southwest Metro neighborhood and city meeting. This was one of the alternatives that showed a residential component along the southeast corner of the site and a commercial component to the southwest portion of the site, and then you still have the transit component to the north. And the neighborhood in general said we really don't like this. Sacchet: Yeah, and with the PUD part that you just quoted, this would not really be acceptable anymore. Al-Jaff: This would not be an option and again, I mean this was the reason why that line was added into the PUD ordinance was to address this concern that was voiced by the neighborhood. They don't want this. We made sure that it doesn't happen. Sacchet: Now in terms of, so we have a pretty clearly defined framework and in terms of what can be done, obviously will be reviewed once the specifics are carried forward, so at this point we have a general framework that takes these aspects into consideration. Al-Jaff: Yes. And then as far as design standards for instance, what is this building going to look like? We have established standards above and beyond that we also have the city's requirements as far as what do you envision in a building. I mean we do expect relief. High quality materials on the building. That you don't have just large masses of walls with no breaks on them, so all of these things will be taken into consideration. Sacchet: And there was another main concern this resident expressed, is that he has the impression that in terms of traffic study the best case was considered. I'm not exactly sure that's accurate. Is that something that we could clarify? I don't know whether our 15 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 9 traffic expert may want to make a statement to that, because that is significant. Thank you. Aravind Guttemukkula: I guess just one example how we've considered the most conservative option with this concept. You know there was commercial, little bit of residential and little bit of. Sacchet: When you say conservative, can you explain what you mean? Aravind Guttemukkula: Conservative high. Sacchet: You mean high not low? So it's not the best possible case. It's actually in some ways the worst possible case then? Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. I'm sorry, we looked at scenario that generates a conservatively high number of trips so that we come up with a conservatively high volumes... In one sense we know it's the worst case scenario. For example I mean in terms of the number of spaces, we were told at that time that 800 is the maximum. On the other, we were looking at more like 600 but we want to look at the worst case and what if it's 700 or 800. Sacchet: So you would look at the highest number? You would take the higher one for your calculations, okay. Aravind Guttemukkula: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. So that answers my question. Thank you. Well this is still a public hearing. Is there anybody else who's like to come forward? This is your chance. If there is nobody. Yes, there is somebody. Got to threaten you guys with closing the public hearing to get you guys to stand up. Terry Helland: We're all excited to come up here. My name is Terry Helland. I live at 491 Summerfield and I'm here because of two reasons. One is, I think we've all heard the phrase perception is reality and one of the things that strikes me, I was at 2 of the 3 meetings. I didn't make the last meeting, but it's interesting that shortly after the first meeting that the house closest to this development went up for sale, and I don't know if that was coincidence or not but it has since been sold. And additionally I think there were some statements that this development could potentially increase property values. There aren't any assurances of that or any studies saying that specifically, and in addition the noise may be helped or mitigated by this type of use versus another type of mixed use. And while the land use development shows this as a mixed use, it is currently zoned as residential, and I think from my perspective in the neighborhood, there is concerns about safety and there's a lot of kids in the neighborhood and the traffic is going to be impacted on Lyman. There's some bike paths in that area, and there's going to be added development with that, and I think Southwest Metro has done a good job of involving the community and asking the right questions and I do applaud them on the developmental 16 Planning Commissionfeeting—June 1, 2004 pieces but I guess I'd like to ask this crew to think, is this really the best site for this development. As I look at it, I know there's a matter of convenience and that Southwest Metro owns this site and that helps it. When I drive by and drove by tonight, I still saw a for sale sign at the corner on the other portion of this site, and I do wonder if the site across the way to the west of 101 wouldn't be a better site. It'd be buffered on the north by the freeway. On the east by 101. It wouldn't be directly adjacent to any of the residences to the east. There's a couple residences across Lyman to the south but I guess when you look at rezoning a property, and this is an important aspect for Chanhassen to think about, is it a matter of convenience or is it the best site, and that's what I'd like to make sure that is considered. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good point. I assume you were emphasizing that the house went on sale more than it was actually sold because the fact that it did sell quickly I think actually. Terry Helland: That goes back to the fact that, I'm an architect and I did look and find out, I did a tuciary look and found out that it was zoned residential in that area. I didn't look and understand there was a land use plan that was out there and so I probably didn't ask all the questions. Sacchet: You were aware of the highway coming through. Terry Helland: I was aware of the highway. Sacchet: But not the transit station. Terry Helland: But not the transit station. So yeah, it's a matter of I touched the topsoil but I didn't get down to the clay so to speak. Now the new owner, did he touch the topsoil or go down to the clay? Sacchet: That's a good question. That's out of our scope though. You know, it's a tricky thing also with, is this the best site. I mean we can't dictate somebody what they can do and not do on their property. We can only look, does it conform with ordinances. I mean a resident has a right of ownership which is held very highly in the United States Constitution for that matter. Terry Helland: Well I agree with that. I think the other aspect through the planning portion was that while the Eden Prairie facility just opened, it is bounded by mostly by mixed use and there's some high density housing that's just going up with it. The Eagan facility was referenced but I think I haven't personally been there but my understanding is it's kind of on the river bluff and there's residential across a highway. There's not a similar, and I know they were challenged in finding a similar situation, let alone in the Midwest or throughout the country of this kind of a use, so I think there are some potential challenges with this and some unknowns. And I agree with Richard that I think personally I'd like to see more conditions placed on this relative to how the land is used in assuring you know that the land is used for this. This intended purpose so that if it 17 Planning Commission lVieeting — June 1, 2004 ' was, I mean I personally, my first choice would be like the homeowners before, would be residential or at worst case maybe some mixed residential. Not high. High density. Sacchet: Are you familiar with the framework that we're actually asked to look at here? I mean the PUD. The planned unit development framework because it's very specific in terms of what can be done. How it has to be done. It goes into a lot of details to the point of what kind of materials, and I was kind of pulling on what type of light fixture. I mean it goes into quite a bit of detail and Sharmeen pointed out, also in terms of what can be done where. It's not rigid. It's not meant to be rigid. It's meant to be a concept at this point. Terry Helland: I understand that but that's not to say 5 years from now you're not at this same kind of meeting and there's not a discussion about putting in a restaurant that you know could stay open until 1:00 at night, which would be a concern of the local. I mean what this does is starts to open the door, and who's to say that 5 years from now the door doesn't get to be wider. Sacchet: Okay. Terry Helland: And it's a concern. Sacchet: Thank you. Sharmeen. To count one aspect this neighbor brought up is the safety aspect. Can we say anything about safety? Al-Jaff: Traffic safety, it will be a signalized intersection. Sacchet: So we actually would have more signals than we would have otherwise, so we can take that as an assistance to safety. Al-Jaff: As far as access to the site, because this is a transit facility, MnDot agreed to allow a right-inhight-out off of 101 as well as an access for buses only, a ramp for the buses on 212. Sacchet: So they're separated. Al-Jaff: Correct. These are things that we don't believe will be available to us had we stuck to a non -transit oriented development. We believe that the only access would have been a full access off of Lyman Boulevard, and again Justin Miller. Sacchet: Oh if it would be a different development. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: The full access of that whole parcel would be from Lyman only. Al-Jaff: That's correct. Would be entirely off of Lyman Boulevard. ru Planning Commission Me ting — June 1, 2004 Sacchet: So that'd actually help off load some of that then. AI-Jaff: Justin Miller, the Assistant City Manager was at the meetings with MnDot and that was part of the discussion. To provide access, the right-in/right-out off of 101. Another thing that I wanted to point out to the Planning Commission is please bear in mind that as each building component comes in for development, they have to go through a site plan approval. You will see those site plans. You still have to approve them. Sacchet: And they will be public hearings? Al-Jaff: There will be public hearings. Typical site plan approval process. Sacchet: Anybody can come. Al-Jaff: People within 500 feet will be notified. Now for the PUD purposes, we went far beyond the 500 feet. I mean we truly covered large neighborhoods. Sacchet: So if you, like the fear that was expressed that 5 years from now some of these standards could be relaxed and all of a sudden there is a liquor shop or a restaurant that's open until 2:00 in the morning with dancing out on the patio, what have you, at that point there would be a public hearing where we would look at the PUD framework. At the city's framework and the neighborhood would be invited to come give their comments. Al-Jaff: Absolutely. Within 500 feet. I can guarantee you that neighbors within 500 feet will be. Sacchet: So I'm afraid we're not going to be dancing til 2:00 in the morning out there. Slagle: Mr. Chair, if I can ask a couple of things. One is, Sharmeen I think, given the sensitive nature and the uniqueness of this proposal, if it does get approved I would at least ask for staff's consent to continue to send notification identical to what you did here. Because I know in the past we've sort of blanketed neighborhoods. Collectively thought of them as one area. The other question, and I don't want to open up a homet's nest but I think this gentleman that was up here asked a fair question and one that has been on my mind since I started reading about this, and Justin I don't know if you want to touch upon it but I mean to be proper planners, is this a case of the applicant owns the property wherein the overall scheme of things the property to the west, which is not bordered by families, so forth, would be a better fit for this? I'm curious to know what your thoughts are. Al-Jaff: That's the question that came up at several of the meetings and one of the options that was expressed to Southwest Metro was, would you consider swapping property with. Slagle: Whomever. With whomever. 19 Planning Commission 101"eeting —June 1, 2004 • Al-Jaff: It's the property here or the parcel here. And Len Simich, the Director of Southwest Metro did look at this option. Access was an issue and then the fact that funding? Len Simich: Yes. Slagle: I mean I think it's a fair question to ask. A]-Jaff: Absolutely. Sacchet: It's a valid question. Do you want to address that please? Len Simich: Sure. In terms of the site, either site probably would work. Both have advantages, one over the other. The big issue there was the funding, or lack thereof to go in at today's market value to purchase that site. What we always envisioned and wanted from the get go was at the intersection of two major highways. 101 and the new 212. So this site happened to fit within MnDot. What we're doing is getting MnDot excess right- of-way. That's what the site is. I have a payback provision to MnDot on anything we develop. In terms of the housing, I've got to pay fair market value for whatever that property is worth, so in that case it's one versus the other but for our use specific, we would have to purchase that additional properties and the funding it at today's value. I'm assuming it's over $100,000 an acre today versus when they bought it probably at $2.00 a square foot so it's a little bit different. That's the only major disadvantage. In terms of use, both have some advantages. Slagle: So technically MnDot is the owner of the property at this point? Len Simich: Correct. MnDot still owns the property. Will convey it over to us after we go through all the, and we're, I get you we're better than halfway through the process with MnDot. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Thank you, that helps. Did you have something Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah I did. I might be reading too much into it but with respect to the neighbors comments on safety. I don't think it was necessarily restricted to vehicular. I think there's a pedestrian component to it with the adjacent neighborhood there and introducing some commercial convenience stores and such. And if you could just discuss what points perhaps were tackled by the city staff and Southwest Metro. AI-Jaff: Are we looking at potentially theft? 20 Planning Commissionteeeting — June 1, 2004 • Claybaugh: No. I'm not looking at potentially theft. I'm looking at kids potentially coming from the adjacent neighborhoods, sure exactly. And just how are they going to address that particular issue because once it comes to fruition, that will be a concern. Sacchet: Are we to that level of concern already or to what extent has that been looked at? Do you want to. Claybaugh: Just in very general terms. You don't need to get into anything specific. Len Simich: I touched on it briefly in my presentation. Part of the whole idea of a transit oriented development is to have a very walkable site and we're going to maintain the trail that's along 101. That will be part of the whole concept, but also the interior park portion of the site. We're doing a number of things to make it from a connectivity standpoint very open and usable for the pedestrian, and Kyle touched upon it in terms of our traffic calming. You know much to the chagrin of our traffic engineers, instead of having just a straight shot through, we're trying to make it as unattractive as possible off of Lyman. Slow up, slow that traffic up. Looking at ways, whether we have it meander through the site, or we've even thrown out the idea of a traffic circle so we haven't gotten down to the complete details but what we're going to do is A, it's going to be very walkable. And B, we're going to slow those speeds down and calm them as much as we can. Sacchet: Thank you. Yes Sharmeen. AI -Jaffa There's another thing that we attempted to do through the design elements within the PUD. For instance the larger signage that lists all the users is going to be located off of 101 as a right-in/right-out only. The access off of Lyman Boulevard is going to be a 24 square foot low profile basically pointing at the residential element of the development, so we've also attempted to put less focus on the full access off of Lyman and encourage traffic to access off of 101. Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Well the public hearing is still open. Do I have to threaten to close it for somebody else more to come up, or are we done? Do we have anybody else who wants to address this item? This is your chance. If I see nobody, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to commissioners for comments, discussion. You want to start Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. I'm personally prepared to support the application. Number one, I believe it's a very necessary component for the community. Number two, it's consistent with the comp plan, and number three, to, at least on some level in general terms, address the residents that spoke concern. It is a measured process so the traffic studies that apply to this particular layout, when they come in for site plan approval, go through the preliminary process. Again, they're going to have to update those studies and they're going to have to make them relative to the design that they're putting in front of us at the time so. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. Kurt. 041 Planning Commission seting — June 1, 2004 • Papke: I'm very supportive of this proposal. I had the opportunity to attend one of the early public reviews and I've been very impressed with how well Southwest Metro has responded to the concerns. I think you've come miles from where you first started out. The first proposal had the buses coming all the way down to Lyman and it just didn't look real good, but I think you've made tremendous progress. You've listened to the community and I think you've done a great job of designing this. I think we've, I'd really like to commend Southwest Metro for this so I'm very supportive of this proposal. I think it's, this is the best spot for it. The improvements that were made were to a great extent the utilization of the bus slip and that would not be possible, as far as I'm aware, at any other site, and I think that's, you know it's a great design. So I'm very supportive of this. Sacchet: Rich, no comment? Tjomhom: No. Sacchet: No comment. I don't really have much to add. I'm terribly biased about this project. Having grown up in Europe where you have so much public transportation that you may choose not to have a car because you have so many options of getting around with public transportation that you literally don't need your own transportation. I find that increasing the offering of public transportation in this environment here is so sorely needed and I really want to commend the applicant for, as it was expressed, I think the applicant made tremendous efforts to accommodate all the concerns that were brought up by the city, by the neighbors. I understand that there is some apprehensions on the neighbors side, and I want to encourage you to come back as this process goes forward and as we get the specific site plans and building plans and all and give your input because we do listen to you. It's a team effort and I think having an applicant that shows this much willingness to work together is really fantastic. I want to thank you for all that. That's my comment to this so with that I'm willing to take a motion please. Claybaugh: I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of 212 and 101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from residential single family to planned unit development, mixed use incorporating the following design standards. Sacchet: As given in the staff report? Claybaugh: As given in the staff report, yes. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. 22 Planning Commission feleting — June 1, 2004 • Claybaugh moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MDtED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses • The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. • Small to medium-sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • Convenience store without gas pumps • Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self -Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. 23 Planning Commission beting—June 1, 2004 • • Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive-thru Windows • Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft and stair well 25 or 3 stories, I whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 24 Planning Commission • ting — June 1, 2004 • 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. E Residential Standards 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 25 Planning Commission 1Vleeting — June 1, 2004 • 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. h. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street finnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the EEO Planning Commission eleting — June 1, 2004 • business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the far and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; In. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. U. Proiect Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. L2. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 1.3. Wall Signs: 27 Planning Commission ipeeting — June 1, 2004 • a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. i.4. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. i.5. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. L6 Directional Signs a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) M Planning Commission feleting —June 1, 2004 41 signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. V. Prohibited Signs: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area • Menu Signs are prohibited. i.8. Sign Design and permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs maybe permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. i. Lighting FM Planning Commission IVleeting — June 1, 2004 • 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 — Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). IMAM= IL • MF_m.. C„yy I....n. Fr. l Cm W Put S. FNu Model CP I2/I&GV8[ 12 Ft 101v3 Hr Egg t 36 . Chi 14Win{ Uuit DMP N All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The officelpersonal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for 30 Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 2004 • the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: Thank you very much for all your comments. Good luck with your project. With that we come to our second item on our agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARUNCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT 9217 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, GREG & KELLY HASTINGS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-19. Public Present: Name Address Greg & Kelly Hastings Glenn M. Gerads 9217 Lake Riley Boulevard 1071 Barbera Court Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions. Claybaugh: The overhangs, what are they? Seeing as how the variance goes to the overhangs. Sacchet: It sounds quite a bit. I mean 2 feet is a pretty big overhang. Greg Hastings: I think it's just matching existing. Sacchet: It is currently that much? Greg Hastings: It's right down from the windows so it's just a different design. Claybaugh: But the side yard setback with respect to the variance is measured from the property line to the overhangs? Sharmeen? Al-Jaff: Pardon me, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? Claybaugh: For our purposes, the side yard setback is measured from the property line to the eaves, correct? 31 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 0418 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBYGIVENthat the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a requestfora rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit. A plan showing the location tithe proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing andexpresstheiropmionswithrespect to this proposal. Sharmeen A1Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saliaffA.ci chanhassen mn.us Phone: 952-227- 1134 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday. May 20, 2004; No. 4184) 0 0 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 33IA.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. , / (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.�Z was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as pan of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz v Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of �, 2004 Notary Public GWEN M. RADUENZ NOTARYPU6W MINNESOTA '?am> WCommission Expim Jan. 31.2005 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $10.85 per column inch • • City Council Summary — March 22, 2004 g. Approval of Contract with RPA for Check Diversion Program. h. Resolution#2004-14: Approval of Capital Improvement Program Purchases: 1) Toro 550-D Groundsmaster Lawnmower & John Deere 5520 Tractor with Cab and Broom for the Park Maintenance Department. 2) Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4 x 4 for the Building Inspections Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. b. APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT, HIGHWAY 41 TRAIL CONNECTOR. Councilman Lundquist expressed concern with the range of bids received, and with staff's recommendation for a consultant that the city has experienced difficulty with on another project with large change orders and extra soil borings. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the retention of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates to provide engineering consultant services for the Highway 41 trail connector. The amount of compensation for preliminary design, easement description, surveying, permitting, final design, bidding, construction inspection, and the provision of record plans shall not exceed $33,840. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Maria Lynn, 1050 Lake Susan Drive stated she wished to voice strong opposition to the current MnDot plan for Highway 212, specifically the 212/101 interchange. Specifically the plan to route an off ramp directly into Chanhassen Hills via Lake Susan Drive is unacceptable. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sergeant Jim Olson introduced Deputy Kyle Perlich to the City Council. He then reviewed the sheriff's office area report and area citation list from February, crime prevention report and crime alerts issued by Beth Hoiseth, and the community service officer report. Chief Gregg Geske provided the monthly report for the Chanhassen Fire Department. Public Present: 2 City Council Meeting arch 22, 2004 They do provide competitive bids and you know staff will work harder with them in trying to improve the quality of their services. Mayor Furlong: Any discussions or questions? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the retention of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates to provide engineering consultant services for the Highway 41 trail connector. The amount of compensation for preliminary design, easement description, surveying, permitting, final design, bidding, construction inspection, and the provision of record plans shall not exceed $33,840. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Maria Lynn: My name is Maria Lynn and I live at 1050 Lake Susan Drive. Mayor Furlong, members of the City Council, I'm here tonight to voice my strong opposition to the current MnDot plan for Highway 212, specifically the 212/101 interchange. Specifically the plan to route an off ramp directly into my neighborhood, Chanhassen Hills via Lake Susan Drive is unacceptable. I respectfully request that you as our elected officials vote to reject the plan in it's current form. And continue to work with MnDot and the Chanhassen city staff to develop an acceptable alternative. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Is there anyone else that would like to address the council through visitor presentations this evening? Seeing none we'll close visitor presentations and move on with our agenda. LAW ENFORCEMENTMIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you and good evening. This evening I brought Deputy Kyle Perlich in to introduce to the City Council. Kyle has been with the Carver County Sheriff's office since 1997. Or excuse me, since 1994. He's worked in the City of Chanhassen since 1997. Some of the different things Kyle has been involved in since he's been with the county, he's been with investigation. School resource officer, and while he was a resource officer he was doing quite a bit of bike patrol actually in the city of Chanhassen during the summers, so he's got a lot of experience with youth, and that actually is an investigator also who does a lot of youth investigation. So I'm glad to have Kyle in Chanhassen. He is one of our top ticket writers here in the city and. 3 I X ii s it el LLJ 16 It NE -1. 4—SEI/4 k or" 0 01 ff }rte --.-'LYMAN BLV I + ; EVNR I e e + �_ [ O N I Lyman Blvd. d •moi �., _./'+ , l \ h • .rid t d � l Lyman Blvd. d Lyman Blvd. Parks and 4en~pace Study Area Residential High FILE No.894 0420 '04 14:57 ID:Shenehon Company SHENEHON COMPANY 88 South 10th Street, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: (612) 333-6533 Fax: (612) 344-1635 To: Len Simich Fax #:952-974-7997 Phone #:952-974-3101 From: Ricky Brown FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE FAX TRANSMISSION Date: 4/20/04 # of Pages: 4, Including cover sheet Subject: Preliminary Analysis of Park & Ride impacts in Chanhassen Additional Comments: Len - Here is the preliminary analysis of the park & ride impacts in Chanhassen. Unfortunately Steve and I cannot make the meeting tomorrow. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks, Ricky Brown This message and any following pages are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. 4. k. STANDARD DECORATIVE STREET LIGHT FIXTLRES Tra"mal Ddl Tradluoaal Acorn STANDARD DECORATIVE STREET LIGHT POLES Delare Acan All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. r_ Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. �o� o6;vA d 17 �y lJ inn /Uoi5e-- Ls5 ue5 HYK GU e004 1G;Jb YK L bKHbLHU HbbUU blZM14J(G IU .Mty(433 Y. b1/1'( David Braslau Associates, Inc.. 1313 5th Street S.E. Suite 322 Minneapolis, WN 55414 Telephone: 612331.4571 Fax: 612 331.4572 FAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFA)CFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAX ATTENTION: Kyle Williams COMPANY NAME: ISA Design, Inc. PHONE #: 339-8729 FAX #: 339-7433 Number of pages including this cover sheet (-17-) FROM: David Braslau DATE: 20 April, 2004 SUBJECT: Chanhassen Park and Ride Attached is our Environmental Assessment for noise and air quality. The bottom line is that the impacts are very limited, with no exceedance of noise standards except possibly at the apartments facing the parking ramp. Air quality levels are quite low. I will be at a meeting until around 2:00 pm today and will Email you the graphics at that time. Please let me know if you would like any changes or additions to the report. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! Y.Vob612004J6b4\20"19\wi1ji% uoaxatax.d« 0 Park and Ride Neighborhood Meeting March 31, 2004 Name Address Phone # e-mail Address CA64 fi ,>V Clknd 451-F'�-iF�'t J. n,Chg - WrntS /Jartr r , �3✓t Sf2erre� S3S Sic.-wher{;e(oi C.��. S� 3 ti 95�'f`%5-s5b3 rc�msire✓�� So% Cmm RIcl k - i -,I, I/ Z7Oi C IcLA $ 31-7 �(�N1T`1�17 Swb�µl4Y 53V �µ�N.N/•4-: �•e(� c� 2_ CZS7_-(LA %: zI �a+ �� S�mwrk<tCl c,m�i►eno CWa �Si 4U3 640II mCAS'i .CoM QZk7 Co -Le �f�Z-`iRe� 3Plrl huh a EIe Ciwn k cern., � � n _ G j� JqC ��LY /"+t' SU/7/I7�or �`�v Q /�� *?4-Z7 call;hs __ '>Grp11�n �n�Cq Shy �j r28nV • tv y / 7 p --3 7 % �s�n � (.�n�q,Lf �l�c�Ytau� rrl 91zs- /aK'-8/ Riley (31�� C 0-1-k 5,.(C/n ti PIF &-k C Oki 0 0 Park and Ride Neighborhood Meeting March 31, 2004 Name f Si<Yt•1 Lil/�I �au Address 7571 W..l..._t C�.nit Phone # 9$2.-i0('9P72 e-mail Address u -h„ Atliy- ci (tip R� cacv2 (walbt� ��c� qS2- CA,S\-\-�15Z9 Southwest Metro Transit Rezoning Request Planning Case No. 04-18 Location Map O 3 _ r.• LY.BNd CR18 JJ/ 2. F Subject Site m ti _x w Highways 212/101 Intersection Future Development Neighborhood Meeting Notification Area Wednesday, February 18, 2004 @ 7:00 p.m. Lake Susan iyr�y ei.e tc 3-31-04 Chanhassen Qs 1. During the peak hours, approximately 3 buses travel through the Market Blvd. park-and- ride site per hour. 2. There will be 4 or 5 buses traveling through the 101/212 park-and-ride site per hour. 3. Three SouthWest Metro Transit park-and-ride sites are planned in the 212 corridor. There will be two in Chanhassen and another site in Chaska. In the future, SouthWest Metro Transit may pursue park-and-ride sites in the Hwy 5, Hwy 62 and Hwy 169 corridors. 4. Currently, SouthWest Metro Transit does not have the funding to build all 800 spaces right away. However, it is their intent to build the parking deck all at once rather than in stages. There will not be more than 800 spaces. 5. SouthWest Metro Transit would prefer that the housing units be owner occupied. SouthWest is exploring a town home approach for the site. 8. Residents can be sure that the project will be of high quality as it is in SouthWest Metro Transit's best interest to have a quality facility. SouthWest Metro Transit will take precautionary measures (bonds, etc.) to ensure that the developer completes the project according to plan. SouthWest Metro Transit will apply the same quality standards at the 212/101 site that they did at SouthWest Station in Eden Prairie. 10. Sharmeen to add.... SouthWest Metro Transit would prefer that the housing units be owner occupied. 11. Transit oriented development is not a new concept. There are several examples in the United States including the Gold line in Los Angeles; Del Mar Station in Pasadena, CA; Addison Circle in Addison, TX; and Rutherford Station in Rutherford, NJ. In the Twin Cities the Apple Valley Transit Station and SouthWest Station in Eden Prairie are good examples of developments that combine transit with residential development. Each of these sites has a transit element combined with commercial and residential development. The 212/101 site will be different from these examples in that it will be a smaller scale development so as to complement the neighborhood. In this site, residential development will drive the site rather than commercial development. 16. SouthWest Metro Transit is exploring two options for the site. SouthWest will either sell the land to a developer or enter into a long-term lease (50-99 years) with the developer. 26. Extensive landscaping will occur on the site. SouthWest Metro Transit has plans to utilize berming and various forms of vegetation to provide screening for the surrounding communities. 28. There are two park-and-ride sites proposed between Chaska and Chanhassen along the new TH212. SouthWest may develop sites west of Hwy 41 in the future. VIEW WEST AT LYMAN BLVD AND PROPOSED COMMERCIAL VIEW NORTH AT HWY 101 & RAMP VIEW FROM THE SOUTH- BUFFER SITE PLAN B y �A 4 MY OF Date: May 4, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Request for a Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd., Southwest Metro Transit Planning Case: 04-18 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 30, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends June 29, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, stone water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 21, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. Southwest Metro Transit Rezoning Request Planning Case No. 04-18 Location Map qrm O H CONCEPT PLAN DIAGRAM Transit Station Parking Deck 800 cars max. 100' Buffer Commercial/Retail 16,000 sq. ft. Housing 16 units/acre max. Enhanced Landscaping SITE ACCESS: BUSES (■ O ® m SOUTHBOUND ■ ■ ■ ■) NORTHBOUND � a /SITE r AM BUS MOVEMENT PM BUS MOVEMENT wl CAR ACCESS 10 If a"a■r■■ O F-: t CONCEPT PLAN DIAGRAM Transit Station Parking Deck 800 cars max. 100' Buffer Commercial/Retail 16,000 sq. ft. Housing 16 units/acre max. Enhanced Landscaping Southwest Metro Transit Rezoning Request Planning Case No. 04-18 Location Map CITY OF CMUSEN 7700 Markel 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: 952227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park 8 Recreation Phone. 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952 .227.1400 Fax, 952.227.1404 Planning 1k Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax. 