Loading...
1b Assumption CreekCITYOF 690 City Center Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 952.937.1900 General Fax 952.937.5739 Engineering Deparonent Fa.,: 952.937.9152 Building Departme, t Fax 952.934.2524 l~b Site u,ww. ci.&anhassen, mn. m MEMORANDUM To: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager From: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Date: August 14, 2001 Re: Assumption Creek Setback PURPOSE Following a visit to the Assumption Seminary site and conversations with representatives from several governmental agencies on June 4, 2001, Planning Commissioners Sacchet and Kind requested that staff explore an increased setback for Assumption Creek to protect it from potential damage (water quality decrease, loss of ecosystem, loss of trout population). This memo provides background on Assumption Creek, precedents for increased setback requirements and a recommendation for a revision to the City Code. j_ BACKGROUND Assumption Creek is located in the southern portion of Chanhassen, west of Bluff Creek Drive and south of the Hennepin County Regional Trail Corridor. It crosses under Highway 212, flows into the Raguet Wildlife Management Area and is a tributary of the Minnesota River in Shakopee. Assumption Creek is classified by the State of Minnesota as an Agricultural/Tributary River. The current setbacks for agricultural/tributary rivers shown on the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver County are as follows: 100 feet for unsewered structures, 50 feet for sewered structures, and 75 feet for sewage treatment systems and structures employing sewage treatment systems. Neither the State of Minnesota nor the City of Chanhassen (Attachment 1) requires buffer zones adjacent to agricultural or tributary rivers. The City of Chanhasseu. A growh~g community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Creek Setback Amendment August 14, 2001 Page 2 RATIONALE Assumption Creek is consistently identified as a high priority resource within the City of Chanhassen for several reasons: 1. Assumption Creek is one of 15 designated trout streams in the Metro Area with a naturally reproducing trout population. 2. Assumption Creek is one of the only streams in the Metro area with a native population of brook trout, i.e. it was never stocked with fish. There are two other brook trout streams in the Metro area: Valley Creek and Mill Stream, both located in Washington County. Assumption Creek is the only brook trout stream in Carver County and the only one in the West Metro. 3. Assumption Creek is ofhigh quality because the majority of the subwatershed in which it is located has remained undeveloped. 4. The Seminary Fen is closely related to Assumption Creek and is an extremely important resource for both the City of Chanhassen and the State of Minnesota. The creek and fen depend on the same groundwater and need it to be cold, clean and full of minerals. The fen and the creek could exist separately from each other; however, because they exist together, they are codependent: what impacts one impacts the other, and the loss of one would result in the loss of the other. OTHER TROUT STREAMS There are only two other brook trout streams in the Metro area: Valley Creek and Mill Stream, both located in Washington County. Eagle Creek is another designated trout stream within the Metro area. Valley Creek Valley Creek is a high quality brook trout stream in the City of Afton in Washington County. The base flow is 98% groundwater, so it is very dependent upon a clean, cold groundwater flow. Some areas around the creek are undeveloped, but some people live adjacent to the creek and mow right up to the bank. Afton has a structure setback for trout streams of 150 feet for sewage treatment systems, and 200 feet for unsewered structures. Afton also requires a 20 to 50 foot "No-Mow Zone" alongside trout streams (Attachment 2). Mill Stream Mill Stream is another high quality brook trout stream in Washington County. It is subdivided into three stream reaches (Headwaters, Middle and Lower) based on geologic landforms, stream morphology and land uses. All three reaches are dependent upon groundwater flows. The Headwaters Reach has been minimally affected by human impact; however, the Middle and Lower Reaches have been greatly altered through pond additions and building construction. Marine-on-St. Croix has not adopted more stringent setback regulations for Mill Stream than Creek Setback Amendment August 14, 2001 Page 3 those required by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Marine-on-St. Croix does not currently have buffer zone requirements. Eagle Creek Eagle Creek, though it does not support a brook trout population, is another designated trout stream in the Metro Area and supports brown trout. It is located in the City of Savage, and runs from the western part of the city to the Minnesota River. Eagle Creek is fed by groundwater discharge, and there is a water quality monitoring station run by the Met Council on the stream. The subwatershed area is mostly developed, and it contains residential, commercial, and industrial regions. Savage does not have a creek setback ordinance because the State of Minnesota owns 200 feet on each side of the creek. This area around the creek is maintained as a protective buffer. PERTINENT ITEMS Staff has identified the following items that should be taken into consideration as the City contemplates the adoption of an increased trout stream setback: 1. There is little precedent in the area of trout stream buffers. There is an ordinance in the City of Afton that requires a protective buffer around the trout stream through private property, but the other buffers are on city or state-owned land. 2. Though the setback will be more restrictive and thus serve to protect the creek, it will still allow development near the creek, and it acknowledges that development may take place if the land remains in private ownership. 3. The land on which Assumption Creek is located is zoned primarily A-2 (Agricultural Estate). The minimum lot size for A-2 is 2 ½ acres and a 1-unit per 1 O-acres density must be maintained. A portion of the land is zoned RR (Rural Residential). The minimum lot size for RR is 2½ acres and a 1-unit per 10-acres density must be maintained. Staff anticipates that, in most cases, the large lots will be able to accommodate a structure that meets the required setbacks. (Staff will provide more details at the Planning Commission meeting.) 