Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06-15-2011Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioners Dick Kobussen, Nathan Robinson, Gordon Petrash, Scott Nelson, Bryan Oakley and Marc Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Marie Darling, City Engineer Bob Moberg and Office Support Specialist Laurie Lokken 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the June 15, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 1, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the June 1, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 6 Ayes (Chair Davis abstained). MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WAYZATA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #284 (2011031) Chair Davis introduced the request by Wayzata Independent School District #284 for a PUD amendment for a child care center within the Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners PUD for property located at 1605 County Road 101. Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Anderson asked why there was additional language in the draft ordinance listing the City Council resolution number. Senior Planner Darling replied that with each PUD Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 2 amendment, staff refers to the approving PUD general plan amendment resolution so that they cross reference each other. Commissioner Nelson asked if the applicant was already approved for a daycare/child care facility license. Senior Planner Darling deferred that question to the applicant. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Terry Schneider, representing Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners. Mr. Schneider introduced Marcia Treno, representing Wayzata Community Education, in charge of child care. Ms. Treno responded that Wayzata Public Schools already has an early childhood day care/child care license for their program that is located within the Central Middle School. She said that the Interfaith would be considered by the State Department of Human Services to be a satellite site. She said that it would need to be independently licensed and that an application has been submitted. She said that the license cannot be finalized until inspections are completed. She said that the facility will need to be in accordance with all the guidelines set forth in licensing requirements so that there would not be a delay for their July l st deadline. Commissioner Kobussen stated that the hours of operation listed would be from 9:00 a.m. to Noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. He asked if they would ever operate through the noon hour since they would have drop -ins and other people who might want to be there during the noon hour. Ms. Treno replied that at this point, there is no intent to have a full day program there. She said that part of the stipulation to have a drop-in, is that the children are there no longer than three hours. Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. MOTION by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the request by Wayzata Independent School District #284 for a PUD amendment for a child care center within the Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners PUD for property located at 1605 County Road 101. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 3 B. CITY OF PLYMOUTH (2011032) Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth for a preliminary plat and variances for "Dog Park", a two -lot subdivision for the purpose of acquiring additional land for the Northwest Greenway and Plymouth Dog Park for property located at 5835 Dunkirk Lane North. Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Kobussen asked if there was already a variance approved for the current site since it doesn't meet the requirements for FRD or if it was grandfathered in previous to the zoning. Senior Planner Darling responded that when the FRD district was put in place with the 20 acre minimum lot size and the 500 foot frontage requirements, there was another section in the city code adopted that said that if the lots existed prior to the adoption date of that particular section of the ordinance, they were considered conforming lots at their present size. Chair Davis asked if the city had any plans to expand the dog park as a result of the purchase of this property. Senior Planner Darling replied that there are no plans along those lines right now. At the request of Commissioner Anderson and Chair Davis, Senior Planner Darling showed how this site fits into the overall Northwest Greenway corridor plan and where the current dog park is located using the Parks and Trails Plan page from the city's Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Darling confirmed for Commissioner Oakley the current property boundaries and where the city will be acquiring more land for neighborhood park facilities and for the Northwest Greenway trail corridor. Commissioner Oakley asked if Dunkirk Lane was proposed to have a 66 foot right-of-way eventually or if that would potentially be a different size. Senior Planner Darling responded that Dunkirk Lane would be a minor collector and would typically have a 60 foot right-of-way. She said that the extra three feet on this side of the property related to the fact that there is already a street easement over that portion of the property. Commissioner Oakley asked if the proposed development on the other side of Dunkirk Lane would dedicate a 30 foot easement on that side. City Engineer Moberg replied that on that particular piece of property, there was a 40 -foot wide roadway easement that was secured across that piece of property when it was subdivided a number of years ago. He said that in theory, there could end up being as much as 73 feet of dedicated right-of-way through that area. He said that in the Spring Meadows development, the city asked the applicant to confirm that, in that extra 7 feet over 33, there were no private utilities (overhead power lines, gas, telephone, etc.) or that they could demonstrate that if there were utilities in that 7 -foot wide strip, they would be willing to relocate them into a narrower right-of-way corridor. He said that in this case when we are looking at the 33 feet of existing easement, we don't want to necessarily require less right-of- way and then find out that there are utilities outside the 33 feet that would then be forced to relocate. He said that could then incur some costs to have that done and we don't want to create that hardship. