PC Minutes 10-3-06Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Minnesota, LLC dated September 11, 2006 based on the findings in the staff report and the
following conditions:
1. The applicant already has a reasonable use of the property through Interim Use Permit
#98-2 which permitted the operation of a golf driving range in the Agricultural Estate
(A2) District.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
All voted in favor, except Larson, McDonald and Keefe who opposed. The motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 3.
McDonald: The motion passes. The applicant's application is denied. At this point your choices
are, you can talk with staff about appealing this up to the City Council at which point it will be
re-addressed at that point and a final decision will be made.
rd
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, it does automatically go to City Council on October 23.
McDonald: I just wanted to make sure he talked to you because I know before we had a problem
with people not coming up and it didn't get on as far as dates so I want to make sure, if you do
want this to go forward, you must tell them.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN ACCESS TO THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY
LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, WEST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND
TH
NORTH OF WEST 96 STREET, APPLICANT TIM ERHART, PLANNING CASE 06-
32.
Public Present:
Name Address
th
Kevin Bogenreif 631 96 Street West
th
Jim Byrne 700 West 96 Street
th
Andrew Riegert 620 West 96 Street
th
Roger Lee 600 West 96 Street
th
Karen Hasse 630 West 96 Street
th
Gary Bendzick 731 West 96 Street
Tim Erhart 9611 Meadowlark Lane
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Dan, you want to start?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Keefe: No, I don’t have a lot of questions. Just a quick one here which is, you're always
referring to…referred to it as the applicant being a landowner. What role does the City play in
this? I mean other than, is he installing the lift station?
Haak: No. It would be a city project and Alyson, would you like to talk about that a little bit
more?
Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, Planning Commissioners. This site has been identified as a, this
vicinity I should say has been identified for a future lift station through our comprehensive sewer
plan, which was adopted back in 1998. So we've always known that within this vicinity we'd
need a lift station. With the Powers extension and looking at development through the area,
we're better able to pin down where an appropriate site would be for the lift station. It's
development driven. It won't be constructed until we know we have development in the area, at
which point we've identified this is an appropriate area for construction.
Keefe: So what we're doing now is we're, we alter the wetland now in anticipation that this is
where the lift station would go or how does that…?
Haak: The wetland alteration is actually being driven by the property owner himself. It really
has nothing to do with the lift station at this time, except that we know that this is an appropriate
location for it. The applicant wants to put in the road and he can tell you that himself I guess.
But the material is available now. The application needs to come from the land owner. He has
an interest in what the property looks like you know in 2 years. The City may not be there for a
number of years down the road.
Fauske: And also just to speak to the location of it. I mean when you look at it, it's aligned with
an access on the east side. So we look at aligning accesses but it's not driven by the lift station,
and the lift station does not generate a large amount of traffic. It's service vehicles a few times a
week, which can be accomplished via curb cut. Certainly if there's an opportunity to access off
of a public street, we'll certainly do that. Like Lori said, this is the wetland impact is being
pushed from the future developable property there. Not the lift station.
Aanenson: Can I just clarify one thing? There is a portion of upland, I think that's what Lori
touched on a little bit. On the area that is buildable and that's this area here. Right here. This is
the parcel that the applicant is trying to get access to. This part right here. If you can see that.
There's no trees on this part right here.
Keefe: So why now?
Aanenson: Because the dirt's available. With the 212, so the timing is…
Keefe: Okay. Okay, so the timing…
Aanenson: …so this property is not in the MUSA area currently, and that was the concern we
had about putting the road through. There's no plan to put the road through at this time. It's just
providing access to get access to this parcel. It's not intended to extend across any application
26
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
for anything on any of this property would have to come back before you. For public hearing.
At this time is to provide access to this property only. It's about 3 1/2 acres on that side. The
tree line is through here.
Haak: And the applicant can talk a little bit about this a little bit more too but he is actively
managing the property so access just to the property itself is important to him. In my
conversations with him. So it's not you know, in addition to the materials being there, you know
he's a property owner. He goes out and he knows this property better than anybody I'm pretty
sure so, you know he is actively managing it. Again, it is an outlot currently so it would need to
be replatted in order for anything else to go on with that.
Larson: I've got one quick question. If the spike rush plant is of the endangered species, then
what?
Haak: Well it's not, again it's not an endangered species, and then I would have to get a little bit
more direction as to you know, what exactly does it mean to have a plant in this area.
Larson: Put it somewhere else?
Haak: No, I'm not exactly sure and we'd need to figure that out. I just wanted to make sure that
we were covered so that we wouldn't, weren't inadvertently doing something.
Larson: Pulling weeds…
Haak: Yeah, or flooding them, yeah.
Larson: Because we don't have enough weeds already.