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road 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: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: May 17, 2004 SUBJ: Request for Rezoning; Southwest Metro Transit Maintaining and creating new pedestrian/bicycle routes to the proposed Southwest Metro Transit Station is very important. The construction of new Highway 101 south will include the installation of a ten -foot trail adjacent to the subject property. The Transit Station project must install a trail/sidewalk adjacent to Lyman Boulevard from Highway 101 east to a street crossing at Summerfield Drive. Appropriate and adequate internal sidewalk connections must also be planned to allow convenient and safe non -vehicular traffic throughout the site. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gest place to live, work, and play. P14 v m� Jim W. Sand w SCI tree President ofDevelopment Sand Companies, Lnc. Office: (320) 202-3100 ♦ Construction Fax: (320)202-3139 ♦ Property Management ♦ Development F"Matl: JWSand@SandCompmes.wrn WebSW: w SandCanpaniesmm 366 South Tenth Avenue, PO Box 727, Waite Park, MN 56387-0727 P14 v m� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd.' Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on May 20, 2004) Site This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is nor intended to be usetl as we The Map is a conpilauon of records, information and data locatetl in various aty, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding rhe area shown, and is to be used for relerence purposes only. The City does not ivenant that the Geographic Infomplion System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error has, antl the City does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring enacting Measuremera M distance or direction or precision in Me depiction of geographic features. H enors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §4fi1 Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this mp acknowledges that the City shall not ba liable far any damages, arM erpmssly waives all claim. and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hdtl hamiees the City from any and all claim brought by User, its errployess or agents, or third Parsee which apse out of the user's access or use of data provided. CITY OF CIIA HASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www 6chanhassen.w.us Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date -& Time. Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Planning File: 04-18 Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit Property The southeast intersection of the future alignment of Location: Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. 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 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Comments: or e-mail saliaffOci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. 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 commerciallndustrial. • 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 somethina to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. CITY OF CHHHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.d.chanhassen.mn.us Site This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is W intended to tie used ss one. This that, is a compilation of records, infonretion and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference W rposes only. The City does not wartant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be usetl for navigational, twWng or any other purpose requiring inticting measurement of distance or direction or pression in to depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952427-1107. The prece6ng disclaimer is provided Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this rhap acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages. and eVrassly waives all sairm, and agrees to defend. inderinify, and hold hanNess the City from any and all clams; brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mini paNes which arse out of the user's access or use of data provided. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Planning File: 04-18 Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit Property The southeast intersection of the future alignment of Location: Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. 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 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Comments: or e-mail saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative 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, lease contact the Planninin Staff person named on the notification. This map is rreittrer a legally regarded map hot a suryeY and is not intended to be used as one. This than is a conpllaaon of records, inforrretion and dale latated in various city, rourdy, slate and federal offices and oMer sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference puryoses only. The Qty does no, wanant Plat the Geographic Infornxltion System (GIS) Data used to prepare this nap are error Mae. and the CdY does not represent that the GIS Data can he usetl for navigational, trationg or any other purpose Mi inng exacting rreasurenent of distance or direction orprecision in the depiction d geographic features If errors or dscrepanctes are found Pease contact 952227-1107. The prece6rg dsclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Stables §666.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this into acknowledges that the City shall not he habm for any darreges, and expressly waives Ni dame, and agrees to defend, inciermify. and hod heatless Me City troth any and all dame brought by User, its en oi.yeas or agents, or third Part" which arse out of the users access or use of dam provided CITY OF CIIA HASSEN 7700 Markel Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.d.chanhassen.w.us Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Planning File: 04-18 Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit Property The southeast intersection of the future alignment of Location: Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. 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 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Comments: or a -mail saliaffOci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. 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 SW 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 Gose 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 commerciallindustrial. • 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 spokespersontrepresentative 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. It you wish to have somelhina to be included In the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. CITY OF CHA HASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.d.chanhassen.mn.us This map is neither a legally recorded map nor, a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This nap is a conpilmon of records, infonrebon and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and Mar sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference W rposes only. The City does not vearrard that the Geographic Information Systam (GIS) Data used to prepare this nap are error tree, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any outer purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in she depiction of geographic features. H errors or discrepancies are found please contact g -227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §666.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not W liaple for any damages, and etpressly waives all claim, and agrees to defend, indenrity, and hcttl hanHess the Dry frown any and all Gains brought by Usam its employees or agents, or third parties which mise out of the useh access or use of data provided, Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Planning File: 04-18 Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit Property The southeast intersection of the future alignment of Location: Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. 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 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952 -227 -1134 - Comments: or e-mail saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. 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 commercialAndustdal. • 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 spokespersonlrepresentative 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 PlannIna Staff person named on the notification. Subject Site HIM This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is rwt intended to be used as one. This map is a com,,laeon of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shovm, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geograi Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, "the City does not represent that the GIS Data can W used for navigatonal, traclag or any other aurpose retuning exacting measurement M distance or diredion or precision in the depiction of geograpltic features. If emom or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding discerner is provided Whatnot to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (20D0), and the user of this map acknoyttedges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all darns, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold handers the City from my and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third partes which ansa out of the users access or use of data provided. Subject Site TMs nep is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a conpllaton of records, intonation and data located m various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference W Noses only The City does not yya ant Mal the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tract irp or any other furpose, requiring trading measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geogmphc features. If arms or discrepancies are found pease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding discerner is provided Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this nap winfoxledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all darn, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hdtl harmless the City from any and all darts brought by User, its employees or agents, or mind tames which arse out of the users access or use 0 dela provided. Taxes Generated by Different Development Scenarios 4/7/2004 Prepared by Ehlers Associates Page 1 Average Total Fiscal Local taxes Consist of: Market Total Taxes Total State Disparities Total Local Value Paid Taxes Taxes Taxes CounW Cltv School Other Scenario One 42,044 sq. ft. of commercial (13,000 sq. ft. office, 11,500 sq. ft. strip mall, daycare, and $133/sq. ft. $212,277 $58,945 $52,277 $101,055 $34,302 $29,873 $32,766 $4,113 restaurant) on 4 acres; and Park and Ride on 4 acres Scenario Two 8 acres containing 80,000 sq. ft. of $130/sq. ft. $403,283 $112,141 $99,454 $191,689 $65,259 $56,687 $61,918 $7,825 commercial and restaurant space Scenario Three 8 acres containing 104,000 square feet of $135/sq. ft. $544,913 $151,532 $134,389 $258,992 $88,182 $76,591 $83,645 $10,574 office space Scenario Four 4 acres containing 50 owner occupied townhomes (12 $275,000 per $202,800 $0 $0 $202,800 $66,609 $59,709 $68,494 $7,987 units/acre); 4 acres of unit Park and Ride Scenario Five 96 owner occupied $275,000 per townhomes on 8 acres $389,376 $0 $0 $389,376 $127,890 $114,642 $131,509 $15,336 (12 units per acre) unit 4/7/2004 Prepared by Ehlers Associates Page 1 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Proposal: Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Planning File: 04-18 Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit Property The southeast intersection of the future alignment of Location: Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. 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 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Comments: or e-mail saliaffOci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. 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 commercialrndustrial. • 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 spokespersonlrepresentative 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. It 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, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Proposal: Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Planning File: 04-18 Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit Property The southeast intersection of the future alignment of Location: Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. 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 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Comments: or e-mail sallaffOci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. 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 commerciaVndustdal. • 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 spokespersorVrepresentative 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 personal. • 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 Plannina Staff person named on the notification. Koch Refining Company AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Kyle Williams [KyleWilliams@lsadesigninc.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:05 PM To: saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: Isimich@swtransit.org Subject: Chanhassen ParkRide-Report.doc Chanhassen Park and Ride Chanhassen, Minnesota ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Noise and Air Quality Prepared for the Southwest Metro Transit Commission LSA Design, Inc. by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 19 April 2004 4/21/2004 Page 1 of 16 Koch Refining Company Table of Contents .0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 ;.0 NOISE IMPACT IMPACTS................................................................................... 4 2.1. Noise Sources......................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Methodology and Assumptions................................................................................. 4 2.3. Noise Model Results................................................................................................ 6 ;.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS...................................................................................... 9 3.1. Methodology and Assumptions................................................................................. 9 3.2. Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results........................................................................ 10 3.3. Diesel Engine Emissions for Model Year 2007 and Later .......................................... 11 -.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 12 4/21/2004 Page 2 of 16 Koch Refining Company List of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of the Site Relative to the TH 212(M 101 Interchange .............. 2 Figure 1.2 Schematic of Bus Movements at the Facility ............................................... 3 Figure 2.1 Roadway Geometries and Receptor Locations ............................................ 5 Figure 2.2 L10 Contribution by Roadway Group........................................................... 8 4/21/2004 Page 3 of 16 Koch Refining Company List of Tables Table 2.1 Predicted AM (6-7 am) Noise Levels.......................................................... 6 Table 2.2 Predicted PM (5-6 pm) Noise Levels........................................................... 7 Table 3.1 Predicted 1 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) ..................... 10 Table 3.2 Predicted 8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) ..................... 10 4/21/2004 Page 4 of 16 Koch Refining Company 1.0 INTRODUCTION Page 5 of 16 This environmental assessment addresses potential noise and air quality impacts from the proposed Chanhassen Park and Ride facility to be located in the southeast quadrant of the future TH 12/312 interchange in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The facility will serve eight buses during the AM and the PM peak hours, with a maximum of two buses idling for approximately five minutes as it discharges or picks up passengers. Because of the interchange configuration, buses during the AM period will enter and depart along the northern access serving the facility. During the PM period, buses will circle the parking ramp area to return to TH 101. The two-level parking ramp will accommodate up to 800 vehicles. It is assumed for a worst case scenario that all these vehicles will access TH 101 from Lyman Avenue and use the roadway along the east side of the park and ride to access the parking ramp. In addition to transportation -related land uses, new residential development within the site is proposed. These may include for -sale condominium and rental units. Location of the site relative to the TH 101 interchange and adjacent residential land uses is shown in Figure 1.1. A schematic of bus movements through and around the facility is shown in Figure 1.2. Section 2.0 of the report addresses noise impacts associated with the proposed facility. Section 3.0 of the report addresses air quality impacts (primarily Carbon Monoxide) associated with the facility. Section 4.0 of the report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this assessment. 4/21/2004 Koch Refining Company Figure 1.1 Location of the Site Relative to the TH 212/TH 101 Interchange 4/21/2004 Page 6 of 16 Koch Refining Company Figure 1.2 Schematic of Bus Movements at the Facility 4/21/2004 Page 7 of 16 Koch Refining Company 2.0 NOISE IMPACT IMPACTS 2.1. Noise Sources Page 8 of 16 A number of roadways in the area as well as the Park and Ride facility will contribute noise to adjacent land uses. These include the future TH 212 Eastbound and Westbound lanes as well as the on- and off -ramps associated with the highway. Traffic along TH 101 and to a much lesser extent traffic along Lyman Avenue will also contribute to noise. Sources of noise from the Park and Ride facility will include buses entering and leaving the facility. It is assumed that buses will not use the high idle mode when waiting, picking up or discharging passengers, so that bus idling is not anticipated to add significantly to the noise level. In addition to buses, up to 400 vehicles may enter or leave the parking ramp during the peak AM or peak PM hour, traveling along Lyman Avenue and the roadway along the east side of the Park and Ride facility. 2.2. Methodology and Assumptions The assessment compares noise levels with the Minnesota noise standards for residential land uses shown in Table 1.1. The L10 metric represents the noise level not to be exceeded for 10% or six minutes of an hour. The L50 metric represents the level not to be exceeded for 50% or 30 minutes of an hour. Table 2.1 Minnesota State Noise Standards Noise Area Classification Daytime (0700-2200) (Sound levels in dBA) Nighttime (2200-700) (Sound levels in dBA) Noise Metric L10 L50 L10 L50 1 (residential) 65 60 55 50 2 (commercial) 70 65 70 65 3 (industrial) 80 75 80 75 Source: Minnesota Rules 7020.0040 The FHWA highway noise model has been used to estimate noise levels for the AM and PM periods at sensitive locations adjacent to the facility as well as future residential uses that are to be constructed in conjunction with the facility. For the model, a specialized vehicle representing a bus has been used. This source assumes a higher noise level at lower speeds as the bus accelerates and a lower noise level as the bus reaches higher speeds, which is a reasonable representation of noise from buses expected to use the facility. Since these sound levels are based upon extensive data collected from urban transit buses, projected noise levels associated with buses that will actually use the facility may be overstated. The roadway geometries and receptor locations use for the noise analysis is shown in Figure 2.1. AM and PM traffic volumes obtained for a previous study of air quality at interchanges along TH 212 were used in the model. As noted above, for the AM period, buses are assumed to enter the north access directly from TH 101, pick up passengers and then enter the eastbound on ramp to TH 212 directly. For the PM period, buses are assumed to enter the north access from TH 101 but then circle the parking ramp to the south to return to TH 101. 4/21/2004 Koch Refining Company Figure 2.1 Roadway Geometries and Receptor Locations 4/21/2004 Page 9 of 16 Koch Refining Company Page 10 of 16 An extensive buffer east of the facility is proposed that will provide approximately a 100 foot deep belt of evergreens of different sizes to provide a dense area of vegetation that will reduce sound levels approximately 3 dBA. The bus waiting area and parking ramp will provide some shielding of noise to the south, where a day care facility and residential units are proposed. 23. Noise Model Results Predicted noise levels for the AM or 6-7 am period are presented in Table 2.2. It should be noted that these noise levels are due primarily to background traffic, since bus activity during this time period will occur at the northern access roadway only. Table 2.1 Predicted AM (6-7 am) Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor Site LIO Standard L50 Standard #1 Bus Waiting Area 69.5 70 60.3 65 #2 Day Care Playground n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. #3 Apt/Condo (north) 62.2 55 59.2 50 #4 Apt/Condo (south) 61.2 55 58.4 50 #5 Home (north) 58.9 55 55.2 50 #6 Home (south) 57.0 55 54.4 50 The bus waiting area, which will be exposed to bus noise, falls under the NAC -2 land use classification and is expected to comply with the noise standard for this type of land use. The Day Care Playground is normally not intended for use from 6 to 7 am. However, all of the residential land uses are expected to exceed the nighttime noise standards because ambient noise from the interchange, TH 101 and motor vehicles accessing the parking ramp. Receptor Site #5 Home (north) which is located immediately east of the parking ramp will experience only a limited increase in noise from the facility since no buses will be using the east roadway to travel south and back to TH 101, as will occur during the PM period. Throughout the Metropolitan area, residential land uses adjacent to transportation facilities are normally exposed to noise levels over the "nighttime" standards during the 6-7 am period. Exceptions to the Minnesota rules will permit construction of residential land uses at this site providing certain conditions are met as noted below. Under exceptions contained in Minnesota Rules, commercial noise standards (NAC -2) or an L50 of 65 dBA can be applied to a residential land use providing the provision in the rules can be met. The applicable provisions of Minnesota Rule 7030.0050 are presented below. Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a land use may be changed in the following ways if the applicable conditions are met. B. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 2 shall be applied to a building in a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met: (1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least 30 dB(A); (2) the building has year-round climate control; and (3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities. Any new home or residential unit constructed to comply with the Minnesota energy code will likely comply with the first two conditions listed above. Outdoor areas associated with homes are not normally intended for use between 6-7 am when the highest "nighttime" levels occur. Therefore, it is expected that residential land uses can be constructed on the site that will comply with the Minnesota noise standards. 4/21/2004 Koch Refining Company Predicted noise levels for the PM (5-6 pm) period are presented in Table 2.3. Table 2.2 Predicted PM (5-6 pm) Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor Site L10 Standard L50 Standard #1 Bus Waiting Area 69.4 70 60.0 65 #2 Day Care Playground 68.7 70 59.6 65 #3 Apt/Condo (north) 67.2 65 59.2 60 #4 Apt/Condo (south) 63.0 65 59.5 60 #5 Home north 63.1 65 55.4 60 #6 Home (south) 59.3 65 55.4 60 Page 11 of 16 Both receptor #1 and #2 are classified under NAC -2 and will therefore comply with the noise standards. Only the apartments or condominiums that are located along the access roadway used by buses to return to TH 101 will experience a noise level over 65 dBA. However, with appropriate design, planned outdoor uses that are located south of the buildings, rather than on the access roadway, should ensure compliance with the daytime standards. The contribution of individual roadways was also evaluated for the PM Peak Hour, where buses travel through the facility rather than only on the north access roadway. The relative L10 contributions for individual roadways or roadway groups are presented in Figure 2.2. Only #3 Apt/Condo (north) is estimated to exceed the NAC -1 (residential) daytime standard (Receptors #1 and #2 fall under NAC -2). However, it can be seen that this exceedance is not caused directly by passing buses but indirectly by the sum of noise from buses as well as a large number of other sources, especially TH 212 EB and TH 101. Therefore, buses are not the sole reason for this slight exceedance of the noise standard. 4/21/2004 Koch Refining Company Figure 2.2 L10 Contribution by Roadway Group 4/21/2004 Page 12 of 16 Koch Refining Company Page 13 of 16 3.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 3.1. Methodology and Assumptions The air quality analysis of Carbon Monoxide, the most common pollutant considered for local impact analysis of transportation systems, is based upon an extended model developed as part of the Environmental Assessment update for the TH 212 corridor. That model, as was done for the noise analysis discussed above, considered the entire interchange and related roadways. The addition of the bus and automobile access roadways (as well as the parking ramp) completed the model used here for analyzing potential air quality impacts of the Park and Ride facility. The roadway system and receptor site locations for the air quality analysis was identical with that shown in Figure 2.1 Since detailed traffic volumes were available for the 2007 projection year, that year was also selected for the analysis of the Park and Ride facility. Buses using the facility as well as automobiles traveling to and from the parking ramp were superimposed on this background traffic to determine overall air quality levels. For the air quality analysis, it was assumed that, during the PM Peak Hour, eight buses entered the facility from TH 101 and circled the parking ramp to reach TH 101, where they traveled north to the westbound on-ramp for TH 212. To ensure a conservative estimate of Carbon Monoxide concentrations and a worst case scenario, it was assumed that the eight buses idled for the entire hour. It was also assumed, as a worst case scenario, that 400 vehicles, or half the parking capacity, depart the parking ramp depart during the PM Peak Hour, exiting to the east roadway, then traveling south to Lyman Avenue and back west to TH 101. Worst case Carbon Monoxide concentrations were estimated at each of the six receptor sites along with the wind direction that yielded these concentrations. In addition to the roadway emissions model, an area -source model was used to estimate emissions and concentrations associated with the parking structure. The EDMS (Emission and Dispersion Modeling System) model developed for the Federal Aviation Administration permits the evaluation of parking lots of this type and was used for this analysis. The wind direction yielding worst case roadway concentrations at each receptor was then used to determine the concentration (with that wind direction) at each of the receptor sites. These two values were then combined and added to an assumed background concentration that was determined from extensive MnDOT monitoring data around the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The analysis was performed for both a 1 -hour and an 8 -hour period, since the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm is much more critical than the 1 -hour standard of 30 ppm. The 8 -hour concentration was estimated using an adjustment factor of 0.70 that is the commonly accepted practice for highway air quality studies. 3.2. Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results The predicted 1 -hour Carbon Monoxide concentrations are presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Predicted 1 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Receptor Site I Roadway Parking I Background I Total #1 Bus Waiting Area 10.65 10.50 1 1.13 1 2.28 4/21/2004 Koch Refining Company #2 Day Care Playground 0.46 2.08 1.13 3.67 #3 Apt/Condo (north) 0.69 1.47 1.13 3.29 #4 Apt/Condo (south) 0.47 1.14 1.13 2.74 #5 Home (north) 0.48 0.50 1.13 2.11 #6 Home (south) 0.51 1.07 1.13 2.71 MPCA Standard 0.34 0.11 0.79 30.00 Note: ppm = parts per million Page 14 of 16 It can be seen that the maximum Carbon Monoxide concentration is approximately 12% of the 1 -hour standard and all concentrations are well below the 1 -hour standard of 30 ppm. The predicted 8 -hour Carbon Monoxide concentrations are presented in Table 3.2. The 8 -hour parking concentrations are considerably lower than the 1 -hour, since little activity is assumed for the seven hours prior to the PM Peak Hour. The maximum 8 -hour concentration is approximately 18% of the 8 -hour standard, but all concentrations are also well below the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm. Table 3.2 Predicted 8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Receptor Site Roadway Parking Background Total #1 Bus Waiting Area 0.46 0.11 0.79 1.35 #2 Day Care Playground 0.32 0.44 0.79 1.55 #3 Apartment (north) 0.48 0.31 0.79 1.59 #4 Apartment (south) 0.33 0.24 0.79 1.36 #5 Home (north) 0.34 0.11 0.79 1.23 #6 Home (south) 1 0.36 1 0.23 10.79 1.38 MPCA Standard I I I9.00 Note: ppm = parts per million Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on Carbon Monoxide concentrations are anticipated from the proposed Park and Ride facility. The issue of potential particulate emissions and odor is discussed below. 4/21/2004 Koch Refining Company 3.3. Diesel Engine Emissions for Model Year 2007 and Later Page 15 of 16 New emission standards have been adopted for diesel engines manufactured and fuel sold for model years 2004 to 2006. For the Model Year 2007, the standards are more stringent. Actual particulate emissions will depend upon the make and model year of the buses to be used at the Park and Ride facility. Since the facility will be operated in conjunction with the new TH 212, it is anticipated that particular emissions from buses using the facility will be lower that with current equipment. Since odor associated with diesel exhaust is primarily related to particular emissions, it is anticipated that odors associated with bus activity at the Park and Ride facility will be even lower than might occur at existing park and ride facilities. Standards for model year 2007 and later heavy-duty highway engines include two components: (1) emission standards, and (2) diesel fuel regulation. The first component of the regulation introduces new, very stringent emission standards, as follows: • PM - 0.01 g/bhp-hr • NOx - 0.20 g/bhp-hr • NMHC - 0.14 g/bhp-hr The PM emission standard will take full effect in the 2007 heavy-duty engine model year. The NOX and NMHC standards will be phased in for diesel engines between 2007 and 2010. The phase-in would be on a percent -of - sales basis: 50%a from 2007 to 2009 and 100% in 2010 (gasoline engines are subject to these standards based on a phase-in requiring 50% compliance in 2008 and 100% compliance in 2009). Effective 2007 model year, the regulation also eliminates the earlier crankcase emission control exception for turbocharged heavy-duty diesel engines. Crankcase emissions from these engines are treated the same as (i.e., added to) other exhaust emissions. Manufacturers are expected to control crankcase emissions by routing them back to the engine intake or to the exhaust stream, upstream of the exhaust emission control devices. The diesel fuel regulation limits the sulfur content in on -highway diesel fuel to 15 ppm (wt.), down from the previous 500 ppm. Refiners will be required to start producing the 15 ppm S fuel beginning June 1, 2006. At the terminal level, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard as of July 15, 2006. For retail stations and wholesale purchasers, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard by September 1, 2006. Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel has been introduced as a "technology enabler" to pave the way for advanced, sulfur - intolerant exhaust emission control technologies, such as catalytic diesel particulate filters and NO, catalysts, which will be necessary to meet the 2007 emission standards. EPA's review in 2003 of industry progress shows that engine manufacturers are on target to introduce new engines in 2007; diesel particulate filters that reduce harmful PM emissions by more than 90% will be used by all manufacturers; NOx control will be accomplished using proven technologies, some of which are in production today; and engine manufacturers will conduct early protoype testing with trucking customers in 2005. In 2007, these new clean engines operating on the 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, reduce PM emissions by more than 90%, will substantially contribute to air quality improvement, help states meet Clean Air Act goals and further protect public health and the environment. (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#progreport2) 4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed Park and Ride facility is planned to serve a maximum of eight buses per hour with parking for 800 motor vehicles. During the AM period buses will enter and depart along the north access to the facility and will therefore have minimal impact on both noise and air quality. During the PM period, buses will enter at the north from TH 101 and circle the parking ramp to return to TH 101 to reach the TH 212 westbound on-ramp. These buses will travel along the east roadway of the facility and between the parking ramp and the new residential 4/21/2004 Koch Refining Company Page 16 of 16 structures to be constructed as part of the project. These buses will have somewhat more impact on noise and air quality, although the impacts will be limited. Noise levels during 6-7 AM, which fall under the nighttime period, are expected to exceed the Minnesota noise standards primarily due to traffic on the new TH 212, its ramps, and TH 101. Appropriate construction of the new housing proposed for the site can permit higher noise limits to be applied and therefore can comply with noise standards. Noise levels during the PM Peak Hour are generally under the state noise standards except for the apartments that face the access roadway carrying departing buses. However, the 2 dBA exceedance is within modeling error and may not be a problem if no outdoor uses are planned for the north side of these buildings. The buses alone are not sufficient to cause the noise standards to be exceeded. Contributions from the other roadways are sufficient for this small exceedance of the standards. Predicted air quality (carbon monoxide concentrations) are well below both the 1 -hour and the 8 -hour standard and no air quality problems are anticipated with operation of the facility. As new diesel engine and diesel fuel regulations are implemented, the potential for odor associated with the facility will also decrease. Appropriate equipment will be able to operate at the facility with little or no odor impacts. y:\jobs\2003jobs\2030824eport\bmdbury mouth assessment mportAm 4/21/2004 To:1 3 � S.C Date: / S SI From: l l e'ic ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTSFOR YOUR INFORMATION ❑ FOR YOUF�APP OVAL ❑ NOTE & RETURN ❑ TAKE N ❑ NOTE & FILE ❑ CALL ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ SEE ❑ ❑ REPL ❑ P- e — 0 0 Copyright 1989, 1970—Laurel Office Aids, Inc., Branxvllle, N.Y. 1070 V.W. Einucke Associates, Inc., Bncnx lls, N.V. 10708 T.I. (914) 337-1900 • F. (914) 3371723 Distributed In Canada solely by V.W. Eimicks Ltd., Peterborough, Ontario Tel. (705) 743-4202 • Fax (705) 70.19994 PRI IN USA orm OA -4 Date: May 4, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Request for a Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd., Southwest Metro Transit Planning Case: 04-18 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 30, 2004. The 60day review period ends June 29, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 21, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. Southwest Metro Transit Rezoning Request Planning Case No. 04-18 Location Map Subject Site 0 CONCEPT PLAN DIAGRAM Transit Station !