PC Minutes 04-19-2011
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 2011
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Tom Doll, Mark Undestad, Kevin
Ellsworth, Kim Tennyson and Lisa Hokkanen
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Alyson Fauske,
Assistant City Engineer; Angie Kairies, Planner; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources
Technician
PUBLIC HEARING: TH 41 TRAIL & UNDERPASS PROJECT: REQUEST FOR A
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PAVED 10-FOOT, OFF-ROAD, MULTI-USE TRAIL WITHIN
TH 41 RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM LONGACRES DRIVE TO TH 7 AND WITHIN
PORTIONS OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK. APPLICANT: CARVER
COUNTY PARKS, PLANNING CASE 2011-03.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Name Address
Jeffrey W. Olson SRF Consulting
Brent and Christen Carron Highover Drive
Karen Weathers 2600 Arrowhead Lane
Tom Anderson 7075 Highover Drive
Dennis Clark 6651 Hazeltine Boulevard
Spreiter: Good evening Chairman Aller and members of the Planning Commission. As stated an
application has been submitted by Carver County Parks for a wetland alteration permit as part of
the trail and underpass project. As a result of the project the applicant is proposing impacts to 5
wetlands totaling 15,028 square feet. Of these proposed., 5 proposed impacts staff believes that
the applicant has followed the required procedures set forth in City Code for 3 of the impacts.
However in regards to the remaining 2 impacts staff believes that further discussion is required
as I will discuss in more detail throughout the presentation. To give some background on the
project itself, the City Council approved a letter and resolution supporting the County’s
application for federal transportation enhancement grant funds in July of 2007. This application
was approved and the grant was awarded to the County. If completed the trail project will
provide a significant pedestrian improvement within the community and is consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. The impacts are to be mitigated for using wetland banking credits.
The project is to be located along the east side of 41 from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road.
Pedestrian underpass is also to be constructed as part of the project just north of the intersection
of Ches Mar Farm Road and 41. This will provide safe pedestrian and recreational access to
Lake Minnewashta Park. Then from the proposed underpass the trail will continue through the
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
park terminating at the beach area. The proposed trail project is tentatively scheduled to begin
Fall of 2011, however plans for the project have not been finalized at this time. This is a closer
view of the proposed trail project in relation to the existing trail system. Existing trails are
shown in orange with the proposed trail alignment shown in green. Retaining walls are denoted
with a dash line. There are 2 proposed retaining walls. One to be installed on the west shore of
Brenden Pond, as well as along a smaller wetland just to the south. Both were included as a
means to minimize or avoid wetland impacts in these areas. The main objective of the project is
to provide a link to the existing regional trail system and provide safe travel for both pedestrians
and recreationalists between residential areas, business and commercial areas, schools as well as
to Lake Minnewashta Park. You can see that the proposed trail provides a key link between
northern and southern trail routes as well as linking the City’s trail system to the east with the
parks trail system on the west side of 41 and within the park. Now for the proposed impact
locations which are denoted in red. Wetland 20 is located on the shore of Lake Minnewashta
near the beach area. Wetland 22 just south of the lake access. Wetland 8 and Wetland 2 are
located on either side of the proposed underpass and Wetland 5 is located on the west shore of
Brenden Pond. I mentioned earlier that 3 of the 5 wetland impacts did not require further
discussion so I’m going to begin with those. Wetland 20, again along the shore of Lake
Minnewashta. This impact is proposed at 5,663 square feet. Wetland 5 is located along the west
shore of Brenden Pond. A retaining wall is to be constructed between the trail and the ordinary
high water level for Brenden Pond in order to eliminate impacts below this elevation. The
impact here is 3,049 square feet. Wetland 2 is located just east of the proposed impact, or I’m
sorry the proposed underpass and the impact would total 218 square feet. City Code requires
compliance with the Wetland Conservation, or I’m sorry. City Code requires that the applicant
must comply with the Wetland Conservation Act. The Wetland Conservation Act requires that
the applicant must first avoid impacts. Second minimize these impacts and finally replace the
impacts. City staff and the Technical Evaluation Panel believe that the submitted WCA
application should include further discussion on the impacts to Wetlands 8 and 22. Staff and the
TEP have submitted comments to the applicant requesting either alternate to these impacts or an
explanation as to why the impacts cannot be avoided. For the reasons discussed staff cannot
recommend approval of impacts to Wetlands 8 and 22 based on the information that we have at
this time. However a condition of approval allows for these additional impacts provided the
applicant complies with the WCA process and either avoids these impacts or the arguments that
are presented have, prove adequate to the satisfaction of the TEP. Since the time of the staff
report the applicant has submitted a memorandum. This will serve as a supplement to the
application in response to these comments. City staff and the TEP are actively reviewing the
response at this time. I have provided a copy of the memorandum as well as the amended
condition number 3 which reflect these changes. The wetland impacts in question. The first is
Wetland 8 located just west of the proposed underpass. You can see that the current alignment
bisects the wetland. It is agreed by both the applicant and the staff that this will likely result in
secondary impacts. The applicant has increased the proposed impacts to include the entire
wetland area as reflected in the memo provided bringing the impact amount to 5,662 square feet.
