PC Minutes 8-1-06
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
2. The three-plexes shall be built as shown on the elevations and floor plans dated received
February 3, 2006.
3. The applicant shall utilize cultured stone on a variety of elevations, i.e. an entire garage
elevation or an entire entryway elevation, rather than stopping at the midpoint of a wall.
The applicant shall also use Hardie board siding versus stucco.
4. The applicant shall submit drawings showing the exterior elevations and materials for the
single-family and duplex units.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
McDonald: And with that we conclude this particular case.
Papke: 5 minute bio?
McDonald: Yes we can. What I would say to all the residents out there that yes, if you
do have questions about this, please contact staff and they would be more than happy to
explain.
(The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SITE GRADING FOR
THE DISPOSAL OF DIRT FROM THE HIGHWAY 312 CORRIDOR ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND 1425 BLUFF
CREEK DRIVE. AND SOUTH OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY RAIL
CORRIDOR AND BLUFF CREEK DRIVE. PLANNING CASE NO. 06-28.
ZUMBRO RIVER CONSTRUCTORS.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Brad Moe
Mike Billing
Cindy Peterson
Lindsay Lein
Mary Fafiushi
14372 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie
312 Lake Hazeltine Drive, Chaska
1161 Bluff Creek Drive
1161 Bluff Creek Drive
1520 West Farm Road, Chaska
Alyson Fauske presented the staff report regarding Site 1 and asked for
commissioner questions.
Dillon: Why is this being done?
46
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
Fauske: From what staff has been told, these property owners approached Zumbro River
Constructors stating that there's some low areas on the property that they would like to be
filled. Zumbro River Constructors has an excessive amount of material from the 212
project that they are looking for locations to be able to use them, and so Zumbro River
Constructors came in and talked to staff about the potential of using these sites for fill and
has the proposal through here.
Larson: How does this impact the neighboring properties?
Fauske: The proposed grading would be entirely on the, Mr. Hesse and Mr. Moe's
property. As far as impacts, there's no physical.
Commissioner Larson made a comment that was not picked up on tape.
Fauske: It would be filling in a low area. I don't have a photograph but.
Larson: They're not building a mountain on that property?
Fauske: No, it's filling in a low area. The property drops, there's a large barn, a white
fence that they're looking to remove regardless of the project. And it slopes from the
north to the south down to the roadway there. Just kind of a localized low area.
Larson: ... fine with the neighboring properties.
Fauske: This shows the proposed area. The proposed fill area through here, and I don't
know if the blue and the red show up very well but the red shows the low area in through
here. This is, we start moving up the slope through here and the blue shows where the
proposed fill would go in. There's some tree lines in through here.
Keefe: And how do they get there?
Fauske: They would come from, via Audubon to Bluff Creek Drive and then staff is, if
Planning Commission is going to recommend approval, staff has provided a
recommendation to get access from this private drive here just to minimize the truck
moving, truck turning movement onto the site.
Keefe: So it just goes over land? There isn't a roadway in there. They'd create a
roadway in there. How many trips is it? You say it's a lot of trips.
Fauske: It's several trips.
Keefe: Yeah.
Fauske: Each truck can take 10 cubic yards, so you're looking at, and we never clarified
this with the applicant. I'm assuming the 35,000 cubic yards is a compacted volume, so
the volume that's in place right now. So when you look at trucking operations, that's the
47
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
amount of fill, that amount of volume of fill to be trucked may be increased by 20% or
more.
Papke: Could you kind of summarize your, I'm looking at the findings of fact here. The
statement that this would result in stopping traffic every other minute for over 3 weeks.
Could you explain that calculation?
Fauske: We went through this and what we looked at was, we looked at the proposal
based on the timeframe that they were requesting and the hours of operation that we
would be restricting them to. We can certainly, we can play with numbers all we want
and reduce the volume of fill being brought in there but looking at the volume of fill to be
placed in here, in their anticipated timeframe, we just looked at those trucks on a 28 foot
wide street would shut operations down every other minute.
McDonald: Is it possible to stage the trucks and say that only during certain times and
you know try to minimize the impact on?
Fauske: Well we can try to stage the trucks as much as possible but the issue is, it comes
down to the volume and the width of streets. With it being a 28 foot wide street and with
the type of vehicles that they'll be using to bring the fill onto the site, when you take the
truck turning templates onto here, I just, I couldn't get them to make the turns without
using up the whole roadway.
