Loading...
PC mintues CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2016 Acting Chair Undestad called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy Madsen, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Aller, and Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters; Assistant Planner; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC HEARING: FOXWOOD – WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9150 AND 9250 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: BILL COFFMAN, GONYEA HOMES AND REMODELING, OWNER: JIM WILSON & PAUL PAULSON. Spreiter: Thank you Commissioner Undestad. As stated this is the public hearing for the nd Foxwood Wetland Alteration Permit. This item will go before City Council on August 22 for approval. The proposed project is located just south of Lyman Boulevard on Great Plains Boulevard across from Bandimere Community Park. The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit for the purpose of developing a 44 acre site for the creation of 46 single family residential lots. This is the existing site. It’s quite extensive. It has extreme topography. It includes 8 wetlands on site one of which is a DNR public water body which is located to the north. The applicant is proposing to impact .059 acres of wetland basin 3. As a result of the project this basin is located between Wetland 4 and Wetland 8. It flows easterly into Wetland 8. The impacts are the result of the proposed access road that is the main thoroughfare through the development running north and east. Or I’m sorry north and south. It would be located between Wetland 4 and Wetland 8. This also would provide utilities to the development and to the property to the east. The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to permanently impact .059 acres of wetland and is proposing to mitigate for these impacts using wetland bank credits purchased from Account Number 1175 which is also, which is located in the same bank service area and major watershed. City code requires that the applicant comply with Wetland Conservation Act rules which also require that the applicant must first avoid impacts. Then minimize these impacts to the greatest extent practical. The applicant has made sufficient efforts to avoid and minimize impacts. These include shifting the road to the west which would reduce the amount of fill needed and in turn reduce the amount of impact. The Wetland Conservation Act also requires that any unavoidable impacts be mitigated for. In this case the applicant has chosen to purchase wetland bank credits from Bank Number 1175. This is in the same BSA number 9 and major watershed 33 as the proposed project. Therefore they’re to be purchased at the required 2 to 1 ratio. This is consistent with Wetland Conservation Act rules. The applicant Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 16, 2016 has fulfilled the sequencing and minimization requirements within their application and is compliant with city code. Therefore staff is recommending approval with conditions for the wetland alteration permit request in this case. This is all I have tonight. I’m happy to take any questions from the commissioners at this time. Undestad: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Tietz: Looks pretty straight forward. Undestad: Okay, if the applicant is here would the applicant care to say anything? Okay. This is a public hearing. I’ll open the public hearing at this time. Seeing no one, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. Any comments. Questions. Tietz: Looks like a good follow-up to what we saw some time back and a good resolution to the situation. Look like great lots. Bill Coffman: Yeah we’re pretty excited about it. Tietz: Yeah. Madsen: And it’s noted in the report they really tried to minimize the impacts. They looked at alternatives and I think they came, did the best they could do and minimized it. Yusuf: I totally agree with that. Undestad: Alright with that I’ll entertain a motion. Madsen: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-20 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application subject to conditions within the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Undestad: Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Madsen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-20 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 16, 2016 1. A letter from the Board of Soil and Water Resources stating that the credits have been debited and applied towards this impact must be provided prior to any disturbance of the wetland. 2. An erosion prevention and sediment control plan consistent with Section 19-154 of city code must be included. 3. The plan must indicate how temporary impacts to the buffer area will be permanently stabilized. 4. The applicant must obtain approvals from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE FOR DROP HOMES. Walters: Alright this is circling back from I believe we did an informal discussion on this the last time I was here but just to refresh your memory. The State legislature in this legislative session passed an ordinance that essentially required communities to allow temporary family health care dwellings in residential zones. These dwelling would be pre-fabricated units no greater than 300 square feet and they would have to meet Minnesota’s accessibility standards. Be hooked up to water and electric but they were exempted from the normal provisions of the city code that cover accessory structures. However setbacks and other areas of the zoning code would still apply. When we last spoke about this staff expressed several concerns. Namely the exemption from many of the City’s zoning provisions that govern accessory structures. The potential impact of allowing multiple dwelling units in single family residential lots. The density and intensity of use within those zones. We were also concerned by the permitting process as the legislature only allowed 15 days to evaluate the permit. Most other permits are allowed a 60 day evaluation period. There were not criteria for examining requests to extend the permits. There were some concerns with staff being asked to handle potentially confidential medical information regarding the health of applicants. There was not clear appeals or enforcement procedures in terms of if the applicant violated the terms of the permit how we would actually be able to force them to remove the property along with monitoring concerns in terms of determining when the applicant was no longer residing there. There were also some questions of need. The City of Chanhassen currently accommodates these type of uses through either variances procedures. Encouraging people to house relatives in empty rooms. There are senior oriented apartments, group homes and other assisted living facilities. I believe the Planning Commission asked staff to look into what other cities in Minnesota were doing in response to this ordinance. I asked around and we have included as attachments the response from the 10 key fiscal cities so these are cities that have comparable demographic composition to Chanhassen that we use as a baseline for a lot of our ordinances, et cetera. None of them were 3