�- Parking Deck 800 cars max. 100' Buffer Commercial/Retail 16,000 sq. ft. Housing 16 units/acre max. Enhanced Landscaping SITE ACCESS: BUSES {■■ SOUTHBOUND ■ ■ ■ ■� NORTHBOUNC .--*OO ■ > rl�` m ca SITE z LY W AM BUS MOVEMENT PM BUS MOVEMENT J CAR ACCESS Date: May 4, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner W/l J(iy1 '5,l11IaH Subject: Request for a Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd., Southwest Metro Transit Planning Case: 04-18 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 30, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends June 29, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Comunission on June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 21, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your coopera[ion and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official L Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. Southwest Metro Transit Rezoning Request Planning Case No. 04-18 Location Map CONCEPT PLAN DIAGRAM VM Transit Station Parking Deck 800 cars max. , 100' Buffer Commercial/Retail 16,000 sq. ft. 1 1 Housing I 16 unitslacre max. ....... - Enhanced Landscaping LYMAN BLVD SITE ACCESS: BUSES (■ � SOUTHBOUNC ■ ■ ■ ■) NORTHBOUNC i■■■■■■*■0- ■ > SITF LYM/ w a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■) MEMEF Lu ■ � �� :fir O■ IL �400� • - AM BUS MOVEMENT PM BUS MOVEMENT M M a ■ CAR ACCESS SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MD(EDD USE PUD including neighborhood commercial, residential and transit facilities. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Small to medium sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet (no drive-thru windows) Office day care neighborhood scale commercial -strip mall up to 20,000 square feet convenience store —/7, 5qS S** j specialty retail (book store, jewelry, etc.) personal services c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Required Minimum Pro osed From Lyman Boulevard 50 feet From Highway 101 50 feet From Highway 212 50 feet From Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Interior Project property lines 0 Feet Residential Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less d. Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, cedar siding, vinyl siding in residential with support materials, or approved equivalent as determined by the city. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. e. Site Landscaping and Screening All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I shall be installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of individual site plan approvals, but we believe the buffer yard and boulevard plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 2. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited. 4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to Yin height, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. f. Signage One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification sign may also be located at the entrances to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. Pylon signs are prohibited. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. 2. All signs require a separate sign permit. 3 3. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. 4. Wall Signs: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs are prohibited. C. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. C. Back lit awnings are prohibited. 5. Window Signs a. Window signs shall not cover more than 25 percent of the window area in which they are located. b. Window signs shall not use bright, garish, or neon paint, tape, chalk, or paper. 6. Menu Signs a. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. b. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood framed chalkboard and/or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No paper construction or messages will be permitted. C. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Plastic flags and banners are prohibited. 4 C. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric. d. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. e. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. f. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. g. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. 8. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. 9. Pole Directory Sign a. Pole directory signs consisting of single poles with individual nameplate type directional arrows may be located within the development. b. Pole directory sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height. C. Directory signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk. d. A maximum of eight directory signs may be provided per pole. e. The maximum size of an individual sign shall be 18 inches long by four inches wide. Poles shall be a minimum of 10 feet behind the curb. h. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. 2. A shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. W 4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 5. Light poles shall be limited to a height of 20 feet. 6. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. I. Parking Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. A minimum of 75 percent of a building's parking shall be located to the "rear" of the structure, enclosed garages, and in underground garages. 3. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The officelpersonal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. Residential uses shall provide 1.5 spaces per unit as underground parking with visitor spaces provided as part of the commercial/office uses. R Application for Use of the Library Meeting Rooms Chanhassen Library 7711 Kerber Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Returning this form does not guarantee room reservation. Your reservation will be confirmed via e-mail to the address you indicate below: n Today's Date 2 am am Day Room is Needed: —! tT) I Time Needed: from 6 ' UU Aato �./ Approximate Size of Group: 8 0 Meeting Room R i ce,ted (c�eree Thornton Wilting Room (up to 12S)Lan1g a ow oce Room (up to Easel with paper/markers--$5.00 flat charge for use: Yes Information on Organization r Organization Name: l, 1 0 1 C Contact Address Sinclair Lewis Teen Room (up to 15) Maud Hart Lovelace Room (up to 6) Kitchen: Yes (Wilder room only) (Street)( ) 2.�_— I 1 I City) ( 952 ;State t— 1 ` 1 O Phone: r`_' Fax: Purpose or Function of Organization: L o cel Un V e� vvv e_ Purpose of the Meeting:a `�(6n�,�Af.e Billing Information (if different from above)5y Q 1 Name: Address: (Street) Phone: ( ) (City) (State/Zip) Fax: ( ) Information of Individual Filing Application Name Phone: ( ) E -Mail: Address: Fax:( ) (Street) (City) (State/Zip) Schedule of Fees Commercial Groups/ Non -Profits (as defined b Business Groups Open hours: $ 0 per hour Open hours: $50 per hour Closed hours $20 per hour I Closed hours: $70 per hour A deposit of 50% is due with your completed application. Checks should be made payable to Carver County Library. I affirm that I am at least twenty-one years of age. I have read and understand the regulations pertaining to the use of the Chanhassen Library Meeting Rooms, and I agree to abide by the regulations. Signature 6rIndividual Filing Application Date Signed Return completed application to: Geri Thostenson Chanhassen Library PO Box 1130 7711 Kerber Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 952-227-1500 Fax: 952-227-1510 Office Use Only Room Reserved: Confirmed: Fee: Deposit: Balance Due: August 28, 2003 LIBRARY MEETING ROOM POLICIES & FEE STRUCTURE Who may use Meeting Rooms ■ Library meeting rooms are available to any organization. The Carver County Library System does not advocate or endorse the viewpoints of meetings or meeting room users. ■ Non-profit groups may use meeting rooms without payment of fees during library hours. They must allow the general public access to their meetings, and may not charge admission fees. ■ Governmental agencies or officials may close the meeting rooms to the public as the law may permit. ■ For-profit groups or enterprises may use the meeting moms with payment of fees, but may not sell or dispense a product or distribute advertising other than in the meeting room. They may exclude the public from the meeting rooms. Scheduling Meetings: ■ Meetings maybe scheduled up to six months in advance and are available on a first come, first served basis. No group has an automatic right to a certain date on a regular basis. ■ Governmental agencies or the Library however, may schedule meetings on a permanent basis and as far in advance as is necessary. ■ The Library reserves the right to ask any group to change the time or date of its meeting if the meeting room is needed for Library purposes. • Meeting rooms may be scheduled tentatively by telephone, but must be followed up by a written application before they are considered reserved. ■ Applications must be received at least 7 working days prior to the request date. ■ Meeting rooms are available from 9 am to 9 pm, Monday through Thursday and 9 am through 5 pm on Friday and Saturday. ■ One half hour will be scheduled between any two meetings in the same room. ■ Reservations for the meeting rooms will be made according to the size and needs of the group making the reservation. Room occupancy is as follows: *Commercial / Business Groups that are current sponsors of the Friends of the Chanhassen Library (Bifocal program) will receive a 20% discount on the Open Hour Fees. ** Non profit groups as defined by the IRS *** Additional fees paid for staffing after hours are reimbursed to the Carver County Library System, in addition to the "Fees for Open Hours" for both Commercial and Non Profit. Use of the Meeting Rooms ■ No elaborate cooking allowed. Coffee or other non-alcoholic beverages and simple bars, cookies, or other foods may be served. No red dye based beverage or food allowed; for example, Kool-aid or jello. • All activities must be supervised on premises by at least one adult. The person completing the meeting room application is ultimately responsible. ■ Meeting room users are responsible to set up the room before use and return the room to the seating plan posted in each room (attached). All meeting rooms must be left in a clean condition. If the condition is unacceptable to Library Staff, the group will be billed for cleaning and damages and/or may lose future use of the rooms. ■ The Library and its staff and representatives are not responsible for any loss or damage suffered by meeting room users or their guests. ■ The Library's "Conduct in the Library" policy applies to the use of the meeting rooms. Noise and conduct are expected to be maintained at a level that does not disrupt meeting room use or other people in the library. • Individuals attending meetings with children are responsible for the supervision of those children. ■ The Library shall not be identified as the meeting room user's address or office. The Library will not receive mail on behalf of the user or keep any materials, equipment, or personal property of the user. Policy for Study Rooms Individual study rooms seat 2-3 people. These rooms are available on a first-come, first served basis. The Library reserves the right to limit usage that violates the purposes of the Library's policies. Americans with Disabilities Act ■ Groups using the Library's meeting rooms are required to provide accommodations for persons with disabilities. Any additional cost for this accommodation will be the responsibility of the group. Public notices of the group's meetings should include this statement: "Persons who need special accommodations please notify the Chanhassen Circulation Supervisor at 952-227-1500 to arrange for special accommodations" If groups rearrange furniture in the meeting rooms, ADA requires a 36" walkway to be maintained. • Hearing -assisted devices are provided by the library for use in the Thornton Wilder Meeting room at no additional cost to organizations. Cancellations ■ Cancellation of events must be made at least 48 hours in advance. In this way, others may be able to use the space and assigned staff can plan other activities. In Case of Fire ■ Lighted Fire Exit signs are at each emergency exit. Approved by Carver County Library Board of Trustees, August 18, 2003 2 Jon Chiglo -Scott Walz Inquiry Til From: Darlene Lazer To: Freese, Lisa Date: 3/10/04 10:25AM Subject: Scott Walz Inquiry Lisa, Joanne Overgaauw from Lt Gov. office called at 9:25 with the following Mr. Scott Walz (Tel. 952-886-3541) called the Governor's office on Friday and the Lt Gov. this a.m.. He wanted to let them know there was a city council meeting on March 31 at 7pm - City of Chanhassen where they will be voting on whether or not they want the Park and Ride at 212 and 101. Lisa, would we normally have someone at that Council Meeting for any reason? Mr. Walz is wondering - should the Council vote NOT to allow the park and ride - can Mn/DOT slap it in there anyway, because we have already acquired the land etc. Would you call Mr. Walz and then e-mail JoAnn and I the outcome Thanks much. Darlene R. Lazer Executive Assistant dariene.lazer@dot.state.mn.us Phone: 651.582.1358 CC: Hughes, Patrick; Overgaauw, JoAnn PARK & RIDE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 31, 2004 NAME ADDRESS PHONE/EMAIL John Cadle 301 Shoreview Court jcadle@msn.com Chris Caspersen Chanhassen, MN 55317 cacaspersen@mchsi.com Del & Nancy Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. n.smith3567@aol.com Lynn Arnal Chanhassen, MN 55317 k.arnal@mchsi.com Kevin Hanson 9163 Sunnyvale kevin.hanson@mchsi.com Mark Anderson Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-403-1310 John Meyers 1011 Barbara Court ppfriar@aol.com Justin Miller Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-227-1118 Katja Jeanneet 583 Summerfield Drive katja.jeanneet@ge.com Chanhassen, MN 55317 connien@gbronline.com Chris Caspersen 580 Summerfield Drive cacaspersen@mchsi.com Chanhassen, MN 55317 supereddie@mail.com Lynn Arnal 8661 Chanhassen Hills k.arnal@mchsi.com Drive North garyhab101@aol.com Mark Anderson Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-403-1310 Pat Morley 9143 Springfield Drive ppfriar@aol.com Justin Miller Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-227-1118 Katie Stewart 8545 Chanhassen Hills 952-974-5135 Drive rkstewar@netzero.net Chanhassen, MN 55317 Connie & Tony Nuss 9140 Springfield Drive 952-402-0625 Chanhassen, MN 55317 connien@gbronline.com Nikki Edwards 8905 Quinn Road 952-934-2633 Chanhassen, MN 55317 supereddie@mail.com Phyllis Haberman 9036 Sunnyvale 952-403-6689 Chanhassen, MN 55317 garyhab101@aol.com Mark Anderson 9111 Overlook Court 952-403-1310 Chanhassen, MN 55317 lisamark.anderson@mchsi.com Justin Miller 952-227-1118 City of Chanhassen jmiller@ci.chanhassen.mn.us I PARK & RIDE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 31, 2004 NAME ADDRESS PHONE/EMAIL Jeff Reitan 8900 Quinn Road 952-974-7941 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bob Worthington 952-974-3109 Southwest Metro Transit minnetonkabob@yahoo.com Cora & Josh Conklin Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-906-2880 jeconklin@eschelon.com Felicia Lindquist 9107 Sunnyvale 952-445-4514 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TFZP@mchsi.com Jack Schnabel 9167 Sunnyvale 952-402-9147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 jschnabelfamily@mchsi.com Fred Riese 9154 Sunnyvale 952-233-1633 Chanhassen, min 55317 Paul Paulson 9250 Great Plains Blvd. 952-233-5357 Chanhassen, MN 55317 paul@sodela.com Annette Walters 622 Summerfield Drive 952-233-3796 Chanhassen, MN 55317 John Sanders 559 Greenview Drive 952-974-8347 Chanhassen, MN 55317 john@johnpsanders.com Rich & Lisa Simmons 530 Summerfield Drive 952-445-1728 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patty & Craig Mullen 611 Summerfield Drive 952-403-0611 Chanhassen, MN 55317 c.mullen@mchsi.com Terry Helland 491 Summerfield Drive 952-445-6665 Chanhassen, MN 55317 thelland@hga.com Dan Sherred 525 Summerfield Drive 952-445-5563 Chanhassen, MN 55317 rdmsherred@aol.com Doug Bernard 515 Summerfield Drive 952-233-5668 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Don & Martha Newell 900 Lake Susan Drive 952-937-6127 Chanhassen, MN 55317 mnewell@carlson.com 2 PARK & RIDE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 31, 2004 NAME ADDRESS PHONE/EMAIL Mike Smith 409 Summerfield 952-233-4949 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jamie Thelen 366 South 10th Avenue 320-202-3100 Waite Park, MN 56387 jjthelen@sandcompanies.com Tom Kelly 9100 Overlook Court 952-445-7417 Chanhassen, MN 55317 tsk@mchsi.com Ed Coughlin 587 Summerfield Drive 952-233-2052 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ecoughlin@crosstelecom.com Jack Raymakers 640 Summerfield Drive 952-496-2760 Chanhassen, MN 55317 raymaykers_kjee@msn.com Ana & Paul Moreno 603 Summerfield Drive 952-445-4568 Chanhassen, MN 55317 amoreno@ism-sabis.net Tom Peterson 881 Lake Susan Drive 952-937-6263 Chanhassen, MN 55317 tpeterson@nproperties.com Paul Hill 616 Summerfield Drive 952-949-1318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 phill@mchsi.com Keith Schwegler 619 Summerfield Drive 952-445-1559 Chanhassen, MN 55317 keithschwegler@msn.com Curt Kobilaresik 9149 Springfield Drive 952-403-6843 Chanhassen, MN 55317 thekobilareskis@mchsi.com Doug Koch 9136 Springfield Drive 952-233-1111 Chanhassen, MN 55317 dmegkoch@earthlink.net Matt Hudnut 420 Summerfield Drive 952-496-0110 Chanhassen, MN 55317 s.hudnut@att.net Andrew Dahlgren 8631 Chanhassen Hills 952-906-3959 Drive No. dahlgren@mail.donaldson.com Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Blvd,. 952-496-3861 Chanhassen, MN 55317 khastings@kemps.com 3 PARK & RIDE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 31, 2004 NAME ADDRESS Ray Lewis 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jim Douglas 8650 Chanhassen Hills Drive No. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Marcia Eland 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive No. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dave Happe 604 Summerfield Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Fred Potthoff 9231 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 g:\plan\saV 01 & 212 mtusecflw\public mating sign -in list 3-31-04.doc 4 PHONE/EMAIL 952-937-9032 952-934-4998 952-233-2029 dave@ecn►iters.net 9521145-0176 fred.potthoff@metrostate.edu Name �oi�n ��0 Address 3o t S(wc�r��ei✓ Phone # e-mail Address jc�.Ql�msnco C— `T 51 L -KL fjaiv n_ 7h�1 �ilil &/I `1 lb3 Suu/vydp� A) AAI 1OAl 11fV1 N .114wI 5"1 Jahn 3 f�m��r. - ka lju. j'd,0114 4 rtt 0 1.011.1 It. ,% a N �,y,sL, . cov"- Go :G S+e,✓csi Y- 0 -- +Ze,-V. n e 0--ku.c:.ne CANvIleNUSs C4 ' i"'�eJ4Df. 9Sz-4oz-o62S gb onI,"c .GO"j o �•, �� sryos �;v.nn�-1-1 4tiZ.93N�Zia33 s�e'e�e 8036 qsa- 9atiYhwb I�� 1B .n Vrl�If.cs•,AI (ds� tarn Park and Ride Neighborhood Meeting March 31, 2004 Name Address Phone # e-mail Address V4;A AIV 61� if 0�1 , kA (gsa�da� nr�s jr �1e�c'c:_44AA- "AA -Ks �,6 OPW401 sw yrT 9s2 -q�y -,i� �Y&" Jactc �0.bel 416'7 le gsa_c�,a,-ql�J Ss��+Na.gEc�+�', Frey Riese. �sy P�arks (31vd y52 133 5357 iia IPSx{a�wr ��►.5��-r3sg 6,vird q-)y-��y� Q�(.�<i USa S3U Svvv,",Rdd Si,nnw.ov�S � '{'4�5-1121; � Su ivy w.er "�t I C- nw Ileae MGItSi . ' Mint' D � y 03- o rel Y 41.r Corp Co m Name Address Phone # e-mail Address TAzafl 411 svmmwvay D TAfIIA4'JS) wit. PW6 0152 4� s • r,[�s p bao, cJ iter+ SdSsuh,n.a >Cir�� [1 Sod `�`%S-S3L3 7 r�wccf+e� �� Dom- cZE>I-GDS � Str'ndrJ _5'5r SuM/nLf-�'i ouq J� T7r,u� 9sz z33 -sem p of UtIZ:?-' mnewe� z','�' 10'*'% AW 370 -ZoZ =31 J U JJ•-f�u bcN Q y✓a�ic 1�oi �[W 97 C-141wQC4npa Cove r Sg`rSu►, �t� 2Gxw8 L,n ��h�1n 1>r�a N 9SZ233ZoSZ ��,(��pn cn+-� �uG. K L�loSu,•,,,,��E�e1 Ray..,aA-e!f kJeA Q DX C,4tn 93z-y9G-t�cb �rns41,cer7 F+�o Moreno boa- �Iri /vim, pJry1 gQ� [pLtc SNsu. C1 ffL 937%Z63lonP SkkOIM4"e( 44 rI. S• (a'#% �- Ou� �6ch �j��6Stj � 733"lIi i �ufGl�ocFc�c�cxciLl,k.�� Name MA-rT1A.Op Address /,;Lo � Phone # y96-oi/o e-mail Address s_Nuow - k7 Z 263/ CAc-n, HA N, ^41V9a6 SS3/ 1 _q 117 / Ola 4ytit C° p A �. J 41 ! y 1 i c� lr' n�� (' (LAID 1071 (� a Vc,aws Q �foS�7 CQ1AL, L4• itis U. �/ � 3'(''L a `�� f uloq Fo7rH �i23i tAf-c RICe V (3LuD 952 _ y4S-0170 cel/ (,?/Z-237- 2933 1 M roS�ii rP. .i �nna//gon.avq 0 0`7 S. K City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Jobs March 31, 2004 Inside City Hall Our Community Parks & Rec. Safety in the City Seasonal Tips Depts. & Services FAQs Home City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 952-227-1100 Fax: 952-227-1110 Disclaimer Page 1 of 6 Contact Us I Job Opportunities I Site Index Chanhassen: n. tree of sweet sap Quick List Public Meeting Notice New TH 212/101 Intersection The construction of new Highway 212 will result in the realignment of Highway 101 and new development in the area. The City of Chanhassen is organizing a series of three neighborhood meetings to gather input and feedback from residents about future development at the new intersection of Highway 212/101. The goal of these meetings is to create design guidelines and a list of potential uses. The first meeting was held on Wednesday, February 18, 2004. The next meetings are scheduled for Wednesday, March 31, 2004 and Wednesday, April 21, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Chanhassen Senior Center (lower level of City Hall). If you have questions, please feel free to contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner at 952-227-1134 or email at saljaff @ci,chanhassen.mn.us. Click HERE to view a map of the study area in .pdf format. Questions from February 18, 2004 Meeting and Responses TRANSIT - PARK & RIDE 1. Is there a parking plan and how much area will 400 cars occupy? Will the new park and ride be on the north side of the parcel? It is anticipated that approximately three acres will be used for the transit station and parking. The ultimate build -out could be for 800 cars. Southwest Transit's preferred development option is to place the park and ride at the north end of the parcel. 2. What determines the number of stalls? The number of stalls at the proposed park and ride site was determined by Southwest Metro Transit's analysis of future growth demand in the new TH 212 corridor area. It was determined that by the year 2010, between 487 and 3,435 additional park and ride spaces would be needed in the corridor. The number of stalls was influenced by the size of the proposed property, the number of buses that will be available to serve the location, expected rider demand, and routing requirements. Based on all of this information, 800 was determined to be the proper number of stalls at the Lyman Boulevard/Highway 101 location. 3. What is the number of parking spaces available at the Market Boulevard park and ride and why can't the existing park and ride be expanded? Are we closing the Market Boulevard park and ride or is it staying? Who is limiting growth of the Market Boulevard park and ride in Chanhassen? Could the site be redeveloped? Growth of the Market Boulevard park and ride has been limited due to the small http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/212-101 meeting.html 3/31/2004 City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Jobs Page 2 of 6 amount of parking available to Southwest Metro Transit - 120 spaces. The surrounding property owners at the Market Boulevard park and ride lot have an approved redevelopment plan. It is expected that the Southwest Metro Transit portion of the development will be expanded sometime in the future, but will not meet the demand needed in the corridor. 4. How much has ridership increased in the last 2-3 years? Southwest Metro Transit has seen an annual growth trend over the last five years. Growth has averaged 5% per year. 5. Consider a land swap with the parcel to the west. Could the site be moved to the west side of Highway 101? The land located west of Highway 101 has been sold to a third party. The owner intends to develop the site using existing land uses. Any development will require a public hearing. 6. What are the detriments of a park and ride to the residential neighborhood? What is the environmental impact of the additional cars? What is the health effect? Studies of possible detrimental impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods as well as the environmental impacts are being conducted. The site is guided for mixed use - Neighborhood Commercial and High Density Residential. The city and Southwest Metro Transit believe a park and ride will have similar impacts. Special studies, such as air quality, property values, traffic, etc., are underway. A report will be made available at a future meeting with the neighborhood. 7. Are there any other examples? Will property taxes increase? Why believe? Transit -oriented developments provide a mix of housing, retail and transit that is balanced so as to blend with the community. The intent is to build a site that becomes a part of the community that encourages people to explore transit alternatives including walking, biking, and using public transit. Regional examples of transit -oriented developments have been limited because transit has, in general, been a low priority. However, there are projects emerging around the Twin Cities which include the Eagan Transit Station in Eagan, the Apple Valley Transit Station in Apple Valley, and Southwest Station in Eden Prairie. Each of these park and ride locations includes housing, retail, or both. These locations have, and continue to minimize congestion in our freeway system. Regions with more history of transit -oriented development have had even more dramatic results in congension mitigation. Some examples are the Gold Line in Los Angeles; Del Mar Station in Pasadena, California; Addison Circle in Addison, Texas; and Morristown Station in Morristown, New Jersey. Better access often means rising market value for properties and buildings adjacent to bus, rail, and commuter services. 8. Lighting? Lighting on the parking deck and within the site will follow city and Minnesota Building Code guidelines and standards. The Chanhassen City Code requires http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/212-101 meeting. html 3/31/2004 City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Jobs Page 3 of 6 shielded light fixtures. One of the goals of developing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance is to specifically regulate lighting, architecture, landscaping, etc. 9. What are the hours of operation? Partnership with light rail? Southwest Metro's hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The majority of the service is in the rush hour peak periods of 6 a.m. - 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Hours of operation are determined by rider demand and are subject to change. Partnership with light rail is possible should a line be extended to the southwest suburbs, but an extension is not being planned in the foreseeable future. 10. When was the Environmental Impact Study approved? The park and ride facility was included as a part of the 1989 Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The EIS was approved in July of 1993. Other impacts are being studied (see Question 6). 11. Is there a mitigation plan? Opportunities for mitigation are being reviewed and incorporated as we move through the planning process. 12. Is the park and ride set? Yes. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) used highway funds designated for transit improvement purposes to acquire the proposed park and ride site. 13. Could MnDOT construct the park and ride in the right-of-way? The site where the park and ride is planned is excess right-of-way. 14. Resources to look at property values? Based on Eagan/Apple Valley or others? Resources available include the County Assessor's Office for both Carver County and Dakota County. There is GIS data available for the properties near the Eagan and Apple Valley park and ride sites on the Dakota County web site at www.co.dakota.mn.us. There is also detailed information about the property value of the areas surrounding the proposed park and ride at the intersection of TH 212/101 on the Carver County web site at www.co.carver.mn.us. 15. Have other sites been considered? This site was included as part of the Environmental Impact Study and was purchased with funds designated for transit improvement purposes. There are other sites along the TH 212 corridor that are also planned for park and ride. This site was determined to be the best location in Chanhassen because of its location at the intersection of two highways and potential to attract riders. 16. Will property values increase? Property values in general, according to the Carver County Assessor's Office, http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/212-101 meeting. html 3/31/2004 City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Jobs Page 4 of 6 have been increasing steadily since 2000. The most dramatic increases have been in the eastern portion of the county. In addition, better access often means rising market values for properties and buildings adjacent to bus, rail, and commuter services. GENERAL 17. Who was invited? The Chanhassen Hills Neighborhood, the Springfield Neighborhood, and other property owners between the two neighborhoods. This is a public meeting intended to provide an opportunity for "neighborhood planning." Ultimately, a public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council to determine approval of the PUD which will include land use and design standards. 18. The ramp is 20 ft. high. How much higher will the parking ramp be? A typical floor -to -floor height of a parking ramp is 11 feet. An additional 4 feet is needed as a barrier on the upper deck, so the parking deck itself would be approximately 14 feet above the grade level. Glass enclosed stairs would extend another 12-14 feet above the upper deck at two corners of the deck. The transit station adjacent to the deck would have a stair tower within it and extend above the deck as well. 19. What other types of development are planned in the area? Are there other plans for the surrounding area? Mixed Use: The city's Comprehensive Plan designates areas around the proposed TH 101 /212 interchange as mixed use. This category has been established to accommodate both commercial and high density residential developments. This area is currently in the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA-meaning water and sewer can be brought to the site). The commercial use is intended to support or complement the high density development. The high density category, which includes units with a maximum net density of 16.0 units per acre, accommodates apartments and higher density condominium units. Neighborhood commercial uses involve convenience grocery stores, day care facilities, etc., or those uses that meet the daily needs of residents. 20. What is the process? February 18: Neighborhood Meeting - Project Background and Intent March 31: Neighborhood Meeting, 7 p.m. - Alternative Design Concepts and Land Use Schemes April 21: Neighborhood Meeting, 7 p.m. - Preferred Layout Concept and Land Use May: Planning Commission Review and Recommendation of PUD May/June: City Council Action on Final PUD 21. How will the existing properties be buffered? Aesthetics? The developer will provide a landscape buffer consisting of a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. The city will develop a PUD criterion including setbacks, design guidelines, uses, etc. http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/212-101meeting.html 3/31/2004 City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Jobs Page 5 of 6 22. How did uses come about on property? Could high density be put in the study area? The land use designates areas around the proposed TH 101/212 interchange as mixed use. This category has been established to accommodate either commercial or high density residential developments. The Land Use Plan also states that the city will work with Southwest Metro Transit to locate park and ride stops at the future TH 101/212 interchange. 23. Has the Comprehensive Plan changed? The Comprehensive Plan is updated every 10 years. The park and ride has been part of the Comprehensive Plan since the early 1990's. This land use has been in place since 1991. 24. Who owns the study area? MnDOT has purchased the property within the study area as part of the right-of- way for the new TH 212 corridor. MnDOT will later transfer the property to Southwest Metro Transit for developing its park and ride facility. TR ANS PORTATIO N/TRAF FI C 25. What is the elevation of Highway 212 in the study area? The elevation of the north portion of the study area is 914. The proposed elevation of TH 212 at TH 101 will be approximately 900. For comparison purposes, the existing elevation of Lyman Boulevard at Summerfield drive is approximately 920. 26. Why was the full access located off of Lyman Boulevard (or in its current location)? MnDOT limited access off of Highway 101 to a right-in/right-out only. This limited the full access to Lyman Boulevard. The access points to the site are dictated by MnDOT traffic criteria. Southwest Metro Transit is working with MnDOT and an independent consulting traffic engineer to locate all of the ingress and egress points. This goal is to lessen the impact on Lyman Boulevard. 27. Could the city purchase additional residential property for highway construction purposes? There are no additional property acquisitions planned in this area. MnDOT has contacted all property owners whose land is located within the planned highway right-of-way. 28. Address traffic from Highway 101 into Chanhassen Hills. A traffic study is underway. Results will be shared at a future neighborhood meeting. 29. What are the methods/techniques used to calm traffic (single occupancy vehicles)? A traffic study is underway. Results will be shared at a future neighborhood http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/212-101meeting.htn-A 3/31/2004 City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Jobs Page 6 of 6 meeting. 30. Will MnDOT's proposal require variances? This question cannot be answered until actual design has been submitted to the city for review. 31. Why can't buses enter the site from Highway 101? A divided median on Highway 101 makes full access to the site impossible. However, since the last meeting, right-in/right-out access on the east side of Highway 101 for automobiles and buses has been approved by MnDOT. 32. Why can't cars use the slip lane? MnDOT has specified the slip lane as an exclusive bus -way access lane for safety purposes. It will cause interference with vehicular operations on the entrance ramp onto Highway 212. 33. How can we encourage MnDOT to allow a slip lane into the site? Since the last meeting, MnDOT has approved the slip lane. 34. Pedestrian Bridge? No pedestrian bridge is planned. 35. Will buses be using Lyman Boulevard access? Signal at Lyman Boulevard and TH 101? Southwest Metro Transit's preferred development option has minimized the possibility of buses using access from Lyman Boulevard. A traffic study is underway. Results will be shared at a future neighborhood meeting. 36. What is the public's role? To provide input and feedback on the design of the site and to voice concerns to be addressed. City of Chanhassen © 2004 http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/212-101meeting.html 3/31/2004 Agenda Highway 212/101 Intersection Wednesday, March 31, 2004 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Chanhassen Senior Center 1. Introduction 2. Project Intent/Meeting Intent 3. Response to last meeting's questions 4. What has changed since the last meeting 5. Alternative Design Concepts 6. Traffic Overview 7. Other In Progress Work 8. Questions/Discussion 9. Next Steps/Remaining Schedule (■ ■ ■ ■ SOUTHBOUND ■ ■ ■ ■) NORTHBOUND ■ ■ SITE co �W LYMAN BLVD On a ■ o r- ■ _ ■ F" ■ Auld ♦~a l , � 4 y\i � rj .� `. oil J { i , j, 1 , I , , , , t Transit Station f Parking Deck EN; nlclx Q Buffer 1b0" Commercial/Retail Housing 16 unil> �� ex LYMAN BLVD -- 7I —5 • � p��, `'y�Ul t,bti� Folz i TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT -ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN Prepared for: Southwest Metro Prepared by: Benshoof & Associates, Inc. 1 SCOPE OF TRAFFIC STUDY • Principal Roadways that would be Impacted: — TH 312 — Principal Arterial — TH 101 —A Minor Arterial — CSAH 18 west of TH 101 — A Minor Arterial — Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101 —Collector Intersections Examined: — TH 312 ramp intersections with TH 101 — TH 101/proposed right turn access — TH 101/Lyman Boulevard — Lyman Boulevard/proposed full access — Lyman Boulevard/Springfield Road/Quinn Road TRIP GENERATION LandW rb e Size �� .M A. Peak Haw Tafel P.M. Peak Hour Total Dally Total ParklRide 800 Spaces 637 494 2,000 Daycare 8,000 SF 102 106 634 48 Convenience Retail 8,000 SF 51 51 574 - 817 Housing 3,647 NET TOTAL• - - 778 660 3,465 -A five percent reduction was applied to gross total trips to acceunt for trips that will ocwr internal to to the site and that will not use the adjacent road network. 