Loading...
PC Minutes 03-04-2014Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014 26.The engineer shall show the truck turning movements in the loading area on the plan. 27.The plan must follow all applicable State and Federal guidelines, including ADA standards for the sidewalk reconstruction. 28.Sanitary sewer and water main to be installed for this project shall be privately owned and maintained. 29.The applicant shall work with staff to develop a revised landscaping plan, which shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Additional landscaping shall be installed along the north property line. Suitable species for the area next to the building include arborvitae, such as Techny, and columnar trees such as Apollo or Sugar Cone maple. To block views of the truck loading docks, the applicant shall install a hedge along the property line north of the loading docks. The shrub materials selected should provide year round coverage to a mature height of at least 5’ – 6’. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mark Undestad joined the Planning Commission at this point. PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT-PLANNING CASE 2014-05: REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OF THE SEGMENT OF CSAH 18 BETWEEN CSAH 15 (AUDUBON ROAD) AND CSAH 17 (POWERS BOULEVARD). APPLICANT: CARVER COUNTY. Jeffery: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Tonight we have before you the CSAH 18 Lyman Boulevard wetland alteration permit and Wetland Conservation Act replacement plan permit. The purpose of this permit is to insure that proper sequencing has occurred to minimize the wetland impacts to the greatest extent practical and that we are in compliance with Chapter 8420 of Minnesota Rules that the replacement is adequate to replace the impacts that were unavoidable for this project. Not sure how many of you are familiar with the overall line of the project. In 2006 the County phased out, where’d we go? Phased out the project over 3 phases to go from Trunk Highway 41 in Chaska to Powers Boulevard. Phase 1 was drive by the high school so they started in the middle. I don’t want it to be confusing. This gets referred to as Phase 3 even though it’s the second phase of the project and that is the area to the right. Excuse me, on this photo. This is the project location. It extends from Audubon. From Audubon to Powers Boulevard with some pertinent areas as well. This has been a long time coming, as we talked about in, okay. (Having technical difficulties with computer) In 2007 the entire corridor was delineated from Trunk Highway 41 to Powers Boulevard. In 2008, close to 9 months they were able to permit the wetland replacement for phase 1 of the project, which is by the high school. That was two authorities. That was Chaska and Chanhassen and then the other players that we have. In December of 2012 the County came forward with a new wetland replacement plan and in January the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) met to discuss their proposed replacement plan. And at that time it was determined that because of the age of the delineation that they should go back. Update the data sheets for the delineated wetlands and field verify the location, just to make certain that conditions hadn’t changed sufficiently to require a different wetland alteration permit and different mitigation. At that same TEP the applicant was 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014 told that they needed to provide additional information about safety needs for this project, and we’ll talk about that in a little more detail later but with linear projects is the Board of Water and Soil Resources feels that there’s a safety need they will replace that portion which is directly related to safety through the Minnesota wetland bank program. Anything pertinent to that, storm sewer, trails that wouldn’t be considered safety, that has to be mitigated for on site or through purchase of wetland bank credits. So we had asked them to update that safety criteria. They updated the delineations. We noticed, we approved the delineation but that was since negated the County sent a letter in April requesting that we withdraw the approval for this project that we had submitted due to some concerns about access to Mr. Dorsey’s property, who is here tonight. So that was withdrawn. In August of that same year they came in just with a DNR permit alone fearing that they were starting to fall behind in schedule so the DNR permit was for the culvert crossing for Bluff Creek underneath Lyman Boulevard. That was approved a month and a half later. In 2013, October of 2013 Houston Engineering was retained to separately delineate those basins that were on Mr. Dorsey’s property and the remainder was submitted then by SRF. All wetlands exclusive an area those, what was W-15, W-16 and W-17. Houston also submitted a memorandum requesting a no loss determination for one of the wetlands on the property. The boundaries for both delineations, the SRF and the Houston were approved. The no loss request was denied. That no loss request was appealed in January by MFRA on behalf of Mr. Dorsey. Excuse me, in February but after the decisions were made the County came forward with their application. The TEP met to discuss the appeal and at that time Mr. Dorsey brought it to our attention that his driveway is being cut approximately 5 feet adjacent to a wetland that was in question with the appeal. BWSR looked at it, we looked at it and decided that it was very likely that secondary impacts would result in draining of that wetland and that is that, the email you have in front of you. When it was decided BWSR sent out a memorandum. The County revised their impact and mitigation schedule accordingly. That arrived to us 2 hours after the packet went out to the Planning Commission. Therefore that’s why this has been presented to you so we will, I’ll show it up later for everyone to see but W-2 which was W-17, the impact changed from two hundredths of an acre to fourteen hundredths of an acre and then replacement would have to change concurrent, or commensurate with that. At this time we’re here to address the amended application. Today, behind