The URL can be used to link to this page

1j Wetlnd Alteration Prmt 05-07 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 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 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone 952.227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site \'A'NI.ci .chanhassen .mn. us 4¡j. MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator DA TE: February 22, 2005 01::-1''''1 RE: Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 0.12 acres of wetland for road improvement including turn lanes and signal construction Planning Case No. 05-07 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 0.11 acres of Type 3 and 0.01 acres of Type 2 wetland for road improvement including turn lanes and signal construction. ACTION REQillRED City Council approval requires a simple majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 1,2005 to review the proposed wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the proposed request. The summary and verbatim minutes are attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion approving the wetland alteration permit as specified in the staff report dated February 1, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 1, 2005. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 1,2005. G:\PLAN\2005 Planning Cases\05-07 Hwy 101 & Pioneer Trail W AP\Executive Summary. doc The City 01 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. ~ z -< u ~ ~ ~ ~ -< -< ~ -< Q ~ ~ ~ rJ'J. PC DATE: February 1, 2005 [I] CC DATE: February 28, 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: April 28, 2005 CASE #: 05-07 BY: LH STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 0.11 acres of Type 3 and 0.01 acres of Type 2 wetland for road improvement of turn lanes and signal construction LOCATION: Intersection of C.S.A.H. 14 (Pioneer Trail) and T.H. 101 APPLICANT: William Weckman, Assistant County Engineer () b-., ~ Carver County Public Works ðlf 11360 Highway 212 West Cologne, MN 55322 952.466.5200 PRESENT ZONING: n/a 2020 LAND USE PLAN: nla ACREAGE: nla DENSITY: nla SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to fill 0.12 acres of wetland along C.S.A.H. 14 (Pioneer Trail) to accommodate additional turn lanes at the intersection with Trunk Highway 101. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit is limited to whether or not the proposal meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the wetland alteration permit. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. ..... Location Map Wetland Alteration Permit Intersection of Pioneer Trail and Highway 101 Planning Case No. 05-07 --- .---------- ._._- Project Location ,------- --~---- -- Planning Commission Planning Case No. 05-07 February 1,2005 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGUA TIONS Sec. 20-404. No net loss. To achieve no net loss of wetland, except as provided under section 20-416 of this article, or authorized by a wetland alteration permit issued by the city, a person may not drain, grade, excavate, fill, bum, remove healthy native vegetation, or otherwise alter or destroy a wetland of any size or type. Any alteration to a wetland, permitted by a wetland alteration permit must be fully mitigated so that there is no net loss of wetlands. Sec. 20-407. Wetland alteration. (a) An applicant for a wetland alteration permit must demonstrate that the activity impacting a wetland has complied with all of the following principles in descending order of priority: (1) A voids the direct or indirect impacts to the wetland that may destroy or diminish the wetland; (2) Minimizes the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation; (3) Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland; (4) Reduces or eliminates the impact to the wetland over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity; and (5) Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetland by restoring or, if wetland restoration opportunities are not reasonably available, creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0760. Exceptions to this part are calcareous fens, which are subject to Minnesota Rules 8420.1010-8420.1070. Sec. 20-408. Permit required. (a) No person shall drain, excavate in the permanent or semi-permanent flooded areas of type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands, or fill a wetland, wholly or partially, or otherwise impact wetlands without first having a wetland replacement plan or other determination approved by the city. Draining, grading, excavating, filling, removing of healthy native vegetation, or otherwise altering or destroying a wetland of any size or type requires a wetland alteration permit. Activity in a wetland requiring a wetland alteration permit includes, but is not limited to: (1) Construction of new streets and utilities. Sec. 20-409. Filling. When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing filling in a wetland, filling must be consistent with the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The filling shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland if a portion of the wetland remains unless exempted under section 20-416. Planning Commission Planning Case No. 05-07 February 1,2005 Page 3 BACKGROUND Carver County is proposing the installation of traffic signals and the construction of turn lanes at the intersection of Trunk Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail (Attachment 2). Project Location The project is intended to reduce delay for the increasing traffic levels on T.H. 101IC.S.A.H. 14. Left-turn lanes at T.H. 101 and C.S.A.H. 14 should improve capacity and long backups that are current problems. WETLAND IMPACT Due to the addition of turn lanes on Pioneer Trail at the intersection with Highway 101, this project will impact 1 wetland basin in 2 areas for a total of 0.12 acres of wetland (Attachment 6). Wetland 1 is a Type 2/3 wetland that is approximately 10.5 acres in size. It is dominated by reed canary grass and cattail. This project proposes 0.01 acres of impact to the Type 2 portion of the basin and 0.11 acres of impact to the Type 3 portion of the basin. Wetland impacts are considered unavoidable and have been reduced to the extent practical given grading and safety considerations. The side slopes of the shoulder on the north