Loading...
PC Minutes 11-21-06 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 7. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 10. All rooftop equipment must be screened." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSE HIGH SCHOOL. REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE SITE IN PREP ARA TION OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD. SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD. AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK. ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT AND REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKSHEET. APPLICANT. ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES. INC./ INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112. PLANNING CASE 06-35. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Are there any questions concerning this environmental worksheet? Keefe: Yeah, I'm not clear on the difference between the EA Wand EIS. EIS is a little bit more involved? Generous: It's a lot more, yeah. They look at the more specific details. They'll go into, well what will happen is this would act as what's called a scoping document. It will point out an issue that needs to be studied further. Let's say that there were some you know ground water contamination or something that would result of it. You would have to look at that further as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Keefe: So negative declaration of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Generous: It says you don't, basically we don't need an EIS. Keefe: Okay, but do we know that at this point? Generous: That's, based on our review the three issues that have come out are those traffic, storm water management and the wetland impacts, and those were issues that the city customarily addresses and we do a pretty good job on those. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 Keefe: Okay. So I mean, is the scenario, you know we do the EA Wand a bigger issue comes up. Does it, you know because we've done a negative declaration, I mean is there potential that, while doing the EA W, an environmental issue might come up. You follow where I'm headed? Generous: Right. There is always that potential. That's why as a part of the draft we try to look at all the potential issues and why we send it out to other agencies, because maybe they know something that we don't. Keefe: Oh, right. So that would come, and they were looking at, okay. Generous: And what will happen is if they do come forward with an issue, before it goes to City Council, we would need to address that. Their comments. So maybe they say, I don't know for instance that we need to put a search light on the site. Then we can look at, well this isn't really an appropriate location or whatever but. Keefe: Alright. I've got a couple more. How many trips are we talking about? I mean how many, I mean this is a significant grading operation, looks like. You know what I mean? You're talking, I mean looking at this it's probably a couple of signals that you're going to be adding? Generous: Oh yeah, traffic. Keefe: During construction? Or during the grading operation? Generous: Not that, that's just for the build out of the high school. Keefe: So this is in the next, okay. So this is really for building the building. The high school, right. Fauske: Correct. Keefe: As traffic expectation, not for the grading operation that we're talking about. Fauske: Correct. The traffic projections that you've received there are assuming full attendance at the school and then they also did a background on the anticipated growth within the area as far as development is concerned and they identified areas that ultimately based on those numbers would need signals. And I believe that Mr. Stack did go into detail as far as what signals he anticipated or he projected would be need to be installed soon after the school opens and which ones may be required with future growth. Keefe: So at this point, because we're considering the Interim Use Permit for grading, to what extent do we need to focus on traffic impacts associated with the build out of this school at this point? ... we're doing this two stage you know. Generous: Right. As part of the grading plan we don't, it's not an issue. We don't have to look at that. As part of the ultimate build out of the project we have to address, be cognizant of that and be able to address that. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 Keefe: Right. Generous: And like I, the traffic study says, these are the improvements that you need to put in place to make the roadway operate. Keefe: Right, but we're not really looking at the actual, I mean there wasn't really anything in here around traffic impacts and real you know, you know the signal interchanges. McDonald: If! could just interrupt, okay. What you presented us with is a two fold problem. This question about the EA W does impact the long term as far as building the school. But they're here tonight though to talk about is just construction upon the site which at that point, as I understand it from reading through this, does not impact traffic because you're going to store everything on site. So everything would be contained to the site until they're ready to come back to us with a plan for a school, at which time then the traffic and everything comes into it. Keefe: So we'll consider traffic at the next one. Generous: Right but it's pointed out as part of this document because. McDonald: They presented that to us and we need to make a decision on a recommendation that this either goes forward with the EA W or we recommend an EIS. So from that standpoint. Keefe: And interim use on the grading. McDonald: Right, and the interim use on the grading. The two are separate. Keefe: Alright. So we'll have a chance to look at the traffic at the next. Generous: You'll get the site plan review, yes. Keefe: Yes, right. Okay, alright. Generous: And we'll have, if you, we have the, we didn't put the traffic study in there because it was quite large but we can provide this document. We tried to take the tail end of it. You know the recommendation. What the results were. Keefe: I've just got a couple more questions. Why do they grade now? Why do they want to grade now versus you know in? Generous: Timing. Keefe: Yeah. And what's, what's the timing issue? Before it freezes up? Generous: I don't know if the applicant would be better. To start, because it's a lot of dirt to move. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 Keefe: Okay, and just from the time it takes to move... Generous: Yeah, then they're going to do it next. Keefe: Where is the anticipated date of vertical? Anticipated date. I guess you've got to do horizontal first. Generous: So they have to make the site developable first and then they're going to build on it. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Alright. McDonald: Kathleen. Thomas: I'm alright. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: No. Undestad: No. McDonald: No? Yeah, I have no comments or questions either at this point. Would the applicant please come forward and if there's anything you would like to add to this. Generous: Alyson, were you going to go with...? McDonald: I'm sorry, I forgot about the, you were going to cover the actual, yeah we kind of got lost. Fauske: Good evening Chair McDonald and Planning Commissioners. I apologize that our overhead isn't working. I'll do my best to just do a quick explanation. On a little bit of a color rendering showing what the applicant is proposing to do under this grading interim use permit. The applicant has come forward at this time for this interim use permit for the sake of preparing the building pad essentially. So what this shows, that's their building pad. They have a staging area to the west. This is Lyman Boulevard here and the railroad up here, and I apologize to members of the audience that we're not able to have this on the video. Basically the site constraint lies with this high pressure gas main which is shown in yellow. This is actually the easement. But in conversations with, between the applicant and the pipeline company, looking at the size of the gas main, the pressure to do any kind of grading or any relocation of that pipeline, significant impacts both financially and just with the high pressure gas main... concerns so basically this whole yellow area is basically a no grade zone. I believe their final grading plan, their intent is to show no grading within that corridor, so that really drove the design of their site. So just to look at what they're looking at in the interim, the areas in blue show their temporary sediment basin, and this green area here shows that stockpile. When we first looked at this application and saw the height of the stockpile, we were concerned. There's quite a bit of 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 fill going in there, up to I believe 45 feet at the maximum. Driving along Lyman Boulevard, try to put it in a little bit of perspective. Up around the area of the pipeline you have an elevation of about 950. You do go down a bit in elevation but the top of this berm will be at about a 998. So you'll be looking at about a 48 foot height from the road surface that's usually, as far as people usually can get a better feel for what we're looking at here. But looking at the site for alternative stockpile locations, we're really quite stuck. They sited the locations, the building pad on actually fitting this... as best they can and with this pipeline easement, to move it any other, to split the stockpile up if you will, and provide temporary sedimentation basins, it's a very, very tight site. So looking at this, taking a step back and taking a look at what can be accomplished on this site, for this interim use permit, we just look to the applicant and ultimately their contractor to be very, very diligent with their erosion control and best management practices because it's so close to the Bluff Creek so. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions associated with their grading permit application. Keefe: So how do they prevent it from, all that dirt from sliding off? Fauske: Well they do have, very good question. They do have basically on the stockpile, they direct the runoff to the temporary sedimentation basins. We've been working with our Water Resources folks on staff here to see if there's any materials. We're not using conventional silt fence. Those just won't be efficient in these situations. Stabilization is the key to the stockpile and so we'll work with them as far as staging the placement and stockpiling and getting areas stabilized as quickly as possible. Keefe: If they're doing it in winter, I don't know what the timing is. I mean what are you looking to put on top of it to keep it from blowing and... Fauske: Well the applicant will have, they have their erosion and sediment control plan that they can expand on a little bit. There are certainly in Minnesota it's becoming very important to have something like that for winter construction. One of the things that our staff has looked at is, there's a spray compost that you can actually put on in colder temperatures. I don't know that they've really established what the lowest temperature is for that type of application but again that's certainly, the applicant can talk a little bit more about the staging. How much fill they anticipate to put in that stockpile within the winter months and talk to you a little bit more about how, as they progress, how they will do the erosion control. Thomas: I actually do have a quick question for you. How long, I imagine it's going to be... but how long will it stockpile? I mean is it going to be there until the school is obviously graded or I mean how long does it sit? Fauske: I would actually like to refer that question to the applicant so they can talk about their timing. Larson: I have a question regarding the gas line. How far below the ground is that? Fauske: I believe it's 8 to 10. 