PC Minutes 2-1-05
Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005
parking spots for boats, there are times where there are 3, 4, 5 boats stacking up and to envision that that’s
going to be multiplying, I mean as a kayaker I have an issue when there are 2, 3, 4 boats stacking up. So
without considering the potential where this is going to go with the comprehensive plan, and yes I did
attend your, some of your presentations. The one at Bluff Creek I think it was, and did express my views
as a kayaker there as well. I don’t know whether you might remember. I certainly do, so being a kayaker
and an environmentalist I oppose really lifting any restriction that has a further impact on the
environment. And I do question these 4 findings in the staff report where it says it will not be detrimental
or damage the safety, comfortable, general welfare of the neighborhood which is 4(a) of the findings.
4(d) of the findings, will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing of planned neighborhood uses. I
think it’s very disturbing to a kayaker. Finding (i). Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
natural, scenic or historic features of any significance. I think it does impact it. I mean once you’re going
to have multiple power boats stacking up, or in this case what’s in front of us, boats with more motors, it
will be aesthetically compatible which is Finding (j). I don’t think it’s aesthetically compatible with the
pristine nature of that particular bay to have bigger motors. To have more motors. That’s just my humble
opinion as a kayaker. And I’m actually surprised how much support I’m getting here tonight so I want to
thank you for that. That’s my comment. It was longer than I expected. So with that I’m willing to take a
motion.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to
Conditional Use Permit #75-2, Section 6.04, Lake Access based on the Findings of Fact with the
following condition, number 1.
Sacchet: We have that motion. Second?
McDonald: Second.
Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second.
Lillehaug moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
amendment to Conditional Use Permit #75-2, Section 6.04, Lake Access based on the Findings of
Fact with the following condition:
1. Carver County Parks shall contact the Department of Natural Resources before proceeding with
drudging of Little Minne Bay channel.
All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4
to 2. (Kurt Papke did not vote due to a conflict of interest.)
Sacchet: We have 2 nays and 4 yea’s. Is that correct? Alright, motion carries. Goes to City Council on
th
February 28 I believe.
th
Metzer: It’s the 28.
th
Sacchet: The 28. That’s accurate, okay. Thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL .11 ACRES OF TYPE 3 AND .01
ACRES OF TYPE 2 WETLAND FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT OF TURN LANES AND
SIGNAL CONSTRUCTION LOCATED AT THE TH 101 AND CSAH 14 (PIONEER TRAIL)
INTERSECTION. APPLICANT CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, PLANNING CASE NO.
05-07.
19
Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Lori. Questions from staff.
Slagle: I just have one quick one. Can I ask why we’re not requesting a mitigation be done in the city?
Haak: That wasn’t the proposal. We’re considering the proposal here and it’s really a matter of course.
The amount of right-of-way that is acquired at this site is very minimal and it, staff just felt that it was
probably more appropriate to take that off site and make it a larger part of the larger bank. When you’re
talking about creating .12 acres is about 5,000 square feet so you’re looking at a mitigation area of about
10,000 square feet and if you’re looking at trying to you know integrate a wetland, there’s a lot of
management of vegetation and things like that that goes into the mitigation. And so in these larger
BWSR mitigated projects, you get a much better created wetland and so while the City of Chanhassen
may lose .12 acres of wetland, the overall benefit regionally is greater.
Slagle: Okay. Last question then. Do we bank those credits if you will? The City. In other words, if
this one, let’s just say we credit it to the City. 2 weeks later we get another one. 6 months, I mean do we
have the potential to bank and then utilize those credits?
Haak: The City does have several wetland banks created within the city. We use those primarily for our
own road and trail projects. So the area, one of the most visible examples of one of the city’s banks is just
north of Lyman Boulevard, east of Powers. There’s a wetland there that is full of basically dead trees and
that was a wetland bank. A mitigation or basically an area that the City got credit for, so in this whole
banking deal, we end up doing pretty well but we do get to use those for other projects like trails and
things like that.
Sacchet: Any other questions?
Papke: Yeah, I don’t know if this is for staff or for the applicant, but on the middle of page 3. And under
the wetland impact statement, the last sentence there you say that the side slopes or the shoulder on the
north side of Pioneer Trail has been made steeper from a typical 6:1 slope to a steeper 4:1 slope to reduce
the footprint. How big is the grade change and where is the location specifically of that slope?
Haak: I can take a shot at that and Scott from Carver County can jump in if he has anything to add. I
guess I should have put this up earlier. These are the two areas of impact shown in green. The turn lanes
and such are shown here in yellow. I guess this is probably the best way to look at, this is some of the
cross sections for Pioneer Trail in approximately the area of the wetland fill, and we’re looking at about,
or Steve’s saying 17-18 feet which is just about well actually, yes. That’s just about right in that area.
And this is the area that we were talking about. There’s 4:1 proposed here where typically the City,
Assistant City Engineer has advised me that that’s typically a 6:1 for safety reasons, and so that has been
reduced to 4:1 for that.