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 4 Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. Commissioner Anderson stated that it was nice to see the city making progress on the Northwest Greenway corridor and being creative in how they are acquiring land. He said that he would vote in support of this preliminary plat and variance request. MOTION by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve the request by the City of Plymouth for a preliminary plat and variances for "Dog Park", a two -lot subdivision for the purpose of acquiring additional land for the Northwest Greenway and Plymouth Dog Park for property located at 5835 Dunkirk Lane North. Chair Davis stated that he agreed with Commissioner Anderson that it was good to see the city moving ahead, especially with the dog park as there have been some complaints from neighbors. He added that putting a buffer in between the park and the future developments was a good idea. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. C. WAYZATA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #284 (2011034) Chair Davis introduced the request by Wayzata Independent School District #284 for a zoning ordinance text amendment to amend the requirements for scoreboards in the P -I public/institutional) zoning district. Senior Planner Darling gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Kobussen asked about the existing condition in the ordinance that there will be no commercial or non-commercial speech and what that means. Senior Planner Darling responded that means there would be no advertising on the scoreboard to reflect that it is a scoreboard and not a sign. Chair Davis asked why it doesn't just state no advertising. Senior Planner Darling replied that commercial and non-commercial speech are defined terms, not only in our ordinance, but also in case law. Commissioner Oakley asked if the city currently has a policy on commercial or non-commercial speech on scoreboards. Senior Planner Darling responded that the city currently does not allow commercial or non-commercial speech, with the exception that they do allow a sponsorship panel to be located on the scoreboard. She said that language is currently in the P -I zoning district. Commissioner Nelson asked if staff was aware of any other scoreboards in the city, other than the two high schools. Senior Planner Darling replied that staff is not aware of any. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 5 Commissioner Anderson asked why they are changing the location of the scoreboard from the west side of the field to the east side of the field. Senior Planner Darling responded that the Wayzata School District initially approached staff showing that, with the addition of the extra size on the scoreboard, they were proposing a location change. She said that the scoreboard is currently located on the north side of the field and that they propose to change it to the south side of the field to further protect the residential neighbors to the south and also to protect passersby on the public rights-of-way so that the information on the scoreboard wouldn't distract drivers or become a nuisance for the neighborhood to the south. Commissioner Anderson asked if the proposed location would be visible from future development, such as if Elm Creek Golf Course gets developed, or if development would be too far away to really cause a problem in the future. Senior Planner Darling stated that the scoreboard would face directly into the playfield. She said there is a possibility that if a portion of the Elm Creek Golf Course would develop residentially, there would be homes within the vicinity of it; however, there is a landscaped area between the stadium and the ballfield itself. She said that at the angle that it would be located and with the distance, she didn't think that very much would be seen. Commissioner Nelson stated the Armstrong scoreboard is at an angle and asked if anyone recalled if that scoreboard was located in a corner because of its direction towards the residential neighborhood. Planning Manager Thomson responded that there was a lot of sensitivity given to the neighborhood with respect to the location of the scoreboard. Chair Davis stated that the proposed location would have the golf course on the west side and homes on the south side and placement of the scoreboard would have its back to the homes so the current homeowners are taken care of. He said that they could move their current scoreboard to the new location anyway. Planning Manager Thomson replied that would be correct. Chair Davis asked if the approved Armstrong scoreboard had been similar to this request and if they had gotten a variance for it. Senior Planner Darling replied that the numbers are digital on their scoreboard but they do not have a full electronic panel nor do they have video display. She said they did receive a variance to allow them to have a 312 1/2 square foot scoreboard that is 20 1/2 feet tall. Commissioner Kobussen asked if we would be developing an ordinance that we can't live with in the future with language against visibility from a home or from public rights-of-way. He said we would be giving a lot of variances. He asked what the scoreboard situation would be at Providence Academy. Senior Planner Darling responded that Providence Academy is in a different zoning district so these regulations wouldn't apply to them. She said they only apply to the schools that are in the P -I zoning district. She said that the scoreboards are extremely expensive and we could not put them into very many park facilities and certainly not more than one at a facility. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 6 Commissioner Kobussen asked if the siting restriction would also apply to a small scoreboard. Planning Manager Thomson replied that it would not because the 150 square feet maximum is already regulated by code. She said this would be a separate requirement for larger scoreboards. Chair Davis stated that of the four alternatives listed in the staff report, alternative #1 is basically anybody in the P -I district could put a big scoreboard up to 950 square feet and all they have to do is come in to the department and get a building permit and there would be no public involvement. Senior Planner Darling responded that would be correct. She said staff would look at their location information again so that they wouldn't be directing the information on the scoreboard towards residences or public rights-of-way. Chair Davis stated that each alternative requires more and more public involvement. Senior Planner Darling replied that is correct. Chair Davis stated that alternative #4 would basically leave it the way it is. He asked if they could get a variance for a 950 square foot scoreboard under current ordinance text. Senior Planner Darling responded that under current regulations, they can request a variance for a scoreboard of that size; however, that's an enormous variance. She said that staff direction to the school board was that a variance of that nature would be difficult for staff to support. Planning Manager Thomson added that when you are looking at a variance situation, you are looking at demonstrating hardship/practical difficulties. She said one of the major issues here is that size is a major factor and there is also video display, which is something that is not allowed at all at the present time. She said it is really a vast departure from current regulations. Chair Davis asked if the current ordinance prohibits video displays or it doesn't allow video displays. Senior Planner Darling replied that the current ordinance is silent on video displays. Planning Manager Thomson added that when the ordinance is silent, it is not allowed. Chair Davis asked that since they are silent on video displays, does that mean then that they are not allowed. Senior Planner Darling responded that as written, the ordinances don't specifically mention electronic panels or video displays and that would have to be added in language that they would be permitted. Commissioner Nelson asked that if alternative #2 were to be approved, whether they could go ahead and make their scoreboard up to 550 square feet without any approvals. Senior Planner Darling stated that they would have the siting requirements. Planning Manager Thomson added that if they met those requirements, they could go ahead and put it in with a building permit, without a public process, up to 550 square feet. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was the opportunity to put protective restrictions on the application later on because it's in a conditional use permit. Senior Planner Darling replied that all the typical conditions on a conditional use permit could be applied to the approvals specific to an application to make sure to lessen the impact. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Dan Carlson, representing the Wayzata Independent School District #284. Mr. Carlson stated that their current scoreboard is 17 years old. He said Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 7 that it uses incandescent lightbulbs, which can no longer be ordered. He said that they currently are taking lights out of the baseball scoreboard for use in the football scoreboard during the football season and then at the end of the football season, they are taking them out for use in the baseball scoreboard. He said that Wayzata Schools has proposed that they do a five-year scoreboard upgrade district -wide. He said that part of this is that the Wayzata's Athletic Booster Association has approached them and would like to fund that. He said it would be a gift and not a Wayzata School District purchase. He said that they have a very motivated group of people and that they would like to see this completed this year. He said that if they currently just replace it with a football scoreboard, it would be very disheartening to kids in track to not see their times up there and so, if attending an event there other than football, it is extremely lacking. He said that this is where athletics are going. He said that there are three other communities in the west metro area who will probably have these scoreboards (or larger) if not this year, then next year. He said that the company that they are looking to for the purchase has three proposals out already and one of which is going to be ordered. He said that it is something that they want to be prepared for. Commissioner Kobussen asked if they plan on going to the full, big scoreboard now if they have the money or if it is a matter of what gets approved through the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Carlson responded that the funding is apparently set aside and they would like to see the whole project completed yet this fall. He said that they are on track to be able to do that, if the permission is granted. He said that the scoreboard section is something that is going to have to happen very soon as he didn't know if they would get through this football season with what they have. He said it begs the question that they just replace it with a scoreboard like what they've got in the existing location or make the move and upgrade to get the scoreboard they really want. Chair Davis asked if the proposed scoreboard in alternative #2 was bigger than their current scoreboard. Mr. Carlson replied that the current one is 8 feet tall by 25 feet wide and the one proposed would be 22 feet wide and with a taller board. He said that the square footage would not be just the scoreboard, it's the peripheral information as well. He said the restrictions on the size of the scoreboard were arrived at by what was needed in order for those people that are in the far bleachers to be able to see some of the information. Commissioner Anderson asked where high school sports are moving in terms of video display. Mr. Carlson responded that starting lineups could be seen on the video displays. He said that it also given them the ability to use that as a curriculum. He said they have students who have gone into this type of field for video production and with all the scoreboards out there, it is becoming a trade. He said that video display also gives students some face time up on the scoreboard. He said they could also highlight some of the other athletic events that people don't get to where a video is available. He said that there would not be much instant replay as that is pretty tough to do, especially in a high school setting when it's going to be kids doing that. Chair Davis opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the item. