Loading...
PC 2017 01 03 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 3, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, John Tietz, Steve Weick and Nancy Madsen MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, Maryam Yusuf, and Mark Randall STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator Aller: Tonight we have 4 matters before us for public hearing. We have a slow no wake zone, a Chapter 19 and 20 storm water issue, a wetland protection ordinance issue and then an application by Youngstedt’s for a sign variance. Being that the City is the applicant on the first 3 items I would request that we go ahead and move item 4 up to the top of the agenda so that the non-community individuals can come forward and make a presentation since they’re here. For the record we have a quorum and hearing no objection we’ll go ahead with Youngstedt’s sign variance which is a request to install an 80 square foot monument sign located at 50 Lake Drive East for Youngstedt's Car Wash, Collision Center and Tire & Auto Service. YOUNGSTEDT’S SIGN VARIANCE – REQUEST TO INSTALL AN 80 SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT SIGN LOCATED AT 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST FOR YOUNGSTEDT’S CAR WASH, COLLISION CENTER AND TIRE & AUTO SERVICE. Walters: Thank you. So this is Planning Case 2017-02. The variance for 50 Lake Drive East. The variance is as you mentioned for a 12 foot high ground low profile sign with 80 square feet of sign display area. The location of this, this variance actually involves 3 separate parcels although the sign is permitted under the 50 Lake Drive East address. The parcels 40 and 50 Lake Drive East are adjacent to Highway 5 and 30 Lake Drive East has frontage on Lake Drive. They’re all accessed from the communal drive on Lake Drive East here. The zoning surrounding these parcels is predominantly, immediately surrounding is in green. It’s Highway and Business Services District. To the east is an industrial office park and south of Lake Drive East is single family residential housing. Free standing signs like the one being requested are permitted in the Business Highway Services District and also in the Industrial Park District. The zoning for this district would allow structures with more than 50,000 square feet to have pylon signs of up to 20 feet high or, I apologize. My slide appears to have gotten a little mussed up there. Or less than 50 square feet, 16 feet high pylon signs. The display area for the over 50,000 square feet is capped at the 80 square feet of display area. Less than 50,000 square feet is 64 square feet of display area. For the ground low profile signs like we’re discussing tonight the maximum height for the district is 10 feet for the buildings over 50,000 square feet and those less than 50,000 are restricted to 8 feet in height. Again with the respective 80 square feet for the larger structures Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 and 64 square feet of display area for the smaller structures. I should note that the original site plan for these buildings included a variance for a 12 foot high ground low profile sign. Electronic message centers are also allowed within the Business and Highway Services District and in the case of those anyone that’s 64 square feet or over is restricted to no more than 40 percent of the sign display area can be electronic message center. So for an 80 square foot sign the maximum size would be 32 square feet. So a little bit of history on the site. As I mentioned when this was first brought before the Planning Commission in 1992 there was a recommendation to have the 12 foot high ground low profile sign in exchange for the applicant consolidating the signage from 30, 40 and 50 Lake Drive East into a single sign. The idea was to reduce the amount of clutter along Highway 5 and also to not have additional free standing signs facing the single family district to the south across Lake Drive. In June of 1994 the sign plan was approved with that 12 foot variance. In 1994 the permits for the existing sign for 40 and 50 Lake Drive East were issued and in ’96 the panel for 30 Lake Drive East joined the sign as well. In 2000 some of the panels were replaced and that has been all of the activity on the sign to date. So what the applicant is proposing is to keep the existing 12 foot high ground low profile sign. They would be using the existing sign supports seen here. They would be adding an 80 square foot sign display area with a 32 square foot electronic message center so this would require a 16 square foot variance from the ordinance’s normal 64 square feet of signage allowed for these parcels. They are proposing to continue to consolidate detached signage for 30, 40 and 50 Lake Drive East into the single 50 Lake Drive East sign. The location would be the same as present. The narrow parcels and narrow building profiles prevent pretty limited wall signage facing Highway 5. That combined with the 50 foot setback from the highway and then the minimum 10 foot setback from the yard has created some limited visibility for the existing sign which is why they are requesting relief in the form of an 80 square foot sign instead of the normal 64 foot. Right here you see the sign location. Again they’re proposing to maintain the current location. The sign has been there since ’94. We’ve never received any complaints about in terms of safety, sight lines, anything like that so comparing the existing sign to what’s proposed, as I mentioned a 12 foot height would be retained. The current sign has three 20 square foot panels. Those would be replaced with a single 80 square foot panel but it would stay within the current boundaries established by the sign and they would be installing an electronic messaging center. For comparison without the variance and consolidation each parcel in theory could have both 40 and 50 Lake Drive East would be entitled to up to a 16 foot high pylon sign with an individual 64 square feet of display area and 28.8 square feet of message center so again the proposed consolidated signage equals a lot smaller visual impact on the Highway 5 corridor. This is just recapping again the theoretical different combinations of signage allowed under the ordinance. I should mention that 30 Lake Drive East would also be entitled to an 8 foot high ground low profile sign with the 64 feet of display area and the 28.8 square foot message center. So the staff’s assessment is we agree that the existing sign does have limited visibility because it’s broken into the three 20 square foot cabinets and it is located a significant distance back from Highway 5 with cars moving at 55 miles per hour there are definitely some legibility issues. The height and location would remain unchanged. The net change to this variance would be adding 16 square feet of display area. The applicant would continue to waive the right to any other detached signage except I believe a small directional sign which they’re allowed without permit 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 under our ordinance and it is our belief that one 80 square foot sign is preferable to multiple 64 square foot signs along that corridor. For that reason staff does recommend approving the proposed sign variance with conditions. If you have any questions I’d be happy to take them at this time. Aller: I don’t have any questions. Anyone else have a question? Tietz: I just have one question. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: It’s more for information because I certainly don’t object to this at all. It seems very appropriate and consistent with the past and obviously a consolidation but is there, with electronic signs the repetitively of change, is there a distraction factor for traffic on highways if it, now this one probably is I don’t know pretty static but if it changes rapidly and goes to a lot of different messages, is there any issue with that from the highway department or from public safety at all? Walters: Yeah. Tietz: Not just this sign, I’m just saying, I’m trying to learn a little bit. Walters: Yep that’s a, it’s always a concern with message centers. This electronic message center would be required to meet the conditions of our ordinance so we prohibit flashing, scrolling, otherwise distracting message centers so when they came around for the sign permit where the variance would be issued, you know we would speak with the applicant. Make sure their image change time conformed to our ordinances guidelines and we have had some preliminary talks on that and yeah. Aanenson: I would just say the other thing we do control is the level of nits which is the illumination so if it does, if we do get reports of you know sparkling or something that would be distracting then we would just follow up and address with the applicant. Tietz: Yeah. Pretty unique technology today to make changes rapidly and keep…thanks. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Weick: We’re not requiring that they maintain the existing pylons right? They could rebuild those if they wanted? Walters: The conditions that staff is proposing would require that any replacement pylons match the material and construction of the building aesthetics but were the applicant to choose to redo the pylons, there’s nothing in this variance that would stop them. There is the condition that they 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 maintain the 10 foot distance south of the property line from the original variance and things like that but that would be it. Aanenson: If I may, one of the conditions we do on pylon signs is that they be architecturally compatible with the building so it is brick, we want these to be brick. If you look around to other places in the city that’s one of the things we don’t allow just a free standing pole sign. We want them to be architecturally compatible. Aller: Any additional questions? Hearing none I’ll ask the applicant if it would like to come forward. Dan Smith: Sure, thank you. Aller: Awesome. Please state your name and address for the record. Dan Smith: I’m Dan Smith. I’m the General Manager of Chanhassen Goodyear. 