Staff still believes an alternate alignment should be discussed under the WCA requirements as
well as under the requirements of the City’s wetland alteration permit process. Wetland 22 is
located just south of the boat launch. It’s a perch flow through wetland. The wetland receives
hydrology through ground water which then flows to Wetland 11 below. Staff believes that this
may cause additional downstream impacts to Wetland 11 and a boardwalk or realignment option
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
should be presented in the WCA application. The proposed impact here is 436 square feet. In
conclusion I would like to point out that the applicant has provided full cooperation throughout
the application process and staff is confident that the applicant will make every effort to
minimize impacts wherever possible, as well as comply with the application requirement. Thus
staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. The motion can be
found on page 13. This concludes my presentation. At this time I would also like to respectfully
reiterate to residents that may be in attendance for the public hearing that the hearing tonight is
only for the wetland alteration permit. If there are questions on the trail project in general, those
could be directed towards Carver County Parks or the representative Jeff Olson who is here
tonight and I’ve included the contact information listed here for the Carver County Parks
Director as well as their website. Thank you and I would be happy to take any questions at this
time.
Aller: Thank you. Any questions from any commissioners at this point?
Ellsworth: Yes Andrew. More on process just because I don’t understand the whole process.
Spreiter: Sure.
Ellsworth: Four questions I guess. And maybe I can just read them off. The role of the Water
Resources Coordinator. In the beginning it talks about and authorizes the Water Resources
Coordinator to sign a joint notification and so on. I don’t know what that role, that person is.
And then the role of the Technical Evaluation Panel and have they met and, is this some of the
responses from the TEP that was on our, when we got here? And then what do they do and who
are they and how are they appointed? Maybe I should know all this.
Spreiter: No.
Ellsworth: And then sequencing, what? In the context of this analysis that was put together, I
couldn’t quite interpret what that meant. It’s probably very simple and I’ll go duh when you tell
me. And then maybe later a question for Carver Parks. Why is it paved and not gravel?
Everything in that park is gravel except a small section of road. It just seems to really change the
character and add to the load and maybe that’s not a pertinent question for tonight. We’re just
talking about the wetlands.
Spreiter: Okay, I will try to address those the best I can. The Wetland Resources Coordinator is
the authorized representative for the City so the City is actually the LGU. They hold, they can
approve or deny the application. Terry, our Wetland Resources Coordinator is just the one who
is appointed to sign it so he has to have approval from the council first. Or authorization.
Aanenson: I was just going to point out too, you know we are the LGU but in some instances
it’s the watershed district. We have the local control here so that’s the part that they play in it.
Spreiter: And then, I believe your next question was on.