Larson: Does it wreck the road?
Fauske: The actual design of the pavement thickness of Bluff Creek Boulevard is a fairly
good thickness. So we don't have an issue as far as the weight of the vehicles on there.
We just have an issue with the width of the road.
Larson: So.
Papke: How about the curb?
Fauske: The curb would be an issue. That's why we would look at collecting an escrow
so that if there were curbs to be replaced, that we would have money to do so.
Larson: So the traffic issue that we're talking about, it looks like it's relatively... in that
area. Larger properties. So what kind of impact are we really talking as far as actual
citizens who. . . it doesn't seem like it's terribly far from one property to the other.
Fauske: I mean certainly it would, they would, Zumbro River Constructors would have
erosion control and dust mitigation measures to make sure that, to the most amount, to
the most extent praticable that they wouldn't be disrupting neighbors. There will be truck
traffic generated from this.
Larson: Have any of the neighbors...?
48
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
Fauske: All 3 sites had a sign put up. We've had several calls from, and some visits to
City Hall from residents that saw the sign. They wanted to first of all make sure it wasn't
development coming through. We explained it was a grading operation. Bringing in
anywhere between 30 to 90,000 cubic yards offill.
Commissioner Larson's question was not heard on tape.
Fauske: You know to be honest with you for, I don't know if the volume of fill
registered with them. But to be honest with you, as soon as they found out it was not
development, they were fine.
Larson: You mean more so than we're talking about what it's going to do to the trees on
the property and that.
Fauske: Correct. And as far as traffic trips, I'm sure that there's a representative from
Zumbro River here tonight who would perhaps give a better explanation as to what their
staging would be for traffic. How they could minimize the traffic trips through there and
you know try to make it as seemless as possible to do, if you approve, recommend
approval.
Papke: When would this occur? What time of the year? Fairly soon?
Fauske: I believe their application, well that was another issue is, you know they gave us
some time frames in the application for this site.
Papke: While school is in session? Because one of my concerns is that is a school bus
route and if we're closing down traffic pretty frequently there, I'd feel concerned about
school buses.
Fauske: They're predicting sometime in August, September or October of2006.
Papke: Yeah, then you're going to impact buses.
Fauske: And they anticipate, I believe it was 3 weeks for this. 2 weeks, okay. 2 weeks.
No, it's 3. 3 weeks for this one. And when Zumbro River came in to talk to us about
this, they had identified that there were several sites they were looking at for grading
operations, and at that point we told them to bring them in as, all the applications in at
once, so that we could look at the cumulative effect of them. Again, they're here tonight
to talk about what they can do as far as doing some fill operations here, and then waiting,
staggering them if you will so that they're not trucking to multiple sites at the same time.
To the two sites off Bluff Creek Boulevard at the same time.
McDonald: Okay, if this property isn't going to be developed, what's the purpose of
putting the fill there? I know you said it's low, but are we trying to bring it up so at some
point it can be developed or why these sites?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
Fauske: What we were told is that the property owners approached Zumbro River
Constructors to place some fill on their property to level it out, and that's all that we've
been told.
McDonald: And then if we go and restrict the hours from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., does
that take care of the school bus operation at that point?
Fauske: I believe that would still provide some conflicts. I would think for elementary
school that would have some conflicts.
McDonald: Okay. Anyone else have any questions on this particular?
Dillon: How close is this to the Seminary fen?
Fauske: This particular site, this is right here. The Seminary Fen is located right here
near Site 2.
Papke: So Site 2 would be more.
Fauske: Site 2, yes. So Site 2's getting fill. Are we ready to move on to Site 2? Okay.
Site 2, as you can see on the drawing here, is on Bluff Creek Drive as well. The
Seminary Fen is located around here. There's also Bluff Creek Inn is located just to the
south and east of the property. Again this is their proposed grading plan. This shows
Bluff Creek Drive at this location. To give you an idea, this is where the Inn is. Their
access would be from this field entrance here. This proposal is for 90,000 cubic yards of
fill. And their proposal would be for, I believe it was 5 weeks. 5 weeks of hauling to this
site. As you can see from the grades here, we're high here at Bluff Creek Drive existing.
There's some trees here located adjacent to the road, and then grades drop off as you
head to the south, and this proposal to fill along through that corridor up to the tree line.
