Loading...
05-30 PC Minutes 1-3-06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 3, 2006 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe, and Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDRESSING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND DECISIONS ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES; AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A LOCAL ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-30. Public Present: Name Address Ronald Jabs 125 MVEC Drive, Jordan Dennis Wolf 125 MVEC Drive, Jordan Gene Kotz 17845 Highway 10, Elk River Carole Schmidt 17845 Highway 10, Elk River Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Anybody? Kurt, go ahead. Papke: Okay. On the top of page 3 of staff report you’re recommending approval of a resolution of negative declaration of an environmental impact statement. This is a new one for me and could you please explain the conditions for granting such a negative declaration. How did we arrive at the fact that it was lawful and right to do this? Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 Al-Jaff: First of all the environmental assessment worksheet basically looks at given standards. Given criteria that we agreed upon, I believe it was a month ago. When we conducted the scoping of the EA. These elements were studied, were analyzed and there were no negative impact on the environment based upon the information that we gathered. There are some recommendations that were made in the environmental assessment. Based upon the information that we have in the environmental assessment, you really do not need to go into any further study. An environmental impact statement would take this entire process a step further and go into additional recommendations. Additional, it will take each impact. Analyze it further. We did not see the need for that in this case. We believe that the environmental assessment that we have addressed all of these issues. Papke: Where I’m coming from is, let’s take a case where we would have a disgruntled neighbor or something and they said okay you, the city planners and the Planning Commission approved this negative declaration. What is the legal basis for this? Can it be challenged? I’m just looking to make sure that you know this is all buttoned up and we haven’t left ourself exposed here to any kind of a challenge of this resolution of negative declaration. Al-Jaff: It has been published in the. Papke: Reviewed by the city attorney or anything like that? Al-Jaff: It has not been reviewed by the city attorney, however we have been working with the city attorney step by step to make sure that it’s published properly. It went to every individual, every agency that needs to review their, this environmental assessment. Give us their professional opinion and so far every comment that we have received has been, there’s no further need for additional review. Papke: Okay. Al-Jaff: And the public hearing process that you have before you today is another step in that direction. Papke: Okay. Second question and this may be, you may have to defer this one to the applicant. We’re stating here, we’re justifying the variance from the 500 foot distance by saying okay, the subject site is 200 feet from the mobile park and we’re removing the existing substation so it’s moving farther away. Okay, that’s goodness. But this is a great drawing of the new field strengths around the new substation and the wires but the one thing, it wasn’t clear to me from the staff report is, if I were to go out there with measuring instruments right next to that mobile home park, when we put up the new substation, we tear down the old one, is it possible that the newer substation is emitting more EMF? Is the level going to go down or stay the same or go up in the mobile home park when this is all said and done? And we’ll leave that for the applicant. Okay. Al-Jaff: I will let the applicant answer that question, and you will be pleased with that answer. Papke: Okay. That’s all I have. 2 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 Sacchet: Good question Kurt. Jerry, you have a question? McDonald: I’ve got a couple. The variances, I just want to make sure I know what we’re looking at. Okay, you want a variance for the distance and also we’re looking for a variance for the size because this is only 2.3 and you’re saying normally it should be 5 acres? Al-Jaff: Correct. McDonald: Okay. So that’s the two variances and the other is…or to accept the EA assessment so we don’t have to do an environmental impact? Al-Jaff: There isn’t a variance there. I’m just asking you to, based upon what we analyzed. What we read, all the comments that we have received, there is no need for additional studies to be conducted, and that’s where the negative declaration comes in. McDonald: Okay. And so there’s just two variances we’re being asked to approve. Al-Jaff: Correct. And they are variances to the conditional use permit criteria. McDonald: Okay, thank you. I have no further questions. Sacchet: Thank you Jerry. Any other questions? Dan. Keefe: I’ve got a couple. The 8 or the 10 foot conditional use, why do we need to go to 10 feet? Versus staying within the 8 feet. Al-Jaff: We’re trying to maximize the screening and if you give me one moment here. There was a 10 foot, 10 foot fence or a 10 foot wall. You will still be able to see some of the equipment. Basically maximizing the screening. Keefe: Yeah, I’m just talking where the. Al-Jaff: …yes they can. Keefe: Yeah, I was wondering about why not 12 feet to screen it all out versus. I don’t know where the 10 foot came from. Al-Jaff: We compare it to something that might resemble a building. There really wasn’t any other reason. Keefe: Okay. Another