CC Minutes 12-11-06City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006
Jon Day: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thanks Jon. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none we'll move on.
CHANHASSEN HIGH SCHOOL; LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD,
SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF
CREEK; APPLICANT ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC., INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 112: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE
THE SITE IN PREPARATION FOR DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW ENVIRONEMTNAL
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET, AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
DECLARING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, and members of the City Council. This item did appear
before the Planning Commission twice. The subject site located on Lyman, south of the railroad
tracks… The applicant is Independent School District 112. This item appeared before the
Planning Commission twice. Based on some additional information that was requested.
Ultimately the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the…6 to 1. When this item
appeared before the Planning Commission the first time, there was an issue regarding potential…
that was presented to the Planning Commission and Planning Commission concurred with staff's
interpretation of the bluff. Or non-bluff… The definition was put in…and I'm not going to go
through that unless there's a specific request from the council to do that…the issue at hand which
is the grading permit…and some comments from the neighbor that… So the first step would be
the project itself and grading. I'm going to give, the overall site plan has not been approved. I
just wanted to put this up for a better understanding of the site. It's again Lyman Boulevard and
the access points. So because of the size of the building, over 400,000 square feet, it did require
an environmental assessment. Some of the issues that were brought by the neighbors were…can
the building be located somewhere else. If you recall the school district was looking…the city,
they were looking for a secondary school and they hadn't decided whether or not this site would
be a high school or not. It wasn't until they did their study and then went out to finalize it that it
would actually be a high school site. Being that it's a high school site, and they want…drove the
amount of design…regarding location of the access points. Audubon Road. Chaska…sub
station…The other place for access coming off of the Chaska Industrial Park, making that a T
intersection…so that's kind of the location, access points and the drive. The parking lot location
and then the building itself. In looking at the overall grading, up to the…as indicated in the staff
report, there is a gas line that runs through the property also…material will be stored on site. I
also wanted to point out in the staff report that because they are using a walk out on the back side
of the building…looking at the grading footprint itself. This project will come back before the
Planning Commission for the overall site design and the specifics regarding lighting, parking lot
and those sort of things…the question was raised regarding the amount of grading, but there's
still a 70 foot change based on this building being a walkout to the bottom of the creek, so they
are using the grade itself so it's not like it changes… So the grading itself, with the… So with
that, I'll move forward to the environmental assessment… There are three main issues that were
raised in the Environmental Assessment. The majority of that's regarding traffic and when this
project comes in for site plan review, we'll be attaching some conditions regarding the circulation
of traffic itself, regarding signalization…at Audubon and…so that's one of the issues that was…
The other was the wetland impact. Right now with the grading they're not impacting wetlands…
5
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006
but based on the potential environmental impact…so we are recommending that no
environmental impact statement is required. So with that we put a resolution in the packet to that
effect, requiring no environmental impact statement… So with that, starting on page 8, the
recommendations for the two motions. Approve the Negative Declaration. Motion A. And you
would also be approving…and B which would be the approval of…regarding the Interim Use
Permit for the… So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Ms. Aanenson, I guess with regard to storm
water runoff and the amount of grading and such like that, what precautions are place? I saw
some things in the staff report with regard to, we've had some history in the past where we have
developers start the grading before all the improvements are there to manage the storm water
when we get the storms, and so I guess the, especially with the wetland and Bluff Creek corridor
to the east of this site, what precautions are put in place here from storm water measures.
Kate Aanenson: We're over sizing the temporary basins, and that's the only…so that these
temporary basins will be super sized to manage that catastrophic event. And then also make sure
that we've got…
Mayor Furlong: Such as silt fencing and those sorts of things.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and also the row fencing. Some of…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we'll work with the applicant or inspect the site.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here?
Anything that, Mr. Pomeroy anything you want to add or others?
Jay Pomeroy: Good evening Mayor and councilmen.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Jay Pomeroy: I am Jay Pomeroy with Anderson-Johnson…so if you have any questions, we can
certainly answer them. The traffic consultant as well…
Mayor Furlong: Traffic, obviously there were two things brought up there. I think one was
during construction traffic issues, as well as post construction.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So are we comfortable there that they've got plans in place to.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and keeping the streets clean and those sort of issues that engineering
will be monitoring.
6
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for the applicant at all from the council? Okay. We had
two evenings of Planning Commission hearings on this.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And discussions so we're not going to have a formal public hearing here but I
guess, what we have as a council we've received the verbatim minutes of those meetings so if
anybody, if there's any new information, if somebody would like to make sure the council's
aware of on this, we'd be happy to take some public comment now. But again we received and
reviewed the information at the Planning Commission as well as some of the emails that
residents sent to staff raising questions as well. So if anybody would like to address the council
on any new matters here on this item. Okay, very good. Thank you. With that, if there's no
other questions for staff or the applicant at this time, thoughts. Discussion. Members of the
council.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, one quick question. Probably either for Kate or the
applicant. Kate, what do you expect, or Mr. Pumper, what's the duration of time that you'll have
the excavation? When do you plan to start? When do you believe it will be substantially
complete?