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 8 Commissioner Nelson stated that the language that's in place now is not sufficient at 150 square feet. He said that a variance had been granted to one high school and it's very apparent that it's not sufficient for the other high school. He said that it didn't make any sense to keep that language in there. He said that he is leaning towards alternative 42. He said that changing the language from 150 square feet to 550 square feet is pretty sufficient and it would also allow them to be able to get a conditional use permit to add the video display. He said that getting to the 950 square feet requires a public process and that is important. He said that he does not have an issue with the school district wanting to put in this type of scoreboard. Commissioner Oakley stated he agreed with Commissioner Nelson's comments. He said that alternative #2 would retain public comment to give people an opportunity to come in and participate in the decision making process. He said that video display would potentially draw a lot of comment. He said that additional information is needed in alternative #2 regarding video display. He said that if silence indicates that video display is not acceptable, that is not an adequate alternative. Planning Manager Thomson responded that language could be added to alternative #2 that includes video display so that it's very clear that would be part of what would be allowed. Commissioner Oakley stated that the language "provided that the information on the scoreboard is not visible from any adjacent public rights-of-way or adjacent dwellings" is good solid criteria to add. He said that the existing ordinance goes on to state "no commercial or non-commercial speech shall be permitted...". He said that if the scoreboard is defined as being something that is only visible within the activity itself, then the right to dictate what should be on that scoreboard should be with the school board or the organization that is having the event. Planning Manager Thomson replied that it is important to have that language whether it can be seen or not. She said that it is off-site advertising and if allowed here, it would have to be allowed elsewhere. She said that's a major concern. Commissioner Oakley said that he didn't believe that the school district was interested in having advertising but that other local high schools do encourage advertising and it's a good source of funding for them. Planning Manager Thomson responded that staff has had discussion with the city attorney on this matter and that if allowed, it would open the city to have to allow it in other settings. She said that's the reasoning for it being in our current ordinance. Mr. Carlson confirmed for Commissioner Petrash that the first alternative is the one that they would like to have. Commissioner Petrash asked what the benefits or what the differences/trade offs were that made them prefer alternative #1 versus alternative #2. Mr. Carlson replied that the school district needs to move ahead with a scoreboard one way or another. He said the difference is whether there is a video display board or not. Planning Manager Thomson added that with alternative #1, there is no public process (just a building permit). She said alternative #2 would require the public process for a conditional use permit. Commissioner Petrash stated that he would also support alternative #2. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 9 Chair Davis stated that he felt alternative #3 is the best one because he loves these ideas for scoreboards but that they can be controversial when getting this big. He said alternative #3 provides the most opportunity for the citizens of the community to weigh in. He said that alternative #2 allows them to go up to 550 square feet with just a building permit and then after it goes up, all the neighbors would be calling the city wanting to know what happened. He said that it's great to put that scoreboard over there but he wants the most involvement from the neighborhood to get it done. Planning Manager Thomson responded to Commissioner Nelson that there are instances where smaller scoreboards are still going to be 150 square feet. Chair Davis added that there are a lot of ballfields in the city that have small scoreboards, so 150 square feet has proven over time to be workable. He said that he is not comfortable with giving the organizations cart blanche to triple the size without some public involvement. Chair Davis stated that he was concerned that in all the alternatives it states that information on the scoreboard would not be visible from any adjacent dwellings. He said that's pretty restrictive and asked for the meaning of "adjacent". Senior Planner Darling read the definition, "in close proximity to or neighboring, not necessarily abutting". Commissioner Nelson stated that a motion recommending alternative #2 to City Council could be made without agreement by all the Commissioners. Planning Manager Thomson responded that is correct. Planning Manager Thomson confirmed for Chair Davis that the phrase regarding visibility from adjacent dwellings would be an addition to the current ordinance. Chair Davis stated that he didn't mind