Loading...
6. Wetland Alternation Permit Steller Court 6 C ITY 0 F P.C. DATE: 11 -17 -93 .1 C.C. DATE: 12 -13 -93 \ � � , ' ' CASE: 93 -3 WAP CHAHAE BY: Al -Jaff esotelle STAFF REPORT I I PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit to fill approximately 0.05 acre of a city classified Ag/Urban wetland and 0.15 acre of Natural Wetlands and to create additional wetland areas for the purpose of improving a driveway I l--- to access a single family parcel 4 LOCATION: South of Lake Lucy Road and north, east, and west of Lake 1 V APPLICANT : Mark and Kathy Sanda Mdort I/ 7 WA" ..- 1685 Steller Court WNW I a. Excelsior, MN 55331 _ c 4 to � �2 - 1 ti, Dude Submitted to Council 1 PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential I ACREAGE: Approximately 10 acres I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Lake Lucy Road and Single Family Residence S - Lake Lucy 1 E - Lake Lucy and Single Family Residence W - Lake Lucy and Single Family Residence Q 1 SEWER AND WATER: Services are not available to the site. 0 1 W SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is a heavily wooded peninsula that can be accessed via a 33 foot wide neck of the lot that extends up to Lake �. Lucy Road. The peninsula contains remnants of a cabin. (f) Two wetlands abut the 33 foot wide strip leading to the peninsula. 1 2000 LAND USE: Residential Low Density 1 1 Mark and Kathy Sanda November 17, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY - The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway to provide access to a peninsula located north, east, and west of Lake Lucy, and south of Lake Lucy Road. There is an existing road remnant, mainly contained within a 33 foot wide strip, that provides access to the peninsula. This 33 foot wide strip is approximately 1,750 feet in length. In the past, it provided access to a cabin. The cabin has been demolished, and only the foundation remains. The applicant is proposing to i upgrade the access into a driveway which will provide access for a future single family residence which will be built on the peninsula. The 33 foot wide strip is bordered by two wetlands. One of the wetlands is located approximately 155 feet from Lake Lucy Road. This wetland is characterized as a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent basin and a seasonally flooded palustrine forested broad leaved deciduous basin (Cowardin PEMC and PFO1C; Circular 39 Types 1 and 2 [seasonally flooded basin or flat bottom land hardwood and inland fresh meadow]). The City of Chanhassen classifies this basin as agricultural /urban indicating that the basin has been impacted by development and has a low to moderate functional value. The driveway construction will fill approximately 0.05 acre of this wetland basin. The other wetland is located along the northern peninsula of Lake Lucy. This wetland is quite complex and is characterized as a semi - permanent to seasonally flooded to temporarily flooded ' palustrine emergent basin (Cowardin PEMF /C /A; Circular 39 Types 2/3/4 [inland fresh meadow /inland shallow fresh marsh/inland deep fresh marsh]). The City of Chanhassen classifies this basin as natural indicating that the basin has retained most of its natural features and has a moderate to high functional value. The driveway construction will fill approximately 0.15 acre of this wetland basin. The proposed driveway near Lake Lucy has elevations below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for Lake Lucy which has been established at 956.10 feet. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prohibits any fill from taking place below the OHWM of a water body without a protected waters permit. The applicant will therefore be constructing a bridge across the area at or below the 956.10 elevation of Lake Lucy and has applied for a DNR protected waters permit. Upgrading the access into a driveway will require approximately 0.20 acre of fill which will be replaced. The total wetland mitigation area is approximately 0.30 acre. Mitigation will take place on Lot 4, Block 2, Lake Lucy Highlands, which is owned by the applicants. There are some portions of the proposed driveway that are located outside the 33 foot wide strip and on neighboring property. The applicant must obtain a cross access easement to locate the driveway on the neighboring property or relocate it so that it is wholly contained on the property. 1 1 Mark and Kathy Sanda November 17, 1993 Page 3 1 The proposal is reasonable and staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the report. 1 Permitting Agencies Minnesota Department of Natural Resources One of the wetlands on the project site is shown on the DNR Protected Water Inventory; and therefore, the proposed wetland fill in this area will require a permit from the DNR. Army Corps of Engineers 1 The wetlands on the project site are within the permitting jurisdiction of the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These basins are considered isolated for purposes of Corps permitting regulations. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half acre and three acres in such basins with predischarge- notification- [see- 33- CFR-330.5- (a)(26)(ii)]. -- The proposed amount of fill is approximately 0.20 acre, and therefore, the project should be covered under the nationwide Section 404 permit. It is recommended that the Corps be notified of the activity in order to verify compliance with the permit. City and State Wetland Rules The City of Chanhassen has reviewed the proposed project to ensure compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and city ordinances. Responsibility for administering the provisions of this legislation falls to the City of Chanhassen as the LGU. We have reviewed the various exemptions contained in the Act and find that, unless the project has a pre - existing approved preliminary plat or other local governmental approval, none of the exemptions appear to apply. This being the case, the city must certify that the project has complied with the provisions of the Act that apply to the interim period. These provisions require that all wetland impacts incurred during this period be offset by wetland creation or restoration at a 1:1 acreage 1 ratio and in the same watershed or county as the impact. The Act also dictates that restoration or creation of replacement wetlands only be considered after an applicant has demonstrated that the impacts cannot be avoided, further minimized, corrected or eliminated over time. In this case, the requirements of the Act are essentially the same as those contained in the Corps rules. Even if impacts can be reduced to under one -half acre in order to obtain a Corps nationwide permit, the City will still need to require the avoid - minimize - compensate sequence and the provision of 1:1 compensation. We have reviewed the proposal and concluded that there is no viable alternative to providing 1 access to the platted lot. The driveway has been sensitively designed to utilize a bridge section 1 1 1 Mark and Kathy Sanda November 17, 1993 I Page 4 to minimize impact and provide mitigation in excess of the requested 1:1 ratio. Therefore, we find it to be acceptable. ' Miscellaneous 1 There are some portions of the proposed driveway that are located outside the 33 foot wide strip and on neighboring property. The applicant must obtain a cross access easement to locate the drivev, ay on the neighboring property. The Fire Marshal recommended that the bridge section be built to a 9 ton design to accommodate 1 the weight of a fire truck. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE 1 On November 17, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed this application and unanimously recommended approval with the exception of Commissioner Jeff Farmakes who abstained from discussion and vote on this item. Numerous issues where raised by the Planning Commission and residents. The applicants have taken steps to address these issues and they are as follow: Issues raised by Lake Lucy Area residents regarding the wetland alteration permit are: 1. Can the city impose a permanent restriction to limit the access to a single residence? Finding: Unless the applicant can meet all Subdivision Ordinance requirements, the site will remain as a single family parcel. Otherwise there is no reasonable way to place limits on this parcel that do not apply to all parcels in the city. 2. Because of the frequency of flooding above 957, it appears that portions of the proposed driveway would be under water frequently and with long duration. Finding: Staff contacted the DNR to find out how ordinances address this particular issue. Ms. Ceil Strauss stated that driveways may be constructed 2 feet under the 100 year flood elevation. The driveway will be constructed 6" below the 100 year flood elevation. Also, raising the driveway above the 100 year flood elevation will require further encroachment into the wetland. - 1 Therefore, we are not recommending any further changes. 3. One area resident believed that the wetlands should be protected against soil erosion from the class 5 portions of the driveway and adverse ecological effects resulting from such erosion. Finding: The areas being altered are buffered by natural wetland vegetation which will minimize runoff into the wetland. The wetland will then act as a sedimentation pond for suspended solids 1 1 Mark and Kathy Sanda 1 November 17, 1993 Page 5 1 that may make it through the vegetation, removing these solids prior to discharge into the lake. The applicant also stated that crushed limestone, which does not have the clay material in it, will be used. The fill along the wetlands will be enveloped in a geotextile fabric to prevent any migration. This appears to be reasonable to staff. 