4. The City of Chanhassen has been encouraged to create a creek setback by the DNR, Friends of the Minnesota Valley, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Lower · Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) and the Minnesota Land Trust. 5. Anything that affects the complex hydrological balance of precipitation, surface water flow and groundwater discharge that feeds water to the creek can lead to the creek's degradation. 6. According to the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), located in Washington, increases in the amount of impervious surface (such as pavement) near creeks or wetland areas can have negative impacts on the adjacent water bodies. Citing many independent lines of research, the CWP states that it is extremely difficult to maintain predevelopment stream quality when the watershed development exceeds 10 to 15% impervious cover. Creek Setback Amendment August 14, 2001 Page 4 Currently, staff has estimated the amount of impervious surface in the watershed to be 5%. 7. Assumption Creek is a fragile, delicate system. It needs a constant supply of cold, clean groundwater to stay viable. Surface water only affects the flow; the creek is dependent upon groundwater. Changes in temperature can be lethal to trout: 72 degrees Fahrenheit is too warm for trout survival. 8. A setback of 100 feet is necessary for good quality maintenance and protection, according to an Iowa State University impact study. For adequate protection, a buffer would also be required. 9. A setback with a buffer requirement would minimize the intrusion by non-native plant species and preserve the habitat diversity and the integrity of the ecosystem. 10. According to a study conducted by the Minnesota Storm Water Advisory Group (MSWAG) in 1997, the minimum wetland buffer should be 25 feet for minimum benefits, and 150 feet or more for the protection of sensitive species. Standards should be increased for higher functions, such as trout streams. According to the MSWAG, the best-suited riparian buffers are more complex combinations of herbaceous and woody native species suited to the area. In a study done in 1992, the Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program of the Washington Department of Ecology found that to prevent significant water quality impacts, the buffer needs to be 100 feet or greater. Furthermore, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland to retain wetland- dependent wildlife. The trout population in Assumption Creek is already very small. In surveys of the creek, there have been no trout found south of Highway 212, as larger fish from the Minnesota River eat the smaller trout. North of Highway 212'there has been no official survey. However, there have been reports of citizens catching trout while fishing in the creek. It is imperative that the condition of the creek is maintained so that the trout population can be preserved. In order to accomplish this level of preservation, the creek needs to be managed under a plan with the cooperation of the DNR, the LMRWD and the City of Chanhassen. 11. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE At the Planning Commission meeting on July 17, 2001, Commissioner Sacchet requested that staff explore the feasibility of an increased setback, per the Washington Department of Ecology study in 1992 (Pertinent Item #11). Staff has investigated this option and recommends a setback of 150 feet for several reasons' le Acquisition is the preferred solution. Acquisition is the only way to ensure riparian areas are managed properly. Management of the setback and buffer is necessary to maintain hydrology, vegetation and wildlife habitat. Management tools may include, but are not limited to, the removal of invasive species, controlled burning and stream monitoring. Additionally, development of the site may be disastrous for Creek Setback Amendment August 14, 2001 Page 5 the creek since any storm water ponds created on the site may interrupt ground water flows. Furthermore, if storm water ponds outlet to the creek, the water temperatures may be lethal to trout. (Water temperatures can be expected to rise between 6 and 9 degrees from the inlet to the outlet. Temperature increases of 6 degrees would put the creek temperature above 72 degrees Fahrenheit, making the water temperature lethal to trout.) The volume of discharge may also increase with development, which would escalate erosion within and around the creek. If acquisition is not possible and the property was subdivided, the City could obtain management rights of the creek property via outlots. However, if the lots do not go through the subdivision process, management rights could not be guaranteed. 2. DNR Precedent: The DNR-required setback for Natural Environment lakes is 150 feet. It is logical to expect that the setbacks for trout streams would be at least as stringent as those required for Natural Environment lakes. 3. Setbacks Combined with Buffers: In the past, the City has opted to decrease setback distances when setbacks are used in combination with buffers of natural vegetation. The proposed ordinance would require the first 75 feet of the 150-foot setback to be maintained or established in a prairie buffer. 4. Ambiguous Findings: The findings located by staff regarding setbacks and/or buffers appear to be ambiguous. While a 1992 study done by the Washington Department of Ecology found that a buffer of over 100 feet is necessary to prevent significant water quality impacts, an Iowa State University impact study stated that a setback of 100 feet is necessary for good quality maintenance and protection. The Washington study stated that buffers should be 200-300 feet wide to provide habitat for wildlife, while the Iowa study indicated simply that a buffer is required for adequate protection. Both studies appear to agree that, in general, buffers and setbacks will assist in resource protection. 5. Legal Issues: The City of Chanhassen could become involved in a takings issue if the setbacks become larger than 150 feet, as large portions of the lots surrounding the creek would become unbuildable. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the following motions: "Section 20-479 shall be modified to read: (d) Rivers and strewns. 1. Agricultural: Minnesota River - From west city boundary to east city boundary. 2. Tributary streams: Bluff Creek-From Basin 10-209W to Basin 27-132P (Rice Lake). Creek Setback Amendment August 14, 2001 Page 6 . Lake Ann (10-12P) to Lake Susan (10-13P). Lake Susan (10-13P) to Rice Marsh Lake (10-1P). Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) to Lake Virginia (10-15P). Purgatory Creek- From Lotus Lake (10-16P) to east city boundary. Trout streams: Assumption Creek - From west city boundary to Minnesota River." and "Section 20-481 shall be modified to read: (a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of Public Waters Lakes Natural environment Recreational development Rivers Agricultural and tributary Trout streams Unsewered Sewered STS 150 150 150 100 75 75 100 50 75 !25 150 !00 150 !00 150 For trout streams, the first seventy-five (75) feet of such setback shall be maintained or established in a prairie buffer. One (1) water oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level." ATTACHMENTS 1. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-479 through Section 20-481 2. Afton City Code, excerpts from Section 12-363 and Section 12-402 3. Proposed amendment 4. Plmming Commission Minutes from July 17, 2001 G:\ENG',Lor/"Memos',,Creek Memo 2.doc ZONING § 20-479 m'~d subdivisions/plats, and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls shall be sent to the commissioner's designated representative and postamrked within ten (10) days of final action. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) ec. 20-47.9. classification and land use districts. Shoreland. sYstem (a) Shoreland classificatLon system. The public waters of Chanhassen have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part $120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver/Hennepin County, Minnesota. Co) [Shoreland area defined.] The shoreland area for the waterbodies listed below shall be as defined in section 20-1 and as shown on the official zoning map. (c) Lakes. (1) Natural Environmental Lakes: Harrison Rice Lake Rice Marsh Lake St. Joe Silver (2) Recreational Development Lakes: '(d) (1) (2) Ann Christmas Hazeltine Lotus Lucy Minnewashta Riley Susan Xr~rginia Rivers and streams. Agricultural: Minnesota River--From west city boundary to east city boundary. Tributary streams: Bluff Creek--From Basin 10-209W to Basin 27-132P (Rice Lake). Lake Ann (10-12P) to Lake Susan (10-13P). Lake Susan (10-13P) to Rice Marsh Lake (10-1P). Inventory I.D. Number 10-8W 27-132P 10-1P 10-11P 27-136P Inventory I.D. Number 10-12P 27-137P 10-14P 10-6P 10-7P 10-9P 10-2P 10-13P 10-15P Supp. No. 8 1193 § 20-479 CHAN~SEN CITY CODE ~ Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) to Lake Virginia (10-15P). Purgatory Creek--From Lotus Lalfe (10-6P) to east city boundary. .All protected watercourses in Chanhassen shown on the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver County, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, not given a classification h~rein shall be considered "tributary". (Or~ No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20-480. Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions. (a) Lot area and width standards. The lot area (in square fee~) and lot width standards (in feet) for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential lots created aider the date of enactment of this ordinance for the lake and river/stream classification are as follows: (1) Sewered lakes--Natural environment: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 40,000 125 15,000 90 Duplex 70,000 225 35,000 180 Triplex 100,000 325 52,000 270 Quad 130,000 425 '65,000 360 (2) Sewered lakes--Recreational development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 20,000 90 15,000 '90 Duplex 35,000 135 26,000 135 Triplex 50,000 195 38,000 190 Quad 65,000 255 49,000 245 Unsewered lakes--Recreational development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 40,000 125 15,000 90 ' River/stream lot width standards. There is no minimum lot size requirements for rivers and streams. The lot width standards for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential developments for the six (6) river/stream classifications are as follows: Tributary Agricultural No Sewer Sewer Single 150 100 90 Duplex 225 150 115 Supp. No. S 1194 ZONING § 20-481 Tributary Agricultural No Sewer Sewer qYiplex 300 200 150 Quad 375 250 190 {4) Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed ff designed and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used ff publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95; Ord. No. 240, § 13, 7-24-95) ~. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (a) l~lacement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and Onsite ~ewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of t'ublie Waters Lakes Natural environment Recreational development Rivers Agricultural and tributary Sewage Structures Treatment Unsewered Sewered System 150 150 150 100 75 75 100 50 75 When a structure exists on a lot on either side, the setback of a proposed structure shall be the lgreater of the distance set forth in the above table or the setback of the existing structure. One (1) water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance often (10) feet from the ordinary high water eveL (b) Additional structure setbacks. The folio.wing additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody. Setback From: (1) Top of bluff; (2) Unplatted cemetery; (:D Right-of-way line of federal, state, or county highway; and Setback (in feet) 3O 5O 5O Supp. No. 8 1195 · § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Setback From: (4) Right-of-way line oftown road, pub- lic streets, or other roads or streets not classified. Setback (in feet) 2O (c) Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed within bluff impact zones. (d) Nonresidential uses without water.oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs shall be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or p~cels with {~ublic waters frontage, shall either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. (e) Design