it not being visible from public rights-of-way because we don't want to see it from the street, especially if it is a video display but an adjacent dwelling seems to be too restrictive. Planning Manager Thomson replied that change could also be included in what is recommended to the City Council. Chair Davis asked for a show of hands in support of alternative #2 (Commissioners Oakley, Petrash, Kobussen, Robinson and Nelson). Chair Davis and Commissioner Anderson indicated support for alternative #3. Commissioner Kobussen stated that alternative #2 could be written in a way that if it's a small sign, then drop that it can't be visible from the street or from an adjacent home and if it goes over a certain size, then put that certain restriction in that it can't be visible from the street and the adjacent homes. He said it would have to be a fairly big sign before it becomes an issue. Senior Planner Darling stated that electronic display panels or video display panels could also be tied in to the condition and state that it can't be visible to adjacent properties. Planning Manager Thomson added that another option would be to add the existing language to alternative #2 and then have an additional section, which addresses the larger scoreboards. Commissioner Petrash stated that as a Planning Commission, we should choose one alternative. He said there will be majority and minority votes but that we should try to give the City Council Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 10 as much direction as we can and not give them our job, which is making a recommendation. He said that there are a lot of options and that he would support adding amendments to the second alternative. Chair Davis stated that was a good idea and he would support amending alternative #2, although he would vote against it. Chair Davis stated that the current ordinance does not have the visibility language and that there hasn't been any problems. Planning Manager Thomson responded that there has not been the video display and the major digital aspects with scoreboards in the past. Chair Davis stated that his concern was that if written in there, we would be saying that no scoreboards can be seen from the rights-of-way. Planning Manager Thomson replied that adding language for smaller scoreboards, exactly the way it is in the code today, would address that. Chair Davis stated that he would be more comfortable with that because he wouldn't want to put something in where we inadvertently put a kibosh on smaller ones that are already in place. MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve the request by Wayzata Independent School District #284 to amend the requirements for scoreboards in the PI district to: 1) maintain the existing requirements for scoreboards not exceeding 16 feet in height or 150 square feet in area and 2) add (a) a new accessory use allowing scoreboards for public parks and public or private schools not exceeding 32 feet in height or 550 square feet in area, provided that the information on the scoreboard is not visible from any adjacent public rights-of-way and no commercial/non-commercial speech is permitted on the scoreboard and (b) a new conditional use allowing scoreboards for public parks and public or private schools over 32 feet in height or 550 square feet in area not to exceed 50 feet in height or 950 square feet in area, which scoreboard may include a video display panel, provided that the information on the scoreboard is not visible from any adjacent public rights-of-way and no commercial/non- commercial speech is permitted on the scoreboard. Commissioner Oakley added a friendly amendment to remove the language regarding commercial and non-commercial speech. He said there are restrictions listed in other areas that would govern all the concerns. Amendment failed for lack of a second. Roll Call Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Chair Davis introduced the request by the City of Plymouth to review the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Bass Lake Wetland Drainage Improvement Project located west of Zachary Lane and south of Bass Lake Road and make recommendations to the City Council regarding potential environmental impacts that may warrant further investigation. City Engineer Moberg gave an overview of the staff report. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 11 Commissioner Nelson asked how the risk of flooding was identified. City Engineer Moberg responded that it was a combination of contacts with residents and with city maintenance staff. He said that staff has observed issues with the stormsewer outfalls being clogged because of sediment or vegetation. He said that if the system isn't working well, there will be more water standing in the streets, yard areas, etc. Commissioner Petrash asked what the ramifications would be if nothing is done. City Engineer Moberg replied that from a maintenance perspective, it typically would require more frequent cleaning of the stormsewer outfalls themselves. He said that a concern is if we get into even more of a wet cycle than what we currently have, then we have more issues with flooding to deal with that could potentially get into more than just soggy backyards. Commissioner Oakley asked if the original contours from decades back were known for this area and would accumulated materials be removed or would the pond be deepened. City Engineer Moberg responded that historic information would be a little bit sketchy because these are wetland areas and it's not easy to get in and do any kind of survey work to really determine where the bottom may be, especially if you've got a lot of peat or muck. He said the actual work would be very similar to the Wild Wings Project. He said we did not do any deepening of the channels there and that was something that we paid very close attention to because of requirements and restrictions that either the DNR or the Army Corps of Engineers would have had. He said in that particular project, we went to a depth of about four feet in excavating material/sediment and we would anticipate