4. An area resident was concerned over the type of materials used to construct the driveway 1 and the bridge. Finding: The Planning Commission added the following condition, "The bridge section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will not leech pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge section design shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval." 5. In the upland mitigation area, there is an outlet for a continuously running spring from a wetland on Lot 4. Free natural flow from this spring should be maintained. Finding: The proposed mitigation will not impede the natural flow of the spring. 1 6. An area resident believed that road salts or de -icing chemicals should be prohibited since there are no buffer strips or ponding areas to catch and prevent pollution of the wetland 1 from these chemicals. Finding: The Planning Commission amended a condition of approval to read, "The applicant 1 or future landowner shall be prohibited from using salts or de -icing chemicals applied to the driveway in order to protect the quality of the water running into the wetland areas." Staff questions the enforcement and safety of this condition. 1 7. Purple loosestrife grows on and adjacent to the driveway site, spoils from excavation should be required to be disposed of in a manner which would not proliferate this noxious weed from the seeds or roots left in the soils. Finding: The Planning Commission added a condition of approval to read "In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the proposed driveway, such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly according to DNR standards ". 8. The existing path may be built on a base of peat and muck, which could be unstable. Finding: The Planning Commission amended a condition of approval to read "The applicant 1 shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to the engineering department for approval." 1 1 1 1 Mark and Kathy Sanda November 17, 1993 Page 6 9. The neighbor living at the site located west of the driveway and south of Lake Lucy Road (Kimble), indicated that mature trees are located adjacent to the driveway, and the grading of the driveway could result in standing water where those trees are located. Finding: The Planning Commission added a condition of approval to read, "A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns." The applicant has submitted a revised grading plan and the following is the Assistant City Engineer's comments regarding the drainage and grading of the driveway: Pursuant to the issues reased by Planning Commission, the applicant's engineer has implemented some additional driveway modifications which includes a culvert towards the north end of the driveway. The adjacent neighbor to the west lying directly south of Lake Lucy Road (Kimble) expressed a drainage concern with regards to construction of the driveway impeding the natural drainage through their property. The applicant's engineer has proposed installation of a 21 -inch CMP culvert to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern underneath the proposed driveway. 1 Installation of this new culvert should provide for adequate drainage through the Kimble's property. It may or may not be necessary for the applicant to perform some minor grading on the Kimble property to direct the storm runoff through the new culvert. The plans also show another culvert crossing (12 -inch CMP) just south of the Kimble property to maintain the neighborhood drainage between two existing wetland bodies. The driveway is proposed to be elevated approximately one foot to a 979 contour with the culvert installed at 977.1. In this same area, the City's Surface Water Management Plan proposes for these two wetland areas to be consolidated into one wetland body by raising the normal water elevation in the wetland to 980.0 resulting in a 100 -year flood elevation of 980.9. To ensure that the driveway is properly constructed to accommodate the future water quality improvements in the existing wetland bodies, staff recommends that the driveway elevation be raised in this area to an elevation of 981.0 and the invert elevation of the proposed 12 -inch CMP culvert be adjusted to 978.1 on the east end and 978.0 on the west end to maintain drainage between the two water bodies. Upon discussion with the applicant's engineer, Mr. Ken Adolph, he felt that these recommendations were acceptable. PARK COMMISSON RECOMMENDATION (The Planning Commission made changes to the staff's recommendations. These changes are 1 noted in bold.) The Park Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit 93 -4 as shown on the plans dated November 8, 1993, with the following conditions: 1 -� 1 1 Mark and Kathy Sanda November 17, 1993 Page 7 1 1. The mitigation area is intended to be similar to the existing basins and, therefore, should be designed to the extent possible to have bottom contours that approximate those of the existing basins. We recommend that the mitigation area be subcut to a depth 6 -12 inches below the desired bottom elevation. The basins should then be lined with 6 -12 inches of organic soils to be excavated from filled wetland areas. This lining of organic soils should provide a seed source sufficient to facilitate the establishment of wetland vegetation within the mitigation areas. Mitigation basins should be designed with irregular edges and irregular bottom contours. Side slopes should be no steeper than 5:1; side slopes of 10:1 or greater are preferable. If on -site soils demonstrate significant permeability, consideration should be given to lining mitigation areas with clay or other impervious materials prior to lining the basins with organic soils. 1 2. Notification should be made to the Corps to verify coverage under their nationwide Section 404 permit. 1 3. A protected waters permit must be authorized by the DNR before the project can proceed. 4. The applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from using amen -e€ salts and de -icing chemicals applied to the driveway in order to protect the quality of the water running into the wetland areas. 1 5. The applicant shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to the engineering_department_for approNa1. 6. The applicant shall obtain a cross access easement from neighboring properties where the driveway encroaches. 7. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height require a building permit. 8. The driveway will service one single family home. Only one residence will be permitted on the peninsula. 1 9. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council approval unless substantial construction on the driveway has taken place. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for all attorney fees associated with reviewing and recording this application. 1 11. The bridge section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will not leech pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge section 111 design shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 1 Mark and Kathy Sanda November 17, 1993 Page 8 12. In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the proposed driveway, such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly according to DNR standards. 13. The applicant shall raise the driveway grade between the two wetlands adjacent to Lot 3, Block 2, Lake Lucy Highlands approximately one foot to an elevation of 981.0 and revise the invert elevations of the proposed 12 -inch CMP culvert to 978.1 at the east end and 978.0 at the west end. 1 _. 14. The applicant shall install the proposed 21 -inch CMP culvert in a manner to facilitate stormwater runoff from the Kimble's property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letters from area residents. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated December 8, 1993. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated November 17, 1993. 4. Lake Lucy Property Driveway Plan. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission FR: Jill Willis 1571 Lake Lucy Road DT: November 17, 1993 This is to notify you that I intend to allow a cross - access easement on my property for use for a driveway from Lake Lucy Road to the peninsula presently owned by Mark and Cathy Sanda. Granting this cross - access easement for the initiating portion of the driveway from the turn -off at Lake Lucy Road (roughly, but not legally described as 5 x 30 feet) is contingent upon the following: * an exact and specific description of the property in question. * markings of some sort by the city on the property indicating the exact boundaries of the area in question. * re- routing the city plotted survey of the driveway to follow the natural terrain of the trail currently existing, and not up the hill onto my lawn as presently planned. * that the entire driveway is no wider than 10 feet and consists of materials and /or substances approved by the DNR and City to be both ecologically and environmentally safe, and not disruptive to any existing large and /or older trees. * that the driveway is approved for access to no more than one single family dwelling on the peninsula. Thank you, Kirt=2- 1 CI TYOF 'it CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ( 612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI -Jaff, Planner I FROM: Dave Hemel Assistant City Engineer '� Hempel, t3' g ����G7/ DATE: December 8, 1993 SUBJ: Revised Grading and Drainage Plan for Sanda's Driveway Land Use Review File No. 93 -26 Upon review of the revised grading and drainage plan prepared by Schoell & Madsen dated September 20, 1993, revised November 29, 1993, I offer the following comments and recommendations: Pursuant to the Planning Commission, the applicant's engineer has implemented some additional driveway modifications which includes a culvert towards the north end of the driveway. The adjacent neighbor to the west lying directly south of Lake Lucy Road (Kimble) expressed a drainage concern with regards to construction of the driveway impeding the natural drainage through their property. The applicant's engineer has proposed installation of a 21 -inch CMP culvert to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern underneath the proposed driveway. Installation of this new culvert should provide for adequate drainage through the Kimble's property. It may or may not be necessary for the applicant to perform some minor grading on the Kimble property to direct the storm runoff through the new culvert. The plans also show another culvert crossing (12 -inch CMP) just south of the Kimble property to maintain the neighborhood drainage between two existing wetland bodies. The driveway is proposed to be elevated approximately one foot to a 979 contour with the culvert installed at 977.1. In this same area, the City's Surface Water Management Plan proposes for these two wetland areas to be consolidated into one wetland body by raising the normal water elevation in the wetland to 980.0 resulting in a 100 -year flood elevation of 980.9. To ensure that the driveway is properly constructed to accommodate the future water quality improvements in the existing wetland bodies, staff recommends that the driveway elevation be raised in this area to an elevation of 981.0 and the invert elevation of the proposed 12 -inch CMP culvert be adjusted to 978.1 on the east end and 978.0 on the west end to maintain drainage between the two water bodies. Upon discussion with the applicant's engineer, Mr. Ken Adolph, he felt that these recommendations were acceptable. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff December 8, 1993 Page 2 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 1. The applicant shall raise the driveway grade between the two wetlands adjacent to Lot 3, Block 2 Lake Lucy Highlands approximately one foot to an elevation of 981.0 and revise 1 the invert elevations of the proposed 12 -inch CMP culvert to 978.1 at the east end and 978.0 at the west end. 2. The applicant shall install the proposed 21 -inch CMP culvert in a manner to facilitate stormwater runoff from the Kimble's property. jms c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM ' TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner 1 FROM: Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern DATE: November 17, 1993 SUBJ: Meeting with Cathy Sanda about driveway construction Today I met with Cathy Sanda at 1685 Steller Court to discuss the tree loss if the existing path is improved to a driveway. I counted a potential loss of approximately 38 trees above six inches DBH according to the plans as presented by Cathy Sanda. This total may not be accurate since the proposed driveway location is not fully staked out. The total is counted from the edge of the wooded peninsula (or edge of a wetland, depending on how you look at it) to Lake Lucy Road. The breakdown of the potential tree loss is as follows: 5 willows; 20 green ash; 3 red oaks; 2 elms; 10 box elders. The quality of most of the trees that would be cut is fairly low due to poor form, decay, and generally undesirable species. While we were on site, Bob Kendall, a neighbor, arrived and asked my opinion of whether or not his large weeping willows would be damaged from the construction. I believe the willows would survive without any major problems if we were properly determining the location of the property lines shown on the plan. He also asked if I thought there would be a 1 problem from standing water on the root systems of a row of spruces next to the willows. I told him there should not be a problem as long as a drainage pipe is placed to allow water to drain along the already existing culvert that has been eroded into a well- defined channel. This would require that a pipe be placed under the proposed driveway. Bob also mentioned that a boulder retaining wall could be used near Lake Lucy Road to preserve more trees. I stated that he would have to work that out with Cathy. 1 1 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 1 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. I MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Matt Ledvina, and Jeff Farmakes 1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Nancy Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; Bob 1 Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 1 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO A SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, NORTH, EAST AND WEST OF LAKE LUCY. THE PARCEL IS A PENINSULA IN LAKE LUCY, MARK AND KATHY SANDA. Public Present: I Name Address 1 Mark & Kathy Sandy 1685 Steller Court Ken Adolf Schoell and Madsen 1 Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road Eric Rivkin 1695 Steller Court John & Mariellen Waldron 1900 Lake Lucy Road 1 Jack Lowry 1665 Steller Court Sandy & Robert Kendall 1645 Lake Lucy Road Phil & Kim Thiesse 1675 Steller Court 1 Jill Willis 1571 Lake Lucy Road Julie Farmakes 7100 Utica Lane Donn Andrus 449 Pleasant View I Pat O'Dell Brian Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road Bill Lambrecht 6990 Utica Lane I Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. I 1 1 1 1 1 Mark Sanda: First of all I apprec: =: the opportunity to get up in front of you folks and just tell you a cct!pi e of things and I :: ;t to be respectful of your time tonight and I hope other people that come up and have comments are as well. As we mentioned, our goal is to receive approval for our plans to improve and upgrade an existing driveway to provide access to our peninsula property. My name's Mark Sanda and that's my wife Kathy and we're here representing ourselves. We're not a development company or anything. We purchased our lot about 7 years ago. Built our home on Steller Court...mentioned in the plan there 6 1/2 years ago. I thought a little history would be important as to why we ended up owning the peninsula. It really was an issue of preserving our view. When we became aware that the same owner of that property, who was an absentee owner, was the person who sold the property north of Lake Lucy Road to allow the Centex development. We became kind of concerned about what might eventually happen to that property so we went into negotiations with that party and purchased the peninsula in the summer of '89. We thought that perhaps one day we might build a home out there but we didn't give it a lot of thought. But in the ' intervening 4 years the peninsula's really kind of become a financial burden to us and somewhat of a policing burden. There's, we have evidence of a fair amount of unauthorized trespassing out there. We've granted access to some of our neighbors but we know there's -� people out there who litter and that type of thing so we decided to put the peninsula on the market and as you might guess, anyone's interested in acquiring the property wants to know what the access situation is. So we determined after some time that we had to carry through 1 with this process and that's what's motivating us behind all this. Well, whatever we decide to do, we...decide to build our home out there or whatever but no matter what happens we're either going to have to view what happens out there or we're going to be a part of it because -�. we're not planning on leaving the area. So we're very concerned ourselves about what happens to this particular piece of property. So then back to the goal. We just want permission to upgrade a driveway that's existed. We're going to show in our plan here that a ' driveway has existed there for many decades and it's supported by aerial photographs that were taken. We currently use quite a portion of that driveway to provide access to the peninsula which we just sort of enjoy for recreational reasons. We drive a tractor out there to haul out fallen logs to supply us with firewood and so we've done a little maintenance on it to keep it up to shape for driving a small tractor out there. The portion that's adjacent to ' Lake Lucy Road is in somewhat of a state of disrepair and when Lake Lucy Road was paved 7 years ago. Some of you might recall the road was raised up about 10 feet and at that time it made the access a little more difficult to get down onto that driveway and the absentee owner had never raised an issue with the city and so it has kind of become clogged up with some scrub trees so that's a portion that would need to be spruced up a little bit. We've hired the engineering firm of Schoell and Madsen because of their experience of projects of ' this type. To draw up a driveway design plan for us which Mr. Ken Adolf is here to share with you and as it was stated before, we've been working with the DNR and the city since day one on this process because we wanted to do it right. It was mentioned there's 2/10 of 1 an acre of wetland to be filled. Our plan, as you will see, calls for over 3/10 of an acre to be mitigated or