23-24 years I’ve been there. I’m partners in the Chanhassen Car Wash and my partner has the body shop there. We have kept many city hall staff members, employees on the road through the 23 years I’ve been there. Through the park department. The hall here but after so many years we just thought we’d better update the sign. When Abra moved up hugging the highway, I get 3-4 calls a week, where are you? I’m dumbfounded after 22-23 years of being there so I give them directions. Now they just zip, and it’s from the back on Lake Drive. There’s a big Abra sign, Victory sign, they go right by us. They don’t stop so we should have done this a long time ago and it’s time to get ‘er done but Youngstedt’s, I mean I have never worked for a better company that donates over a half a million dollars to the Chanhassen, the Eden Prairie, the Victoria high schools. It’s just a great company to work for and I suspect I’ll be there another 5-10 years. I don’t know but it’s just, I want people to find us and it’s frustrating when I’ve been there so long they can’t find us. Even right now I just what the heck. When Abra went up close to the road there that was a big blockage so I think this proposal just might help us and that little sign in the back. When our sign guy drives by us and can’t find us, that’s a problem and he did that so anyways that’s what we’re asking and I appreciate your time and if you have any questions I can answer them but thank you very much. Aller: Thank you. I think it answered my questions. Dan Smith: Thank you guys, appreciate it. Aller: Okay with that we’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak either for or against this item now is your opportunity to do so. For those of you at home would like to look at the package you can do so on the website and all these items will have their reports and all our reports are on the website for your review weekly. Seeing no one come forward, we’ll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner comments or discussion. Well I’d just like to thank Youngstedt’s for being such a good 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 community partner. For providing, for not only community social welfare but also partnering with us in items like this where it’s an example of business working with the government, with the City to come up with a plan that works for both and actually reduces the signage and potential problems and safety and aesthetics and so we appreciate that and I certainly appreciate that so I will be voting for the variance. Any other comments or hearing none I’ll entertain a motion. Madsen: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 12 foot high ground low profile sign with 80 square feet of display area subject to the conditions and approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tietz: Second. Aller: Having a valid motion and a second, any further discussion? Madsen moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments recommends approval of the variance request to allow a 12 foot high ground low profile sign with 80 square feet of display area subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a sign permit from the City. 2. The existing landscaping around the sign must be either maintained or replaced in kind. 3. The Electronic Message Center must comply with the City’s Electronic Message Center Standards. 4. The ground low profile sign must meet the City’s design standards. 5. The ground low profile sign shall be located in the same position as the existing monument sign or at least 10 feet south of Lots 1 and 2’s common north property line. 6. The materials and color of the brick used in the supports shall be consistent with the brick and colors used on the buildings on Lots 1 and 2. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 7. All businesses built on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall share the monument sign facing Highway 5 and may not construct separate detached business signage. 8. Directional signage must comply with Sec. 20-1265. General location restrictions, and Sec. 20-1255(2). Directional signs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: SLOW NO WAKE ZONE, CHAPTER 19 & 20 STORM WATER, AND WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE. Jeffery: Chair Aller, commissioners, thank you. I’m going to, if it’s okay I’d like to roll all 3 of them into one presentation. Before I get going I’d like to clarify that really Chapter 18 and 20 are the chapters that come before this body for the public hearing. Chapter 6 and 19 are included here for informative purposes so that this body knows where we are going and Chapter 19 has prompted some ancillary changes to Chapter 18 and 20 that I will discuss as we go through this. Go through this presentation tonight. Aller: Great. If I could just take a second to ask and inquire of the commissioners, any objections to having all 3 items presented at once? Weick: No objections. Aller: Seeing none, thank you Jeffery proceed. Jeffery: Well as you’re all aware we’re going through local water management plan update. This is a response to changes at the federal, regional, state and local level. So as part of that our local controls also need to update. Not all 3 of the local controls that are being discussed tonight are part of the local water management plan but Chapter 19 and Chapter 20 are. But I will start with Chapter 6 which is the slow no wake zone. So a brief history. So really I’ll be moving in reverse order of how they are placed on your agenda for tonight. The slow no wake, the first time we looked at, City of Chanhassen looked at implementing a slow no wake was in 2001. They looked at Lotus Lake specifically and at that time they could not, it did not pass because they could not reach consensus about what the triggering elevation of the lake would be. So time passed and then in October, September and October of 2005 if anybody remembers we had a particularly rainy season. We saw a lot of infrastructure damage and we saw a lot of lake levels coming up so at that time they introduced a slow no wake ordinance for all recreational management classed lakes within Chanhassen. Through a variety of discussions and other reasons what ended up happening is Lake Susan and Lotus Lake both had a slow no wake ordinance, special slow no wake ordinance placed on it but none of the rest of them did. Then that brings us to June, 2014 where the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources after about 12 inches of rain in a 3 week period issued an emergency slow no wake for all area lakes. That was to be implemented by the local government units, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Victoria at that 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 time so we did that. And that brings us to today. So we’re looking at Lake Riley. The City of Eden Prairie, what we’re looking at here is a scatter plot so on the axis or dates we’re looking at an 11 year span from 2005 through 2016. And then on the y axis we’re looking at lake elevations. So if you look at the blue line that says OHW on the right, this is the ordinary high water elevation, 865.3 for Lake Riley. This red line is the 100 year flood elevation for Lake Riley, 866. Lake Susan and Lotus Lake, our code is set up so that that is the elevation that triggers it. The 100 year flood elevation is the elevation that triggers it. The City of Eden Prairie last year, who has jurisdiction with the City of Chanhassen over Lake Riley has developed and approved an ordinance for slow no wake for Lake Riley with 866 feet being used as the trigger elevation. Within their ordinance they state that this ordinance does not go in effect until the City of Chanhassen has adopted their ordinance, if they choose to do so, and that we enter into a joint powers agreement on this lake as to how it would be triggered. Who would be responsible for notifying you. When they put together their ordinance they did supply it to staff for review and our comments were incorporated into their ordinance. Also throughout their process they held public hearings and I did receive comment from our residents on the lake regarding this proposed trigger. The one comment, negative comment I got was from a gentleman who operates a seaplane out of there and the code has been amended to accommodate straight line take off and landing for seaplanes. Where it gets more difficult is Lake Minnewashta. So the again scatter plot, this goes from 2006. I don’t have the 2005 data through 2016 so we’ve got a 10 year span here. 11 year span. There’s more lines on here so again I didn’t include the blue line but this, so the 944.5 is the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Minnewashta. The DNR has as their 100 year flood elevation 944.3 but if you look at the scatter plot, now yes Atlas 14 has showed us that we have seen larger rain events and yes we have had some development in that area but predominantly that watershed is fully developed and it has been fully developed for some time now so it leads one to conclude that perhaps that elevation is not correct. I’ve had discussions with the DNR. They didn’t commit one way or another to anything. The green line above it, BFE, base flood elevation. This is from the draft FEMA maps that have been put out that will go into effect actually towards the end of 2017 barring no appeals. And that elevation is at 945 and that equates to 100 year flood elevation as well what they say but again if we look at it with the exception of 2009, 2010 and 2015, every year would have triggered the slow no wake so again our goal would not be to preclude recreational use of the lake. It’s to look at when are these events truly damaging to shoreline and to property ownership and that’s where I would propose a 945.2 be used because again it captures that large event. This is the June of 2014 storm. Again I don’t have the 2005 storm unfortunately but if we go back and look at, you can see it easily on the Riley. So that would be my proposed even though the code that I provided in the packet shows 100 year elevation I would recommend that it be at 945.2. That’s really the crux of the lake management. Now I don’t have, unlike a lot of other code revisions where it might be staff driven this one was really, really boils down to lakeshore owners themselves. Yes there are some ecological benefits from putting in a slow no wake ordinance but really the number of times that it’d be triggered is probably fairly negligible so I don’t personally have a stake in it. The Lake Riley, Eden Prairie would surely like the City to cooperate and to implement one as well. Lake Minnewashta I did have some preliminary meeting with the Lake Minnewashta Conservation Association last, must have been October I met. I came to their 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 annual meeting and spoke to them so they’re aware of it but they did not offer comment at that time other than to say yes, some of us really need it. We’re, for instance those out at Red Cedar Point that are always under water and some of them are high and dry and think well this is just going to be a nuisance so. City Council will have a public hearing on this and I encourage people to contact me directly with any comments or concerns they have. Yeah. Weick: Is it okay to ask a question and it relates to specifically to the flood heights? Jeffery: Absolutely. Weick: Because I’m afraid we’ll forget it if we keep going. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Are these driven, or are these frequency driven or are they driven by the level that actually causes harm to the shoreline? Jeffery: They are, it’s hard to truly define at what elevation harm is caused. Weick: Yeah. Jeffery: It is, we look at the 100 year flood elevation because that’s the elevation we use for all of our other planning measures. How far to set back a building? When the FEMA flood insurance rates kick in, things of that nature. To be honest though with some of the watercraft that we’re seeing today it wouldn’t matter what the lake elevation is, they’re still getting just as much draft and we’re seeing just as much shoreline damage so really this one comes a lot down to just perceived loss of property by homeowners when an elevation gets to a certain point. Weick: Okay. Jeffery: And I would guess if I walked all the way around Lake Minnewashta and talked to every property owner everyone would have a slightly different take on when it should come in. And then as I said at the beginning that’s what brought Lotus Lake to a halt on the first run through was just not able to achieve that consensus. What is the elevation so it’s a fair question. Weick: Okay, thank you. Tietz: Steve I just want to pick up on your comment though too. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: If the propensity or the frequency of quote, unquote 100 year flood, whatever that is today, obviously we’re seeing more of those in rapid succession and if there’s, even though the 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 shoreland is developed, if the watershed is not developed is there potential for more runoff to get into Lake Minnewashta with more hard surface over the next 10 to 20 years and will that only continue to impact the, potentially degradate the shoreline. Jeffery: Absolutely. Tietz: So what do we do in 5 or 10 years we’re going to raise the elevation and say it’s, how do we, you know I know you’re, we’re trying to only protect the shoreline but obviously is the shoreline erodes it’s bringing more sediment into the lake and thus we’re going to create potentially more of the south shore along Highway 5 where it’s all cattail marsh because we’re going to have further and further reduction in water depth potentially. So is this, what are we, are we just trying to protect, give people the option for recreational use until it goes over a certain level. Essentially that’s what you’re doing. It’s keeping boat but if you go to a lot of these lakes, you know about whether Lotus or Minnetonka, some days you go out there and it could be a calm day but there’s so much chop you’re getting as much degradation on shoreline just from the chop of use as you would from just the high water. Jeffery: Commissioner Tietz, Chairman Aller, that’s absolutely correct. Unfortunately there is no magic bullet panacea to say where we’re at and yes, as we see in all of our watersheds, as we see increased impervious surfaces put in we’re going to see flashier events. We’re going to see quicker input of water into that system. We’re going to see a quicker bounce and an extended detention within that lake. So will we move the target? No. I don’t think so only if the DNR were to officially change the 100 year flood elevation. If Susan and Lotus have been in effect now since 2005 and have not, we’re not considering changing those. But does that mean that they’re not experiencing accelerated degradation? No, I don’t think that’s the case. I think if you talk to people on Lotus Lake they’re still concerned about the high water levels within Lotus Lake. It’s our hope that some of the storm water management techniques coming on line will help with that but time will tell. Tietz: Okay. Aller: Which brings me to my question. What’s the authority? Once we set a high water mark and once we set a limit does that preclude the DNR in any form or fashion from coming in and setting their own, and declaring an emergency and calling a no wake zone? Jeffery: I does not preclude, Chairman Aller it does not preclude the DNR from declaring an emergency if they felt that our elevation was set too high. What the DNR stance is, we will create the vehicle for you to develop your code for water use limitations and then you will write, draft, implement that with our review and blessing. So even if we said okay 9, you know we’ll go with 945.2 and we submitted that to the DNR. The DNR still has to say yeah, we think that we agree with your assessment here. The DNR could at that point say no, 945.2 is too low or too high or is missing the mark. Did that answer your question? 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 Aller: It does. I’m just looking to see whether or not for instance we have less than 100 year rain fall event or we have a forecast like we do with snowfall and would the DNR be able to come in and take advanced measures to declare a no wake zone with the upcoming rain until they determine that there’s rain or not? Would they be able to look at an individual rain event and the ability of the water to recede or be taken out of a certain water body and declare a no wake zone during that period of time in any event? Jeffery: Chairman Aller to forecast the need for it, probably not. You know stage flood forecasting for a river is easier because you can look downstream and see what’s going to occur upstream. It’s a little more difficult for a lake. For a static body like that because it’s hard to tell what the response time is going to be. Reactionary they certainly can. They can certainly look at it and say you know we see issues occurring right now and we need to do something about that. Then regarding, I think it’s important to note here that, I was going to put in all the rainfall data for these events and then I’m like okay, now I’m starting to get nerdy on this but none of these events were 100 year event and in fact if you look at the individual daily rainfalls none of them exceeded a 10 year event. The only, what happened was we had a 50 year 28 day event so the anteceded moisture conditions were so high that even a half inch rainfall, all of it ran off. It was as though it was all paved everywhere around it and unlike other events where it might be more local. Maybe you know Chanhassen gets hammered but Eden Prairie and Victoria see just a scan amount of precipitation. We were seeing a whole metro wide these events occurring so we were drawing in drainage from all over the place so if you went upstream from Minnewashta, that Hidden Creek we flooded out a driveway for the first time ever and had to sandbag a house. I’d never seen that before. Virginia obviously bounced even higher still because it received all the water from downstream so I find it interesting that these weren’t even 100 year events that triggered these. By either masters. Either the TP40 which is the old climate data set or the Atlas 14, the new climate data set. Tietz: Terry one more. I’m just looking at your chart. You say that FEMA is going to come out with 945 and you’re recommending 945.2. It’s just .2 of a foot higher. You mentioned, what brought it to mind is you mentioned Red Cedar Point. Would those folks be concerned that FEMA is lower than we are and thus we’re saying we wouldn’t call a no wake zone until it exceeded the 945.2 and yet they may be getting inundated? Jeffery: Commissioner Tietz I can think of one property owner in particular that yes, that would be far too high for his liking. Far too high. He would probably prefer it to be somewhere between the OHW and the 100 year event and rightly so. His property is at great risk. It was built in the 40’s. Really not much, there was no regard to the OHW so yes this number in some ways is I’ll say arbitrary in that it’s trying to not always be stopping recreational use on the lake but catch those events that we know historically just, it was bad so. Yeah and you know it’s going to be I would like to, as I go through the local water plan update I’ll have opportunity to meet with the Lake Minnewashta Association again and I really want to sit down with them specifically and talk about these elevations and get their thoughts on it just for those reasons you talked about. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 Tietz: I’m just trying to look at the map over there on the wall and that whole south end is a marsh and then there’s the park on the east and then there’s the homes on the east are pretty high. It’d be interesting to see what percentage of that shoreline, even though I know you said it’s essentially 100 percent developed, what percent of the shoreline is at risk of some damage if there was a condition that exceeded the proposed elevation. Jeffery: It is possible to model it. It’s beyond our modeling capabilities in the engineering department. Just the software necessary but they tend to be expensive models. We modeled the creek that discharge from it and that ended up being like $16,000 to model that. Tietz: Yeah. Jeffery: But we can certainly do it. It is possible. Tietz: I’m not suggesting that. Just you know just my knowledge of that lakeshore from driving around it and not having been out on a boat it just seems like there’s probably not a lot of edge condition that is highly erodible or not in public ownership. There’s a big hunk in essentially public ownership too. You know because that’s always a consideration I think is how much damage could occur with high water for extended periods of time. You know Lake Minnetonka seems like there’s an awful lot of rip rap because of that damage over the years and with soil conditions that are more subject to maybe slumping and eroding so it’s kind of a combination of soil conditions, slope and the high water that creates potential problems. Jeffery: Yeah and emergent vegetation left in the water. Tietz: Emergent vegetation, okay thank you. Aller: Additional questions on this topic? Okay. Jeffery: Surface water management. I didn’t even include the code within your packet but I do want to bring you up to speed with it because there are some ancillary changes to 18 and 20 that are contingent on this and so we’ll move through it quickly here. Big table. You don’t need to get all the information. What I really want to take home from this table is these are all of the different entities with some regulatory