9. Wetland Alteration Permit-Yuma Drive and Preakness Lanei
CITY OF
CH NHASSEN
a
PC DATE: 2/2/94
CC DATE: 2/28/94
CASE: 94 -1 WAP
BY: Desotelle
� STAFF REPORT
1
IZ
a.
a
' J
Q
7
U
PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit to excavate approximately 1.15 acres of a
wetland classified as agricultural/urban for water quality enhancement
purposes within the watershed draining to Lotus Lake.
LOCATION: Intersection of Yuma Drive and Preakness Lane
APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residence
WETLAND ACREAGE: Approximately 4.4 acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - Single Family Residence
S - Single Family Residence
E - Single Family Residence and Lotus Lake
W - Single Family Residence
Q
IW
1�
1
SEWER AND WATER: Not applicable
WETLAND CHARACTER: The wetland is characterized as a combination of a
seasonally flooded palustrine emergent and broad leaved
forested and scrub shrub wetland (Cowardin
PEMC/PF01C /SS1C; Circular 39 Types 2/617 inland fresh
meadow /shrub /wooded). Approximately 1.15 acres of
wetland will be excavated.
2000 LAND USE: Residential Low Density
r
Yuma WAP
February 2, 1994
' Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
1 Background
' Wetland Description
The wetland is located south of Ponderosa between Yuma Road and Carver Beach Road and
is approximately 4.4 acres in size (Figure 1- Pond LL- P10.14). The wetland is characterized
as a combination of a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent and broad leaved forested and
scrub shrub wetland (Cowardin PEMC/PF01C /SS1C; Circular 39 Types 2/6/7 inland fresh
meadow /shrub /wooded). It is designated as an Ag/urban waterbody on city maps.
Approximately 1.15 acres of wetland will be excavated. The excavated material will be
' disposed of on cropland at the intersection of 86th Street and Highway 101.
Needs
' This project is one of many proposed by the City's Surface Water Management Plan
(SWMP). The SWMP is developed to incorporate stormwater quantity, stormwater quality,
' and wetlands and lakes into a comprehensive plan designed to allow future development
while protecting, preserving, and enhancing its water resources. This proposed project is one
part of a water quality enhancement project designed to reduce the total phosphorus loading
' of the Lotus Lake drainage area by approximately 33.9% (Figure 1). The Lotus Lake
drainage area is an older established area of the city where there is a deficiency of stormwater
management. Therefore, the area requires extensive stormwater quality and quantity
' enhancement projects to meet the SWMP's water resource goals.
This specific wetland project includes the excavation of approximately 1.15 acres of ag/urban
' wetland (Figure 2). This designation allows for its use to filter and clean stormwater runoff
to protect downstream resources. The excavated area will be broken into three separate
ponding areas designed to retain heavy sediment loads as well as reduce the total phosphorus
' output. The drainage system has been modelled using Pondnet computer software designed to
route flow and phosphorus through networks of wet detention ponds. Excavation is necessary
in order to achieve the wet volume design requirements to meet the City's established water
' quality goals. This particular project is designed to remove approximately 64% of the
phosphorus load on the drainage area.
The residents around the wetland have been contacted by letter, phone, and in person to
incorporate their suggestions /concerns into the project. In general, the residents appear to be
in favor of the project. There were some minor modifications to normal water levels and a
' drainage easement is still under negotiation.
Yuma WAP
February 2, 1994
Page 3
Avoidance/Minimization
This area has little upland available that would serve as a practicable and feasible alternative '
for the enhancement project since the surrounding land use is fully developed. Historically,
the wetland has received direct urban runoff from the surrounding area, and according to a '
long time resident, gardens were once established in the northern portion of the wetland and a
small area of open water was excavated.
This project will most likely enhance the wetland by providing hydrologic diversity that will
influence diversity of hydrophytic vegetation within the wetland. Except for the 1.15 acres of
open water area to be created, vegetated regions within the wetland will n'ot be impacted.
This will further help to enhance the water quality of the basin.