The maximum amount of fill for this site is 27 feet. There's some concerns that staff
also had with this site. One is that this isn't a low area. It's a gently sloping area. It's
not a low area. However, so when we looked at this application, it wasn't, we struggled
somewhat with what the reason was to place this fill here. With it not being a low area.
Just instead flattening out the slope up here at the top and then grading down to 3 to 1 up
to the tree line. That was one concern. Second concern is, all these trees along here
would be removed, and then third of all, would be the impact to this old structure here.
The Bluff Creek Drive Inn. It's in some proximity, certainly there are construction
measures that we can take to minimize vibration to that structure but we would certainly,
we need to be cognizant of that structure being there and employ practices that would
minimize any potential damage to that building.
Larson: The trees that are there, are they significant trees or what do we have over there?
Fauske: The trees in through here, I don't know that they, that tree's a significant tree. I
think they just showed the tree removal. They just showed the percent of tree removal.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
It's a lot of small, especially as you get along the right-of-way, it is smaller trees. The
City Forester has looked at this and her comments are also in the report. One of the, one
other environmental concern that came from our Water Resources person is, as
Commissioner Dillon had alluded to earlier, is this drawing here shows the extent of the
fen. To give you an idea of where we're at, this is Bluff Creek Boulevard. I apologize
this is a little difficult to read. This is the proposed site where the fill will take place.
The fen comes up through here. And they have some hydric soils that come up through
here and we also had, we have another hydric soils map that indicates that there might be
some hydric soils up in this proposed fill area. The report indicates what some of the
issues are from an environmental perspective with placing fill so closely to the fen.
There's concern with compaction of the underlying soil, that this could interrupt some of
the ground water flow characteristics in this area. There's currently a feeder if you will
down to the fen area that runs north/south in this direction here so there's some concerns
with ground water and the hydrology of the fen, Assumption Creek and the wetland
complex. Again, similar to the other site, staff also had concerns with the amount of
truck traffic and disruption to traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard as a result of this fill
operation. We've recommended denial of this one. However, we have also provided
again an alternative recommendation on page 5 with some conditions of approval should
the Planning Commission find that there's some resolution to the issues presented here
this evening.
McDonald: Okay, any questions on Site 2? I guess the questions I had, you can't really
answer so I'm hoping that whoever the applicant is, that they can answer some of this.
Fauske: Okay.
McDonald: Why don't we move on to Site 3.
Fauske: Site 3. The John Klingelhutz property which lies right here. 212 is right here.
This proposal includes the placing of up to 35,000 cubic yards offill. Oh pardon me,
30,000 cubic yards offill. Maximum fill of27 feet. This drawing shows, again in red,
the existing and proposed, the existing contours, proposed contours in blue. They're
proposing to fill a low area that is this, along the north side of Bluff Creek Drive, and
along the north side of the access to the property. There's some tree, some tree lines
along the driveway here. This is again a natural low lying area that they're proposing to
place some fill in. Unlike the other two applications, the fill would be brought over land
via the new, the new alignment of Bluff Creek Drive. So there would be no impact to
public roads associated with this hauling. They provided erosion control and restoration
similar to the other two plans. Therefore staff is recommending approval of this grading
interim use permit.
McDonald: Any questions concerning Site 3? Thank you very much. Is the applicant
here?
Mike Billing: Hello, I'm Mike Billing with Zumbro River Constructors. We're located
at 312 Lake Hazeltine Drive in Chaska.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
McDonald: I guess at this point you're waiting for us to ask you questions.
Mike Billing: Any questions you've got.
Keefe: When's the highway going to be open?
Mike Billing: Which section?
Keefe: Dell Road.
Mike Billing: Dell Road? This fall. And if MnDot would reduce the revenue cap, we'd
open up Powers this year.
McDonald: Why this fill on these sites? What's the importance of these particular sites
that we need to look at putting the fill there?
Mike Billing: This site here we were approached by the landowner. He's got a low area.
He's got a horse pasture right in this area. He's got some standing water issues that by
filling that in he won't have the standing water. Horses will be up on high ground instead
of on soft ground. And it will raise the site up for future development so that it would
alleviate the need for a lift station.
McDonald: It would alleviate the need for a lift station?
Mike Billing: For this property because it is so low right there.
Brad Moe: If it were to be developed.
Mike Billing: If it were to be developed down the line. I guess I'd have to go back to
staff. Do you concur with that? That doing that could possibly benefit the city?