Papke: Is that slope present on both locations or the eastern most component or which of those two have
that new slope?
Haak: Both of them are very similar. They all have the 4:1 if that’s what the question is, yes.
Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? We will have, ask the applicant up in just a second. Let’s
finish with staff first if you don’t mind. Do we know, I have one staff question if nobody else has. Yeah,
Jerry go ahead.
20
Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005
McDonald: One thing, one of the things I read in the report is that this is being done for safety reasons
because of the traffic and the volume that’s going on at that intersection. How bad of a problem do we
actually have there at this time?
Haak: At the risk of being, submitting subjective evidence, my parents actually live on Pioneer Trail on
this area. Just west of this intersection and on a typical morning the traffic backs up between half and
three-quarters of a mile west of the intersection and in the evening it’s actually about a mile east of the
intersection toward Eden Prairie. It’s a very, very widely used road and there are significant back-up’s,
both east and west bound. The north/south back-up’s are not nearly as significant but those trips on
Pioneer Trail are very significant.
McDonald: Okay, two more questions dealing with I guess the volume. Where does the new 212
intersect with all this and what affect will that have on this road?
Haak: I believe the applicant can probably speak to that in greater detail. It’s approximately a mile to a
mile and a quarter west where it intersects Pioneer Trail and I’m trying to look at the map behind you
there. I’m guessing it’s about a mile and a quarter to a mile and a half north on 101. So it’s not within
the stacking distance.
McDonald: And then one more question that would deal with the comprehensive plan. What are our
plans for that area as far as housing in the future? What’s it planned on being zoned?
Haak: I’d have to look at the map behind you there. I know that sewer and water are not planned to be
extended there until 2020 I believe. And I believe it’s guided residential.
McDonald: That’s it.
Haak: Sharmeen, am I correct on that?
Al-Jaff: Yes you are. It is guided residential.
Sacchet: I have one question, unless there’s anybody else has a question. About the thing with the
conservation easement aspect. You, I had a question about that already and you added this little kind of
cryptic thing to condition 1. If not addressed in the condemnation hearings, then we have to actually…
conservation easement thing. Does it mean that the intent is to get through condemnation land that is not
under the conservation easement? Is that, do I understand that that way or?
Haak: No, the purpose of the condemnation is to get that to release that parcel from private ownership
and the easements that are over it. So the County and the State, actually the State is the one going
through the condemnation proceeds.
Sacchet: So through the condemnation, the conservation easement would be released…
Haak: Released.
Sacchet: Okay. And this is not something that would require any mitigation of any sorts?
Haak: No. I’ve discussed it among staff and really the, it’s one of those things where you have, you
know we have the difficult job of looking at trees versus roads and the trees, or roads versus wetlands.
Those types of questions, which I know you’re intimately familiar. But in this instance it really is you
know a traffic issue and you know, basically the City Forester has indicated that certainly she understands
21
Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005
why the property owner is seeking to go through condemnation on this piece because it is a nice piece of
property but really the benefits outweigh the costs at this point.
Sacchet: Now which part is actually being condemned, can you show us on the map please?
Haak: Well I’m not exactly certain. Scott, do you know anything additional about that?
Sacchet: Or we can wait for the applicant to address that if that’s easier Lori.
Haak: Actually I’ve got, I just wanted to confirm it with him. Because between a couple versions of the
plan, the current right-of-way for Pioneer Trail follows this dotted orange line, if you can see that, and
then comes down the side here. And basically the expansion will be this area. So it’s about, where’s my
scale. About I’d say 30, maybe 35 feet by well, this is 50 feet.
Papke: Just to make sure I’m oriented correctly here. This is the northeastern corner?
Haak: Actually it’s the southwest. The arrows here.
Papke: Oh southwest. Okay.
Sacchet: Alright, yep. That answers the question. Thank you very much Lori. With that I’d like to
invite the applicant to come forward and give us your view of this please. If you can state your name.
Scott Smith: My name is Scott Smith. I’m a Highway Design Engineer for Carver County. Presently I’m
more involved with just the application for BWSR and with the City itself. The actual design is being
done by MnDot and their transportation department. But I guess if you have any questions I can try to
answer some of those. Some of the design questions might have to be with MnDot if necessary I guess,
but I’ll try to answer some questions if I can.
Sacchet: Alright, do we have questions of the applicant? Kurt.
Papke: Do you have a rough idea of the amount of fill that’s going to be brought in to put into that
wetland?
Scott Smith: I was hoping this most recent plan, if you look at the title sheet it said there was supposed to
be some tabulation for quantities. I did not see that particular quantity. What we have been given as part
of that was just the square area which was approximately 5,400 square feet. And that equals that
approximate .12 acres of wetland. And as far as the actual fill quantity, I can’t. They didn’t actually give
me a number for that.
Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Jerry.
McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got a question for you. When you do this upgrade to this intersection and this
road and everything at this point, and part of what I read is you’ll be putting stop lights and traffic signals.
How long will that last before you’ve exceeded the capacity.
