44Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 2001
Aanenson: Or add a definition of topsoil.
Saam: That would be a good idea.
Sacchet: Yeah. I think we need something a little bit more.
Saam: Can this be approved and then we add the definition before it goes to council?
Aanenson: Sure.
Burton: Any other questions? May I have a motion to open up the public hearing?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearirlg was opened.
Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter?
Kind moved, Sacche/seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: May I have a motion?
Sacchet: Well, since I brought up this topsoil thing I'd move that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the ordinance amendment as defined in this staff report dated February 28th for Article II,
Administration and Enforcement Division 5, Section 20-94 and Chapter 18, Subdivisions, Article III,
Design Standards, Section 18-62 and xvould like to ask that the definition of topsoil be added.
Conrad: Second.
Burton: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
ordinance amendment, including a definition for topsoil, as follows:
ARTICLE Il. Administration and Enforcement Division 5
Sec 20-94. Grading and Erosion Control.
(c) Every effort shall be made to minimize disturbance of existing ground cover. No grading or filling
shall be permitted within forty (40) feet of the ordinary high water mark of a waterbody unless
specifically approved by the city. All disturbed areas shall be replaced with a minimum of four (4)
inches of topsoil. To minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas, restoration of ground cover shall
be provided within five (5) days after completion of the grading operation.
CHAPTER 18 SUBDIVISIONS
ARTICLE III. Design Standards
Sec. 18-62 Erosion and Sediment Control.
(a) The development shall conform to the topography and soils to create the least potential for soil
erosion. Four (4) inches of topsoil shall be replaced on all disturbed areas.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Burton: Okay now Kate, this is the one that...
Aanenson: I'm sorry, and I'll let Matt handle that.
Burton: Go ahead Matt.
Saam: Well, simply what staff is asking for is some room, or leniency in ~he amount of cash escrow that
we can ask for on building permits and/or developments. Every site is different. Some are bigger than
others. Some have more natural features than others that we'd like to protect. That's the impetus for the
raising of the cash escro~v fee. It's simply every site is different. I'll be happy to take any questions if
you have specific questions on any of the Chapter, well I guess we can't talk about Chapter 7 issues but
Chapter 20 is only the grading and erosion control so.
Burton: Any questions for staff on this? Uli, it looks like you have a question.
Sacchet: Chapter 197
Aanenson: Well 7-19.
Sacchet: So we're not talking about 7-197
Aallenson: No.
Saam: It's only 20.
Aanenson: It's only 20, correct. So that'd be the last page of the report.
Conrad: At your discretion, Matt. What guides that? Aren't there ratios or should there be a grid or
some formula?
Saam: I'll give you an example. Size of the site. We simply take the lineal footage of the site that we
would need silt fence over and as a figure for silt fence, a buck 50 a foot. You come up with an amount.
That's one example. As I said, if there's other environmental features, a steep slope might want an
erosion control blanket over that. And we have costs for those sorts of things. So the amount we come
up with is the total of those costs. In essence the cost the city would be charged if we had to go in there.
If somebody skipped toxw~ and xve had to go in there and restore the site. That's what we're looking at.
Conrad: Very site specific then?
Saam: Exactly. Pretty much for every new lot 500 is fine, but there are a few.
Conrad: So what will a developer say about that? How will they know what they might have to
contribute? Would the5, walk into your office and say are there standards for silt fences at $1.50 a foot or
can they just walk in and you sa), this is, these are the 12 criteria or the 12 things we look at and here's
the cost per unit?
Saam: From a development standpoint, the number we get for erosion control escrow, that number
14
Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 2001
comes from the developer's engineer. It goes into our development contract. This is typically for
builders. Sometimes the builder is the developer of each lot.
Aanenson: Yeah, can I just comment on that? That's where the rug comes in. If you have individual
builders, each individual lot's posting their own escrow. What we do to builders that are developers, it's
a different scenario. That's where the 5,000 came in. We came up with that number quite a few years
ago and depending on the scale, and if they've had a lot of permits out at once. For example, some
builders may have 10 active lots or as Matt's saying, if they're doing quite a bit of for example, this is for
erosion. This is separate than the other line of credit we have in place. I ~hink Matt explained that. But
for example when you've got a townhouse builder or somebody that has a large scale project going,
where there is a steep slope or some other things, $5,000, if there's a heavy rainfall and we have to get
out there and manage it, that's not going to cover it and we've had a few instances. And what we came
up with that is when we originally came up with the erosion control ordinance we looked at the
circumstances, you know each person is required $500 for that. But then we said well for the builder
may or may not work so we tried to say how many active permits should they normally have and we
came up with that $5,000. What we're saying is that in some circumstance it's just not enough so we
want some flexibility. To make sure we're protecting the city's interest. In most cases it probably is but
there's a few that we've had some problems with. Just because they've had a lot of things going. It's the
$5,000 isn't enough.