Ellsworth: The TEP.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
Spreiter: The Technical Evaluation Panel and who they are. They’re basically a panel of
representatives from applicable agencies that provide interpretations of the WCA process, laws,
rules as well as provide technical data. Their role in this case as well would be to make a ruling
on sequencing and I know that’s a term that not everybody has heard but they help the LGU
come to a determination or make a recommendation. They don’t make the determination
themselves. As far as sequencing goes, to my understanding it’s just the process that the
applicant has to follow in the application process for the Wetland Conservation Act. The
response, the memorandum that you have in front of you, that’s the applicant’s response to the
Technical Evaluation Panel’s comments so I believe the original comments that were sent to the
applicant are included in your packet but they also address them in that chart. I know the font is
very small but they list the cities as well as the evaluation panel’s comments on the left and then
their response to each of those comments on the right.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just add to that. I think what’s important, Krista said that there’s
a TEP panel but if you look at what she just said on who the commenters are, that would tell you
who’s on the TEP panel. It’s someone from the DNR.
Ellsworth: Exactly.
Aanenson: Someone from the, a different conservation watershed district. So that gives you,
BWSR who’s over the, so you’ve had a lot of different input and that’s kind of steering those
comments. I know it’s a little hard to read that font but.
Ellsworth: And it’s advisory in nature and then the recommendations are given to whom?
Spreiter: To the LGU, so us.
Ellsworth: Alright, thank you. Very helpful.
Thomas: Actually I do have a question. I’m just kind of trying to read through the
memorandum that we got today and I was just trying to, just kind of verify. Does the applicant
believe that our recommendations for Wetland 8 and 22, that they should be able to meet like
what we’re kind of asking before next, the council meeting on Monday? Do we feel like they’ll
be able to, oh okay. Maybe I will save for the applicant.
Spreiter: Sure, the applicant can, they have addressed each of our.
Thomas: Concerns and issues?
Spreiter: Concerns. We’re still getting comments from some TEP members and so, and Terry’s
still kind of deciding what his position is on it as a member of the TEP so I guess.
Thomas: I can wait. I’ll wait til everybody else.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
Aller: I guess the big question is if we have that in the conditions though. If we make this
motion this evening to move forward and present it to the council as approved it would contain
the conditions that 8 and 22 be dealt with appropriately and under the code prior to their making
a determination and final decision.
Spreiter: Correct.
Aller: Tom, anything?
Doll: Basically this is 3/10 of an acre wetland that’s going to be disturbed.
Spreiter: Yeah.
Doll: For the whole project.
Spreiter: Yep, it is under an acre total even with the increased impacts so it’s not a lot of impact.
However the applicant still has to follow the process so.
Doll: Okay.
Aller: Mark. And then just to confirm, because we’re using a bank that’s in the same county
we’re going to be able to get a benefit from that? It’s going to be a lower exchange rate?
Spreiter: I’m sorry, would you repeat that last part.
Aller: On the wetland bank that we’re using, if we’re going to be purchasing or the applicant’s
going to be purchasing, they’re getting a benefit because it’s within the same county.
Spreiter: Yeah, they have to meet, in order to get the, yeah I guess the 2 to 1 replacement ratio.
They have to follow a certain priority as well. The City has it’s own priority but through the
Wetland Conservation Act, that kind of has a separate priority so we can request that they follow
our priority but at a minimum they need to follow the Wetland Conservation Act priority which
basically just says in the same county, which they’ve done and provided. The applicant, go
ahead.
Jeff Olson: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt. We.
Aller: Why don’t we go ahead and come on up unless anybody has any other questions. And if
you please, go ahead. The applicant’s going to be represented by Mr. Olson.