Alternatives ,
The creation of stormwater holding ponds in an upland area would be an ideal alternative,
however, no area is available for this option. Stormwater holding pond LL- P10.13 (Figure 2) '
installed in 1988 for this purpose will be cleaned out as part of the SWMP enhancement
project. The clean out is expected to retain approximately 40% of the phosphorus load to that
pond. '
Mitigation '
Since it was determined that this wetland will be enhanced as a result of the project and that
there is no significant wetland alteration, it does not appear that mitigation is necessary. '
Construction Plans
Construction Techniques '
The excavation of the three basins will require the removal of approximately 5,400 cubic
yards of wetland soils. These basins are proposed to be constructed with 1 , 10:1 slopes for the '
first 10 feet and 4:1 slopes thereafter with depths ranging from four to seven feet deep
(Figure 2). Rip rap will be installed at all storm sewer discharge points in accordance with '
the City's Best Management Practices Handbook.
A stormwater basin south of Woodhill Road (LL- P10.13) and just west of the wetland will '
also be cleaned out during this time requiring the removal of an additional 645 cubic yards of
material. Side slopes will be no more than 4:1 depending on the amount 'of room available
(Figure 2). '
I Yuma WAP
February 2, 1994
Page 4
As noted above the material will be trucked to the intersection of 86th Street and Highway
1 101 and deposited with permission on Al Klingelhutz's cropland.
Outlet Control Structure
The outlet control structure will be installed at the southeast corner of the pond where a small
creek discharges the water. The schematic of the structure is shown on Figure 3. The
' manhole /weir structure will allow some flexibility in the water elevation for cleaning
purposes. The outlet will be an 18 -inch pipe set below the elevation of approximately 925.5
feet, the calculated normal water elevation. The high water level is estimated to be 928.2
' feet.
Erosion Control
' Sedimentation and erosion is not a significant problem with this project. The City will follow
their Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control specifications
' and monitor the situation until the area is stabilized.
' The excavated basins will most likely re -seed themselves within the year. If not, the side
slopes will be seeded with hydric vegetation species. The off -site disposal area will be
leveled off compatible to the existing terrain. Trucking will also cause sediment build -up at
' the loading and unloading areas, and therefore, rock construction entrances will be provided
and the streets in the area will be swept periodically throughout the transportation process.
' Permitting Agencies
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
' This wetland is not on the DNR Protected Water Inventory; and therefore, the proposed
wetland alteration does not require a permit from the DNR.
' Army Corps of Engineers
The City of Chanhassen has applied for a Section 404 permit to excavate portions of the
wetland (LL- P10.14) located in the above described sections. In accordance with the final
rules and regulations issued by the U.S. Army corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 25, 1993, implementing the Clean Water
Act's (CWA) Section 404 regulatory program (see 33 CFR 323.2(d) and 40 CFR 232.2(e)),
any addition or redeposition of dredged material associated with any activity, including
' mechanized land clearing, ditching, channelization and other excavation, that destroys or
degrades waters of the United States requires a Section 404 permit.
a
Yuma WAP
February 2, 1994
Page 5 I
State Wetland Rules
The City of Chanhassen is responsible for administering the permanent rules of the Wetland '
Conservation Act (WCA). The WCA does not require a permit for the excavation of
wetlands. '
City Wetland Ordinance
The City of Chanhassen's wetland ordinance (sec. 20 -410) requires that a,wetland alteration '
permit be obtained for the dredging, excavation, and/or grading of any wetland. According to
the ordinance, the following standards shall be followed when a wetland alteration permit is '
issued:
1. The dredging will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological '
characteristics of the wetland.
i
Findings: Excavating the wetland should enhance the ecological and hydrological '
characteristics of the area by providing open water areas in combination with emergent
stands of vegetation to help form diverse habitats.
2. It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
Findings: Erosion Control best management practices will be installed until the areas ,
excavated are fully revegetated.
3. It shall not adversely change water flow. '
Findings: Stormwater runoff will be retained for a longer period of time within the I
wetland, but there will be no alterations to the drainage pattern.
4. The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the ,
proposed action.
Findings: The excavated areas were sized based on total phosphorus load estimates to '
the area and the Surface Water Management Plan's recommended design for total
phosphorus reduction to the entire watershed.
5. Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area.
P g
Findings: The excavated material will not be redeposited within the wetland area. ,
i Yuma WAP
February 2, 1994
Page 6
6. Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient
retention measures.
Findings: Construction plans are described in the Watershed District's grading and
land alteration permit application. These plans include best management practices for
erosion control both on site and at the areas where the material is deposited.