Jay Pomeroy: I'm almost Mr. Pumper. This Phase I, or this first part of the project we anticipate
starting grading in the next few weeks…until about mid-March, as I understand. And then the
next phase will start. We'll be back in front of you in March with a full site and landscaping,
lighting. The whole ball of wax. That part of the process will take place right after this first
phase, so once we start it's going to continue until the school opens in 2009. Fall of 2009.
Construction will pretty much complete in May of '09.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So you're 2, a little over 2 years? 26, 27 months. Something
like that? Okay. Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Back to your question Brian, I think too, when we look at the site plan and
there's more construction activity, we'll probably re-evaluate access points and if that's adequate.
Right now what we're addressing for access would just be for the grading. And once they get the
equipment on, it will stay on site so there won't be quite as much, I mean they don't intend to
export a lot but I think when we look at the next iteration of the site plan, there will be a lot more
construction traffic but I think we'll have to look a little more carefully at. For access.
Mayor Furlong: Thoughts. Comments.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think that the staff and Planning Commission certainly did
due diligence on it for the amount of time they spent on it and presenting. I certainly can't argue
anything different than that so I would certainly recommend approval.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
7
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur and I think, you know this is a big first step and as we've
received some comment, it will have a big impact and as you talked about before Mr. Mayor and
me and my details, 350,000 cubic yards is what they're talking about, which is a little over a
million and a half wheelbarrows full. But maybe to put it more in perspective, if you imagine the
size of a football field being 100 yards by 50 yards wide, that's approximately a football field by
70 feet high for a pile of dirt, so as we're driving around in that area over the next 2 years, we're
going to see a pretty dramatic change to the landscape out there and I think it's important and
encumbent upon us to make sure that we do keep up the erosion control and a lot of the stuff
that's out there in that wetland because 350,000 cubic yards is a lot of dirt to be pushing around
and it will have impacts that we, if we don't stay on top of it, it will anyway but certainly will
change things a lot so, just ask that we stay on top of that and people should be prepared I think
to see a lot flatter ground out there in that big, big pile of dirt but am in favor of moving forward.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And I think, you know as Councilman Lundquist as you just
explained or painted the picture, the whole reason to make sure that we're aware and that staff is
aware and confident in terms of some of the issues if there is store problems and such, and we've
got, as a city we've got a great working relationship with the school district. We've had a number
of meetings already and I assume that those are going to continue throughout the process and I'm
confident that they'll be able to work with us and we'll work with them and in the end it's going
to be a new high school. A Chanhassen High School that everybody's going to be proud of so,
but these are details that we need to work with and I'm glad that everybody is working together
and as much as the goal is to get the new high school there, we need to focus on the details and
get it done right too, so I concur with your thoughts there. And to Councilman Peterson, I'm glad
that the staff and the school district, their advisors and their Planning Commission are spending
the time that they are to get into the details because it saves us time. I am supportive of this. I
think the questions raised have been answered satisfactory and I think it's, I would move to, that
we move forward with this this evening. The motion starts on page 8 of the staff report. 175 in
the electronic copy. Is there a motion? We have two before us this evening requested.
Councilman Peterson: To that end Mr. Mayor, I would move and recommend that the City
Council approve resolution of negative declaration. City Council also approve Interim Use
Permit with conditions 1 through 25, subject to the findings of fact as supported by staff this
evening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we'll
proceed with the vote.
Resolution #2006-91: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that
City Council approve a resolution of Negative Declaration of the Need for an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Chanhassen High School Campus. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
8
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
an Interim Use Permit to permit grading on the property in preparation of development,
plans prepared by Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 10-19-06, subject to the following
conditions:
1.The 50-scale plans should be revised to clearly depict the wetland boundary and wetland
buffer areas.
2.Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width should be preserved, surveyed and staked in
accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and
wetland buffer areas should be protected by silt fence during grading.
3.The applicant should keep the goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural
Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region in mind as a plan is
developed for the site and should work with staff to achieve these goals for this property.
The Primary Zone boundary and the 40-foot setback should be shown on the plans. No
grading is permitted within the first 20 feet of the 40-foot setback.