side of Pioneer Trail have been made steeper (from a typical 6: 1 slope to a steeper 4: 1 slope) to reduce the footprint of the road and the amount of wetland fill. WETLAND MITIGATION The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) is required to replace wetland impacts that occur as a result of public road projects (Attachment 5). Mitigation of wetland impacts will be accomplished through the BWSR Road Replacement Program and will be at a 2: 1 replacement ratio. IMP ACTS TO PRIVATE PROPERTIES The project proposes tree loss and grading within an area on private property that is under a conservation easement. The applicant must request the City grant a conservation easement release prior to clearing and grubbing the site. Planning Commission Planning Case No. 05-07 February 1, 2005 Page 4 The project also proposes work within expanded right-of-ways for Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail. The applicant should work with property owners to obtain additional right-of-way prior to proceeding with the project. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Proposed erosion control must be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetlands. Silt fence must be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all areas with a steep slope of 3: 1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. OTHER AGENCIES The applicant should apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase IT Construction Permit)) and comply with their conditions of approval. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit 05-07 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall request the City grant a conservation easement release prior to clearing and grubbing the site. 2. The applicant shall work with property owners to obtain additional right-of-way prior to proceeding with the project. Planning Commission Planning Case No. 05-07 February 1,2005 Page 5 3. All wetland impacts shall be mitigated through the BWSR Road Replacement Program in accordance with state law. 4. Proposed erosion control shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type II silt fence shall be used adjacent to the existing wetlands. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 5. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the limits of tree removal. 6. Erosion control blankets shall be installed in all areas with a steep slope of 3:1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater. 7. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 8. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit)) and comply with their conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact 2. Application received December 29,2004 3. Notice of Public Hearing and Affidavit of Mailing dated January 20, 2005 4. Excerpt from Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420.0544, subp. H) 5. Project area and wetland delineation map g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-07 hwy 101 & pioneer trail wap\staff report 2-1-05 .doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Carver County for a Wetland Alteration Permit #05-07. On February 1,2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Carver County for a wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed wetland alteration permit 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 located at the intersection of County State Aid Highway (C.S.A.H.) 14 (Pioneer Trail) and Trunk Highway (T.H.) 101 (Great Plains Boulevard). 2) The wetland permit meets the applicable standards from the city code: a) Any alteration to a wetland, permitted by a wetland alteration permit must be fully mitigated so that there is no net loss of wetlands; b) A voids the direct or indirect impacts to the wetland that may destroy or diminish the wetland; c) Minimizes the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation; d) Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetland by restoring or, if wetland restoration opportunities are not reasonably available, creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0760; e) No person shall drain, excavate in the permanent or semi-permanent flooded areas of type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands, or fill a wetland, wholly or partially, or otherwise impact wetlands without first having a wetland replacement plan or other determination approved by the city. Draining, grading, excavating, filling, removing of healthy native vegetation, or otherwise altering or destroying a wetland of any size or type requires a wetland alteration permit; and f) When a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing filling in a wetland, filling must be consistent with the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The filling shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland if a portion of the wetland remains unless exempted under section 20-416. 1 3) The planning report #05-07, dated February 1,2005, prepared by Lori Haak, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDA TION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1st day of February, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Uli, Sacchet, Chairman g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-07 hwy 101 & pioneer trail wap\findings offact.doc 2 APPLICANT: fA.'(ýtY' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION OWNER: COX" '{' COpy ADDRESS: J \'3"'0 t:\W~ 212 W &\\)3111(- J ~N 55322- TELEPHONE (Day Time) q52- L lot, - '5200 ADDRESS: \\51oD ~' 212. W t..ðl~V1f. J NtJ. 55622 TELEPHONE: q 15 2 - L} (pfp- 5;2 15 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit , Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit X Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** Site Plan Review* - $50 CUP/SPRlVACNARlWAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ 1>25.00 Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the applicatio'n -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box 0 L>i~ 2 9 2004 Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP: *Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy 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: s.r IOO<7-J~ or C.S.Ä.