' 7. Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or
fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the City that the wetland is not used
for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning.
' Findings: The work for this J ro'ect will be performed in the winter of 1994/95.
P
8. Dredging in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated in accordance with the
requirements of the article if the activity results in a loss of functional wetland.
' Dredging to create water quality improvement basins may be allowed by the
City where reasonable alternatives are not available or where the wetland is of low
quality and designed for this purpose by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management
Plan.
Findings: This wetland is characterized as ag/urban indicating that the functional
values are low to medium. The Surface Water Management Plan recommends the use
of this wetland for water quality purposes. At the same time, creating pockets of open
water with stands of vegetation between them will help promote diversity and water
' quality enhancement to the wetland.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
At the February 2, 1994, meeting, the commission recommended approval of the request with
staff's recommended conditions.
' STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit 94 -1 as shown on the plans dated
' December 28, 1993, with the following conditions:
1. A grading and land alteration permit has been obtained from the Watershed District.
Yuma WAP
February 2, 1994
Page 7
2. A permit be obtained from the Corps according to the federal rules listed above. We
are still in the process of obtaining a permit from the Corps, and therefore, the project
is now scheduled for the winter of 1994/95.
3. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council
approval."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Figure 1 - Canterbury Circle Drainage Area
2. Figure 2 - Pond LL- P10.14 Yuma Drive /Canterbury Circle
3. Figure 3 - Proposed Outlet Control Construction
4. Planning Commission minutes dated February 2, 1994
0 w
WN-
I
925.5 925s
EVER .., NOT TO SCALE
0 EYERCENt , % r. � �� ttEOETATION
•. t/EOETATION
2.1 AC. fT. Wet Volume QB 35 AC. FT Wet Volume
Wet Volume 0.15 A, at NwLI
. 0.3 Ac of NWL 0.6 - 0.7 At. of NML 2.5 Ft. Years Dean
. 3.0 Fl. 4lOn OeOt^ 4.2 Fl. Moon Depth a 4 - ft. Max. Opin
. 5 -6 rt Yo. Deptn . 6 -7 Ft. Yo :. Depth
SECTION
JAMES CRANSTON ,
X 926.3 929 Contour — Approximate Wetland Edge
moo! I `.
\ Q JIM KURKOWSKI I \
X 926.8
\ � I X926.6
< SEPH T. 0 acre
T x 928.2 \
\ t \ MR. MIKE O'KELLY \ \
X 926.6 `
9" C„1 ^s° C/- EXCAVATION ,
— — a, :FOR OPEN WATER
W& VOL 0.9 Ac. Ft.
PLACE RPCK 92 9
&NTRk4CE JA
LO
ovvtFLow I X 927.8
y \ \ 1 1 - PROPOSED
NL - 92 . -, a STORM WATER PIPE
4 Ae•
0. \ \',- `\ s ` 0.1i5 acr ,
AREA B
,
°, SEDIMENTATION
POND
WET VOLUME 1 -
J J i l� YE TATIVE
tiT OT A =\ 1 X 926.9 t 0.35 Aa F C
AREA A — EXCAVATION
FOR OPEN WATER
�y
`1_y,- \ WET VOLUME - 2.1 Ac. Ft.
0.7 acre �� • -�
I c
OV
X 926.8 �� X426 2
1416 S
i
3 DENNIS BRISTON �• .
.o �, \ u
750 .•�'�:..
PL
DAVID MUIKENBUMC :
8 740
A \
1 A 9
STEPHEN SMEDSTAD PROPOSED
730 OUTLET STRUCTURE
10 OUTLOT A 1, -
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PHIWP WEIK 75'
_ FENC�
720
Figure 2
I
PROPOSED OUTLET CONTROL FOR POND LL- P10.14
Outlet Hole
Inlet
HW 1_
MH Inv.
SMDON -
�.L
5'
x o —..-..
�
�II
'c 1
>l _
2 x 4 X 1/4 6061 -T6 Aluminum Chonn6
5 /9' x 4" Stainless steel
-etdiner pin
ittet
B
Manhole steps shall be placed
over the outlet pipe.
Precast concrete manhole section
Precast concrete manhole base
3/8" x 5" Stainless steel
flathead sleave anchor
V' on center.