going to the same depth with this project. Commissioner Petrash asked if this would need to be done again at a future date and what that timeframe would be. City Engineer Moberg replied it quite possibly would need to be done again but the timeframe is really unknown at this time. Chair Davis stated that the sediments are going to keep coming and asked if this would be like routine maintenance to be done every 4 years or so. City Engineer Moberg responded that we are trying to get away from having to do something every year or every two years. He added that it is important to keep in mind that the city went away from the practice several years ago of using sand for snow and ice control and that historically has been a prime source of sediment in the ponds and wetlands. He said that by moving away from that practice, it has allowed us to cut down on the amount of sediment that is generated. He said with that in mind, we would likely see a longer period before we would have to go back to remove sediment. Commissioner Anderson asked if there has been any input yet from the various agencies that received the EAW. City Engineer Moberg replied that the document is out for public comment and as part of that process, we are required to notify all of the public agencies that would have some regulatory authority that the document is available for comment. He said that we have not received a lot of feedback yet but we anticipate that we will by the end of the public comment period. He added that we are drawing from the experience that we had with the Wild Wings Project and what the same regulatory agencies were comfortable with in that instance. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 12 Commissioner Anderson stated that here we are being asked to make a recommendation on a document but we haven't received any input from any of the other agencies. He said that we don't know what the agencies are thinking and yet we are reacting to a document and asked if that was the appropriate order of events. Planning Manager Thomson responded that just as other agencies are commenting, if the Planning Commission has any comments or if any people in the audience have comments, those would all go to the City Council for them to make a decision. She said that this time period was selected so that the Commission and residents could provide their input as well. City Engineer Moberg added that we need to make this part of the public record and this is a means of being able to generate public comments. Commissioner Nelson asked if a dredging or rechanneling project of this magnitude in the proximity to Bass Lake has any potential impact on that lake's levels. City Engineer Moberg stated that all of this work would be downstream of Bass Lake and there wouldn't be anything going toward the lake. He said that we would not be doing anything with the control structure of the lake itself and that is what establishes the lake levels. Commissioner Kobussen asked if there was a reason why the rest of the pond areas to the southwest didn't get included with these two larger ones. City Engineer Moberg replied that the pond area located to the southwest has only one stormsewer outfall and we are not having the flooding or the maintenance issues there. He said that we confined the project to what's identified in the larger wetland basin because that is where we are having issues. Commissioner Petrash asked what the Planning Commission is being asked to do. City Engineer Moberg stated the Planning Commission is being asked if they have any specific comments that they would want to pass along to the City Council for their consideration as they make their determination about whether there's additional environmental review that needs to be done. He added that if there are questions, comments or concerns by residents that are here tonight, those would be part of the public record. Chair Davis stated that this is the first level, which is the environmental worksheet. He said that if we were to think that it's not indepth enough to fully describe the environmental impact of this project, we could recommend that an Environmental Impact Statement be required, which is more detailed and more involved. He said that it is the recommendation of staff that the worksheet is sufficient. City Engineer Moberg responded that if the Commission felt that this document was inadequate and that more indepth environmental review was necessary, the Commission could make that part of its recommendation and if the Commission believe that this document is adequate to address the environmental issues, the Commission could act accordingly. Commissioner Kobussen recommended that a correction be made to item #25. He said that the question regarding designated parks, recreation areas or trails be corrected to be checked yes as this is a part of Timbershores neighborhood park and there is a trail that runs through those wetlands. City Engineer Moberg replied that may come through with comments received from other agencies but we will make sure that is a part of the record. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 13 Chair Davis introduced Dick Essen, 5610 Evergreen Lane North. Mr. Essen said that along the west side of the wetland there are four properties that have frontage and two of those properties are low. He said that his is about six or eight feet higher than those other two properties and that next to him is part of the Timber Shores neighborhood park. He said that in the 40 years that he has lived there, there has been one flooding incident and that was one summer when there were two, 100 -year rains about 10 days apart. He said the only reason it flooded at that time was because downstream the culverts/driveways collapsed, creating a dam that backed the water up. He asked if this project was being done for potential flooding of these four properties or are there other properties downstream. Mr. Essen said that there is a floating bog that has been meandering all over the pond and unless you get rid of that floating bog, it's going to park itself in front