Loading...
PC 2014 03 18 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen Withrow, and Steven Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHWAY 101 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING AND CSAH 61 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PLANNING CASE 2014-10: REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS OF CSAH 61 AND HIGHWAY 101 CROSSING OF THE MINNESOTA RIVER. APPLICANT: CARVER COUNTY. Spreiter: Good evening Chairman Aller and commissioners. As stated this is the public hearing for the proposed Minnesota River crossing and roadway improvements project wetland alteration permit. The project is located at the existing wye intersection of Highway 61 and 101. The project lies within the Highway 61 corridor from just west of Bluff Creek Drive to just east of the wye intersection and within the Highway 101 corridor from the current intersection to the city of Shakopee. There’s a closer view of the project. The area in blue denotes the project area as well as the area of investigation for wetland delineation. I realize this might be review for some of you but I’m just going to give a quick project overview of the bigger project. The goal of the project is to eliminate road closures during the 100 year flood events as well as improve safety and increase traffic capacity. The new bridge will cross the Minnesota River floodplain area and the resulting removal of the existing causeway is expected to restore natural flows to the floodplain area as well as restore a large amount of wetland habitat. Improvements to Highway 61 include increasing the current 2 lane roadway to a 4 land roadway and the addition of two roundabouts. The largest roundabout will be located at the existing wye intersection and the second at the Bluff Creek Drive and Highway 61 intersection. The proposed Bluff Creek realignment will lengthen the existing segment of the creek within the wye intersection and reduce the current slope from about 2.3% to .5%. A pedestrian trail is also proposed with the project that will connect local trails in both Chanhassen Shakopee to the Hennepin County regional trail corridor as well as future local and regional trail systems. Level 1 delineations were performed for the project area by both SEH and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Wetland areas denoted with a S were delineated by SEH. That’s the consultant for the project while the wetland areas starting with the letter D were delineated by MnDOT. A level 1 delineation is used in cases where a sufficient amount of information is available for a site to make an off site determination. In this case it was also used because of the amount of area that they had to cover with their delineations and resources used as part of the delineations include national wetland inventory mapping. Public waters inventory mapping. Carver County soils survey mapping and historical aerial photography among others. Both delineations were field verified by the delineators and the Technical Evaluation Panel during the summer of 2013. This is just a larger aerial view of the project and the impact areas. This table shows each impact and their corresponding classification as well as impact. The largest impacts are proposed for Wetland D-11. This is due to the construction of the proposed roundabout which is located within the existing wye intersection. And Wetlands 5 and 6 located immediately north of the existing wye intersection. This is due to the expansion of Highway 61 and the Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 proposed pedestrian trail. This depicts the impacts on the western portion of the project. Wetlands S-1, 2 and 3 are all either Type 2, fresh wet meadow or Type 3, shallow marsh wetlands. They’re all classified as preserve or outstanding wetlands under the City’s classification system. You’ll notice Wetland 3 there in the northwest corner of that intersection. That’s actually part of the larger Seminary Fen wetland complex but it is not within the DNR’s scientific and natural area. Wetlands 5 and 6 are located just north of the wye intersection. Both are Type 2 and classified as Manage 2 under the City’s classification system. D-11 and D-8, which are located in the existing wye intersection are both Type 2 and they’re not classified under our system. Impacts are also proposed to Bluff Creek in this area as part of the realignment and I’ll discuss more on that in a little bit. Here are the wetland impacts to the floodplain area. Impacts to the floodplain area are a result of the placement of bent piles. There’s the proposed total impact is .21 acres. These are, all wetlands within this area are Type 3, shallow marsh wetland and classified as preserve wetland under the City’s classification system. There are .47 acres of impact associated with the realignment of Bluff Creek within the proposed roundabout area. The existing culverts will be removed and be replaced with bridges and the creek will be allowed to flow under the bridges. This will allow for some lengthening of the section of creek and allow for additional meandering as well as the reduction in grade. This is just the plan view of that realignment. You can, maybe you can see. Doesn’t show up really well up on the screen but in the lower left hand section here they have a cross section of the creek bed. There is some stream bed remediation proposed as part of the realignment. They’re bringing in some rip rap and some filter aggregate for some additional stabilization. The proposed bridge will include 37 piers to be placed within the Minnesota River floodplain area. Each pier consists of 8 to 11 bent piles. Approximately 25 square feet of impact for each pile. Removal of the existing causeway is planned for Phase 5, the final phase of the project. This is projected to restore about 9.82 acres of natural wetland habitat to the area. Following the removal the former causeway footprint will be restored to natural conditions and a wet meadow wetland seed mix will be used for permanent stabilization. This restoration cannot be counted as mitigation however. This is just an aerial view of the removal area. The Wetland Conservation Act requires the applicant, in this case Carver County, list at least two alternatives to the project that would avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands or waters. One of which may be no build or do nothing. Several alternatives were explored and are detailed in the application in the staff report. The preferred alternative or current project proposal