authority within the city of Chanhassen. The top 2 are the NPDES permits or the federal requirements which prompted the third line which is the minimum impact design standards. So State legislature in 2009 gave funding to the PCA to bring together a large diverse group of people. Everybody from Builders Association Twin Cities to Realtors Association, consulting engineers, soil and water conservation districts, et cetera. They worked for 4 years and developed MIDS standards which was intended to be a guideline to be adopted statewide that would meet the federal permit requirements. That is what we always argued for whenever we would meet with the watershed district as they updated their rules. Adopt MIDS. That’s what MIDS was put in place for. So Minnehaha Creek’s rules went into effect before 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 MIDS was completely adopted so they did not adopt MIDS. Carver County WMO they tried to adopt MIDS. Ended up on the one inch, rather than 1.1 inch. Just simply for math reasons. For ease of administration. Riley-Purgatory went to MIDS but lowered the threshold dramatically and that’s where our sticking point with Riley-Purgatory is, is their trigger point was 50 cubic, is 50 cubic yards or 5,000 square feet. Single family residential homes are exempt from it but if you add onto your commercial property then they’ll trigger the rules. So let’s just hone in on our specific rules. So right now currently 19-141 says these development standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features. Really that’s a pretty low trigger. Our proposed change would actually increase the trigger and bring it in line with MIDS, with the federal requirements with some caveats. So everybody has gone from looking at just developments strictly and they’ve divided them into 3 categories. You’ve got new development, raw land that’s never been developed before, redevelopment, which is defined differently depending on which watershed district you talk to, and then you have linear projects. Linear projects being notoriously the most difficult because right-of-way acquisition becomes very expensive quickly and if you’re going to be doing it simply to put in storm water management it can dramatically add to the cost of a road project. So what we are proposing is still the 1.1 inch extraction, consistent with MIDS. 90 percent reduction in total suspended solids and 60 percent reduction in total phosphorus. That’s consistent with our existing standards. The NURP. That’s the National Urban Runoff Program and then no increase in rates at any point. Our triggers then will become anytime you disturb greater than 1 acre of land that meets the NPDES construction permit requirements. Add a half acre of impervious, that meets the MS4 requirements and the anti- degradation requirements. That’s why it’s a little bit lower than the 1 acre of impervious. Disturb a half acre and drain to an impaired water, that’s again to meet the anti-degradation and the TMDL issues or 10,000 square feet of impervious surface draining to a special impaired water. And then the one that I didn’t list on here is, since it says subdivision so a lot split. We’re now recommending 4 lots or more. Four new lots of record or more rather than having it be, and even that is debatable if that ends up being too low of a trigger because then I can think of, oh what was the one on Dogwood? That’s just 4 lots and that ended up being kind of hard to implement so we’ll have more discussion about it. So the standards and the volume reduction, that’s what’s new in this code. There are a lot of ways that are listed for getting your abstraction or that reduction of volume but the 2 that are primarily used and are the most practical to use are infiltration and capture and re-use. Now it’s not always possible to do those, and in fact there are times where it is precluded by law from you doing infiltration on a site. Those are sites that are known to have known contaminants. They are sites that have depth to bedrock or ground water of 3 feet or less. Sites where you’re going to be fueling for fleet management purposes or sites that have carse topography which is something we don’t have to worry about here. There are also times where it might just simply not be appropriate for infiltration. That tends to be your D soils. The tight clay soils that we have throughout at least 50 percent of Chanhassen. Your wellhead protection areas, although that’s not as much an issue here because our wells are so deep and the infiltration rate is so slow that we’re on the magnitude of hundreds of years so contamination isn’t really an issue. So what code has done is it allowed sequencing for these restricted sites. Instead of saying yep, you’ve got to figure out a way to meet that 1.1. We allow 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 them to demonstrate why that is not possible. Either it’s precluded by law. Something else and we can only get so much irrigational area so therefore we need to drop down to some lower standard so that’s all it really is, is an opportunity for them to step down without just saying we can’t do it. We’re not doing it. They have to provide documentation before they won’t but, and then we’ll update our engineer standards and specifications to provide guidance to the applicants and engineers and consultants. That’s a real condensed version of what’s going on with the storm water management. The part that applies tonight and really the part that the motion is applying to is this. So Section 18-63, what it does is it, so originally we took our surface water management fees was based upon two different categories. Water quality and water quantity. And then our credits were based off of water quality and what did you put in for a storm water pond. How much area did you treat? Spring of this year we changed Chapter 4 and at that time this section of code became obsolete because it still referred to water quantity and water quality and credits in that old system so this section of code is being revised to match Chapter 4. We’re only looking at volume reduction, assuming that you’re meeting the rest of it and then your credits are based on what portion of that volume reduction did you get. And then the Section 20- 109, this change, the change in here is to add downstream receiving best management practice. Before it referred only to ponds and obviously with this new storm water management ponds are, they might be a tool that’s used but they are exclusively the only tool. So this is the spinoff from my spiel in Chapter 19 and that’s what would, the motion to go to council. Aller: Any questions for Mr. Jeffery regarding this portion of his presentation? Tietz: Not really but I need a definition. Best management practices. Jeffery: So any, Commissioner Tietz so anytime you put in any type of facility for storm water management we call it a best management practice. Tietz: Okay. Jeffery: So it could be something as simple as putting in a vegetative buffer or swale. Could be a stormseptor put under a road so it’s a way of allowing them to just any storm water, accepted storm water management practices. Tietz: Allow the developer or the proposer to come before you with a proposed alternative to. Jeffery: Correct. Tietz: Yeah, okay. Thank you. Aanenson: I was just going to add something too because Terry’s given you a lot of good information but I’m going to try to say it in a different way, reiterate what he said and that’s, how this was adopted, we as a city has evolved. How we’re treating it separately quantity and quality and have moved towards a more equitable way of doing it and giving credits for those 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 sort of things so while we’ve adopted the fee change, the ordinance hasn’t tracked that and that’s what we’re doing now with this is Terry’s changing it to match what we’ve done as far as how we’re charging developers and how it should be reflected in the ordinance if that makes sense. Jeffery: Thank you, yeah. Tietz: So the better system they develop, the more proactive they are the reduction in their fee application. I mean there’s an incentive to create a good solution. Aanenson: Yes, absolutely. Tietz: Because this, okay. Jeffery: Yeah thank you Chairman Tietz, or Commissioner Tietz. That was exactly the intent of this type of credit was to incentivize putting it in rather than using the carrot. Tietz: Okay good. Jeffery: Or the stick rather. Aller: Okay, thank you. Jeffery: Okay now to the heart of it. So this is wetland protection, Article VI, Chapter 20. As a side note I’m fascinated by maps. The map that’s shown here is the 1907, 15 minute quadrangle for Minnetonka actually but it’s the section that includes Chanhassen and if you look a significant portion of Chanhassen is dominated by wetlands and even if we fill them it’s still there and that’s why we see so many sump pump issues in this town and the shallow water tables. So what prompted all of this, a couple of things. One was the watershed districts updating their rules and their buffer requirements but the other one was, City of Chanhassen was very proactive in wetland protection. They were well ahead of the curve so 1984, August of 1984 they adopted their Wetland Alteration Permit process and the wetland protection. That was a full 7 years ahead of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act so what we’re left with now is kind of this, they don’t necessarily coincide well on a timeline schedule so the intent here is to clean up the wetland alteration process. Permit process so that they can run concurrently with WCA. So the WCA process says that once the City receives an application we have 10 days to say, WCA is Wetland Conservation Act. I apologize. I’ll sometimes speak in odd acronyms. Wetland Conservation Act says that you have, we as a City have 10 days from the time we receive an application to review it and determine it’s completeness. At that time we either say no, it’s incomplete or we notice it for comment and that notice period must be a minimum of 15 working days. Now noticing it for comment under Wetland Conservation Act rules is different from noticing for comment under our existing WAP because our existing Wetland Alteration Permit says that it must come before this board for mitigation purposes. Impacts themselves. That is what’s being done away with and instead it will go to all of the members of the Technical 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 Evaluation Panel which is the board of water and soil resources, the governing watershed district, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil and Water Conservation District. I said that. Department of Natural Resources and in some cases the PCA but not very often. Also any members of public requesting a copy of it. Sometimes they’re just a standing record like I live in Chaska and I’m on their list. I just wanted to see it. In addition they would also have opportunity when the Planning Commission looks at the plat or anything else in the site plan to make comment on wetland at that time. After the 15 days are up or however long we decide, if it’s a more complicated one we’d probably give entities a longer time period to review it. For instance Avienda might be one of those where we want to give more than 15 days to the agencies to review it. We at that time have 10 days to make a decision. That decision is either approved, approved with conditions or denied and then we have to state the reasons for that denial. The City Council is still the approving body for an actual wetland alteration permit. We can handle wetland delineations at the staff level or exemptions at the staff level but anything that truly impacts a wetland must go to council for approval. This entire process must be finished within 60 days. However we do have the ability to extend it another 60 days if we feel that we need that time. So that’s the process it will follow now. I’m going to quickly go through all of the minor changes. The clean up work that went into this. Please stop me at any point or ask questions about this but Section 405 that addresses the submittal requirements and really what we’re looking at here is making it consistent with what is required. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act was updated in 2014 and we want to see the submittals be consistent with what the Wetland Conservation Act and the Army Corps of Engineers supplemental requires. We also are kind of leaning towards more of electronic submittal form so we’re diminishing the number of paper copies. We want to see a GIS shaped file that’s put in our coordinate system so we can continue to update our maps accordingly. Section 406 just talks about mitigation areas and what we’re, what I’ve been seeing are people coming in with a mitigation area and saying well look, trying to argue that it’s a lower value than the wetland that it replaced, which by law it cannot be. It must be equal to or greater value so that’s what that line is intended for. Section 407, it again it defines impacts so that they’re consistent with the updates in the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Section 409 changes our process to be consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act. Section 411 really deals with buffer monument placement and buffer structure placement, and I’ll go into this in a lot more detail in a little bit. That’s really what the primary purpose of this is about. MacKenzie and I spent a fair amount of time going through these trying to come up with a way to do it. Section 412 is buffer requirements. The biggest change here is that it’s preferred that they’re put in outlots. We’re not requiring that they are but it just makes it easier if they are in outlots which also affects their surface water management fees by reducing it that amount. That area is taken out of calculations and then just clarifying that buffers need to have native vegetation. It used to be included in the table. We’re taking it out of the table and just putting it here. And then Section 416 probably will not apply too much more. As we move away from having on site mitigation and we look more to banks but it really talks about what must be in your mitigation plan. How frequently must you review it. What types of submittals must you give to the City to state that you are complying with the Wetland Conservation Act for your onsite mitigation. So this map is hard to read but it’s just a picture of all the wetlands that remain in the city and what I want to talk to you about are, as I go through 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 the buffer changes that the other watershed districts have done they’re going to apply to different management classes. Now currently we use Preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2, Manage 3 and then we have Outstanding and Outstanding is Seminary Fen so for the purpose of this discussion we’re just going to leave Seminary Fen out. What all the other watershed districts use are Manage 1 through 4 so Preserve becomes 1. Manage 1 becomes 2 and so on. So as I talk about that please keep that in mind. So Manage 1 will become the highest management class and there are 46 Manage 1 wetlands in Chanhassen that we are aware of. Of those 46 wetlands, 12 of them are fully within public ownership so we’re leaving 34 wetlands that would be affected in some manner, shape or form by development so the buffer requirements would affect those. Of the 61 Manage 2 almost half or 30 of them are fully in public ownership leaving 31. Manage 3 tends to be the bulk of our wetlands and what that really means is that it tends to not have fisheries habitat. Does not have amphibian habitat. Tends to not provide a nice, easy educational opportunity or recreational opportunity. And then the fewest wetlands are Manage 4 and that actually makes sense when you think about what typically has been a Manage 4 wetland, they are the agricultural wetlands. They are wetlands that have been farmed and every one and again will flood out so they have no buffer. They have no vegetative quality. They have no habitat so Chanhassen has been developing. We’ve been losing agricultural wetlands. Either being upgraded as they get developed or being mitigated for elsewhere so they’re… Then we have 27 that are unclassified for whatever reason. Either we weren’t allowed permission to go onto the property to assess it or they were discovered after the fact and just weren’t included in the initial MNRAM. For the most part these should coincide with Minnehaha Creek watershed district’s classifications and their MNRAM is what’s used. It’s the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method. It is a access database. It is intended to take as much guess work out of it to try and make it more objective and less subjective. It’s still open to interpretation. For instance the large mitigation area off of 212. Is that highly visible? Some would say yes. I can see it if I walk down the trail on Powers Boulevard. I can see it if I drive on 212 and I can see it if I live in Camden Ridge but it’s not really accessible so there’s some subjectivity still but it was intended to make it more objective. So their MNRAM’s and our MNRAM’s should coincide fairly well. In fact we know they do with Minnehaha Creek because we’ve asked for that and we’ve matched them up. Riley-Purgatory has yet to do a full district wide MNRAM assessment so we are submitting our’s to them. They are reviewing them and typically using them. Or an applicant can do that if they want so that’s how many wetlands we’ve got that we know of. So here we are. This is our existing wetlands. This table right here is our buffer for Manage 1 through Manage 4 and then each different entity is shown to the left. Minnehaha Creek watershed district. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek, Carver County WMO. I’m going to talk briefly about Carver County WMO, then we’re going to set that aside because no matter what system we use we will meet their requirements. Carver County WMO says in no case shall a buffer be greater than 50 but you will start at 50 feet and then based on the grades, based on the soil type, based on the vegetation, based on a number of different factors you get to continually lower that but never can you go lower than 20 feet so in essence for every wetland regardless of the type their buffer is going to be between 20 and 50 feet. We’re fine with that. I’ve talked to Paul Moline many times about this and we will have no problem meeting that. The question that I really would like to present to everybody here. You don’t have to give me an answer but I’d sure welcome the 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 input is, we have 3 options. We could A, say you know we’re just going to keep our buffer rules as they are. We already have 4 different sets of buffer rules in the City because we’ve changed it that many times and let the watershed districts then implement their rules and, but that would result in having to go to 2 different places to submit an application. That would result in just less customer service. Less friendly customer service when it’s said and done. We could say let’s try and adopt some middle standard. Let’s go for Minnehaha Creek’s rules and not go all the way to Riley-Purgatory’s. I would recommend against that one because really you’ve just complicated it further. Now we’ve added 2 new buffer requirements. And then the final one would be to say you know what we’re going to adopt the most stringent of these and that will then be adopted city wide meaning people who live in Minnehaha Creek or Carver County would have to meet the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed district rules. So that’s just food for thought. So on the bottom is just a tabular review of again what we’re talking about. So Minnehaha Creek, so under our current rules we do not allow buffer average anymore. It’s been our practice to utilize, to allow them to do that simply because it makes developments easier. Well not any easier, it makes them better. Makes a better end product if they can have some flexibility in averaging of it. Carver County, Minnehaha Creek and Riley-Purgatory all allow buffer averaging so they have some minimum. Minnehaha Creek’s are what’s shown there, 67, 34, 24 and 16. Riley- Purgatory is 40, 30, 20, 10. So we would end up with some type of buffer average when it’s said and done if we were to adopt that. Also I think it’s important to note that the rules that require us to update our local water management plan does not say we must have their rule exactly but it says, what it says is must be reasonably consistent or provide the same reasonable protections as the watershed districts. Caveat being they are the ones, they the watershed districts are the ones that get to decide if what we propose provides reasonable restrictions. Why this is going to be important and I’ll show you on the next slide here, so if you look at just our buffers only. So this is if we were to meet the requirements of the watershed district. Of the most restrictive watershed district. So we would go to 80, 60, 40, 20 which would be the same as Riley- Purgatory but our, because we would require. Well let me back up. I kind of left the setbacks out which is key. Right now we have a primary structure setback and a secondary structure setback from the buffer. In order to reduce the encumbrance on property the one thing we would have control over is a reduction of that setback regardless of if we implement Riley-Purgatory’s rules or Riley-Purgatory implements it, they’d still have to setback from that buffer. So what I am proposing, what staff is proposing with this change is to eliminate the secondary structure setback entirely. You could go with a deck or a patio or swing set or gazebo or shed right up to that buffer and then your primary structure setback would be reduced by half. Would become what that secondary structure setback is. Reason for the structure setback is if you buy a house and it’s got patio doors you have every right to expect that you may be able to put in a patio so there does need to be some setback there but looking at a way to minimize it. So going back to this table on the right then, if we add the 15 foot setback we’re at 95 compared to Riley- Purgatory’s 80. 