Jeff Olson: Sure, thank you. Members of the Planning Commission, it’s a pleasure to talk to
you tonight. One comment on mitigation. Typically whichever rules you look at, whether it’s
local rules or WCA rules, they prefer that you find mitigation that are as close to the impacts as
possible so there’s not a net kind of ushering away of the functions and services of those
wetlands. We’ve looked for mitigation credits within Chanhassen and then we’ve looked at, we
weren’t able to find any. Then we looked within the major watershed, which is watershed 20,
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
which is a fairly large watershed and there were 2 viable opportunities. Banking opportunities in
those. You’ll see in the memo that, in one the comments in our response to the comments, we
explain that the 2 banks, approved banks that we found in watershed, major watershed 20 are
actually in Hennepin County but in the same watershed as here and they’re located in the city of
Medina and we did, because it’s in the same major watershed we did get a 2 to 1 ratio. If you go
further afield sometimes it goes up to 2.25 or 2.5 to 1. We were able to get the 2 to 1 so we, in
the memorandum that we submitted we asked for you know, if you would consider those
banking opportunities within major watershed 20 to be a possibility for us. We’re not aware of,
there are opportunities that would be closer but not within the same watershed so. I don’t know
if this is an appropriate time to talk about a little additional information about Wetlands 8 and
22?
Aller: That would be great.
Jeff Olson: Wonderful. I’ll roll out a map here and it’ll I guess be projected right up there. If I
do this correctly here. Maybe we could talk about Wetland 20 first. That’s right where my
finger is. Okay so right in the middle there.
Aller: Mr. Olson, just not to rearrange your whole presentation but it might be helpful to us if
we hear you go through the 3 requirements.
Jeff Olson: Oh the sequencing?
Aller: The sequencing so.
Jeff Olson: Oh absolutely, sure. The 3 sequencing requirements are wetland impact avoidance,
and if you can’t completely avoid it’s minimization and for what you can’t avoid with proper
minimization, then you move on to mitigation.
Aller: And then how that applies to 8 and 22.
Jeff Olson: Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Wetland 22 is a seep wetland that water kind of
flows out of the hill to the, across the gravel road. Flows out of the hill and actually probably
flows underneath the gravel road. Forms a seep so what we’ve done for Wetland 22 for
minimization is, there’s a, that’s a section of the trail that has essentially almost no fill and no
cut. The only fill would be the 6 inch gravel base and the bituminous cover but it’s about as
narrow, it’s got the 10 foot trail with 2 foot clear zones on either side of the trail which is about
as narrow as we can make it. Also the, so the profile’s very low. That tends to keep the footprint
very narrow. We also are impacting the skinniest portion of Wetland 22. There’s kind of a thick
part right up here and then it’s got kind of a skinny tail that points down toward Lake
Minnewashta. And so those are 2 examples of minimization. The third example of
minimization is right where the trail goes currently, across that wetland, it’s currently actually a
dirt, a little dirt road that kind of cuts through the wetland right now. There’s kind of two ruts
that go through it and that’s exactly what, there’s essentially no vegetation right in that little part
of the wetland where the trail crosses it so there’s, that’s 3 examples of minimization there. Let
me talk about some of the difficulties of totally avoiding wetland impacts to that one. Back up a
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
little bit. Okay so you might think that you can move the trail a little closer toward Lake
Minnewashta. Up this way. The problem with that is when you get to the very end of Wetland
22, that skinny portion, it’s already, it goes down a very steep hill into that lobe of Lake
Minnewashta and it’s already at the very end of Wetland 22, it’s already kind of starting a little
V cut. A little bit of gully erosion is already starting going down there so it would be, it would
not be a good idea to minimize impacts by moving the trail closer to where that V cut is starting
down the hill. So that option wouldn’t work out so well. Now also, if we move the trail onto the
gravel road that would present some real safety issues because that happens to be a very tight
curve in the gravel road. Motorist sight distances are not good right there and it’s not a good
idea to put the trail right on a portion of the gravel road that has such poor, mostly horizontal
sight distances there. As a matter of fact if you’ll, if you look where the trail currently crosses
the gravel road right here, it’s, we chose a straight away to cross so there would be adequate
sight distance for motorists to react to recreationists crossing the trail. In a previous version of
the trail it actually crossed here but then we thought better of it and, because that had the same
sight distance issues here, don’t want recreationists crossing when motorists don’t have really
good horizontal sight distances. So the same thing is true here. If we move the trail onto this
piece of gravel road, it would be the same thing. You’d have recreationists, it would be a safety
issue with motorists not being able to see them as well as they should so that’s, that kind of talks
about how we’ve minimized and how we can’t further avoid wetland impacts to Wetland 22.