was selected because it significantly reduced impacts for the bridge portion of the project. This is where much of the high quality wetland areas are located. The Wetland Conservation Act also requires the applicant to minimize unavoidable impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Efforts were made by the applicant to fulfill this requirement by locating Highway 61 closer to the existing alignment and using bent pile piers for the proposed bridge. This further reduced wetland impacts by approximately 2 1/2 acres. Wetland replacement for the project will be accomplished using two methods. Impacts associated with safety improvements, including stormwater features will be replaced using the Board of Water and Soil Resources road bank program. Impacts associated with the pedestrian trail or any non-safety related impacts will be replaced by the applicant, Carver County using credits purchased from Wetland Bank 1175 which is located in the same bank service area and major watershed area as the proposed project. Both replacements qualify for a 2 to 1 mitigation ratio. The applicant has sufficiently met the sequencing requirements for Wetland Conservation Act and made sufficient efforts to minimize impacts where possible. Therefore staff is recommending approval of the Minnesota River crossing and roadway improvements project wetland alteration permit and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. I do want to mention at this time that I received comments just recently from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. They have some concerns in regards to the effect of the project may take overall on the Seminary Fen. The applicant has yet to receive the comments so once they do we’ll ask for a response as soon as possible and have those included in the council report. Part of their request is for additional monitoring. They don’t give details on what they’d like to see but I have talked to the consultant and he’s willing to work with them and go over their request. With that, that is all I have. Thank you and I’ll take any questions. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 Aller: So you’re looking at mitigation and alternatives. One of those alternatives was to do absolutely nothing. That’s always… Spreiter: Yep. Yep. Aller: And that was just totally unacceptable…better, safer highway system… Spreiter: Right and I think the fact that BWSR is willing to replace all but the pedestrian trail improvements from the roadway bank shows that the project is very safety driven and necessary. That they’ve made a lot of efforts to minimize impacts where possible and they didn’t just do the minimum of looking at two alternatives. One being no build. There were several alignments and several options that were looked at and reviewed. Aanenson: I was just going to add, I think that getting the road out of the floodplain was the main driver and then it went to the, that was the purpose and then trying to find the right alignment and then it falls back to what Krista was just saying. Looking through the different alternatives that way. Spreiter: I should say too, Lower Minnesota did include that they commend the removal of the causeway which restores the natural channel of the river and surrounding wetlands. Aller: Can you explain what the bridges are after you remove the causeway? There’s going to be bridges correct? Spreiter: Yep. So, and I don’t know the details of the project but the new proposed bridge will span the entire floodplain area. Right up until that wye intersection where now they have a causeway that’s I would say three-fourths of the way through the floodplain area and that’s just fill material that is obstructing flow and that they’ve filled wetland with. Aller: And then the piles that we have are, I’ve looked at the report and it sure looks like they’re minimalistic for the size that is there, the structure itself so I’m assuming that construction wise they’re safe but it also really minimizes the impact on that wetland it looks like. Spreiter: Correct and correct me if I’m wrong but they did go to the smaller piles. They originally were thinking of rip rap or something and instead are doing the piles as it minimizes impact. Aller: And it looks like it reduced it by about 2 1/2 acres. Aanenson: (Yes). Aller: Anyone have, and by the way the report was very good. It was very complete. Spreiter: Thank you. Aller: And I like the fact that it ties us back in with that broad overview so that we don’t lose the forest for the trees. You know the ultimate goal here is to have the large project done but in a way that minimizes the impacts so it’s good to know what the large project is when we’re looking at, at the smaller segments. Withrow: I have a question. Aller: Questions. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 Withrow: This may be obvious to everybody else but not to me. Why is the 9.82 acre causeway not counted towards mitigation. Spreiter: That’s actually a good question. I believe it’s because they can’t quantify that. It’s not a guarantee. That’s what they project but because in the application you have to come up with solid, a solid mitigation plan with guaranteed replacement at that 2 to 1 ratio that they can’t count that. Withrow: …very conservative number. Spreiter: It’s definitely a plus of the project and I’m really excited to see what effect that will have on the area. Environmentally. Weick: We mentioned safety a couple times as a reason for the bridge. Is that related to flooding or traffic? Spreiter: I think both. Aanenson: Yeah. Spreiter: Kate. Aanenson: Yeah I would say the main thing right now is the seasonal flooding. Weick: Okay. Aanenson: And long term wise, well actually the trips have gone down right now since 212 is opened so we’ll talk about that in our meeting in 2 weeks when we talk about the update of our project on County Road 61 or CSAH 61. What we’re doing there so the trips are down but it seasonally floods and it’s a huge impediment to traffic moving back and forth over the river so that’s why the State moved up the funding on this program. This bridge crossing. So it’s a safety issue too. They did do some safety improvements a few years ago and that was at the intersection coming up off the wye. There was some lights put in, either side of that so kind of realigned that intersection. Trying to make some safety improvements there so. Weick: And it’s increasing right? It’s two lanes now. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: It’s going to four lanes. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: So would there be, if you only made it two lane, is there a significant less, significantly less of an impact on the wetland areas or does it not really matter? Spreiter: That I don’t know. I would assume there would be but probably not by much. Weick: Yeah. Spreiter: Not over the floodplain area anyway. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 Weick: Because you’d still need to do the posts or whatever. Spreiter: Yeah. Weick: Pylons. Spreiter: Yeah there might be more or less of them but. Weick: Okay. Spreiter: I guess I don’t know, I’m sorry. Aller: Any other questions? Weick: Those were all mine. Aller: Comments. Okay. At this point in time we’re going to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward. State a position either for or against this issue before us can do so at this time. And seeing no one coming forward I’m going to close the public hearing. Again I’ll open it for comments or discussion at this time. And if there are none then I’ll entertain a motion. Yusuf: I’ll do it. Aller: Okay. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-10 and WCA Permit #2014-01 to impact 4.96 acres of wetland and the replacement plan under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 which utilizes the purchase of .16 acres of wetland credit from Bank #1175 and 9.76 acres from the BWSR Road Replacement Program for the purpose of the proposed Highway 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements Project; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated December 20, 2013, subject to conditions within the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-10 and WCA Permit #2014-01 to impact 4.96 acres of wetland and the replacement plan under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 which utilizes the purchase of .16 acres of wetland credit from Bank #1175 and 9.76 acres from the BWSR Road Replacement Program for the purpose of the proposed Highway 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements Project; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated December 20, 2013, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 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 Sections 20-401 – 20-421 of Chanhassen City Code. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The applicant must obtain, and the City must have received copy of an Application of 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. 6. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to the City prior to commandment of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf moved, and Commissioner Hokkanen seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 4, 2014 as presented. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS. Aller: Before we go to those, I’d just like to announce that it’s my understanding that Commissioner Steve Withrow will not be with us after this meeting. This will be his last meeting and so we’d like to thank him for his insightful questions. He’s raised awareness on issues before us and it’s been a pleasure working with him on these matters of importance to all of us so thank you for your service. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: th Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. So at the council meeting on March 10, two minor amendments were made to the Camden Ridge and that was the, going from the 5 and 10 to the 7 1/2-7 1/2 between the units and then Lakeside also went from the one 3 unit to the 2 so those were both approved so we’ll be issuing permits as we continue with both those subdivisions. I’ll talk about future Planning Commission st meetings. So next month, April 1, typically we will have our oath of office for our new commissioners. We also typically at that meeting do the administrative thing such as Chair, Vice Chair but maybe we’ll move that on to the next meeting so we have a full group for that so we’ll maybe move that but we will start at 6:00. We’ll do work session. The Water Resources Coordinator is going to go through the new stormwater regulations and the meeting tonight is kind of a segue into what we’ll be talking about at that work session. We’ll be talking about not only the river crossing but what we call the CSAH, which is a County Highway 61 project so that’s Hennepin and Carver County. The City Council has given working approvals for the design on that. The Hennepin County project will start actually in 2015. We’ll have the bridge so we’ve got a lot of work going on down there. In addition we’ll give you an update on, we are in process with our consultants for the land use planning. We have a neighborhood meeting coming up in 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 May and we’ll give you the dates on that so we hope that come of you can attend on that. And also SEH so we’ll give you an overview of what we’re doing there and your involvement in that process but a lot of changes in the southern end of the city so. So with that, then we also have a subdivision that we have noticed so that will be on at 7:00 so wherever we are on that process as we get towards the 7:00 hour we’ll break. Come in here. We do anticipate probably some neighbors from the, this subdivision abuts Shorewood. That will be in for that meeting and then when that ends we’ll adjourn the meeting. Excuse me, somewhere in there we’ll give oath of office so we’re legit and then we’ll go back and finish up the work session after that so we’ll kind of see how that meeting shakes out. We also did get a couple more applications in. Arbor Cove which is located on Dogwood, Lake Minnewashta. It’s a 4 lot subdivision. The other projects that were on that list did not come in except for the Sinclair subdivision and site plan. That’s Ivan Sinclair which will be another commercial use at that intersection. Camp Tanadoona, we’ve been working with them and they’re making some minor changes so we’re going to take them through the administrative process but I’ll give you an update on that when they’re ready to kind of pull permits on that. They’re redoing some of their buildings out there so, so they’re going out to bid on that pretty soon but I will give you an update when I have more details on that project in and of itself and maybe I’ll do that at our next work session. So with that Chair, Planning Commissioners, that’s all I had. If there’s any questions I’d be happy. Aller: Any other questions. Okay, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Weick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 7