Fauske: Based on, without looking at a development plan to know a dirt balance on the
site, yes it is a low area based on the existing grades but as well most developments have
cut in some places, fill in others. To give you a definitive, that absolutely this would
require a lift station, I cannot say that.
McDonald: Okay, that's fair. If you don't put the fill on these sites, where's it going?
Mike Billing: It will either go down Audubon Road to 212 to a disposal site we have
currently down by the river, or down Bluff Creek Drive to 212, down 41 to the same
disposal site.
McDonald: And how involved are you as far as putting the fill on Site 2 and a potential
environmental impact to the fen area?
52
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
Mike Billing: We did talk to Bob Obermeyer from the watershed district. Met with him
on site and he did not see an issue with Site 2.
Keefe: Can you just back up a minute. So you'd take this down Bluff Creek Boulevard
anyway? I mean I know one of the staff concern is the number of trips going down Bluff
Creek and the amount of traffic it would generate. I mean if you weren't doing these
particular sites during this time period, would you have more or less traffic along there?
Mike Billing: It's about the same.
Keefe: It'd be about the same.
Oehme: I'd like to clarify that a little bit Commissioner Keefe. ZRC is not allowed to
run any trucks from their contract for the 212 contract on Bluff Creek Drive. That's a
local road, collector roadway. They are only allowed to go down Audubon or county
roads at this time.
McDonald: So if they want to go down Bluff Creek, they have to do the same thing here.
Apply for a permit to use it?
Oehme: That's correct. That's in their contract.
Mike Billing: I guess we'd have to get a revised haul route. Which we're currently in
the process of doing with the new realignment of B luff Creek.
Dillon: You know the Site number 2, if we support the staff s first thing to deny that, I
mean then are you guys prepared or is the land owner prepared to do the environmental
impact work that's asked for and all these other stipulations? Or are you just going to
take it to the river bed after that?
Mike Billing: That, we're undecided at this time. I mean it's going to depend on how
fast we need the disposal area and timeframe that it's going to take to do all the
paperwork.
McDonald: Any further questions? Okay, thank you very much.
Mike Billing: Sure.
McDonald: At this point I will open this up. This is a pubic meeting and we do accept
comments from the public. Come on up sir and again, state your name and address and
address the council.
Brad Moe: Hi. I'm co-applicant. My name is Brad Moe. I live at 14372 Westridge
Drive, Eden Prairie. I'm also here for my father-in-law, Harold Hesse. He's co-applicant
as well. He lives at 1425 Bluff Creek Drive, Chanhassen. A lot of, council had questions
apparently, and I hope I can answer those. Excuse me, not council, commission. And
53
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
staff. Ijust want to make it clear, I'm not a developer. I'm just a farmer. We're, you
know people are asking about the fill. I guess I'm a little concerned because I didn't
think it was going to be this big of a thing, and we just found out this afternoon that
staff s recommendation, that it not be approved, and I guess that's surprising to me. I
guess I want to explain my position. I can start with Site 1. Site 1 is the homestead and
my father-in-law, he basically developed all of the Hesse Farm. I don't know if anyone's
familiar with it, and the homestead is this portion right here, and our intent there is, we
have the barn and the cow yard. And the cow yard slopes down and since the 1950's my
father-in-law has been bringing fill in, and he's put fill there and behind the barn and
what it's done, it's basically created a drop off to the south. And we can't farm that. You
can't cut the weeks. It's a drop off. So what my intent is with this fill is to raise that cow
yard flat where it should be, and then from the cow yard down to Hesse Farm Road, fill
in the low wet area so then you can farm that and you can use that area. The other thing
is, it's a neighborhood that was developed, as I said, previously by my father-in-law and
his desire was to keep the land rolling and wooded and natural. There has not been
extensive grading on the property. The only thing that we're doing here, and I want to
respect that as well. And Harold's with me on this as well is just fill the low area and
keep it appearing natural as it should be. And kind of fixing what he wrecked in the 50's
with his fill at that time. Site 2 is located further down. That's actually Harold's land as
well. 20 acres below the bike trail. Formerly the railroad. And the intention there is the
same. Is to, staff stated that it's not a low area, and it's really not a low area but what it
has is when they built Bluff Creek Drive, when they improved it, paved it, the road was
built in such a way that it's right on the edge of the hillside there and there's a lot of fill
placed against the side and it drops off. And what happened previously with the railroad,
the water shoots down the hill quite fast and it goes in the gutters and they have catch
basins along there and it's suppose to divert it down the hill. What's happened is over the
years, once they removed the railroad tracks, that water shoots across there. Hits the edge
of, right at the top there and it falls down, so you have all this water coming down Bluff
Creek Drive, and it's basically eroded in the what, 10 years or more since the road's been