2 x 4 X 1/4 6061 - T6 Aluminum Channel
Treated 2 x 4
3/8" x 4" Stainless steel
retainer pin
Treated 2 x 12 planks.
Overlap planks at joints and
nail with galvanized nails.
Size of orifice varies.
See plans
2 x 4 Aluminum channel
grouted into invert. Coat Aluminum
in contact with grout with
2 coats of bituminous point.
��. -�-- Provide 3'x5' Aluminum access hatch
as described in specifications.
�vor►es ,
Monhole steps, Neenah R1981J or equal.
�----- -fi 16" on center. Aluminum steps approved
6 ' - Cr Treated 2 x 12 planks. Overlap planks
HWL of joints and nail with galvanized nails.
� --- do All joints in manhole to hove
"O" ring rubber gaskets.
grout Pipe shall be cut out flush
with inside face of wall.
Inletl 1A 10 le t Minimum slab thickness, 8 for 14'
depth. Increase thickness 1" for
eoch 4' of depth greater than 14',
SECTION B=.B and reinforce with 6x6 10/10 mesh.
DESIGN SPECIAL 11 Figure 3
POND OUTLET CONTROL- MANHOLE
Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING: ! '
CITY OF CHANHASSEN IS PROPOSING TO MITIGATE A WETLAND FOR
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
YUMA DRIVE AND PREAKNESS LANE. '
Public Present:
Name Address ,
Steve S rson 760 Preakness Lane '
Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. I
13 ' '
existing 15 foot wide sanitary easement through Lots 1, 2 and 3. The final plat shall
dedicate 5 foot wide side yard and 10 foot front and rear drainage and utility easements
,
on each lot.
6.
The applicant shall provide the city with a $400.00 cash escrow account for review and
'
recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's office. Additionally, a development
contract containing these conditions shall be entered into between the developer and the
city and be recorded with the final plat.
7.
A tree removal plan shall be submitted for city approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit for access to the lake.
i
'
8.
Limited vegetative clearing, cutting, pruning, and trimming to provide i a view of the water
from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of stairways and Iandings,
picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas and permitted water oriented
accessory structures is permitted below the 958 contour.
,
9.
v
The house pad shall be limited to a n area above the 9 58 contour.
10.
Park and trail fees are required of this development. One -third (1/3) of such fees shall
'
be payable at the time of building permit application at the rate in 1force at the time,
less any fees paid at the time of platting.
i
11.
Torrens proceedings must be completed prior to final plat approval.
All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: ! '
CITY OF CHANHASSEN IS PROPOSING TO MITIGATE A WETLAND FOR
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
YUMA DRIVE AND PREAKNESS LANE. '
Public Present:
Name Address ,
Steve S rson 760 Preakness Lane '
Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. I
13 ' '
Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994
' Scott: From reading the staff report here I know there's a number of people who have of
P P P g
property there and there's a nice view. At least in my mind it doesn't feel, it doesn't trigger
' me that after one growing season that anybody's going to be able to tell really that you've
done that work, except one of the area's going to be open. It's going to be a lot deeper. So
' the visual impact of that particular wetland is not going to be significant.
Hempel: That's correct. It's our intent to go out and actually stake it in the field to
minimize any kind of tree loss. Vegetation in that area, there is a variety of underbrush.
There are some willow, there are some older trees. There are no significant trees which
you're removing from the project. It is our intent to, these ponding areas that we're going to
be creating are to NURP standards where you can have a ... create a habitat of vegetation or
the wetland characteristics. That will be a 3 or 4 to 1 slope so approximate depth of 5 to 6
feet in the middle. You're correct. One growing season of vegetation it should re- establish
itself and create more open water into two areas. Provide more...
Mancino: I have a question Dave. This is going to filter and clean the storm water runoff so
that in so many years, in 10 years do you have to go back in and do the same thing?
Excavate and is this an ongoing process that is going to take place as it fills back up?
' Hempel: That's partially correct. That's our purpose here is to create three water bodies.
The major collecting area will be a sediment pond proposed just east, or excuse me, just west
of Carver Beach. Collect the bulk of the storm water off of it right now just drains directly
' into the wetland area instead of...It's our intent to create that holding area just on the edge of
the wetland to collect these sediments so that is the area that we constantly have cleaned so
we don't have to go back into these other larger open areas to maintain and clean out them.