criteria for structures. (1) High water elevations. Structures shall be placed in accordance with any flood plain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or floodproofed shall be determined as follows: a. For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three (3) feet above the highest known water level, or three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level,~ whichever is higher; b. For rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3) feet above the flood of record, if data are available. If data are not available, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level, or by conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flaws and to establish a flood protection elevation. Under all three (3) approaches, technical evaluations shall be done by a qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent with parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200 governing the management of flood plain areas. If more than one (1) approach is used, the highest flood protection elevation determined shall be used for placing structures and other facilities; and c. Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this item if the structure is construed of flood- resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves ar{d debris. (2) Water-oriented accessory structures. EaCh lot may have one (1) water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in section 20-481(a) if this water-oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: a. The structure or facility shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Detached decks shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade at any point. Supp. No. 8 1196 ZONING § 20-481 b. The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary kigh water level shall be at least ten (10) feet;. c. The structure or facility shall be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but shall not be enclosed or used as a storage area; e. The structure or facility shall not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities; and f. As an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbod- ies, water-or/ented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area of up to four hundred (400) square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is twenty (20) feet as measured parallel to the configura- tion of the shoreline. (3) Stairway, lifts and landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up ad down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts shall meet the following design requirements: a. Stairways and lifts shall not exceed four (4) feet in Width on residential lots. -Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties, and planned unit developments; b. Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots shall not exceed thirty-two' (32) square feet in area. Landings larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open-space, and recreational properties; c. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings; d. Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed intothe ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion; e. Stairways, lifts, and landings shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming ~ummer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical; and f. Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that-the dimensional and performance standards of subitems a. to e. are complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. {4) Significant historic sites. No structure shall be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been removed and documented in a public repository. (5) Steep slopes. The planning director shall evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development v/sibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of 1196.1 § 20-481 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. (D Height of structures. All structures in residential districts, except churches and nonres- idential agricultural structures, shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94) Sec. 20.482. Shoreland alterations. (a) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. (b) Vegetation alterations. (1) (2) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treat- ment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by section 20-484 of this article are exempt from the following vegetation alteration standards. Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conver- _ sion to another use outside of these areas is allowable if permitted as part of a development approved by the city council as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluffimpact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: 1. The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; 2. Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; 3. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards; and 4. The clearing be limited to a strip thirty (30) percent of lot width or thirty (30) feet, whichever is lesser, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore and bluff impact zones. (Ord. No. 217, § 4, 8-22-94; Ord. No. 251, § 1, 4-8-96) Supp. No. 9 1196.2 § 12-363 AFTON CODE Trout ~ibutary Stream 5. Parks and Mstoric sites S 6. Extractive use N N 7. Single residential C C 8. ~,ing of metallic minerals and peat N N 9. Semipublic S S 10. Duplex S S . 11. Industrial use N N 12. PUD N N One-half the distance from the water's edge of any trout stream to the closest point of any dwelling but not less than 20 feet nor more than 50 feet either side of thee centerline, vegetative cutting of grass and shrubs shall not be permitted in order to ma/ntain important shade and cover as well as to mi~imlze sedimenta- tion of the trout creek Parcels currently nonconforming will be subject to section 12-57(a), (b) and (g). c. Any discharge from development affecting the creek shall not exceed the discharge rate pr/or to development, nor shall it increase the sedimentation in the iCode 1982, § 303.4.2) Sec. 12-364. Use, upgrading of inconsistent land use d/stricts. When an interpretation question arises about whether a spedfic land use fit~ with/n a given 'use" category, the interpretation shall be made by the dty council after a public hearing and a recommendation by the planning commlsaion. When a question arises as to whether a land u~e dhtr/ct's boundaries are proj~erly delineated on the offidal zoni,g map, th/s interpretation shall be made by the dry coundl after a public hearing and a recommendation by the planning commie~ion. (Code 1982, § 303.4.23) Secs. 12-365-12-4/)0. ReserVed. CDL2:142 § 19-409. AFTON CODE Sec. 12-402. Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. On an undeveloped bluffland or shoreland lot which has two adjacent lots, with principal dwelling structures on both such adjacent lots within 200 feet of the common lot line, any new structure shall be setback from the ordinary high water mark the average setback of such adjacent structures plus 40 feet or the mi~{rnum standard setback, whichever is less. (1) Structure and 'on-site sewage'system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary high water level*. (2) Classes of Public Waters Lakes Natural Environment Recreat/onal R/vets Thbu~ Trout streams Setbacks* Structures Sewage Treatment Unsewered Sys~errf' ' (feeV (feet) :. 200 1§0 200 1§0 200 150 The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the wa~erbody:. Setback Setback From: (in feet) a. Top of bluff 40 b. Unplatted cemetery 150 c. ALl other setbacka shall meet the zoning ordinance, art/de II of this chapten Development on a lot, any portion of which is within 75 feet of the ordinary high water mark of any unclassified body of water, shall be subject to a building and septic system setback of 75 feet from such ord{,~ary high water mark. All other lot requirements shall be subject to the regulations of the zoning ordinance, article II of this chapter, for the basic zoning district in wki'ch the lot is locat,~l. ,- Maxim-r- site coverage by .any structure and parldng area ten percent or one-half acre, whichever is greaten " (3) Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and land/ngs, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. (Code 1982, § 303.5.21) CD12:144 , CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HE--PIN COUNTIES, ~SOTA ' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AME~ING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Section 20-479 (d) Rivers and streams shall be modified to read: (d) Rivers and streams. 1. Agricultural: Minnesota River- From west city boundary to east city boundary. 2. Tributary streams: Bluff Creek- From Basin 10-209W to Basin 27-132P (Rice Lake). Lake Ann (10-12P) to Lake Susan (10-13P). Lake Susan (10-13P) to Rice Marsh Lake (10-1P). Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) to Lake Virginia (10-15P). Purgatory Creek- From Lotus Lake (10-16P) to east city boundary. 3. Trout streams: Assumption Creek - From west city boundary to Minnesota River. All protected watercourses in Chanhassen shown on the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver County, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, not given a classification herein shall be considered "tributary". Section 2. Section 20481 shall be modified to read: (a) Placement of structures on lots. When more than one (1) setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be located to meet all setbacks. Structures and onsite sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the ordinary high water level as follows: Classes of Public Waters Lakes Rivers Unsewered Sewered Sewage Treatment System Natural environment 150 Recreational development 100 Agricultural and tributary 100 Trout streams 125 150 150 75 75 50 75 100 100 For trout streams, the first seventy-five (75) feet of such setback shall be maintained or established in a prairie buffer. One (1) water oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with section 20-482(e)(2)(b) of this article may be setback a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water level. Section 3. PASSED ATTEST: This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of ,2001. Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager (Published in the Chanhassen Villager Linda C. Jansen, Mayor Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 b. Existing street light locations in Lake Drive West. 26. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. Three (3) accessible parking spaces are required for the 62 spaces provided. 29. Detailed occupancy retailed requirement, s will not be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 30. Utility Plan: The HDPE pipe specified for the storm sewer requires an air test and must have watertight fittings. The sanitary sewer service into the building must be schedule 40 pipe. 31. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 32. The 6 inch water service coming into the building will need a post indicator valve. 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. 33. In accordance with city policy please ensure that there is a 10 foot clear space around all fke hydrants, Siamese connection, post indicator valves, etc. on site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE: ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR FENS; AND ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE CREATING SETBACKS FOR CREEKS. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Uli, you're smiling. Go ahead. Sacchet: Ah yes, I have a few questions. Well first of all I want to thank staff for responding so promptly to our request to look at this issue. I really appreciate that. So basically to sum up what you just presented Lori, nobody is impacted to end up with lots that are a goal to build on? There is still plenty of buildable space left. That's basically what you just said, right? Haak: Yes. We looked at all of the parcels we could find, and this is kind of a better map I guess. Of the actual parcels. The other issue that arises in this area is that there's just a lot of wetland out there and if you've ever driven past the site on 212 or gone on the Hennepin County Regional Corridor, you can see that very easily. And so the constraints that are faced by these property owners are greater than, are 32 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 already greater than what we're looking at now. If for instance there is a parcel up in here that for some reason doesn't show up on some of the city maps. And that is primarily