Burton: So you're saying if they have multiple sites, the most they could have escrowed is $5,000? In
the past.
Aanenson: Right, in the past.
Burton: But you're striking that and saying each site can be greater than 500.
Aanenson: Right.
Sacchet: So there would really be no ceiling at all.
Saam: Exactly.
Aanenson: That's how the 10 came up. 5 times the 10 lots. That's 500 but we've had builders that have
more than 10 lots going. Or acreage larger that would cover that. That lineal foot number. And that's
how that came about. 5,000 and 10. Or 500, excuse me.
Kind: Mr. Chair. I'm uncomfortable with not having a top, and I'm wondering if Matt could make a
recommendation as to what would be the most that there would be. I mean is the sky's the limit here or?
Saam: We could pick anything I guess. 10 grand. 15 grand. I guess if the ceiling issue is a problem, we
could recommend something. But every site is different. As Kate said, if somebody has a ton of building
permits out, you know 500 times 15 is more than the 5,000 so.
Kind: My concern is I want a developer to have a quantifiable way of knowing what the price tag's
going to be and the way it's written right now it's pretty squishy. And I'm just a little uncomfortable
with that. I understand that there's no site's the same so.
15
Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 2001
Aanenson: If you're looking at a ceiling, I guess what I'd like to do is come back. Between the two
departments, sit down. Look at where some of the problems were. See, I just don't want to throw a
number out. Is it 15? Is that enough? And maybe talk about some other objects. Again I'm trying to
project on some of the other larger projects that we may be having coming in. Try to get a gauge of how
much acreage or... and we can come back with some other examples.
Kind: I'm sorry Mr. Chair. A ceiling may not be the solution. It might be more of a table that the
developer could refer to with the linear foot versus silt fences and what kinds of things that they can refer
to so they have some way of gauging what their costs are going to be to d~velop something in out' city.
Sacchet: It seems like one balance point that I see in this is that if we would have a ceiling per lot,
because right now we're saying that the escrow amount, what we're proposing is the escrow amount can
be greater than 500. Is that per lot, isn't it? Or how does this apply?
Conrad: That's pet' building.
Saam: Per building permit isn't it Kate? I believe so.
Sacchet: Building permit is pretty much for one structure, right?
Saam: Correct.
Sacchet: So please help me through this because if... understand this if there comes a whole
development, and there will be $500 for every building.' Let's say this is a subdivision and there are 50
houses so it's 50 times 500. But now then that puts a ceiling on already that way, but then xvhat we're
dealing with, what I hear you say is that in some cases the 500 is not sufficient pet' lot. So if we would
say well, is 1,000 sufficient? So we could say it could be more than 500 but maybe not exceeding $1,000
per lot? Then that way we keep the proportion to the size of the development. I don't know whether that
is constructive but.
Saam: I guess that's something that we should probably talk about and maybe come back because just as
I read this before it did say the maximum any individual builder can have is 5,000. It didn't say per lot or
get into any of that so that's an issue xve should talk about and probably come back.
Blackoxviak: And I have just a couple things to clear up. An escrow amount gets returned to the builder
upon completion so I think that we need to understand that it's not a fee that we're charging the builder.
So I don't think we need to talk specifically about ceilings. If an escroxv amount is just to protect the city
in the result of a catastrophic event that the builder does not fix. So as long as the builder fixes, if there's
something happening, as long as they fix it, it really shouldn't matter what that escrow amount is.
Because they'll get it back. The escrow amount is kind of like the city's insurance policy so they don't
have to be out of pocket for anything so I don't think that a ceiling per se is that necessary because we
don't want to put a ceiling on it. We don't want to say okay, you only have to pay $10,000 and what if
something happens and a hill slides away and it costs the city $100,000 to clean it up? The city does not
want to be paying $90,000 out of their pocket. I certainly as a taxpayer don't want to be paying $90,000
to clean up somebody else's mess.
Burton: I guess the concern that I'd have though is if you come in with a huge project like with 50 lots,
you don't have an>,' idea what your total escrow would be coming into it.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001
Blackowiak: But you would know prior to your, when you got your plans you would know your escrow
amount, wouldn't you? Isn't that part of the plan process?
Saam: Yeah. They could estimate how much erosion control fencing, manning will ! need here, but
ultimately it rests on how we come up with the figure.
Sacchet: I'm hearing more to Alison, it's an escrow and probably get it back but I think in terms of how
is this being perceived from the builder's viewpoint. I think it'd be perceived much more favorably if
it's...
Blackowiak: Well I like the idea of quantifying and saying x amount of dollars per linear feet. You
know this is what you're paying for in a sense. But I don't feel that we need to have a ceiling and I think
that might hurt the city in the long run by limiting the amount of money, the recourse the city has to
having to go back and fix up any potential problem.
Saam: If we would, ifI could just interject. If we would come up with say a per lineal foot amount as
you've been talking about, that's something we'd have to update then every few years because silt fence
today is going to be of course more expensive in 5 years or whatever so.