recreated which we're going to do on our lot as part of this. We're going to move the appropriate trees and plant growth as the DNR rules require and we want to meet the regulations every step of the way. We had one little misstep in this whole situation. We 1 2 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 had a misunderstanding that kind of arose that led us to believe we might be able to pursue a subdivision out there. And an ad got drawn up with our real estate agent that indicated that and our thinking was, well let's just see what that might do to the value of the property in some people's eye. But we got that straighten out with the city rather quickly and it caused some undue alarm with people and it's an unfortunate incident but the bottom line is, the driveway plan that we are submitting is for an 8 to 10 foot wide driveway and city code says that you can only have one homesite serving a driveway of that width. So we know the concern of a lot of people is what's going to happen out there and when you see the details you see it just does not seem practical to do anything any wider than that. I don't know who could afford to do anything any wider than that so that hopefully takes care of that issue. We've tried to be wide open on this whole process since the beginning. We've contacted the property owners immediately adjacent to the driveway. Jill Willis, Sandy and Robert Kendall, Phil and Kim Thiesse and then ourselves are the property owners involved and I know all those people are here tonight so I hope they choose to say something. Some of them have given you written opinions of this. We've also talked to those people that have a view of the peninsula. And in addition to that, we met with the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, which is the group that represents all of the owners of lakeshore property on Lake Lucy. We supplied for the committee a fair number of letters from some of our neighbors that have indicated their support of the project. In the way it's designed here. There may be some people that will choose to speak tonight and I know there's going to be a letter read by the 1 Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. And in what I think is a very magnanimous gesture, we've received tentative permission from Jill Willis to have a cross access easement for the very beginning portion of the driveway which is adjacent to Lake Lucy. And when we get into the plan you'll see why that is a gesture that will help eliminate some of the impact at the beginning of the driveway. It has to do with where the city dumped dirt when they built the road up. It's basically taking advantage of what they had put there. So to summarize, while we recognize everyone is not exactly thrilled with the reality of further development in the city, we ask them to consider the fact that this driveway is being improved under strict adherence to all State and City environmental codes and that one homesite limitation should help maintain the special type of feeling that exists in that part of the city that all of us that live there like. And with that, thanks for your time and I'll turn it over to Ken. Ken Adolf: Mr. Chair, members of the Council. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen, consulting engineering firm in Minnetonka. I've got some boards that provide a detail on the, first of all on the existing conditions. Hopefully this will clarify some of the previous presentations. The alteration for a wetland alteration permits really are for restoring a driveway that has existed over 30 years. I have an aerial photo from 1962 on here which clearly shows the driveway as it approaches the peninsula. The driveway is fairly well defined on this area. This is Lake Lucy Road up in this area. This is the southerly wetland crossing and the most critical one. The existing previous driveway, the center line is 1 3 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 indicated by the dark...kind of meanders in and out of this 33 foot wide strip of property that extends north to Lake Lucy Road that was really intended to be the access. This matches up t at this point over here in this being the peninsula at this point. This is Lake Lucy Road. The two wetlands that were discussed, the northerly wetland and...edges are defined with the green lines. The southerly wetland is also defined by the green line. The southerly wetland is ' actually part of the Lake Lucy complex and is affected by the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Lucy, which is 956.1. The DNR prohibits any filling below that elevation. There's a strip of property which is where the old driveway was that comes across like this which is above elevation 956.1. And that's a strip within which the new driveway has to be contained. Right at the curve there's actually a break in the 956.1. Right now there's...in there. And at this point it's necessary to make that crossing with a bridge. The second plan shows the proposed driveway...and it has been realigned to stay within the 33 foot strip except right immediately south of Lake Lucy Road where it's necessary to do some filling and was moved from one side so that all of the filling outside of the 33 foot strip was now on the east side. It was decided to stay within that access strip until...Lot 4 which was owned by the Sanda's and then it naturally goes outside of the strip and of course easements will be provided for the access. Again, the bridge we're showing in this location. Application has been made to the DNR for the wetland alteration permits. And actually in that application we had requested that some very minor filling be allowed below the 956.1 elevation to allow for a shorter but wider bridge and bigger approaches to the bridge. Building a bridge right on a curve is difficult and the intent is that this would allow truck access both for construction vehicles during the home construction and also... The driveway varies in width from 10 feet where there really are heavy restrictions and then as we get into the area where we're restricted by the filling...8 feet and there's a couple of different sections that are proposed depending on... strip that's available...There's a culvert that's proposed in this general location to convey the drainage that's going to cross Lake Lucy Road as it does right now. Then we're showing another...culvert in that wetland. That concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. ' Batzli: What sort of materials is the bridge construction out of? 1 Ken Adolf: The final design of the bridge has not been done. There's been some preliminary investigation. One of the bridges that we did look at is a pre - fabricated bridge of steel construction. Made of cortin steel which is the weathering steel that turns kind of a 1 coppertone color and that particular bridge would have a timber deck. Batzli: It does have a timber deck? Ken Adolf: Yes. 1 4 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 Batzli: What kind of footings or pilings do you end up needing for a bridge like that? Ken Adolf: Again, the final design hasn't been done so we haven't done the soil borings but 1 soil borings would have to be done on either end to determine the type of support that would be necessary for the bridge. We're anticipating that would require pilings of some type. Those would be either steel or timber; Conrad: Where's the wetland that you're filling in? 1 Ken Adolf: It shows up better on this drawing. There's actually two wetlands. The northerly wetland sort of all in that stretch and then the southerly wetland, there's a stretch up here and through here that we would be altering. Conrad: That's in the 33 foot area? Ken Adolf: In the north area it is. In the south area it's actually in the Lot 4 which is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sanda. It's a lot there. A residential lot. 1 Conrad: What are you doing in the mitigated area? Ken Adolf: The mitigation is proposed in this area. What you get is on Lot 4. The lot owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sanda. The...mitigation area would be excavated down to the...6 to 12 inches...adjacent wetland and then the wetland soils that are salvaged...from the wetland to be altered would be placed and spread in here. The details of that still need to be worked out with the DNR... Ledvina: Mr. Chair? Batzli: Yeah. 1 Ledvina: For the northern wetland area. If the driveway were to follow the existing path, would it be necessary to do a mitigation? Would that represent a filling process in that area? To follow the alignment of the existing path there. Ken Adolf: The existing driveway goes through the same wetlands so there would be 1 alteration required there as well. Ledvina: So either way that's. Ken Adolf: That's right. This area it was important to move it within the 33 feet. 1 5 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 Ledvina: Right. What I'm trying to ascertain is that you're not just moving it to the, to within the 30 foot strip of property and when in fact there may be an opportunity to relocate it further to the south and not have that wetland alteration necessary. But that's not the case? 1 Ken Adolf: That's right. Batzli: Okay, thank you. I'd like to open the meeting up for public comment. If you'd like to address the commission, please feel free to do so. Please come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. I could tell you kind of wanted to stay back there didn't you? Joe Morin: My name's Joe Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. And I'm representing the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association and what we have is a position statement that we 1 would like to hand out to the members of the commission and for the staff here. This is a short statement and I'll just read it for the benefit of everyone else also. There's a background statement that basically says that the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association met on ,1. November 10, 1993 to discuss the Sanda's proposal. 