Ellsworth: Mr. Chair.
Aller: Yes, Commissioner Ellsworth.
Ellsworth: Mr. Olson.
Jeff Olson: Yes.
Ellsworth: That must be a seasonal seep. It’s dry in the summer isn’t it?
Jeff Olson: Yeah. It, there’s not a lot of hydrology in it. There’s not a lot of water in it but as
you kind of hike through it you can kind of see mix of sedges and vegetation which, yeah. It is
probably wetter right now and not so wet late in summer.
Ellsworth: Thank you.
Jeff Olson: Maybe I could briefly talk about Wetland 8.
Aller: Please.
Jeff Olson: It is close to the, where the underpass is. This is Wetland 8 right here. Here’s where
the underpass is and then this trail goes through this ravine between Ches Mar Drive and TH 41.
We actually early on, you’ll I think see in Figure 5 of your memo that you have in front of you,
you’ll see the 2 alternatives that we explored early on for this one. There’s another, the current
alternative goes, current alternative goes like this. And then the other alternative that we
explored actually went like this and then cut up through these woods and then met up with this,
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
with the trail again here. There were 2 problems with the other alternative. There’s a severe
erosion problem in this valley between Ches Mar and 41 right now. There’s a little bit of surface
water that kind of flows down a ravine here and then about right at this point it goes over about
a, maybe a 10 foot cliff or so and it carries sediment with it. It’s pretty severe and it flows in a
culvert I think underneath Ches Mar and then this white area right here is actually the sediment
delta in this wetland right here that has eroded out of this valley right here. So it’s all kind of
depositing right in here. So for that reason we didn’t want to disturb those highly erodible soils
further down in the valley because as this, as this issue keeps cutting back up the valley it could,
it might ultimately affect the trail so we didn’t want to disturb that. Another thing, we did not
want to cut a 30 foot wide swath through this forest right here, which is composed of fairly
mature trees. The 30 feet would be the 10 foot trail, 2 foot clear zones on either side and then
whatever side slopes would be necessary to tie into existing elevations. So those are kind of the
reasons why we chose to go where we did go. This wetland is, it’s almost completely reed
canary grass, which is an invasion wetland plant species, so it’s not floristically very rich in
there. It is still a wetland impact. We understand that and we did agree with members of the
TEP that if you go right through the middle of the wetland there would be probably an additional
.06 acres of wetland impact that aren’t actually within the footprint but are immediately adjacent
to it and so we agree that that would be a total take of that wetland. That’s why on the first page
of the memo we adjusted the impacts up from the original.
Doll: Did MnDOT tell you this is where the crossing is going? I’m kind of wondering why it’s
not up closer to the entrance of the park where you wouldn’t.
Jeff Olson: I really can’t answer that. I don’t know that we had a directive from MnDOT to put
it there. You know I’ll just say having hiked the whole area and having done the delineations out
there, I can tell you topographically this is probably about one of the only places that would
support an underpass because they’re, the road at that point where the underpass is proposed is
on a lot of embankment and there’s just not that amount of embankment if you go up closer to
the entrance. There’d be, you’d have to tunnel a long way I think. But you know probably Mike
McGarvey in our landscape architecture section, trail design section in our company would
probably have some more information about that. Are there any other questions that I can help
answer?
Aller: Anyone? Commissioner Ellsworth.
Ellsworth: Why is it asphalt instead of a Class V?
Jeff Olson: You know I guess I’m not prepared to answer that and I can get an answer to you.
Ellsworth: Just curious more than anything.
Jeff Olson: Yeah, absolutely. I can get that into you. I guess I would recommend given what
I’ve mentioned about Wetland 8 and Wetland 22 and perhaps an answer to your question about
why it’s asphalt. Maybe if it would be okay with the Planning Commission and members of the
TEP, if we can maybe just incorporate some of those comments and amend this supplement and
answer those questions for you.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
Ellsworth: That’d be great.