2 48 DU 27 44 439 GROSS TOTAL - - 817 695 3,647 NET TOTAL• - - 778 660 3,465 2 • 6Aso— hill A.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2111 NO -BUILD t m 2011 BUILD N )O(n i 357/398 D IIII � ,i �� .. d•,'•. a 7571708 T � y �Y 1111. C fY 1.046.1.206 lei 6741793 `�t 6911907 1,14811.749 TM1 .. 707] 821 3 T� A.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2111 NO -BUILD t m 2011 BUILD N )O(n i 357/398 D IIII � ,i �� .. d•,'•. a 7571708 T � y �Y 1111. C fY 1.046.1.206 lei 6741793 `�t 6911907 1,14811.749 TM1 .. 707] 821 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION • LOS A — free flow • LOS B — stable flow, with high degree of freedom • LOS C — stable flow, with restricted freedom • LOS D — high-density flow with restricted speed and freedom MUK • LOS E — unstable flow; at or near capacity • LOS F —forced flow; volume exceeds capacity 112 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2011 NO (( -BUILD —11 BUILD c , 7 f ° X%0(X 4431473 a v c y y 4432700 i - �� • TH 101 •' 1,455/1,590 -F _ _ 7911902 98511.294 1,37011.600 !',J - F .a. 7141810 ^. LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION • LOS A — free flow • LOS B — stable flow, with high degree of freedom • LOS C — stable flow, with restricted freedom • LOS D — high-density flow with restricted speed and freedom MUK • LOS E — unstable flow; at or near capacity • LOS F —forced flow; volume exceeds capacity 112 A.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2011 NO-BUILD , 2011 BUILD 1. 8 r�C B/B � -f full Acces • IC 5 3 m --__- AIA • /B CID P.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 2011 NO -BUILD 2011 BUILD )DUM rtRd. B/B a � a Full Access' I u m n c'c NA B C/C � ��s� wl� �5 �� 5��1c� WLP� � U SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 April 21, 2004 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MDHID USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. • Small to medium sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive -thin windows) • Office • day care • neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • convenience store without gas pumps • specialty retail (book store jewelry, Sporting Goods sale/rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • personal services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a tailor shop, Shoe Repair, Self-service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, dance studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces and located along the north portion of the site. • Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre) C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive thru Windows 9 Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table diSD1ays those setbacks. Setback Required Minimum Pro sed From Lyman Boulevard 50 feet From Highway 101 35 feet From Highway 212 50 feet From Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Interior Project property lines 0 Feet Residential Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft and stair well 25 or 3 stories, whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, 2 etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. C Residential Standards 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. W 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/orvn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. h. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. i. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: (1) Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; (2) Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; (3) Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; El (4) Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; (5) Preserve and protect property values; (6) Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; (7) Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and haza public right-of-way intersections. N U. Proiect Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. U. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. U. wau Signs: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. C. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. i.4. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. C. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f. Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. an=y_ L5. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. L6 Directional Signs a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. C. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. e. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. V. Prohibited Sims: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/syiiibpl and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area • Menu Signs are prohibited. L8. Simn Desieo and Permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. 3 All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. 7 k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The officelpersonal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the fust 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. Ir Questions and Comments from March 31, 2004 Park and Ride Neighborhood Meeting Q.1. How many buses go through the Market Station Park and Ride site? A. During the peak hours (6-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.), approximately 3 buses travel through the Market Blvd. park-and-ride site per hour. Q.2. How many buses will go through the 101/212 Park and Ride site? A. There will be 4 or 5 buses traveling through the 101/212 park-and-ride site per hour during peak hours. Q.3. How many stations are planned for SouthWest Metro? A. Three SouthWest Metro Transit park-and-ride sites are planned in the 212 corridor. There will be two in Chanhassen (including the Market Boulevard site) and another site in Chaska. In the future, SouthWest Metro Transit may pursue park-and-ride sites in the Hwy 5, Hwy 62 and Hwy 169 corridors. Q.4. Will SouthWest Metro build 800 spaces right away? A. Currently, SouthWest Metro Transit does not have the funding to build all 800 spaces right away. However, it is their intent to build the entire park and ride facility (not to exceed 800 spaces) at the same time rather than in phases. Q.5. Will there be apartments or condominiums for housing? A. The site is guided Mixed Use which include Commercial and/or High -Density Residential. This category allows for 8-16 units per acre. The City Code does not specify rental or ownership, but rather units per acre. Q.6. Could density go down to 7 or 8 units per acre? A. The comprehensive plan allows for a range of 8 to 16 units per acre; therefore, the density of 8 units per acre (which is the minimum permitted density) is acceptable under the land use plan guidelines. The comprehensive plan states that the development must meet the minimum density requirement. Q.7. What kind of assurances do residents have that the project will be high in quality? A. The Planned Unit Development document will guide the project. It will address the types of uses, design, building materials, landscaping, etc. Any development must follow and abide by this document. The development would be required to go through a site plan review process where this issue could be addressed further. The PUD ordinance permits flexibility in exchange for higher quality. Residents can be sure that the project will be of high quality as it is in SouthWest Metro Transit's best interest to have a quality facility. SouthWest Metro Transit will take precautionary measures (bonds, etc.) to ensure that the developer completes the project according to plan. SouthWest Metro Transit will apply the same quality standards at the 212/101 site that they did at SouthWest Station in Eden Prairie. Q.B. Why does density have to be higher than the surrounding homes? A. The site is located in a transition area (at the intersection of two highways). I1 lends itself to a higher density. Lyman Boulevard separates the subject site from the Springfield neighborhood. An additional 50 -foot buffer will be required along the south portion of the subject site. As to the Quinn Road neighborhood, there will be a 100 -foot buffer between the subject site and the properties to the east. The city's comprehensive plan requires a variety of housing types be provided in the community. Q.9. What can be done to insure that rental property will be kept up? A. The City of Chanhassen has a rental licensing requirement and property maintenance ordinance that insures the property is kept up. SouthWest Metro Transit would prefer that the housing units be owner occupied. However, rental housing is sometimes easier to manage than an individually owned home that is rented. Q.10. Are there other examples of residential transit developments (Park and Ride next to Housing)? A. Transit oriented development is not a new concept. There are several examples in the United States including the Gold line in Los Angeles; Del Mar Station in Pasadena, CA; Addison Circle in Addison, TX; and Rutherford Station in Rutherford, NJ. In the Twin Cities the Apple Valley Transit Station and SouthWest Station in Eden Prairie are good examples of developments that combine transit with residential development. Each of these sites has a transit element combined with commercial and residential development. The 212/101 site will be different from these examples in that it will be a smaller scale development. Q.11. Are we assuming that traffic from the south will use 101 right in/out? A. Yes. Q.12. How will the Lyman Boulevard access be controlled? A. The access will be stop controlled for cars leaving the site. For westbound traffic on Lyman, there will be a right turn lane into the site. It is unknown at this time if there is sufficient room to install a left tum lane into the site for eastbound Lyman traffic. Q.13. How do the residents provide input on the project? A. The city is currently gathering input from the neighbors and incorporating their suggestions into a PUD ordinance. Once this stage is completed, the city will hold a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing process is a format for neighbors to provide additional input before a recommendation is made. The Planning Commission can modify any staff, resident, or neighborhood recommendation. The city council will make the final decision. The development of the site will be further reviewed through the Site Plan Review application process. Q.14. Where will drainage go and what about trash? A. The site drainage will flow to the north part of the site and be treated in the Mn/DOT pond(s) that are being installed with the 212 project. Q.15. Who owns the PUD? A. SouthWest Metro Transit is exploring two options for the site. SouthWest will either sell the land to a developer or enter into a long-term lease (50-99 years) with the developer. The PUD document will be recorded against the property and will be implemented regardless of who owns the land. Q.16. Who writes the PUD? A. City Planning Staff will write the PUD document. The document is only valid if it is supported by the property owner (SouthWest Metro) and approved by the City Council. Q. 17. What is the approval process? A. The PUD document has to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Once this document is adopted, the developer will submit a site plan showing the design of the building, materials, types of uses, landscaping, drainage, grading, etc. All these elements must be in keeping with the PUD criteria. The site plan will be presented to the Planning Commission where a Public Hearing will be held. This is another opportunity for neighbors to comment on the project. The city council will make the final decision on the development. Q.18. Will the residents seethe PUD? A. Yes. Staff is working on the document and will be presenting it at the April 21", 2004 Neighborhood Meeting. Q.19. Will the group have a say on what is proposed? When? A. The Planning Commission will gather input during the Public Hearing process when they review this proposal. Q.20. What is proposed south of Lake Susan Drive? What is it currently zoned? What is it guided for? A. This area is in private ownership. It is guided Mixed Use Development which allows for High Density Residential and Neighborhood Oriented Commercial Development. The city has not received any development proposals for these areas. Q.21. What are the minimum requirements as you transition from Residential Low Density to Mixed Use? A. The PUD ordinance requires a 100 -foot buffer between Residential Low Density and a higher use when not separated by a public street. It also requires a 50 -foot buffer between a collector street or a highway (such as Lyman Boulevard, Highway 101, and 212) and a development. Q.22. What will determine if the Lyman Boulevard Access can move to the west? A. The Lyman Blvd. access must stay far enough to the east so that it doesn't conflict with the right tum lane alignment at the intersection of 101/Lyman. Q.23. What is the projected traffic pattern around Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard? A. The projected traffic pattern on Lake Riley Blvd. is not expected to be greatly affected by the proposed park & ride. The only area on Lyman Blvd. that will be affected is the area between hwy. 101 and the proposed park & ride access. Traffic in this area is expected to increase by approximately 30% by 2011. This assumes that hwy. 212 and the park & ride will be built and fully operational by then. Q.24. Are there any plans to upgrade Lake Riley Boulevard? A. The City has a five-year plan for future street improvement projects. At this time, Lake Riley Blvd. is not scheduled for improvements within the next five years. Q.25. How will the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood be screened from the Park and Ride facility? Is there a berm? How high? A. Extensive landscaping will occur on the site. SouthWest Metro Transit has plans to utilize bemring and various forms of vegetation to provide screening for the surrounding communities. Q.26. What is the traffic grade (A -F) at the current Hwy 5/101 intersection? A. The existing intersection operates at an overall level of service C with occasional decreases to level of service E for the left tum movements. Q.27. How many Park and Ride sites are proposed between Chaska and Chanhassen along the new 212? A. There are two park-and-ride sites proposed between Chaska and Chanhassen along the new TH212. SouthWest may develop sites west of Highway 41 in the future. Q.28. Will MNDOT allow a crosswalk at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101? A. Yes. There is a traffic signal, trail connections, and crosswalks planned for the 101/Lyman intersection. Q 29. Are there examples of 16 Units per acre in Chanhassen that are not apartments or condominiums? A. No. (SEE ■ SOUTHBOUND ■ ■ ■ ■) NORTHBOUND i■■■e■■•r�'� ■ ■ SITE J ca w�■s■■■■■,■■■■■., LYMAN BLVD 00 CL 0 10 �- z �Mid ♦�■ 3- rA 0 "4i i 3K S w w w wm w w w w w w 1 i f,. i t • I TH 101/TH 212 Park and Ride Planned Unit Development Chanhassen Introduction Barry Warner, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. -Meeting Facilitator Len Simich, Southwest Metro Transit -Executive Director Bob Worthington, SouthWest Metro Transit Brooke Hoebelheinrich, SouthWest Metro Marketing Coordinator Kyle Williams, Architect, LSA Design -design consultant to SouthWest Metro Jim Benshoof, Benshoof & Associates, Inc.- consultant to SouthWest Metro David Braslau, Braslau Associates, Inc.- consultant to SouthWest Metro Shenehon Company, consultant to SouthWest Metro Justin Miller, Assistant to the City Manager- City of Chanhassen Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer -City of Chanhassen Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner -City of Chanhassen Planning Process Intent: "To arrive upon a park and ride layout design and a planned unit development that meets the functional needs of transit patrons and compliments the community within the study area's limitations." Response To March Meeting's stlons ❑ Printout Available ❑ posted on-line at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Look under the "What's New" section of the webpage. What has changed since the last meeting? ❑ Access off Lyman Boulevard shifted to the West ❑ Completed the Environmental Study ■ Noise ■ Pollution ❑ Completed Property Value Analysis BACKGROUND Tr 2 k i6v• LROPOSED SITE ;r Lyman BI oel��e\d _1 Issues Expressed by the Neighbors ❑ Traffic safety ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Landscaping -Add trees Buffering/Berming ❑ berms to prevent headlights from shining into homes. ❑ architecture ❑ Number of stalls in the Park and Ride may not exceed 800. ❑ signs (monument signs). ❑ Shared signage. ❑ Allow logos. ❑ Have unity in signage. ❑ Noise Impacts ❑ Lighting ❑ Height of structure ❑ Access via Lyman ❑ Economic Impact ❑ Make the 101 access more attractive. ❑ Address the level of housing quality. Design Concepts CONCEPT SITE PLAN ❑ ACCESS ■ MnDOT ❑ USES ■ TRANSIT (800 CAR MAX) ■ HOUSING (16 UNITS/ ACRE) ■ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (16,000 SF) ❑ NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT SITE ACCESS: BUSES (■ ■ ■ ■ SOUTHBOUND 0000) NORTHBOUND m■■■■■■■■■■■l 11'Zo SITE m xl' s U)..� ... ME. LYMAN BLVD w■ 3 o■ a ■ o ■ F' ■ AM BUS MOVEMENT 1 PM BUS MOVEMENT CAR ACCESS b i UPDATE OF SITE ISSUES ❑ FIXED ■ LOCATION OF TRANSIT STATION AND DECK ■ ACCESS TO SITE ■ LANDSCAPE/ BUFFER ■ CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT ❑ TO BE FINALIZED AND APPROVED ■ EXACT MIX OF SOUTHERLY DEVELOPMENT ❑ HOUSING (16 UNITS/ ACRE) ❑ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (16,000 SF) ■ FINAL DESIGN OF SITE PLAN AND BUILDINGS CONCEPT PLAN DIAGRAM Transit Station Parking Deck 800 cars max. 100' Buffer Commercial/Retail 16,000 sq, ft. Housing 16 unks/acre max. Enhanced Landscaping SITE PLAN A I SITE PLAN B VIEW NORTH AT HWY 101 & RAMP � i �� 1, t '" 'S- ♦AL1_ � A-;,.. SITE PLA -NT u VIEW WEST AT LYMAN BLVD AND PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SITE PLANT u VIEW WEST THROUGH SITE VIEW FROM THE SOUTH- BUFFER /� N,A^ou YYew i {rl l' 1�1�. L E iqmwwl a- I STATION CHARACTER SITE LOCATION LSA Design, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride WC110 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I LocationeTH2 of the21TH Site David Nraslau Associates, Inc Relative to the 7TI212F1'H 101 Interchange BUS MO ~2 LEVEL 0 x I- PARKING DAY P CARE LAY LYMAN 110° AM BUS -- B� B� PM BUS LSA Deem, I..FIGURE 1.2 Cheohaesen Perk and Ride David BmIzu Associates, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Schesva4c of BUS Mo.=ts at Iho Facility GEOMETRICS & RECEPTOR LOCATIONS LSA Design, Inc. I FIGURE 2.1 Chsnhnaa.., Perk and Ride David Braslau Associates, Inc. I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Roadway Geometries and Receptor Locations CONTRIBUTION BY ROADWAY GROUP PUD ❑ Contract for development providing design guidelines. Intent ❑ Create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. Permitted Uses ❑ restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) ❑ Office ❑ day care ❑ commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint ❑ convenience store without gas pumps ❑ specialty retail ❑ personal services ❑ Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces and located along the north portion of the site. ❑ Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre) Prohibited Ancillary Uses ❑ Drive-thru Windows ❑ Outdoor storage and display of merchandise SETBACKS Setback Required From Lyman Boulevard 50 feet From Highway 101 35 feet From Highway 212 50 feet From Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet Interior Project property lines 0 Feet Residential Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft and stair well 25 or 3 stories, whichever is less Non Residential Building Materials and Design ❑ Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. ❑ Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. Equipment Screening ❑ All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. Design ❑ The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Design ❑ There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. Residential Standards ❑ Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. ❑ Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. ❑ All units shall have access onto an interior private street. ❑ All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. ❑ All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. Site Landscaping and Screening ❑ The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. ❑ Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. ❑ Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. Street Furnishings ❑ Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. Signage [:i Pro ject Identification Shin: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. ❑ Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. ❑ Wall Sians: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. ❑ Festive Flags/Banners ❑ Building Directory ❑ Directional Signs S Prohibited ims: ❑ Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. ❑ Pylon signs are prohibited. ❑ Back lit awnings are prohibited. ❑ Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area. ❑ Menu Signs are prohibited. Lighting ❑ Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. ❑ All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Community Questions and Concerns Group Process Schedule ❑ February 18 Neighborhood Meeting -Project Background and Intent ❑ March 31 Neighborhood Meeting -7:00 PM - Alternative Design Concepts and Land Use Schemes ❑ April 21 Neighborhood Meeting -7:00 PM -Preferred Layout Concept and Land Use ❑ June 1 --Planning Commission -Review and Recommendation of PUD ❑ June 28—City Council -Action on Final PUD A. 1 Questions and Comments from March 31, 2004 Park and Ride Neighborhood Meeting Q.1. How many buses go through the Market Station Park and Ride site? A. During the peak hours (6-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.), approximately 3 buses travel through the Market Blvd. park-and-ride site per hour. Q.2. How many buses will go through the 101/212 Park and Ride site? A. There will be 4 or 5 buses traveling through the 101/212 park-and-ride site per hour during peak hours. Q.3. How many stations are planned for SouthWest Metro? A. Three SouthWest Metro Transit park-and-ride sites are planned in the 212 corridor. There will be two in Chanhassen (including the Market Boulevard site) and another site in Chaska. In the future, SouthWest Metro Transit may pursue park-and-ride sites in the Hwy 5, Hwy 62 and Hwy 169 corridors. Q.4. Will SouthWest Metro build 800 spaces right away? A. Currently, Southwest Metro Transit does not have the funding to build all 800 spaces right away. However, it is their intent to build the entire park and ride facility (not to exceed 800 spaces) at the same time rather than in phases. Q.5. Will there be apartments or condominiums for housing? A. The site is guided Mixed Use which include Commercial and/or High -Density Residential. This category allows for 8-16 units per acre. The City Code does not specify rental or ownership, but rather units per acre. Q.6. Could density go down to 7 or 8 units per acre? A. The comprehensive plan allows for a range of 8 to 16 units per acre; therefore, the density of 8 units per acre (which is the minimum permitted density) is acceptable under the land use plan guidelines. The comprehensive plan states that the development must meet the minimum density requirement. Q.7. What kind of assurances do residents have that the project will be high in quality? A. The Planned Unit Development document will guide the project. It will address the types of uses, design, building materials, landscaping, etc. Any development must follow and abide by this document. The development would be required to go through a site plan review process where this issue could be addressed further. The PUD ordinance permits flexibility in exchange for higher quality. Residents can be sure that the project will be of high quality as it is in SouthWest Metro Transit's best interest to have a quality facility. SouthWest Metro Transit will take precautionary measures (bonds, etc.) to ensure that the developer completes the project according to plan. SouthWest Metro Transit ti will apply the same quality standards at the 212/101 site that they did at SouthWest Station in Eden Prairie. Q.B. Why does density have to be higher than the surrounding homes? A. The site is located in a transition area (at the intersection of two highways). It lends itself to a higher density. Lyman Boulevard separates the subject site from the Springfield neighborhood. An additional 50 -foot buffer will be required along the south portion of the subject site. As to the Quinn Road neighborhood, there will be a 100 -foot buffer between the subject site and the properties to the east. The city's comprehensive plan requires a variety of housing types be provided in the community. Q.9. What can be done to insure that rental property will be kept up? A. The City of Chanhassen has a rental licensing requirement and property maintenance ordinance that insures the property is kept up. SouthWest Metro Transit would prefer that the housing units be owner occupied. However, rental housing is sometimes easier to manage than an individually owned home that is rented. Q.10. Are there other examples of residential transit developments (Park and Ride next to Housing)? A. Transit oriented development is not a new concept. There are several examples in the United States including the Gold line in Los Angeles; Del Mar Station in Pasadena, CA; Addison Circle in Addison, TX; and Rutherford Station in Rutherford, NJ. In the Twin Cities the Apple Valley Transit Station and SouthWest Station in Eden Prairie are good examples of developments that combine transit with residential development. Each of these sites has a transit element combined with commercial and residential development. The 212/101 site will be different from these examples in that it will be a smaller scale development. t Q.11. Are we assuming that traffic om the south will use 101 t in/out? A. Yes. �� eX PGGt- i�t;Y MC O � i ? y 1 16 U se- �e ac6o55 © ' aF (d ) Q.12. How will the Lyman Boulevard ale be controlled? A. The access will be stop controlled for cars leaving the site. For westbound l I traffic on Lyman, there will be a right turn lane into the site.W o a left tum lane into the site for Q.13. How do the residents provide input on the project? A. The city is currently gathering input from the neighbors and incorporating their suggestions into a PUD ordinance. Once this stage is completed, the city will hold a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing process is a format for neighbors to provide additional input before a recommendation is made. The Planning Commission can modify any staff, resident, or neighborhood recommendation. The city council will make the final decision. The development of the site will be further reviewed through the Site Plan Review application process. Q.14. Where will drainage go and what about trash? A. The site drainage will flow to the north part of the site and be treated in the Mn/DOT pond(s) that are being installed with the 212 project. Q.15. Who owns the PUD? A. SouthWest Metro Transit is exploring two options for the site. SouthWest will either sell the land to a developer or enter into a long-term lease (50-99 years) with the developer. The PUD document will be recorded against the property and will be implemented regardless of who owns the land. Q.16. Who writes the PUD? A. City Planning Staff will write the PUD document. The document is only valid if it is supported by the property owner (SouthWest Metro) and approved by the City Council. Q.17. What is the approval process? A. The PUD document has to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Once this document is adopted, the developer will submit a site plan showing the design of the building, materials, types of uses, landscaping, drainage, grading, etc. All these elements must be in keeping with the PUD criteria. The site plan will be presented to the Planning Commission where a Public Hearing will be held. This is another opportunity for neighbors to comment on the project. The city council will make the final decision on the development. Q.18. Will the residents seethe PUD? A. Yes. Staff is working on the document and will be presenting it at the April 2151, 2004 Neighborhood Meeting. Q.19. Will the group have a say on what is proposed? When? \ A. The Planning Commission will gather input during the Public Hearing when they review this proposal. - Q.20. What is proposed south of Lake Susan Drive? What is it currently zoned? What is it guided for? A. This area is in private ownership. It is guided Mixed Use Development which allows for High Density Residential and Neighborhood Oriented Commercial Development. The city has not received any development proposals for these areas. Q.21. What are the minimum requirements as you transition from Residential Low Density to Mixed Use? A. The PUD ordinance requires a 100 -foot buffer between Residential Low Density and a higher use when not separated by a public street. It also requires a 50 -foot buffer between a collector street or a highway (such as Lyman Boulevard, Highway 101, and 212) and a development. Q.22. What will determine if the Lyman Boulevard Access can move to the west? A. The Lyman Blvd. access must stay far enough to the east so that ' oesn't conflict with the right turn 1 e�� thtsimers� yman. Q Q �Ie Q.23. What is the projected traffic pattern around Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard? A. The answer will be posted as soon as it becomes available. Q.24. Are there any plans to upgrade Lake Riley Boulevard? A. The City has a five-year plan for future street improvement projects. At this time, Lake Riley Blvd. is not scheduled for improvements within the next five years. Q.25. How will the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood be screened from the Park and Ride facility? Is there a berm? How high? A. Extensive landscaping will occur on the site. SouthWest Metro Transit has plans to utilize berming and various forms of vegetation to provide screening for the surrounding communities. Q.26. What is the traffic grade (A -F) at the current Hwy 51101 intersection? A. The answer will be posted as soon as it becomes available. Q.27. How many Park and Ride sites are proposed between Chaska and Chanhassen along the new 212? A. There are two park-and-ride sites proposed between Chaska and Chanhassen along the new TH212. SouthWest may develop sites west of Highway 41 in the future. Q.28. Will MNDOT allow a crosswalk at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101? A. Yes. There is a traffic signal, trail connections, and crosswalks planned for the 101 Lyman intersection. Q 29. Are there examples of 16 Units per acre in Chanhassen that are not apartments or condominiums? A. No. Suecifications + Antique Street m s Inc Hartford Series Post Model H12/10-CA/BK 12 Ft Ht Fluted, Tapered Cast Aluminum Shaft Polycarbonate Prismatic Sphere Refractoi 10 Inch Base Specifications Figure 35 - Eden Prairie Lighting Unit Design * Antique Street Lamps, Inc Central Park Series Post Model CP 12/18-CAIBK 12 Ft Ht 10 Inch Base Figure 36 - Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design 41 MY OF CAMSEN Date: May 4, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Request for a Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd., Southwest Metro Transit Planning Case: 04-18 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 30, 2004. The 60day review period ends June 29, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 21, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. Southwest Metro Transit Rezoning Request Planning Case No. 04-18 Location Map 0 2 H CONCEPT PLAN DIAGRAM Transit Station Parking Deck 800 cars max. 100' Buffer Commercial/Retail 16,000 sq. ft. Housing 16 units/acre max. Enhanced Landscaping SITE ACCESS: BUSES (m SOUTHBOUND ■ ■ ■ ■) NORTHBOUNC IL ■ z SI LY W AM BUS MOVEMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 I � liv PM BUS MOVEMENT 1 CAR ACCESS Specifications * Antique Street Lams Inc. Hartford Series Post Model H12/10-CA/BK 12 Ft Ht Fluted, Tapered Cast Aluminum Shaft Polycarbonate Prismatic Sphere Refractor 10 Inch Base Specifications Figure 35 - Eden Prairie Lighting Unit Design ' Antique Street Lamps, Inc Central Park Series Post Model CP 12/18 -CASK 12 Ft Ht 10 Inch Base Figure 36 - Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design 41 M,\SNESO, o Minnesota Department of Transportation ,�o y Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 June 1, 2004 Shanneen Al-Jaff Planning Department, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Chanhassen Metro Transit Site Mn/DOT Review 504-043 SE Quad of New TH 212/312 and TH 101 Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1009 Dear Ms. Al -Jaffa Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced site plan. Mn/DOT staff has the following comments. Please address these comments prior to further development. Allowing cars to turn right -out onto TH 101 from this site would be a safety and capacity concern for several reasons. Northbound TH 101 to eastbound TH 212 is anticipated to be a high volume movement. Lyman Boulevard is located very close to the south ramps. In addition, there will be a short weaving area for vehicles to maneuver over two through lanes to the left turn lane at the south ramp intersection when the west side of TH 101 is developed. Compounding this area with a right out from the park and ride will increase the operational and safety problems this area will experience. Due to these problems, the right out onto TH 101 should be limited to bus traffic only. Please contact Lars Impola in Mn/DOT's Traffic section at (65 1) 634-2379 concerning this issue. ■ Mn/DOT intends to convey this property for public purpose to Southwest Metro Transit (SWMT). Presently, we are working with SWMT to establish the fair market value of the portion of the site that will be utilized for Transit Oriented Development (TOD). When detailed development plans become available Mn/DOT's Water Resources section will need to review the drainage information. Please include in this information proposed storm drainage plans, both existing and proposed drainage area maps and both existing and proposed 10 and 100 -year drainage computations. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase). Please contact Katie Heinz regarding this issue at (651) 634-2407 in Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. An equal opportunity employer As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mu/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378. Sincerely, Brigid Gombold Senior Transportation Planner Copy: Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer Len Simich / SWMT Paul Oehme / City of Chanhassen CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: June 1, 2004 CC DATE: June 28, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 29, 2004 CASE #: 04-18 SouthWest Metro Transit BY: Al-Jaff PROPOSAL: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use LOCATION: Southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. APPLICANT: SouthWest Metro Transit 13500 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952)974-3101 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family — RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use ACREAGE: 8.5+ Acres DENSITY: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use and approval of Planned Unit Development Standards. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners beyond 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the request. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone property located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. There is no site plan attached to this application and development of the site is not intended to take place until the realignment of 212/101 is complete. As each element is ready to develop, a site plan will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. Several meetings have taken place with surrounding neighbors to gather feed back and address concerns. The rezoning and PUD Ordinance is a result of this meetings. The purpose of the meeting tonight is to rezone the property and establish a PUD ordinance. BACKGROUND: LOCATION/SITE DATA The site is located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard. The site has an area of approximately 8.5 acres and is currently zoned residential single family, RSF. Subject Site SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 3 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT In 1986, Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie adopted a joint powers agreement establishing the SouthWest Metro Transit Commission (SMTC). The agreement granted the Commission the authority to develop and oversee the local public transit services serving the three cities. The park and ride facility was presented as an opportunity to mitigate congestion and pollution in 1989 as part of the Highway 212 Environmental Impact Statement. In 1990 the SMTC adopted a park and ride study which listed the proposed site as a future park and ride location. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan designates areas around the proposed TH 101/TH 212 interchange as mixed use. This category has been established to accommodate either commercial or high density residential developments. The high density category, which includes units with a maximum net density of 16.0 units per acre, accommodates apartments and higher density condominium units. The commercial use is intended to support or complement high density development. The commercial uses involve convenience grocery stores, day care facilities, etc., or those uses that meet the daily needs of the residents. The Land Use Plan also identifies a park and ride at the future TH101/ H 212 interchange. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 4 NEIGHBORHOOD On February 18, 2004, the City of Chanhassen and SouthWest Metro Transit began a series of three neighborhood meetings. The intent of the Planning Process was to arrive upon a park and ride layout design and a planned unit development that meets the functional needs of transit patrons and compliments the community within the area's limitations. The February 18"' Neighborhood Meeting focused on the Project Background and Intent; March 315` dealt with Alternative Design Concepts and Land Use Schemes; and the April 215` meeting focused on a preferred layout concept, Land Use, and a draft PUD ordinance. Each meeting resulted in a list of questions and suggestions. The questions and concerns were addressed and posted on the City's web site. The suggestions (to the extent feasible) were incorporated into a draft PUD ordinance. The final draft layout that was arrived at reflected a park and ride facility along the north portion of the site, a commercial component in the center and a residential development along the south portion of the site. i Transit Station Parking Deck 800 cars max. 100' Buffer Commercial/Retail 16.000 sq. ft. I Housing i16 umts/acre max. � i I Enhanced Landscaping BLVD—�7-� SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 5 Access to the site was a concern to the neighbors. Numerous meetings took place with Minnesota Department of Transportation. These meetings resulted in permitting a right-in/out access off of Highway 101 and allowing the full access off of Lyman Boulevard to maintain a 100 -foot setback from the easterly property line. This setback will allow for adequate buffer between the subject site and the residential neighborhood to the east. MNDOT also agreed to a bus slip lane off of Highway 212. AM BUS MOVEMENT PM BUS MOVEMENT SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 6 A number of studies were requested by the residents. SouthWest Metro Transit hired consultants to conduct these studies and present them to the neighborhood. They included: 1. PHASE I ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PARK & RIDE DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 101 AND THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 212 ON EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN CHANHASSEN, by Shenehon Company. The study concluded that the development could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the site, and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT — NOISE AND AIR QUALITY, by David Braslau associates, Inc. The study concluded: The proposed Park and Ride facility is planned to serve a maximum of eight buses per hour with parking for 800 motor vehicles. During the AM period buses will enter and depart along the north access to the facility and will therefore have minimal impact on both noise and air quality. During the PM period, buses will enter at the north from TH ]Oland circle the parking ramp to return to TH 101 to reach the TH 212 westbound on-ramp. These buses will travel along the east roadway of the facility and between the parking ramp and the new residential structures to be constructed as part of the project. These buses will have somewhat more impact on noise and air quality, although the impacts will be limited. Noise levels during 6-7 AM, which fall under the nighttime period, are expected to exceed the Minnesota noise standards primarily due to traffic on the new TH 212, its ramps, and TH 101. Appropriate construction of the new housing proposed for the site can permit higher noise limits to be applied and therefore can comply with noise standards. Noise levels during the PM Peak Hour are generally under the state noise standards except for the apartments that face the access roadway carrying departing buses. However, the 2 dBA exceedance is within modeling error and may not be a problem if no outdoor uses are planned for the north side of these buildings. The buses alone are not sufficient to cause the noise standards to be exceeded. Contributions from the other roadways are sufficient for this small exceedance of the standards. Predicted air quality (carbon monoxide concentrations) is well below both the 1 -hour and the 8 - hour standard and no air quality problems are anticipated with operation of the facility. As new diesel engine and diesel fuel regulations are implemented, the potential far odor associated with the facility will also decrease. Appropriate equipment will be able to operate at the facility with little or no odor impacts. 3. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT -ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. Levels of service are classified as follows: Southwest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 7 LOS A — free flow LOS B — stable flow, with high degree of freedom LOS C — stable flow, with restricted freedom LOS D — high-density flow with restricted speed and freedom LOS E — unstable flow; at or near capacity LOS F — forced flow; volume exceeds capacity The study concluded that the area surrounding the site will operate as follows: MRY-26-2®4 0912 BD6100F 8 RSSpC. 9R 238 1671 P.02� N <ail�aI Lege 4 NTM 312RrH wSNPs ra. •c scuF �} - DM r� `111 c4c� $ia i L NA DID WMT2H RAMPS 2011 BUUIILD 22 — 2M LD xx, a T� as o � o � pp �SL3 LB,sa,r1 alIala LAA Li NA LYWN BLVD4 t—NA l-3 D/DB/C� `1Tf' aA� NA— A/A--j SSa NA z SSS a 9 w Z'o F F SOUTHWESTLFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 7 METRO TRANSITPOSED TRANSIT- WEEKDAY A.M. ENTED FACILITY PEAK HOUR BD&IODFBASSMATKINCHANHASSEN LEVELS OF SERVICE SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 8 1 Y -26 -RBA 89:12 LE SHOOF & ASSOC. 952 23B 1671 P.O p aac3 t-: y w ¢e �t—A/A GIC err 212 NOR RAMPS METRO TRANSIT N t WT TO scut � � C'C--� oN! WEEKDAY WBENSHOOF 6 ASSOCIATES, INHANHASSEN FACILITY aI '� A/A ICIS G/o 312 y y SOUTH RAMPS 22 20BUUBD 11 )OM `a y t ---AS R -INTI -our as w o pp�� yy d�c3 'L BSB @ALLZ_A/A 1-1�?A/+A AIA LYMAN BLVD. <—A/A CC/C ap I .NA �' 55I�� 0¢l2 —� tnI VA IVA g ld�� 2' o F s � SOUTHWESTLOSEDTRANSIT- FIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 8 METRO TRANSIT PROP WEEKDAY WBENSHOOF 6 ASSOCIATES, INHANHASSEN FACILITY R LEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE REZONING SouthWest Metro Transit is requesting to rezone the property from RSF, Residential Single Family, to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use. Future Highway 212 will run along the north edge of the site. Realigned Highway 101 will run along the west portion of the site. A residential neighborhood zoned Residential Single family is located east of the site and Lyman Boulevard and a residential neighborhood zoned Planned Unit Development is located south of the site. All properties located at the intersection of future Highway 212/101 are guided mixed use which permits high density residential and neighborhood oriented commercial. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 9 The 2020 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Mixed Use Development. Appropriate zoning for this land use is PUD -Mixed Use, Neighborhood Commercial, and High Density Residential. Staff has prepared a Planned Unit Development Ordinance that will regulate and set standards for the development of this site including permitted uses, landscaping, setbacks, signage, building materials, architectural standards, parking, etc. The Land Use Plan also identifies a park and ride at the future TH101fTH 212 interchange. This site is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to PUD -Mixed Use. PUD FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The proposed Planned Unit Development has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the land use plan and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. It complies with providing mixed use (residential and neighborhood commercial) and a transit facility at the intersection of realigned Highway 101 and future Highway 212. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The proposed uses are and will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area through the implementation of the design standards, landscaping buffers, architecture, etc. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed uses will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance such as design standards, signage, durable materials, uses, etc. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Finding: A study conducted by Shenehon Company found that the proposed uses will have no measurable negative impact on the property values of the nearby residences. It could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the site and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 10 e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Finding: The site is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Based upon studies conducted by Benshoof and Associates, traffic generation by the proposed uses is within capabilities of streets serving the property- LANDSCAPING roperty LANDSCAPING The landscape plan for the SouthWest Metro Park and Ride will need to use landscape to accomplish the following: improve the appearance of the site, buffer between proposed development and neighboring properties, and reduce noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. Specifically, landscaping will be required for screening of any trash storage areas, loading areas or large, unadorned building walls. Parking lots will also have landscaping requirements. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, should be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells should be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. The City anticipates undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101. These areas shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. The City would like to see native landscaping incorporated into the design wherever possible. One issue that needs to be pointed out deals with the existing evergreens on the site. The intent is to save these trees. The slopes along the north portion of the site are steep (not a bluff) and will require a retaining wall. In order to minimize impact on the existing evergreens, the applicant requested reducing the building setback along Highway 101 to 35 feet (PUD Ordinance requires 50 feet) and increasing the building setback along the easterly property line to 115 feet (PUD Ordinance requires 100 feet). Staff supports this request and the PUD ordinance drafted by staff reflects this request. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 11 Along the Easterly Property Line TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS Maintaining and creating new pedestrian/bicycle routes to the proposed SouthWest Metro Transit Station is very important. The construction of new Highway 101 south will include the installation of a ten -foot trail adjacent to the subject property. The Transit Station project must install a trail/sidewalk adjacent to Lyman Boulevard from Highway 101 east to a street crossing at Summerfield Drive. Appropriate and adequate internal sidewalk connections must also be planned to allow convenient and safe non -vehicular traffic throughout the site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 12 b. Permitted Uses • The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. • Small to medium-sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • Convenience store without gas pumps • Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self -Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. • Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre). C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive-thru Windows • Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access Highway 212 ex luding transit shelters and ramps 1 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 1 100 Feet SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 13 Boundary Building and Parking Setback Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft and stair well 25 or 3 stories, I whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 14 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. f. Residential Standards Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 15 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls maybe required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. h. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. i. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; b. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 16 which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. U. Proiect Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. U. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 0. Wall Signs: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. i.4. Festive Flaes/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 17 e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. L Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. L5. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. L6 Directional Signs a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. L7. Prohibited Signs: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area • Menu Signs are prohibited. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 18 i.8. Sian Desian and permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 — Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). • Ann_m.. Cym Linn. f.r I CMW Park SM Par Madel CP 111$-CA/BC 12 Pt Ht 10I hBr I Flgt 76 - Chanhs VghmL Uml Dmf 41 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 19 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The officelpersonal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Application. 3. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 4. Property value and impact study by Shenehon Company. 5. Traffic Study for proposed Transit -Oriented Facility in the City of Chanhassen. 6. Environmental Assessment -Noise and Air Quality. g1plan\2004 planning cases\0418 - sw metro transit rezoning -212 & 101 irate tion\staft report.I Am Southwest Metro Transit Rezoning Request Planning Case No. 04-18 Location Map AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Lisa Freese [Lisa. Freese@ dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 5:34 PM To: saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; JamesLasher@lsadesigninc.com; Isimich@swtransft.org; minnetonkabob@yahoo.com Cc: KyieWilliams@]sadesigninc.com Subject: TH212 & Highway 101 Park & Ride E Lisa Freese.vd (448 B) Mn/DOT is aware of Southwest Metro Transit's application for rezoning on the property located at the SE quadrant of proposed Highway 212 and realigned Highway 101. We understand that Southwest is seeking rezoning to Mixed Used Planned Unit Development to facilitate the development of transit uses on this site. MnDOT is in ownership of this site and intends to convey it to southwest metro for transit purposes. Lisa Freese, AICP Area Manager -Carver, Scott & Dakota Counties Mn/DOT Metro District 1500 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Office: 651-582-1409 Fax: 651-582-1020 e-mail: lisa.freese@dot.state.nm.us Date: May 4, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Request for a Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd., Southwest Metro Transit Planning Case: 04-18 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 30, 2004. The 60day review period ends June 29, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 21, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments 8. Telephone Company a. City Engineer (Qwest or United) b. City Attorney c. City Park Director 9. Electric Company d. Fire Marshal (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator 10. Medicom g. Forester 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 2. Watershed District Engineer 12. Carver County 3. Soil Conservation Service a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 13. Other - 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 14. 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources Z O F a U U) LI.I w 0 w PROPERTY LINE TO — " cn TERMININATE AT R.O.W. LINE W 212 ON RAMP _ Q 0 PROPERTY LINE TO B-1 BUSWAY TERMININATEAT > O R.O.W. LINE Z i m STATION Ld I � �B-2 B-3� i w } m m o z z V Q w Fw— p p U O 10, w co PARK AND RIDE w� Qcrao� 370'x300' I �Qv�z`o 0 Lf� 35, 2 LEVELS = 715+ CARS _ U C) 3 �w� w Lo I I 00 a <0 w wz =w>=Q z C) 0 } Y GofUp w O w w w r= o�oz o z z Q z z O Z U O -D _ o F— O m"o wo W L, w H~ W (L B-4 B-5 ww�UVQ =arzm 2 —�nmaa(n o a I NMo ... U 0)a) C_ z I I �MM= N N • 2) o Coco I J N coN 100'BUFFER v 0- 3 m C 3 DELL I L 0 •� cot Z C a)Z c � m 00 a Q '= o C: o (n N i IB -6 o I I� CV �o NEW PROPERTY LINE — " ' — W L4 -v- < (D --- - J Q Z LYMAN BLVD. 485' 1 U) w?¢ N 2 Z H C'4 U O� U) i 1 SITE PLAN C1.1 1:60 C1.1 615 615 ISTING BE 615 611 611 611 607 ISTING BE 607 ITH ADDITIONAL TREES 607 Fi ADDITIONAL TREES HIGHLIGHTED SIGHT LINE STUDY VIEW FROM LYMAN BOULEVARD SOUTHWEST VILLAGE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION DOCUMENT PREPARED BY: ERNSTASSOC/ATES DATE: 7-14-2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 607 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE 611 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE W 0 615 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE VIEW FROM LYMAN BOULEVARD SIGHT LINE STUDY TREES SHOWN AT 12'-15' HT. SOUTHWEST VILLAGE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION DOCUMENT PREPARED BY: ERNST ASSOCIATES DATE: 7-14-2004 M MM&L M=k' il ol I] I I to] 61 F±l m I mm: 0 W O IL O X IL W D EXISTING BERM EXISTING BERM WITH ADDITIONAL TREES a ADDITIONAL TREES HIGHLIGHTED SIGHT LINE STUDY VIEW FROM 615 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE SOUTHWEST VILLAGE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION DOCUMENT PREPARED BY: ERNSTASSOC/ATES DATE: 7-14-2004 615 611 607 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE a -- y 611 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE 615 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE VIEW FROM LYMAN BOULEVARD SIGHT LINE STUDY TREES SHOWN AT 15'HT. SOUTHWEST VILLAGE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION DOCUMENT PREPARED BY: ERNSTASSOC/ATES DATE: 7-14-2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: June 1, 2004 I CC DATE: June 28, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 29, 2004 CASE #: 04-18 SouthWest Metro Transit BY: Al-Jaff PROPOSAL: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use LOCATION: Southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. APPLICANT: SouthWest Metro Transit Q 13500 Technology Drive uv' Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 974-3101 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single Family — RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use ACREAGE: 8.5+ Acres DENSITY: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use and approval of Planned Unit Development Standards. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners beyond 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the request. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone ptoperty located on the southeast intersection of the future. alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. There is no site plan attached to this application and development of the site is not intended to take place until the realignment of 212/101 is complete. As each element is ready to develop, a site plan will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. Several meetings have taken place with surrounding neighbors to gather feed back and address concerns. The rezoning and PUD Ordinance is a result of this meetings. The purpose of the meeting tonight is to rezone the property and establish a PUD ordinance. BACKGROUND: LOCATION/SITE DATA The site is located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Boulevard. The site has an area of approximately 8.5 acres and is currently zoned residential single family, RSF. Subject Site Southwest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 3 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT In 1986, Chaska, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie adopted a joint powers agreement establishing the SouthWest Metro Transit Commission (SMTC). The agreement granted the Commission the authority to develop and oversee the local public transit services serving the three cities. The park and ride facility was presented as an opportunity to mitigate congestion and pollution in 1989 as part of the Highway 212 Environmental Impact Statement. In 1990 the SMTC adopted a park and ride study which listed the proposed site as a future park and ride location. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan designates areas around the proposed TH 101rM 212 interchange as mixed use. This category has been established to accommodate either commercial or high density residential developments. The high density category, which includes units with a maximum net density of 16.0 units per acre, accommodates apartments and higher density condominium units. The commercial use is intended to support or complement high density development. The commercial uses involve convenience grocery stores, day care facilities, etc., or those uses that meet the daily needs of the residents. The Land Use Plan also identifies a park and ride at the future T11101rM 212 interchange. M"fi D,,,dy Resi&en ALow Densly SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 4 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS On February 18, 2004, the City of Chanhassen and SouthWest Metro Transit began a series of three neighborhood meetings. The intent of the Planning Process was to arrive upon a park and ride layout design and a planned unit development that meets the functional needs of transit patrons and compliments the community within the area's limitations. The February 18`s Neighborhood Meeting focused on the Project Background and Intent; March 31" dealt with Alternative Design Concepts and Land Use Schemes; and the April 21" meeting focused on a preferred layout concept, Land Use, and a draft PUD ordinance. Each meeting resulted in a list of questions and suggestions. The questions and concerns were addressed and posted on the City's web site. The suggestions (to the extent feasible j were incorporated into a draft PUD ordinance. The final draft layout that was arrived at reflected a park and ride facility along the north portion of the site, a commercial component in the center and a residential development along the south portion of the site. r F �? Transit Station Parking Deck 800 cars.max. 100' Buffer Commercial/Retail D _ i 16.000 sq. ft. r-- 1 Housing 16 unfts/acre max. Enhanced Landscapin SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 5 Access to the site was a concern to the neighbors. Numerous meetings took place with Minnesota Department of Transportation. These meetings resulted in permitting a right-in/out access off of Highway 101 and allowing the full access off of Lyman Boulevard to maintain a 100 -foot setback from the easterly property line. This setback will allow for adequate buffer between the subject site and the residential neighborhood to the east. MNDOT also agreed to a bus slip lane off of Highway 212. AM BUS MOVEMENT PM BUS MOVEMENT SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 6 A number of studies were requested by the residents. SouthWest Metro Transit hired consultants to conduct these studies and present them to the neighborhood. They included: 1. PHASE I ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PARK & RIDE DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 101 AND THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 212 ON EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN CHANHASSEN, by Shenehon Company. The study concluded that the development could potentially have a positive impact o4 values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the site, and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT — NOISE AND AIR QUALITY, by David Braslau associates, Inc. The study concluded: The proposed Park and Ride facility is planned to serve a maximum of eight buses per hour with parking for 800 motor vehicles. During the AM period buses will enter and depart along the north access to the facility and will therefore have minimal impact on both noise and air quality. During the PM period, buses will enter at the north from TH 101 and circle the parking ramp to return to TH 101 to reach the TH 212 westbound on-ramp. These buses will travel along the east roadway of the facility and between the parking ramp and the new residential structures to be constructed as part of the project. These buses will have somewhat more impact on noise and air quality, although the impacts will be limited. Noise levels during 6-7 AM, which fall under the nighttime period, are expected to exceedthe Minnesota noise standards primarily due to traffic on the new TH 212, its ramps, and TH 101. Appropriate construction of the new housing proposed for the site can permit higher noise limits to be applied and therefore can comply with noise standards. Noise levels during the PM Peak Hour are generally under the state noise standards except for the apartments that face the access roadway carrying departing buses. However, the 2 dBA exceedance is within modeling error and may not be a problem if no outdoor uses are planned for the north side of these buildings. The buses alone are not sufficient to cause the noise standards to be exceeded Contributions from the other roadways are suff cient for this small exceedance of the standards. Predicted air quality (carbon monoxide concentrations) is well below both the 1 -hour and the 8 - hour standard and n#Wquality problems are anticipated with operation of the facility. As new diesel engine and diesel fuel regulations are implemented, the potential for odor associated with the facility will also decrease. Appropriate equipment will be able to operate at the facility with little or no odor impacts. 3. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT -ORIENTED FACILITY IN CHANHASSEN by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. Levels of service are classified as follows: SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 7 LOS A — free flow LOS B — stable flow, with high degree of freedom LOS C — stable flow, with restricted freedom LOS D — high-density flow with restricted speed and freedom LOS E — unstable flow; at or near capacity LOS F — forced flow; volume exceeds capacity The study concluded that the area surrounding the site will operate as follows: PifY-26-2089 0912 HB@IOff 6 R560L. 4R 230 1671 P.0]/al �o N D/D M2RAMPS 2 L A/A 1� �°n sou"nPAw F20i; 9u�LpuILD )oma `a y L •/B IHWA-an a`a Z' � o a L. aA D/Dam; IaI I`zI AIA DA)II I�I NA e,-A/ADID AJA IpI aA� �wml acC )VA —mss w� NA NA g sera 9 w SOUTHWESTLWFICSTUDYFOR FIGURE METRO TRANSIT OSEDTRANSIT- WEEKDAY A.M. NTED FACILRV PEAK HOUR BENJW&ABSOCUTES,IIHANHASSEN LEVELS OF SERVICE SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 8 I -26-2884 89:12 BE 8 RS50C. 952 238 1671 P. fl3iA3 p aa6 I w LAM �� t ORrH RAPS METRO TRANSITJ.FPOPOSED N t worrosc IYD CICS IFBBOIDDF 6 ASS"TEFN IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE exuMux� 18 'LAM 1L, a— cx �,;, R ws zi OD;; BUILD IT )DU)O( a pwwn Wi ?f g� L_as LL qI? L_NA L—AIA j1� -1s AA ��}AIA IIF GC NAS, pT d�7 A/A-�-s NA 1pI o SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE B METRO TRANSITJ.FPOPOSED TRANSIT • ORIENTED FACILITY WEEKDAY P.M. IFBBOIDDF 6 ASS"TEFN IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE exuMux� REZONING SouthWest Metro Transit is requesting to rezone the property from RSF, Residential Single Family, to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use. Future Highway 212 will run along the north edge of the site. Realigned Highway 101 will run along the west portion of the site. A residential neighborhood zoned Residential Single family is located east of the site and Lyman Boulevard and a residential neighborhood zoned Planned Unit Development is located south of the site. All properties located at the intersection of future Highway 212/101 are guided mixed use which permits high density residential and neighborhood oriented commercial. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 9 The 2020 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Mixed Use Development. Appropriate zoning for this land use is PUD -Mixed Use, Neighborhood Commercial, and High Density Residential. Staff has prepared a Planned Unit Development Ordinance that will regulate and set standards for the development of this site including permitted uses, landscaping, setbacks, signage, building materials, architectural standards, parking, etc. The Land Use Plan also identifies a park and ride at the future TH101fM 212 interchange. This site is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to PUD -Mixed Use. PUD FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The proposed Planned Unit Development has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of the land use plan and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. It complies with providing mixed use (residential and neighborhood commercial) and a transit facility at the intersection of realigned Highway 101 and future Highway 212. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The proposed uses are and will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area through the implementation of the design standards, landscaping buffers, architecture, etc. C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed uses will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance such as design standards, signage, durable materials, uses, etc. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Finding: A study conducted by Shenehon Company found that the proposed uses will have no measurable negative impact on the property values of the nearby residences. It could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the site and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 10 e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Finding: The site is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Based upon studies conducted by Benshoof and Associates, traffic generation by the proposed uses is within capabilities of streets serving the property. LANDSCAPING The landscape plan for the SouthWest Metro Park and Ride will need to use landscape to accomplish the following: improve the appearance of the site, buffer between proposed development and neighboring properties, and reduce noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. Specifically, landscaping will be required for screening of any trash storage areas, loading areas or large, unadorned building walls. Parking lots will also have landscaping requirements. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, should be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells should be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. The City anticipates undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101. These areas shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. The City would like to see native landscaping incorporated into the design wherever possible. One issue that needs to be pointed out deals with the existing evergreens on the site. The intent is to save these trees. The slopes along the north portion of the site are steep (not a bluff) and will require a retaining wall. In order to minimize impact on the existing evergreens, the applicant requested reducing the building setback along Highway 101 to 35 feet (PUD Ordinance requires 50 feet) and increasing the building setback along the easterly property line to 115 feet (PUD Ordinance requires 100 feet). Staff supports this request and the PUD ordinance drafted by staff reflects this request. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 11 Along the Easterly Property Lice TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS Maintaining and creating new pedestrian/bicycle routes to the proposed SouthWest Metro Transit Station is very important. The construction of new Highway 101 south will include the installation of a ten -foot trail adjacent to the subject property. The Transit Station project must install a trail/sidewalk adjacent to Lyman Boulevard from Highway 101 east to a street crossing at Summerfield Drive. Appropriate and adequate internal sidewalk connections must also be planned to allow convenient and safe non -vehicular traffic throughout the site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highway 2121101 and north of Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 8.5 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101/212 PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 12 b. Permitted Uses • The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101. Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access. • Small to medium-sized restaurant -not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per building footprint • Convenience store without gas pumps • Specialty retail (Book Store Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) • Personal Services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self -Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). • Park and Ride not to exceed 800 spaces. High Density (8-16 units per acre). C. Prohibited Ancillary Uses • Drive-thru Windows • Outdoor storage and display of merchandise d. difMAW The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building and Parking Setback Lyman Boulevard 50 feet Highway 101 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101 access I$ way 212 excluding transit shelters and rams 50 feet Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 13 Boundary Building and Parking Setback Internal Project property lines 0 Feet Hard Surface Coverage 50% Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70% Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, ,whichever is less Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Park and Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft and stair well 25 or 3 stories, I whichever is less e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and transit friendly development. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 7. The buildings shall have vaned and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 14 8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. f. Residential Standards 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber -cement siding, vinyl siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city. 2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. 3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. 6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. g. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 3. All open spaces and non -parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 15 4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. h. 13treet Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; In. Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e. Preserve and protect property values; f. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; g. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 16 which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. U. Project Identification Sign: One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. U. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. 0. Wall Signs: a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. i.4. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. Southwest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 17 e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. L Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. L5. Building Directory a. In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. 1.6 Directional Signs a. On -premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Off -premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. L7. Prohibited Signs: • Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. • Pylon signs are prohibited. • Back lit awnings are prohibited. • Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area • Menu Signs are prohibited. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 18 Be Sign Design and permit requirements: a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. j. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. The fixtures shall conform with (Figure 36 — Chanhassen Lighting Unit Design). bnabaum C Ceehd Pak S. Pow i Model CP 11/I8&CA(M umfh 10 lui B.r t 1 f i i F{p� }{ - rn.�.— uthNng Umt Dumpy a 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. SouthWest Metro Rezoning June 1, 2004 Page 19 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. k. Non Residential Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The officelpersonal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Application. 3. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 4. Property value and impact study by Shenehon Company. 5. Traffic Study for proposed Transit -Oriented Facility in the City of Chanhassen. 6. Environmental Assessment -Noise and Air Quality. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-18 - sw metro transit rezoning -212 & 101 intenection\staff report. t.doc CPTY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. Applicant: . Application of Southwest Metro Transit Planned Unit Development On June 1, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of SouthWest Metro Tranist for Planned Unit Development property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is currently zoned Residential Single Family. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Mixed Use. 3. The description of the property is: the area bounded by Highway 212 to the north, Highway 101 to the west, Lyman Boulevard to the south, and residential neighborhood to the east. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report #04-18 dated June 1, 2004, prepared by Sharmin Al-Jaff, et al is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1s` day of June 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION VW ATTEST: Secretary Its Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN pry �t 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD yllj �r CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Southwest Metro Transit Commission ADDRESS: 13500 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN TELEPHONE (Daytime) 952-974-3101 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 3 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT OWNER: Minnesota Department of Transportation ADDRESS: 1500 County Road B2 Roseville. MN TELEPHONE: 651-296-3000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit X Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACA/ARANAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME Southwest Village LOCATION NE comer of new Highway 101 and Lyman Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A portion of the highway right of way easement according to official map of MnDOT SP 1017 (TH212) TOTAL ACREAGE -8.5 WETLANDS CREAGE8.5 WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO x–To be verified PRESENT ZONING RSF REQUESTED ZONING PUD - Mixed Use PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Mixed -Use REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Mixed -Use REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Transit Oriented Development 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 the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten 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 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. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensiWs are approved by the applicant. of 6 g O4 Date Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-18 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use located on the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on May 20, 2004) 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 May 20, 2004, 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 Rezoning or property from RSF to PUD -Mixed (Southwest Metro Transit) - Planning Case No. 04-18 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by sending a notice addressed to such owner, and depositing the notices addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this--,,jPj day of 12004. Notary Publi K en J. n elhar , Deputy Clerk /iAAAAAAMAnAA�Na � KIM , Not,.::_'::. '1ifloQ$018 I;;.r "_I ;OUNTY r�lrcan.> y s. rxc Ir�inao� �w�rovt g:\plan\2004 planning ca5 \04-18 - sw metro t ansit rezoning -212 & 101 intemection\04-I8 a(fidavit.doc Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday,June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for,a rezoning of property from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development -Mixed Use Planning File: 04-18 Applicant: Southwest Metro Transit Property The southeast intersection of the future alignment of Location: Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman Blvd. 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 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 stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about Questions & this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Comments: or e-mail saliaffOci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. 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 she 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 commerciavindustrial. • 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, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ABBA J TREGOBOV & SUSANA P ALEKSANDR SHTEYMAN ALOYSIUS R & MARY A CHENEY MACHADO-TREGOBOV 9148 SUNNYVALE DR 9079 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 553311 7-966 50 CHANHASSEN DN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 CHA AMIT & MARY RATHOD AMY J SCHUETTE ETAL ANDREW C & KIMBERLY J 920 LAKE SUSAN DR 8990 QUINN RD DAHLGREN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 PO BOX 68 8631 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0068 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ANDREW G & PAMELA J JOE ANDREW RICHARDSON ANTHONY T & SHELLY A DENUCCI 563 SUMMERFIELD DR 8665 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 287 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 ARLETTA L BRAGG & VIOLA RAUPARTHUR J & KATHLEEN L DORDEL BARRY L & KATHY RIUTTA 8628 CH LE 1030 LAKE SUSAN DR 8621 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-966 50 ANHASSEN HLS DN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHA BENJAMIN R K & DONNA M BOBBIE D MORLOCK BRADLEY A & JENNIFER K HIBBS JOHNSON 5020 PAGE AVE NE 364 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN HLS DRS ST MICHAEL MN 55376-8951 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 CHA BRIAN & ALYSSA M CARLSON BRIAN & APRIL DEWOLF BRIAN & STACEY DOUVILLE 408 SUMMERFIELD DR 9150 SPRINGFIELD DR 616 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 BRIAN D & SUSAN L HART BRIAN R WALETSKI & ELLEN M NIPP BRIAN SCOTT BALDWIN 8670 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8644 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 980 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 BRIAN W & KELLY L AUDETTE BRIAN W & KRISTIN A HOULE BRUCE & MICHELLE L REINHART 510 SUMMERFIELD DR 880 LAKE SUSAN DR 294 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9648 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7608 BRUCE A & SHEILA M TANQUIST BRUCE C & LINDA P THALACKER BRYAN D & NICOLE C EDWARDS 8569 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 367 PARKLAND WAY 8905 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 BRYAN J & LISA C VAN NINGEN CERESE M KNUDTSON CHARLES E & LISA L PEDERSON 8686 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8589 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 8841 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 CHRISTIAN F & AMY C CASPERSEN CHRISTINE L HAUSKINS CHRISTOPHER & ANN DUPPLER 580 SUMMERFIELD DR 1111 LAKE SUSAN DR 9174 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9342 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 CHRISTOPHER & DEBORA K HOL 8687 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHRISTOPHER T & AIMEE J ADAMS 8690 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CRAIG L & PATRICIA A MULLEN 611 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 CYNTHIA ANN MILLER 891 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9161 DANIEL J & CYNTHIA M RYAN 8666 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 DANIEL P & MARY F JOHNSON 9101 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 CHRISTOPHER DESCHNEAU & ELIZABETH DESCHNEAU 901 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9654 CORY M & PAMELA S WATKINS 595 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CURT A & LINDA K KOBILARCSIK 9149 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 DANG VAN & FONG-YUN NGUYEN 9185 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 DANIEL M & MELISSA L HERZOG 8790 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 DANIEL R & RUTH A SHERRED 525 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHRISTOPHER J PATKA & CHRISTINE A PATKA 444 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 CRAIG JAY & ELAINE C HEITZ 1011 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 CURTIS A & SUSAN M SPERLING 8525 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 DANIEL J & BOBBIE J POTHIER 500 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7622 DANIEL P & MARTHA J NEWELL 900 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 DANIEL S & JENNIFER K RUBIN 9140 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 DANIEL W RYAN LIVING TRUST C/O DANIEL W & SALLY A RYAN DARRELL D & PATTI BARNETT DARRIN M & TANYA M JUVE 9131 SPRINGFIELD DR 539 GREENFIELD DR CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 HASSE M 55 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 DAVID & THERESA ANDREWS C/O S DAVID & ROCHELLE ALBERTI SUR[-PRICEWATERHOUSE DAVID A & LISA M HAPPE 1071 LAKE SUSAN DR 650 3RD AVE S 604 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 SUITE 1300 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-4333 DAVID A PEER DAVID G & C RUTH SOMMERS DAVID G & NANCY A SOLIDAY 8861 LAKE SUSAN CT 396 SUMMERFIELD DR 291 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7628 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7608 DAVID HADDEN DAVID I & JENNIFER A WILLIAMS DAVID L & TERESA L BLOOMQUIST 8649 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 500 SUMMERFIELD DR 960 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 DAVID L ANDERSON & HEATHER M BERGERUD 290 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 DAVID W & LAURA L BEISE 9171 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 DENNIS H & RUTH L LAUFENBURGER 8673 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 DIZA P BRAKSMAYER 472 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 DOUGLAS J KOCH & MEGAN M DAWSON KOCH 9136 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 DOYLE L & BARBARA A VOSS 8646 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 DZUNG H & HONG T NGUYEN 1081 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 ERIC C & DANA R HUSEMOEN 1091 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 DAVID M SMITH & PATRICE N LUNDGREN-SMITH 8568 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 DAVID W & SUSAN M RETTERATH 1010 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 DENNIS J & CHARLENE P HANSEN 8658 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 DOST NIAZ 8581 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 DOUGLAS M & CORAE R KRUSE 549 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7642 DUANE J & DEBORAH A WEIDENDORF 8760 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 EARL S & TINA M STRAIT 8624 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 ERIC G & DEBRA A RAYMOND 355 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 DAVID S & JANICE A LUNDQUIST 8705 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 DENNIS A & STEPHANIE A UNZE 1080 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 DENNIS P & CAROLYN T MCGRATH 628 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7544 DOUGLAS J & LYNETTE M W HOOLEY 9100 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 DOUGLAS S & DOMINICA B BERNARD 515 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 DYLAN C & MAGGIE A NISKA 574 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 EDWARD S & NANCY J COUGHLIN 587 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ERIC S & JULIE A OYEN 615 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 ERIC S & LISA M HAMBORG FRANK J & JENNIFER SISSER FRANK T & MARY LOU WHALEY 9108 OVERLOOK CT 8702 MARY JANE CIR 851 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9161 FREDERICK C RIESE & VALAIRE P GANG WANG & LIHUA OIN GARRY & TRACI DOLLERSCHELL RIESE 600 LYMAN BLVD 9128 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN HASSE M 55 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 PO BOX 88 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0088 GARY A SKALBERG 510 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7622 GEORGE J JR & LISA A CEASER 1091 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 GORDON E & ARLENE M SCHULZ 1100 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 GREG ALLAN MILLER 8801 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 GREGORY J & SUSAN L HENKEL 8699 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 GREGORY M BAGLEY 8573 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 HARLAN C LEOPOLD 8553 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 HUSSAM HASSOUN 8537 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 GARY D & DANISE L MCMILLEN 9151 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 GERAINT D POWELL & JULIE L W ICK -POW ELL 548 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 GORDON S & PAMELA J JENSEN 356 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 GREGG D GUTSCHOW & BARBARA J CLAYTON 8691 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 GREGORY J DEBENEDETTO & KELLY E DEBENEDETTO 8593 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 GREGORY R RENBERG 282 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 HEATHER L ODDEN 1121 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9342 JACK J & KRISTIN A RAYMAKERS 640 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 GARY F & PHYLLIS H HABERMAN 9036 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 GLEN M & JOAN M GERADS 1071 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 GRANT & KELLY MORRISON 1060 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 GREGG R & GERALDINE BARETTE 8695 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 GREGORY L & LORI A PHELPS 1031 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 HAESEOK CHO & JIEUN CHUNG 9170 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 HUBERT H & VICKY L MCKENZIE 1021 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 JACK J & LAUREL A SCHNABEL 9167 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 JAIME W & LISA H LAUGHLIN JAMES & ANDREA SWEENEY JAMES & JUDY STOFFEL 376 SUMMERFIELD DR 296 GREENLEAF CT 291 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7628 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 JAMES A CURRY JAMES ALAN SUBAK JAMES C & CHRISTINE ERICKSON #176105 EDEN PRAIRIE RD 1060 LAKE SUSAN DR 8691 MARY JANE CIR EDINA MN 55436-1250 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 DI JAMES G & KRISTI S ST MARTIN 9082 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 JAMES M & CHERYL DOUGLAS 8650 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 JASON J GILBERTSON & KATJA JEANNERET 583 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 JEFFREY A & LISA J SCZUBLEWSKI 432 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 JAMES JONATHON SOMMERS & KAREN D ROGGE 8683 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 JAMI D WALKER 8517 CHANHASSEN HLLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JAY K & KELLY S SELTUN 1040 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 JEFFREY A & MICHELLE M REITAN 8900 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 JEFFREY C OLMSCHEID & BARBARA EID JEFFREY M & PATRICIA J YEAGER 9900 LAKE L AKE SUSAN DR 55317-9653 1120 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 5CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 JEREMY M & SARAH E SINDELAR 921 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9654 JOHN A & BARBARA H DAHL 586 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 JOHN F MILLER 1071 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 JEREMY R & SHEILA K CARTER 1081 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 JOHN C & NANCY A BLOOD 575 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 JOHN G & KAREN L WEDIN 9101 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 JAMES L & JOANNE M WOLF 8585 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JANET T WISDORF 8639 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 JAY P & SHERI A WEISSER 8541 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 JEFFREY A & TANYA L SCHNEIDER 8702 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 JEFFREY S & KRISTEN J COOK 8750 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 JOHN A & ANNETTE R WALTERS 622 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 JOHN D & CHRISTINE LOVE-JENSEN 1050 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 JOHN H MEYERS & JACQUELINE C PRESCOTT MEYERS 1011 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 JOHN K & LESLIE G CADLE JOHN K & TRACIE L ROSSMAN JOHN M & MARY ANN MANUEL 301 SHOREVIEW CT 351 PARKLAND WAY 463 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7633 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 JOHN P & KAREN J ENGELHARDT JOHN P & KRISTEN L SANDERS JOHN P & MARIE M DEVINS 8645 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 559 GREENVIEW DR 486 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7642 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 JOHN P & SANDRA R THOMPSON JOHN R & JODI A ANFINRUD JOHN T JENSEN II 8635 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 295 SHOREVIEW CT 3815 39TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7608 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55410-1057 JOHN W & JOANE K ANDERSON JONATHAN D & SARA E WORRE JOSEPH W & BRENDA N NEVE 8654 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 300 SHOREVIEW CT 9137 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7633 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 JOSHUA & TAMARA REDING JOSHUA E & CORA L CONKLIN JUDSON E & JILL C SNELL 419 SUMMERFIELD DR 8990 QUINN RD 8694 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 KAREN L VANDERBOSCH KEITH A & JULIE C MENZEL KEITH E & LISA L SCHWEGLER 483 GREENVIEW DR 9116 SUNNYVALE DR 619 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7636 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 KEITH M & JENNIFER L MELES KENT B & LORI BETH WARNBERG KEVIN P & MOLLY K MCORMICK 9117 OVERLOOK CT 1111 LYMAN CT 9054 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 KEVIN R & LYNN C ARNAL KEVIN W & DEANNA J HANSON KEVIN W & QI LI LINDERMAN 8661 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 9163 SUNNYVALE DR 610 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 KHANH & KHIEM LE KLAY C & LESLIE A AHRENS KRISTIN PETERSON LEBRE 631 SUMMERFIELD DR 9108 SUNNYVALE DR 477 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 KURT A & SARAH J FERDERER KYUNG-SHIK PARK LARRY S & LISA MARIE EYRE 1090 LAKE SUSAN DR 1080 LAKE SUSAN DR 1100 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 LAWRENCE C & ELIZABETH KLEIN LESLIE E TIDSTROM LISA K MOORE 9170 GREAT PLAINS BLVD 8679 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8682 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8606 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 LONG DINH NGUYEN & ELIZABETH LONG LI & YING Z WANG LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION CHI PRAM 8557 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 935 WAYZATA BLVD E CHANHASSEN MN 55 55317-9406 LAKE SUSAN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 WAYZATA MN 55391-1899 CHA MANATH LENGSAVATH & DOUANGCHAY LENGSAVATH 1061 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 MARK A & ANNMARIE T SCHULTZ 598 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK A & REBECCA L ERICKSON 1110 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 MARK E & JANICE G LAVEN 8641 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 MARK J & CONNIE C KELLER 8831 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 MARK R & STACEY G LAKOSKY 8533 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MATTHEW G & ELIZABETH MASON 9198 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 MATTHIAS H & ANDREA VANDOORN 8674 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 MANDALSA D BHIKHAI & RAJUNDRANAUTH BHIKHAI 1051 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 MARK A & JODI L BARGMANN 466 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7634 MARK A & SUSAN E FROMMELT 9162 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 MARK E & JOANN M REICHOW 8653 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 MARK M & MICHELLE K GARRISON 592 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK S & TRACY L KURVERS 8560 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MATTHEW R & JODI L NILSEN 1051 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 MICHAEL A & SHARRI P ROGERS 540 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK & KRISTINA SCHWENDINGER 8708 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 MARK A & KAELIN M SCHOLLE 568 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 MARK C & LISA A ANDERSON 9111 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 MARK E GEMPLER & JULIE A WOLTER 8620 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 MARK R & JODI L SOTEBEER 8565 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 MATTHEW C & STACEY M B HUDNUT 420 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 MATTHEW W & KELLI M BROWER 8955 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 MICHAEL B & CATHERINE ANDERSON 8709 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 MICHAEL C GRASSEL & RENEE MWALMICHAEL D & SUSAN M OLSON MICHAEL D TIMM 9125 SP RGER 8612 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 1101 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN SPRINGFIELD MN 5553317-7629 RINGFIELD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 CHA MICHAEL G & KAREN L MCNEIL MICHAEL J & DARCI L GUANELLA MICHAEL J & MICHELLE M KELLOGG 8695 MARY JANE CIR 8821 LAKE SUSAN CT 9124 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 MICHAEL L & KELLY D AUER MICHAEL P & SUSAN E DEEGAN MICHAEL R & JENNIFER A 910 LAKE SUSAN DR 9162 SPRINGFIELD DR BRENDON CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 8811 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 MICHAEL R SMITH & DONNA J MICHAEL T & JEANINE HARRER MICHAEL W WEBER 409 SUM 551 SUMMERFIELD DR 8851 LAKE SUSAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 5553317-7647 409 SUMMERFIELD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9656 NANCY BRYDLE NANCY FULTS NEIL E & SUSAN L ANDERSON 568 GREENVIEW DR 8913 QUINN RD 429 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7642 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7623 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 NORMAN & JACQUELINE ENGEL PATRICIA JOHNSON PATRICK A & LAURENE FARRELL 8699 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8715 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 801 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8333 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9161 PATRICK F MORRLEY &PAMELA PATRICK L & KIM M MISMASH PAUL & TONYA HENDRICKSON WEEKS MOGFIE 591 SUMMERFIELD DR 9028 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN SPRINGFIELD 53 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 PAUL A ANDERSEN PAUL A HARRIS PAUL A LARSON & KATHERYN E 8615 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 8640 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 1061 CHANHASSEN LAKE -CARSON KE SUSAN 5DR 5 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 PAUL C SCHNETTLER & KATE D PAUL D & DENISE M ENBERG PAUL E & ANDREA M D STURM WARD SCHN DR 8608 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 8572 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 5553317-7645 599 SUMMERFIFIELDIELD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 PAUL J & MARY A LAUERMAN PAUL J NESBURG & KATHERINE A PAUL K & CARLA J HOFFER 9155 SPRINGFIELD DR SCOTT 8698 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 9093 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 PAUL W & ANA E MORENO PETER D & TIFFANY M MCINTOSH PHILIP P & NANCY E DENUCCI 603 SUMMERFIELD DR 550 SUMMERFIELD DR 9186 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 THAT PHANDANOUVONG & VATSA R STEVEN & MAURA BARNETT RALPH E & STACEY M SPRAINER 8529 CHANHASSEN PHA 8709 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N 501 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN CHNHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ANHASSSEE NOUVONG N HLS DRS CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8333 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 CHA RANDY L & STEPHANIE C WAIBEL 421 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8656 RICHARD C & SUSAN M AMBERSON 8549 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RICHARD W JR & LISA L SIMMONS 530 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ROBERT & JILL SKUBIC 8619 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ROBERT B MARTINOVICH & PATRICIA A MARTINOVICH 8592 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT G & DIANNE M W ICHTERMAN 8629 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ROBERT J & KATHY J BEERY 9132 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 ROBIN J & DEANNE J ANDERSON 562 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR & JULIANNE E ORTMAN 8698 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 RICHARD J CHADW ICK 9530 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8681 RICKI JON DREW ULKU & WENDELYN ELISE ULKU 1020 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 ROBERT A & KATHRYN M STEWART 8545 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT C & SUSAN J DAHLIN 535 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ROBERT G & SUSAN L DAUB 9159 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 ROBERT R & TAMELA J MERRILL 8662 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 RODERICK W & ROBIN K FRANKS 8694 MARY JANE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9646 RAYMOND J ROOB JR & CHAE SUK ROOB 8584 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RICHARD L & LINDA C NELSON 1070 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 RICKY JOSEPH BARTHEL & KAREN ANN BARTHEL 1090 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8535 ROBERT B & W ENDY A DUFF 520 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 ROBERT F & KAREN L ANDERSON 8561 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 ROBERT J & BEVERLY M AMICO 9061 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7632 ROBERT W SMITHBURG & MARCIA R ELAND 8657 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 ROGER F & DENISE K KIEFER 1030 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 ROGER K & JOYCE L SCHONE RONALD A & GAIL D ISKIERKA RONALD G & JOYCE L HORR 1010 BARBARA CT 569 SUMMERFIELD DR 8513 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 RONALD P LILEK & MARY M BENNETT-LILEK 9155 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 RUSSELL G BAHENSKY 8552 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 SCOTT A & MICHELE M WALKER 9031 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8639 SCOTT W & BERNADETTE M PAULSON 634 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 SHANNON G & MICHELLE A KERN 607 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 RONALD S & DEBBIE L WRENHOLT RUDOLFO A & ELIZABETH A GOMEZ 991 LAKE SUSAN DR 350 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9655 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7630 SAUMIL R BRAHMBHATT & FALGUNI SCOT T & NICOLE J JOYNT S BRAHMBHATT 9113 SUNNYVALE DR 1130 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9497 SCOTT R & LAURIE J SIMONSON 1051 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 SCOTT W & CINDEE M WALZ 9117 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 SHAWN P & TAMARA J AUSTIN 1101 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9342 SPRINGFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSN STACEY L JOHNSON C/O CONCIERGE ENTERPRISES 930 LAKE SUSAN DR 7100 MADISON AVE W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55427-3602 STEPHEN C & JUDITH A SLACK 8675 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 STEVEN D & CHRISTY A POPPEN 505 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 STEVEN L P & KELLY J SCHW EN 557 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 STEVE J & MARY A PANENO 8564 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 STEVEN D & DEBORAH L FUHRMAN 1031 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING 281 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 SCOTT T & KRISTEN M LINEHAN 513 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 SEONGWOO PARK & MIN JEONG HAN 8580 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 SO VAN LY & SUSAN YKUN UNG 8509 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 STATE OF MINNESOTA -DOT 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD MAILSTOP 631 ST PAUL MN 55155-1899 STEVEN A & COLLEEN M SAPP 8669 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9651 STEVEN H & RUTH M VANCE 8588 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 STUART E & JULIE M BODMER 991 BARBARA CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9652 SUZANNE M LANO TAE KYUN KIM TERRELL L & COLLEEN K HELLAND 8604 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 556 SUMMERFIELD DR 491 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 TERRI MARIESON BERG TERRY LEE & MAR T BERANAK THEODORE J & ANN L SMITH TRUSTEE TRUST 8576 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 9166 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN HLS DRS CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 CHA THOMAS A & CARRIE S COLE 528 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 THOMAS E & SARAH MARIA LYNN 1050 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 THOMAS M & CHERYL A ELENZ 8636 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 THOMAS S & LEANNE M KELLY 9100 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7635 TIMOTHY J & SHARI D HOEFT 8600 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 TIMOTHY S & TAMARA S MILLER 579 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7645 TODD M & ANNE J HINRICHS 439 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 TROY & JENNIFER HOLASEK 8556 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 THOMAS B & JENNIFER L BOWMAN 8577 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 THOMAS H & FELICIA R LINDQUIST 9107 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 THOMAS P & NICOLE M O'BRIEN 449 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7647 TIM & JANE BORNE 9158 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8532 TIMOTHY J LOVETT 8052 PARELL AVE NE ELK RIVER MN 55330 - TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE 275 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7631 TONY L & CONNIE S NUSS 9140 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 TROY A & JEANNETTE M RENNER 525 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7637 THOMAS E & MARY P KELLIN 940 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9653 THOMAS J & JULIE K PETERSON 881 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9649 THOMAS P HAGMAN & SUSAN M BARTENETTI 625 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7644 TIMOTHY D & PATRICIA L BESSER 400 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8655 TIMOTHY P & HOPE A JACKSON 8632 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 TODD E & VERONICA L SCHULZ 1070 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9406 TRINH D NGUYEN 1001 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 UTPAL R VAIDYA & LEENA UTPAL VAIDYA 861 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9649 VINCENT M HOWARD WANDA FAYE DENT WARREN E V & SANDRA H 15643 MESSINA ISLE CT 8678 CHANHASSEN HLS DR N SWEETSER DELRAY BEACH FL 33446-9761 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9650 9132 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7629 KEITH COLLINS WILLIAM E BENSON YANG GEUN PAK & SOO OK PAK CB RICHARD ELLIS 8596 CHANHASSEN HLS DR S 1041 LAKE SUSAN DR SUITE 770 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8108 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9337 7760 FRANCE AVE BLOOMINGTON MN 55435 Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Mr. Robert Worthington Southwest Metro Transit 13500 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Mr. Jim W. Sand Sand Companies, Inc. 366 South Tenth Avenue PO Box 727 Waite Park, MN 56387-0727 FILE No.894 0420 '04 14:57 ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAiE 2 April 20, 2004 Mr. Len Simich, AICP Southwest Metro Transit 13500 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: PHASE I ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PARI{ & RIDE DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY #101 AND TIM PROPOSED HIGHWAY #212 ON EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Dear Mr. Simich: As requested, we have prepared a phase I analysis of the potential impact of the proposed park & ride development on property values of residential properties along the south side of Lyman Boulevard, near Highway #101. As part of our phase I analysis involving the Park & Ride, we have reviewed the existing and historical zoning, the current and historical City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, proposed site plan of the Park & Ride and the adjacent freeway, and inspected the site and surrounding neighborhood. In addition, we have had conversations with individuals from the planning commission and prominent real estate agents serving the southwest metropolitan area to further understand the proposed development and its potential impact on nearby residential values. After reviewing this information, we also analyzed the appreciation rates of residential properties in like -kind neighborhoods near similar park & ride developments in contrast to the appreciation rates within their corresponding cities to further examine the effect of a park & ride on value; if any. The proposed park & ride development shows a common development pattern for an area abutting a major interstate. Similar neighborhoods throughout the state have commercial Properties immediately adjacent to major interstates with arterial roads, similar to Lyman Boulevard, separating them from residential developments. The residential developments generally begin with high density multi -family residential properties along the arterial road, gradually transitioning to single-family homes further away from the arterial road and the interstate. The commercial developments benefit from both the high visibility and serve as buffers to the residential uses from the freeway noise and view. The multi -family further buffers the single-family residential from freeway issues, and from the commercial areas. Furthermore, a 100 -foot landscaped buffer between the townhomes and the rest of the neighborhood is part of the site's design to further alleviate any impacts on the nearby single- family homes. Recognizing the forthcoming development of highway #212 through the subject neighborhood, the 10 -acre parcel on which the park & ride is proposed is a prime