8 of the 16 to 18 families comprising the association were represented. During the meeting Joe Morin, that's myself, was elected to represent the position of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association at this meeting. I'd also like to reserve the right to represent myself a little bit later but right now I'm just speaking for the Homeowners Association. The position statement reads, the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association does not oppose the Sanda's plan to provide driveway access for a single family dwelling. It is our understanding that this would be a permit for an 8 to 10 foot wide driveway and that city and DNR ordinances prohibit the development of more than one dwelling under these conditions. We trust that the city and the DNR would strictly enforce this regulation should any further request be made to develop another dwelling on this property. We are also deeply concerned about the possibility of pollution of Lake Lucy and • 1 expect that the development of a single family dwelling would be done in strict compliance with regulations governing installation of septic systems and other sources of pollution. 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Joe Morin: That's the statement. Subsequent to this meeting I also contacted Brian Tichy ' and Ted Coey who are members of the Association and they also concurred with our position statement. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Eric Rivkin: I'm Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property is adjacent to the 1 Lot 4 where the mitigation site is and I'm also in direct view of the island and the entire 1 6 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 wetland. I have presented before you a letter of concerns that I collected signatures with. People that are also directly adjacent to the property...lakeshore owners or in direct view of the...and we share certain concerns. We're not, the first thing that we want to make you aware. My qualifications here are that, as you know I'm a strong advocate for environmental protection and I make every effort to keep up with issues and details pertaining to wetland protection. I just want to make sure that the concern that I had comply with the regulations and the ordinance. I'm sure that compliance will...and I'm glad to see that the Sanda's really care and I'm sure that conditions will...but I just wanted to make sure that they're laid out, present to you information that I found out that may fall through the cracks so that the conditions were laid out in detail to meet the requirements in the ordinance. Point number 1, and I'll just go through them briefly. There's only one page of them and I'll just explain briefly what... We agree with the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association position. I'm also a member. I'm separating myself. Giving my own personal opinions. That the driveway be designed for access for a single building site only. We'd like to know, as Joe had also 1 mentioned, if there's any way to impose a current restriction to a one resident access. Point number 2. The DNR had given me some information that you see on page 3. These are the, for the last 20 years the high water elevations that were taken by the DNR for the Watershed 1 District. These do not mean that these are the highest water levels but these are the only ones that have been recorded by the...agencies that happened to be there at that time. Some of these readings were taken on the ice. Some are taken in the middle of summer and fall. But nonetheless, it is a valid statement to say that water level frequently reaches or exceeds flood elevation of 957, which is almost a foot over the ordinary high water mark. And given antidotes by certain lakeshore residents, it's quite possible that water levels have exceed those that are on record. The second and fourth page I show a map of the Lake Lucy...watershed that I got from the Watershed District. They have over a 10:1 surface water watershed surface to surface water ratio in a relatively undeveloped area right now so surface water runoff, no matter how many retention ponds or holding ponds we have, in a year like we had this year, every retention pond is full. Every sub - retention pond is full that feeds into Lake Lucy is full. And with development that goes in in the future, this ordinary high water mark...may change higher in upper directions. And obviously nobody's done any analysis of any future projections of what Lake Lucy could be like in a full development scenario but if this driveway happens to be at this elevation of 957, right now it appears that frequent flooding will occur over the top of that driveway. Portions of it. I don't know what kind of stipulations these conditions have to say about this and I trust the Sanda's and their engineer to engineer it properly and to meet that. What the data shows. But I just wanted to bring it to the attention of you so it can be questioned and dealt with. And the third point...Lake Association worry about pollution. So our lake advisor, Dale Hogan, I talked to him, described the plan to him and to use a Class V fill in the course of the driveway could have adverse ecological effects resulting from...erosion. Class V gravel will be subject to spring thaw and full saturation making it soft and usually subject to heavy erosion. Runoff from the 1 7 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 clay rich Class V can cause water quality problems in the wetland. This is where water fowl, I had flocks of egrets and great blue herons feeding in these very wetlands that we're 1 traversing with this driveway and there's small fish and aquatic organisms which depend on the water quality that exists there now to survive and...to resurface Class V with bituminous asphalt which has petroleum and oil runoff which can also pollute the water. After consulting I with Dale Hogan, we believe that the driveway design in sections E and F may be the least detrimental to the wetland and he said it was an excellent design. I concur with that. He suggested that the design be incorporated wherever possible. By using the narrower design. It's 8 feet instead of 10 feet and you also reduce the mitigation area acquired and maybe even eliminate it. Point number 4. We heard from Ken Adolf... 1 Batzli: Excuse me. On the one I'm looking at. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong. Are you suggesting that, my section E and F shows an 8 inch thick concrete plank. Is that what you 1 have for section E and F? Are you suggesting that they pour concrete over the entire length of the driveway for 8 feet of concrete? Eric Rivkin: Other than the bridge. Batzli: 8 feet wide? 1 Eric Rivkin: Just in the wetland portion. 1 Batzli: Just in the wetland portion. Eric Rivkin: In the Class A wetland portion. Not the upland. Just the part that's sitting in the water...edge of wetland to edge of wetland minus the bridge. And the bridge pilings. Or whatever support you need for that. 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Go ahead. Eric Rivkin: The wood decking or pilings treated with...or creosol or other petroleum 1 products should be prohibited. Dale Hogan said, and I've seen a lot of evidence of this... articles from people that arsenic compounds will leech into the water. The comments made by Jo Ann Olsen a number of years ago when I had applied for a wetland alteration permit for a dock through this same wetland. She also uncovered evidence so it may be in the city file, but it's very well documented that tar oils from creosol timbers are definite pollution hazards. So we just suggest that only bridge materials with proven environmental safety ' records be permitted. Number 5. Any upland mitigation...which there be none but if there is one, there is an outlet for a continuously running spring. I didn't see it on the plan. Nobody talked about it so I'm just bringing it to your attention. Pm sure the Sanda's...It does flow 8 1 - 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 year round and should be left open. Number 6. The road south...should be prohibited since there are no buffer strips in ponding areas...To insure education and...enforcement by subsequent homeowners, this restriction should be written into the property deed as a condition. It is well documented that serious water quality and ecological damage in wetlands and other bodies of water can occur from this type of runoff. There was an article in the Tribune 2 weeks ago about the de -icing salts from the airport polluting the Mississippi River. Also south from going to stagnant type water wetlands...project to be a salt water marsh and have devastating effects. A textured concrete driveway similar to the one in section E may not be an unreasonable alternative. It's just a suggestion but maybe there's something better. I don't know but the concern for pollution is there. Since purple loosestrife, it's very well documented that the DNR, in their brochures and the studies that they've done that came out in my wetland alteration permit. I was...spoils from my digging a channel that had to be disposed of in a manner in a condition for my permit to be buried on the upland areas in a sufficient depth that the seeds would not germinate. One plant generates millions and millions of seeds and it's proven through studies...very well - documented that when you disturb the soil, even if it's just a few plants, that it's guaranteed the wild proliferation of purple loosestrife. And I'd like that addressed. The existing...and 1 I'm glad to hear...mentioned about the pilings and taking borings and all that to ensure that that will be taken care of but I am just mentioning it here. And just for your information Mr. Adolf, that we had done a survey where we drilled holes in the lake every 200 feet and just a few feet from that bridge...we found 17 feet of muck underneath there. Dale Hogan has done an analysis of that...call him and ask him what the verdict is...and you have signatures on the next page of several homeowners. The ones that are starred there are adjacent to this property. Thank you very much. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? 1 John Waldron: I am John Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road...Our house is situation , we have an unobstructed view of the island and my wife and I, Mariellen would like to go on record that we do not have any problem with the Sanda's developing the property they own for this purpose. We feel that between the record that Chanhassen has on wetlands and the DNR, that the process will take care of problems going through and hopefully we have enough government already in our lives and that it would be too cumbersome for a private individual's use...property. Thanks. Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? Jack Lowry: My name is Jack Lowry. I live at 1665 Steller Court. I'm a neighbor of the 1 Sanda's and I'd like to go on record as saying that my wife, Jackie and I totally support the project. In our association the Sanda's are professional in everything they do and will do 1 9 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 nothing but ood for the community... tY ... 1 Batzli: Thank you. Sandy Kendall: I'm Sandy Kendall. My husband Bob. We just moved into 1645 Lake Lucy ' Road. This is our first Council meeting and I apologize I didn't make enough copies of these for everybody but I'll give you. We sort of found about this after the fact. We bought the house in June. We just moved in 2 weeks ago but basically I think...We're the new people in the neighborhood having purchased the home at 1645 Lake Lucy Road in June and just having moved into the house 2 weeks ago. We were unaware and uninformed about the ' access and driveway that borders our property to the east until a short time ago...did tell us about it and for the record, we're not really opposed to it either. We just are, well we bought our home for one very important reason. The lot and it's setting. We're both appraisers and even...we overpaid for the house which was built in the 1960's but we wanted the lot for it's serene setting and it's well developed trees. So the thing I gave showed some pictures of these trees that are like 30 to 100 feet tall and they border the property on the east, which ' borders this proposed driveway. That's our concern for this issue. Is our trees on that side of the property. We would request that these trees, their diameter of the drip lines be drawn on the engineering map for this project and we would want some type of guarantee that these • trees not be harmed in any way. They're both our privacy and our beauty. The willows were one big reason why Bob wanted to buy the property. They're trunks are like this. They're just huge. Trees this large are almost irreplaceable taking scores of years to grow this large. 1 They were a very big reason why we bought the property so for us their value is extremely great. We would also want to be assured of adequate drainage if this project were implemented so as not to endanger these huge trees. The wildlife in the area is another ' reason we purchased the home. We love the deer and the birds and the other creatures that live in the area. In fact, seeing 2 deer in the back yard actually made us decide to write the purchase agreement the next day. And the many months between the first time we saw the 1 house until we decided to purchase it, any potential development around us was extremely important. Only when we found out that what we thought was the neighboring property, which was purchased by Jill Willis now. We didn't know about the driveway. Did we 1 actually, when we found out that that property had been sold to a single buyer rather than to something that would be developed, did we actually pursue buying the property. We would therefore be vehemently opposed to any type of development on the peninsula other than for a single family home and respectfully but strongly urge a permanent prohibition against any other type of development. A city street along the east side of our property would not only reduce it's appeal and value but would have been enough to keep us from ever having bought the property ourselves. We feel sort of that we're being caught in the middle of something about which we weren't informed that could affect our property value both visually and 1 monetarily. For this reason we don't feel that our requests are unrealistic because we do not 10 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 want the very reasons we bought this property to be violated. We are also concerned about erosion control and use of only natural and natural looking material to be used if any driveway were put in. We don't want our lot to become a mosquito infested drainage hole. Nor do we want to look at anything other than something that will keep with the natural appeal of the lot when we bought it. Again, we want the guarantee that the huge willow and evergreen trees that border our lot on the east side would be in no way harmed or killed. We consider them to be of incalculable value to us. They could not be replanted and grown again to their present size perhaps for what remains of our lifetimes. The great value we put on this lot is in very large part due to their size and health and border. In the 4 months during which we were redecorating our house before moving in, we have found the city of Chanhassen to be very conscientious about the community and the proper ways in which they want it to grow and be established. We do appreciate the fact that they seem to want things to be done correctly and hope that the city would in this same way be concerned about this proposed project and wetland agreement. For this reason we have signed a letter with some of our neighbors that outline some of the important factors in this project's potential development and the prohibition of any development other than for a single family home. And we would respectfully request that the city have as much concern in consideration for our invaluable large and beautiful trees along this border which again is in large part the reason why we bought the house on this lot. As they do in every other aspect of the city's code requirements. Sorry I had to read this but I didn't bring enough copies. 1 • Batzli: Okay. • Bob Kendall: I just have a few concerns on the side of my property there. Where the roots are, the forester came out and we met with the forester and he said that the willows were strong but I'd to have that at least known to me on paper that they're not going to get hurt. 1 The other problem is there's a storm sewer that comes off my property that drains right to this line of where this road tapers down on the east side. I'd like to have it at least in the plan where I can see that there's going to be proper drainage. As you can see in these photos with the evergreens. There's a whole line of 30 feet evergreens but if they get improper drainage and get soaked, those trees will die and I'd just like to get some sort of contour lines and drainage and ditching and proper culvert. And I also wondered, if we get all the snow, is all this going to be able to handle the proper drainage on it. That's all I have to say. Batzli: Let me ask a question. You're concerned about the roots of your trees that currently 1 extend over the property line and are under the current driveway? Bob Kendall: The canopies of the trees go into the slope...of the tapering line probably 15 to 1 20 feet. But as that storm sewer also, as Mr. Waldorf brought up. That there should be a culvert in there. Beyond that, I'm just trying to get a picture that I have current drainage 1 11 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 after that point also. Because there's no slopes and I don't have any grades on that plan that I've seen. Not to say that these won't be addressed later on though. Batzli: Okay. Dave do ou, can you comment at all on the drainage right there? Y Hempel: It appears by that drawing that was brought in by the applicant, where the P PP Y g g Y PP green line on that does show a culvert to maintain the neighborhood drainage that are through the properties...neighborhood drainage through there. The pictures were interesting that were submitted there shows that there is quite a bit of water that goes through there in both the street and the adjacent property on the other side of the street. So it's very important that r they maintain that drainage. ' Batzli: Well assuming that we approve this tonight, what would the city need to make sure that the drainage is being maintained in that area? Are you going to require some sort of additional grading/construction plans or how are you going to be able to tell? 1 Hempel: We would require some minor modifications to the grading plan to denote the type, size and elevation of the storm sewer pipe proposed in the roadway to make sure that it is set at the proper elevation to maintain the drainage. Batzli: Do we need some sort of condition that says that? Hempel: It might be helpful to expand an existing condition or add a condition to that effect, yes. 1 Batzli: Okay. ' • Bob Kendall: Mind if I say one other thing? The culvert that's in his drawing there is beyond my property line about I would say 100 feet which would mean all this would have to drain beyond my property line and continue down another 100 feet before the other proposed 1 culvert which you are asking be put in. Batzli: Okay. Sandy Kendall: I don't know what impact Jill Willis' agreement to allow an access farther east. I mean...help to us you know because the way it is, well it wouldn't come so close. I ' don't know what impact that would have by putting the road further east rather than where it's actually shown. 