3? 3 to 4. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 Larson: So will it be clearly marked? I was reading this and I'm going, how do they know where it is and how do they know not to put part of the stockpile over it, you know what I mean, where it would accidentally get hit. I'm thinking safety issues here but. Fauske: Right. Typically what happens in a situation like this is, the representative from the gas line company is usually out there whenever you're doing any kind of work over their pipeline. So any kind of cutting, filling, they're usually out there and the applicant or their engineer might be able to expand on this a little more. In the City's experience we've seen them out there when they're crossing the pipeline with heavier equipment. Larson: Well they're going to be crossing it a lot aren't they? Fauske: Correct. Larson: Yeah. So would they build some sort of support over it or? Fauske: The pipeline will work with the applicant as far as ensuring that they have enough material over the top to make sure that they're not putting too much pressure on that soil and that they won't compromise the integrity of the pipeline. Larson: Okay. McDonald: Well you've hit just about all the ones that I've got. The only question I really have is that, you talk about the erosion control. Material containment. We had a small problem over on Bluff Creek with the last development that went in. There was, I don't know if it was a storm or water or what, but are we convinced that we've got enough control here so that we don't have a lot of this washing down into Bluff Creek? What are we going to do to oversee all of that? Fauske: That's a very good question. Between the City, the Watershed District, the MPCA permit that they will be required to have, we're finding more and more contractors are really listening to what erosion control specialists are saying as far as getting your site stabilized. There are very stiff fines associated with any kind of non-compliant issues, particularly in Bluff Creek. Again it's communication for the most part. McDonald: Okay, are there bonds associated with this? I mean I know that we ask for bonds for a lot of other different types of things when you do construction. Because of this, you know and erosion control, do we require a bond up front for that? Fauske: I think we're in a unique situation with working with the School District. Certainly in the past we've always required a letter of credit or form of surety to ensure that. If something goes wrong, but all the measures, mitigation measures will be put in place. We can certainly, and unfortunately I don't know off the top of my head, with the ISD being basically a not for profit, what we can require for security. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 McDonald: Okay, the only reason I ask that is that if something goes wrong, we have to clean it up. Bottom line. Ifwe can't get someone else to do it, we are responsible. So Ijust would like to see something that assures that the City is protected. Undestad: You also do inspections on that from the City side too. Fauske: Absolutely. Undestad: You're on top of it out there. Fauske: Yes. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. I guess if the applicant wants to come forward and, you've heard some of our questions at this point. If you want to make sure that you address those. Jay Pomeroy: Chairman McDonald, Planning Commission members. I appreciate being here tonight. I may jump around a little bit because I was writing down my notes as you asked your questions so I apologize if I go from EA W to interim use. The school as you know is going to be built on the bluff if you will overlooking Bluff Creek and with that in mind they're going to try to keep with that character of a fairly natural landscape and trying to tuck what will be a walkout building into that slope as it looks towards the east. That's the lower part of the building and it will be a walkout to that direction. We are, as a matter of fact, working with MnDot as Bob mentioned, that MnDot is doing a Bluff Creek realignment project next summer. They may take some of their material and place it on the school site. We're kind of working with them and there is a conservation easement that's going to be worked through and negotiated over the next months to allow that conservation easement to fall on the east, or I'm sorry, on the west side of Bluff Creek. On the east side of the school so that as well may be utilized as a joint pathway, trail that serves not only the school but also the community. So with that again the natural landscape is going to be fairly important to tie north to south and along Lyman Boulevard. The question about why now. The school would like to open in the fall of2009, and so with that we're trying to make a jump, or get a jump on the earth work and as we've talked about tonight, the interim use