75 compared to their 60. 55 to their 40. 35 to their 20. So one argument that I would make is, and I made it with Minnehaha Creek is well why don’t we just keep it exactly as we have it now because our buffer plus our setback is just as restrictive or as encumbering on a property as your buffers alone are. They did not agree with that. The reason being, and it does make sense is look a buffer has specific requirements. You’re putting in native vegetation. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 You’re not putting any structures at all in there so I got that but it might be possible to come up with some compromise that wouldn’t be as much so I still, when we finish this I’ll submit it to the watershed district for their comments and that is one of the conversations that I would like to broach with them. So well we’ll back up here now. So that’s the end of this portion of it. The bulk of the change is becoming consistent with the current Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and then deciding what we want to do with buffers and setbacks. I’d like to ask MacKenzie if you have anything you’d like to add just in our conversation? Walters: Not at that time. Jeffery: Okay I just know that we had a lot of discussions. I hope I didn’t forget any of that. So really this again was for informative purposes. We’re not moving forward with this yet. What I want to do with everything except for the ordinance that is in front of you is this will follow, as a part of our local water management plan the buffers and the storm water management, it will follow our local water management plan update which will mirror our Comprehensive Plan update so you will be involved throughout this entire process as we move forward so in essence looking at an adoption date towards the end of 2017 is when you had looked at that right? Aanenson: (Yes). Jeffery: The slow no wake we would like to move forward with this February. So slow no wake would be scheduled for February-March before the City Council to take comment at that time and preferably and implementing it prior to the Memorial Day weekend for that boating season and obviously that’s all contingent upon input from the lake groups and their thoughts on it. I talked about the rest of it. We’ll just follow the local water management plan update. Aanenson: So I’m going to add onto I mean Terry’s great presentation but just again the goal is to align to what’s going on with the other watershed districts. How we would implement this and then you can see all the changes that were made. There’s little hiccups in there as how our interpretation of primary structures, secondary and those are the things we’re trying to, because it becomes really onerous for our residents to try to understand that. We’re trying to like I say align it. Make it simple and there’s more uniform approach because when they go to the watershed district, get one opinion and then come back here and then we tell them something different so we’re really trying to streamline that so that’s the goal as we move forward so if that makes sense. So a lot of the strike out and bold is the interpretation and there’s some things in the code book and through definitions that we’ll also be aligning too. Those we use different, the nomenclatures sometimes. Transitions a little bit. Pivots and you’re not sure which one to use so we’re going to go through those and streamline those too. We did that a few years ago when our interpretation of what’s a street. What’s a right-of-way. We went through and cleaned that all up in the code so that would be the same thing, outcome so this is really a good starting point for us to continue to working on aligning the direction that Mr. Jeffery’s going on with trying to get these code amendments, if that makes sense. So you aren’t looking for a formal motion Terry? 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 Aller: That’s what I was going to. Tietz: Any questions or? Jeffery: Yeah I did not put, I wasn’t as good as MacKenzie and put it in but in the packet front page it’s a very simple motion. Aller: Okay we have a couple more questions so Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Yes I have a question on, well I understand that if you go with option 3 it’s for efficiency so citizens could just go to one organization to understand the rules but would that create some confusion as to whether you would be allowed to have a patio after you built your house if you no longer have that secondary line? Aanenson: Can you take a shot at that? How we would interpret that? Walters: Yeah. I honestly think this would clarify it. So right now I know Terry and I have actually had some meetings where because of the different rules that come into play he told them something was permitted and then I saw the plans and I said no, you can’t have this because it meets our definition of a structure even though this aspect of it is okay. By removing the accessory structure distinction and only having the primary structure setbacks and then explicitly listing what we’re considering a primary structure our hope is it’s going to be easier for them. They’re going to be like oh, I know that I have to have my required 100 square foot patio shown 15 feet from the wetland but I can then build everything else out to the buffer. I know I have this 15 feet. Currently we have a lot of confusion where it’s well you know the survey or whatever says I have a 50 foot back yard, why can’t I have my Sport Court here? Well because there’s a secondary setback and this is an accessory and that’s when the conversation tends to get a little more frustrating for the applicant so think this will, should improve that. Aanenson: There’s still hard cover issues and a lot of different layers that still go into that so. Aller: So have we, and that was going to be my question. The examination of just what is an accessory structure, is that going to be modified? Are we looking at doing that because we’re looking at 1,000 square foot structure that goes directly up to the buffer or is it going to be limited to, and part of this process where we’re limiting it to 1,000 square feet. Are we saying anything so long as hard cover requirements are met can be built up to the buffer? Walters: Yep so we built them for a lot of the bigger ones that are required like parking lots for a corporate structures are going to have to make that same 15 foot setback as the primary structure, and hopefully I’m not stepping on toes here. Terry please correct me if I’m wrong. I think this is where a little direction may be required in terms of you know our goal is not to create so many hardships and non-conformities. That we’re here with a variance for every patio going into a 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 wetland but yeah absolutely. I don’t think any of us are thrilled about the idea of a 1,000 square foot you know storage shed right on the edge of a buffer. Now they would still have to meet things like rear yard setbacks. The 30 percent coverage and those other protections we have in place so especially with developments moving forward where the wetland is in an outlot, you’re going to have almost the exact same protection as the 15 foot setback for the bigger accessory structures. One thing we tossed around is if we wanted to make it a building permit versus zoning permit distinction but there’s complications there too because what’s my rationale for saying oh you can’t have a 600 square foot shed here but you can have a 600 square foot patio. I don’t know that I can defend that. Aller: Which again goes back to hard cover requirements and is that going to rule the roost. Aanenson: Right. So that’s what I’m saying. We’re still, there’s still some clean up to align some of these things as we’re working through those, yeah. Aller: And so that goes to my additional question, or tack on question, is anything we do today with the amendment in this ordinance going to preclude us from moving forward with those modifications if necessary? Jeffery: Chairman Aller no. No. Chairman Aller if I may, having ancillary structures, secondary structures right up to the buffer is not necessarily harmful in and of itself. What has been my experience in this city and in others I’ve worked in is that, that when the primary structure goes right up to it that’s when you start to see all of the encroachments into that buffer area. They start to mow it or they start to plant gardens in it and things like that. By having a secondary structure placed what I actually found in many cases they put that secondary structure like a gazebo or a patio or something specifically to enjoy that amenity that’s back there and it becomes more of an amenity than a burden so I don’t foresee that being terribly. Weick: But under the proposal we’re doubling the buffer in every case roughly so where it would have been 20 feet it will be, if you’re going to build right up to the buffer it would be 40 feet, right? Am I reading that right? Jeffery: That is correct. Weick: So we are putting the structures where we would have put them roughly anyway right? Aller: With the setback. We’re just including the original setback into the buffer plus 5. Jeffery: That is correct. Weick: And I’m talking in real rough terms. I mean plus or minus a couple feet but. Walters: Very fair to look at it yep. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 Weick: I mean structures won’t be closer to the wetland. Jeffery: The wetland itself, that is correct. Weick: Under this and then the other, the only other question I have if I could real quick is on page 3. There’s a proposal which is a little different than what you had, you had proposed like 95, 80, 60 and this is 5 feet less? Jeffery: Yes Commissioner Weick that was illustrative. Weick: Okay. Jeffery: Just to show if we met the Minnehaha Creek rules that’s one example. Weick: Okay. Jeffery: I don’t have in mind that we want to do this or that so. Weick: Okay. Makes sense to me, yeah. Tietz: Mr. Chairman? Aller: Yes Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I’ve got a question too. It seems like, just thinking about some of the parties that we’ve seen come before us and I’m thinking about Wilson Ridge I think it’s called south of what? Whatever it is. South of 212. Aanenson: Fox Woods now. Tietz: Yeah developers put handicap property owners, they create situations that then we have to deal with a variance. They’re trying to maximize their development and they’re putting building pads on plans like Dominoes. They may be creating situations that now this ordinance and our current ordinance becomes so restrictive in the back yard that folks can’t do anything because they’re pushing that road out to the point that they know they could get a 20 foot deep house in but someone wants a 40 foot you know perpendicular house. How do we head off situations when a developer comes in with a plan and do we have the ability to scrutinize that plan and say you’re creating undevelopable lots for the property owner? Aanenson: Yeah that’s a great question. There’s two check points on that. One is when the plat comes in. They have to demonstrate a 60 by 60 pad a reasonable. We also require that they show an area for a patio or you know like Terry had mentioned on the doors. The other one too 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 is we can reject when they come in for a house plan because now that you’re in the marketplace and a homeowner wants this lot and tries to put that house. Sometimes you’re putting a square peg in a round hole. We have to say no. That house is not going to fit on that lot and we can reject it and it does happen. It’s just not going to fit. Tietz: Yeah, well that might have the ideal lot that I want and I select an architect that designs my home and it’s like the property that we had on Riley Lake and you know had they done a different home on that site it would have been much easier for the property owner and for us to deal with that situation but the restrictions were such that, and what they were placing on it there was a lot of give and take to make that property work. Aanenson: Right and that was very complex because it was a lot of record. It shouldn’t have been a buildable lot in today’s standards. Tietz: Yeah I know. Aanenson: Yeah but that’s a good example. But in this circumstance then just not every house plan’s going to fit on every lot and we tell that to the developer and they have to be honest on how they’re marketing those and telling somebody that that’s not a good choice for this lot and then if it doesn’t fit on there then we say it’s just not going to work. Tietz: Yeah. Aanenson: Because I agree with you. Sometime you’re pushing the limit. That doesn’t give them any flexibility into the future and we, because we’ve had the buyers come to us and say you know we really want this and we try to explain to them in the future sometimes, I always tell people a single family home is the most flexible thing we have in the city because people add on. Their lifestyle changes and so what you say today I don’t need that. In 5 years your changes. What we don’t want to change is apartments don’t change. Townhomes don’t change. Tietz: Yeah. Aanenson: Yeah there’s not as much so we do work really hard on that and it’s a great question because people, whether they want to add a third car garage on. Whatever that may be. A second story so we always try to look at that and advise them to think in the future. Do good planning. Tietz: Well it still you know it gets onto the wetland is the impact on the wetland is not a 200 square foot fire pit. I’m sorry. It’s the 4,000 square foot house that’s put on a 35,000 square foot lot and all the drainage off of that goes to the wetland as opposed to another mechanism for collection and then it can be dealt with more appropriately so when you have a ring of homes or a structure you know it’s not that last, in my mind it’s not that last 50 feet of putting a hard 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 surface on it that’s going to eliminate the quality of that wetland. It’s the composite of all those things around it. Aanenson: Right and herein lies the problem so you get a subdivision. All the houses go in and over time they all want to make changes. They all want relief and so it’s that cumulative effect of not just one house but a significant portion of those so there needs to be a nexus between home size, lot size for sure. Tietz: Yeah so that leads me to my next question. Thanks for bringing Terry that map of what, 1900 or 1905. I was looking at those today and I noticed that the wetland map that I looked on on the GIS was, appears to be last updated in 2012. Now this said, I could barely see but it looked like 2014. Have we updated all of our wetlands and classified everything in the community in the last 10 years? Jeffery: Chairman Aller, Commissioner Tietz, no. We have not. Tietz: Okay. Do we need to do that to protect ourselves against issues that are going to come up as further development in the south sector? And I also noticed that all the Prince property is undefined. Jeffery: Correct. Tietz: It’s not identified as a wetland right now. It is a wetland, it’s undetermined or whatever that classification was. Jeffery: Correct undetermined. Tietz: So how do we, how do we establish you know we’re going to deal with this in upcoming properties and if the classification and the delineation doesn’t provide the protection that the community desires how are we going to deal with that? Jeffery: Chairman Aller, Commissioner Tietz. I’m glad you brought that up actually. That was part of the local, so part of our local water management plan is our wetland protection plan. Code is the most tangible obvious thing but we will be updating the MnRAM throughout the summer as part of this overall project. Whether we go out and have a consultant do it or if we just do it in house will remain to be determined but it needs to be done. A lot of it too though is, some of the wetlands we’re just simply not aware are even there until they come in and develop so we just don’t have MnRAM’s for, so there are wetlands that just don’t, that aren’t showing up on this map that exist in Chanhassen and those are typically addressed at the time of development. Tietz: Would that be similar to Holasek’s? 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 Jeffery: Yes. Yeah there were. Tietz: So that’s, was that an agricultural, how did that get defined because I know there’s portions of it that are now protected that they could not excavate any more north of the pipeline and south of the pipeline. Was that an agricultural, I couldn’t tell. Is that an agricultural or was that a classification? Jeffery: No those were classification. Those were, so as anybody who develops a large parcel as part of the due diligence has to go and get a wetland determination and delineation on the entire property. So they found those wooded wetlands tend to be higher quality just because aesthetically they’re nicer. They’re always protected by a buffer. They provide habitat so, but so when they did that, I think it Johaug Environmental was their consulting wetland specialist. They updated the MnRAM’s. Provided them to me for review and approval. Tietz: I saw their borings and all their stakes set up yeah. Jeffery: Yep. Tietz: Okay. I think consistency is good as long as they maintain the highest standard. Aanenson: Agreed. Aller: Any additional questions? Comments. Concerns. I’ll entertain a motion. Aanenson: The motion…correct? Aller: Yes. Madsen: Mr. Chair, I can make a motion. Aller: Okay Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the ordinance amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any further discussion? And I guess the purpose of what we’re doing here is to bring everything into compliance with WCA and then we can move forward as the City feels is appropriate and amending any of the other conditions as we go and we’ll look forward to the City Council. I had one last question before we vote on this and that 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 would be, the notice requirement that will be used in the future as opposed to the double notice because they get noticed for the Planning Commission. Now we’re removing that. What notice will be provided to the public? Jeffery: It will still go on our website and any development plan that comes in will have the wetland alteration permit as part of that for review at that time. It just won’t be handled as a separate process. Aller: And then will it be the same requirement for residents within 500 feet of any proposed notification or what kind of notice, and what I’m trying to do is let the public know this is what’s coming down the pike and if they need to address it then they need to come forward and let us know what their feelings are. Jeffery: Yeah if it is solely a wetland related project, there is nothing else associated with it, then they would have to look on our website to see it there so we’ll still have the WAP. The wetland alteration permit. It just won’t have the public hearing portion of it so the WAP will still be advertised on the website. It will still go for comment. I also maintain a wetland portion of my, on the surface water management page as well. Other than that if there are people in the public that just simply want to be notified every time one comes in they’re more than welcome to contact me and I will just include them on the distribution list. Aller: So that would be part of my request that a comment be made to the City Council to review the potential for appropriate notice to residents because they’re not educated on the process to get that information and I think we’re very open and transparent and we have the website and we have the notices that go out by email and Chan notices and they do a great job of that but I want to make sure that the citizens out there that are impacted don’t, come in later saying I never heard about this one modification that was going to be made to the setbacks and it impacts my property. So with that I’ll entertain a vote. And with that we’re through, well I guess the question becomes. Did we need to have a public hearing on that? I want to open. Aanenson: Yes you do. Aller: I’m going to have a public hearing before we do this wrong. Let’s have a public hearing and open this matter for public hearing for any individual who wishes to speak for or against this item to come forward. And seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing and now I will ask that we vote on the motion before us. Madsen moved, Weick seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Aanenson: Thank you for catching that. I missed it sorry. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 1, 2016 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: City Council action update. Aanenson: I had a couple. Included in your packet was the items from last, at the end of the year that went. The revocation of conditional use permits did get considered. That was the wholesale nursery that was included with the Wilson site we just talked about, and then also the horse stable located at 5060 Bluff Creek Drive. Also there was the order for the AUAR and I’m just going to take a minute to talk about that. On your schedule I’ve already updated it, th upcoming council items. As of right now we do not have anything on for January 17 so there will not be a meeting on that, 2 weeks from today. We are anticipating a variance request. We also have until this Friday to get a couple other things in so we’ll see what happens on that one. Right now we’re working on the AUAR. The consultants. Both Kimley-Horn and Hoisington- Koegler are working on that. We do have a meeting on kind of the data collection to see where we’re at in a couple of weeks here. Right now they’re tentatively planning on an open house on thth the 15 of February and part of that they’d be going on the 13 of February, going to the City st Council and kind of giving them an update of what they’ve found which would mean on the 21 there would be a public hearing before the Planning Commission on the AUAR. Also on that night is the potential for the downtown redevelopment tax increment financing district which just needs Planning Commission approval to say it’s consistent with the zoning district but that’s again both of those are potential. We’ll kind of see where we’re at on obviously wetlands a big part of the Avienda project. We’ll see where we’re at on that. In addition to that they are planning on bringing in the PUD for preliminary plat. We gave it concept so we’d actually be constructing the ordinance. What uses would be permitted. The design standards and all that so th it’s going to be a pretty lengthy meeting. That would be for April 18. I’ve also included at the top of that some other stuff that we’re working on. We just talked about the Frontier Building already coming for the TIF district. We’re working on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jeffery talking about the water plan but then we’re also working on all the other sections of the plan and so you are the kind of the omnibus of that so we’ll be bringing those forward with informational meetings and then we’ll also have some open houses and then public hearings on that. The Klingelhutz property, which is where the barn sits. There’s some traction on that. It’s under contract so we expect that one to come in. We’ve got some people that want to get in for entitlement this spring. I think that will be a really good project. Again that was the complexity of some wetlands that were discovered out there and then there’s a couple parcels that are separated by a collector road and trying to get the nice match up for that neighborhood so I think we’ve got something underway there. They’re just starting to work on that. The Moon Valley, want to bring that before you. They had a blow out drainage issue problem there so we want to get back and stabilize their interim use permit. Mission Hills senior housing. They have til 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 February to execute their one year. They talked about maybe doing daycare there. Maybe amending that so we’re trying to see. Really that would just go to the City Council. Only come back to you if they were to amend that senior housing so that is on the east side of 101 and north side of Lyman there so. The Bernard Group has got the big, the old CPT. The old Super Valu site. They’re looking at doing about 115,000 square foot warehouse addition on the back of that project. Some complexities there. It abuts the residential neighborhood. We do have buffer requirements there. The biggest concern is putting, there’s a Metropolitan Council sewer line and so they want to put a building over that so we’re working through some things on that but that would be a big project. Bongards moved to a different building in town and they worked out to get some things they needed done to get in for the winter but they’ll come back through. They want to do an addition on that building. Got a beachlot potentially. Couple of small subdivisions. We’ve got a dental office going over by Holiday Inn which is a good spot for that. That we’ve had some interest in some other things to go there. Fast food and the like but the turning movements there coming off of Century were kind of problematic. And then we talked about the Avienda. Not only the AUAR but the PUD itself which the complexities of that so we’ll be busy this spring. Everybody likes to get stuff in the ground, or get things to the entitlement process so they can get in the ground as soon as the road restrictions are off but one other thing I wanted to talk to you about is going paperless. I had asked Jenny Potter to contact you to see because when people are traveling over the holidays not to put a packet there but there’s an opportunity anybody that does have an iPad that you could actually download the packet. If you wanted to do that and have a hard copy here for a while or just have a hard copy sent to you let me know and we can put on your iPad iLegislate which is where we get your packets. When you’re on that software it’s nice because you can highlight stuff. Weick: That’d be great. Aanenson: Yeah so we can get you, if you have one and you want to get set up on that we’ll set that up for you. I’ll make sure we have, so anybody else? Do you have an iPad? Tietz: I do. Aanenson: Okay we’ll get your set up on that. And I know sometimes if you request and say Kate can you print out a bigger sheet to look, it’s hard to read sometimes the contour lines and details so we can take care of that too. But if we can go that direction so if anybody else has that I’ll check with Maryam or Mark to see if they’re interested in that too. Aller: Great. Aanenson: I don’t know if either of you are interested at this time with iPad or doing that. Aller: Well I have a laptop at this point. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 Aanenson: Okay, got it. So we’ll do the hard copies but I’ll let both John and Steve, let you know we can get you set up with that. Tietz: So I can do…computer off the iPad? Aanenson: I think the iPad only. Tietz: Is a way to note. Aanenson: Yep, yep. Tietz: Good because I like to note. Aanenson: Yeah you can take notes and draw on it. It’s wonderful yeah so it’s great. Like I say too if there’s a particular item, you know you can download that one, maybe that one map but if you wanted something bigger we could help you with that too so that’s great. Just trying to move towards that. I think it’s helpful too that you can get it in a more timely manner too. Sometimes we can’t get somebody out to drive. You know if we get the packets out late on Wednesday then you can get that as soon as it’s out, you can download it. They’ll send you a message. It says download it and then you can just go right to it and download it so. And then if you have that to you, have the ability to download the council packets too so you can keep up to date on those too so. That’s all I had. Again we do not have a meeting in 2 weeks but be prepared by we’re going to be busy. Yes. Weick: I have a question. Two questions. Aanenson: Yes. Weick: Is the Bretton subdivision something we haven’t seen already? Aanenson: We’ve approved the 4 lot when they came in from the south. That developer walked away so somebody else is helping the owner. Weick: It’s the same area. Aanenson: Same area. Exact 4 lots. Yeah same lots so how they can get, there’s some other people on the top end that may want to assemble with them. There’s someone else in the back. Everybody has different so we’re trying to, someone else has picked that up and try to revisit that. Weick: Okay. And then did the, that land over off Lake Lucy. Did they just run into winter there? 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 Aanenson: Yes. Weick: Or okay. Aanenson: You know. Weick: I’ve had neighbors call me. Aanenson: So that parcel had a high water table there and so that’s Anthem on the Park and so you know as it turned out we had a wonderful fall but you know it’s always a roll of the dice you know whether or not you’re going to get, because Fox Woods was challenged too you know so but they had a longer stretch of sewer and water. Weick: That’s what I thought but. Aanenson: So they’re going to wait til road restrictions are off. Tietz: Did they have, is there any change in that one? I’m just Steve reminded me because I’ve driven by. It looks like where they were driving in with their excavators and their equipment was closer to Lake Lucy than where I thought the entry road was going to be further back. Kind of splitting, there’s 2 wetlands and the entry road was going to split there. Now it looks like where they’ve been driving it appears that there’s kind of a meandering road starting within 150 feet of Lake Lucy. Jeffery: Their initial proposal they were looking at going between the 2 wetlands. They realized they could not do it… Tietz: But that’s what we approved. Jeffery: No what was approved was the more southerly. Tietz: It was? Aller: Yeah, yeah. Tietz: Oh I must have missed that meeting. Aanenson: So I would also say too that there’s someone else in that area that’s looking on hooking up to the sewer and water so we might extend a little bit which is good because then we can get them on the city system as opposed to a septic system up there so there might be…so sometimes the extra time helps solve that so yeah. So that’s all I had so I’ll be in contact with you and I get you iLegislate and we’ll see you in a month. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 3, 2017 Aller: Thank you. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. It’s non-debatable. Chairman Aller moved, Commissioner Weick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 30