\-\. ,~ 2150253300 ; ) and TH.IOI 250 2S3J 00 I LOCATION: -:r:V\.ftY"Stc:tio t'1 LEG~L DESCRIPTION: r T.D. TOTAL ACREAGE: o. \1 Ac;(~s o~ Wtt\o.nd Impacted WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: A 2 REQUESTED ZONING: ~ 2 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Low 'DGrr;;.Tf P{!sìde>1JHa..1 REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: lðw ~i1Si+t Rtsidevcl1a) REASON FOR REQUEST: WetlQ.\t1d 'Htl fì>( f1u ~odd I MfXDve m etd-s 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 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or 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. _./~/L1L/ß,,"/e~ - ÆTI$mvr~' i;?t/'t>/( Signature of plicant l;2.þ9/oi Date Signature of Fee Owner 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 Thursday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. C\Documents and Settings\jwenko\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK9\Developrnent Review Application.DOC øS -úÎ CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDA VIT 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 January 20, 2005, 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 on Wetland Alteration Permit for intersection improvements at TH 101 and CSAH 14 - Planning Case No. 05-07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. ctj~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this~day o~'" ~ y' 2005. ~._~ . -V»\., \.' . ~ Notary Public - K\M 1. MEUW\SSEN } N .an/ Pub\\c-Mlnnesota 0--, expIres.an 31. 2010 tIfo¡~ g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-07 hwy 101 & pioneer trail wap\05-07 ph notice affidavit ofrnaiIing.doc SCANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, February 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill .11 Type 3 and .01 acres of Type 2 wetland for road of turn lanes and signal construction 05-07 Carver County Public Works Northwest corner of intersection of TH 101 (Great Plains Blvd.) and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) 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: 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 this project, please contact Lori Haak at 952-227-1135 or e- maillhaak@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. The staff report for this item wi be available online at httD:1I206.1 O.76.6/weblink the Thursday Drior to the Planning Commission meeting. acres of improvement Date & Time: Location Planning File: Applicant: What Happens at the Meeting Questions & Comments: Proposal Project Location Tuesday, February 1,2005 at 7:00 p.m City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill .11 Type 3 and .01 acres of Type 2 wetland for road of turn lanes and signal construction 05-07 Carver County Public Works Northwest corner of intersection of TH 101 (Great Plains Blvd.) and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) 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: 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 this project, please contact Lori Haak at 952-227-1135 or e- maillhaak@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. The staff report for this item wi be available online at httD://206.10.76.6Iweblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. acres of improvement Date & Time: Location: Planning File ADDlicant: What Happens at the Meeting Questions & Comments: : Proposal Project Location 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 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. Dlease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. City Review Procedure: · Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonlngs, 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 01 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 somethina to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. )Isclaimer his' map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. his map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and Jderal offices and other sources regarding the area shown. and is to be used for reference urposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information SyStem (GIS) Data used ) prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used " navigational. tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or irection or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found lease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota ôtatutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not e liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims. and agrees to defend, indermify, and old hamiess the City from any and all claims brought by User. ~s errployees or agents. or third arties which arise out of the use(s access or use of data provided. Jisclalmer Chis map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. Chis map is a compilation of records. information and data located in various city. county. state and ederal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference .urposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used o prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used or navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or lirection or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found .Iease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota >tatutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not .e liable for any damages. and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and .old hamiess the City from any and all claims brought by User, its errployees or agents. or third >ames which arise out of the use(s access or use 01 data provided. Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Wetland Alteration Permit for Intersection Improvements at Pioneer Trail and Highway 1 01 Planning Case No. 05-07 " %. o .... a. :D o 1) a. RICHARD S & KATHERINE S ASPLlN 541 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN MN THEODORE B & KAREN K HASSE 630 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN MN ROGER G NOVOTNY 560 PINEVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN MN ROBERT & CHRISTIN E BOECKER 610 96TH STW CHANHASSEN MN MN ROGER A & KIMBERLY A LEE 600 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN MN ANDREW T RIEGERT 620 96TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN MN DONALD E HALLA & SANDRA J CW A YNA HALLA 10000 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA MN MN JOHN & ANNA MAE MAKELA 9860 RASPBERRY HL CHASKA MN MN Minnesota Rule 8420.0544 Page 1 of 2 Mjnne~.9J.