permit is really to grade the building pad. And to a little bit contradict what Alyson had said, the stockpile was going to be at about 970, or something 92. I can't remember my prefix but a 892? What was it? 98. The top of the pipeline is up at a 972. The road is at a 950 so actually the stockpile will only stick up another 20 feet higher than the pipeline. The building will be at a 950. The building will be fairly close to the line in elevation so that it presents itself well. You don't want to go up or down too much to get to the main door. So with that we'll tie in of course with the gas main that's going to be protected and again tuck that school in. The why now again though is to try and take that 975 elevation, that's the bluff if you will. The high point of the site basically to excavate that soil down about 20 feet to get to our finished floor of the building. That 20 feet of material is being deposited on the north side of the gas main, which will eventually become the baseball field. The softball field. The track complex. And that grading will be accomplished next summer. Those bids will be let, pending your next review in March, we're gearing towards a March 6th Planning Commission meeting next time. For the site plan review, and ultimately to bid that work in the spring so that that stockpile is 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 really there for about 6 months and then by the end of fall, we'll hopefully have a site that's basically rough graded throughout. Keefe: Where are you going to take the stockpile to? I mean if that's going to be ballfields, are you going to leave it on the site or just remove it from the site? Jay Pomeroy: No. What we have to do, we have to get through the EAW and again try to establish the building pad. We honestly didn't have time to get through the wetland permitting process and although we're going through the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek process with Bob Obermeyer, in this interim use permit we just don't honestly didn't have the time to get through all of the wetland mitigation and placement efforts. That will happen in this next step. So once that occurs, we'll be able to, not that I want to but to fill wetlands and to basically use the entire site rather than really just the portion that we are. Although it looks like we're affecting a majority of the site, we're moving about 250,000 cubic yards. It seems like a lot but ultimately we're going to move probably about 700,000. Which is fairly consistent with a site like this and a high school setting. The gas main you mentioned. We've been in fairly constant contact with Howard White. He's the local representative from, for the Magellan Pipeline, as well the contact in Omaha I believe it is that kind of signs off on everything. We will only be able to cross the pipeline in one location. Fairly, well very obviously fenced, and designated during this construction period, and the next construction period. As a matter of fact the final build out will really only be able to cross that with pathways or trails or perhaps paving in very limited sections, so we're trying really on the design part of it to really diminish that easement through the use of landscaping and walls and different methods so that it doesn't look like a corridor. It looks like you know, it opens. It closes. It dives. It dips. So again the crossing of that though would be accomplished with basically a soil bridge so as Alyson mentioned, you don't have these point loads pressing down on this 12 inch steel gas main in order to protect it. And again Magellan has to sign off on all that. As part of this process and our final say build out. As I mentioned we're going to meet with Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. I think that meeting has been set for the 6th of December. The bonding, just to go into that a little bit. We are a tax based entity obviously, or at least the school district is. Anderson-Johnson's not. The contractor will be required to provide a 100% performance on labor and materials bond to the school district, so that's one certainly insurance if you will, to make sure that the project gets done but also that they've got some weight on their shoulders to make sure that they don't allow anything to get out of hand. As well the MPCA and our NPDES permit that we have to go through, the school district and the contractor are co-signers of those, of that and so again the inspections that not only the city does, the contractor has to do and the state will do, the MPCA permit is pretty obviously binding. So that will certainly provide some responsibility of the contractor. And I think that's it for now. Maybe to answer your questions, I hope if you have any more. Certainly I have Mike Spack here with traffic engineer to answer questions. Keefe: The mound. The big hill that you're creating, how do you prevent. Jay Pomeroy: The erosion? Keefe: Yeah. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 Jay Pomeroy: Maybe, even to back up. The sequencing for the process, or for the project we'll strip top soil and... with the silt fence again that provides the separation and the limits of construction so that we don't go into the wetlands. And even to satisfy the buffer away from the wetlands. So now we have an established top soil berm. Now in the winter time it's not going to become established with vegetation but the blanket will be fairly permanent. It will be anchored. That will also serve as again the drainage limits where eventually water will start to pond in there. That will start to establish our temporary ponding. Once the top soil berms are in, then we'll start to strip the rest of the top soil and deposit that on the north side of the gas main. As that is being built, again that's being built from the lowest, low end up. That will also have to be stabilized as they build it up to make sure that again, we probably, although Minnesota's getting warmer and warmer every year, we probably won't get too many rainfalls in January or in December but what we're looking for is the spring. You know when spring comes around, to make sure that everything is established, or at least covered with a fairly permanent ground cover, blanket, just anchored straw mulch. Compost. Spray. Whatever it may be that is best going to work. And then as again, they build up that stockpile to establish the building pad. Again that comes up and it's benched so that it comes down benched. It comes down. It's benched. And it's established as they go up. McDonald: Questions? Undestad: Just one. Grading. You know you said you're moving about 700,000 cubic yards. When you're all done, is that site balancing out where it all. Jay Pomeroy: Yeah. Undestad: Really? Jay Pomeroy: You know we, our, this is what we do is schools and you know, you try and get it right on the nuts with the quantities but you know when you're working with earth work, it might be 650. It might be 750. But the intent is certainly to keep it there and they may have to elevate the baseball field 2 feet to get rid of some soil or to lower it 2 feet to take it, but that's the intent. McDonald: Okay, I have one question but I think it's really for staff. And it's probably Alyson. On page 4, down at the bottom we talk about sanitary sewers and it's the second paragraph from the bottom. The last line you say no more than 1 foot of rings is allowed. Condition 25 says no more than 8 inches. Which is it? Fauske: Thank you for that Chairman McDonald. 8 inches is the correct value. And actually speaking with AGA today regarding that fill over the sanitary sewer, they've actually indicated that for this interim use permit application, that they have altered their grading plan to, so that there will not be any fill over that sanitary sewer in the interim use, which we are extremely pleased about. McDonald: Okay, so condition 25 can stay the way it is at this point. Fauske: Yeah, but thank you for bringing that. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 McDonald: ... the correct level. Okay. At this point then I would open this up to public comment. Anyone wishing to speak, please come up to the podium. State your name and address and address your comments to the commissioners. Andy Kayati: Good evening commissioner. My name is Andy Kayati and I live at 8715 Valley View Place in Chanhassen. Essentially I'm just east of this location. Looking west off my front door I see what is currently the bluff. I guess I have some concerns. One of my first concerns with respect to this is, I came to this meeting tonight and I find that the 7,000 square foot preparation is far greater than what's prepared for a $100 million dollar project so that concerns me a little bit. I look at that bluff every day when I leave my house and in the conversation that you're having, the alteration that you're making to that bluff is going to eradicate about 25 feet off the top of that bluff. Is that correct? Jay Pomeroy: That's right. Andy Kayati: And in doing so, plus you're going to fill in some wetland areas and things like that where I walk along the path on a regular basis. I have concerns with that because I don't see the specifics to that and that concerns me. I don't know what specific wetlands are going to be affected there in that area. When I moved to Chanhassen 13 years ago I understood there were regulations on bluffs in the city of Chanhassen. It concerns me that those regulations, my understanding was that this bluff fell into that regulation, is being mitigated for the school purposes. I do have some concerns with regards to the athletic fields. Lights. What's going to be involved there. What affect that's going to have on our neighborhood, which is relatively quiet at this particular point in time. Traffic concerns me. Traffic's not getting any better out this way. Concerns about how to curb access to the Bluff Creek Estates neighborhood where we live. You're essentially putting 2,000 students plus staff into that building every day. And that concerns me. That terrain currently acts as a natural wind break for our neighborhood. Winds come out of the west. The wind comes down from an elevation of950 feet above sea level. Comes up that hill and essentially protects our entire neighborhood. You're taking 25 feet off the top of that. You're putting this edifice on there, with sharp corners and creating wind zones. What affect is that going to have on my property as far as potential wind damage to my siding, to my roofing, and things like that? These are concerns that I have as it relates to this, this project. And finally is the aesthetics. As I said, I look out there currently and I see this rolling corn fields, deer, soy beans... Now I'm going to see a school. That's going to take 25 feet off the top of that bluff. So you know, these are concerns that I have. The gas line concerns me. I've lived there over 13 years. The gas line is less than 200 feet from my house. I knew it was there. Everybody acts like it's a surprise that it's there. I think that the City, it shouldn't be that big of a surprise. We pass it every day. So as I say, these are concerns that I have. These are concerns that I think that the commission should address. Like I say, we're spending a lot of money in this city. It sounds like it's gone and I would like to see the most effective use of this property and the most aesthetically pleasing use of the property and the least intrusive use of the property. And as far as I'm concerned, what I see in use is extremely intrusive right now... 