of your channels and negate your job. Chair Davis introduced Tim Bodkin, 5630 Evergreen Lane North. Mr. Bodkin said they have had water within 10 feet of their house in the past few weeks and fortunately, their basement has never been flooded. Mr. Bodkin said that the floating bog there does move around, depending on the level of the water and the direction of the wind. He presented pictures taken in May 2011 of this floating bog as it moved around. He said that it could possibly block these channels. He said that it would be a significant improvement if this island were removed somehow. He said it is affecting the flow that is going through these channels. Mr. Bodkin said that the southwest pond does have drainage that is blocked and the level of the pond is significant. He said that the city might consider unblocking the drainage there. Mr. Bodkin said that the debris that was excavated on the Wild Wings Project was just left there in the wetland. He asked if that would be the case here or would excavation be removed from the site. City Engineer Moberg stated that we have identified affected properties in a general sense. He said that they could provide more specific property information if necessary. City Engineer Moberg stated that we would be willing to take a look at the floating bog. He said that he is not exactly sure what the reaction would be from the regulatory agencies about that. He said we are in the footprint of the wetland and we are not certain whether or not we would be required to mitigate for that alteration. He said with the Wild Wings Project, we were required to mitigate what was considered to be wetland impact. He said because we did not have any opportunities to create mitigation areas around that wetland basin, we purchased banking credits in another part of the county to offset the impacts. He said at this point, we do not know what the interpretation is going to be by the regulatory agencies but we expect that will come out during this public comment period. He said that while we certainly would have an interest in trying to do something with the floating bog, if it gets us into the arena where we are going to have to do mitigation, that may cause us to back away from trying to do that. He said we will Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 14 explore that as we work our way through this process. He said he understood the residents' concern about excavating these channels to try and create some positive drainage and then having it blocked off by the bog moving around. City Engineer Moberg stated it would be a requirement that excavated materials and debris be hauled out and taken away and not be left on the site. City Engineer Moberg stated city maintenance staff would be asked to take a look at the larger pond located southwest of this project to see if there are any specific issues that need to be addressed. Commissioner Anderson asked if the material excavated would be considered hazardous in any way. City Engineer Moberg responded that one of the steps in the process if we were to move forward, would be to sample materials at the stormsewer outfalls. He said we would make a determination of a) whether there is contamination and b) what the magnitude of that might be. He said it would be in our best interest to do that before preparing bidding documents so the contractors, who are bidding the project, know if the material is clean or whether it's considered contaminated. Commissioner Anderson stated that he could see that the floating bog could potentially be an environmental issue to remove it because of potential nesting that might be going on. He asked if it would be possible to protect the outflows in some alternative way rather than removing it. City Engineer Moberg replied that was something that could be looked at. He said that he got the impression from the pictures that even though one of the channels could get blocked, it wouldn't necessarily be blocked for very long. He said that if it's going to keep moving around, it may be just for a short period of time that blockage actually occurs. Commissioner Oakley asked if there has ever been a rise in the water levels that seemed to be related to the position of the bog or are levels more commonly related to the amount of rainfall. Mr. Essen responded that until this spring, the water was so low he could just about walk across the pond near his home. He said that there has been a significant difference in the water elevation and that's what precipitates the movement of the bog. He said that when the water comes up, it tears the bog loose and then it floats around. He said the problem is that if we get another dry spell, the bog would settle in some place and it would take root and then it might block some of the channels. Mr. Bodkin stated that their property is currently defined to be in a flood zone as defined by FEMA. He asked if this work would affect that and if the flood zone would be reviewed. He said they are required to pay flood insurance but if they could be taken out of the flood zone as a result of this work, that would be great. City Engineer Moberg responded that with this type of project, we don't anticipate that there would be any change in water levels or flood designations. He said that perhaps in Mr. Bodkin's case, it's a matter of looking at his property individually to see what is currently covered and what he is required to have insurance for. He added that whether there could be any changes made to that would be a separate issue from what is being considered here. Approved Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 2011 Page 15 MOTION by Commissioner Petrash, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, finding that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Bass Lake Wetland Drainage Improvement Project located west of Zachary Lane and south of Bass Lake Road has disclosed sufficient information for the City Council to make a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Vote. 7 Ayes. MOTION approved. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.