McDonald: Kathleen?
Thomas: No, I'm good. Thank you.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: Bluff Creek primary, secondary, etc. Where, does that have any impact here at all?
Haak: Not at all. That's across Powers Boulevard from this location.
Papke: Okay.
Aanenson: I'm just going to point out one more planning thing. There is a road that's been cut
off that Mr. Erhart was using, a driveway. Yeah, so that's been cut off. That's another reason to
get access to the tree farm in the back in there too besides just this parcel. So that was also
separate…
27
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Papke: Tree impact. There's a couple oaks called out on the drawing here. Are there any
substantial trees that will be cut down as a result of this?
Haak: No. I believe they've got 5 of them that are shown here to be protected, and those were
the only significant ones that I noted in this general vicinity when we were out on site.
Papke: Okay.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: No. Just one question is, when you deal with wetlands, is it just totally up to the
municipality like in this case Chanhassen to make the call on, do you have to get other you know
counties or governments or states involved?
Haak: Yes. Actually the city has a wetland ordinance that regulates wetland impacts. It's
actually a little more stringent than the Wetland Conservation Act, which is the State law, and as
a part of the State process we do send this out. It went to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District, the Carver Soil and Water District. Goes to the Army Corps of Engineers. It
goes to several other reviewing agencies, including DNR and Pollution Control Agency as well,
so they've all had opportunities each to review that, and that is, it's a little bit, they're reviewing it
against a little bit different standards than the city is. But we didn't receive any additional
comments from other folks. Other jurisdictions so, but the city is the local government unit so
we do make the final decision about these matters.
Dillon: So if there was something really unsound about the idea, would they usually say
something?
Haak: Yes. Yes.
Keefe: Jerry, one more. The wetland alteration, Section 20-407. Wetland alteration on page 2
says, subsection (5) says replace unavoidable impacts to the wetland by restoring. What is an
unavoidable impact to this particular wetland?
Haak: Sure, and that is what we were talking a little bit with separation. Typically roads are the
easiest to make cases for unavoidable impact. Again, safety is a real big concern and spacing of
the roads here. In addition, this is a wetland adjacent to Bluff Creek and with the steep slopes
here, unavoidable just means there's no other place that you can really put it. Due to steep slopes
and wetlands alone, the only place you could really put it would be closer to the 212 ramp and
that would have considerable safety concerns. And there was a lot of discussion that went on
with this during the design phase of this project. Of, I'm sorry, not of this project. Of the 212
project.
Keefe: Yeah, the thing, it says unavoidable impact to put in a road to service the lift station,
right? Or the unavoidable impact to serve his purpose to put a road in because he wants to get
access to the western portion of his property?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Haak: That's right, correct.
Aanenson: Correct. Correct. But we just want to be clear that doesn't guarantee that there's
going to be an extension of that road. It's an access to his property today.
Keefe: And that's a reasonable purpose for, to rule unavoidable?
Haak: Yes.
Keefe: To meet the unavoidable threshold.
Haak: Yeah.
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: I have no questions of staff. At this point I guess I would ask the applicant to come
forward and make a presentation before us. If you could state your name and address.
Tim Erhart: Yeah, Tim Erhart, 9611 Meadowlark Lane, Chanhassen. So yeah, I farm the
property, as Lori stated. My wife and I have owned it since 1980. We probably do know every
tree, many of which I planted. Actually I think, I think Lori's done a very thorough job of the
thing. The only condition that I had a question about and that is number 10 and that relates to, or
even what it means. One thing I guess I'd like to clear up a little bit is that, you several terms
appear in the report. Roads and street. I consider the application is for a field road, just to be
clear. There is no gravel. There is no asphalt. There's no curb. This is just filled and planted
with grass, so there's, so it's, I'm not sure street is probably the best description of what we're
doing here. The builder of the highway has the material to fill the pond today and there's a
substantial amount of fill involved so the idea was let's get it done now. At first I thought I could
get in there now because I have a tree growing range in there and I'd like to be able to get those
trees out and I enjoy going in and kind of maintaining trees and stuff, anyway. So when it gets
down to number 10 here, could you explain maybe a little bit what exactly does that mean?
Does that mean that I can't make roads or are we trying to say that this is a street today and the
street can never go further east? I'm not clear what that is.
Aanenson: Well I think at this point we're not, if it's a field road, I think we can all agree that's a
field road. Any decision for a public street would have to come in with an application at a future
date with the public hearing. Right now with the wetlands, we just wanted to be clear that this
doesn't give, I think we had the discussion about incrementalism earlier today.
McDonald: Right, it doesn't set a precedent that just because we've approved this, we've also
approved any future road extension.