4.The erosion and sediment control plan should be aimed at minimizing the amount of exposed
soil at any given time and preventing erosion of exposed soil. Sediment control (especially
perimeter controls such as silt fence) should be viewed as a last resort. The applicant, the
contractor and all subcontractors should recognize that one silt fence at the bottom of a large
slope of exposed soil will not be sufficient to protect down gradient resources in even
moderate precipitation or snowmelt events. To decrease the potential for discharge of
sediment-laden water off-site, the applicant should prepare a plan for phasing the grading of
the project. In general, the areas within 200 feet of wetlands should be graded first and
permanently stabilized as soon as possible. Disturbed areas should be stabilized as soon as
possible after grading to minimize the total amount of exposed soil on site. New areas
should not be graded until after previously graded areas are stabilized.
5.Sediment & Erosion Control (SWPPP) Note 2.a.2 on Sheet C1.2 states that slopes steeper
than 6:1 should be “cat tracked.” The applicant should take extra measures to ensure that this
occurs because cat tracking has been shown to significantly decrease the potential for erosion
on long, steep slopes. A detail should be provided for cat tracking.
6.The haul route between the Construction Staging Area and the Temporary Stockpile Area
should be shown on the 50-scale plans.
7.All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of
completion of grading in each disturbed area. If practical, a seed and blown-compost mix
should be considered in lieu of dormant seed and straw mulch. The plans should be revised to
call out erosion control blanket locations and to provide a detail for blanket installation.
8.Chanhassen Type II silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as
buffer (both 16.5-foot wetland buffers and the 20-foot “no grading” zone around the Primary
9
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006
Zone). The silt fence should be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections
and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. Orange tree protection fence
should be installed upslope from the Type 2 silt fence around the wetland between
Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 and Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 as added protection
so equipment operators do not impact the wetland by driving heavy equipment through it.
9.The plans should be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details where available (e.g.,
Detail 5300 for silt fence; Detail 5301 for rock construction entrance). It appears that detail 3
on Sheet C1.4 is intended to depict the proposed checks within the temporary drainageways
shown on Sheet C1.2. This should be clarified and the checks should be installed as often as is
necessary to minimize the velocities of runoff in the drainageways. The plans should be revised
to show a minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance.
10.In lieu of the proposed outlet pipes for the temporary sediment basins, temporary perforated
risers and stable emergency overflows (EOFs) are needed; details should be included in the
plan. The basins should be properly sized for the watershed areas, according to NPDES
requirements (i.e., the basins should provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated
volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin,
except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the
outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipes should discharge upstream
from the edge of the receiving wetlands and should be stabilized with riprap.
11.In the present design, water is routed into the wetland in the northeast corner of the site
instead of into Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4. The grading in this area of the site should
be revised to ensure that all discharge from disturbed areas is directed into either Temporary
Sediment Basin No. 3 or Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 prior to discharge into the
wetland.
12.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
13.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) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
14.All temporary stockpiles shall be temporary seeded and mulched within 7 or 14 days, in
accordance with the NPDES Phase II construction site permit.
15.Rock dissipation shall be installed at all pipe outlets within 24 hours of placement of the
outlet pipes.
16.Slope lengths greater than 75 feet shall be broken up with a minimum 12-foot wide bench
every 75 feet.
17.A minimum12-foot buffer area shall be maintained between the perimeter control and all
stockpiles to provide access around the stockpiles for maintenance purposes.
10
City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006
18.Dewatering activities shall only be allowed after consulting with the on-site city inspector of
the project to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit for dewatering activities.
19.Silt fence shall be placed parallel to contours. In locations where silt fence will cross
contours, J-hooks shall be installed at 75-foot intervals. Silt fence shall not be staked on site
by scaling off the proposed plan, but shall be staked by the survey crew taking shots in the
field. The applicant shall contact SWCD staff prior to silt fence installation so staking on site
can be reviewed to ensure compliance with this request.
20.Drainage swales and ditch cuts shall be employed during mass grading to maintain a positive
flow of stormwater to the temporary basins.
21.During final grading of the site, the height of the berm over the sanitary sewer shall be
reduced to the maximum extent practicable, otherwise additional drainage and utility
easements may be required.
22.The developer is required to televise the section of sanitary sewer over which grading
operations will occur before and after construction to determine if the site grading damaged
the pipe.
23.ISD 112 shall be responsible for repairing any sections of sanitary sewer damaged during
construction.
24.The developer must place sanitary sewer manhole sections on the existing manhole to bring
the top of manhole up to the existing grade.
25.No more than eight inches of rings is allowed on the sanitary sewer manhole.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD
NORTH OF TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD; APPLICANT BRUNO J.
SILIKOWSKI/G.E. OSMONICS:
A. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE
FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO INDUSTRIAL OFFICE
PARK (IOP);
B. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS
(UP TO 14) ON ONE PARCEL;
C. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 12 BUILDINGS (ONE CLUBHOUSE/MUSEUM
BUILDING AND 11 STORAGTE BUILDINGS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY
150,000 SQ. FT.); AND
11