Loading...
PC 2006 12 05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, Mark Undestad, and Kevin Dillon MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Tom Devine 7640 South Shore Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN HIGH SCHOOL, REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE SITE IN PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK, ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT AND REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKSHEET. APPLICANT ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC.,/ INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112, PLANNING CASE 06-35. Public Present: Name Address st Steve Miller 244 1 Avenue, Minneapolis Mike Spack 3268 Xenwood Avenue So, St. Louis Park Jay Pomeroy 7575 Golden Valley Road, Minneapolis Steve Pumper 11 Peavey Road, Chaska Paul Schlueter 427 Campfire Curve, Chaska Phil Standafer 8767 Valley View Place Al Gomez 8748 Valley View Place Chairman McDonald: Continuing from our last meeting, Chanhassen High School had presented for us an Interim Use Permit to grade the site in preparation of development of the property that's located on Lyman Boulevard, south of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad. At that time we had tabled the, this application because a question came up concerning is it being built into a bluff or not on the property. Staff then was tasked with going back to evaluate this and to Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 present us with a clarification as to whether or not there was a bluff involved within this development. Staff, are you prepared? Aanenson: Yes, thank you. Chairman McDonald, members of the Planning Commission. As you've indicated you tabled this item for the staff to look at the slope issue. I apologize we didn't put this in. We had made that determination and didn't put that information in there previously so again I want to have Lori Haak go through the definition of slope and then I'll go through the process that we went through to determine whether or not it was a bluff. So I'll let her take a minute to explain. Haak: Chair and Planning Commissioners. The bluff ordinance looks a little complicated at first but actually is quite simple. The objective is to of course preserve any steep slopes and by definition bluffs are 25 or more feet from toe to top, and they're 30% or greater slope over that rise. So again, just going back to a rhythm to say I guess rise over run gives you the percentage of the slope. And the third provision as outlined in the staff report basically exempts any areas that may be a bench within that area so if you have a slope that starts quite steep and then levels off and then rises again, those areas if they extend for less than 18% over 50 feet or more are exempted from that. In this case we don't have that entering into play, but that is another part of the definition. Aanenson: Included in your packet was some aerial photography so what I'd like to do is just kind of go through that to show you the history of this property and interpretation. As with all areas that may be qualified for slopes in the city, we do look at kind of the natural features. Typically when we see slopes or, they're also in areas that are heavily wooded, undisturbed because they haven't been able to be touched because of their location and the steepness. So with this we've got some different aerial photography that I'll go through. First, with everybody following along a frame of reference here. This is Lyman Boulevard. The school site. The subject school site and the railroad tracks. Again, because the photography I'm going to show you is a little bit hard to see, I'll click the current frame of reference. So this is 2006. Again the subject site so the frame of reference, Lyman Boulevard and the railroad tracks. I'm going to show you this stand of trees because this stand of trees is one constant that you can see in the project itself in the different aerial photography so we'll go back all the way to 1940, and I think you might have to zoom on this a little bit more Nann. This is black and white. This is in blue you can see the subject site. There's a road going through the middle of that. Kind of that, it was defined as the, what was questioned as a possible bluff site. Again here's the trees for the frame of reference and Lyman Boulevard and the railroad tracks. So this is photography from 1940. Going back to, or coming forward to 1963. Again Lyman Boulevard and the railroad tracks again for frame of reference. This is the trees. You can see pretty much the creek is farmed, or what could be of the creek is predominantly farmed. A little piece is hard to see somewhere in this area. It's getting a little bit more pronounced in here. Moving forward to 1979. You can see it's getting more pronounced. It's farmed all the way around it. There isn't significant vegetation on it. And then moving forward as I showed you in today, 2006. This would be the area. It's continued to grow. And you can see that the farming practices have been removed from the creek, or the flood plain itself and subdivisions have occurred. So with that, as Lori defined the definition, we took the steepest area and created that toe, top of slope and took that percentage. Anything under 30% and we do have that, that opinion has been given by the City Attorney. If 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 it's under 30% it does not meet the definition of the slope. So with that, and I'm sorry we didn't have for you at the last meeting. How we got to that conclusion and didn't think it would come up but with that, following on page 2 of the staff report. Based on the geographic information, taking that slope and the results of the data, we believe that there is not the definition of a bluff. And that is the only area that comes close to meeting the 30%. For other reasons, as you can see, it was previously farmed, a lot of that area. So with that we are recommending approval with the issues as stated on the beginning of the staff report. The Interim Use Permit and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet review, and with the conditions of approval of followed on page 8 and 10 in the staff report. And I do believe you left the public hearing open at your last meeting so. McDonald: Yes we did and at this point I guess I would pick up at that point. If there was anyone that wishes to come forward and make comments. What I would ask is that we do not go back over issues that were brought up before because those have been more or less addressed or settled. If there's anything new that anyone wishes to bring up, if they would come forward. Please do so. State your name and address and then whatever comments