Scott Smith: Boy I, not being a traffic engineer myself and not doing the signals and so forth, I don’t feel
qualified to answer that particular question as far as longevity. But yeah, there will be a breakdown point
but right now they’ve gone through the warrant studies and it’s shown that it’s currently necessary to put
the signal system in. To manage the people and the volume of traffic.
22
Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005
McDonald: Okay, you haven’t seen any kind of projections or anything like that?
Scott Smith: No I haven’t. No.
McDonald: Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody
wants to speak up. Now is your time. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing and bring it back to
commission for comments, discussion. Steve?
Lillehaug: This is an ideal MnDot project. Everything is in perfect order and I support it 100 percent.
Sacchet: Thank you. Kurt.
Papke: This is a must do. My only concern is I live just west of this intersection about a mile. I go
through this intersection twice a day, and personally experience the pain and agony. Just to make the
other commissioners aware, almost on a daily basis what happens is someone westbound in the evening
will use the shoulder as a right turn lane currently and the Carver County Sheriff loves to sit there and
pluck these people up and give them tickets for using the shoulder as a right turn lane. So if we don’t put
this in, people will just continue to use it as one. I don’t think there’s any choice in the matter. The only
concern I have with this, and hence the reason for my question about the grade change here is on a couple
of occasions I’ve seen cars dive off that intersection into the wetland. Okay. What happens is the cars
come past Halla, over the top of the hill, down to the 4 way stop. They don’t see the stop. It’s foggy or
something like that. They go right through the stop sign. If somebody else is coming the other way, they
veer away from that car and they dive down in there. Okay. And so is there any kind of a, I don’t know
if there’s any, I should have asked this question before but I don’t know if there’s any kind of a guardrail
or anything like that going in there to prevent people in the future from you know potentially very serious
injury.
Haak: I can’t speak directly to the guardrail. I don’t believe there’s one proposed. I haven’t seen it on
the plans, but the existing slope is shown on this drawing as this bottom line, so actually that slope is
being extended in conjunction with the additional lanes, so you’re actually going to have a more gradual
slope in that area.
Papke: Softer landings.
Haak: Little more warning perhaps.
Scott Smith: Part of the, if you, boy it’s tough to see that unless you zoom in but there’s actually 4:1
slopes out to what’s called a clear zone, approximately 30 feet out or so. Or 20 feet from the edge of the
roadway, and after that it’s a 3 to 1 and yes, it does create a softer landing. Actually an area that actually
is supposedly maneuverable by a car or vehicle.
Papke: Alright. I’d also like to point out to the other commissioners that the eastern most wetland is the
one that’s currently being mowed regularly by the owner so I’m not sure there’s any tremendous you
know environmental impact being imposed by filling that in.
Scott Smith: The only other thing I would like to add is, I’ve been told that there’s quite a drainage issue
over in this area, and this particular plan will help address that.
23
Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005
Larson: All I can say is it’s long overdue. I’ve lived here 20 years and I’ve dealt with that intersection
and it’s long over due.
Sacchet: Any comments this side of the crowd? Jerry, any comment?
McDonald: Well I guess the only thing I would say is yes, I’m familiar with that intersection and I stay
away from it. There are other ways to get to Shakopee and Chaska and I make sure I go those ways. I
agree that that’s very dangerous on 101 as you come, it’s kind of up the hill. Down the slope and yeah,
those stop signs suddenly appear out of nowhere if you’re not familiar with the road, so yeah I would
hope that this, from a safety standpoint. A lot of my questions. I’m just wondering. Are you going to be
back here in the near future wanting to fill in more land? It doesn’t sound as though you will, that this
should hold us until at least the plan, our comprehensive plan begins to make this intersection unworkable
again, so I guess I’m in favor of it.
Sacchet: Well all I can say ditto. Do we want to make a motion?
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve
Wetland Alteration Permit #05-07 subject to conditions 1 through 7 with one modification to condition
number 1. That we prefix condition number with the words, if not addressed in the condemnation
hearings.
Keefe: 1 through 9.
Papke: 1 through 9, I’m sorry. I can’t count.
Lillehaug: Second.
Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second.
Papke moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve Wetland Alteration Permit #05-07, subject to the following conditions:
If not addressed in the condemnation proceedings,
1. the applicant shall request the City grant a
conservation easement release prior to clearing and grubbing the site.
2. The applicant shall work with the property owners to obtain additional right-of-way prior to
proceeding with the project.
3. All wetland impacts shall be mitigated through the BWSR Road Replacement Program in
accordance with State law.
4. Proposed erosion control shall be developed in accordance with the City’s Best Management
Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type II silt fence shall be used adjacent to the existing wetlands.
Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
5. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the limits of tree removal.
6. Erosion control blankets shall be installed in all areas with a steep slope of 3:1 and an elevation
drop of eight feet or greater.
24
Planning Commission Meeting – February 1, 2005
7. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance
system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage
ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
8. Street cleaning or soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
9. 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 (NPDES
Phase II Construction Permit) and comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the summary and verbatim minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated January 18, 2005 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
25