Loading...
PC Minutes 5-20-08 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 2008 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Larson, Denny Laufenburger, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, and Kevin Dillon MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and Kathleen Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Terry Jeffrey, Water Resources Coordinator; and Joe Shamla, Project Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PHASE I OF THE LYMAN BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT LOCATED BETWEEN GALPIN BOULEVARD AND AUDUBON ROAD. APPLICANT: CARVER COUNTY/CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 08-12. Terry Jeffrey presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Kevin, start with you. Dillon: Well thank you for the very good explanation there. So it seemed like that you had to work with a lot of different agencies and so are all up and down the line, are all the different government bodies and other agencies in alignment that this is the right thing to do and have all their questions been answered? Jeffrey: Yes, that is correct. That is the reason for the Technical Evaluation Panel. We bring everybody together so that this, for instance some of the DNR issues will be way different than what would be the WCA or the Wetland Conservation Act issues. So yes, the Army Corps of Engineers will issue a permit. They have not to this point but I’ve had conversations with Christina Carballa who is the representative for the Corps for this county and the DNR has issued their permit. Chaska has reviewed it and commented on it, even though they are waiving their authority and they are comfortable with the decision at this time. And BWSR as well. Because they’re the ones that ultimately have to approve use of the BWSR road bank for it and they are fine with that. Dillon: What’s BWSR an acronym for? Jeffrey: I’m sorry. Board of Water and Soil Resources. My apologies. I tend to do that. Please feel free to ask me. Dillon: And while I’m on the subject. What’s CASH an acronym for? Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2008 Jeffery: Oh, County State Aid Highway. Dillon: Okay. Those are all my questions. Keefe: Two questions. Can you just repeat what the timing is for each of these separate events. So with BWSR replacement, that’s why you just, it’s kind of an immediate, I mean how does that? We lose our wetland. It goes into the BWSR. At what point do they actually do their mitigation? Is there a timing aspect around that piece? Jeffrey: Chairman Papke, Commissioner Keefe. Yeah, at this time, depending on, I don’t want to say carte blanche that they already have it established everywhere, but the general practice is that BWSR already has, the Board of Water and Soil Resources already has credits available. Wetlands that have been credited and or restored specifically for this purpose. So those already exist, and then we ill just debit from that account down to some point. Keefe: Alright. So that’s essentially an immediate trans, it’s already been done in a sense, right? Jeffrey: Correct. Correct. Keefe: And then the temporary needs to be restored within? Jeffrey: They have 6 months from the time of impact. From the time that they actually begin the work in that area. Typically they will be able to get it done in that 6 months. Keefe: That’s 6 month from the time from the completion of the road or from the? Jeffrey: No, from the time they actually go in and disturb that wetland. Keefe: Okay. Jeffrey: I don’t know Joe, have you seen the plan as to how long they plan on surcharging for it? That’s the only place where they might have an issue because there might be some surcharge areas that are greater than 6 months. Shamla: No, I’ve not… Jeffrey: So if in the event that does happen, it’s encumbent upon them to come to the LG and say look, we will not be able to restore this within that 6 months and then request an extension to that, yeah. Keefe: Okay. You know one other thing in the report was, you know it looks like the wetland permit needs to follow the conditional use permit guidelines. It looks like there was some reference to that in the report. Can you give us some more clarification on that and then how do we kind of think of it if, you know do we need to sort of stack this? I presume you would sort of stack it up against the conditional use permit. I didn’t see anything that. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2008 Jeffrey: Right. I think what you’re referring to, and I’ll be perfectly honest, the boardwalk itself is guided by conditional use? Generous: Well the process for reviewing wetland alteration permits is guided by, it follows the same procedures as a conditional use permit and so we have to make the findings under that. There’s 12 conditions that we look at and see how it complies with those. Generally under CUP they have standards but in the city’s ordinance we have the wetland protection ordinance which was really the standards that we have to follow so the sequencing and mitigation requirements are basically the standards that we comply with. Keefe: Okay so for us to you know approve it, I mean do we then need to see the sort of the 12 steps and kind of how the city views 12 steps if that’s the standard that we’re supposed to measure up against? I mean you know it was on page 1 of the Findings of Fact. Just says wetland alteration follows the conditional use permit criteria but you know a lot of times we’ll see this kind of stuff that yes, it meets this. Yes, it meets that. You know particularly when we’re looking at like a variance. Generous: Right and these, under 3 on the Findings of Fact and recommendation, 3(a) through (l) are the actual findings there. Keefe: Okay. Alright. So what you’re saying is that this essentially will meet each one of these and that, okay. Generous: Yes. At least in mitigation. Keefe: Okay, fair enough. That’s all I have. Laufenburger: First of all Mr. Jeffrey I appreciate you taking time to explain this notion about the wetland bank credits and stuff. That’s, I think it’s important to understanding that I have a much better feel for it now. As you look at this project, what’s the risk for the City of Chanhassen? Jeffrey: I honestly do not, I mean with the exception of the out fall at Bluff Creek, which I will watch carefully. Laufenburger: Potential erosion? Jeffrey: Yeah, potential erosion there. If it were not for the fact that they were putting in the storm water infrastructure where we’ll actually have a net increase in storage, and that’s one of our biggest issues that we’re dealing with in Bluff Creek is we have all of this volume of water that’s going there without being abated anywhere, but because of the storm water infrastructure that’s going in, actually it will improve conditions draining to Bluff Creek in many ways, so I do not see any great risks involved with this, but again whenever you have any construction project, it will change existing conditions from what are there, there’s always the possibility of unforeseen happenings, but I think the plan has been designed very well and the review has been quite thorough. We’ve had other agencies reviewing it and they’re comfortable with that. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2008 Laufenburger: And who is the, who is responsible for the monitoring to ensure that everything follows according to plan? Is that your responsibility? Jeffrey: I am responsible to, we do it a number of ways. In this case SRF, who is the consultant for the county, will monitor that twice a year and provide an annual report. I will review their findings. Whether I concur with it or not. If after a 5 year time period we found that it is not satisfactorily meeting wetland conditions, they would be required then to either fix that area and make changes to meet that, or they would be required to find new compensatory mitigation elsewhere. Regarding the rest of the project, there will be construction observers on site. I would again assume it’s going to be SRF and the county themselves. I would assume we’ll have some down there but it’s not our project so. Shamla: The City typically has people watch utilities go in. The city utilities. We’ll have somebody there from Kimley-Horn who will watch out for the, they’ll watch for the erosion and such. Jeffrey: And in addition to that, Chip Hentges who’s with the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District, tends to do all our erosion control inspections in this town and assures compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting program for small site constructions, which this would fall under so there will be quite a bit of monitoring. Laufenburger: Thank you. That’s my questions. Papke: Questions? Larson: I think pretty much everybody’s covered everything I had asked. I guess the only thing I’d have is so when is the potential start date and finish date to have all this complete? Or should I say wish list as far as. Jeffrey: Last I had heard, they had wanted to be starting this project in May. That’s quickly passing. I have not heard a finish date though. I don’t know if you had Joe. Shamla: I have not. Jeffrey: Yeah, I had not at this time. Larson: Well I’m just thinking in terms of traffic impact. What that will have. Jeffrey: Yeah, I can check with Paul Oehme, City Engineer. I know he’s, he would have that information. Get that for the commission. I do know that we’re not going to be driving down it much this year. Larson: Okay. Jeffrey: If I may Chair Papke. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2008 Papke: Sure. Jeffrey: One thing I would like to point out, in my conditions of approval, item 3, which is on page 5 of 5. Item 3 reads, the applicant shall amend Appendix C, Vegetation Management Plan and Proposed Seed Mixes to clearly state performance standards for the establishment of vegetation in the restoration areas. Barbara Walter from SRF provided that information for me today and it was satisfactory to meet that condition so just wanted to make you aware of that. Papke: Okay, great. Thanks for the very complete report. You proactively answered most of my questions. The only one I have left is, I always try to be conscious of the city creating new maintenance overhead for itself. In this particular case we’re construction a boardwalk, which those of us that have a deck on our home know that there’s periodic maintenance for that required. I’m just wondering if there was any kind of a cost analysis. What’s it going to cost to build this and maintain it over the long run? Did we chose the least cost alternative here? Can you make any comment on the economics of the boardwalk. Jeffrey: Unfortunately I have to say that I can’t at this time. I have had conversations with Todd Hoffman and he did feel that it was durable enough to handle plowing in the winter. He felt, it was my understanding that the materials would not be what a traditional deck is. It would not require power washing. Papke: Wood construction or what? Jeffrey: The only wood construction would be the pier itself. I believe it’s a synthetic material that would be the decking, but again I can certainly talk to Todd Hoffman and get those answers for you. Papke: Very good. Alright. With that is there anyone here representing the applicant? From Carver County or. Jeffrey: Yeah, I’ll be representing the applicant. Papke: Okay. Hearing that I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commissioners. Does anybody have any discussion or comments they want to make before. Dillon: Don’t we need to hear public comment? Papke: Oh, I’m sorry. I completely skipped over public comment. Rookie commissioner. Anybody from the public want to comment on this? I didn’t assume so but take that chance. Okay. A little quick on the draw. Any other comments from the commissioners. Otherwise I’ll entertain a motion. Keefe: I’ll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #2008-12 for the reconstruction of CSAH 18 (Lyman Boulevard) and appurtenant facilities with the following conditions, 1 through 4. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2008 Papke: Is there a second? Dillon: I’ll second. Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #2008-12 for the reconstruction of CSAH 18 (Lyman Boulevard) and appurtenant facilities with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit the Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank to the BWSR Wetland Bank Administrator and no impacts to wetland shall occur prior to the local authorities, the account holder and the user of the credits having received a letter of approval from the Wetland Bank Administrator stating that these credits have been debited. 2. The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure. 3. The applicant shall amend Appendix C, “Vegetation Management Plan and Proposed Seed Mixes” to clearly state performance standards for the establishment of vegetation in the restoration areas. 4. All temporary impacts shall be restored to their pre-construction condition within six months of the activity which results in the wetland impact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: SUPERDOG COUNTRY CLUB: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO PERMIT A VETERINARY CLINIC/KENNEL; AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 21,000 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY VETERINARY ND CLINICN AND KENNEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2910 82 STREET (LOT 2, RD BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 3 ADDITION). APPLICANT: KAREN JACKSON/CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS LLP, PLANNING CASE 08-11. Public Present: Name Address Karen A. Jackson 10104 Indigo Drive, Eden Prairie David O. Hansen 10104 Indigo Drive, Eden Prairie Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Start down on the right end this time. 6