the first page, the second page of your document is a letter that was sent by MFRA that they would like to be considered with this. I believe MFRA is here and they’ll probably speak to the th letter at that time. So March 24 I hope to have this before council to approve this plan so we can move forward on this project. We’re looking to let it, they want to let it be in construction when the road restrictions come off. Here’s the area we are talking about. The area in red, the outline in red is the construction limits for this project. The blue lines. Excuse me, the purple lines were the original 2007 delineation. The blue lines were the 2013 update. I want to point out one thing. If you look, you can’t read the numbers but if you look at 70 to 71, there’s a line connecting them. That is not in fact the limits of the wetland. It is the limits of the access we had to the property so no wetland delineation has been approved beyond that area. This wetland, so this is W-15, 16, and 17. In the Houston report, which I’ll show you the figure next, they become Wetland 2 and then Wetland 17 is divided into Wetland 1A, which is the larger basin here, and Wetland 1B. So again the point of the application process and the point of the WCA replacement plan is to assure that sequencing is met. That they have one avoided. That’s not possible. Then they have minimized and replaced impacts that occurred. There are State standards for safety of roads so for instance what you’re seeing are just the typical profiles. I took 205, 2055 and 206. The side slopes are 3 to 1, which is the minimum. The maximum allowed slope. There’s clear zone there. There are other considerations so they have satisfied BWSR safety requirements for the road replacement and they are meeting State guidelines for safety reasons. Now I talked earlier about the difference between a safety and a non-safety. We have BWSR will replace or the ones that they have to either replace through mitigation on site, which is difficult with linear corridor where there’s a lot of wetlands already. Very little opportunity for replacement wetlands. The areas that are cross hatched or checkered, that is the areas that are considered so they’re just the narrower strips along the edge. They’re the ones that are considered necessary for the project and they meet the safety requirements. BWSR will replace for those. The ones that are just the diagonal hatching are non-safety and therefore the County 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014 will need to mitigate for those. So Wetland 1A. This was the original submittal prior to, prior to the Technical Evaluation Panel reviewing the appeal, and at that time they were just going to impact this corner and they felt that two hundredths of that would be permanent and there’d be one hundredths of temporary while they worked in it and then they would restore that but given the profile. The cutting down to the road here and the driveway here, it seems pretty evident that, that it will likely drain so we asked SRF to either provide evidence that it would not drain or to include it in the mitigation plan. So this was the revised figure that they have provided and the calculations for mitigation has been revised accordingly, which we’ll see on the next slide. So back again so over here we have Bluff Creek alignment coming through and that was permitted separately through the DNR. Through the design of that there’s been several iterations of this to improve the flow hydraulics through that area. It was a sharp hairpin turn. To minimize wetland impacts. To provide self mitigation in that area and to improve downstream water quality by eliminating the head cut and scour that might otherwise occur. They also, this is looking at it, looking down it from the outfall on the south side. They have submerged the box culvert so that they can have a rock substrate so they can mimic natural stream conditions. So they went from just a regular culvert to, they did take great pains to do what I feel is a very good design and minimize impacts there. So the original submittal, the one that is in your packet is in the Table to the left. Before Wetland 1A impact and really the difference is in column 3. So what we have here, we have the total impacts that are safety related. That adds up to be thirty three hundredths of an acre and that remains the same after we deal with 1A, because that’s non-safety related. Everything has to be mitigated for in this case at a 2 to 1 ratio so BWSR will replace sixty six hundredths of an acre under both scenarios but we’re approving the scenario on the right. With the new twelve hundredths of an acre impact the total non-safety related impacts increase from 1.55 acres to 1.67 acres meaning the mitigation required at 2 to 1 is three and thirty four hundredths acres of mitigation and that is to be purchased from a private wetland so there really is limited opportunity for on site mitigation. So with that is all I have on this. There is, happy to answer more questions. I have changed the motion to reflect what we have going on and to reflect, we are actually talking about the replacement amount and not the impact amount. Those were the numbers that were in there so this is a public hearing and I am, staff is recommending that we approve as submitted in the February revision. Aller: Comments or questions at this point. Okay once again, it’s a great report and I appreciate your updates and for those that are watching or are here present, that information which we have received today will be made part of the packet. Obviously it’s not in the packet on the website yet but it will be and it will certainly be out before the City Council when they meet on this as well. With that I will open the, or I’ll listen to, is there an applicant here that wants to present? Jeffery: No, there’s no one from the County here. Aller: No. No one from the County. So we will open the public hearing at this point and then anyone wishing to speak for or against or make comment on the motion before us can do so at this time should they desire to do so. Welcome. If you could state your name and address for the record, that’d be great. Mark