(LRulesJªl>l~ºf.ÇhªpJ~rs IªÞJ~._ºf.çºnl~nl~.JQI.Chªpl~.L.842Q 8420.0544 REPLACEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. A. Wetlands impacted by public transportation projects may be replaced statewide, only for wetlands affected in greater than 80 percent areas and for public transportation projects, except that wetlands affected in less than 50 percent areas must be replaced in less than 50 percent areas, and wetlands affected in the seven-county metropolitan area must be replaced at a ratio of two to one in: (1) the affected county; (2) in another of the seven metropolitan counties; or (3) in one of the major watersheds that are wholly or partially within the seven-county metropolitan area, but at least one to one must be replaced within the seven-county metropolitan area. Partª_~20,_Q~_4)_, item A, subitem (5), does not apply to replacement completed using wetlands banking credits established by an applicant who submitted a complete wetland banking application to a local government unit by April 1, 1996. B. Replacement of wetlands may be accomplished under the rules for wetland banking as provided for in parts 8420.0700 to 8420.0760. .. -----_._-----~-~- C. For projects involving draining or filling of wetlands associated with a new public transportation project, and for projects expanded solely for additional traffic capacity, public transportation authorities may purchase credits from the board at the cost to the board to establish credits. D. A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for individual public road projects that result in the draining, excavating, or filling of wetlands for the repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement of a currently serviceable existing state, city, county, or town public road necessary, as determined by the public road authority, to meet state or federal design or safety standards or requirements, excluding new roads or roads expanded solely for additional traffic capacity lanes. This item only applies to authorities for public road projects that: (1) minimize the amount of wetland draining, excavating, or filling associated with the project and consider mitigating important site-specific wetland functions on site; and (2) (a) submit, at least 30 days prior to construction, project-specific reports, and any changes or addenda, to the board, the technical evaluation panel, the commissioner of natural resources, and members of the public requesting a copy that indicate the location, amount, and type of wetlands drained, excavated, or filled by the project; http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/8420/0544.html 1/2112005 Minnesota Rule 8420.0544 Page 20f2 (b) convene an annual meeting of the parties required to receive notice to review projects to be commenced during the upcoming year; or (c) for minor and emergency maintenance work impacting less than 10,000 square feet, the public road authority may submit project-specific reports, within 30 days of commencing the activity, to the board and the technical evaluation panel that indicate the location, amount, and type of wetlands that have been drained, excavated, or filled. E. The technical evaluation panel shall review minimization and delineation decisions made by the public road authority and provide recommendations regarding on-site mitigation if requested to do so by the local government unit, a contiguous landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel. F. Those required to receive notice of public road projects may appeal minimization, delineation, and on-site mitigation decisions made by the public road authority to the board according to part 8420.0250. G. Changes to wetland impacts proposed by local road authorities in item D shall be reported to the board within six months from the date of the change being finalized. H. Except for state public transportation projects, for which the state Department of Transportation is responsible, the board must replace Dublic road Droiect imDacts to wetlands and wetland areas of public waters if authorized by the commissioner or a delegated authority, that are drained, excavated, or filled by local government projects on existing roads. Replacement of the wetlands must occur in critical rural and urban watersheds. I. Public road authorities at their discretion may deviate from federal and state design standards on existing road projects when practical and reasonable to avoid wetland filling or draining, provided that public safety is not unreasonably compromised. The local road authority and its officers and employees are exempt from liability for any tort claim for injury to persons or property arising from travel on the highway and related to the deviation from the design standards for construction or reconstruction under this item. This item does not preclude an action for damages arising from negligence in construction or maintenance on a highway. STAT AUTH: MS S:L_!_.g§; 1QJJ3·1QJ; :L-º3B'}}?2; l.Q}.G_~2_1_~_ HIST: 18 SR 274; 22 SR 1877; 25 SR 152; 27 SR 135; L 2004 c 228 art 1 s 71 Current as of 08/04/04 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/8420/0544.html 1/21/2005 0 ø 0 0 /- ,0 I '.""1, I \ G f) \ \ ~ '" '" l 0 0 '" '" '" Ð * * 0 ~ '" '" '" '" * "* "* "* "* '" '" "* '" '" '" * ·0 ! '" I~ Ð \Jj) /' o ~ ~'" ~"': Ð .1 0'1 ø ~ o ~ ø'; ",,,, G '" eo '" G ~ '" Ð G, Ð '" \ \ I I , I I o "* * "* Ð o II> o "'"I , iø- ; I I eo I / ø I \. / ø 0 '-_../ ø ø Ð '" £0 £0 / / ! . / ___~_/--J -'- _!?-- /,/ / 1 and Wet 2 N.A N.A N.A. 10.5 ae a.Olae £0 £0 £0 Type on: ehment: ., ~. I i ~- I . j-- .\ / I Ð / .J ,." eo ~\ £0 --Çl . Ð Ð ~ <0 n: Wetland 1 n Type: 3 ' tfon: N. A. f} N.A. Ð N.A. aehment b?it gg ~ \" ~~ -- '_____.. G 0,. '-- + --- . , "-.----.:../'-~ ~ '--- ..--- ';'-- -~.- ~- ~... "'-"'c---.~;j. "":¡Q.... I . , , 9 -------- . Ð ø £Of> - -- - - STATE PROJ. NO. 1009-14 (TH 101 ) SHEET NO.1 OF SHEETS 6 r..--..-..-..____--. \- l' U1 -¡.èý I- UJ 0 UJ I I :z: ø U1 I I I \ 00 I.L I 0 , 1.______ I I \ <':) ó I z I 0 l- I UJ , I UJ I :z: \ <':) I/) U1 I , +- } \ 0 \ \ 0 ~ \ Cl ~ ,~t:'". E _ . i( ,- 0 ....., -"--:~ "0 .-. C :z: 0 += t; () ~ I ;'!; , I '" I 0 , 9 I , Ó c I Z , -; I I 0 0: I 0. , u, , l- I "" I- VI c 0 I c c <':) c 0 ø " -0 c <':) " "" c 0 c "c c t: c c " c " t: c i:1 ~ c r~ - --== =:) Oc~0 ,.