Aller: Anything else? Thank you. With that we’ll open the public hearing so anyone that would
like to speak on the matter from the public that’s here can step forward. State your name and let
us know why you’re here sir.
Dennis Clark: My name’s Dennis Clark and I live at 6651 Hazeltine which is across from the
park.
Aanenson: Can you put the map up there Krista?
Spreiter: Sure.
Dennis Clark: And I think I can answer a couple of your questions about the blacktop and a lot
of those things.
Aller: Great.
Dennis Clark: I’m fairly involved with some of the things that go around the park. Let me see
here so I can kind of.
Aanenson: Do you have a better overview of just the neighborhood?
Dennis Clark: The whole Highway 7 and probably page, Figure 4 would probably help and I
can just point out… Okay. This is my property right here. This section, it’s about 7 acres and
the trail’s going to run up in the, it looks like it’s going to go to the school entrance and come
down across the front, down in the park there. Now you asked a question why isn’t the trail
going across at the entrance. There was no public hearing on that so this is the first time I’ve
heard about it. But the fact is, is that the trail is actually on the other side of the road already.
The trail that goes around the rest of the lake and west of the metro area crosses right here where
you see the L and I think that, you said it was in orange before on another map where the bike
trail is and I guess is what I’m questioning is why didn’t the trail come along on the other side of
Highway 41 where there’s already a public trail. There’s a snowmobile trail there. It goes right
past the dog part up to the entrance. Then you wouldn’t have this disruption here and you can
cross here at the school crossing which the traffic is slower because you’ve got a stop light down
there and school crossing and what have you. Minnetonka School just spent $200,000 putting in
a holding pond which you can barely see right there and a very extensive drainage system for all
this blacktop coming off of this hill down into this pond. DNR made them dig up a lot of the silt
and things like that that you’re talking about that is over in this pond and put in a very
sophisticated, what would I say? Ditch system for that runoff. So I’m questioning how they’re
going to even build this trail now on top of that. Now the other thing is all your utilities which
this is all, by the way my property only goes to the middle of 41 so this is.
Aller: Mr. Clark, we can’t pick you up on the microphones so the public can’t hear you. If you
could step over to the podium that would be great.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
Dennis Clark. Sorry.
Aller: That’s okay.
Dennis Clark: Now the question is, I know we’ve got a little impact down there and by the way
I’ve got to say this is a great deal. This bike trail. I bike all over Chanhassen so I like it. Love
the park. The park is probably going to get paved. The roads. If they’d just move some of that
money off of the other parks and that’s coming back probably this year or next year because
those clay roads in there are terrible. But the bike trails is basically this is going to be a bike
trail, you want to be on pavement so that’s good that it’s on pavement. I think the impact on that
one water area, I’d have to agree with you is minimal. Down by the boat ramps but you actually
got people crossing the road 3 times down there. You’ve got to cross the road one way. Then
you’ve got to cross the road the other way. Then you’ve got to cross 3 different places where
you’ve got boats coming in. People going into the trails and then you’ve got to cross the road
where people are coming down that road fairly fast. So again, I never heard of any input on this,
this trail. Seems like putting a tunnel underneath Highway 7 can’t be a cheap deal when again
the trail’s already on the other side of Highway 7. You’re just going under and then going back
across again. I cross roads all the time. I’ll love the tunnel. Won’t bother me. Just seems like
it’s an awful lot of money being spent to get under Highway 7 and then you’re going back along
Highway 7.
Aller: Mr. Clark, is that 41?