site for commercial development, The park & ride development plan follows the typical development pattem, while minimizing the potential negative impacts of commercial use on the nearby single-family homes. E No.894 0420 '04 1458 ID:Shenehon Company Mr. Len Simich, AIC1' April 20, 2004 Page 2 FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 3 The zoning of the subject property is currently RSF, or Single -Family Residential District. However, dating back to the 1991 comprehensive plan, the site has been guided for mixed-use development. According the Chanhassen city planner, mixed-use development areas are primarily designed for neighborhood commercial or high density multi -family residential. The Proposed park & ride development includes approximately 10,100 to15,000 square feet of commercial space and a 45 to 50 unit townhouse complex. The proposed townhouses are high end "row homes", and would likely sell for between $200,000 and $250,000. The commercial space would likely be primarily comprised of a daycare facility and a small retail area serving the park & ride users and the neighboring community. Therefore, the proposed park & ride falls well within the bounds of a mixed-use development and is generally a very low impact use. In addition, the park & ride has been designed in such a way that there will be very minimal impact on the traffic counts of the residential neighborhoods nearby. The buses will have direct access on to Highway #212 from the park & ride and will generally have no need to drive through the nearby neighborhoods. To further understand the impact of the proposed development, we contacted a number of prominent real estate agents who serve the Southwest metro market and are familiar with the subject neighborhood. Their responses were consistent in that they all believe that, given the alternatives, the proposed development is the most unintrusive for nearby homeowners. Also, the park & ride would provide convenient transportation for the nearby homeowners into the downtown areas and throughout the metropolitan area. One of the agents pointed out that the park & ride would produce higher levels of traffic in the area only twice a day during the work week, in the morning and in the evening, whereas a retail development would generally increase levels of traffic consistently throughout the entire day including the weekends. It is their general opinion that homes adjacent to park & rides are generally more desirable than homes adjacent to commercial developments. In addition to the research described above, we examined the appreciation rates of properties in like -kind neighborhoods surrounding three similar park & ride facilities. Specifically, we looked at the Apple Valley Transit Station, Palomino Hills Park & Ride (Apple Valley), and the Savage Park & Ride. Using the Multiple Listing Service database, we found sales and resales of residential properties surrounding each of these park & rides and determined the appreciation rates accordingly. We then found the average appreciation rates for the cities in which the properties are located by using the average sale prices over the same time period. To fully understand the impact on property values, we examined the appreciation rates of properties before and after the park & ride was developed. We found in all cases that the appreciation rates of properties were actually greater after the park & ride was developed when compared to the city averages. In addition, we looked at individual properties that sold both before and after the park & rides were developed and found that they showed similar appreciation rates to the rest of the market. Our fmdirfgs consistently showed that there was no measurable difference between the average appreciation rates of residential properties near park & rides and the average appreciation rates of all residential properties in their respective cities. FILE No.894 04/20 '04 14:58 ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 4 Mr. Len Simich, AICP April 20, 2004 Page 3 After reviewing all of the pertinent information, inCerviewing various real estate agents, and analyzing appreciation rates of properties in similar, areas, it is our opinion that the proposed park & ride development will have no measurable negative impact on the property values of the nearby residences. Any diminution in value that could take place in the future is due solely to the construction of Highway #212. In fact, the proposed park & ride development could potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the sight, and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to call us at (612) 333-6533. Sincerely, SHENEHON COMPANY Stephen T. Hosch, MAI Senior Vice President FILE No.896 0421 '04 08:17 ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 2 SHENEHON COMPANY IS A BUS7NRS5 Amn ReAc aTAIE VALUATION etRM serving both the public and private sectors. Our geographic concentration is in the Midwest, however, out services continue to expand throughout the country. A The purpose of Shenchon Company is to prepare appraisals and market studies nFreal estate, businesses and intangible rights, and to provide our clients with the specialized knowledge necessary to solve the many valuation problems that arise in the marketplace. A Our reputation of quality valuations is a tradition that began in igz9, when the late F.E. Shcnchon founded his real estate appraisal firm. In 7946, his son, Howard, joined the firm, and in the mid-ig5o s, assumed man- agement responsibilities. Since that time, the company has expanded to in- clude nor only the appraisal of ral cstatc, but also the valuation of business enterprises. A Shenehon Company continues that tradition by providing its clients with quahtywork prepared by an experienced staff of appraisers/analysts With a wide variety of expertise in the real estate and business valuation fields. This knowledge is achieved by incorporating extensive and continuous educa- tion with actual Field experience. A The top associates have arced designa- tions from the following organizations: Counselors of Real !:state (cRR); Appraisal Institute (mm); Institute of Business Appraisers (cRA); and the Amer- ican Society of Appraisers (ASA). These designations are highly recognized in the appraisal Field. Other seaffappnisers are candidata for membership in the above-mentioned organizations as well as members of additional boards and associations. The firm's appraisers are licensed in the State of Minnesota as well as other states throughout the country. Seven] members of the firm have earned postgraduate roaster's degrees in either real estate or business adminis- tration. A In addition to appraisal responsibilities, staff members serve as review appraisers, arbitrators, commissioners, special magistrates, mediators, and lecturers at various seminars and courses for a number of educational organizations. Several staff members have also published articles in local and national trade journals. T'hc company has also earned a highly-respecred repu- tation in the zea of litigation, with several staff members involved in numcr- ous landmark court decisions. It I alyalk ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAIS 3 'QUAIYIY VALUATIONS, EXCE:F'EIONALSERVICE, AND A LONI;..S'I*ANDINC DCDICAI'ION'10 REAL ESTATE INTFGREI'Y HAVE BEEN l'IIE CORNERSTONES ----- WVoN Wh11C11 WC• HAVE I4UIVFOUII FIRM.' Agricultural Fadlides Airplane Hangars Amusement Parks Apartments Auto Repair Facilities Auto Dealerships Bank Facilities Bars and Uquor Stores BowlingABep Car Washes Coins Ccrnenr Plants cemeteries Child Care Centers Churches Cold Storage Buildings Condominiums Conference CCDteM Connmirntcd Propacim Cauporare Headquarters Dcpartmcm Stores Fames Food Processing Plants Food Stores Foundries Funeral Homes Gasoline Stations Golf Cotuscs Grain Hevators Gravel/Sand Operations Greenhouscs/Nutseries Healdr/Fimess Clubs Historical Pmpercies Hospitals Hotewmorch Industrial Facilities InathLLt101121 Buildings ]ails 2-• FILE No.896 0421 '04 08:18 ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 4 Laboratories �r Latndfdls Lawn and Carden Facilities ,.CIO t� r Lumber Yards iP`� fid• Marinas,:•. McaiLml Facilities a ¢• Mini Sclf-Storage Properties Mining Properties ~7. Museums Mobile Home Parks Nursing Homes Office Buildings s +� Of6cd5howrooms c'if Office Condontiniums�,.. .. Outdoor Advertising Signs��'//��" Puking Ramps and Garages t` Public Buildings Racetracks '. RadiofTY.. Stations Reidy -Muted Concrete Properties Vacant land Rcc[crtional ProperticslResorrs Wedatnds and Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities Pnxerves Restaurants Right -of -Ways SalvagcYards CONSULTING Schools Senior Housing Facilities <-vndrmnations Development of Land and $ervicc $utiorr5 Shopping Centers Buiklings PP � Ski Reverts Environmental Imues Subdivisions and Lund Utarc Frc= Development Featibdity Studies Fnmdnsu e Subsidized Housing ,Ilimters land On Snrdia Truck Plazas L=c vs. Buy Analysis Truck Tcrminals Market Vnlue in Use '011li UNIgUI: COMBINATION OF RFAI F.STATC AND BUSINESS VALIIAI'I<'IN F:(I'fR(LNiCI' ALLOWS US To PROVIDE INNOVAIIVF SOLUI10NSTOI)IFFICUI:I'VALll,lflON I.SSliFS. R New Construction Sale and Purchase Special Assessmenc Benefit Analysis TaxAppcsls Tax Increment Financing Studies BU51NE5Is ENTERPRISES Advertising Companies Agricultural Businesses Amuwmenr Pules Apparel Companies Architazaral Firms Arenas Auto Dealerships and Franchises Bakeries Banks Ban and Liquor Stores Boat Manuf tmwers iw ID:Shenehon Company Bowling (:enters Brokerage Compania Car Washes Casinos Catenr/GRvel/Sand Companim Coal Lewes and Mina Communication Compania Computer Compania Construction Compania Construction Machinery Companies Contracts and Compensation Studies Convenience Stores Curtain ManuFanuters ()2y Cm Operations Development Compania Distribution Companies Dog Food Manufacturer Drug Stora Dry Cleaners and (sundries Electrical Cnmpanim Employment Search Companies Engineering Compania Equipment Compania Rbrication Companies Fad Mills Food Processors Footwear Compania Franchises Fremer Warehouses Cruolhte and Auto Repair c:>mpanles General and U need Partnership Interau ColfConrsm Grain Elevators Hair Salons I iardwnre Stores Health/Fitness Clubs Har Tracing Operations FAX:612 344 1635 'ADAPTING OLD THEORIES FOR NEW APPLICATIONS' . Holding Compania Home. Health Catt Servicer Hotcls/Motels Indusvial Companies Insurance Companies Invcnmcnt Compania Laboratories and Research Companies Landfills Land Development Companies Lumber Mills Lumberyards Machinery Companies Management Companies Manu6ccurers Representatives Manufacturing Compania Marinas Meat pmccun" Medial Practices Mcdiral Service Companies Metalworking Machinery Compania Mining Companics Morgpge Companies Moving and Storage Ctmtpanics Music Compania Nun -profit Compania Nursing Homes Oprical Stores Outdoor Advertising Signs Prinring Compania Processing Compania Produce Compania Prv6sional Practices and Agenda Publishing Compania (LV. Parks Radio Stations 4. 'r:! Radio Towers Ranches Rady-Mixcd Concrete Companies Real Fm a Brokerage and Management Compania Rettaurants Reran Shops Retail and Wholesalelire Centers River/Showboats Sala Rcprescrturivc Compania Salvage Yards Sawmills Service Compania Shoe Companies Sip Compania Ski Wiles Software Companies '[ichnology Compania Telephone Service Compania Television Stations Theaters Tool and Die Operations Transportation Companies Travel Agencies Treaoncnt Centers Trucking Compania Utility Companies Veterinary Clinics Vidm Stores Waschousing Companies Waste DLtposal Companies Wholesales FILE No.896 0421 '04 08:19 ID:Shenehon Company, FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 6 SHENEHON COMrANY SENIOXA530CIATES ROE TO BOTTOM', JOHN SCNMICK. BILL HERDER. JOHN FLAHERFY. JUDY WALDREt. 103 STRACHOTA. JOE LAERAY, BOB BROWN. STEVE HOSCH. DARRELL KOEHLING11. ROSIN KOZELLE. SCOT TORKFLSON. AND DENNIS BINGHAM INTANGIBLE PROPERTY RIGHTS Acccss Rights Air Rights Contracts Contracts For Deed Customer or Subscription Lists Damage Analyses Development Agreements Development Rights Easements Forestry Rights Franchises General and limiad Pam+mhip Interests Going Concern Goodwill I,m$ehold Interests Licenses Lost Profit Analysis Minority Interests Patents Royalties Tax Inerement F'mancing Agreements Trademarks Visibility Rights Water Rights Zoning Change FILE No.896 0421 104 0819 ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 7 I OUR CLIENTS 3M A.S.B. f apital Managcmmt Alliant Trchsy:trms Inc American Express Financial Group AmeriPridc Scrvirm Inc Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis Arthur An&mcn LLP Aspen Waste Systems, Tnc. Associated Bank of Minnesota Augsburg College AVR Inc. Best Buy, Inc. BNC National Bank of Minnesnu Boise Cascade Corporation Boston SdentiAc SciMed Breck Scho 31 Brenret Bank 'Triggs and Morgan Brookfield Properties (US) LLC Browning-Ferris Industries Carell, lnc Culmn Companies, Inc. Carver Counry Catholic Charities of the Archdiucese of SL Paul and Minneapolis Century Bank, NA Cit,Lank, NA City of Bloomington City of Edina Cit/ of Linc JAkes City of Kdiheld City of r2.oaeville Cold Sp. ing Granite Company C.00tage Cent -r :rack-trtllum C:,pird Group C wi C. miraron Dco...l: P.,uk Dorsey & Whitney, LLP Emu & Young Fal,mn, Inc l-aropc be Benson, T12 Hina Interests Fint National Bank of Waseca Firstar Fraunuhuh Companies GE Capital Corporation GMAC Commercial Mortgage Graces Tnc. Grumman Dealerships HnithEau Care Sysxem Hennepin County Hillaw Development Holiday Companies Honeywell International Inc. Internal Revenue Service Jim Lupient Oldsmobile KKE Architects . Koch Petroleum Group L.P. Kraus -Anderson Construction Lend Lease Real Estate Lutheran Brotherhood Mah-O-Meal Marquette Bank McGough Companies Hedtrotdc, Inc. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc MctO,politan Airports Cotrunission Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc Minncapo�s Community Development Agency Minneapolis I ltvt Institute Fou.rdatiot. Minneapolis Para & RccTric n Loam Minnesota Department of Trattspora« os Mu utd of N_w Y-,rk National Pmmt Indusuial Nordgnisr %p Company Northland/Marqucttc Capital Group Notrhwcst Alrlines/KLjA Opus Group of Compania Park Nicollet Medical Center Prudential PCG/PMCC R.J. Steichcn &. Can. Reliant Energy Minnegasm Richfield Bank & Trust Co. Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP Ron CJerk Constrm.tion & Design RREEF Ryan Companies U.S-, Inc. Schmirt Music StarTcibune SurModics, Inc TOLD DevrJopment U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Lc U.S. Bureau of Mina US- Department of Justice U.S. Department n"the Treasury U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. RealtyAdvisors, LLC Union Labor Uk Insumla Co. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, NA. University of St. Thomas University of Ivrinnesom FILE No.896 0421 '04 08:19 ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 8 z (sl x W-4 r� v J zW BIOGRAPHICAL DATA AND EDUCATION Bom and raised in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and graduated from Columbia Heights High School. Attended St. Cloud State University and graduated with a bachelor of science degree in real estate With an emphasis in appraisal. Successfully completed numerous real estate appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute, and have attended several seminars covering specialized appraisal topics, some of which are highlighted below: Legal Issues in Valuatiou - March 2003 Real Estate Outlook for 2003 - December 2002 Eminent Domain - October 2002 Commercial Real Estate Financing - March 2002 god Annual RERC Industry Outlook - Jamtary 2002 Reil Estate Outlook 2002 - December 2001 Eminent Domain - October 2001 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS Certified General Real Property Appraiser Licensed Appraiser - State of Minnesota, License (940112903, Expires August 31, 2005 Member - Appraisal Institute (MAI) The Appraisal Institute conducts a mandatory program of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational certification. I am currently certified under the Appraisal Institute education program through December 31, 2006. Member - Minnesota Shopping Center Association (MSCA) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Shenehon Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota Senior Vice President - Director of Real Estate, since November 2003; Shareholder Senior Vice President - Co -Director of Real Estate, September 2002 -November 2003; Shareholder Vice President - Co -Director of Real Estate, April 2001 -September 2002; Shareholder Appraiser/Analyst from June 1991 to March 2001 Duties and Responsibilities: Prepare professional valuations and market analysis of real estate ami intangible property rights. Assignments involve numerous types of commercial, multiple funny, industrial, and special purpose Properties. The SPecifie purposes of these assiganenu have included highest and best use studies, mortgage financing, condemnation, tax abatement proceedings, feasibility analysis, investment counseling, potential sales Rod purchases, lease and rental analyses, bankruptcy proceedings, charitable donations, internal management decisions, special assessment appeals, gift lax, +rad allocation of purchase price. Court experience involves testifying at commission hearings and depositions, preparation of affidavits, and providing litigation support. AU THOR/CO-AUTHO OR GUEST SPEAKER OF: "Challenging Issues in Commercial and Industrial Valuation," Commercial Real Estate financing Conference, March 13, 2002 "Market Valuation & Appraisals," Minnesota Commercial Association of Realtors, January 22, 2002 "Fundamentals of Special Assessments in Appraisal," Valuation Viewpoint, Spring 1999 "A Perspective on Subdivision Appraisal," Valuation Viewpoint, Winter 1997 PARTIAL CLIENT LIST Alliu Hospitals & Clinics City of Minactooka Anthony Ostlund & Baer City of New Hope City of Associated Bank Roseville Buss Guzy & Steffen City of Shoreview Beat Buy Corporation Crown Buds Blease ILw I= CSM Corpontion Briggs & Morgan Faerre & Remo Builders Day. & Finance Predrikaon & Byron Cargill H.U.D. City of Coon Rapids Hone & Micbalea City of Sagan Hennepin County Regional Ciry of Minneapolis Railway Authority Hinshaw & Culbertson internal Revenue service Kelly & Pawcen Kraus -Anderson Lem=rd, Street At Deinard Lindquist & Vennu n Lundgren Brothers Construction Malkerson Gilliland & Martin M,uOpoiitan Airports Connotation Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Opus Group of Cos. Peterson. Frim & &rgmn Rinke Noonan Robert Muir Co. Robins. Kaplan, Miller & Cimi U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service United States Justice Departmem University of Minnesota University of St. Thotnaa WArchol, Berndt & llaiek Wells Fargo & Co. Wlriems Pipe Line Company FILE No.896 0421 '04 0820 ID:Shenehon Company FAX:612 344 1635 PAGE 9 P Z U r 7a w 0r,�es < X a W 'd 2n W x� V) m BIOGRAPHICAL DATA AND EDUCATION Rom and raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Graduated from Marquette University High School in Milwaukee. Relocated to the Twin Cities and graduated from the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. Awarded a bachelor of acts degree in finance with honorable distioctioa. Holds a permanent membership in Delta Epsilon Sigma, a National College Honor Society. Awarded a master of business administration degree fmm the University of Minnesota. Awarded the distinguished alumni award by the University of St. Thomas for Corporate and Commimity Responsibility. Inducted into the College of Fellows in the Institute of Business Appraisers. SuccessfWly comPleted numerous appraisal courses and seminars which have been sponsored by the Appraisal Institute, the Institute of Business Appraisers, the Minnesota Association of Professional Appraisers (MAPA), the American Society of Rea] Estate Counselors, the Hennepin County Har Association, NAIOP, the American Institute of CPAs, and other professional groups. PROFESSIONAL OUALIIICATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS Counselor of Real Estale - American Society of Real Estate Counselors (CRT:) Member - Appraisal Institute (MAI) - Certified through December 31, 2007 Member - Institute of Business Appraisers (MCRA) (BVAL) (Fellow) Industrial Orgmnation Economist Associate - American Bar Association (ABA) Member - National Association of Industrial and Office Propanes - Minnesota Chapter (NAIOID Member - Urban Land Institute (UI.I) Member. Building Owners and Managers Association - Greater Minneapolis Chapter (BOMA) Member - Commissioner of Commerce Task Force for Appraiser Licensing - 1990 NAIOP Judges Panel for Building Awards Member - Lambda Alpha International - Honorary Land Economics Society CERTIFIED LICENSED APPRAISER 31 2005 Lictosed Appraiser - State of Minnesota. License #4000882. Expires August , Licensed Appraiser - State of Arizona, License #30727, EVires January 31, 2004 Licen'ed Appraiser - Stare of Wisconsin. Lkam,, #585-010, Expires December 31, 2005 Licensed Appraiser - State of South Dakota, License #585CG-2004R, Expires September 30, 2004 Licensed Appraiser - State of Colorado, Licenxt #CG40027370, Expires Decemba 31, 2W5 Licenced Appraiser - State of Florida, License PRZOW2662, Expires November 30. 2004 PROM%ONAL IXiERIENCEEXPERIENCE Shenehon Company, Shareholder, since October 1980: President since 1985. Pamhin Appraisals, Inc., Managa from February 1978 to September 1980, Shenebon-Goodlund and Associates, Inc., Appraiser from May 1975 to February 1978. Duties anResponsibilities: Prepare professional valuatious and market analysis of real estate, business enterprises and intangible property rights. Assignments have involved numerous types of real estate properties and businesses. d These assignments have included highest and best use studies, mortgage finaacinBfr Pitalinuon, condemnation, marriage dissolution, economic loss analysis, tax abatement proceedings, feasibility analysis, investment counseling, potential sales and purchases, lease and rental analyses, bankruptcy proceedings, charitable donations, internal management decisions, easements, special assessment appeals, allocation of purchase price, going public or private, lost profits analyses, estate planning, gift tax, ESOP/ESOT, rights-of-way, valuation of limited and general partner interests in real estate and business partnerships, and insurance indemnification. Teaching experience bas been with the Board of Realtors in the University of Minnesota Extension and as an adjunct professor and derma at the University of St. Tbomas and the University of Minnesota degree programs. Court experience involves testifying at various commission hearings, district courts, tax courts, and federal courts throughout the U.S. Writing experience includes mmerous published articles in various local and national trade journals. ArbbT&doo and commissioner experience involve& acting as a court approved tons real arbitrator, commissioner or magistrate on numel estate and business valuation disputes. Investment experience has involved a variety of business" real estate assets. Appraisal experience his been throughout the U.S. (over 25 states) and Canada. PARTIAL CLIENTI.IST 3M Corpontlon Bgmtabie life htalraoM AWN= FUM & Dm.n American Express - IDS Pelletal Aviation Association AmerTride Sanies TWeral Reserve Bank aaok of Mou *M Fun Chicago Bmk Brn Buy Fvwr Cupid GB Capkat Cath.lk Caarh- Gerald Hirci Inmre+t1 Cei-T GMAC Mortgage City of Mimrapotls HUD CsM Curporaion Harris Back Dmm Bak Trwt Compue Hcempin a Ramsey Cauoties Dorohi= Drwtp Iotenul Rnetue Ser'+ Dorsey & whimey J.P. Morgan Bank Panto Corporation Rn a Anderson Malt -o -Mol Muquvat nmk Merrill Lfuch-Hubbard M lint Airport Com>msxioP Mpnfingwar Naaow Preno ppm Grata of Cos. nhntifie Gu & Dazule Prn4al Financial Group Rahn Malnoa Company RESP Ryan Companies sax Dingo GL & 17cxnk srhmin mole sciMed life Syaems S.Mod;ca Tared Urutrd Sita Army U.WA stn« Fist & wumife Umtod sue loaK Dep� Un@cd pita Poet office ' Udivttmy of ht rc to Utiveifity or St. Thoma W.R. ossa Compuy w9grwn Drug State Wayrmiae W dna Wan & Co. W tadmi Pmrp GrouP Xm1 FXAW YMCA TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT -ORIENTED FACILITY IN CITY OF CHANHASSEN Prepared for: SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT Prepared by: BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. May 2004 CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ii SUMMARY m PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND Proposed Development Characteristics ............................................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNED FUTURE ROADWAY CHANGES.......................................................... 3 TRAFFIC FORECASTS TripGeneration........................................................................ 4 Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................. 4 Traffic Volumes 8 RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC OBJECTIVES Impacts at Subject Intersections (Objective A) .................................... 11 Impacts on Lyman Boulevard East of TH 101 (Objective B) ................... 12 Recommended Access Plan (Objective C) ....................................... 15 Traffic Study for Proposed i- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 PROJECT LOCATION.......................................................... 2 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR PARK/RIDE................................... 5 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR RETAIL/DAYCARE ......................... 6 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR RESIDENTIAL 7 5 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES .............................. 9 6 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ............................... 10 7 WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ............ 13 8 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ................. 14 9 RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN .......................................... 16 Trafii. Study for Proposed ii- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen SUMMARY Benshoof & Associates, Inc. completed a traffic study for the Southwest Metro Transit's proposed transit -oriented facility in Chanhassen. This study is to determine impacts of this development on the surrounding roadways. Based on discussions with City, Mn/DOT, and Southwest Metro staff, the following are the three principal objectives of this traffic study: A) Examine traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections during the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours: • TH 101/TH 312 north ramps • TH 10l/TH 312 south ramps • TH 101/proposed right tum access • TH 10l/Lyman Boulevard • Lyman Boulevard/proposed full access • Lyman Boulevard/Summerfield Drive B) Examine impacts of the proposed development on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101 for the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. C) Develop a recommended access plan for the proposed development. Traffic forecasts and analyses were completed for the 2011 no -build and the 2011 build conditions during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. Results from the traffic analyses indicated that the proposed development will not cause any significant negative impacts at the subject intersections and on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101. A recommended access plan was developed that would best meet the needs for the proposed development users and other motorists using the surrounding roadway network. Traffic Study for Proposed -iii- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to present the results of the traffic study completed for the proposed transit -oriented facility in the City of Chanhassen. The site for this facility is located north of Lyman Boulevard and east of the future realigned TH 101. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed site. Based on discussions with City, Mn/DOT, and Southwest Metro staff, the following are the three principal objectives of this traffic study: A) Examine traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections during the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours: • TH 101/TH 312 north ramps • TH 101/TH 312 south ramps • TH 101/proposed right tum access • TH 101/Lyman Boulevard • Lyman Boulevard/proposed full access • Lyman Boulevard/Summerfield Drive B) Examine impacts of the proposed development on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101 for the weekday a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. C) Develop a recommended access plan for the proposed development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed development was initially envisioned to consist of a parktride facility and other supporting uses such as convenience retail and residential. Based on discussions among neighbors, Southwest Metro Transit, City, and Benshoof & Associates staff, a preferred development concept was developed. This concept was principally based on needs for the area, benefits of multi -use developments, and trip generating characteristics of the various possible uses. The following are the characteristics of the preferred development concept (referred to as proposed development elsewhere in the report), which were used in this traffic study: • Park/ride - 800 parking spaces • Daycare - 8,000 SF (square feet) • Convenience retail - 8,000 SF • Housing - 48 dwelling units The proposed site will be served by a total of three access points — a right tum access on TH 101, a full access on Lyman Boulevard, and a "buses only" access on the TH 312 south ramps. The proposed development is expected to be complete by 2010. Consistent with normal practice, traffic analysis were completed for one year after full completion of the development, i.e. 2011. Traffic Study for Proposed 1- May Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 1 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT- ORIENTED FACILITY PROJECT LOCATION LBENSHOOFBASSOCIATES,INC. IN CHANHASSEN TMNSPONTATIONENGINEERs ANOPIANNENS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNED FUTURE ROADWAY CHANGES The proposed site presently is undeveloped. South of the proposed site is Lyman Boulevard, a two-lane City street with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Lyman Boulevard west of TH 101 is a County roadway. As shown in Figure 1, TH 101 is a north -south roadway with an offset at Lyman Boulevard. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) currently has plans to realign the north leg (north of Lyman Boulevard) of TH 101 to remove the offset at Lyman Bouelvard. This change will create a four -legged TH 101/Lyman Boulevard intersection. Mn/DOT plans to construct TH 312 in the next few years. With the new TH 312, an interchange will be built at TH 101. This interchange will create two ramp intersections on TH 101 north of the site. These planned future changes will result in the following geometries and traffic controls at intersections on TH 101: TH 101/7H 312 north ramps. This intersection will provide one eastbound left turn lane and one shared through/right tum lane on the west approach, two left tum lanes, one through lane, and one right tum lane on the east approach, and one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane on the north and the south approaches. Traffic signal control will be provided at this intersection. TH 1011TH 312 south ramps. This intersection will provide one left tum lane and one right turn lane on the east approach, one left turn lane and two through lanes on the north approach, and one right turn lane and two through lanes on the south approach. Traffic signal control will be provided at this intersection. TH 10R/ yman Boulevard. This intersection will provide one eastbound left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane on the east and the west approaches and one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane on the north and the south approaches. Traffic signal control will be provided at this intersection. Geometries and traffic controls at the subject site access intersections were established through traffic analyses and are presented later in this report. Traffic Study for Proposed -3- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen TRAFFIC FORECASTS TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates for all proposed uses were developed based on data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. Trips resulting from this process are called gross trips. Due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed development, a significant portion of the development trips are expected to occur internal to the site (e.g., a trip between residential and day care uses). Based on ITE data and experience on other similar projects, a five percent reduction was applied to gross trips to determine net development trips that will use the surrounding roadway network. Trips for retail uses normally are classified into the following two trip types: • New Trips —Trips solely to and from the subject development • Pass -By Trips —Existing "through', trips on adjacent streets CM 101 and Lyman Boulevard) that will include a stop at the subject development in future Although the convenience retail will generate a few passby trips, these trips would be very low compared to the total trip generation for the site. Therefore, no reduction was applied for passby trips for the proposed development. Table 1 shows the trip generation estimates. Table 1 Weekday Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use Size Units A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Park/Ride 800 Spaces 637 494 Daycare 8,000 SF 102 106 Convenience Retail 8,000 SF 51 51 Housing 48 DU 27 44 GROSS TOTAL - 817 695 NET TOTAL" L_' 776 660 total trios are ealenl»e•a �,....,�,...:.....�_ -- �" --..-•••6..w grw tDW t .Ps by five Percent TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution percentages for the proposed development were established based on discussions with City and Southwest Metro Transit staff regarding market areas for the various types of uses. It is expected that traffic patterns for the various proposed uses will be different. Therefore, separate distribution percentages were developed for the different uses. These percentages are presented in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the distribution Percentages presented in Figures 2, 3, and 4. This trip assignment resulted in development traffic volumes at the subject intersections. Traffic Study for Proposed -4 May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 2 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - ORIENTED FACILITY TRIP DISTRIBUTION LBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. IN CHANHASSEN FOR PARK/RIDE TFANSPo TATIONENGINEERs ANOPLANNEPS LBENNSHOOF EST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 3 ANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT- ORIENTED FACILITY TRIP DISTRIBUTION SSOCIATES, INC. INCHANHASSEN FORRETAIUDAYCAREINEENSANDPLANNENS SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 4 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT- ORIENTED FACILITY TRIP DISTRIBUTION �BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. IN CHANHASSEN FOR RESIDENTIAL TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS TRAFFIC VOLUMES As described earlier, traffic forecasts and analyses were completed for one year after full completion of the proposed development, i.e. 2011. To develop background traffic volume projections for 2011 at the subject intersections, Mn/DOT's projections presented in `17H 212 Design -Build Preliminary Engineering Design," September 2003 were obtained. This document presents 2007 and 2025 traffic volume projections at the subject intersections. Using these projections and existing daily volumes in the 2002 Mn/DOT flow maps, a.m. and p.m. peak hour background volumes for 2011 were extrapolated Development volumes established earlier were added to the 2011 background (2011 no -build) volumes to determine 2011 build volumes. A.M. and p.m. peak hour volumes for the 2011 no -build and the 2011 build conditions at the subject intersections are presented in Figures 5 and 6. In addition to volume projections at the subject intersections, Figures 5 and 6 show two-way volumes on Lyman Boulevard between TH 101 and the proposed access and east of the proposed access. Traffic Study for Proposed -8- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen CD O N �J W 2� o � LL H 10/10 10/10 109/139 TH 312 NORTH RAMPS N NOT TO SCALE 10/10 10/10 —� 11/110 � N °D o�C n co co mo c\j o 112/112 11/240 TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS T� 2011 NO -BUILD 1 1 2011 BUILD m0) I I co N'n XX/XX N O a NI y 4125 R-IN/R-OUT Tf O Nui U N (D U cc G UZ 4 � J Z_ � T CDNm co LL f0 Q N v /43 LO n 1 /1 0 roi cm C r co I 39/ 8 � 40/83 vn m I-/28 i L un I 22 4%41 � LYMAN BLVD. �i 119/119 ` E 1 1 391/423 __� I T r 1 -/276 —a 2/3 40/93 238/238 227/235 67/67--1 a o rn 9/11 n Lno ¢ ern r Lo ini p rvr o w O LL crw W F � cn N SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 5 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - ORIENTED FACILITY EAK HOUR OLUMES LBENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. IN CHANHASSEN TRANSPOflTAT10N ENGINEERSAND PLANNERS InNZ)2 O N Lr) N T' W [[ r O r� W ~ 22/22 10/10 3$8/360 TH 312 NORTH RAMPS N NOT TO SCALE 10/10 10/10 10/10 oM r 'CO. r(DO T Lo n mo rn� 82/82 10!72 TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS T� Nrn 2011 NO -BUILD 2011 BUILD Wow* m� I I n N It XX/XX V C rn �I y -/268 R-IN/R-OUT Tf rn w C� w d U [C n Q Z_ �n rn N J D a cl,N v �_ 39/42cr) w N co IL co v M m r r 2/2 40/107 198/290 It �--/s 263/267 10/10 a LYMAN BLVD. F— 277/277 329/338 -/101 — T 5/6 T j 50/70 166/166 140/157 I 152/152 w r�� 21/25 v v no ¢ pro cry o r co c') r cocc 0 w O LL w W 2 � H D 7 y SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 6 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - ORIENTED FACILITY WEEKDAY P.M. LBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ipANSPOflTATIONENGINEENSANDPUNNENS RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC OBJECTIVES IMPACTS AT SUBJECT INTERSECTIONS (OBJECTIVE A) To determine traffic impacts of the proposed development at the subject intersections, capacity analyses were completed using the Synchro 6 analysis software. These analyses were completed for the 2011 no -build and build conditions during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hour volumes using the planned future geometrics and traffic controls presented earlier. For analysis purposes, exclusive lanes were used for all tum movements at the site access intersections, and stop control was used on the driveway approaches. At the Lyman Boulevard/Summerfield Drive intersection, existing geometrics and traffic control, which include one lane on all approaches and stop signs on the north and the south approaches, were used. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of what each level of service means: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. For most agencies in the Twin Cities area, level of service D represents the minimal acceptable level of service for regular daily operations. Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include: long queues, stop -and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized Traffic Study for Proposed 11- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. Most agencies in Minnesota consider that LOS D represents the minimal acceptable LOS for normal peak traffic conditions. Results of the capacity analyses are presented in Figures 7 and 8 for the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours, respectively. As shown in these figures, all movements at all the subject intersections will operate at LOS D or better for both the 2011 no -build and the 2011 build conditions during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary in terms of LOS at the subject intersections. IMPACTS ON LYMAN BOULEVARD EAST OF TH 101 (OBJECTIVE B) In addition to capacity analyses at the subject intersections, this traffic study examined impacts of the proposed development on Lyman Boulevard east of TH 101. As shown in Figure 5, the two- way a.m. peak hour volume on Lyman Boulevard between TH 101 and the proposed access for the 2011 no -build and build conditions is 357 vehicles and 708 vehicles, respectively. This represents an increase of 351 vehicles in traffic volume on Lyman Boulevard west of the proposed access. However, east of the proposed access, the a.m. peak hour volume for the 2011 build condition is 396 vehicles, which is only 39 vehicles (11 percent) more than the 2011 no - build volume of 357 vehicles. Similarly, with the proposed development, the change in the two- way p.m. peak hour volume on Lyman Boulevard east of the proposed access is only 30 vehicles (7 percent) more than the 2011 no -build volume of 443 vehicles. Although the proposed development would cause a significant increase in traffic volumes on Lyman Boulevard west of the proposed access, there would only be a small increase (11 percent during the a.m. peak hour and 7 percent during the p.m. peak hour) in traffic volumes on Lyman Boulevard east of the proposed access. Since all homes along Lyman Boulevard are accessed east of the proposed access, where there would only be a small increase in traffic volumes, the proposed development would not cause any significant negative impacts on these homes. Traffic Study for proposed -12- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen a 3 0 W Q � LL F B/B �c/c D/D TH 312 NORTH RAMPS N NOT TO SCALE D/D� C/C C/cam Baa ¢U a U A/A D/D TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS T� as �2011 NO -BUILD 2011 I BUILD I XX/XX aII y -B R-IN/R-OUT T� as N W O z U Q Z Z J J � O a m U B/B LL a U a a a A/A D/D I A/A LYMAN BLVD. <--A/A D/D � T F' -/A � A/A A/A A/A A/A o o¢ aQa A/A m m m mmm Q 0 0 J W O_ LL Q W 2 H � � ==Mow) SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 7 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - ORIENTED FACILITY WEEKDAY A.M. IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR IWBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES,INC. LEVELS OF SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS aa� W 2� o F� LLH t—cc C/C TH 312 NORTH RAMPS N NOT TO SCALE D/D C/C C/C o a a ama ¢U a� A/A C/C TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS T I� as � 2011 NO -BUILD I I XX/XX 2011 BUILD a -B R-IN/R-OUT T� as W U o Q Q Z Z J J � O ami BB LL m mmm A/A C/C I� L� A/A LYMAN BLVD. y �i FI y F—A/A T T C/C A/A —� A/A A/AoU¢ oma VA-� ml mmm 0 a J W O_ LL Q S W m F � SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 8 METRO TRANSIT PROPOSED TRANSIT - ORIENTED FACILITY WEEKDAY P.M. �BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. IN CHANHASSEN PEAK HOUR TNANSPOflTAT10NENGINEEflSANDPLANNEflS LEVELS OF SERVICE RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN (OBJECTIVE C) To provide adequate operations within and around the proposed site, a recommended access plan was developed. The following items were considered in developing an access plan that would best meet the needs of development users and other motorists using the surrounding roadway network: • Traffic volumes on Lyman Boulevard and TH 101 upon completion of the proposed development. • Stacking space to adequately accommodate the 95`h percentile queues at the access intersections and at the TH 101 intersections with Lyman Boulevard and TH 312 south ramps. • City's requirement of a 100 -foot buffer between the full access on Lyman Boulevard and the adjacent property(s) to the east. • Mn/DOT guidelines for tum lane lengths. The recommended access plan is shown in Figure 9. Principal features of the access plan include location and geometrics for the right turn access on TH 101 and the full access on Lyman Boulevard. As indicated in Figure 9, the right turn access can be provided anywhere between the two locations shown. These locations represent a 75 -foot "window" in which the right tum access can be provided without reducing the tum lane lengths for the northbound right turns on TH 101 at the right tum access and at the TH 312 south ramps below the minimum lengths that are needed to adequately serve these movements. Traffic Study for Proposed -15- May 2004 Transit -Oriented Facility in Chanhassen TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS RECOMMENDED SOUTHERNMOST LOCATION FOR RIGHT TURN ACCESS ON TH 101 I I I I SDl' O Y' I I I I Er IOY a I I I I I I I I I ISO' I r malt— EO' EE Tr �rmnxr TH 312 SOUTH RAMPS RECOMMENDED NORTHERNMOST LOCATION FOR RIGHT TURN ACCESS ON TH 101 I I I SDl' O Y' I I I I Im V I I 1 I I I r malt— NOTE: THE RIGHT TURN ACCESS ON TH 101 CAN BE PROVIDED ATONE OF THE TWO LOCATIONS SHOWN ABOVE OR ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN THESE TWO LOCATIONS. N tSOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT FIGURE 9 APPROXIMATE SCAIE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED — TRANSIT -ORIENTED FACILITY RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN I— BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. IN CHANHASSEN fl 0 150 TRANSPORTATION ENOINEERSANDPLANNERS Chanhassen Park and Ride Chanhassen, Minnesota ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Noise and Air Quality Prepared for the LSA Design, Inc. by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 17 May 2004 Table of Contents Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 NOISE IMPACT IMPACTS.................»......................................................................... 4 2.1. Noise Sources..................................................................................................................4 2.2. Methodology and Assumptions....................................................................................... 4 23. Noise Model Results........................................................................................................ 6 3.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ...... _........ »............ _._..... .._.... .......... ...._......................... 10 3.1. Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................................... 10 3.2. Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results............................................................................. 11 33. Diesel Engine Emissions for Model Year 2007 and Later ............................................ 12 4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................... 13 David Braslau Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment List of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of the Site Relative to the TH 212/TH 101 Interchange ..................... 2 Figure 1.2 Schematic of Bus Movements at the Facility....................................................... 3 Figure 2.1 Roadway Geometries and Receptor Locations ................................................... 5 Figure 2.2 L10 Contribution by Roadway Group................................................................. 8 Figure 2.3 L10 With and Without the Park and Ride Facility ............................................ 9 Braslau Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment List of Tables Table 2.1 Predicted AM (6-7 am) Noise Levels (dBA)........................................................ 6 Table 2.2 Predicted PM (5-6 pm) Noise Levels (dBA)........................................................ 7 Table 3.1 Predicted I -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) ........................... 11 Table 3.2 Predicted 8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) ........................... 11 David Braslau Associates, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION This environmental assessment addresses potential noise and air quality impacts from the proposed Chanhassen Park and Ride facility to be located in the southeast quadrant of the future TH 12/312 interchange in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The facility will serve eight buses during the AM and the PM peak hours, with a maximum of two buses idling for approximately five minutes as it discharges or picks up passengers. Because of the interchange configuration, buses during the AM period will enter and depart along the northern access serving the facility. During the PM period, buses will circle the parking ramp area to return to TH 101. The two-level parking rump will accommodate up to 800 vehicles. It is assumed for a worst case scenario that all these vehicles will access TH 101 from Lyman Avenue and use the roadway along the east side of the park and ride to access the parking ramp. In addition to transportation - related land uses, new residential development within the site is proposed. These may include for -sale condominium and rental units. Location of the site relative to the TH 101 interchange and adjacent residential land uses is shown in Figure 1.1. A schematic of bus movements through and around the facility is shown in Figure 1.2. Section 2.0 of the report addresses noise impacts associated with the proposed facility. Section 3.0 of the report addresses air quality impacts (primarily Carbon Monoxide) associated with the facility. Section 4.0 of the report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this assessment. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 1 « N< » df w w§» ..:.. ..:��x. .._ �. ..a. �� nnvvonmemw Assessment 1 LSA Design, Inc. I Chanhassen Park and Ride I FIGURE 1.2 David EraslauAssociates, Inc.I ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT I Schematic of Bus Movements at the Facility Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 2.0 NOISE IMPACT IMPACTS 2.1. Noise Sources A number of roadways in the area as well as the Park and Ride facility will contribute noise to adjacent land uses. These include the future TH 212 Eastbound and Westbound lanes as well as the on- and off -ramps associated with the highway. Traffic along TH 101 and to a much lesser extent traffic along Lyman Avenue will also contribute to noise. Sources of noise from the Park and Ride facility will include buses entering and leaving the facility. It is assumed that buses will not use the high idle mode when waiting, picking up or discharging passengers, so that bus idling is not anticipated to add significantly to the noise level. In addition to buses, up to 400 vehicles may enter or leave the parking ramp during the peak AM or peak PM hour, traveling along Lyman Avenue and the roadway along the east side of the Park and Ride facility. 2.2. Methodology and Assumptions The assessment compares noise levels with the Minnesota noise standards for residential land uses shown in Table 1.1. The 1,10 metric represents the noise level not to be exceeded for 10% or six minutes of an hour. The L50 metric represents the level not to be exceeded for 501/o or 30 minutes of an hour. Table 2.1 Minnesota State Noise Standards Noise Area Classification Daytime (0700-2200) Sound levels m dBA Nighttime (2200-700) Sound levels in dBA Noise Metric L10 L50 L10 L50 1 residential 65 60 55 50 2 commercial 70 65 70 65 3 industrial 80 75 80 75 Source: Minnesota Rules 7020.0040 The FHWA highway noise model has been used to estimate noise levels for the AM and PM periods at sensitive locations adjacent to the facility as well as future residential uses that are to be constructed in conjunction with the facility. For the model, a specialized vehicle representing a bus has been used. This source assumes a higher noise level at lower speeds as the bus accelerates and a lower noise level as the bus reaches higher speeds, which is a reasonable representation of noise from buses expected to use the facility. Since these sound levels are based upon extensive data collected from urban transit buses, projected noise levels associated with buses that will actually use the facility may be overstated. The roadway geometries and receptor locations use for the noise analysis is shown in Figure 2.1. AM and PM traffic volumes obtained for a previous study of air quality at interchanges along TH 212 were used in the model. As noted above, for the AM period, buses are assumed to enter the north access directly from TH 101, pick up passengers and then enter the eastbound on ramp to TH 212 directly. For the PM period, buses are assumed to enter the north access from TH 101 but then circle the parking ramp to the south to return to TH 101. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 4 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment N 1 0 SITE 05 2 0 30 4 o o 6 LSA Design, Inc. FIGURE 2.1 Chanhassen Park and Ride David Braslau Associates, Inc. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT and Receptor Locations Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment An extensive buffer east of the facility is proposed that will provide approximately a 100 foot deep belt of evergreens of different sizes to provide a dense area of vegetation that will reduce sound levels approximately 3 dBA. The bus waiting area and parking ramp will provide some shielding of noise to the south, where a day care facility and residential units are proposed. 2.3. Noise Model Results Predicted noise levels for the AM or 6-7 am period are presented in Table 2.2. It should be noted that these noise levels are due primarily to background traffic, since bus activity during this time period will occur at the northern access roadway only. Table 2.1 Predicted AM (6-7 am) Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor Site LIO Standard L50 Standard #1 Bus Waiting Area 69.5 70 60.3 65 #2 Day Care Playground n.a. n.a. ma n.a. #3 Apt/Condo north 62.2 55 59.2 50 #4 Apt/Condo south 61.2 55 58.4 50 #5 Home north 58.9 55 55.2 50 #6 Home south 57.0 55 54.4 50 The bus waiting area, which will be exposed to bus noise, falls under the NAC -2 land use classification and is expected to comply with the noise standard for this type of land use. The Day Care Playground is normally not intended for use from 6 to 7 am. However, all of the residential land uses are expected to exceed the nighttime noise standards because ambient noise from the interchange, TH 101 and motor vehicles accessing the parking ramp. Receptor Site #5 Home (north) which is located immediately east of the parking ramp will experience only a limited increase in noise from the facility since no buses will be using the east roadway to travel south and back to TH 101, as will occur during the PM period. Throughout the Metropolitan area, residential land uses adjacent to transportation facilities are normally exposed to noise levels over the "nighttime" standards during the 6-7 am period. Exceptions to the Minnesota Hiles will permit construction of residential land uses at this site providing certain conditions are met as noted below. Under exceptions contained in Minnesota Rules, commercial noise standards (NAC -2) or an L50 of 65 dBA can be applied to a residential land use providing the provision in the rules can be met. The applicable provisions of Minnesota Rule 7030.0050 are presented below. Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a land use may be changed in the following ways if the applicable conditions are met. B. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 2 shall be applied to a building in a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met: (1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior sound level attenuation is at least 30 dB(A); David Braslau Page 6 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment (2) the building has year-round climate control; and (3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for outdoor activities. Any new home or residential unit constructed to comply with the Minnesota energy code will likely comply with the first two conditions listed above. Outdoor areas associated with homes are not normally intended for use between 6-7 am when the highest "nighttime" levels occur. Therefore, it is expected that residential land uses can be constructed on the site that will comply with the Minnesota noise standards. Predicted noise levels for the PM (5-6 pm) period are presented in Table 2.3. Table 2.2 Predicted PM (5-6 pm) Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor Site LIO Standard L50 Standard #1 Bus Waiting Area 69A 70 60.0 65 #2 Day Care Playground 68.7 70 59.6 65 #3 Apt/Condo north 67.2 65 59.2 60 #4 Apt/Condo south 63.0 65 59.5 60 #5 Home north 63.1 65 55.4 60 #6 Home south 59.3 1 65 1 55.4 1 60 Both receptor #1 and #2 are classified under NAC -2 and will therefore comply with the noise standards. Only the apartments or condominiums that are located along the access roadway used by buses to return to TH 101 will experience a noise level over 65 dBA. However, with appropriate design, planned outdoor uses that are located south of the buildings, rather than on the access roadway, should ensure compliance with the daytime standards. The contribution of individual roadways was also evaluated for the PM Peak Hour, where buses travel through the facility rather than only on the north access roadway. The relative LI O contributions for individual roadways or roadway groups are presented in Figure 2.2. Only #3 Apt/Condo (north) is estimated to exceed the NAC -1 (residential) daytime standard (Receptors #1 and #2 fall under NAC -2). However, it can be seen that this exceedance is not caused directly by passing buses but indirectly by the sum of noise from buses as well as a large number of other sources, especially TH 212 EB and TH 101. Therefore, buses are not the sole reason for this slight exceedance of the noise standard. A comparison of predicted L101evels at the six receptor sites with the Park and Ride facility and the predicted ambient level (i.e. without the bus facility) in 2025 is shown in Figure 23. It can be seen that sites #1, #2, #3 and #5 will experience the greatest increase in level (3 to 5 dBA) since there are closest to buses that will pass through the facility. Sites #4 and #6, as well as areas south of Lyman are expected to experience increases of less than 1 dBA. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 7 Chanhassen Park and Ride R e . l A .........«.e.. 70 — --- ®#1 Bus Waiting Area L10 daytime standard = 65 dBA ■#2 Day Care 65 ❑#3 Apartment North 0#4 Apartment South ■#4 Home North 60 ®#5 Home South 55 m ## 50 t J 45, "I 40 a`M tg 35 P r 4 30 All Bus TH212 EB EB ON TH101SB TH101NB TH212 WB TH101S Lyman LSA Design, Inc. Chanhassen Park and Ride ENVIRONN=ALASSESSMENT FIGURE 2.2 L10Contribution byRoadway Group David Breslau Associates, Inc. L r ti i O C O� J U Hf a0 w c� a Co CU U LL [ti IL 7 N m O Z b m a rA W 04N tl A H r ■■in a 0 C y CL m U d 0 � U � W N eU G VJ A � a w v N O a0 (O N O c0 0 V N Q I� h (O t0 t0 c0 t0 t0 N t0 m (VBP) On Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 3.0 AIR QUALITY E IIPACTS 3.1. Methodology and Assumptions The air quality analysis of Carbon Monoxide, the most common pollutant considered for local impact analysis of transportation systems, is based upon an extended model developed as part of the Environmental Assessment update for the TH 212 corridor. That model, as was done for the noise analysis discussed above, considered the entire interchange and related roadways. The addition of the bus and automobile access roadways (as well as the parking ramp) completed the model used here for analyzing potential air quality impacts of the Park and Ride facility. The roadway system and receptor site locations for the air quality analysis was identical with that shown in Figure 2.1 Since detailed traffic volumes were available for the 2007 projection year, that year was also selected for the analysis of the Park and Ride facility. Buses using the facility as well as automobiles traveling to and from the parking ramp were superimposed on this background traffic to determine overall air quality levels. For the air quality analysis, it was assumed that, during the PM Peak Hour, eight buses entered the facility from TH 101 and circled the parking ramp to reach TH 101, where they traveled north to the westbound on-ramp for TH 212. To ensure a conservative estimate of Carbon Monoxide concentrations and a worst case scenario, it was assumed that the eight buses idled for the entire hour. It was also assumed, as a worst case scenario, that 400 vehicles, or half the parking capacity, depart the parking ramp depart during the PM Peak Hour, exiting to the east roadway, then traveling south to Lyman Avenue and back west to TH 101. Worst case Carbon Monoxide concentrations were estimated at each of the six receptor sites along with the wind direction that yielded these concentrations. In addition to the roadway emissions model, an area -source model was used to estimate emissions and concentrations associated with the parking structure. The EDMS (Emission and Dispersion Modeling System) model developed for the Federal Aviation Administration permits the evaluation of parking lots of this type and was used for this analysis. The wind direction yielding worst case roadway concentrations at each receptor was then used to determine the concentration (with that wind direction) at each of the receptor sites. These two values were then combined and added to an assumed background concentration that was determined from extensive MnDOT monitoring data around the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The analysis was performed for both a I -hour and an 8 -hour period, since the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm is much more critical than the 1 -hour standard of 30 ppm. The 8 -hour concentration was estimated using an adjustment factor of 0.70 that is the commonly accepted practice for highway air quality studies. David Braslau Associates, Page 10 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 3.2. Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results The predicted 1 -hour Carbon Monoxide concentrations are presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Predicted I -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) Receptor Site Roadway Parking Background Total #1 Bus Waiting Area 0.65 0.50 1.13 2.28 #2 Day Care Playground 0.46 2.08 1.13 3.67 #3 Apt/Condo north 0.69 1.47 1.13 3.29 #4 Apt/Condo south 0.47 1.14 1.13 2.74 #5 Home north 0.48 0.50 1.13 2.11 #6 Home south 0.51 1.07 1.13 2.71 MPCA Standard I I I9.00 30.00 Note: ppm = parts per million It can be seen that the maximum Carbon Monoxide concentration is approximately 12% of the 1 -hour standard and all concentrations are well below the 1 -hour standard of 30 ppm. The predicted 8 -hour Carbon Monoxide concentrations are presented in Table 3.2. The 8 -hour parking concentrations are considerably lower than the 1 -hour, since little activity is assumed for the seven hours prior to the PM Peak Hour. The maximum 8 -hour concentration is approximately 18% of the 8 -hour standard, but all concentrations are also well below the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm. Table 3.2 Predicted 8 -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) .Receptor Site Roadway Parking Background Total #1 Bus Waiting Area 0.46 0.11 0.79 1.35 12 Day Care Playground 0.32 0.44 0.79 1.55 23 Apartment north 0.48 0.31 0.79 1.59 14 Apartment south 0.33 0.24 0.79 1.36 #5 Home north 0.34 0.11 0.79 1.23 #6 Home south 0.36 1 0.23 1 0.79 1.38 MPCA Standard I I I9.00 Note: ppm = parts per million Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on Carbon Monoxide concentrations are anticipated from the proposed Park and Ride facility. The issue of potential particulate emissions and odor is discussed below. David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 11 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 3.3. Diesel Engine Emissions for Model Year 2007 and Later New emission standards have been adopted for diesel engines manufactured and fuel sold for model years 2004 to 2006. For the Model Year 2007, the standards are more stringent. Actual particulate emissions will depend upon the make and model year of the buses to be used at the Park and Ride facility. Since the facility will be operated in conjunction with the new TH 212, it is anticipated that particular emissions from buses using the facility will be lower that with current equipment. Since odor associated with diesel exhaust is primarily related to particular emissions, it is anticipated that odors associated with bus activity at the Park and Ride facility will be even lower than might occur at existing park and ride facilities. Standards for model year 2007 and later heavy-duty highway engines include two components: (1) emission standards, and (2) diesel fuel regulation. The first component of the regulation introduces new, very stringent emission standards, as follows: • PM - 0.01 g/bhp-hr • NOx - 0.20 g/bhp-hr • NMHC - 0.14 g/bhp-hr The PM emission standard will take full effect in the 2007 heavy-duty engine model year. The NO. and NMHC standards will be phased in for diesel engines between 2007 and 2010. The phase-in would be on a percent -of -sales basis: 50% from 2007 to 2009 and 100% in 2010 (gasoline engines are subject to these standards based on a phase-in requiring 50% compliance in 2008 and 100% compliance in 2009). Effective 2007 model year, the regulation also eliminates the earlier crankcase emission control exception for turbocharged heavy-duty diesel engines. Crankcase emissions from these engines are treated the same as (i.e., added to) other exhaust emissions. Manufacturers are expected to control crankcase emissions by routing them back to the engine intake or to the exhaust stream, upstream of the exhaust emission control devices. The diesel fuel regulation limits the sulfur content in on -highway diesel fuel to 15 ppm (wt.), down from the previous 500 ppm. Refiners will be required to start producing the 15 ppm S fuel beginning June 1, 2006. At the terminal level, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard as of July 15, 2006. For retail stations and wholesale purchasers, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard by September 1, 2006. Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel has been introduced as a "technology enabler" to pave the way for advanced, sulfur -intolerant exhaust emission control technologies, such as catalytic diesel particulate filters and NO, catalysts, which will be necessary to meet the 2007 emission standards. EPA's review in 2003 of industry progress shows that engine manufacturers are on target to introduce new engines in 2007; diesel particulate filters that reduce harmful PM emissions by more than 90% will be used by all manufacturers; NOx control will be accomplished using proven technologies, some of which are in production today; and engine manufacturers will conduct early protoype testing with trucking customers in 2005. In 2007, these new clean engines operating on the 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, reduce PM emissions by more than 90%, will substantially contribute to air quality improvement, help states meet Clean Air Act goals and further protect public health and the environment. (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.hhn#progreport2) David Brashm Associates, Inc. Page 12 Chanhassen Park and Ride Environmental Assessment 4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed Park and Ride facility is planned to serve a maximum of eight buses per hour with parking for 800 motor vehicles. During the AM period buses will enter and depart along the north access to the facility and will therefore have minimal impact on both noise and air quality. During the PM period, buses will enter at the north from TH 101 and circle the parking ramp to return to TH 101 to reach the TH 212 westbound on-ramp. These buses will travel along the east roadway of the facility and between the parking ramp and the new residential structures to be constructed as part of the project. These buses will have somewhat more impact on noise and air quality, although the impacts will be limited. Noise levels during 6-7 AM, which fall under the nighttime period, are expected to exceed the Minnesota noise standards primarily due to traffic on the new TH 212, its ramps, and TH 101. Appropriate construction of the new housing proposed for the site can permit higher noise limits to be applied and therefore can comply with noise standards. Noise levels during the PM Peak Hour are generally under the state noise standards except for the apartments that face the access roadway carrying departing buses. However, the 2 dBA exceedance is within modeling error and may not be a problem if no outdoor uses are planned for the north side of these buildings. The buses alone are not sufficient to cause the noise standards to be exceeded. Contributions from the other roadways are sufficient for this small exceedance of the standards. Predicted air quality (carbon monoxide concentrations) are well below both the 1 -hour and the 8 -hour standard and no air quality problems are anticipated with operation of the facility. As new diesel engine and diesel fuel regulations are implemented, the potential for odor associated with the facility will also decrease. Appropriate equipment will be able to operate at the facility with little or no odor impacts. y:\jobs\2004jobs\204019\report\chanhawmpuk&ride-report-revised.doc David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 13 Item Description Non -Scannable Item (h Folder Number �- Folder Name — Job Number �) }-�Lq Box Number DD34 A pegg �N • g°lc° 690 � n, �S Zhi�d "loll" 5540sa 5�9°�n°°m • Ma°gHp°B� 9�WWW. de 612 339 ZpOb S�eeS��lOtV nes 0 Q+eE°9 sy ogee n%t jos°sit Eo tooSUlung patkiog / Going through your schedule, I have identified die foilowing.4ossible fees - 1. Administrative Fee Building Permit -Ne are esnmaring 52,200;OW cost, Plan Review therefore (s this the building permit or is me building termc additionalT) 960.00 1,325+'5 Suachai�e 2. MCES SAC S167&per unrt . estimating 9 units 4.-99 3. City WAC $4485 per unrt 1."69 4 City SAC 51689perunrt 5 Park Dedication $72.500 per acre 6 'Nater Lateral Hook-up 95A36 per Una 7 Sewer Lateral Hook-up $5536 Pei 24 220 8. Stormeater Fees Wf38&per-aaa- 9 Inspegiore esbyamOAArspepmeek Building Permit 9M.75 Plan Review 6492.69 Surcharge 960.00 Total 17,441.44 $ 43,000 $ 13,400 $ 35,880 S 13,352 S 12,500 S 44,289 S 44,288 $ 21,300 S 9.600 10 Traffic Impact 53.600 per acre S 3,600 'Ne wanted to understand whether these fees all appy a rave some already been oaid? Are there other significant fees we have not identified? Thanks for your help. ENDURANCE PROPERTIES LLC December 20, 2007 Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Southwest Village Dear Sharmeen: As previously discussed, we are working with the Southwest Transit Authority with respect to developing the retail component of the Southwest Village project. One of the items we are trying to understand is exactly what development related fees will be payable with respect to the retail portion of the development. Going through your schedule, I have identified the following possible fees: 1. Administrative Fee We are estimating $2,200,000 cost, therefore (is this the building permit or is the building permit additional?) 2. MCES SAC 3. City WAC 4. City SAC I $3675 -per unit r $4485per unit 14665 per unit estimating 8 units $ 43,000 $ 13,400 $ 35,880 $ 13,352 5. Park Dedication $12,500 per acre $ 12,500 $5536W unit--- _. _.....__ __ $-44,288_.. 7. Sewer Lateral Hook-up $5536 per unit $•-44,288 8. Stormwater Fees $2� per acre $ 21,300 -9: inspections estimating 4 hrs.per week for 20 weeks $ 9,600 209 Royal Tern Road North, Ponte Vedra, FL 32082 Phone 904.923.1557 Fax 904.280.5917 www.enduranceproperties.net Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff 12/20/2007 Page 2 of 2 10. Traffic Impact $3,600 per acre $ 3,600 We wanted to understand whether these fees all apply or have some already been paid? Are there other significant fees we have not identified? Thanks for your help. Regards, ENDURANCE PROPERTIES LLC William J. Baker Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Southwest Village Dear Sharmeem ENDURANCE PROPERTIES LLC December 20, 2007 Ct As previously discussed, we are working with the Southwest Transit Authority with respect to developing the retail component of the Southwest Village project. One of the items we are trying to understand is exactly what development related fees will be payable with respect to the retail portion of the development. Going through your schedule, I have identified the following possible 1. Administrative Fee We are estiting $2,200,000 cos therefore s (is this the building permit or is the building permit additional?) 2. MCES SAC er unit , estimating 8 units 3. City WAC $5 per unit 4. City SAC W6"1er unit 5. Park Dedication ? 6 Mater -Lateral -Hook-up 7. Sewer Lateral -Hook-up ? 8. Stormwater Fees $12,500 per acre $5536 per unit $5536 per unit Ulr3g& per acre $ 43,000 $ 13,400 $ 35,880 $ 13,352 $ 12,500 $ 44,288 $ 44,288 $ 21,300 "spections E - - -----,esbauttAnq4 hrs•=per week for -26 -weeks-- -S 9,fi08-- 209 Royal Tern Rmd North, Pontc Vedra, FL 32082 Phone 904.923.1557 Fix 904.280.5917 %MM.cnduranccpropertimnct Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff 12/20/2007 Page 2 of 2 10. Traffic Impact ? $3,600 per acre $ 3,600 We wanted to understand whether these fees all apply or have some already been paid? Are there other significant fees we have not identified? Thanks for your help. Regards, ENDURANCE PROPERTIES LLC William J. Baker