-~_.- ----...---..-..--- 1.-.:.3',- J~, ø 0"",,c rc:"0°c<':)010'f.:~\0c 0" " ø <':) I I , I I I I I I I ° L_ ° <':) "cc°00<':)00000000000<':)oII<':)0..,:.ø- ~-f-~-~-f---'-~--'I' r,/f /---~, (,-~~ . ~ <':) \ \ o 0\ \ ..-. I \J 0 ,,11) \ \ C 00 I 0 \ l 0 0 ¡" 0 ø '\' +- <{«~O ------' \ "- () - - -a - '~ ~NZZZ~O ~~-- --.-- "---"\\or-~'-~' ~c W ~ v \ .;: +---<.---+---- -~~ G°l]' " "~ .. ~§ ! o i~ ø 00 ", 0 €I \ C C -I- 0 C?: 0 ',00 0 '--0 .. 0 o " \(/)(/)C ()L ;?) - ø, \ 0001.. .. N () -.- - - Q,y- CDCD-()()-C -- -- (/) 0. OM W I 0 1-1- () :>.:>. ø . 0001-1- C- --- 00 -0 o "Q:Q:o-< (/)-1- C CZZ~O 0 ;:EOOZCDf- €I ----------0- .- 00 - 0 <':) 0 0 0 c _!._~....... 0 0 '. -......... --..... .........-- .) ( \ \ o ,I \ 1 .\ , ~·-'·r]þ . \ ~ ; \~ ---~þ )\ '(~~ <':) \ '-, · J I / I ,¡ / I { . / 1 I I , I I I I I I I I 1<> I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I '<)0 I I /.( "- '~ - j).. Cþ ~ . f \J C o .LO..-. -I- <{<{<{ -..-. () - - -0- ~'()zzz..-.o 00 00 ° ~ :::: \ .. .. -I- () C 0... () :>-.c E 1-0 .c . 0 <':) 0 ° . .~Et .. g :d). (/)(/)C ()L 0001.. .. NO' €I 0 €I ø CDCD- () ().- c !.--. ø 1-1- ~ ~~V)W . ¡--ç: ......... 0001-1- c- . / 0 0, ,,-. 00 .- 0 -_/ ._ ... '.ø~ 'è'è~~~gn _ '-- :::;;:::;;OOZCDI- o o o \ ." '\ " ---.-----..--.----------- { I f I I L___ ~----_._----_._,----_."--_.__._,--,-_.. Planning Commission Summary - February 1,2005 historical information on Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. His opinion is that bigger motors should not be allowed in Little Minne. All boats should be launched at the other boat launch on the main lake. Gary Peterson lives on Hickory Lane on top of the hill on Red Cedar Point. The property he lives on has been in his family since 1922. He stated this is the only public access onto Lake Minnewashta, and access #1 is too shallow to launch some types of boats. He is in favor of increasing the horsepower and keeping Little Minne as a no wake zone. James Johnson who lives on Minnewashta Bay stated he would strongly oppose lifting the boat motor restriction to over 10 horsepower. Dean Barta, 3637 Red Cedar Point Road stated his fundamental question is, how much more traffic can you allow on a lake that is pretty over crowded already on any given summer day and concern over the environmental impact to Little Minne. Kurt Papke, 1131 Homestead Lane in Chanhassen spoke as the current Chair of the Carver County Park Commission. He elaborated on the issues of enforcement and that there's a set of cascading dependencies that come out of this decision. He reviewed the master plan that was established for this park. Marty Walsh reiterated that the Carver County Park Commission did study this issue extensively in making their recommendation. Dean Barta spoke again representing a newly formed Minnewashta Homeowners Lake Association which consists of a new generation of lake owners and the movement towards making sure Lake Minnewashta is as clean and as good 20 years from now as it is today. He asked if the launch area on the big lake could be dredged to make it deeper and used as the primary launch site. Hud Hollenback spoke again that he did not feel people would obey the no wake zone. BJ. Greer, 2771 Piper Ridge Lane having spent a lot of time on Little Minne kayaking and canoeing says that the no wake rules have been breached quite often. He expressed concern with closing that second boat launch and funneling everything back through that pristine area. He suggested finding a third launch or fixing the first boat launch. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission comments, the following motion was made. Lillehaug moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit #75-2, Section 6.04, Lake Access based on the Findings of Fact with the following condition: 1. Carver County Parks shall contact the Department of Natural Resources before proceeding with drudging of Little Minne Bay channel. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. (Kurt Papke did not vote due to a conflict of interest.) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL.11 ACRES OF TYPE 3 AND .01 ACRES OF TYPE 2 WETLAND FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT OF TURN LANES AND SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION LOCATED AT THE TH 101 AND CSAH 14 (PIONEER TRAIL) INTERSECTION. APPLICANT CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-07. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Slagle asked staff to explain why the mitigation will not be happening in the city and to clarify banking of wetland credits. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the grade change to the side slopes or shoulder on the north side of Pioneer Trail. Commissioner McDonald asked staff to clarify the statement that this is being done for safety reasons because of the traffic and volume at that intersection, clarification with the location of this intersection in relation to the new Highway 212 and future zoning. Scott Smith, Highway Design Engineer with Carver County stated he was more involved with the application for BWSR and with the City itself than the actual design which is being done by MnDot and their transportation department. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After commission discussion, the following motion was made. 2 Planning Commission Summary - February 1,2005 Papke moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #05-07, subject to the following conditions: 1. If not addressed in the condemnation proceedings, the applicant shall request the City grant a conservation easement release prior to clearing and grubbing the site. 2. The applicant shall work with the property owners to obtain additional right-of-way prior to proceeding with the project. 3. All wetland impacts shall be mitigated through the BWSR Road Replacement Program in accordance with State law. 4. Proposed erosion control shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type II silt fence shall be used adjacent to the existing wetlands. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 5. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the limits of tree removal. 6. Erosion control blankets shall be installed in all areas with a steep slope of 3: 1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater. 7. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10: 1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 8. Street cleaning or soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit) and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to O. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the summary and verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 18,2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 3 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 2005 parking spots for boats, there are times where there are 3, 4, 5 boats stacking up and to envision that that's going to be multiplying, I mean as a kayaker I have an issue when there are 2,3,4 boats stacking up. So without considering the potential where this is going to go with the comprehensive plan, and yes I did attend your, some of your presentations. The one at Bluff Creek I think it was, and did express my views as a kayaker there as well. I don't know whether you might remember. I certainly do, so being a kayaker and an environmentalist I oppose really lifting any restriction that has a further impact on the environment. And I do question these 4 findings in the staff report where it says it will not be detrimental or damage the safety, comfortable, general welfare ofthe neighborhood which is 4(a) of the findings. 4(d) of the findings, will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing of planned neighborhood uses. I think it's very disturbing to a kayaker. Finding (i). Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of any significance. I think it does impact it. I mean once you're going to have multiple power boats stacking up, or in this case what's in front of us, boats with more motors, it will be aesthetically compatible which is Finding (j). I don't think it's aesthetically compatible with the pristine nature of that particular bay to have bigger motors. To have more motors. That's just my humble opinion as a kayaker. And I'm actually surprised how much support I'm getting here tonight so I want to thank you for that. That's my comment. It was longer than I expected. So with that I'm willing to take a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit #75-2, Section 6.04, Lake Access based on the Findings of Fact with the following condition, number 1. Sacchet: We have that motion. Second? McDonald: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second. Lillehaug moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit #75-2, Section 6.04, Lake Access based on the Findings of Fact with the following condition: 1. Carver County Parks shall contact the Department of Natural Resources before proceeding with drudging of Little Minne Bay channel. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. (Kurt Papke did not vote due to a conflict of interest.) Sacchet: We have 2 nays and 4 yea's. Is that correct? Alright, motion carries. Goes to City Council on February 28th I believe. Metzer: It's the 28th. Sacchet: The 28th. That's accurate, okay. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT TO FILL .11 ACRES OF TYPE 3 AND .01 ACRES OF TYPE 2 WETLAND FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT OF TURN LANES AND SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION LOCA TED AT THE TH 101 AND CSAH 14 (PIONEER TRAIL) INTERSECTION. APPLICANT CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-07. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1,2005 Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Lori. Questions from staff. Slagle: I just have one quick one. Can I ask why we're not requesting a nútigation be done in the city? Haak: That wasn't the proposal. We're considering the proposal here and it's really a matter of course. The amount of right -of-way that is acquired at this site is very núnimal and it, staff just felt that it was probably more appropriate to take that off site and make it a larger part of the larger bank. When you're talking about creating .12 acres is about 5,000 square feet so you're looking at a nútigation area of about 10,000 square feet and if you're looking at trying to you know integrate a wetland, there's a lot of management of vegetation and things like that that goes into the nútigation. And so in these larger BWSR nútigated projects, you get a much better created wetland and so while the City of Chanhassen may lose .12 acres of wetland, the overall benefit regionally is greater. Slagle: Okay. Last question then. Do we bank those credits if you will? The City. In other words, if this one, let's just say we credit it to the City. 2 weeks later we get another one. 6 months, I mean do we have the potential to bank and then utilize those credits? Haak: The City does have several wetland banks created within the city. We use those primarily for our own road and trail projects. So the area, one ofthe most visible examples of one ofthe city's banks is just north of Lyman Boulevard, east of Powers. There's a wetland there that is full of basically dead trees and that was a wetland bank. A nútigation or basically an area that the City got credit for, so in this whole banking deal, we end up doing pretty well but we do get to use those for other projects like trails and things like that. Sacchet: Any other questions? Papke: Yeah, I don't know if this is for staff or for the applicant, but on the núddle of page 3. And under the wetland impact statement, the last sentence there you say that the side slopes or the shoulder on the north side of Pioneer Trail has been made steeper from a typical 6: 1 slope to a steeper 4: 1 slope to reduce the footprint. How big is the grade change and where is the location specifically of that slope? Haak: I can take a shot at that and Scott from Carver County can jump in if he has anything to add. I guess I should have put this up earlier. These are the two areas of impact shown in green. The turn lanes and such are shown here in yellow. I guess this is probably the best way to look at, this is some ofthe cross sections for Pioneer Trail in approximately the area ofthe wetland fill, and we're looking at about, or Steve's saying 17-18 feet which is just about well actually, yes. That's just about right in that area. And this is the area that we were talking about. There's 4: 1 proposed here where typically the City, Assistant City Engineer has advised me that that's typically a 6: 1 for safety reasons, and so that has been reduced to 4: 1 for that. Papke: Is that slope present on both locations or the eastern most component or which of those two have that new slope? Haak: Both of them are very sinúlar. They all have the 4:1 ifthat's what the question is, yes. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? We will have, ask the applicant up in just a second. Let's finish with staff first if you don't núnd. Do we know, I have one staff question if nobody else has. Yeah, Jerry go ahead. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 2005 McDonald: One thing, one of the things I read in the report is that this is being done for safety reasons because of the traffic and the volume that's going on at that intersection. How bad of a problem do we actually have there at this time? Haak: At the risk of being, submitting subjective evidence, my parents actually live on Pioneer Trail on this area. Just west of this intersection and on a typical morning the traffic backs up between half and three-quarters of a mile west of the intersection and in the evening it's actually about a mile east of the intersection toward Eden Prairie. It's a very, very widely used road and there are significant back-up's, both east and west bound. The north/south back-up's are not nearly as significant but those trips on Pioneer Trail are very significant. McDonald: Okay, two more questions dealing with I guess the volume. Where does the new 212 intersect with all this and what affect will that have on this road? Haak: I believe the applicant can probably speak to that in greater detail. It's approximately a núle to a núle and a quarter west where it intersects Pioneer Trail and I'm trying to look at the map behind you there. I'm guessing it's about a mile and a quarter to a núle and a half north on 101. So it's not within the stacking distance. McDonald: And then one more question that would deal with the comprehensive plan. What are our plans for that area as far as housing in the future? What's it planned on being zoned? Haak: I'd have to look at the map behind you there. I know that sewer and water are not planned to be extended there until 2020 I believe. And I believe it's guided residential. McDonald: That's it. Haak: Sharmeen, am I correct on that? AI-Jaff: Yes you are. It is guided residential. Sacchet: I have one question, unless there's anybody else has a question. About the thing with the conservation easement aspect. You, I had a question about that already and you added this little kind of cryptic thing to condition 1. If not addressed in the condemnation hearings, then we have to actually. . . conservation easement thing. Does it mean that the intent is to get through condemnation land that is not under the conservation easement? Is that, do I understand that that way or? Haak: No, the purpose ofthe condemnation is to get that to release that parcel from private ownership and the easements that are over it. So the County and the State, actually the State is the one going through the condemnation proceeds. Sacchet: So through the condemnation, the conservation easement would be released. .. Haak: Released. Sacchet: Okay. And this is not something that would require any nútigation of any sorts? Haak: No. I've discussed it among staff and really the, it's one ofthose things where you have, you know we have the difficult job of looking at trees versus roads and the trees, or roads versus wetlands. Those types of questions, which I know you're intimately fanúliar. But in this instance it really is you know a traffic issue and you know, basically the City Forester has indicated that certainly she understands 21 I Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 2005 why the property owner is seeking to go through condemnation on this piece because it is a nice piece of property but really the benefits outweigh the costs at this point. Sacchet: Now which part is actually being condemned, can you show us on the map please? Haak: Well I'm not exactly certain. Scott, do you know anything additional about that? Sacchet: Or we can wait for the applicant to address that if that's easier Lori. Haak: Actually I've got, I just wanted to confirm it with him. Because between a couple versions of the plan, the current right-of-way for Pioneer Trail follows this dotted orange line, if you can see that, and then comes down the side here. And basically the expansion will be this area. So it's about, where's my scale. About I'd say 30, maybe 35 feet by well, this is 50 feet. Papke: Just to make sure I'm oriented correctly here. This is the northeastern comer? Haak: Actually it's the southwest. The arrows here. Papke: Oh southwest. Okay. Sacchet: Alright, yep. That answers the question. Thank you very much Lori. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and give us your view of this please. If you can state your name. Scott Smith: My name is Scott Smith. I'm a Highway Design Engineer for Carver County. Presently I'm more involved with just the application for BWSR and with the City itself. The actual design is being done by MnDot and their transportation department. But I guess if you have any questions I can try to answer some of those. Some of the design questions might have to be with MnDot if necessary I guess, but I'll try to answer some questions if I can. Sacchet: Alright, do we have questions of the applicant? Kurt. Papke: Do you have a rough idea of the amount of fill that's going to be brought in to put into that wetland? Scott Smith: I was hoping this most recent plan, if you look at the title sheet it said there was supposed to be some tabulation for quantities. I did not see that particular quantity. What we have been given as part of that was just the square area which was approximately 5,400 square feet. And that equals that approximate .12 acres of wetland. And as far as the actual fill quantity, I can't. They didn't actually give me a number for that. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Jerry. McDonald: Yeah, I've got a question for you. When you do this upgrade to this intersection and this road and everything at this point, and part of what I read is you'll be putting stop lights and traffic signals. How long will that last before you've exceeded the capacity. Scott Smith: Boy I, not being a traffic engineer myself and not doing the signals and so forth, I don't feel qualified to answer that particular question as far as longevity. But yeah, there will be a breakdown point but right now they've gone through the warrant studies and it's shown that it's currently necessary to put the signal system in. To manage the people and the volume of traffic. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1,2005 McDonald: Okay, you haven't seen any kind of projections or anything like that? Scott Smith: No I haven't. No. McDonald: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to speak up. Now is your time. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing and bring it back to commission for comments, discussion. Steve? Lillehaug: This is an ideal MnDot project. Everything is in perfect order and I support it 100 percent. Sacchet: Thank you. Kurt. Papke: This is a must do. My only concern is I live just west of this intersection about a mile. I go through this intersection twice a day, and personally experience the pain and agony. Just to make the other commissioners aware, almost on a daily basis what happens is someone westbound in the evening will use the shoulder as a right turn lane currently and the Carver County Sheriff loves to sit there and pluck these people up and give them tickets for using the shoulder as a right turn lane. So if we don't put this in, people will just continue to use it as one. I don't think there's any choice in the matter. The only concern I have with this, and hence the reason for my question about the grade change here is on a couple of occasions I've seen cars dive off that intersection into the wetland. Okay. What happens is the cars come past Halla, over the top of the hill, down to the 4 way stop. They don't see the stop. It's foggy or something like that. They go right through the stop sign. If somebody else is coming the other way, they veer away from that car and they dive down in there. Okay. And so is there any kind of a, I don't know if there's any, I should have asked this question before but I don't know if there's any kind of a guardrail or anything like that going in there to prevent people in the future from you know potentially very serious lllJury. Haak: I can't speak directly to the guardrail. I don't believe there's one proposed. I haven't seen it on the plans, but the existing slope is shown on this drawing as this bottom line, so actually that slope is being extended in conjunction with the additional lanes, so you're actually going to have a more gradual slope in that area. Papke: Softer landings. Haak: Little more warning perhaps. Scott Smith: Part of the, if you, boy it's tough to see that unless you zoom in but there's actually 4: 1 slopes out to what's called a clear zone, approximately 30 feet out or so. Or 20 feet from the edge of the roadway, and after that it's a 3 to 1 and yes, it does create a softer landing. Actually an area that actually is supposedly maneuverable by a car or vehicle. Papke: Alright. I'd also like to point out to the other commissioners that the eastern most wetland is the one that's currently being mowed regularly by the owner so I'm not sure there's any tremendous you know environmental impact being imposed by filling that in. Scott Smith: The only other thing I would like to add is, I've been told that there's quite a drainage issue over in this area, and this particular plan will help address that. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1,2005 Larson: All I can say is it's long overdue. I've lived here 20 years and I've dealt with that intersection and it's long over due. Sacchet: Any comments this side ofthe crowd? Jerry, any comment? McDonald: Well I guess the only thing I would say is yes, I'm familiar with that intersection and I stay away from it. There are other ways to get to Shakopee and Chaska and I make sure I go those ways. I agree that that's very dangerous on 10 1 as you come, it's kind of up the hill. Down the slope and yeah, those stop signs suddenly appear out of nowhere if you're not familiar with the road, so yeah I would hope that this, from a safety standpoint. A lot of my questions. I'mjust wondering. Are you going to be back here in the near future wanting to fill in more land? It doesn't sound as though you will, that this should hold us until at least the plan, our comprehensive plan begins to make this intersection unworkable again, so I guess I'm in favor of it. Sacchet: Well all I can say ditto. Do we want to make a motion? Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #05-07 subject to conditions 1 through 7 with one modification to condition number 1. That we prefix condition number with the words, if not addressed in the condemnation hearings. Keefe: 1 through 9. Papke: 1 through 9, I'm sorry. I can't count. Lillehaug: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second. Papke moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #05-07, subject to the following conditions: 1. If not addressed in the condemnation proceedings, the applicant shall request the City grant a conservation easement release prior to clearing and grubbing the site. 2. The applicant shall work with the property owners to obtain additional right-of-way prior to proceeding with the project. 3. All wetland impacts shall be mitigated through the BWSR Road Replacement Program in accordance with State law. 4. Proposed erosion control shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type II silt fence shall be used adjacent to the existing wetlands. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 5. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the limits oftree removal. 6. Erosion control blankets shall be installed in all areas with a steep slope of 3: 1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 2005 7. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 8. Street cleaning or soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies {e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit) and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to O. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the summary and verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 18, 2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 25