1 12 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 Batzli: I'm not tracking. Can P ou point to the map and tell me what you're saying. Y Sandy Kendall: The way this is shown, the road as it sits is kind of like this. She giving 1 them an access would enable us. This is actually a steeper part and this is actually a flatter part. By putting it over here rather than in here, that would of course lessen our concern greatly for our trees because all of a sudden the drip line is not as threatening to these trees 1 that run all along here. I mean they're just big monster trees. But now that's what's happened. That wasn't a factor. , Batzli: If you flip the maps there. The one behind the one you're pointing to. I think that shows where the proposed driveway's going to go. So you want it to go even further east 1 there? Sandy Kendall: Well the Sanda's, when you talk to, maybe you can help me out here. You wanted it, you told me that if I asked the Sanda's if our trees would be in danger. At first they said no. Then they said well, if Jill gives us the access, you know then they probably wouldn't be. In other words, if they didn't, if she didn't give them that you know there would be some...to our trees and that's something that just happened I guess over the last day? You know Jill actually gave them that access...in here but that's very important to us of course because we're concerned about our big trees. Bob Kendall: I have one other thing. Here's the culvert that's proposed. Sandy Kendall: Thank you. Bob Kendall: ...but my storm sewer's here. As those pictures show, there's a gully already performed that cuts through here but I'm also concerned from this point on where all these spruce trees are. Is there going to be proper drainage from this point on with that. Because if I'm getting a lot of, you know this is the west side. It's not going to get the snow. It melts. It's going to puddle. I don't want a lot of excess water. That's my main concern is to keep the water off the roots. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Phil Thiesse: I was asked to clarify one point. Batzli: You're? 1 Phil Thiesse: Oh I'm sorry...My name is Phil Thiesse. I live at 1075 Miller Court. Our 111 13 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 property borders the driveway that would be proposed and my wife and I feel that if the Corps of Engineers and the DNR are happy with the way it's being developed, then we're 1 satisfied with that. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission before we 1 let the applicant have his one shot at rebuttal here? Mark Sanda: No. Ken, were you going to address a couple things that were brought up 1 about the drainage? Ken Adolf: I can address those. Mark Sanda: Okay. I just wanted to mention that in talking to some people about this and ' someone picked up on the fact that we said we're not going anywhere. We had talked to a property owner, a farmer in southwestern Carver County and on an informal, non - binding basis, verbal basis, we've talked about him selling us some of his property. It's when this ' gentlemen decides he's going to hang up his plow and sell some of his property so we really can't say if that's going to be the next year, 2 years, 3 years but we suspect it's something like that. It's certainly nothing that's going to happen on an eminent basis and I just wanted ' to clarify that because some people picked up on the fact that we said we're not going anywhere. And never say never but there's nothing eminently in the works at all. 1 Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Ken Adolf: Yes, Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen again. I'd just like to clarify a couple ' of the issues. First of all regarding the connection point to Lake Lucy Road. When Lake Lucy Road was reconstructed, somewhat of a post was actually placed and this driveway actually is in the exact same location. The approach was ended kind of abruptly and it really drops off and it's too narrow and too steep so it's necessary to widen it out and then expand the slope to the south that's a reasonable grade. Regarding the drainage in this area. The culvert is shown going under the proposed road embankment. You can sense that there was 1 some concern about what happens inbetween the existing culvert that goes under Lake Lucy Road and the proposed culvert. Obviously that's on private property and there's no...any easement. That runoff will continue to run just as it has been all these years. There's several 1 different driveway sections that were proposed depending on the restrictions with the strip of property that...956.1 elevation and the most restrictive area in order to elevate the road up to the 957 elevation, which is the 100 year flood elevation was necessary to raise it with 8 inch ' concrete planks because if this wasn't enough width to do it with an embankment. So that's why those concrete planks were proposed. Obviously that's a very, very expensive option and in the other areas where there isn't enough space...propose which is still I think all of this 14 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 fill is enveloped by a geotextile fabric...and prevent it from migrating. I'd be happy to I address any other questions that you might have. Batzli: We may have a question when we discuss it among ourselves here. I Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have a question right now. 1 Batzli: Oh okay. Never mind. There is a question now. I Ledvina: As it related to the water elevations of Lake Lucy. What would happen. I understand that the elevation of the roadway is going to be essentially 957. Is that correct? Ken Adolf: That's correct. Ledvina: Okay. And where the roadway is under water for extended periods of time during 1 flooding. What happens in that instance? How does that person gain access to the property? Ken Adolf: Well, it would ideal if the road elevation could be raised more but because the 1 strip of property that we have to work with is so narrow, after you start raising the road and provide the width of the driveway, the fill starts to extend out beyond that 956.1 line so some I of the areas it is up to that elevation. The aggregate that we're proposing to use is crushed limestone which does not have the clay material in it that was referred to in the Hoben report. So that is a more stable aggregate than a sand and gravel type Class V. Ledvina: That's in sections where? Ken Adolf: Well it's in sections, really all of the sections. Ledvina: Well the Class V does have a clay or a heavy soil as a binder for the aggregate, is . that right? Ken Adolf: The crushed limestone is fine crushed limestone. 1 Ledvina: But Class V as a MnDot specification has a clay type soil as a binder for the aggregate, silt and clay. 1 Ken Adolf: Yeah. What we've shown on a detail is crushed limestone. Represent crushed limestone. 1 Ledvina: Okay. I 15 I I Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Did you have anything else Matt? Ledvina: No, that's it. Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the commission? If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Let the record reflect that Jeff is not voting on this matter. Matt, let's start with you. Ledvina: Okay. I guess I want to thank the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association for their comments. We appreciate their review of the plan and I think it's good to see that involvement and their concerns being raised. I think that the comments made by I believe Mr. Rivkin. He presented a 8 point letter regarding some of the issues as it relates to the construction of this driveway. I think that some of these things are certainly warranted in terms of their being addressed. I would say that we would want to try to utilize bridge materials that don't...ability of leeching contaminates. I think that a textured concrete driveway is a good idea to improve the slip resistance of those concrete plank sections. I think if that's the case, perhaps there will be less salt or whatever that would be necessary under icy conditions...I guess I looked at the pre - fabricated bridge and I see that it has a width of 16 feet. I thought that being somewhat odd since we're looking at an 8 foot section and then all of a sudden we're going way out to 16 feet. I don't know necessarily why that is and I've walked the proposed route and it is 8 and 10 feet wide. I think that if we did go to 16 feet there, there'd be quite a bit of fill that would be necessary to make that, provide that construction. So Dave, have you looked at that at all? Dave? Hempel: Yes. There's a couple points. First of all because of the curvature of the roadway there, the additional width is needed as a grid surface. In addition to that I believe with the curve and larger vehicles, such as moving trucks, emergency vehicle would need the additional room in that area. Ledvina: Well I can understand you wanting to provide that but if you've got an 8 foot section and you're saying you need a 16 foot section for trucks and such, what happens for access throughout the 8 foot section in the road? Mark Sanda: There's no curve. It's just straight. It's when a truck angles, you know they have to make a wide turn. And that's the whole idea. You need the 16 foot width for the wide turn in making the curve. 