there. Eroded all this hillside and all that's washed, we get all the trash off Bluff Creek
Drive and all the water, all the sand, and that's my intent here was to fill that up so that
the water would stay within the roadway and provide us with an area that we can still
farm. As far as trees down there, those trees are dead elm and box elders. I don't know
how you could find significant trees. There are some big box elders but the oaks and the
nice trees are further to the west. As far as the trees on Site 1, there's probably a hand
full of those. And those are all trees that we've planted. My intent is to plant trees in
there once it's done. The road project's affecting additional land of our's up to the north
and I have trees there. My intent is to take those trees. Transfer those onto Site 1. As far
as traffic, my understanding is reading the staff comment is that traffic's a big issue. I
guess I look at it, yes traffic is an issue but it's a temporary issue. I'm trying to fix
something here. Like I said previously, I'm not a developer. I'm not trying to make
money off this. I'm trying to fix problems and do the right thing, and I ask the
commission to do the right thing as well. I don't, you know we had a case in here
beforehand. There's a lot of people. There's a lot of people on the Hesse Farm that
would have worst to say and I think there's a few people here that might want to say
54
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
some words but for the most part I don't think there's any objection to this taking place.
And I can answer any questions you might have.
McDonald: Anybody have any questions? I guess the question I have is, would you be
agreeable to further restrictions as far as the hours? If this were to go into the school
year, to give priority to basically the bus schedule.
Brad Moe: I'd have to leave that to Zumbro. We wouldn't have a problem with that.
Keefe: What's the potential for getting it done before the school year?
Brad Moe: Depends on how fast the council can act.
Keefe: Does this have, this has to go to council doesn't it? And when will it be on?
Generous: It's scheduled for the 28th.
Keefe: Oh, not til the 28th. School's in session then.
McDonald: And the other thing on Site 2, you know one of the recommendations that
they're looking at is because of the Seminary Fen, there's probably going to be some
additional impact that you're going to have to look at there. Especially from the
standpoint of environmental impact. Are you prepared to pay the cost to get that done?
Brad Moe: I personally am not. I'm not, I can't speak for Zumbro, but my concern is,
the fen doesn't, isn't adjacent to our property. I'd asked the City to place the location of
the fen because from what I can look at on this, it's not on our property, if that's what's
in the red there. The orange is, I don't know what the orange is.
Keefe: How far down from your property is the wetland? You've got on the elevation
there.
Brad Moe: Right. I mean everything we farmed is, it's not wetland. I mean we're
farming it and you can see that in black here. And that ends right at this point here so
you'd have, I don't know. You know thousands of feet to that point where you're at
there. It's not a close you know, I'd be willing to meet.
Larson: .. .lot?
Brad Moe: No. It's flat. But you know I'd be willing to meet with staff and walk the
ground and you know, I'm surprised that it came to this point. That was my phone
number and name was on the application. I would have assumed I would have got a call.
I don't want to waste anyone's time.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
McDonald: Okay. Well I appreciate you coming to the meeting tonight. No one else has
any questions, is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Would you come forward
please.
Cindy Peterson: Good evening. My name is Cindy Peterson. I live at 1161 Bluff Creek
Drive and I own Bluff Creek Inn. So Site 2, I'm concerned about the Site w proposal
because it would have an impact on us. Traffic wise it would be difficult for guests
getting in and out. We're at the bottom of the hill. Just right off of212 so I think that
would impact people coming in and out. It would impact the hours of, between 9:00 or
3:00 would not necessarily impact us. We serve breakfast generally at 9:00 in the
morning and check out is at 11 :00, but it is conceivable that people would be disrupted
from what they're doing. Part of the charm of our place is that it's country. There's no
other buildings around. There's not a lot of noise, except for the noise that goes up and
down this street. We have a well. That's how we get our water. I understood that there
was some concern about compacting the ground with trucks and the additional of fill
being put in there affecting the ground, the water table under the ground. I'm concerned
that that might also affect our well. The field right now is level with our property. If
they filled it, then I do have some concern about drainage onto our property then, and it's
not, it will no longer be level so I wouldn't be interested in knowing what, how that
intends to play out. The trees are not necessarily significant trees but for guests in the
Inn that have rooms on the second floor, what they look out in the westerly direction and
that's what they see. They see the field and they see the trees along that road. If those
trees are gone, that would impact the multi aesthetics for our property as well. 90,000
cubic yards of fill is 3 times the amount of fill for the other sites further up the hill.