you may have, address them to the Chair. Al Gomez: I'm back again. My apologies. Al Gomez, 8748 Valley View Place in Chan. I'm the property that's across the bluff. I guess pretty difficult to see in the pictures and understand what part of it becomes wetland versus what part of it becomes the actual bluff itself that were or were not yet farmed. Obviously the colored pictures show more of a color differentiation, which would show alteration in elevation which I'm not sure you would get out of a black and white. My father in law happens to be a farmer in the area and can go back to 1910 and state every farmer that's farmed that property. From Dethelm to Koskie, Carver Bongard, and again that terrain is the same as it's been all along. So the topography may show something different but how much of that is color. The other thing is, at least from where I sit, my back window looks directly up the bluff. Depending on, I guess I need to understand depending on where you start the lowest part of elevation, what's 30 degrees? If it's the middle of the wetlands, I'm not sure that that's fair. If it's the end of the wetlands where the actual bluff begins, I'm having a hard time, and Phil my neighbor, are having a hard time believing that that's 30 degrees or lower. Additionally, and again minor topic but I emailed Bob Generous, obviously the mail indicated if you have questions, please email him. I emailed him asking for a copy of the bluff ordinance and did not get a reply. I subsequently placed a phone call into Bob saying again no indication that you didn't get my email, but I wanted to follow up again. Hope you got my email with the information I sent you about the farmers. Can I get a copy of the ordinance to take a look at it since we too have not seen it and I did not get a reply. So again, I'm assuming that's what staff is there for is to help us citizens get to that information so that we can in turn be more educated with the decisions that you make. Aanenson: Can I just ask, when did you try to contact Bob? Al Gomez: On Monday and Tuesday. Aanenson: I apologize. Just for the record Mr. Chair, Bob's been out sick the last 2 days. I'm sorry. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 Al Gomez: Well, then somebody should be checking his emails or something. Aanenson: Correct. Al Gomez: The other question that I don't think was answered last time, that I would like to ask again. We did bring up the question of are the developers or is the school district prepared to build on this property other than if it's leveled, and that was not addressed. So has the assumption been all along, or been an understanding that concessions were going to be made to be able to level this bluff prior to the discussion around the bluff ordinance for them to build on this property? Aanenson: I'm not sure I understand the question. I think even if it is guided and also industrial, I think there was, no matter what use was to go on that site, there was an assumption that there would be grading on the site. I mean we have that with every industrial park so, depending on the foot print of the building, depending on the overall plat layout, there is an inherent assumption that there's going to be grading on the site. Al Gomez: To the degree of the 25 feet and the numbers where. Aanenson: Well I would assume if it was compatible to an industrial park, it might not one single user might have been that big but in compilation, there would probably be the same amount of quantities. I don't know if you want to add anything to that Alyson. Fauske: The challenges of the site are, there is a large grade differential from where they want their building pad to, down to the creek area. Certainly the pipeline presents a huge challenge for the grading operations and just the use that they've proposed on the site. The area that they need to provide all the facilities for the school have indeed presented itself as the Planning Commission sees here. Al Gomez: So the gas line is pushing the fact that the, to have the use of the land they would have to grade it? I'm assuming that's something they took into consideration or studied prior to buying the property. So as they bought the property, was there an understanding that there was going to be approval to level that bluff? And to your point that in previous considerations that there was an understanding that there would be grading, again all I got, I have to go by is we've had Nancy Mancino on our property when we discussed high density developments in that area and the indication from Nancy, who was the mayor at the time, was that that was protected by the bluff ordinance so there was not discussions around there would be grading. From my experience. McDonald: I guess as far as any conversations about this particular piece of property, that's beyond the scope of what we actually know or had presented to us. That would probably be between the developers and whoever bought the property but what they've brought before us is mainly a plan and what they're asking for is permission to do grading based upon the ordinance and that's all that we can actually look at. Anything beyond that, what I would suggest is, you could talk to them and find out but I'm unaware of anything. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 Aanenson: Let me just clarify too. When the school district bought this property they didn't know what it was going to be. It could have been a middle school or a high school. That decision was made at a later date, you know when they actually did their analysis. When the first acquisition, they were under study. We always said it was proposed secondary schools how it was notified, because they didn't know themselves until they went through their study exactly what it was going to be so, to say we always knew it was going to be a big high school isn't a fair statement. Al Gomez: And again for clarity for us, the slope and from where it's measured. To the top of the bluff is at the bottom of that hill, not beyond and into the wetland. Aanenson: That's correct. Al Gomez: Okay. And that shows to be less than 30 degrees. Aanenson: Correct. Al Gomez: Okay. Because again, we're having a tough time with that because we look at it every day. Aanenson: Understood, yeah. Yeah. McDonald: Okay, does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay seeing no one come forward, I close the public meeting and I bring the discussion back up before the commissioners. Kevin, I'll start on my left. Dillon: Yeah, it's kind of like the person who was just speaking alluded to, there seems to be the potential for some subjectivity as to how you were to measure this hill, or bluff. You know I mean, you know where you exactly say the bottom is. It levels up and the toe of it is and you know, I mean the top part I suppose is a little bit easier to define. The highest point of it but I mean when we're talking you know 29.9 degrees and 29.7 degree slopes, I mean you know that little bit of subjectivity may play a role so, two people may come to a different conclusion on that. So I mean, just based on that, I mean it's a real close call so. The other thing is, I apologize. I was not at the last commission meeting. I couldn't be here so, what's the, like the Reader's Digest version of the city code on the bluffs? You can't built on one? Aanenson: That's correct. Dillon: Okay. That's the only question I have for right now. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No. McDonald: Debbie? No? Okay. Kurt? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 Papke: Kind of following up on Commissioner Dillon's line of reasoning there. In this particular case, since we're so close, obviously people will ask the question. How did you exactly come to that answer? Did you get two people independently verify it? Could you speak to, since it is so close, what you did to make sure that the number was that on. Aanenson: Sure. All slopes, if you physically walk and find that natural break, as Lori indicated, where that natural start the rise is, would be. So that's one indicator. And there was 2 or 3 people that did the independent calculation. And also on the school district, which I didn't show that one but if you look at the school district plans, they also have their own, this is the City's data but we also used, and that's in your packet. I didn't go through that one but the school district also has their grading plan. The existing grades that they put on there, and that also cross checked and was a couple percentage point different. So we did take the steepest portion of it, so yes. We had a couple people look at it. And field check. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: Just one more question on that. I mean when I look at the picture, the 2006 slope analysis I see, it does rise above the 972 and then it does go below the 906. But what you're saying is that you must start somehow do this, kind of like that. Aanenson: Yep, that's correct. Right. Keefe: I don't know how you do it but… Aanenson: And that's the point that Lori went through when she was looking, when she was explaining it to you. You kind of have to find that, you can always find one little segment that may be kind of, so you have to kind of find that natural, where that segment is. Keefe: Well, but that's the problem because you're at 29.9. I mean if you're 20 it wouldn't be you know. Aanenson: Yes. Keefe: And if by ordinance it's 30%, you know. Haak: But to be fair, I'm sorry. Keefe: It could be 28 too and… Haak: And this has gone both ways for the City. You know we've had 30.1 and we've had 29.9 and we've made decisions either way. Keefe: Right. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 Haak: So it is very much a call where we've had subdivisions that have come in with 29.9 slopes and we've you know, there's no preservation under the code with that and, but with you know 30.1 it is. So and again, we've had that interpretation that it's just a matter of where you draw that line and the line is 30. Aanenson: And just like a wetland delineation, we field check those too. Keefe: It just seems that you know to me that, since we've gone to the extent of putting the definition of bluff and the emphasis on trying to, to save bluffs, that we're at one which is close. We would err on the side of determining that it is a bluff versus determining that it isn't a bluff since we've gone, any thoughts on that? Aanenson: Lori raised the argument that it's come up as the City Attorney's done it, if you're at, with the 30.1, then you're penalized. I'm so close so you have to, it's what it is. It's that elevation and it gets, it goes both ways. Whether it's a penalty or a favor. So, and also, you know part of looking at this, when we put together the bluff ordinance city wide, because originally it was just down on the river bottom. Was to save those areas where there was some of those natural features and looking at the past practice of this property, it's not tied, really definitely. It's farmed behind it and it still is. It's not really tied into, when you look at other areas with significant stands of trees, which we were trying to accomplish. Where there's been erosion. The thing has grown. The anomaly in itself and what we're trying to preserve some of the natural landform. So could it have grown or risen based on farming practices? There's a lot of rational you know thinking that you have to kind of put into it. That's why we went back and pulled out some of those aerials for you to show you kind of that frame of reference. Because most of the stuff that we have preserved is, I would say the significant portion of it, there are some bluffs that have eroded down in the river. Overlooking the river, but. Keefe: They're no longer natural… Aanenson: Exactly, but a lot of it is just what we're trying to preserve is some of those, that natural topography and this is a knoll. I wouldn't say it's connected to. You know the biggest feature we're trying to save there, and what we're working with the school district on is the increase quality and function of the creek itself. And you can see on that one part, where Lori's already worked to do the remandering on that very treed area and continue that as we move through the creek corridor. McDonald: Okay. Audience: Can I quick ask two questions? McDonald: At this point the public meeting is closed and we're really at a point of deliberating on this. If you have questions concerning this, what I would suggest is after the vote, you can certainly talk to staff afterwards, and again this is going to City Council. I guess based upon that, the only comments I really have for this is, what's actually before us is strictly a grading permit at this point. It has nothing to do with building. All of that will have to come back before us at some other time so, based upon that, you know I have no further comments to make and. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 Papke: I thought we were just doing questions at this point. Are we at the point of comments? As well. McDonald: Yep, go ahead. Papke: Okay. Like I said before, before we head into a vote. As I was reading through this I was really trying to think about you know, is this the right or the wrong thing to do and in all the years I've lived in Chanhassen I drive by the high school, the existing Chaska High School very frequently, and one of the things that struck me is, I don't think there's any facility in a city that's used more than the school. Every time I drive by Chaska High School there's hundreds of cars in the parking lot. There's people going in and out for sporting events and activities and school and you know, and I think there's, and since we're going to have to live with this for 50, 100 years, however long this school site lasts, I think it does, as I thought about it, it really made sense to me that we really should optimize the utility of this land and yes, we're going to, there's going to be a tremendous amount of dirt moved and it is from an ecological perspective in kind of a sensitive area. But I think 10, 15 years from now I think we'll be very happy that this was very well graded and very easy to get in and out of because thousands and tens of thousands of trips are going to be made in and out of here throughout a given year so. Although I certainly understand the people who live in the area are concerned with the aesthetics and ecological aspects of it, I think those have been reasonably considered under the ordinance and I think, you know as I really thought about it, this seemed to be the right thing to do for the community for the long run so. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to make comments? Kevin? Dillon: Yeah, just what is the down side to grading the bluff? Is it loss of an aesthetic, beautiful thing or is it going to cause a runoff problem or is it just. Aanenson: It's part of where the building footprint would be so it dramatically changes the location of the footprint of the building and useable area. Because it's not just the bluff area, but to stay away from it, because you can't go behind it. For usability. Because of this footprint. So it's kind of the form of this building. The larger footprint that's, and you've got space behind it. So if you were doing a small, smaller building or something like that, you could accomplish maybe something on the site. Dillon: Well I get the benefit of that but what's the down side to the bluff? You know I mean. McDonald: Well part of the problem is, from last week, there is a pipeline I guess due north. They cannot move in that direction so they are bound by that pipeline, which is off quite a bit from the railroad tracks. So that one constraint. And the next constraint is to get a building of a certain size, and in order to do that, the design that comes out of this is more of a walkout type of a design in order to get the square footage required for the school, so those are some of the limitations that are faced as part of the design. There isn't a lot of movement within that particular piece of property. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 Dillon: Well the maybe just for a little extra context here, for those that you know raised the issue last week and had a problem with this, what were they saying was, why were they opposing the extra grading for the bluff? McDonald: Well a lot of that. Dillon: Why are we here this week? McDonald: A lot of that, well what it got into was the design of the building and the effect upon homes across the creek side. And what that was going to do as far as changing the view. Changing aerodynamics was brought up. As far as winds and you know things that could happen across the valley there. Those were brought up, but then the issue of the bluff was brought up and at that point there was not sufficient information to say whether or not they met the requirements of the bluff ordinance, so it was tabled based upon that. Papke: Typically if we reflect back on some of the cases we've had in front of us, Settlers Ridge West probably being the one that stands out in my brain the most, it was erosion control tends to be the major issue. And in this particular case, since there's been how many years of plows going over that soil, it doesn't seem to be you know as critical an issue as it was along the Minnesota River bluff. You know which is kind of the typical case we run into. Keefe: Let me ask you a question. Say this came in at 31%, would we be looking at a variance on this? Aanenson: Yeah. Keefe: More than likely we would be. Aanenson: Right, we would have recommended that, right. Keefe: So if we think of it in those terms, you know. You know I supposed you'd have to demonstrate a hardship associated with bringing a variance in place on that. I'm not sure what the hardship would be associated with this. Aanenson: Well we'd go back to the same analogy that we just gave with the past farming practices, there's not a significant natural feature on top of it and those same sort of rationale. McDonald: Yeah, I mean obviously one of the hardships that we have is the fact of the path, of the pipeline which goes through there which severely limits any building in that particular direction, and at this point they are as far as they can go. Now what you're left with, you can put athletic fields and those things or aprons going up to those fields. That's what you can use for that space. So there are limitations with the property. Does anyone else wish to make comments? Okay. Larson: Yeah. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 McDonald: Okay. Larson: I'm just looking at the slope analysis here and I think they've been very generous in the 29.7 and as I'm looking at this, the steepest portion actually would be, let's see here. 50 feet. Probably be a good 20 feet less than what they're showing so I'm thinking this 29% would really be more, just based on looking at the severity of the slope, I'm thinking it'd be less than 29%. So therefore as I said, I think the City kind of did the worst case scenario of a footprint, what do you call it? Foot and top. Aanenson: Toe. Larson: Toe. Foot. Aanenson: Toe and top, yeah. Larson: So I mean, my thoughts are, it's actually less than 29.7 and therefore I guess I don't see a problem with this. McDonald: Okay. Well, if all the comments are complete, I'm ready to accept a motion on this issue. What he's looking for is on page 8. Undestad: Okay, I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a resolution of Negative Declaration for the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Chanhassen High School Campus. Are we doing both right away tonight? McDonald: Yes. Undestad: And that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve an Interim Use Permit to permit grading on the property in preparation of development, plans prepared by Anderson-Johnson Associates dated 10-19-06, subject to conditions 1 through, what do we got? 25. McDonald: Can I have a second? Thomas: Second. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a resolution of Negative Declaration of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Chanhassen High School Campus. All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an Interim Use Permit to permit grading on the property in preparation of development, plans prepared by Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 10-19-06, subject to the following conditions: 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 1.The 50-scale plans should be revised to clearly depict the wetland boundary and wetland buffer areas. 2.Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas should be protected by silt fence during grading. 3.The applicant should keep the goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region in mind as a plan is developed for the site and should work with staff to achieve these goals for this property. The Primary Zone boundary and the 40-foot setback should be shown on the plans. No grading is permitted within the first 20 feet of the 40-foot setback. 4.The erosion and sediment control plan should be aimed at minimizing the amount of exposed soil at any given time and preventing erosion of exposed soil. Sediment control (especially perimeter controls such as silt fence) should be viewed as a last resort. The applicant, the contractor and all subcontractors should recognize that one silt fence at the bottom of a large slope of exposed soil will not be sufficient to protect down gradient resources in even moderate precipitation or snowmelt events. To decrease the potential for discharge of sediment-laden water off-site, the applicant should prepare a plan for phasing the grading of the project. In general, the areas within 200 feet of wetlands should be graded first and permanently stabilized as soon as possible. Disturbed areas should be stabilized as soon as possible after grading to minimize the total amount of exposed soil on site. New areas should not be graded until after previously graded areas are stabilized. 5.Sediment & Erosion Control (SWPPP) Note 2.a.2 on Sheet C1.2 states that slopes steeper than 6:1 should be “cat tracked.” The applicant should take extra measures to ensure that this occurs because cat tracking has been shown to significantly decrease the potential for erosion on long, steep slopes. A detail should be provided for cat tracking. 6.The haul route between the Construction Staging Area and the Temporary Stockpile Area should be shown on the 50-scale plans. 7.All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of grading in each disturbed area. If practical, a seed and blown-compost mix should be considered in lieu of dormant seed and straw mulch. The plans should be revised to call out erosion control blanket locations and to provide a detail for blanket installation. 8.Chanhassen Type II silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer (both 16.5-foot wetland buffers and the 20-foot “no grading” zone around the Primary Zone). The silt fence should be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. Orange tree protection fence should be installed upslope from the Type 2 silt fence around the wetland between Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 and Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 as added protection so equipment operators do not impact the wetland by driving heavy equipment through it. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 9.The plans should be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details where available (e.g., Detail 5300 for silt fence; Detail 5301 for rock construction entrance). It appears that detail 3 on Sheet C1.4 is intended to depict the proposed checks within the temporary drainageways shown on Sheet C1.2. This should be clarified and the checks should be installed as often as is necessary to minimize the velocities of runoff in the drainageways. The plans should be revised to show a minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance. 10.In lieu of the proposed outlet pipes for the temporary sediment basins, temporary perforated risers and stable emergency overflows (EOFs) are needed; details should be included in the plan. The basins should be properly sized for the watershed areas, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins should provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipes should discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetlands and should be stabilized with riprap. 11.In the present design, water is routed into the wetland in the northeast corner of the site instead of into Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4. The grading in this area of the site should be revised to ensure that all discharge from disturbed areas is directed into either Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 or Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 prior to discharge into the wetland. 12.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 13.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 14.All temporary stockpiles shall be temporary seeded and mulched within 7 or 14 days, in accordance with the NPDES Phase II construction site permit. 15.Rock dissipation shall be installed at all pipe outlets within 24 hours of placement of the outlet pipes. 16.Slope lengths greater than 75 feet shall be broken up with a minimum 12-foot wide bench every 75 feet. 17.A minimum12-foot buffer area shall be maintained between the perimeter control and all stockpiles to provide access around the stockpiles for maintenance purposes. 18.Dewatering activities shall only be allowed after consulting with the on-site city inspector of the project to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit for dewatering activities. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 19.Silt fence shall be placed parallel to contours. In locations where silt fence will cross contours, J-hooks shall be installed at 75-foot intervals. Silt fence shall not be staked on site by scaling off the proposed plan, but shall be staked by the survey crew taking shots in the field. The applicant shall contact SWCD staff prior to silt fence installation so staking on site can be reviewed to ensure compliance with this request. 20.Drainage swales and ditch cuts shall be employed during mass grading to maintain a positive flow of stormwater to the temporary basins. 21.During final grading of the site, the height of the berm over the sanitary sewer shall be reduced to the maximum extent practicable, otherwise additional drainage and utility easements may be required. 22.The developer is required to televise the section of sanitary sewer over which grading operations will occur before and after construction to determine if the site grading damaged the pipe. 23.ISD 112 shall be responsible for repairing any sections of sanitary sewer damaged during construction. 24.The developer must place sanitary sewer manhole sections on the existing manhole to bring the top of manhole up to the existing grade. 