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 McDonald: I believe the answer to your questions will come as we get the details of the plan. A lot of what you've asked about is really beyond the scope of what we're going to be looking at today. Andy Kayati: But, excuse me. McDonald: Well again, I'm just trying to point out to you that you will have an opportunity to address all of these issues because we have not been given a detailed plan. We do not know what the school looks like. All we're being asked tonight is to just allow them to go in there and level off a spot to put a school. As they have stated, they will come back before this commission with a detailed plan and at that point we will be addressing all of these issues of traffic. The aesthetics. You know impacts to neighborhoods, so a lot of your issues, while we can't address them tonight because we do not have the information to do so, they will be brought back before this commission. You will have an opportunity again to look at these plans and address that in an open meeting, so. Andy Kayati: Excuse me, that's understood. However, they are asking for the ability to re-grade the land without having specifics of the plan. McDonald: I understand that but it is allowed under our zoning ordinances and that's the only thing that we can look at tonight. Andy Kayati: And I'm allowed to question it so thank you. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward? Al Gomez: I'm Al Gomez. I'm one of Andy's neighbors actually. 8748 Valley View Place. And really mine's more of a question. As we've looked at various projects on that same property and the bluff ordinance had come up previously that prevented the leveling of that property. To Andy's point, it seems like we're that much further along and already talking about grading and it seems like that ordinance is out the window. What makes that different and is the school prepared to build without altering the terrain or is it pending on that terrain being altered? You know it's a shame that we don't have any of the pictures up because we are talking a lot about elevation and stockpiling and you know us laymen are a little confused as to what that really means. You know the 20 feet and a walkout building really is hard to picture without seeing something up and while I understand a lot of the, I think the aesthetics maybe that Andy was referring to is the current natural terrain that we have. Outside of what the, what's going to be there once the school is there. And to say you'll get all that after the grading's done isn't going to help us because by then you will have flatten the land. So the question for me was more around, does our ordinance apply or is it out the window. Is it beyond this stage of negotiation and if so, when did that happen because we weren't aware of that. And I think that will probably help explain. And if we could get copies of some of the plans that you were covering, it might help us better understand. I mean I know you all were struggling to share a couple of pieces but we didn't have the benefit of seeing that. McDonald: Okay. Are there plans on the city's web site with any of this? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 Generous: These are all linked down there. On the city's web site. McDonald: Yeah. Keefe: I think that's a relevant question with regards to the bluff ordinance. The applicability of it here or not applicability. McDonald: Yeah. Are you prepared at this time to address whether or not this is an exception to the bluff ordinance or if it's within the bluff ordinance? Generous: No. I wasn't part of that discussion. I believe there have been discussions that this was man made to make it a bluff long term. McDonald: So it's not a natural. Keefe: Does it meet the definition of a bluff? Generous: Only to the extent that it meets the slope requirements. There's arguments that that slope was created... and when you create a 3 to 1 slope on your property it's not... even though you may have the elevation and the slope. Andy Kayati: If! can ask a question from here. I have a hard time believing that that's man made. For somebody that's farmed the land for as many years as they did, to maximize the use of that property or make it you know, I'm really struggling with that piece. Again, I previously had Mayor Mancino on my property when other buildings were proposed indicating that that was part of the bluff ordinance and directly indicating to me that there, you have no concerns. That's protected land. In whatever gets built will be on top or beyond and not visible to us and that's not the indication I'm getting now. And again, I mean other than hearsay, how do we know that that in fact was man made? And again, I'm the farmer and I don't know what I would build that hill to farm because it's not usable farming land the way it sits. I think it's a pretty big issue and I really, I really implore for all of you to take a look at it because again we do feel, seem to be a lot further down the path than that, and again if the decision's been made, I think you should inform the citizens of Chanhassen. McDonald: Well I'm not sure any decision has been made. I mean you bring up a valid question at this point. We do owe you an answer for, that's part of the thing of having a public meeting. I guess what I would, if staff is not prepared at this point to really look into this because we do need to look at this. Especially if prior city officers have made certain comments, which doesn't necessarily mean that that's the case. You need to understand that. I would entertain a motion to table this while staff comes back and presents this at our next meeting. Keefe: I guess what we need to do is to, you know you're looking at a variance. We need to determine whether it's a bluff or not, right. And then we'd be looking at a variance to be able to grade, is that correct? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 McDonald: If that's the case then it would have to... Then at that point it would have to be a variance. So does anyone want to make a motion to table this and we'll direct staff to address this issue? Jay Pomeroy: May I speak? McDonald: Yes, go ahead. Jay Pomeroy: Certainly the hope is to go to the Planning Commission on December 11th, when the EA W. The EQB comments are all back. Certainly not trying to push in any direction here. I don't know if it's appropriate to have staff, and I think the City Council is certainly a public meeting as well for this issue. Perhaps be addressed at that point. I certainly understand where you're at but I think the school district is really trying to get into the work and not to use that as a crutch but I appreciate it. McDonald: Okay. I do understand that but part of what the Planning Commission is, this is an initial public meeting. In some cases this may be the only public meeting on this particular issue, depending upon how it goes. Do you want to? Keefe: Yeah, I think you know, just in light of we need to be in a position where we properly enforce you know the ordinances and we need to determine whether this is a bluff or not so I would motion to table until we determine that. McDonald: Before I call for a vote on that, I will say that this issue did come up about timing and I do understand it. It's the 11th is our next meeting, or at City Council. There is only one issue on that so we do have room on the calendar to discuss this at this point and what I was assured of was that this would not overly impact what you're currently doing as far as the school because of some of these other comments you're waiting for. That that does appear to be a real drop dead date. Nothing's going to happen before then so we're not impacting anything by tabling this. Generous: Mr. Chairman if! believe that the next meeting of the Planning Commission would be December 5th or 6th. And then we would still theoretically be able to get it to council on December 11th. McDonald: Okay. Then there is a motion before the commissioners at this point to table this until December the 5th or 6th. Keefe: Our next meeting. McDonald: To our next meeting. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the request for an Interim Use Permit and review of an Environmental Assessment Review Worksheet 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 21,2006 for Planning Case 06-35, Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc./Independent School District 112, Applicants. All voted in favor except Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. McDonald: Okay the motion carries with a vote of 4 to 1. So this particular application will be tabled until our next meeting. In the meantime what staff is given direction to investigate for us is, is this a bluff or not. And if so, will it require a variance in order to do this construction. Okay? And at that point we will suspend the public meeting. It is not closed. We will just suspend it until we are back at our next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. A2 TO INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK. lOP: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS (UP TO 14) ON ONE PARCEL: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 12 BUILDINGS (ONE CLUB HOUSEIMUSEUM BUILDING AND 11 STORAGE BUILDINGS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 150.000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA): A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL WETLANDS ON SITE: AND A VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE STORM WATER POND WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK PRIMARINA ZONE ON 38.7 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD NORTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD. APPLICANT. BRUNO J. SILIKOWSKI/G.E. OSMONICS. PLANNING CASE 06-34. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Dan? Keefe: Regarding that variance to locate the storm water pond. Is that typical that we do that or atypical? I mean are there other instances where we have done that? In the Bluff Creek priMarina zone? Generous: We did, Mr. Chairman and commissioner. We have permitted it under a variance condition before. Under the Pioneer Pass where we're showing that it didn't, there's no feasible or appropriate alternative. As part of our review of this project, we did have the applicant provide us with looks at alternative storm water ponding. They weren't as, they weren't a preferred. One was on the western edge of the project but then we would be building our storm water pond into the side of the hill, and there's some stability issues that you'd have long term with that. And then the other one was to see if they could bunch it more in it's present location but push it out of the wetland, but to do the storage, they can reduce the size of the pond somewhat by not treating those off site water sources. But there would still be some intrusion into this, so this was the best alternative. It is the logical location for the storm water pond on site. 22