question on the wall, relates to the water. Can you kind of show where the water would flow on this site because it looks like that’s really an impervious wall. Al-Jaff: Alyson do you want to take that one? 3 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 Keefe: I guess both inside and out. Fauske: That was one of the comments in the staff report. Engineering brought up that here’s the proposed grading plan here and as you can see, north being this direction, this direction here, the sheet draining coming to the west, while that was one of our recommendations for approval, that they show us how to facilitate drainage, the sheet drainage from the pad to that infiltration basin at that location. And it’s a simply a matter of putting in a small depression with the structure underneath the wall. Keefe: And it looks like it’s, the site goes from what, east to west? Fauske: Correct. Keefe: So on the east side, where’s the water going to go when it hits the east side? It’s going to come down at that wall, right? Is it going to go around the outside or how is it going to flow? Fauske: Well the flow pattern will be, actually when you look at the grading plan here there’s a high point at this location and so you’d basically just have the pad only, for all intensive purposes, just the pad drains, sheet draining that location. Keefe: Okay, so the wall isn’t. Fauske: We’re not taking a large drainage area from there. Keefe: Okay. Fauske: And when we looked at, they did submit some hydrology calculation showing their existing and proposed runoff scenarios and their matching the existing that they’re putting in this infiltration basin which we also check for capacity given the soils out in that area. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Just a couple other questions. One, in regards to the notification on this. We had to notify people what, 500 feet? Al-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: Did that include the mobile home owners or? Al-Jaff: Correct, and the applicants chose to go door to door and knock on people’s doors. Yeah, they’ve truly done their due diligence to make sure that if there are any issues they have addressed them upfront. Keefe: So with this particular notification card that we send out. Al-Jaff: It was sent out to. Keefe: It doesn’t look like, I don’t know how many mobile homes but it, I don’t know. 4 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 Al-Jaff: It was sent to the owners of the park. I believe it’s a rental park and so. Keefe: Okay, so the owner of the property would have gotten, received the card. Al-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: And then they notified the homeowners of the units themselves. Al-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: Okay. Al-Jaff: I am not 100% positive that they are renters in these, but the owner of the property was notified. Keefe: Is that park in Chaska? Al-Jaff: Yes it is. Keefe: I just want a point of clarification. Are we required to notify people over city boundary lines? Al-Jaff: Everyone within 500 feet has to be notified. Keefe: Okay. Last question, and this is in regards to the environmental assessment. Are you aware of any environmental findings against Xcel? The Xcel station that’s already there. Al-Jaff: No. Keefe: Any jurisdiction on any environmental? Al-Jaff: It’s being, it was looked upon as a structure that will be removed and definitely an improvement. Keefe: But it hasn’t been cited for any environmental issues that you’re aware of? Al-Jaff: Not that I’m aware of, no. Keefe: Okay. That’d be all. Sacchet: Mark? Undestad: No. Sacchet: Debbie, any more questions? 5 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 Larson: Yeah I’ve got actually, the one that’s there currently that’s going to be taken down, I assume it looks that it’s smaller that what we’ve got going in. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Larson: So I guess my concern was, and I’m sure the applicant will explain this but I just want to make a point of it that even though it is farther away from where the residents are, it’s going to be stronger than the one that’s currently there, I assume. Al-Jaff: I will allow the applicant to address that. Again I think you will be pleased with what’s happening. Larson: I’ll go with that. That’s all I have. Sacchet: Okay. On the staff report on page 8, your statement, finding 2.4. The proposal will be an improvement to the planned neighboring uses. Other than the removal of the Xcel substation, are there any other improvements that you could list? Al-Jaff: You’re taking out a substation. You’re replacing it with landscaping. It really is going to clean up the area. Sacchet: So that’s aesthetic solely? Al-Jaff: From an aesthetic standpoint I think that it’s going to be a great improvement. Sacchet: Okay. Then there is some mention of lighting. There’s actually also a condition on lighting. We need lighting plans. Al-Jaff: I didn’t see any, I contacted the applicant. You know if there was anything such as a security light, motion light, we need to make sure that we take a look at these plans. That they meet ordinance requirements. Sacchet: And that’s still pending at this point? We can ask the applicant. Al-Jaff: Yeah. Sacchet: Yeah. And under the conditional use permit for the fencing we say security fence. Does that mean the chainlink fence as well as the wall? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: That covers both? Al-Jaff: Yes. 6 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 Sacchet: Okay. Just want to be clear about that. Al-Jaff: And one of them is more aesthetic than the other. Sacchet: Indeed it is. That’s all the questions I have, thank you. Thanks Sharmeen. With that I would like to ask the applicant, if you want to come up and add to what we’ve heard from staff and we may have a few questions for you, as you already heard. If you want to state your name and where you’re from please, for the record. Ron Jabs: Yes, very much appreciate the opportunity. My name is Ron Jabs. I’m with Minnesota Valley Electric and with me this evening I have Denny Wolf with Minnesota Valley Electric, Gene Kotz which is with Great River Energy and Carole Schmidt who is also with Great River Energy. I guess I’d want to point out that Carole did a considerable amount of research in responding to the EA portion and so she’s our expert when it comes to those sorts of things. I guess I’d like an opportunity to respond to some of your questions. Hopefully I can answer them but there probably are some other things that I’m going to defer off to my other experts that I’ve got along here so. Should I? Sacchet: Go ahead. Ron Jabs: Okay. I just threw together some scratchy notes here but one of the key things, well let me start out in essentially the site right today is an old gravel pit, basically unreclaimed and uneven terrain and so forth and of course that will be cleaned up in that process. There are also two sets of transmission lines that run right across the site where the substation will be placed. Right underneath that transmission line. The substation itself, just the mere fact that there’s a transformer within it doesn’t really create any strengthening of the EMF potential, and one of the things that is quite important to understand, I’m not sure exactly where our spot is here but this demonstration here just uses a copying machine as an example. Basically if you go up to any outlet within your home, any electrical appliance is going to emit a certain amount of EMF. The point being that if you’re only 6 inches away from this copying machine, you’ll probably have around 90 milligauss. However if you get out to 4 feet you’re down to 1 milligauss so it dramatically decreases. By the same token within our substation we have the transformers and gear and so forth centered within that, but once you get to the perimeter of the property, the levels are, equate to normal background level so they aren’t really any higher once you get off of the acreage. Maybe one thing I should point out is that we are, we’re developing a 2.3 acre piece of property that we acquired from Gedney. We also acquired an additional half acre, .5 acres from Xcel and we’re actually, although we’re not merging the legal descriptions together, we own both parcels and the entire complex will be landscaped and incorporated. The mobile home court right now has a 69 KV transmission line that goes across it. It has a 115 KV transmission line, and a 230 KV, and quite frankly those influences far exceed the influence of the new substation that is going in. The mere fact that we’re getting rid of the old substation removes it away from the mobile home park. It also removes it visually from right off of Stoughton Avenue, and our landscaping and so forth that will be incorporating is going to significantly hide it. The fact that there’s about a 10 foot wall there will pretty much cover up a majority of the equipment. Most of the equipment is about 12 foot tall. There are a couple of incidental pieces that get 15, maybe even 17 foot tall but most of it is, well it’s modular in nature and pretty well 7 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 low profile so we do expect that that will do a good job of blocking the view, plus the trees and landscaping that it will be breaking it up. Typically this is the first time that we’ve gotten into a wall type situation on, I think we’re up to like 13 substations or so on our system. This will be the first wall. Typically we’re only about 8 foot, well by code we have to be at 8 foot for security and keeping animals or kids or whatever out of the premise. I guess we do feel the 10 foot is adequate. I guess you could argue pretty much any height. It’s probably an endless kind of a question there but, one point was made about the watershed and the way this is designed, basically it’s a pier channel. A pier with channels in it and the walls actually float in that channel but the whole bed of the substation, including an extension out around the substation is a course gravel rock. And so any rain that would drop within the substation will flow naturally slowly out of that and then travel the normal courses over land into these retention ponds and so forth so it won’t be caught within, to any great degree. It will through this course rock it will actually filter out across the property, so hopefully that is satisfactory. If not, if we need to make some special piping or something like that we could do it but we didn’t anticipate a true need for that. In terms of lighting, we don’t show any. It wasn’t necessarily included. We do have substations where we do have a, now a downcast security type light. It might be nice to have one of those within. It’s not a make or break kind of a thing but if we did have that, if it were necessary we could have a switch on it but at this point nothing is, nothing is proposed so that’s why we haven’t included anything in that, addressing that. There probably were other questions but hopefully that addresses a few of them. How else can I? Sacchet: Thank you. Any other questions from the applicant? I think you addressed them very well. Yes Mark, go ahead. Undestad: Actually you answered one of my questions, was how many of these have you done with this wall system around there. The other question I had in that, most of these are left open or with chainlink fence or cyclone fence. Are there any concerns with locating