25.No more than eight inches of rings is allowed on the sanitary sewer manhole.” All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Public Present: Name Address Tom Devine 7640 South Shore Drive Haak: Thank you Chair and Planning Commissioners. As the Planning Commission is aware, over the past 2 years the City of Chanhassen has been working to update it's 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The Second Generation Plan, or SWMP as we affectionately call it in the office, was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2006 and was th adopted by the City Council on August 28 of this year. For the reference of the public, the plan is available on line at the city's website. The SWMP process, the update process really included a lot of review of the City's goals and policies and recommendation of standards that could be implemented for the purposes of primarily development and review but also other development 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 within the City of Chanhassen. So before you this evening are Chapters 18 and 20. Some proposed revisions to those two chapters, as well as pertinent revisions to Chapter 1, which contains the definitions. Also included in your packet were some proposed revisions to Chapter 7, 13 and 19, and those are primarily for your information so you can see the breadth and the depth of the code revisions that are being proposed. Those do not require public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. So if it is, if the Chair is amenable, what I'd like to do is go through each of the chapters and then if the Planning Commission has questions on each chapter, perhaps we can address those at that time individually so that by the end we'll hopefully have taken care of them all and can proceed in some sort of fashion that makes a little sense. McDonald: Okay, go ahead. Haak: Is that fine? Alright, very good. Your staff report includes real brief summaries of the changes, and I'll just go through those. Really in Chapter 1, starting with the definitions, the primary changes to the definitions come from the wetland ordinance. There is a revision to the classification system of wetlands. In 1992 through 94 the City conducted it's own wetland inventory and that was done using a very loose classification system that was actually developed by the City. With the code, the Surface Water Management Plan Update we're implementing the, it's called the MnRAM or the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for wetland evaluation, and those classifications are preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2, Manage 3 and those classifications would replace the current classifications of pristine, natural, ag-urban and utilized. So those are really the big changes. Additionally, we added an administrative wetland permit from wetland management activities so that property owners who would like to conduct wetland management, burning, mowing for control of invasive species, those sorts of activities, would not require a full wetland alteration permit but would have to come before the Planning Commission and the City Council, but rather be able to acquire an administrative wetland permit, and we believe that that's a much better use of staff and commission and council time than requiring full blown alteration permit for those. And then just a couple other definitions including wetland inventory, city wetland inventory. The NPDES permit, which is a storm water permit. Storm water pollution prevention program, which is one component of that permit. And WCA agent, or Wetland Conservation Act. WCA Agent, which is just giving basically staff the authority to conduct wetland related activities. So with that, those are the definitions that are proposed to be added to Chapter 1. Are there any questions from the commission or the Chair on those? Very good. Chapter 7 really, the purpose of the changes to Chapter 7 are really to enhance the erosion and sediment control measures that are required with grading permits, and that's kind of the bottom line with Chapter 7. It has to do with building permits and grading permits and those are the changes that are being recommended. Any questions on 7? Papke: Yeah. The changes to Chapter 7, one of the things that stood out for me as I was reading through them is, normally, well one of the goals here was to tighten things up and yet in Chapter 7, a number of things were stricken from the code. You know one almost gets the impression that we're loosening things up. We're not having people put topsoil down. Could you briefly comment on the things that are being struck out of there and how getting rid of some of these things is actually you know going to improve our storm water quality. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 Haak: Absolutely. Several of the items have been moved from Chapter 7 to Chapter 19, which is dealing a little bit more with development of sites and things. We actually included, and I'll get to that in a minute, an additional section on storm water management in Chapter 19. So some of those items have been moved. In addition, since this code was written, since Chapter 7 was implemented and these particular sections that you've noted were included in code, there has been a change in the way that the State handles construction and so a lot of these things are things that are covered by the State Construction Permit. So we wanted to remove some of the redundancy and streamline our ordinance a little bit because anything over 1 acre in size, whether it's an individual site or a common plan of development, so a subdivision or something like that, requires a State Construction Permit. So because those are in place, there are more stringent rules than, and basically this became redundant. McDonald: Does that address your issue? Papke: Yes it does, thank you. McDonald: Okay. Go ahead. Haak: Alright. In Chapter 13, Chapter 13 is the nuisance ordinance and we had, because, I'm sorry. Because Chapter 13 did not really adequately address storm water pollution and non- permitted discharges to storm water, we wanted to make some revisions that would restrict pollution of wetlands and storm sewers, so those are the changes that are proposed for Chapter 13. And actually as a note, staff wasn't particularly pleased with the language that we found for Chapter 13 so that actually will be modified slightly between now and the City Council meeting. So we have found some additional ordinance language that more accurately reflects what we actually would like to restrict. And spells it out more clearly because if you read the current proposed language, things like fertilizer or things like natural accumulation of leaves and things like that would potentially