Aanenson: So I think if we agree, I think using the field road, maybe a driveway access and field
road would kind of take that away. We can work on some different.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
Tim Erhart: Yeah, because you know we've talked obviously about long range, whether, when
we come in and put a real street there someday in association with a development of our part of
the parcel, whether there's a street access there or not.
Aanenson: Correct. That's a future decision. I guess that's…
Tim Erhart: Yes. In my mind that's a future decision than this application…
Aanenson: But we just want to put on the record that putting this driveway, this road access here
doesn't give standing that there's going to be a street extended in the future. That's still a future
decision.
Tim Erhart: …preclude that it can't either because that's…
Aanenson: Well just to be clear, it's our recommendation that it wouldn’t go through but I
understand your position that it would go through but it would be a future decision with an
application, correct.
Tim Erhart: …future decision. Any questions?
McDonald: Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
Larson: Yeah, what are you going to do about that weed?
Tim Erhart: You saw this report before I did because I just got back from a 10 day business
trip…that this weed is there. We'll have to deal with that. Anything else?
McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? Okay, no further questions from the
commissioners. At this point I would open it up to the public. Anyone wishing to make
comment, I would ask you to come up to the podium. State your name and address and address
the commissioners. Okay, seeing no one come forward, close the public meeting and bring it
back before the commissioners for discussion and deliberation. Start with Kevin.
Dillon: You know seeing that the experts and the environmentalist issues surrounding this are
okay with it, I mean it seems like the request is otherwise reasonable to me and if there's no
negative ecological problems or anything like that, then I don't have any problems supporting
this.
McDonald: Okay.
Papke: I think this is a reasonable request. I have neighbors that have purchased trees from Mr.
Erhart back on that property so I think access to that to continue to use that as a tree farm I think
is very reasonable. And I think staff has done a good job in spelling things out here such that
we're not setting precedence. We're not setting expectations for the future so I think this is very
carefully done.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
McDonald: Okay. Kathleen.
Thomas: I agree.
McDonald: Mark?
Undestad: Yep, no problems.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Sounds good.
McDonald: Commissioner Keefe? Okay. Okay I'll accept a motion from the commissioners.
Keefe: Sure, I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #06-32 for the construction of an access road and storm water pond subject to
conditions 1 through 17 and amending number 10 to say east-west road will be a field road that
will extend from Powers Boulevard shall only serve the future development area identified on
the plan and the future lift station.
McDonald: Okay, do you want to say that again?
Keefe: The east-west road will be a field road, and the rest the same.
McDonald: Okay. Do I have a second?
Thomas: Second.
Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #06-32 for the construction of an access road and stormwater
pond subject to the following conditions:
1.Because the species of spike rush was not identified during the delineation, the dominant spike
rush within Wetland B shall be keyed out to ensure that the increased period of inundation will
not adversely affect a state-threatened plant species or a significant natural community.
2.The plans shall be revised to show how M-1 will be accessed. The access route shall be stable,
shall avoid damage to significant trees (greater than 10” DBH) and shall avoid impacts to
natural drainageways and any jurisdictional wetlands that may exist on site that were not
delineated by Westwood Professional Services in August 2006.
3.A planting plan for M-1, including invasive vegetation management techniques, species to be
planted, proposed planting rates, and the approach to upland buffer restoration, shall be
submitted prior to final City Council approval.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
4.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation
(including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland
are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of
final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including
grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of
credit.
5.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement
monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species,
particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show
fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof
of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
6.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all 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.
7.A berm is proposed within the existing right-of-way (ROW) for Powers Boulevard. The
applicant shall receive approval from Carver County for the proposed normal water level
(NWL) in Pond 1 and for the proposed berm.
8.At this time, no development is approved for the “Future Development Area.” Any future
development and/or requested changes to the land use for this property shall undergo the City’s
development and land use review process(es).
9.Stormwater calculations were not submitted for Pond 1. When the future development area is
developed, the pond shall meet all stormwater requirements in place at that time.
will be a field road
10.The east-west road that will extend from Powers Boulevard shall only serve
the future development area identified on the plan and the future lift station. This road shall not
extend further east.
11.Future utility installation shall be a lighter line weight than the proposed storm sewer installation
that will be done in conjunction with the wetland alteration.
12.The silt fence along Powers Boulevard shall be installed east of the trail at the construction
limits. The rock construction entrance shall be at least 75 feet in length. The plans shall be
revised to show the City’s standard details 3107, 3108, 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
13.The temporary riser structure shall remain in place until the pond and adjacent areas are
stable.
14.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,
32
Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, 2006
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
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.
15.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
16.A building permit shall be obtained for all retaining walls greater than four (4) feet in height.
17.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Carver County) and comply with their
conditions of approval.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 5, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
33