Anderson: Certainly. Mr. Commissioner, or Mr. Chair and Planning Commission. I’m Mark Anderson. The civil engineer with MFRA representing PPB Holdings property at 1501 Lyman Boulevard. We had provided a comment letter to Mr. Jeffery today and I understand it’s part of your packet and we had identified three comments in that letter relative to the proposed wetland mitigation plan. The first one, as Mr. Jeffery has pointed out has been addressed now with the revised information and so we appreciate their willingness to make that adjustment per the comments that were brought forward at the TEP meeting earlier this month. Or later in February actually. The second and third items in our comment letter relate to a culvert that’s proposed as part of the Lyman Boulevard plan. I’ve got the County plan set here on the table here. Maybe it can be shown on the overhead just to give you a sense of where this is at. 1501 Lyman Boulevard, owned by PPB Holdings is located here and there’s a 24 inch 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014 culvert proposed to cross and drain water from the north side of Lyman Boulevard to the south where PPB Holdings property is located. It’s currently an 18 inch culvert being upsized to a 24 inch and historically it was 15 inch prior to the road improvements that have been made in the past. So the pipe size has increased over time and is now proposed as a 24 inch as part of this plan. The concern we have, along with the pipe size being increased is that there’s no easement in the area of this orange arrow. Approximately 250 feet from the point of discharge for that 24 inch culvert to the west property line of PPB Holdings and we brought that to the County’s attention a few weeks ago. Both in person and in a th letter. In the letter they addressed to us February 25, I’ve got copies if you’re interested but under their item number 2 it says we’re reviewing the need for additional permanent drainage easement and that’s for this 24 inch pipe. So they are aware of it. The reason we wanted to comment today is that as we work through that with the applicant it could quite likely change the wetland mitigation plan depending on whether they convey that water in a ditch or pipe or some other method such that public water isn’t being discharged onto our client’s property and so I guess what we’re interested in this evening is for the Planning Commission to add a condition to the approval, because we’re not looking to hold this project up but we know this is something that needs to be addressed and that condition might be such that the applicant work with PPB Holdings to resolve the drainage easement and drainage needs for the public water that’s being conveyed on their private land. So with that said, that’s our intent would be to see if Planning Commission would consider adding that condition. Yeah I guess depending on, again how it’s resolved it could mean additional wetland impact. Right now the wetland impact is limited to the toe of slope that’s shown on the County drawings and downstream to the west of PPB property there is a ditch shown here. I think Ryland Homes is developing some of this and so they’ve shown a ditch in the cross section. That ditch may need to continue onto our client’s property to that 24 inch pipe. If that were the case there could quite likely be additional impacts that haven’t currently been identified in that report that you’re considering this evening. As well, as we review these grades the area is very flat and it’s also higher than the existing toe of slope and so it’s pushing this water further into our client’s property as well the toe of slope is at a higher elevation than the existing condition so we’ll have additional impacts on the hydrology of their property so that’s what we’re looking to resolve with further consideration with the County so we don’t have those negative impacts on the property and they also obtain the necessary permanent easement that they need to convey that water. So those items along with the potential change to the wetland impact report is why we’re asking for an additional condition be considered tonight. Aller: Thank you. Mark Anderson: Thank you. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against the items before us? Seeing no one I’m going to close the public hearing and I guess I’ll redirect some questions to Mr. Jeffery. In response, I know that the County is taking a look at these. They’re continuing to take a look at these. What would the City’s position be with regard to any potential modifications? Jeffery: Chairman Aller, your response. You do have the response letter with the packet and that will also be made available. Any additional wetland impacts regardless of the reason for those wetland impacts would have to come back to this body for review and approval. It would be up to this body’s discretion if they wanted to add some specific language in it but the County is aware that if they had additional impacts they would have to mitigate for those impacts and get approval and show that they are unavoidable. Aller: Okay. th Aanenson: I just need a point of clarification. This is going to the City Council on March 24. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014 th Jeffery: 24, correct. Aanenson: Could they or could they not modify it if it has not been noticed for additional impact? Jeffery: This, they would not have, through our wetland alteration permit process they would not have time to get notice. It would have to come in as a separate application at that time. It could not be part of this application and still meet the deadlines that are set. So I guess I could get a clarification from BWSR if a memorandum of change would be sufficient in this case. You know they have specific stipulations for when and when you cannot but either way it would have to be reviewed and council is the ultimate deciding body. Aller: Sure. Jeffery: Certainly could go directly there. I guess the question for me is, does this body want to make a recommendation to the County to direct them to do something. Aanenson: That’s my point of clarification too because they’re directing you to do something I’m not sure that’s in your purview