' Trying to collect the ... before it gets further down in the downstream.
Mancino: Do I want any of this excavation on my garden? I can see that it's going to
' wear...
Scott: Al Klingelhutz' property. Yeah, 86th Street.
Hempel: Actually I have a couple of sites proposed. That would be one that would be
P Y P P P
proposed. Also ... home being built and there's a back yard that's going to need a lot of fill
type of materials...
' Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing. If any members of the
public, if you two would like to address the Planning Commission, please do and just let us
know who you are and where you live and you can say whatever's on your mind.
' 14
h
Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 1
LI
Steve Syverson: I'm Steve Syverson. I live 760 Preakness Lane. I've just got a question as
far as if there's going to be any standing water that you anticipate in these ponds or if they're
going to be kind of what's there now. Kind of a wetting, kind of weeping...
,
Hempel: There will be movement through the ponding area as the rain and precipitation
,
occurs. These will be essentially the holding ponds and water will be filtering or migrating
through the soils as well as the vegetation downstream.
Steve Syverson: So there will always be water in them or will they be basically weeping on
down?
Hempel: We envision that they'll be containing water 99% of the time.
Steve Syverson: My concern was like during the winter when we've got 'a drop in water and
,
the ice is up. Kids fall down there and we've got about 45 -50 in the neighborhood and they
all like to come down there and play. I just didn't want to make any hazards out of them so
that was my concern.
Hempel: That's a good point. Our thoughts were... continual migration of ground water
through there that the ponding area should maintain that level through thee.
,
Scott: Also that, it's usually a 10:1 slope so it's from the edge of the pond. It's got a fairly
gradual slope and then it goes to 3:1 or 4:1, depending upon what you need to accomplish.
,
Steve Syverson: Right, but at times we're going to be up to like 5 feet.
Hempel: In the middle. There's also a ... control structure on—areas that provide us some
latitude to adjust the water level. If necessary if we needed to clean the pond...
'
Steve Syverson: Would that be a fixed place or would that be something that you'd either
adjust...
,
Hempel: I've got a diagram of it here actually. It's the storm sewer manhole, it's a board
that controls the height...
'
Mancino: Do we put signs up you know in the winter to say be careful for water?
's
like a wire a structure in the middle of the manhole that
Hempel: Essentially there type
P
controls the water. The water comes in one end and has to come up over! the boards to go
over so this controls the elevation of the water in the pond. So if you take the boards out, the
I
15 '
!I
i
1
H
P
Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994
water level also goes down.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations. I have no comments.
Ledvina: Do we have an estimate of the cost of this project Dave?
Hempel: My understanding, the entire projected cost for this is around $80,000.00. ...as we
go out to stake and field these sites, these ponds and excavation may be less.
Ledvina: Will this be a big project?
Hempel: This project is, in an effort to preserve our funds in the SWAMP budget, the public
works department will proceed to rent equipment to dredge out the material with the labor
and manpower to do the work.
Ledvina: Okay, and are there other funding sources? This is an environmental improvement
project essentially and as I'm aware, if we have the lottery and there are, or I should say the
purpose of the funds generated from the lottery is to be for these types of environmental
improvement projects. Have we looked at that at all?
Hempel: To be honest, no. I haven't... potential of. That's a very good question. I will pass
it onto Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Coordinator to research...
Ledvina: Are those funds distributed through DNR then or how, I don't know. I guess I'm
ignorant about that.
Hempel: To be honest, I'm not that knowledgeable.
Ledvina; Okay. Well, just whatever. This is pretty innovative in terms of city's going ahead
and doing these types of projects and it is a public works project and I believe those funds
are for this type of activity so maybe there's a potential there. That's it.
Scott: Okay. Nancy.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994
1
Mancino: Just one quick question Dave. Do we ever put signs out that say, designs for
ponds in the winter to make sure that the ice is?
'
Hempel: I can't think of any in the city that we have any ... Surely that's something that we
could do. We're in the process of requiring some of the developments ofd these wetlands.
,
Buffer strip edges. We're going to be putting up monumentation to every other property lines
essentially to denote the edge of the buffer.
,
Mancino: That might be something for us to think about.
g g i
Hempel: It could be.