Dennis Clark: 41. What am I saying? 7. 41. I live on 41 and I’m calling it 7. You’re going
along Highway 41, and I know we’re only here to talk about these 2 wetlands but I’m using that
as an excuse. You basically just put a 300 foot public pier along that pond because that’s what
it’s going to be, that’s what that’s going to become is because now the public right-of-way is
going to be closer to the pond, which just means you can have 10 people fish that pond out,
which everyone that lives around that pond has been stocking that pond because it’s frankly a
private pond at this particular point. You’ve now just made that, like I said, a 300 foot public
pier for people that eat fish and have been known to take over their limits. But back to the
wetland impact which is what the meeting’s about, that trail does cross, the trail going into the
park, 3 times so I just don’t understand why it didn’t come in on the west side of 41. Down the
hill. Along the road. Was it ever, I guess the question would be, was that ever thought about?
Aller: Why don’t we wait for the questions. Why don’t you finish, if you have additional
questions then we’ll take those and then we’ll ask Mr. Olson to come back up and answer them.
Dennis Clark: Okay, that’d be fine. That was pretty much my only curiousity in the meeting
here of why aren’t they just coming in at a different spot. Or making the road cross at the place
where traffic has to slow down already for the entrance and, of the park and you’re coming up
the hill. The further you’ve got the crossing towards the stop light, the slower the traffic is and
then maybe some day we can get the speed limit on 41 lowered to 50 like the rest of everyone
else from here all the way through Chaska has done. I mean Bud Olson would recommend it.
We’ve had I don’t know, 3 or 4 near misses out there with bus accidents.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
Aller: Okay, thank you for your presentation Mr. Clark.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair before we, the, Mr. Olson’s here to talk about the wetlands so you know I
just want to say that Carver County Parks and our City Parks and Rec Department, Park and Rec
Director Todd Hoffman have been working on this project so we can’t comment on the decisions
that they’ve made based on their location, geometrics, all that stuff. I can’t comment on that and
if we can get that information out, we’d be happy to do that but what you recommend here would
not go forward unless the project was to go forward. What we’re looking for is the wetland. If
your review of that and input to the City Council and obviously nothing would change out there
if the project didn’t go through, or they made some changes. Then it would have to come back
through. Significant changes. I think the way that the wetland alteration permit is structured that
there is some flexibility in there so some minor tweaking based on those comments so. What
we’re here tonight to decide is if it’s appropriate based on the location that’s been sited by others.
If that makes sense so and again if the project does go forward.
Aller: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to testify or ask
questions? Then I just have one quick question of Mr. Olson, if you would. Would changing the
crossing or coming up on the other side have any impact at all on the amelioration that we’re
requesting tonight?
Jeff Olson: Would there be different wetland impacts?
Aller: Yeah, would that change the request that we’d be making tonight?
Jeff Olson: Well I think yeah. I think if the trail along the 41 section of the trail, if it did go
along the west side of 41, I’m assuming the wetland impacts would be slightly different. There
wouldn’t be I believe 0.07 acres of impact at Brenden Pond. Trying to think. Is there one other
one along 41?
Aanenson: The question is if there’s more impacts on the other side of the street or not, correct?
Aller: Right.
Aanenson: We don’t have that information.
Aller: Okay.
Aanenson: I don’t know if Krista knows off the top of her head. If there’s more wetlands on the
county side or not.
Spreiter: I don’t know. I can say that you know there has been other routes explored by the
County. However this is the preferred route that they’ve come up with because of issues with
alternate routes. Just you know I can’t speak for, again I can’t speak for the Carver County
Parks Director. He would probably be the best one to contact regarding any of that information.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
Aller: In looking at the request for Wetlands 8 and 22, some of those issues would be best left to
the amendment of the application so that you could put that in as an alternate route and make
those discussions so that the City Council can review that and look at that and I think that would
make the application that much more complete and I think that’s what we’re requesting in our
conditions.
Jeff Olson: Sure, sure. Okay. Absolutely. Yeah, we can beef up the discussion of alternatives
as to why. You know why we’ve selected the preferred alternative.
Aller: Thank you.
Karen Weathers: Can I make a comment or is it too late?
Aller: I haven’t closed it. You can step forward. State your name and.
Karen Weathers: Real quick. Karen Weathers. I live in Highcrest and have been here 20 years.