fall under that ordinance, and clearly those aren't nuisances so. Are there any questions? McDonald: Any questions on 13? Okay. Haak: Okay. Very good. Chapter 18. Again we did remove the requirement for 4 inches of topsoil from this section, and again that's one of those that is covered in another section and/or is covered by the construction site permit. And then throughout the code you'll see this in Chapter 20 as well, the City's Best Management Practices Handbook was developed in 1992 and adopted in 1994 and has since become obsolete so we wanted to remove those references to that particular handbook and then update it with a reference to the City Surface Water Management Plan. McDonald: Can I ask you a question, just so I'm clear. On this construction site permit. Now that now becomes a State mandate which is why we've changed some of this to, because now that applies and a lot of what we had is in that particular document? Haak: Correct. It's already covered by that, and actually the State construction permit does quite a good job addressing erosion and sediment control issues so it's far more stringent than almost 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 thing that was on the books anywhere else so we're quite comfortable with the provisions of that permit, and we do as a city have the authority to enforce that permit so that puts us in a good position. McDonald: Any other questions? Haak: Okay. We're really getting into the meat of it. In Chapters 19 and 20. Sections 19-01 and 19-02 would be amended to prohibit illicit discharges. Again it's similar to Chapter 13. Into the storm sewer system and illicit discharges, contrary to how it might sound, are actually you know discharges that are pollutant related, and again this Section will probably be revised a little bit before the code revisions go to council. Then with Chapter 19, the major revision is that we're repealing an entire section of the code. Moving it to the end and then inserting a section that deals with the development guidelines that must be adhered to by Subdivision, or people who are developing within the City, and that's something that previously had not existed in city code. It's something that we often needed in city code and that developers would request. Where's the code that requires treatment of water, storm water runoff to NURP standards? To water quality standards. Where is the rate control requirement in city code? And those were very nebulous requirements and kind of scattered throughout the code so we really wanted to put this into one section that could be used by people proposing projects. So Sections 19-140 through 19-146 will accomplish that for us, and they will increase the City's ability to comply with our own NPDES permit which is a city wide permit. And then the current Sections 19-140 through 19-148 are basically being picked up and moved to 200 to 208. So they will remain intact the way they are. They're just being relocated in code to make it a little bit, make it flow a little more, a little better I guess. Papke: This is pretty meaty stuff here. Haak: Yes. Papke: I don't have too many detail questions but just kind of an overall question. Is there, since this is, as you say, this is what the developers are really going to have to tow the line on, is there anything in here that you suspect developers might find objectionable, overly restrictive or somehow controversial in nature that you think you might get some push back on? Haak: I'll have Alyson jump in on this as well, but really in our review, I think a lot of it is similar to what we're doing now. There aren't a lot of things that are very varied. It's a lot more detailed than we're able to provide developers now and it's in more of a checklist format. But Alyson, if there are any specific things that come to mind. Fauske: Thank you. Looking at, I'm on page 3 of 11 of this section. Near the top of the page. Item number 5 with regards to land locked storm water basins. Basically this is an issue where you'll have a deep basin that we just can't physically outlet. We don't have an overland outlet to basin and these are of concern where we get events like we had last September and October, large rain events, and so this section is…back to back 100 year storms. That's a little more restrictive, but looking at a land locked basin you typically can't even get a house down to that elevation anyway so we don't feel that it's more restrictive. It certainly might be a little bit of an 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 eyebrow raise from a developer but staff didn't feel that it was anything that would restrict any development rates through there. Developers have been very perceptive to storm water issues that through the past few years we've been very, very wet conditions so they, like Lori had alluded to, that this is just the one stop shop for all their storm water design needs. It helps us in the engineering department where we say, these are the design storms you're using and puts everything on the same level as far as design storm amounts and elevations and such so. McDonald: Can I ask a question about that? Okay, I understand the other chapters, you know we've had a public review and meetings of that. Was Chapter 19 also out there for public comment or is this the first time this is coming through? What I guess I'm getting at is, you brought up the issue of developers. Have they had an opportunity to actually look at this and supply comment back? Haak: Well this was all included. Actually this language was lifted from one of the appendixes, appendices, I'm sorry, of the plan, so it has been available on line. And actually I've talked to certainly Lundgren has, I'm sorry. They're now Lenar. I'm sorry, they change a little bit. But Lenar has requested a copy of this and has reviewed it and Matt Goldstein from their company has been interested in our proposed ordinances. McDonald: Did he give you any kind of comments or feedback? Haak: No. I think again I really think that this is really on par with what's going on out there and there's really not a lot that's different. And truth be told, we have very few lack locked basins within the city of Chanhassen. Most things are connected. We have a lot of water resources so. McDonald: Okay. Are we ready for 20 then? Haak: Alright. Chapter 20. Again, in a drastic housekeeping measure, staff and our consultant are recommending repealing Chapter, the entirety of Article VI. The wetland protection ordinance and replacing it with a new wetland protection section, or article. And those new sections are, I think laid out in a much more straight forward manner. They do address the new wetland inventory. They outline in a more detailed fashion the requirements