to do that so that’s why I was trying to track, it’s going to be the County reviewing the easement for the pipe and what the additional impacts are. Jeffery: Correct. Aanenson: That’s why I’m seeing if you could, if that could just be funneled through to the City Council if we have that information before that meeting. Otherwise I’m not sure that you would have enough information to make a decision at this point. Aller: Right. Aanenson: That’s what it seems like. Aller: Any impact of a motion as before us would be to put it before the City Council if they don’t come up with a good resolution at City Council. Obviously it could be denied at City Council or it could be put back. Jeffery: Chair Aller what is before you right now is the impact and replacement plan that has been presented that staff feels meets sequencing under Chapter 8420 of Minnesota Statute or Minnesota Rules as well as our wetland alteration permit process. That does not preclude additional impacts from coming at that time. They would need to be addressed as their own, on their own merits. Aller: On their own merits. Well it sounds like to me it would put more pressure on individuals to move it forward if we go ahead, if there is no objection or other objection as is. That still puts the pressure on the County to resolve the issue one way or another for City Council and then deal with any of those issues as they come up. Any comments? Discussion. Undestad: No I agree. Aller: Otherwise I’ll entertain a motion. Undestad: I’ll make a motion here. I make a motion that Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-05 and WCA Permit #2013-01 to impact 1.88 acres of wetland and the replacement plan under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 which utilizes the 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014 purchase of 3.34 acres of wetland credit from Bank #1392 and 0.66 acres from the BWSR Road Replacement Program for the purpose of the reconstruction of the County State Aid Highway 18 (Lyman Boulevard) roadway improvements Project Phase 3, and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown on plans dated February 11, 2014, subject to conditions within the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: Motion by Commissioner Undestad. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Seconded by Commissioner Yusuf. Any other comments? Discussion regarding the motion. City Council Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-05 and WCA Permit Number 2013-01 to impact 1.88 acres of wetland and the replacement plan under MN Rules Chapter 8420 which utilizes the purchase of 3.34 acres of wetland credit from bank #1392 and 0.66 acres from the BWSR Road Replacement Program for the purpose of the reconstruction of the proposed County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 (Lyman Boulevard) Roadway Improvements Project, Phase 3; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated February 11, 2014 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.An appeal has been filed on behalf of Mr. Rick Dorsey. This is an appeal of staff decision to deny a request for a No-Loss determination for Wetland 1A. Any approval of mitigation quantities shall be contingent upon the outcome of this appeal. The county may hold any additional credits and apply those credits to future phases of the Lyman (CSAH 18) reconstruction project. 3.If it is determined that secondary impacts will occur to wetland 1A as a result of the proposed improvements, these impacts will need to be mitigated for at a 2:1 ratio. 4.Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Sections 20-401 – 20-421 of Chanhassen City Code. 5.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. 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. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014 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 city prior to commencement of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: With that we’ll move on to item 3 on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Tennyson noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 18, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE AND FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS. Aanenson: We had none of the last council meeting. There was no planning items so we will have some on the next one. Your last meeting that you did the two minor amendments on subdivisions so those will be going forward. I’ll just move into future Planning Commissions if I may Mr. Chair. So at our next th meeting on March 18 we will have a subdivision, Boulder Cove which is on the north side of Highway 7. We met with Shorewood today just to make sure we’ve addressed some of their issues as it borders the two cities so I think we’ve got all those issues resolved. And in addition what’s not on here but we will have a wetland alteration permit for County Road, excuse me. CSAH 61 and 101. That wetland permit st will also be on so. And then we are set for the work session on April 1 so we will be talking about that corridor study on 101/61. We’ll also do a year end review on the projects that we did and then talk about, Terry will be talking about the new regulations for stormwater managements and there’s a couple other code amendments that we’ll probably talk about too so. With that if anybody else wants to add something I’d be happy to entertain that. We are working through a couple other subdivisions. Kind of finding their placeholders here but we do have some other projects in the pipeline so we anticipate we’ll be filling up here. And I did have one other item. Maybe you want to discuss after the, after you adjourn informally but the Rotary Club is looking for a nomination for Distinguished Service Award so if you want to talk about it after you adjourn for a few minutes if you have a recommendation and want to submit a name, that would be great. So other than that, that’s all I had Chair and commission members. Aller: Wonderful. And then just before closing I’ll remind everybody that these matters that were before th us today will be before the City Council on March 24. And with that I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 14