I remember some of the early conversations. The reason it is there is because of the embankment
as I recall. You can verify but that’s the only place feasible. The second thing, I think if you
move it to the other side it doesn’t feed where all the residents are. You know you’d only have
one place. You have to go up by 7 to cross over and there’s not much for residential feed the
way the one flows now. So those are probably some of the considerations.
Aller: Thank you. Okay, no one else stepping forward. I’m going to close the public hearing.
Discussion by the commissioners. Commissioner Tennyson, what do you think?
Tennyson: I’m a little concerned just being dropped into the middle of this, not having heard
how it happened before. Just reading TEP panel recommendations tonight. I don’t think I have
any specific questions at this time. I guess I’d like to see what the rest of the commissioners
think on this.
Aller: Great, thanks. Commissioner Ellsworth:
Ellsworth: Yes Mr. Chair. I think that staff has done a very good job addressing the concerns
that were raised and meeting the requirements for the various agencies and different rules and it
appears to be well thought out and well put together. It is a park that I frequent probably twice a
week. It’s an awesome park and it’s neat to see more access to it and I know the pavement
issue’s not a topic for tonight but I was surprised to hear that all the roads would be paved too. It
is sloppy to drive in there sometimes but it’s part of the character of the park for me but that’s
neither here nor there for tonight’s conversation but, so I think it’s well put together and all the
issues that I had were, again were process related than necessarily the outcome.
Aller: Commissioner Thomas.
Thomas: Yeah I too, I don’t think I really have any, I didn’t have any real questions for it. I just
kind of, nice to see the updated motion for the additional stuff. That was really helpful and feel
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
like just looking at seeing what we can do for 8 and 22. Looks like it’s well put together. We
should be good.
Aller: Commissioner Doll.
Doll: I have nothing.
Undestad: No.
Aller: Commissioner Hokkanen.
Hokkanen: No, looks good.
Aller: No further questions, okay. Then I’ll entertain a motion if there is any.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion here. I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of
wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorize the
Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland
replacement as shown on plans dated received February 22, 2011 and based upon the included
Findings of Fact and subject to conditions 1 through 4.
Thomas: I second that motion.
Aller: Okay, having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of
wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and
authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for
approval of wetland replacement as shown on plans dated received February 22, 2011 and
based upon the included Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions:
1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City’s approval of a
wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring.
2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing
wetlands in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection
Rule, effective September 1, 2010.
3. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that
impact to Wetland 8 (5,662 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet
may be impacted as described in the supplement to the application dated April 15, 2011,
prepared by SRF.
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011
4. Impact to Wetland 22 shall be avoided through use of boardwalk or other approved
avoidance method. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical
Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the
additional square feet may be impacted as shown in Figure 4C in the Joint Notification
Application prepared by SRF dated January 31, 2011.
5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply
with their conditions of approval.
6. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota
Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated
wetland credits.
7. The applicant must obtain, and the City must have received copy of, an Application for
Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved
by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts.
8. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to
the City prior to commencement of activity.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Aanenson: Thank you. Mr. Chair just want to remind you that this does go to the City Council
th
on the 25.
Aller: Yes, so those individuals who wish to follow this should, because it’s fast tracked, it’ll be
th
next Monday the 25. Before the City Council in these chambers.
PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN BP: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REDEVELOP THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BP
CONVENIENCE STORE, CAR WASH AND GAS PUMP/CANOPY ON PROPERTY
ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES (BH) AND LOCATED AT 7905
GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: KHALED ALOUL, PLANNING CASE
2011-04.
Aller: Before we get going on that I just wanted to state the following. That conflicts of interest
questions are part of a larger due process scenario with the Planning Commission and every
party before us is entitled to a fair hearing and decision free from any bias or favor and having a
conflict of interest can threaten that impartiality. Therefore it’s critical that we disclose conflicts.
That they be identified and dealt with in an appropriate manner. Commissioner Ellsworth has
indicated that his neighbor’s the applicant in the next matter before the Planning Commission.
They are neighbors and had social dealings together.
14