for wetland delineations and how the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method, MnRAM assessments are to be done and for which basins they're to be done. There are new wetland buffer requirements and I will go through those a little bit. They, the net increase is very minimal. Even on our preserve wetlands as they would be classified now. The fact is nil actually. There's no net increase in the setback from a preserve wetland. However, the averaging of buffer widths, which is proven to be a little bit difficult to administer in the past, to put it real nicely, is eliminated and it makes it much more straight forward not only for staff but also for applicants, especially homeowners who would be near these basins. The thing to call out also about those wetland buffer requirements and setbacks is that they would not change for existing homes. So that's something that staff felt strongly about is if a home was approved on a given lot width, a 16 1/2 foot buffer, that would be what is required. This is only for new subdivisions so what it is in the development contract would apply. In addition there would be additional protection for wetland buffer strips, including requiring them to be located on the title and the registered land survey 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 and requiring drainage and utility easements, which is something we typically require as a condition but it has not been part of our code to this point. And then again, as I mentioned earlier, the administrative wetland permits allowing staff to handle some of those vegetation management activities. Again, the second bullet point there under Chapter 20 would be the replacement of the City's Best Management Practices Handbook terminology with the Surface Water Management Plan terminology. And then final bullet point under Chapter 20 would be prohibiting reconstruction of impervious surface within the bluff setback unless it's specifically authorized within that Article. We have had some questions regarding things like you know parking lots or retaining walls. Things of that nature, and retaining walls are addressed in that Article already so. McDonald: Let me ask the question, because you said something that I'm kind of wondering about when people come before us. Haak: Sure. McDonald: You said that currently, whatever they've got for a bluff setback would exist. We're not going to impose the new rules on existing houses. Haak: For the wetland setback. Okay. McDonald: For the wetland setback. What happens if they now come before us after this is passed and they want to do a deck or something and it makes a difference, which rules do we apply to that? Haak: If it's a lot of record as of the date of the day of adoption of this ordinance, then it would fall under the previous rules. McDonald: Okay. Haak: So if say Jerry you bought a, or I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. You bought a house and you're next to a wetland and you had a 10 foot buffer requirement there at the time when that was the case. And a 40 foot setback. Then that would go with that property because that's outlined specifically in the development contract in rule at that time. McDonald: Okay. So we're not going to have a problem with trying to. Haak: Are there any additional questions on Chapter 20? Papke: Yeah, I had one. On page 8 here you were going to go over the setbacks a little bit more but before you get into it, just a question. The percent of buffer strip and native vegetation when it's not 100%. You know for the Manage 2, Manage 3 it's somewhere between 50 and 100%. What does that really mean to a developer? Does that mean I can't grade in that area or, okay. So it has to be, if it's not native, what does it let me do? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 Haak: Sure. Well there is, there's an entire section on buffer strips on 20-412 and it basically goes through kind of the sequencing process where the current buffer is evaluated by staff and if it's unacceptable under (h). 20-412, if it would be unacceptable there would need to be a landscaping plan, and so if it is currently under 50%, you would need to make alterations within that buffer to get it to that 50%. And really the native vegetation does protect the wetlands to a good extent, which is why it's very important to have the native vegetation around those wetlands. Papke: So I'd have to find cattails. Haak: Preferably not cattails. There are some other buffer vegetation, and staff is certainly willing to provide assistance in that. McDonald: Any other questions? Okay, if you want to continue then. Haak: Okay. Well that was fairly quick. Alright. So with that, staff is recommending the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed revisions to Chapters 1, 18 and 20 and then adopt the motion as outlined on page 3 of your staff report. With that I'm willing to take any more questions you might have. McDonald: Does anyone of staff have any questions of any of these chapters? I'm sorry, do any of the commissioners have questions of staff on any of these chapters before we go to the public meeting? Okay, then in that case what I would do is open this up to the public for comment and again, at this point what we are here to review are Chapters 1, 18 and 20. As Chapter 7, 13 and 19 have already gone for the public comment. So anyone wishing to make comment or, I ask that you come to the podium. State your name and address and address the Chair. Well, seeing no one come forward, I close the public meeting and I'll bring it back before the commissioners. So I'll bring it back up for the commissioners for comment. Dan. Keefe: I'm fine with all the changes. McDonald: Okay. Thomas: Same. McDonald: Debbie? Mark? Undestad: Very thorough and in the right direction. McDonald: Alright. I too am very thrilled and you've done an excellent job and I like the idea of consolidating things and getting them simplified and hopefully this will make it easier for people to know what they face for development. At that point I think we're ready for a recommendation. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 Papke: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt ordinances amending Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20 of the City Code to bring the code into compliance with the City's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. McDonald: Do I have a second? Dillon: Second. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt ordinances amending Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20 of the City Code to bring the code into compliance with the City's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 21, 2006 COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 20