16 I Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 sort of a bridge section be approved by our engineering staff for the purpose of making sure that environmentally friendly materials are there. Same thing is true of the road bed if you will. Utilizing a crushed limestone aggregate which is non, you're talking about sort of a heavy clay...material that we don't want in the wetland area. Ledvina: Right. Scott: Does that matter if we're using some sort of a geotextile base? Ledvina: Well that will help it from actually migrating through the soil but for runoff purposes that will help. Scott: Okay. And then I'd like to see a grading plan submitted to the engineering department for their approval to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. Seeing that they're satisfactory. I have no further comments Mr. Chairman. Batzli: Okay, thank you. To just run over a couple comments and then I'd like to kind of give a more global answer to at least one of new residents here. I think purple loosestrife to the extent it's going to be disturbed, needs to be disposed of properly so I'd agree with that condition. I think condition 4 should be changed to read the applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from applying the salts and de -icing chemicals to the driveway in order to protect the quality of the water running into the wetland area. Unless the applicant or future homeowner comes in here and convinces us or the Council that this won't harm the wetland. I don't know of anything that says applying the kind of salt and de -icing chemicals or something like this could possibly help the wetlands so I think that needs to be prohibited. I agree with Joe's comment. We should have the materials of the bridge submitted to make sure that they're environmentally friendly and I agreed with Ladd regarding having the drainage reviewed by city engineering to make sure it's not going to adversely affect the neighboring land owners. And finally, just for the new resident's benefit. I think you'll find, I hope you find that Chanhassen is at the forefront of trying to maintain and protect it's wetlands. We were one of the first communities to have a real strong wetland protection ordinance in place and the State in fact comes to us for a lot of input. I think Paul and/or former city planner Jo Ann Olsen has worked with the State on some of their wetland protection kind of programs. We also have a surface water committee that looks at improving water quality throughout the city. In fact on your water bill you may notice a little tax on there. That's where that's going so hopefully you'll fmd that we care a lot about this and we're taking it seriously and looking at it very carefully. But thank you for coming in. Those are my comments. Unless there's other comments, would someone like to make a motion? 19 I 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Scott: I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion which is the approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #93 -4 as shown on the plans dated November 8, 1 1993 with the following conditions. Conditions number 1, 2 and 3 would remain as stated in the staff report. Number 4 will be changed to read, the applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from using de -icing chemicals for application to the driveway in order to protect the quality of the water running into the wetlands. Condition number 5 should be changed to read, the applicant shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to the engineering department for approval. And a note on that is to make sure that the aggregate ' that's used is of a type that will not have silt or heavy clays running off it. Or leeching. Conditions number 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 remain as proposed. Condition number 11 shall read, ' the bridge section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will not leech pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge section design shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Number 12 added. A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. And that's it unless there's some other, some things that I've perhaps missed. Batzli: Is there a second for discussion purposes? Conrad: I second. Batzli: Discussion. Did you mention anything about loosestrife in your motion? ,` Scott: That would work well as condition number 13. How would you like that to read? Batzli: In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the proposed, what are we calling it, road. Such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly in the upland area. Do we want to exactly tell them how it should be done? ' Al -Jaff: I spoke with Ceil Strauss this morning. She's...a condition of their permitting procedure. They will take care of it. ' Batzli: Okay. So what our condition will read is, instead of that would read, purple loosestrife shall be disposed of in accordance with, is she DNR? Al -Jaff: Yes. 1 Batzli: DNR standards. Ladd, did you have an additional condition regarding drainage? Conrad: They're all taken care of. 20 1 m 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 Batzli: I'd like to propose that in your amendment to the de -icing chemicals, we say salt and /or de -icing chemicals. Scott: Sure, that's fine. 1 Batzli: I don't know is, I assume salt's considered a de -icing chemical but we might as well say it 1 Scott: Oh yeah, and salt and de -icing chemicals. Batzli: Okay. Any other discussion? Scott moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #93 -4 as shown on the plans dated November 8, 1993, with - the following conditions: 1. The mitigation area is intended to be similar to the existing basins and therefore, should be designed to the extent possible to have bottom contours that approximate those of the existing basins. We recommend that the mitigation area be subcut to a depth of 6 -12 1 inches below the desired bottom elevation. The basins should then be lined with 6 -12 inches of organic soils to be excavated from filled wetland areas. This lining of organic soils should provide a seed source sufficient to facilitate the establishment of wetland 1 vegetation within the mitigation areas. Mitigation basins should be designed with irregular edges and irregular bottom contours. Side slopes should be no steeper than 5:1; side slopes of 10:1 or greater are preferable. If on -site soils demonstrate significant permeability, consideration should be given to lining mitigation areas with clay or other impervious materials prior to lining the basins with organic soils. 2. Notification should be made to the Corps to verify coverage under their nationwide Section 404 permit. 3. A protected waters permit must be authorized by the DNR before the project can proceed. 1 4. The applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from using salt or de -icing chemicals applied to the driveway in order to protect the quality of water running into the wetland areas. 5. The applicant shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to 1 21 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 the engineering department for approval. 6. The applicant shall obtain a cross access easement from neighboring properties where the driveway encroaches. 7. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height require a building permit. ' 8. The driveway will service one single family home. Only one residence will be permitted on the peninsula. ' 9. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council approval unless substantial construction on the driveway has taken place. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for all attorney fees associated with reviewing and recording this application. 11. The bridge section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will ' not leech pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge section design shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. ' 12. A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. 13. In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the proposed driveway, such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly according 1 to DNR standards. All voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who did not vote, and the motion carried unanimously. Batzli: Thank you very much everyone for coming in. When does this go to City Council? Al -Jaff: The 13th of December. 1 (The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.) 1 1 22 1