'
Mancino: Because it could be such a natural wildlife area in there too.
Ledvina: What you're talking about the ice in terms of safety? I guess we have ice
�Y g Y g
everywhere. I mean we have lakes and all this and we don't put signs every 50 feet all along
the edge of the lakeshore. I think that certainly there's hazards there but there's also.
'
Mancino: I think sometimes when there hasn't been any ice there before and there's just
been ground water. There hasn't been a pond. I'm just wondering if that would necessitate
'
putting it there maybe for the first year or something so the people know.' It's different than
it was.
Ledvina: Yeah, I understand and if there was a specific hazard associated with the ice with
the change in water level or something like that, that would. You know not your normal ice
hazards. Thin ice hazards or whatever, then I would say yeah. We should take some special
consideration but if, you know I think it's, as Dave has laid out the design for us, I think it's
a pretty safe design as it relates to the shallow slope along the edges and that type of layout
'
so I understand the concern but personally I don't see the need for it.
Hempel: I also believe that after the first year this area is going to be pretty well grown in
P
'
again and if you've been in the area, it's not very conducive to walking. It's very heavily
underbrushed and so forth. It's difficult to get
'
Scott: Okay, can I have a motion please.
Mancino: Let's see. I move that the Planning Commission approve the Wetland Alteration
Permit #94 -1 as shown on the plans dated December 28, 1993 with the following conditions.
1, 2 and 3 attached. ,
17 '�
Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994:_.
Scott: Is there a second?
Ledvina: I second it.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -1 as shown on the plans dated December 28, 1993,
with the following conditions:
1. A grading and land alteration permit be obtained from the Watershed District.
2. A permit be obtained from the Corps according to the federal rules listed above.
3. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council
approval.
All voted in favor, except Joe Scott abstained. After the following discussion, Joe Scott
changed his vote to in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: This is going to the City Council?
Ledvina: Who abstained?
Scott: I did. It's adjacent to my neighborhood so I'm not voting.
Hempel: February 28th.
Scott: Old Business? New Business?
Aanenson: Would you like me to just walk through the Director's Report?
Scott: Sure. We have a few minutes.
Ledvina: I just had a question. If you abstain from voting, do we have a quorum?
Aanenson: I was going to raise that same issue.
Scott: Well, we have a neighbor from the residence. A neighbor. Are you from?
18
I
Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994
Audience: No.
Scott: Okay. Well, probably the authority would be Mr. Syverson and if you have a, we
won't be able to get this through our proceeding unless I vote and I abstained because I live
in the neighborhood. Would you have a problem if I voted on this issue? '
Steve Syverson: No.
Scott: Okay. Let the record show that the resident of that neighborhood ' I does not object to ,
my voting so I will change my vote from abstain to aye, which would mean that it passes
unanimously. Thank you sir. '
I
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Aanenson: Okay. Just go through the Council issues... administrative packet. The Council
recommended denial of the Papke variance.
Scott: We didn't see it.
Aanenson: That was a Board of Adjustments. The issue there was whether
or not ... sewer ,
extended. That's the island across from the Arboretum. Council felt that!
it would be best to
have sanitary sewer and thus denied the request. Council authorized staff
to submit the
RALF loan application... Frank Fox property... Powers Blvd. Council reviewed
the elementary ,
school site. That same night they were also, HGA was also giving a presentation
to the
School District so unfortunately the graphs or renderings for the meeting
were at the school
site so the Council tabled it and they will be on their work study session,
1, which Paul has on t
here is the 31st but it's actually February 7th. Next Monday they will bej
there. Council
actually went through the analysis of the project but they didn't have the
!site plans so...
Matt, this goes to the question you were talking about. The conservation
'
money that's
available through the lottery. A grant application has been submitted. Paul
has put a copy of
that in your packet here. It's $777,000.00 and that's for the Bluff Creek
corridor study, and '
that's where Paul is tonight. He's meeting with the Watershed. There's
a copy of that.
Whether that ... over that Riley- Purgatory Watershed District with the acquisition
property... they've already purchased. They would also want ... at that time
a trailhead access as
really an important piece and we want to do a joint venture and make sure
that we can...
Ledvina: Now who are the applications made to?
Aanenson: It's in conjunction with the DNR. j
19