That's a lot of dirt they're bringing in. I just have some concerns about our business. I
think it would impact our business and our livelihood. Have this construction go on. I
don't understand how the trucks would be turning onto the property to dump the fill right
there because it is just Bluff Creek Drive, so you would have to stop traffic for trucks to
be able to get in and out and that would definitely have an impact on us. Thank you for
your time.
Keefe: One quick question. Is your business open when? Is it seasonal or is it year
round?
Cindy Peterson: It's year round.
Keefe: It is, okay.
Cindy Peterson: And we're in a good location for it to be year round.
McDonald: Thank you.
Cindy Peterson: Thank you.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come up and speak. Okay, seeing no one else
coming forward, we'll close the public meeting on this agenda item and I'll bring it back
up before the commissioners for an open discussion. I'll start with you Kurt.
Papke: I guess I have to side with staffs recommendations on this one. I'm real
concerned with disruption of traffic flow. You've got Bluff Creek Inn. You've got the
homeowners in the Hesse Farm development and those that live along there. You've got
the trailhead for the LRT right there, so you'd be disrupting access to the Hennepin LRT.
When, normally when we see a development, you know we've got pretty good grading.
You know we just went through 3 hours of drainage for the previous development with
real reasoned analysis on hydrological analysis of everything, and here we want to move
90,000 cubic yards with you know a topo map. Boy, you know I got a tough time with
that one, right next to the Seminary Fen. So you know I don't have any problem with the
Klingelhutz one. I mean they're going to go overland. They're right next to 212.
There's no disruption to traffic. The only other thing I'd add is, you know I live right
along Pioneer Trail. I've lived through 2 years of these trucks and don't under estimate.
These are monster trucks, alright. My house is 300 feet away from Pioneer Trail and my
house shakes when they go by in the morning so, you know this is no minor impact so.
McDonald: Okay. Kevin.
Dillon: I'd agree. I think the Site number 2 is definitely got some issues on that. I think
that is kind of closer to comfort to the Seminary Fen so that, and plus we heard from the
one person on there with the, although it's temporary, a potential impact on business for a
while, and certainly the added you know, you're going to be right near the bicycle trail
and stuff. With the Site number 1, you know with the staff s recommendations,
stipulations they have and they seem pretty reasonable. I would support that one and the
Klingelhutz one certainly seems...
Larson: Exactly what they just said.
McDonald: Okay. Dan.
Keefe: So what can we do, we can't do 1 and 3 right? So I guess I'd be in support of 1
and 3 which is different than what staff.
Papke: You are going to impact traffic when you do that.
Keefe: Right, but for a shorter period of time and I think.
Commissioner Larson's comments were not picked up on tape.
McDonald: I guess my concern is, the lack of detail, especially well with the Site 2. You
know I guess Site 1 and Klingelhutz, I can be in favor of that, especially if the
Klingelhutz, when you tell me that we won't have to use the road to get there, that makes
it a little bit more palatable and with the other one, if there's some way to arrange that so
57
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
again there's minimal impact, that would be something that I guess Zumbro needs to talk
to staff about and whatever restrictions staff would come up with. You've got to give
priority to the school year. You can't be stopping buses and those things. And I guess
with Site 3, looks as though that one could be done fairly quickly so that minimizes the
impact off from the rest of the roadway there but, yeah I just don't have enough detail
and I think Mr. Papke's right. We spent 3 hours you know going through all kinds of
stuff about changing land because of water and those things. I don't have enough detail
and confidence on Site 2. Even if you're agreeable to working with staff, I think that's
something that probably should have been done before hand so that we don't have to do
this all on the fly. That's just kind of my opinion on it but, now a question for staff. My
understanding is that we can vote on these a site at a time, is that right?
Generous: That's correct.
McDonald: Okay. And at that point are you willing to accept.
Keefe: We could amend it too.
McDonald: Yeah, well... staff s already proposed an amendment for us for Site 1. So
I'm open to a motion.
Keefe: I'll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval
of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permit to grade and fill Site 3 in conformance
with the grading plans prepared by Zumbro River Constructors for the site subject to
conditions 1 through 10, and I would offer an amendment to this to include Site 1.