Conrad: Mr. Chair, do we want an absolute amount? Do we want to just reference the current, you have
to have standards.
Saam: The pet' foot amount, you're saying?
Conrad: Yeah, you have your standards. You know what it is. You come up with it every year. ! don't
know that I want to put hard dollars in an ordinance.
Saam: Yeah, I really wouldn't want to but if you want us to we will.
Conrad: We want to make sure that the ordinance references a standard someplace or a guide someplace
so it's not a surprise.
Saam: Current market values.
Conrad: Yeah, so you've got to solve that for us. I don't even care if it's $500 if it references the
standard that the city has. Another document but maybe you should bring that back and think about it.
Dollars today doesn't help in 3 years or 5 years.
Aanenson: That's why we're here right now.
Kind: Mr. Chair, just to clear up my point. Alison brought up a good point and that the escrow money is
returned but I think still for a developer that is perceived as an up front cost and they'd need to know
what their cost of doing business is so I think we've given good direction and staff can come back.
Burton: I agree so, do we have to table this then? Is that proper?
Aanenson: Do you want to hold the public hearing now? You can do that.
Kind: Just Section 20, which is.
17
l
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001
Blackowiak: But maybe we want to open a public hearing.
Burton: Yeah, let's open a public hearing.
Blackowiak: I was going to say, when we get the revised.
Breton: Well maybe they have some extra comments...
Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter?
Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Can I have a motion?
Blackowiak: Yeah [ move that the Planning Commission table the recomlnended revision to City Code
Chapter 20, Section 20-94 and ask staffto incorporate comments made by the Planning Commission and
return to us with a new revision.
Btu'ton: Is there a second?
Sacchet: Second.
Burton: Any discussion?
Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table the recommended
revision to City Code Chapter 20, Section 20-94 and ask staff to incorporate comments made by
the Planning Commission and return with a new revision. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Kind: Mt'. Chair I have one more comment on that. [ noticed on the staff report that number (c) was
included in out' previous motion. So when you come back to us really we only need to look at 20-94(a).
Is that right? Just a staff report note.
NEW BUSINESS.
Burton: That concludes the public hearings. Kate is there any nexv business?
Aanenson: Yes. The library has been, the task force has been meeting. I was wondering if anyone on
the Planning Commission was interested in attending, just to give you an update. They have met once
already and they were meeting this Saturday at 9:00. I believe that's here is anyone on the Planning
Commission was interested in attending. The5, will be presenting to you, the Planning Commission on
the 20th, the consultant. Kind of what they're doing. Where they're at. Just give you a head's up. So if
anyone was interested in being a liaison. I believe someone from the Park and Rec Commission has been
attending and I believe Todd will also be at that meeting so.
18
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, Minnesota Department of Transportation
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
CONCERNING GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS'
SECTION 1. Section 20-94 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
Sec. 20-94. Grading and Erosion Control.
(a) A satisfactory erosion control and grading plan consistent with the City's Best
Management Practices Handbook must be approved by the City Engineer before a building
permit is issued for construction, if the construction will result in disturbing the soil. To
guarantee compliance with the plan a $500.00 cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the
City, shall be furnished to the City before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount may
be greater than $500.00 if, after review_of the site, the CiD' deems it necessary to require a
greater amount to guarantee compliance. The maximum escrow required per parcel is
$5,000.00 per acre. The City may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse
the City for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in
implementing the plan. If the City draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits
shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The City shall endeavor to
give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in
an emergency as determined by the City.
(b) The grading and erosion control plan must be consistent with the approved
grading plan for the plat in which the property is located, if any. Areas where the finished slope
will be steeper than five (5) units horizontal to one (1) vertical shall be specifically noted. Also,
location of erosion control devices shall be clearly labeled.
(c) Every effort shall be made to minimize disturbance of existing ground cover. No
grading or filling shall be permitted within forty feet (40') of the ordinary high water mark of a
water body unless specifically approved by the City. All disturbed areas shall be replaced
with a minimum of four (4") of topsoil. To minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas,
restoration of ground cover shall be provided within five (5) days after completion of the grading
operation.
(d) Every effort shall be made during the building permit application process to
determine the full extent of erosion control required. However, the City Engineer may require
additional controls to correct specific site related problems aS normal inspections are performed.
(e) All erosion control noted on the approved plan shall be installed prior to the
initiation of any site grading. Noncompliance with the grading and erosion control plan shall
constitute grounds for an order from the City Engineer to halt all construction.
(f) All construction activity that results in disturbance of the ground shall comply
with the City's Construction Site Erosions and Sediment Control Best Management Practices
Handbook, as amended.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
City Council of the City of Chanhassen.
day of ,2001, by the
ATTEST:
Scott Botcher, Clerk/Manager
Linda Jansen, Mayor
(Published in the Chmzhassen Villager on
,2001).
g:X,eng\t'orms~,ord amend.doc