wetland already and so even with our current wetland setback of 100 feet, with the first 50 feet being buffer, that lot is probably unbuildable anyway and has been without a variance. And so really why we're tightening things up a little bit, basically the perspective of staff is that we're positioning for future development and we wouldn't be hindering development of the existing parcel. Sacchet: Now my second question, I think the 150 feet was actually a figure that was mentioned to us by the DNR people when we were out there and it makes sense that you use that in your proposal. Now being more the environmentally focused person, I don't mean to sound ungrateful but could we do more? And the reason why I'm saying could we do more is, looking at your documentation in your point 11 you state that buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 and 300 feet beyond the wetland to retain wetland dependent wildlife. And that to me kind of was a trigger that I would say well, why would we not go further than 150 when it says it needs 200 to 300 feet in order to actually protect the wildlife. Can you address that please Lori? Haak: Certainly. If you'll notice, it' s kind of mincing words here a little bit but I'll get into it anyway. That says 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland. Traditionally fens are located within a wetland basin and so you're going to have wetland on the outside of the fen. Currently our wetland standards, and we haven't amended, we weren't amending those. Our wetland standards are 100 foot setback for pristine wetland with a 50 foot buffer. If that's something that you would like to pursue, that's a different avenue really than we discussed and that we would get into, if we just applied it to pristine wetlands it might get us into a little less trouble if we started doing that for other wetland bodies we would start getting into trouble as far as buildable lots. Sacchet: And that confuses me a little bit as an answer Lori because basically what you're saying is well the fen is within a wetland so why would we even need a fen setback if we already have the wetland setback and we assume that it's wetland around the fen. Can you just clarify that please? Haak: Yeah. Let's see, we'll go back to the diagram I guess. Let's see, in this particular instance we have, and it' s a little bit difficult to pick up on the monitors, but we have the fen color if you will, comes down along this bright pink line. Sacchet: Very close. Haak: Right, and there is not a whole lot of space between the fen in that area and Assumption Creek. So there's not a lot of wetland there. Sacchet: So, and I don't mean to interrupt. So in that case then we could say there are instances where there is very little or maybe even hardly any wetland on the edge of the fen which then would come back to my initial question. Why not require more than 150 feet if we say it needs, it says in the report. I believe it comes from some sort of accepted study that it needs 200 to 300 feet to protect wildlife. Haak: We're scared. To be quite honest, there's not a lot of precedent. 150 feet really seemed like something we could get our hands around and we're looking for, the goal was protection. It's up to you, if you're not scared, go for it. But really, looking at something without a lot of precedent, without a lot of precedent that's what we were looking at. We didn't want to get into the takings issue and we were being very cautious of that. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Sacchet: Basically with a balanced approach and then see what the reaction from the community is. Haak: Right. Sacchet: Okay. That's fair. That's a good answer. Thanks Lori. Haak: It's the best one I can give. Blackowiak: Deb, you were also on the tour. Why don't you go next. Kind: Yes. Speaking of community, I noticed that nobody was mailed notification of this being on tonight's agenda. The property owners that are affected probably should be notified directly. Haak: That is one thing that I picked up real late. Again, being real honest. And I did think of that. I would also like to get you some feedback for the, from the DNR. From the Lower Minnesota Watershed District allowing the planning commissioners, and potentially the council members who weren't on the tour that perspective as well. And so what I, I was thinking about it a little bit before because I noticed we were talking a lot about public hearings earlier and what I would really like to do, because I think this is an important issue. I'd really like to see this go ahead to the council if the Planning Commission is supportive of it and I don't know, maybe Mayor Jansen could add some, a perspective as to whether or not we could do something at the council meeting as far as a more advertised public hearing for those, particularly directed at those residents. That is one thought that I had. Blackowiak: Okay. Mayor Jansen, do you want to, would that be an option for the City Council to hold a public hearing if people were further noticed about this specific item? Or would you like it to come back to Planning Commission for the public hearing? Mayor Jansen: Well I definitely agree with getting it notified to the property owners, and I guess I'm less intrigued with having the public hearing move onto the council in that we've really tried to establish the policy that our public hearings are being held by this body versus council. They can always come and speak at the council, but I like the idea of any adjustments or any comments that they need to make maybe being handled here and then to your point, any comments you're still feeling like this commission needs to hear from the DNR. I'm hearing that maybe a second meeting would be helpful on both of those issues. Aanenson: And the Watershed District. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Kind: Okay, so with that I guess I would like to table this probably and invite those people to come and speak. Blackowiak: Good. Okay, but let's just make sure that the commission members can make their comments and then we' 11 still I think open it for a public, do you think we should? Kate, give me some feeling here. Should we wait until people are noticed? I suppose it would make sense just to do it all in one fell swoop wouldn't it? Yeah, you're right. Okay. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Mayor Jansen: If I might add, if you do have people who did come this evening to speak to this, you would give them the opportunity and not inconvenience them to the second meeting. I don't think procedurally that's a problem. Blackowiak: No, you're right. Bruce, do you have any comments? Feik: Yeah, a couple quick questions. Blackowiak: Get commissioners on record here. Feik: Yeah, a couple quick questions. As I understand there's no MUSA services to that site. Haak: That's correct. Feik: And that's not slated until 2015. Haak: Correct. Feik: What is the future zoning of that? Is that commercial? Haak: Currently it's zoned A-2 and Rural Residential. And that's shown on this map. Feik: But the future zoning once MUSA is. Aanenson: Institutional. Haak: Yeah, office institutional primarily over the site. Feik: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to see how that setback would impact future use. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich? Slagle: Same questions I had. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, did you have another question? Sacchet: It looks like we're kind of in the comment section already here. Blackowiak: Well actually let's just do the questions and then we'll go through public hearing. If anybody would like to make any comments this evening, and then we'll. Sacchet: That's fine. I'll wait for comments. Blackowiak: Okay. I do have a question of you Lori there before you go back. We, look at my notes here. My notes to myself was compare Assumption Creek setbacks with the fen setbacks. Now, in the fen setback we're talking 150 feet. The trout stream we're talking 125 feet, and then 100 in a couple of cases. Can you explain to me what the difference is and why it's not just a set number for the whole area? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Haak: The primary reason for that would simply be the approach that the city has taken in the past. There is a sort of precedent established in the way the numbers were developed and the way they exist currently. It's not, as I indicated before with Commissioner Sacchet's question, not a whole lot of, we did have a basis. There is some precedent and these things were derived from, basically from the precedent that you have in front of you with the other cities and other agencies. So it's not completely random. There is some method to our madness but we did stick pretty closely to the precedent that we have established through the other, the limited precedent we have. Blackowiak: Okay. And then my second question has to do with specifically the creek setbacks. We have for example natural environment lakes, unsewered at 150 feet and then you're asking for trout streams at 125. Is there a reason that you didn't ask for 1507 I mean, from a water perspective, you know stream versus lake. Help me out here. Haak: Yeah, that was a policy decision. Primarily again looking at buildable area on some of these lots and the existing setbacks on those. So more than the ecological perspective, that was more of a policy decision on our part. Blackowiak: Just to make sure that the buildable lots remain so and. Haak: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. That answers my questions. Deb. Kind: Madam Chair, I forgot. I did have one question. Onthe second to last page of the fen report there is a table from the city code book. Would that too need to be revised to include fens? Haak: No, I believe what we were adding would be a section 2 under that entire 20-406. And so it would be, yeah it's a letter (c) so it would be right before 20-407 where it has the wetland alteration standards and basically what that would do is, in part relieve us from the work that it would involve in going through there. And partly because it is such a special requirement and it is of a very unique nature. We really wanted to call that out in the code as well. Because it doesn't really fit into some of those other requirements. Kind: The reason I ask is the other 4 are laid out neatly in those two charts. Pristine, natural, ag/urban, utilized and it sure makes sense to have another column that says fen and just fill in the appropriate information. Haak: It's something we could do. We thought that it would work very well to have it as a letter (c) just to call it out. But certainly that's something that's negotiable. Blackowiak: So since there's only one fen in the city, I mean am I correct in saying that I guess? I mean one area of. Haak: Right. Right. Kind: So I'll re-state it. It's your view it's not necessary to change the chart? Haak: Precisely. 36 Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001 Kind: Got it. Thank you. Feik: Madam Chair, one more quickly. Are there any approved subdivision lots or anything similar to the first item of business that we had tonight that would be affected by this change? And if you don't know of any, could you research that before this comes back? Haak: There are some lots of record that are located within. Aanenson: The Hesse Farms. Feik: Would they be of similar circumstances as of the first agenda item wherein if we did make this change we made those lots relatively unbuildable? Aanenson: Well we wouldn't make them unbuildable. They'd probably be given an exception or something like that. Lots created prior to so there wouldn't be any additional. The effects on it now would be further subdivide or something that would come in the future. Feik: I'm just trying to figure out what the impact is for the present owners. I mean based on what their plans are. Haak: As I mentioned earlier, a lot of the lots in this area of the fen and the creek already have a lot of wetland on them so chances are they're not buildable anyway without a variance. Or some sort of other permitting. The main ones that we're looking at are the one, the second one I showed you this evening. The parcel that had the seminary building on it. This small parcel here which will actually come before you in a couple weeks, and we're working with some additional conditions. It's not within the proposed revised setbacks so it doesn't affect this piece. This one would fall in the same category. There would still be a small buildable area there. So primarily we think it's addressed. I can look into it in more detail. Feik: Thank you. Slagle: If I can ask just one more. That brings up a question if we're going to see something coming up on one of those sites, is there anything happening with the seminary site that we're aware of? Haak: No. We did have a proposal at the beginning of the spring for a use of that site. That land user is no longer looking at that application on that site. So right now, with the exception of that parcel, staff is not aware of anything going on in this particular area. Slagle: Fair enough. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well, this item is open for a public hearing tonight. Please be advised that if you do want to speak to this item, there will be a second public hearing when we get some more information so that will be noticed in the newspaper and on the web site, but if there's anybody this evening that would like to comment on this, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Debbie Lloyd: My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I hadn't planned on talking about this but Bruce, you brought up a point about the zoning of this land. Without my code book I couldn't go through but it appears to me that impervious surface could be an issue because with industrial 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 land, don't you have a higher percent of the land that can be impervious surface than let's say residential. And impervious surface I would think would have a big effect on the runoff and everything in this area so it might be something you want to look into and consider possible zoning changes if it' s such a scarce resource. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Kate, that's a good comment. Maybe we want to just kind of consider that when we see it again. If there are any ramifications for us. Okay, is there anybody else that would like to comment on this item? Okay, if not I think I need a motion. Sacchet: How about comments? P Blackowiak: Would you like to make comments before we close? Sacchet: I'd like to make comments, yes. Blackowiak: Certainly, go right ahead. Then we can make comments and just realize that we will be able to do this again when it comes before us so. Sacchet: Yes, but I think I'd like to make comments that are relevant at this time. Blackowiak: Okay, go right ahead. Sacchet: First of all, I definitely would like to encourage staff to consider. I mean if we have to stress this point of that it needs 200 to 300 feet setback to protect the wildlife, to me it would be reasonable to make it a 250 foot setback. And since we're taking the temperature of the people that are going to be affected by it, I think that would be a reasonable thing tO shoot for. Then I'm a little bit disappointed that we can't pass it. I thought it was a good idea that the council could have the hearing over it. I understand the position so I'm willing to go along with this with the idea that we consider a larger setback at the same time. I do believe that we also need to consider larger setback for the creek in the context that it should be at least 150, but we need to be sensitive to the lots of record and so we, I think as we're looking at this again with the bigger figure that we should re-visit the issue of how does it affect the existing lots because it'd possibly be great if you could go more than 150 with the creek setback. But we have to work within the framework that's possible. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay. Any more comments? Kind: ...the 150 mark be mentioned as desirous and so I'd be interested in where that came from. Haak: For the creek setback? Just for my clarification. Kind: I'm not really sure what it was for. It just stuck in my mind. Sacchet: We didn't really... Kind: And so I'd be interested in hearing from those folks if they can't come to the public hearing, maybe get some written statements from them or whatever. That's what I'd like to see happen before we see this again and I think we should table it so that we can notify the property owners and some of the people that were on the tour. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001 Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any comments you'd like to add? Feik: No, I can wait. Thank you. Blackowiak: No? Rich? Slagle: I'll wait. Blackowiak: Lori, I just have one comment. I was not able to make that first tour but I would certainly like to do a second one if you were so inclined so I guess you know if you're going to notice property owners, maybe at the same time if there happened to be a day you could pick just to say, you're a property owner. I'll be here this day. Come if you want to walk. I mean that might be kind of neat just to get some of the property owners down there to take a look at what's actually going on down there and maybe give them a little bit better understanding of what we're trying to do by this. So with that I would like to have a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Comnfission table the staff's recommendations for the fen and for the Assumption Creek setbacks so that property owners may be noticed and pertinent environmental resource people that were at the tour can also be noticed. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the ordinance amendments creating setbacks for fens and creeks so that property owners and pertinent environmental resource people that were on the tour of the Assumption Creek and fen can also be noticed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: It will be tabled and I'm sure we'll just, it will be in the paper and on the web site so we'll know when it's happening again. Mayor Jansen: Madam Chair, if I could at this time. I would just like to thank Commissioner Kind and Commissioner Sacchet for taking the initiative to bring this forward and direct staff to look into the sorts of significant protections for our community resources. I commend you for having that sort of initiative and moving forward something like this so thank you and I'm sure the rest of the council would thank you also. (The Planning Commission took a short break at this point.) PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 6800 BRULE CIRCLE, NICK GASSMAN. Public Present: Name Address 39