this down there where the only chainlink area goes out to the woods and now you’ve got a nice 10 foot wall encasing all this down there with no lighting? Going to be climbing around in there but, a 10 foot wall. Maybe a 12 foot wall. I don’t know. Ron Jabs: It’s been used on other systems, other electric utilities have used the 10 foot and I think that’s where the number came from initially. It was felt that that was high enough to comply with the National Electric Safety Code and so forth. Undestad: So are they going to have security lighting in there or something? Ron Jabs: Yeah, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have lighting. We appreciate the idea of using the downcast type lights versus something that’s going to disperse out and affect the neighbors. Highly unlikely because of the nature with you know, cemetery there and Gedney. I don’t see that we would have any concerns. As things develop to the north being commercial, they’re going to have some lighting as well. It’s far enough away from the mobile home park that I wouldn’t expect it to have any impact but you know. Like I say, in some of our substations we do have them and there are some advantages to having that in there. One of the reasons that we did want to have at least one site open is that air flow into the area around the, into our, around our transformers is beneficial. It was all dead air. There’s no other exchange of air other than 8 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 going out the top. It tends to heat with them and so that is also another reason for having one side open. Undestad: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions? Yes Kurt. Papke: In the landscaping plan, you currently don’t meet the code requirements for like I think you intend to up your tree count somewhat in order to meet that? Ron Jabs: It was suggested and one of the concerns that was pointed out in the write up is that, tall trees can grow up and interfere with the transmission lines from a maintenance and a reliability problem, and so it was proposed that we put some understory, some additional understory type shrubbery in there and quite frankly I forgot if we had prepared a drawing of that nature or where we’re at with that. Denny Wolf: I’m Denny Wolf with Minnesota Valley Electric. I’m not, I think, I thought we had met everything that required but we’ll review if we need to put more shrubbery and stuff in there, we’ll take care of that. I know we’ve had fun working with Sharmeen and her, people from the city here so… Sacchet: Thank you. Dan, you have a question too? Keefe: Yeah, just one quick question that I asked staff and I’ll ask you as well. Are you aware of any environmental findings against the Xcel facility there? Denny Wolf: We are the, we would have the same concerns being that there was an unknown nature what was happening in there. Both a Phase I and a Phase II environmental study. The Phase I we’re just basically looking at the area, is there any possibility. And because of the aerial photos taken back in about 1940, we could see where the depression was in there and what work had been done there. It looked like digging and I think as Ron mentioned, there’s probably just a gravel area in there. So we did a Phase II in there whereas we went in, dug up the site. Took the soil samples around various points in the site there and that’s from the Gedney property and that all came out okay. We also were concerned with the Xcel site there because of previous oil containment in the area there. We also did a Phase I and a Phase II in there where they analyze soil in there and those all came out okay. They’re well within the limits of the area there so. I was going to bring the report along. It’s a very lengthy report but I would have them just give us a cover letter too… Basically we don’t have to do anything else in the area. Everything is okay as far as they’re concerned according to the environmental study. Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Did you want to add anything else or? Ron Jabs: The only thing maybe I should highlight, since he brought up the environmental. There is a, Carole has prepared the EA and there’s an index and there is, there’s a multitude of different agencies that we’ve already gone through DNR and quite a number of different agencies and most of those have opportunity to respond and indicated that there’s really a lack of 9 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 any concerns whatsoever. I guess if you want to, if you’d like to get into the specifics, I’m sure Carole can address more of how it’s. Sacchet: Do you want to give us a 2 minute summary Carole? Carole Schmidt: I can do that. We contacted, I’m Carole Schmidt… We contacted several agencies. The Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Natural Resources... The Corps indicated that they did not require a permit. There are no wetland issues on the site. The Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that the bald eagle is documented in Hennepin and Carver counties but not in this particular location, and that the project would not adversely affect the bald eagle. The DNR, which runs a sensitive area…and there were some known occurrences of rare features in the area, but it’s pretty close to the river and they said at this particular site they wouldn’t see that it would affect any of those resources. So the DNR signed off. There were no properties eligible for historical, the register of historical places. And the construction would not affect any prime farmland soils according to the NICS. So it’s really, if I were to pick a…it’s a pretty prime location. It’s tucked away and actually the mobile home court is…the road so they’re not going to be able to see it very much anyway, especially with that wall up there. So I thought it was a very good site from an environmental standpoint. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Alright. With that, I’d like to open the public hearing. If anybody here would like to comment to this, please come forward now and tell us if you have something to say. Seeing nobody getting up, I assume there’s nobody that wants to address this item. I’ll bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion. Any comments, discussion? Are we all clear about everything? I have just one little comment. In the staff report, let’s see where it was. Page 12. When it looks at the findings for the variances, which is the size of the acreage as well as the setback. The first criteria that we look at is whether there’s a hardship and staff report doesn’t necessarily touch on hardship. It just tells about the reasons why it’s alright, and I would actually say it would be a hardship to enforce the code under the circumstances. Just to address that straight on. I think that’s the only comment I have. Does anybody want to make a motion please. Papke: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 05-30 for an electric substation as shown on the plans dated Received ndth September 2 and November 30, 2005 with variances to allow access off of Stoughton Avenue, maintain a 200 foot setback from existing residential neighborhood and construct a facility on a 2.35 acre parcel based on the findings of the staff report subject to conditions 1 through 6. I also like to recommend approval for Conditional Use Permit 05-30 for the construction of the electric substation and a 10 foot wall with the one condition as listed in the staff report, and also recommend the City Council approve Resolution declaring no need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Minnesota Valley Electric substation. Sacchet: Thank you Kurt. Do we have a second? McDonald: I’ll second. 10 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 Sacchet: Any friendly amendments? Actually I wonder whether for the site plan recommendations, condition number 2. Whether we should specify the plans must identify the proposed drainage outlet? I mean outlets is little bit, could be outlet for different things, even though it talks about drainage at the end. Could it be misunderstood? Fauske: If I could Mr. Chair. Sacchet: Please. Fauske: A recommendation would be that the applicant submit some information regarding their proposed material for their pads to, so staff can verify that there is positive drainage across. Sacchet: So then the friendly amendment would be that condition 2 would be replaced by the applicant will provide additional information about drainage to staff for further review. That would it suffice with that? Fauske: Yes it would. Sacchet: Okay. Is that acceptable Kurt? Papke: Yes. Sacchet: I assume there are no more other friendly amendments. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 05-30 for an electric substation as shown on the plans dated Received September ndth 2 and November 30, 2005 with variances to allow access off of Stoughton Avenue, maintain a 200 foot setback from existing residential neighborhood and construct a facility on a 2.35 acre parcel, based on the findings of the staff report subject to the following conditions: 1. Building Official Conditions: a. Permits are required to construct the perimeter wall and fence. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The applicant will provide additional information about drainage to staff for further 2. review. 3. Annual maintenance shall be performed on the infiltration basin so that it will function as modeled. 4. The applicant must meet minimum ordinance requirements for bufferyards and submit a revised landscape plan to the city for approval. 11 Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006 5. Overstory plantings shall be added to the understory totals for bufferyard plantings. 6. Detailed lighting plans shall be submitted including photometrics and type of light fixture. The ordinance requires no more than 0.5 foot candle at the property line. Only downcast shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. Any security (motion detection) lighting should also be shown. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval for Conditional Use Permit 05-30, for the construction the electric substation and a 10 foot wall with the following condition: 1. A security fence as specified in the National Electric Safety Code shall surround the Distribution and Underground Electric Distribution Substations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Resolution Declaring No Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Minnesota Valley Electric Substation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: JACOB’S TAVERN: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 6,808 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT BUILDING ON 2.02 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND CENTURY BOULEVARD, TRUMAN HOWELL ARCHITECTS, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-40. Public Present: Name Address Truman Howell 17815 Hutchins Drive, Minnetonka Jacob, John & Joan Howe-Pullis 1385 Wildflower Lane, Chaska Scott Thorpe 6716 Point Drive, Edina Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Yes Jerry, do you want to start? McDonald: Okay, you talk about the gables. What’s the difference between what you’re proposing and what we have on these drawings? Generous: It’s just the type of roof element. Instead of having, a shed dormer has this flat roof that comes off the building. What I was proposing was that they provide gables, basically taking 12