Larson: Second that.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 1
(1425 Bluff Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by
Zumbro River Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions:
1. "Truck Hauling" signs posted at each end of Bluff Creek Drive.
2. Flag-persons must be on-site during trucking operations.
3. Bluff Creek Drive must be scraped and swept daily.
4. For safety reasons, access to the site should be via West Farm Road. The owner and
applicant are responsible for obtaining permission for this access.
5. A $4,500 escrow must be posted to guarantee the replacement of Bluff Creek Drive
curb and gutter and pavement that is damaged due to the trucking operations at this
site.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
6. Hours of operations shall be 9:00 a.m. and 3 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays.
7. The site access must be clearly shown on the plan.
8. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way.
9. The proposed swale along the southeast edge of the property shall be constructed to
minimize the potential for erosion around existing trees.
10. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine
whether jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill.
Any wetlands that are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior
to any work commencing on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to
include wetland impact, the applicant shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the
City prior to wetland impacts occurring.
11. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall
be maintained around any ag/urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant
shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a
setback of at least 40 feet from ag/urban wetland buffer edges.
12. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the
wetland alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
13. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3: 1
1 0: 1 to 3: 1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
7 days
14 days
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and 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.
14. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the
specifications of Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck
traffic will enter and exit Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public
streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type
59
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
inlet protection shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate
5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of the proposed project sites and maintained as
needed. The construction plans shall be revised to show the locations of the proposed
silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet protection and to include
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
15. 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 Site Permit), Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with
their conditions of approval. Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive
an amendment to their existing NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk
Highway 212 project from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a
storm water pollution prevention plan for these sites.
16. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and
provide additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock
checks proposed within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to installation.
All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 3
(1560 Bluff Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by
Zumbro River Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions:
1. Overland hauling must utilize the existing creek crossing for the Bluff Creek Drive
realignment.
2. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way.
3. Hours of operations are 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays.
4. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine
whether jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill.
Any wetlands that are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior
to any work commencing on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to
include wetland impact, the applicant shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the
City prior to wetland impacts occurring.
5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall
be maintained around any ag/urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant
60
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a
setback of at least 40 feet from ag/urban wetland buffer edges.
6. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the
wetland alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
7. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3: 1
1 0: 1 to 3: 1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
7 days
14 days
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and 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. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the
specifications of Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck
traffic will enter and exit Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public
streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type
inlet protection shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate
5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of the proposed project sites and maintained as
needed. The construction plans shall be revised to show the locations of the proposed
silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet protection and to include
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
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 Site Permit), Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with
their conditions of approval. Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive
an amendment to their existing NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk
Highway 212 project from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a
storm water pollution prevention plan for these sites.
10. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and
provide additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock
checks proposed within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to installation.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, could I have a point of clarification?
McDonald: You certainly can.
Generous: As part of that motion, did you add those alternate conditions on page 3 of the
staff report? That directly dealt with Site I?
McDonald: I thought that that was your intent.
Keefe: Yes, it was my intent. I thought were those included in the?
Generous: They're not.
Keefe: They would be to include those.
Generous: So add those conditions.
Keefe: Yes.
Generous: Thank you.
McDonald: We need to look at Site 2. So I would need a motion for Site 2.
Keefe: I though it was either or. A or B.
McDonald: Okay. It's getting late. This is one of those things where we're having
problems. I need some help from staff as far as.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, if you'd just take Motion A and drop Site 1 from that, then you
would be denying Site 2.
Keefe: We can do it that way.
McDonald: Is that alright? Okay. Do we need to revote on that then?
Generous: You would have to make a motion, yes because you did the approval of the
interim use permits so now you're actually moving to deny an interim use permit.
Keefe: Okay, I'll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
denial of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permit to grade and fill properties
identified as Site 2 in the staff report.
McDonald: Second?
62
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1, 2006
Larson: Second.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends denial of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permit to grade and fill
properties identified as Site 2 located southwest of Bluff Creek Drive, south of the
Hennepin County Regional Trail Corridor and north of the Bluff Creek Inn. All
voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
McDonald: Okay, motion carries 4 to 1. Now the other site, was that covered?
Generous: That was part of the first one.
Keefe: Yeah, that was part of the first one.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and
summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 18, 2006 as
presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
63